Article: Trading Perkins Makes Too Much Sense

[ThePuck]

What I'm reading is, we can't get that much for Perkins, but we should trade him anyway.

 

Well, no, we shouldn't.

 

Where are you reading posts like that cause I swear, I haven't seen one person say anything like that. Not to say I didn't miss some, surely could have.

[Nick Nelson]

What I'm reading is, we can't get that much for Perkins, but we should trade him anyway.

 

Well, no, we shouldn't.

Has anyone said anything remotely resembling this?

[MichiganTwins]

Has anyone said anything remotely resembling this?

 

Bill Smith.

[TheLeviathan]

Some of the names being thrown around here are not in the realm of realism. If anyone's expecting to get Archie Bradley or Allen Webster for Perkins, you're going to be pretty disappointed if/when a trade actually occurs.

 

You are welcome to make some suggestions. Most people here are wanting a top 50-75 prospects at a need position. When you add that to the list of teams likely in the market - it only leaves the names you are criticizing plus one or two more. To me, the names being thrown out are the type necessary to "knock your socks off".

 

What exactly qualifies to "knock your socks off" for a guy like Perkins to you?

[Dave T]

Has anyone said anything remotely resembling this?

 

Start from the middle of page 4.

 

Thyrlos: "They got to do it [sell high], especially if someone is willing to overpay." My reading, Thyrlos would do it even if it was an even trade.

 

markos: "I'd prefer to get a blue-chip prospect, but there aren't too many prospect-team need matches right now." My reading, markos would do a trade even if no blue-chip prospect came back.

 

diehardtwinsfan: "... but Lee isn't a bad consolation prize". My reading, same message as markos.

 

gunnathor: "... None of them would be a true ace." But he'd do the trade anyway.

 

jorgenswest: "The Twins would be fortunate to get Webster or Barnes as the only piece." My interpretation: The Twins should take what they can get.

 

and last but not least, your title to this piece: Trading Perkins Makes Too Much Sense. No it doesn't. Trading Perkins is way too easy. Keep the best players, and replace the mediocre ones.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Start from the middle of page 4.

 

Thyrlos: "They got to do it [sell high], especially if someone is willing to overpay." My reading, Thyrlos would do it even if it was an even trade.

 

markos: "I'd prefer to get a blue-chip prospect, but there aren't too many prospect-team need matches right now." My reading, markos would do a trade even if no blue-chip prospect came back.

 

diehardtwinsfan: "... but Lee isn't a bad consolation prize". My reading, same message as markos.

 

gunnathor: "... None of them would be a true ace." But he'd do the trade anyway.

 

jorgenswest: "The Twins would be fortunate to get Webster or Barnes as the only piece." My interpretation: The Twins should take what they can get.

 

and last but not least, your title to this piece: Trading Perkins Makes Too Much Sense. No it doesn't. Trading Perkins is way too easy. Keep the best players, and replace the mediocre ones.

 

You need to re-read my posts before misquoting me. Zach Lee is a very good prospect, I just rank him a notch below the RedSox trio. I've made it abundantly clear that Perkins should not be traded for the sake of being traded.

[diehardtwinsfan]

No. Trades never work like that.

 

I'm not sure never is the right phrase. There were lesser prospects exchanged by teams in the few trades that have already happened. Rare, yes.

[markos]

Start from the middle of page 4.

 

Thyrlos: "They got to do it [sell high], especially if someone is willing to overpay." My reading, Thyrlos would do it even if it was an even trade.

 

markos: "I'd prefer to get a blue-chip prospect, but there aren't too many prospect-team need matches right now." My reading, markos would do a trade even if no blue-chip prospect came back.

 

diehardtwinsfan: "... but Lee isn't a bad consolation prize". My reading, same message as markos.

 

gunnathor: "... None of them would be a true ace." But he'd do the trade anyway.

 

jorgenswest: "The Twins would be fortunate to get Webster or Barnes as the only piece." My interpretation: The Twins should take what they can get.

 

and last but not least, your title to this piece: Trading Perkins Makes Too Much Sense. No it doesn't. Trading Perkins is way too easy. Keep the best players, and replace the mediocre ones.

 

I can see how you misunderstood where I was coming from. Hopefully this will clear things up about where I stand about a potential Perkins trade.

 

I only want to trade Perkins if the Twins can get A LOT in return. They don't have to trade him, and I'm perfectly content if they keep him for the rest of his contract, even with the risk that he may blow out his arm in a month. One thing I have been struggling with is trying to define in my own mind exactly what constitutes A LOT - basically, what kind of trades would I be overjoyed with, what kind of trades would I be just okay with, and what kind of trades would piss me off. So I’ve been looking at all the farm systems for all the team looking for bullpen help and trying to put together trade packages to see how I feel about them. Unfortunately, I’m not a prospect expert, which is why I’ve been posting some of my scenarios here and elsewhere to attempt to gain perspective from the wider Twins fandom.

 

Now I would be super excited if the Twins got a blue-chip prospect back in return. And I define “blue-chip” as a consensus top-25 prospect - Buxton and Sano are blue-chips; Meyer, Hicks and Arcia are not. Unfortunately, of the four teams in desperate need of bullpen help (Det, Bos, Arz, LAD), there are not very many blue-chips availables. Basically just Bogaerts (Bos), Bradley (Arz), Skaggs (Arz), and maybe Castellanos (Det). It seems from reading this thread that almost everyone here would support a trade that involved any of those 4 players straight up for Perkins (though there is more split opinion about Castellanos).

 

 

The real problem is trying to nail down exactly what kind of trade I would be just okay with - not super excited, but still support. Trades that fall under this category involve the next tier of prospects, which definitely widens the available pool, but it also makes me feel that there needs to be an extra player or two involved. The Dodger’s system is a great example. They have 3 players right now that fall into that second-tier of prospects: Zach Lee, Corey Saeger and Joc Peterson. Going through some options in my mind, I decided that any trade that netted the Twins two of those three I would strongly support, while trade for only one I would be pissed. A trade headlined by one of them but with one or two other C prospects thrown in may be okay with me. At this point my hypothetical trade scenarios are kind of going off into the weeds, as a lot depends on who exactly the other prospects are. However, I’ve come to my own conclusion that I would be okay - not excited, but okay - with Lee or Saeger and some decent supporting prospects, or with Peterson and slightly better prospects thrown in.

 

I'm sure everyone else here has been doing similar exercises in their own heads, but that is where I'm falling right now with regard to trading Perkins.

[jorgenswest]

I asked you this once before but never really got a response. Who is the best comp to Perkins that has been traded in the last few years? Perkins value is not just that he is a great closer but that he is also signed for the next 3 seasons as well at a cheap price. As far as I know there isn't a comp out there for Perkins. Soria could have been except he didn't get traded.

 

I replied and you didn't accept it. I put up the best 5 relievers that have been traded in the previous three years and you had valid reasons to reject all 5 as not being perfect matches for Perkins. They weren't perfect matches. There is never a perfect comp.

 

I then looked at it another way. I looked at what it took to get a top starting pitching prospect. It turns out it took a good major league starting pitcher or very good hitter.

 

What value is there at doing this dance again? Let it go. We disagree.

 

No one will be happier than I am if we get a Grienke, Sanchez or Beltran level of return. It just has happened in the last several years for a reliever.

[Lonestar]

I asked you this once before but never really got a response. Who is the best comp to Perkins that has been traded in the last few years? Perkins value is not just that he is a great closer but that he is also signed for the next 3 seasons as well at a cheap price. As far as I know there isn't a comp out there for Perkins. Soria could have been except he didn't get traded.

Andrew Bailey for Josh Reddick

[Kwak]

Matt Capps sucked.

Jon Rausch was fine for a while, and then he lost his grip on the job I think. A lot of the closer position is mental.

 

You can argue that a losing team doesn't need an All-Star closer, but my answer is, go find me some more All-Stars. Don't trade the ones we've got.

 

I think Tonkin has the tools to be a good closer, but he might also be a good starter.

 

No, Jon Rausch didn't screw-up. His save % was better than what Nathan used to post. Gardenhire plain didn't trust him, didn't think he was good enough despite his success on the field. Smith held Gardenhire off to try and make a deal with Seattle for Cliff Lee, but when that fell through--he caved in to Gardenhire's screams "for a real closer"--Matt Capps. To say the least Rausch was PO'd, his chance to make the jump to closer and their big salaries evaporated. We fans, had to chew on Capps and the lack of Ramos simply because Gardenhire couldn't stick with Rausch. Rausch didn't fail--Gardenhire and Smith failed.

[ThePuck]

No, Jon Rausch didn't screw-up. His save % was better than what Nathan used to post. Gardenhire plain didn't trust him, didn't think he was good enough despite his success on the field. Smith held Gardenhire off to try and make a deal with Seattle for Cliff Lee, but when that fell through--he caved in to Gardenhire's screams "for a real closer"--Matt Capps. To say the least Rausch was PO'd, his chance to make the jump to closer and their big salaries evaporated. We fans, had to chew on Capps and the lack of Ramos simply because Gardenhire couldn't stick with Rausch. Rausch didn't fail--Gardenhire and Smith failed.

 

 

Exactly. He was the closer the first four months of that season before being replaced and we only lost one game in which he was brought in to close the game.

[nicksaviking]

So no Perkins as of yet. If Jim Leyland is saving him for the 9th, that should probably tell us a little about the Tigers interest in him. Of course Joe Nathan also has yet to pitch and he's the best reliever in the AL at the moment.

[Willihammer]

From the Dave Cameron article:

 

Retaining Perkins and Parnell is the equivalent of making a prospect-for-reliever trade

 

This is an impossible claim. Cameron has no idea what GM's are offering for Parnell or Perkins. I suspect that by now most GMs acknowledge that trading for closers is a high risk, low reward proposition that can very well get them shotgun-canned like Bill Smith.

 

The mention of Neftali Feliz is interesting though. Before he was a top 10 closer in 2010, he was a top 10 spec. So what if the ripest fruit the Twins could trade at this moment is in fact a guy like Alex Meyer, Trevor May, or Kohl Stewart?

[Beezer07]

No, Jon Rausch didn't screw-up. His save % was better than what Nathan used to post. Gardenhire plain didn't trust him, didn't think he was good enough despite his success on the field. Smith held Gardenhire off to try and make a deal with Seattle for Cliff Lee, but when that fell through--he caved in to Gardenhire's screams "for a real closer"--Matt Capps. To say the least Rausch was PO'd, his chance to make the jump to closer and their big salaries evaporated. We fans, had to chew on Capps and the lack of Ramos simply because Gardenhire couldn't stick with Rausch. Rausch didn't fail--Gardenhire and Smith failed.

 

Wow, you have an inordinate amount of inside "information"/know what's inside a lot of people's heads.

[Oxtung]

I replied and you didn't accept it. I put up the best 5 relievers that have been traded in the previous three years and you had valid reasons to reject all 5 as not being perfect matches for Perkins. They weren't perfect matches. There is never a perfect comp.

 

I then looked at it another way. I looked at what it took to get a top starting pitching prospect. It turns out it took a good major league starting pitcher or very good hitter.

 

What value is there at doing this dance again? Let it go. We disagree.

 

No one will be happier than I am if we get a Grienke, Sanchez or Beltran level of return. It just has happened in the last several years for a reliever.

 

I do not remember you responding to my previous question, hence why I asked it a second time. I'm sorry if I struck a nerve.

[Kwak]

Wow, you have an inordinate amount of inside "information"/know what's inside a lot of people's heads.

It's all public information.

[Shane Wahl]

Perkins is the one guy in that bullpen to hold onto, in my view. He can be dominant for years to come and serves as the anchor while other guys come through as middle relievers and setup men after the Twins hopefully trade those players away NOW.

[cmb0252]

Perkins is the one guy in that bullpen to hold onto, in my view. He can be dominant for years to come and serves as the anchor while other guys come through as middle relievers and setup men after the Twins hopefully trade those players away NOW.

 

That's what the Royals said about Soria..... That turned out well.

[old nurse]

That's what the Royals said about Soria..... That turned out well.

Injuries can happen at any time. So Re you advocating trading players away because they might get injured?

[old nurse]

Exactly. He was the closer the first four months of that season before being replaced and we only lost one game in which he was brought in to close the game.

John Farrell, Terry Collins and Mike Redmond must be such idiots to not be using Rauch as a closer. Bob Melvin used him as a closer and got a better job for his efforts.

I remember a lot of people on base and not many strikeouts by Rauch. The job got done but you were having RD flashbacks

[ThePuck]

John Farrell, Terry Collins and Mike Redmond must be such idiots to not be using Rauch as a closer. Bob Melvin used him as a closer and got a better job for his efforts.

I remember a lot of people on base and not many strikeouts by Rauch. The job got done but you were having RD flashbacks

 

The discussion was whether or not Rauch was doing his job that year for us or not. He was. Anything before or after that is irrelevant to the conversation. Your post doesn't change the facts of my post.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Neither Jon Rausch nor Matt Capps were particularly good relievers, if only because they couldn't strike out enough batters.

 

But both were capable closers when healthy. The Capps/Ramos trade was awful at the time and it's still awful today. You don't give up top 100 talent during a down year and you certainly don't give it up for a reliever that isn't dominant.

[Major League Ready]

It sounds to me like alot of reading between the lines in general. The disagreement in this thread is that a lot of fans are not willing to sacrifice anything now to build a contender later. My perspective is that long-term success is a product of managing assets. Selling high is generally a good idea. In this case, we have a player who's contract will expire by he time a closer is a key piece. He will also very likely be past his prime. That's why there have been articles with a theme of trading Perkins makes too much sense. However, some fans are always going to be against trading away a good player if it means delayed gratification. Some would also mention the risk with prospects but that's a two-way street.

[Brock Beauchamp]

My perspective is that long-term success is a product of managing assets. Selling high is generally a good idea.

 

More importantly than that, closers are overvalued for the production they bring a team. If they were used correctly (based on leverage and in multiple innings), their value would be higher but using the current baseball mindset, a closer will bring far more in return than the value he brings the team in wins. It simply isn't that hard to enter the ninth inning with a two run lead and get three outs. Even a bad reliever will accomplish that 75% of the time.

 

Therefore, if you have a good bullpen, a great closer, and are a bad team, you trade that guy if someone offers enough talent back for him. Then you slide your eighth inning guy into the closer role. Rinse, repeat.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

Therefore, if you have a good bullpen, a great closer, and are a bad team, you trade that guy if someone offers enough talent back for him. Then you slide your eighth inning guy into the closer role. Rinse, repeat.

And then pretty soon, you don't have a good bullpen anymore, and you stay a bad team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And then pretty soon, you don't have a good bullpen anymore, and you stay a bad team.

 

Very true. I'm not advocating that the Twins trade Perkins for any offer that comes along. He's a very good pitcher under a stupid-cheap contract and you demand a good return for such a player.

 

But if such an offer comes along, you don't hesitate to upgrade that player to someone who has more of an impact on the team (ie. a starting pitcher). Closers are nice to have if you're a good team vying for the World Series because every win pushes you closer to that goal. At that point, it stops being an "overrated" situation because the difference between 91 and 92 wins can be huge. But on a bad team, closers are mostly useless, especially given how they're used in modern MLB.

[Nick Nelson]

Start from the middle of page 4.

 

Thyrlos: "They got to do it [sell high], especially if someone is willing to overpay." My reading, Thyrlos would do it even if it was an even trade.

 

markos: "I'd prefer to get a blue-chip prospect, but there aren't too many prospect-team need matches right now." My reading, markos would do a trade even if no blue-chip prospect came back.

 

diehardtwinsfan: "... but Lee isn't a bad consolation prize". My reading, same message as markos.

 

gunnathor: "... None of them would be a true ace." But he'd do the trade anyway.

 

jorgenswest: "The Twins would be fortunate to get Webster or Barnes as the only piece." My interpretation: The Twins should take what they can get.

 

and last but not least, your title to this piece: Trading Perkins Makes Too Much Sense. No it doesn't. Trading Perkins is way too easy. Keep the best players, and replace the mediocre ones.

 

None of those quotes fit what you said. Who's saying that the Twins "can't get much" for Perkins but should do it anyway?

 

There's a large difference between not getting much and getting a blue-chip prospect. People are trying to be realistic. But I think the general assumption is that the return would be quite good, given his contract and the demand for his services.

 

What exactly qualifies to "knock your socks off" for a guy like Perkins to you?

Multiple high-quality prospects at positions of need. I just don't think it's realistic to expect to get back a high-end pitching talent that is close to the majors. As Terry Ryan has frequently said, teams rarely part with that kind of asset, and I can't see anyone doing it for a reliever. I'd love to be wrong.

[Monkeypaws]

It sounds to me like alot of reading between the lines in general. The disagreement in this thread is that a lot of fans are not willing to sacrifice anything now to build a contender later. My perspective is that long-term success is a product of managing assets. Selling high is generally a good idea. In this case, we have a player who's contract will expire by he time a closer is a key piece. He will also very likely be past his prime. That's why there have been articles with a theme of trading Perkins makes too much sense. However, some fans are always going to be against trading away a good player if it means delayed gratification. Some would also mention the risk with prospects but that's a two-way street.

 

Not so sure about that - 30's are a prime decade for closers: Nathan is 38, Rivera 43. Eckersley didn't even start closing until he was 32.

 

If you are only throwing 70 innings a year, you can last a lot longer than your early 30s. Perk hasn't even thrown 200 innings over the last 4 seasons combined. Lots of milage left in that arm.

[jorgenswest]

Everyone agrees that Perkins is a valuable player. He is valuable if he remains and he is valuable in trade.

 

The real question is what is the bottom level return they should seek.

 

For me it is a single top prospect starting pitcher or shortstop. One really good prospect.

 

I don't know how you level that out to multiple players. Are two top 250 guys better than one top 100 guy? Maybe, but I think the Twins don't need depth as much as they need top talent so I want them to seek the one guy as the did in the Span deal.

 

As I have written before that level of return is probably beyond what should be expected for a reliever. That doesn't matter. Just keep Perkins if you don't get that deal this summer.

 

What is your bottom line return?