Matt Capps, Bill Smith and the trade that ruined Twins baseball

[Guest USAFChief]

That's an wacky extension of logic, Chief. Let's try speculating that Jim and Terry hold the same longer-term view of things. That would maybe explain the multi-year committments to those FA pitchers. And let's perhaps speculate that perhaps one of the reasons Ryan hasn't pulled the trigger on, say, Drew, is because the extra two wins don't mean squat in the longer term.

I'm still not clear why two extra wins in 2014 from Hughes mean squat but two extra wins from Drew don't.It seems contradictory to me to be in favor of signing FA pitching if 2014 is a lost cause but to then post that its not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause.Unwacky my logic for me, if you don't mind.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?

[jokin]

It definitely made the team better. The move was made to bring the worst starting staff in baseball toward respectability.

 

What's underestimated is, it allows us to bring two of our most highly rated starting pitching prospects to Target Field when our favorite team feels they are ready, and not rushing them out of desperation. Further, although additional moves may be necessary,

 

we have bridged the gap

until our own numerous starting pitching prospects are ready in 2016 and/or 2017.

All this was accomplished without taking on an albatross contract or touching our farm system.

 

By this logic, the club was equally obligated to making a more concerted effort in upgrading the SS, CF, DH, positions..... in which Twins players all were the AL worst or near the overall bottom..... and they would have at least tried to break even or attempt to make a net upgrade between the 1B/C combo, with the loss of Morneau.

 

Put me down in favor of even more bridge-gapping.

 

All of these moves could have been accomplished without taking on any albatross contracts, and maybe would have only cost draft picks beyond the #45 overall pick to do so.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?

 

Yeah, the more the dust settles on the Pelfrey signing the more akin to Correia I find it. And right now if Correia decided to go on a sabbatical for the next 6 months I wouldn't miss him. I really don't like that 40% of our SP innings are going to guys with limited ceilings.

[jokin]

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?

 

Based on the latest StarTribune coverage, it's apparently the Pelf's mirth-making, tension-reducing prankersterism among the SPs in the bullpen between starts. I personally like the guy, and a good attitude combined with his bulldog work ethic can be plusses. I more object to Ryan seemingly bidding against himself for #5-level talent, of which there was already a surplus, and not more strongly considering other short-term options, of which there were also plenty.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?

 

I think this is a bit too simplistic. What SS could they have signed for 2 years? I see Drew as the only reasonable option (and it sounds like he wants more than 2 years). He also wants a lot more money than Pelfrey as well and costs a draft pick... even if it is a 2. There's more at stake here. The SS market just sucks.

[jokin]

The SS market just sucks.

 

Funny, so does the Twins' SS depth chart.

 

Is anyone arguing that a 2-year contract for Drew is going to somehow bust the payroll? It really isn't that much more money, and there is a lot at stake when the alternative is a SS who very well may struggle breaking .600 OPS on an already-offensively-challenged team.

[howieramone1406390264]

Well, the really confusing one for this, Chief, is Pelfrey. Why sign a pitcher for 2 years, but not a SS for two years (especially with Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, et. al. available)?

 

Mike, it's to be expected you're confused when comparing starting pitching to SS's. You can never have too much starting pitching, never heard that said about SS's. It's always confusing when you compare apples to oranges.

[bird]

I'm still not clear why two extra wins in 2014 from Hughes mean squat but two extra wins from Drew don't.It seems contradictory to me to be in favor of signing FA pitching if 2014 is a lost cause but to then post that its not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause.Unwacky my logic for me, if you don't mind.

 

 

Two pieces of unwacky logic:

 

1. They didn't sign Hughes for the fairly unimportant two extra wins in 2014.

 

2. I don't recall any argument from the Twins that it's not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause. The arguments tend to be about an analysis of benefits versus costs and about the time horizon being considered. And also about one's view of the player's likely impact.

 

The impediments to reaching a common view about a FA signing decision are two-fold: one being your perspective regarding the value of a few extra wins in 2014, the other being your perspective regarding the value of the Twin's shareholder's money.

[jokin]

Mike, it's to be expected you're confused when comparing starting pitching to SS's. You can never have too much starting pitching, never heard that said about SS's. It's always confusing when you compare apples to oranges.

 

I'm definitely not worried about too many "SS's" in the Twins depth chart. How about just one ML SS?

[ashbury]

You can never have too much starting pitching, never heard that said about SS's.

 

That's because the saying about SS's is phrased differently. "When you shake the baseball tree, about 99 gloves fall out and maybe 2 bats". (Adjust the ratios to suit.)

 

It's also said that good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa. Personally, I think the reverse is true.

[cmathewson]

That's because the saying about SS's is phrased differently. "When you shake the baseball tree, about 99 gloves fall out and maybe 2 bats". (Adjust the ratios to suit.)

 

It's also said that good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa. Personally, I think the reverse is true.

 

Now, that is some whacky logic. I still think the Drew signing and the Hughes signing are so different, you can't really compare them. In addition to the draft pick, Hughes has upside. Drew does not. He is likely to regress, fairly rapidly in the next two years. That is why no one has signed him.

[jokin]

Now, that is some whacky logic. I still think the Drew signing and the Hughes signing are so different, you can't really compare them. In addition to the draft pick, Hughes has upside. Drew does not. He is likely to regress, fairly rapidly in the next two years. That is why no one has signed him.

 

Or that clubs already have the position filled.

 

Or that his asking price/years requested is too steep.

 

Or that his health is in question.

 

Or that clubs don't want to deal with Boras.

 

Or that Drew is mulling the reported interest of 6-8 clubs, determining the best offer.

 

Or that most clubs don't value a MLB SS=1st Rd Draft Pick.

 

Lots of possible reasons besides yours.

[oldguy10]

When this terrible situation arose when Smith was the G.M. why didn't Ryan step in and help him out? After all, he was still Smith's boss.

[diehardtwinsfan]

When this terrible situation arose when Smith was the G.M. why didn't Ryan step in and help him out? After all, he was still Smith's boss.

.

 

He reported to Smith during that tenure... not vice versa.

[old nurse]

Funny, so does the Twins' SS depth chart.

 

Is anyone arguing that a 2-year contract for Drew is going to somehow bust the payroll? It really isn't that much more money, and there is a lot at stake when the alternative is a SS who very well may struggle breaking .600 OPS on an already-offensively-challenged team.

 

I think if it is anywhere but Boston Drew is holding out for more than 2 years on a contract or close to QO money. QO money is more than people want to pay him. Boras has faith in himself to get one or the other. In a couple weeks people can have the I told you so thread on Drew one way or the other.

 

People are correct in that Drew would get the Twins a couple more wins over Florimon. I don't see how anyone couldn't see that for this year. Drew versus Santana would be a different argument. I have no clue how good he could be. Don't know how quickly Goodrum or Polanco would be either, or how fast they could move up.

I don't think the Twins would want to sign Drew for more than 2 years as they do have hopes for prospects. A reasonable contract for the money isn't the obstacle, I think the years are. With rare exceptions the Twins tend to stick with the good players they sign. I would add, they wouldn't sign Drew if they did not think they were getting a good player. Stopgap players are usually what many here call dumpster diving.

[Guest USAFChief]

2. I don't recall any argument from the Twins that it's not a good idea to sign free agents because 2014 is a lost cause

Neither do I. That perspective came from you. Well technically from MLR, but you liked his post and then speculated that Ryan had that exact conversation with Jim Pohlad, so I can only assume you agree with that position.

[tobi0040]

Bill Smith was an administrator. He traded Hardy and singed Nishioka because Gardy wanted more speed. He got Capps because Gardy n Andy wanted "a proven closer". He traded Garza for Young because Garza would not listen to the way Andy wanted him to pitch. If you want to point fingers point them right at the Twins dugout.

 

Gardy also loves hard throwing right handers in the pen. So Bill got him one in Hoey. Nice work.

[Major League Ready]

Neither do I. That perspective came from you. Well technically from MLR, but you liked his post and then speculated that Ryan had that exact conversation with Jim Pohlad, so I can only assume you agree with that position.

 

2014 being a lost cause is not at all the argument. As amatter of fact, the argument is that the logic is not singular. It is about draft pick or not, optional solutions, needed ABs for other players, flexibility, relative value and/or risk of any given transaction, and probably a couple other things that don't come to mind right now.

[tobi0040]

At the time, I remember reading it in a couple places that he presented Pohlad with his blueprint for 2012 and he didn't like it and Smith was fired. Common sense tells you the part Pohlad didn't like was the payroll increase. As far as my source, I doubt I could find it even if I wanted to waste the time searching for it. My source is my memory. I don't make things up.

 

Here is the press release from ESPN. The twins cited "philosophical differences" regarding the direction of the club. We had a $115M payroll, came of a 99 loss season, and in the next 1-2 months several key free agent decisions needed to be made.

 

From there, many concluded with the logic that Smith wanted to re-sign veterans, which would have kept payroll around $115M. People speculated Pohlad thought, why would I pay $115M to lose 99 games when I can have an $80M payroll and lose 99 games. So you have some evidence and a dash of speculation. We can all conclude that the return on investment was very low.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7204414/minnesota-twins-dismiss-general-manager-bill-smith-return-terry-ryan-interim

[cmathewson]

When this terrible situation arose when Smith was the G.M. why didn't Ryan step in and help him out? After all, he was still Smith's boss.

 

When Smith was GM, Ryan was a special advisor to the GM. He basically became a scouting consultant with little or no input into transactions (other than scouting).

[bird]

Neither do I. That perspective came from you. Well technically from MLR, but you liked his post and then speculated that Ryan had that exact conversation with Jim Pohlad, so I can only assume you agree with that position.

 

Not to belabor it, but that's an innaccurate interpretation of MLR's post Chief. Nowhere in his post does he claim the Twins are saying 2014 is a lost cause or that FA signings are a bad idea. He isn't claiming this either, nor am I, anymore than you.

[thetank]

Marlins is the 1st that pops into my head

Cardinals this year are spending less on payroll with a couple of injured pitchers retiring and Beltran going to NY. They have young SP and some position players with favorable contracts.

 

Twins need to stay on course.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Now, that is some whacky logic. I still think the Drew signing and the Hughes signing are so different, you can't really compare them. In addition to the draft pick, Hughes has upside. Drew does not. He is likely to regress, fairly rapidly in the next two years. That is why no one has signed him.

 

Sometimes, I think "upside" isn't always a good thing. Hughes only has "upside" because he hasn't achieved the performance level that Drew has, even as recently as last year. Only the broken ankle in 2011 and rehab in 2012 interrupts Drew's streak of five straight 3+ rWAR seasons. Hughes has two 2 rWAR season as a starter, non-consecutive, and fell well short of that level in 2013. (For those that don't like WAR for pitchers, I don't think Hughes fares too well by other measures either -- his fWAR tops out at 2.5, and his IP in particularly seem strikingly low in his full seasons starting.)

 

True, Drew is 3 years older, but even after applying his standard positional aging curve, Drew could easily top Hughes' career high rWAR for the next few seasons.

 

I'm not knocking the Hughes deal. I just fail to see how, for a team with similar deficiencies at both spots, a deal for one of these guys is smart but a similar deal for the other is dumb.

 

EDIT TO ADD: Put another way, what's more likely: a 28 year old equalling or exceeding his career best performance, or a 31 year old continuing his 5 year established performance minus his standard positional aging curve?

[JB_Iowa]

When Smith was GM, Ryan was a special advisor to the GM. He basically became a scouting consultant with little or no input into transactions (other than scouting).

 

I don't think we know exactly how big a role Ryan did or didn't play OR could/couldn't play. I believe that Terry Ryan is an honorable person so I suspect that he really did try to step away and limit his role but sometimes that is easier said than done.

 

All of Ryan's underlings basically stayed with the team. Smith didn't fire anybody or bring in a new team loyal to him. It was basically the same "old boys club" that was in place when Ryan was there. In fact, many of them were as long-tenured as Smith.

 

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a recipe for disaster right from the start. Smith had a few years as assistant director of minor leagues and scouting (86-94 apparently) and then became assistant GM from 1994-2007. While all of the "team" worked together, Smith never had reason/opportunity to develop his own team. Nor did the transition from Ryan to Smith seem particularly well-planned. I remember distinct surprise when it happened.

 

I hope the Twins learn something from the 1st TR retirement when it comes to the 2nd time he leaves the club. If you look at the top personnel in the Twins baseball operations, many are still very long-tenured and are "Ryan hires". While continuity can be good, that doesn't seem like an optimal formula for a new GM's success. (Of course many of those same people are also getting close to retirement age).

 

Something to think about.

[Guest USAFChief]

Not to belabor it, but that's an innaccurate interpretation of MLR's post Chief. Nowhere in his post does he claim the Twins are saying 2014 is a lost cause or that FA signings are a bad idea. He isn't claiming this either, nor am I, anymore than you.

My bad. I interpreted 'even spending $40m more wont get us to .500' as meaning 2014 is a lost cause.

[Mike Sixel]

So signing an 8th starting pitcher makes sense, but signing 1 starting SS doesn't? It's not apples and oranges. It is "you need a SS every single game" discussion. Having none, as they do now, makes little sense. Signing Pelfrey, when they have Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, others around, somehow makes sense. Signing Suzuki, when they have a legit prospect makes sense, but not signing Drew?

 

Sorrry, you can claim it is apples and oranges, but it is about resources and how you apply them. There are 40 and 25 spots to work with. Those are constraints on how you use your resources. You need a SS every game. You need a SP once every 5 games. They are flush with 4/5/prospect types now that they have signed FA pitchers.

 

Yet somehow, using those roster spots and dollars on another SP makes sense, using money and a spot on a catcher makes sense when you have Pinto, but signing Drew does not when you have Floriman and a bunch of question marks at SS.

[jokin]

I don't think we know exactly how big a role Ryan did or didn't play OR could/couldn't play. I believe that Terry Ryan is an honorable person so I suspect that he really did try to step away and limit his role but sometimes that is easier said than done.

 

All of Ryan's underlings basically stayed with the team. Smith didn't fire anybody or bring in a new team loyal to him. It was basically the same "old boys club" that was in place when Ryan was there. In fact, many of them were as long-tenured as Smith.

 

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a recipe for disaster right from the start. Smith had a few years as assistant director of minor leagues and scouting (86-94 apparently) and then became assistant GM from 1994-2007. While all of the "team" worked together, Smith never had reason/opportunity to develop his own team. Nor did the transition from Ryan to Smith seem particularly well-planned. I remember distinct surprise when it happened.

 

I hope the Twins learn something from the 1st TR retirement when it comes to the 2nd time he leaves the club. If you look at the top personnel in the Twins baseball operations, many are still very long-tenured and are "Ryan hires". While continuity can be good, that doesn't seem like an optimal formula for a new GM's success. (Of course many of those same people are also getting close to retirement age).

 

Something to think about.

 

The switch to Smith concerned me at the time and it does give me great concern about the next succession plan. Rob Antony seems like a nice guy and all, but I fear that he might be already tabbed as the heir apparent, and his lack of portfolio is similar to Smith's.

[howieramone1406390264]

So signing an 8th starting pitcher makes sense, but signing 1 starting SS doesn't? It's not apples and oranges. It is "you need a SS every single game" discussion. Having none, as they do now, makes little sense. Signing Pelfrey, when they have Gibson, Worley, Diamond, Meyer, others around, somehow makes sense. Signing Suzuki, when they have a legit prospect makes sense, but not signing Drew?

 

Sorrry, you can claim it is apples and oranges, but it is about resources and how you apply them. There are 40 and 25 spots to work with. Those are constraints on how you use your resources. You need a SS every game. You need a SP once every 5 games. They are flush with 4/5/prospect types now that they have signed FA pitchers.

 

Yet somehow, using those roster spots and dollars on another SP makes sense, using money and a spot on a catcher makes sense when you have Pinto, but signing Drew does not when you have Floriman and a bunch of question marks at SS.

 

Mike, you are creating artificial barriers here. Our favorite team has plenty of money and roster space to sign Drew if they are so moved, even after signing Pelfrey and Suzuki. It's not an either or thing.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Sometimes, I think "upside" isn't always a good thing. Hughes only has "upside" because he hasn't achieved the performance level that Drew has, even as recently as last year. Only the broken ankle in 2011 and rehab in 2012 interrupts Drew's streak of five straight 3+ rWAR seasons. Hughes has two 2 rWAR season as a starter, non-consecutive, and fell well short of that level in 2013. (For those that don't like WAR for pitchers, I don't think Hughes fares too well by other measures either -- his fWAR tops out at 2.5, and his IP in particularly seem strikingly low in his full seasons starting.)

 

True, Drew is 3 years older, but even after applying his standard positional aging curve, Drew could easily top Hughes' career high rWAR for the next few seasons.

 

I'm not knocking the Hughes deal. I just fail to see how, for a team with similar deficiencies at both spots, a deal for one of these guys is smart but a similar deal for the other is dumb.

 

EDIT TO ADD: Put another way, what's more likely: a 28 year old equalling or exceeding his career best performance, or a 31 year old continuing his 5 year established performance minus his standard positional aging curve?

 

This was a good post, but my big concern is looking at it in a vacuum. I'm not sure either scenario is necessarily "likely" but both are possible. Contex, however, has to come into play here. In Hugh's case, he was pitching in parks that tended to amplify his weaknesses. That goes away going to TF. He was also in a very unfriendly media environment of NY. Some players have shown the ability to thrive outside of that environment? Is it a guarantee? No, but I do think that the Twins made a calculated gamble that this FA would be more likely to meet or exceed his contract than say Garza, and to be clear I think this is true b/c the Twins put a very high value on the ability to last an entire season, not necessarily the ERA/FIP/etc. at the end of the year. That's not necessarily a bad thing.