Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Why Not Wieters?


    Nick Nelson

    The Offseason Handbook was released on Monday, and is now available for immediate download. The ebook includes dozens of free agent profiles covering players available at every position, but one of the biggest focuses is catcher, which is perhaps Minnesota's most glaring need.

    The top name on the catcher market this winter is an intriguing one... Maybe the most intriguing we've seen in a long time.

    Image courtesy of Tommy Gilligan, USA Today

    Twins Video

    Matt Wieters was the fifth overall pick by the Orioles in 2007 draft, and within a couple of years he developed into the No. 1 prospect in baseball. A switch-hitting catcher boasting solid receiving skills to go along with power and plate discipline, Wieters looked like the whole package, and many viewed him as the player who would supplant Joe Mauer (who was enjoying his MVP season when Wieters came into the league in 2009) as the game's best backstop.

    He didn't quite fulfill that immense promise, but Wieters did hit .255/.319/.420 with 87 home runs while appearing in two All-Star Games over his first five seasons in the majors. Elbow problems in 2014 led to Tommy John surgery, and the recovery process limited him to 101 total games over the past two seasons. Still, he kept hitting when he was on the field, and his arm looked fine after he returned this summer. There are inherently going to be question marks surrounding a guy who has missed as much time as he has recently, but Wieters has done enough on the field to minimize those concerns.

    His market this winter is going to be interesting. He's hardly a superstar but he's really the only bona fide starting catcher in the free agent field. And it's just not very often that you see players of his pedigree and youth (he doesn't turn 30 until next May) openly available. The competitive bidding among clubs that are looking to improve at catcher could dissuade the Twins from pursuing him very seriously.

    But there's no doubt that it's something they need to consider.

    In the Offseason Handbook, we estimated a Wieters contract at four years and $60 million, which is roughly in line with the 4/64 estimate that MLB Trade Rumors laid out last week. In our Twins Daily Offseason Blueprint within the Handbook, we actually suggest signing Wieters, because his appeal is obvious. He's the rare example of a long-term core player that can be added at a somewhat reasonable price through free agency, and with the Twins organization sorely lacking for any kind of legitimate prospects at the position, his addition would shore up the most obvious weakness in the system.

    But in order to take the plunge on Wieters, Terry Ryan and the Twins would really, really have to be believers in him. He would require a substantial investment.

    For starters, his theoretical contract would be the largest ever given to a free agent by this franchise, surpassing Ervin Santana's $55 million deal last year. And even our (and MLBTR's) estimate might be on the low side, given that his agent is Scott Boras and Minnesota isn't necessarily viewed as the most desirable of destinations.

    Adding Wieters would also mean relegating Kurt Suzuki, who is owed $6 million in 2016, to strict backup status, and committing upwards of $20 million to the catcher position next year. That's a tough pill to swallow, but I think most (including Twins brass) would agree that Suzuki shouldn't be assured any kind of role based on his contract. He was a backup-caliber player this year, through and through, and that has largely been true throughout his career.

    The final impediment with Wieters is that signing him will cost the Twins a draft pick, since the Orioles are expected to make him a qualifying offer. In tandem with Santana last year, that would be two straight offseasons in which Ryan forfeited a high pick to sign a free agent to a long-term contract. This would be extremely uncharacteristic, but if the Twins are truly making an all-out push for contention mode, and are fully committed to addressing their hole at catcher with authority, all options need to be on the table.

    Fortunately, if the sacrifices necessary to land Wieters are deemed too great, there are plenty of other options out there. Nobody outside of him in free agency really projects as a reliable full-time starter, but there are some players who would be a strong fit in a time-sharing scenario with Suzuki, offering the potential to move into a more regular role. Those players – guys like Alex Avila, A.J. Pierzynski and Dioner Navarro – are probably the ones that Ryan and the Twins will target more aggressively.

    But there are also some rather compelling trade possibilities. We'll take a look at some of them in the coming days and weeks.

    If you want to learn more about Wieters, as well as the rest of the free agent crop and numerous trade targets, please consider picking up a copy of the Offseason Handbook today. With 101 pages of dynamite content, it's a must-have for Twins fans as Hot Stove season officially gets underway.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    And there's hundreds if not thousands of other players drafted in the teens or later who never pan out to be MLB players.. People would complain about that too if we remembered that the person was drafted in the 1st round. If anything your argument shows that it doesn't matter where these players are drafted. The whole process is a gamble. 

     

    Giving up the #17 pick IMO shouldn't hold us back from making this deal. If the money and number of years holds them back from Wieters, I'm more understanding of that. I don't agree with it, but can respect the decision. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I was trying to be politically correct when I said "we all" but there would be plenty who would complain.  Take a look at the MLB top 100.  There are several top 20 prospects who were drafted in the teens or later.  Buxton is #1, #2 and #3 were picked 18th and 16th respectively.  #4 was an international signing and #5 was taken 16th.  #6 was 39th.  #7 was picked 152nd an#8 was an international signing.  That's why most teams don't give up these picks.
    http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015?list=prospects

     

    Actually, nearly every FA offered a QO gets signed......so it isn't true that teams don't give up draft picks for these guys. I can recall 2-3 in the last 5-10 years that weren't. That's it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    There are plenty of low risk free agents, they come on 1-2 year deals.  Those are the only kinds of free agents I'm supportive of at this time as the team already has Mauer, Santana, Hughes and Nolasco guaranteed to take up four of only 25 available roster spots because of their long term contracts.  The roster just can't be filled with untradable, unmovable veteran contracts or they'll end up like the Tigers, but with a lower quality group of veterans mucking up the works and fewer division titles to show for the moves.

     

    The low risk guys you're talking also have a high likelihood of being no better than what we're trying to upgrade from already.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I'd be open to seeing any kind of stats that show otherwise, but statistically and visually, to me it looks like guys are peaking very, very early these days.  Even look at last year's All-Star game, something that used to be loaded with veterans getting in based on their past reputations; it is now loaded with kids.  Just look at last year's Twins, from the rotation to the lineup, it was almost exclusively carried by the younger guys.

     

    I don't disagree that there are still plenty of good contributors over 30, most are solid role players, but why on earth would anyone give a role player more than a two year deal?  Guys on 1-2 year deals can be traded if the season goes in the toilet or a young player emerges.  Guys on 1-2 year deals can be sent to the bench or DFA'd if they stink, we continue to see the Twins in awkward positions now because they have given too many guys 4-year deals.  It hasn't worked, they need to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole.

     

    I'd be fine taking a chance on a couple long term deals to vets, but it's got to be quality over quantity.  From my perspective, two guys on a 4-year/80M deal are better than four guys on a 4-year/40M deal.

    Obviously 1-2 year deals carry less risk, but good players aren't generally available on 1-2 year deals.

     

    The Twins "problem" isn't 4 year deals they've given to players like Wieters, it's that they gave 4 year deals to three guys at the same position (SP, although admittedly you need 5 of them), at least one of them being a completely unnecessary extension (Hughes) and another was a somewhat forced signing of a lower upside player (Nolasco).  And even after all that, whatever "problem" caused by those deals hasn't impacted their budget to the point where it's not feasible to sign another such deal for the right player/position.

     

    If you want to say the Twins should have pursued Martin or McCann (or Montero in trade) the past few winters, even at higher prices, you won't get any argument from me.  But those options are off the table now, so it looks like Wieters, bargain bin, surrendering talent in trade, or roll the dice on Suzuki again are your choices.  Wieters doesn't look so bad then.

    Edited by spycake
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Here's an interesting read on the value of draft picks.

     

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-much-is-a-draft-pick-worth-in-2014/

     

    Average cumulative WAR during cost-controlled years for #15-20 picks taken in 1991-2005 drafts = 4.3.

     

    However there may be a trend teams missing fewer elite talents and capturing them in the middle of the first round, due to improvements in information/scouting.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    From Baseball America:

     

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2015-mlb-draft-order-2/

     

     

    The Padres forfeited No. 13 for James Shields; The Mets forfeited pick No. 15 for Cuddyer; ... The Blue Jays forfeited pick No. 17 for Martin; The Mariners forfeited pick No. 19 for Cruz; The Nationals forfeited pick No. 27 for Scherzer.

     

    Forfeiting #17 for a 30 year old catcher in Wieters doesn't seem so outlandish.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     


    If you want to say the Twins should have pursued Martin or McCann (or Montero in trade) the past few winters, even at higher prices, you won't get any argument from me.  But those options are off the table now, so it looks like Wieters, bargain bin, surrendering talent in trade, or roll the dice on Suzuki again are your choices.  Wieters doesn't look so bad then.

     

    I do want to say that, and it is the pitchers that have put a sour taste in my mouth.  I don't like the idea of rolling the dice again in the veteran free agent game since now the odds are really in the house's favor. The risk for Wieters looks higher than it was for Martin and McCann and the reward is lower. I will walk away from the table before I lose everything.  I don't want to have to try another rebuild before this one even started.  Six vets over 30 signed through at least 2017 is going to make that more likely if the season doesn't go as we hoped, and likely the only one of them tradable would be Perkins, IF he returns to form.

     

    I didn't want Shields or Lester, but I'd be a much happier camper if the Twins hadn't signed Nolasco, Hughes and Santana (and Suzuki) but instead had just signed Shields and Martin.

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    From Baseball America:

     

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2015-mlb-draft-order-2/

     

     

    Forfeiting #17 for a 30 year old catcher in Wieters doesn't seem so outlandish.

     

    I would want the Twins to vet other alternatives and to see who is available and what the asking price is.

     

    If we conclude that Weiters puts us 30+ runs better than Suzuki and nothing else is really available, I think you part with the pick and sign him.  No other roster spot is a bigger opportunity at the moment and arguably more thin around the league.  And we have a ton of prospects right now. 

     

    The Royals made a series of aggressive moves and they won the world series.  Even making a deep run is success in my eyes for these types of moves.  I think this would help us do that.

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Huh. So we have one high-priced catcher who had to transition out of the position after injuries and now we're considering another high-priced catcher with an injury history? 

     

    AND it would cost a draft pick. I'd rather not. 

     

    I'd rather look at trading Plouffe or one of our pitchers and/or a prospect in exchange for a youngish starting catcher. Or signing AJ for a year.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Huh. So we have one high-priced catcher who had to transition out of the position after injuries and now we're considering another high-priced catcher with an injury history? 

     

    AND it would cost a draft pick. I'd rather not. 

     

    I'd rather look at trading Plouffe or one of our pitchers and/or a prospect in exchange for a youngish starting catcher. Or signing AJ for a year.

     

    I think you look at the catcher market and Plouffe is an option to trade.  But I would not get our hopes up too high here.  The fact that the current options are pay a ton of cash for Weiters (plus a pick), pony up top prospects for Lucroy, or sign a 38 year old AJ is a sign that this market is really, really thin.  

     

    4/60 for Weiters is not a salary crippling move in my eyes.  I have a hard time seeing how he is not the best catching option we have in 3-4 years.  You get into an issue when you have a guy like Nolasco who is making that kind of money AND is not a starter.  Then it becomes an issue.

     

     

    Edited by tobi0040
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I don't want to have to try another rebuild before this one even started.  Six vets over 30 signed through at least 2017 is going to make that more likely if the season doesn't go as we hoped

    "Through 2017" is only 2 more seasons.  Perkins is in that group but making peanuts.  Nolasco's $12 mil is relative peanuts too.  Those aren't the kind of commitments that should make you draw a hard line on adding payroll if it can improve your team.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    "Through 2017" is only 2 more seasons.  Perkins is in that group but making peanuts.  Nolasco's $12 mil is relative peanuts too.  Those aren't the kind of commitments that should make you draw a hard line on adding payroll if it can improve your team.

     

    I agree whole-heartedly.  Especially in the case of Nolasco.  He is unlikely to help the team and sometimes you need to swallow a bad deal if you want to play the free agency game.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    For me, I wouldn't even really consider Wieters. I think giving up the 17th overall pick is a lot. He's basically 30, so we're talking about years 30-33. Some do alright, but signing catchers at 30 to long term contracts a little/lot scary to me.

     

    If it gets late in the free agent timeline (maybe January) and Wieters is now willing to go 2 years and $25 million, I might consider it.

     

    I'm not saying AJ because he can maybe help a team offensively (at 40, we'll see). Not much defensively, though that doesn't change from now. But I'd rather go with a veteran on a one-year deal than spend big on Wieters. 

    Not only is it the 17th spot, but if anybody in 11-16 signs a QO free agent, the Twins move up a spot. Could definitely see the Red Sox doing that, maybe the Orioles, the others maybe not so much.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I am not sure how that means anything. In fact, how does that do anything but support the concern that his defense is in decline?

    Being injured and not playing much doesn't equal decline.  Yes, there should be concern that he wasn't 100% in the partial season that he played before this contract.  If he was 100% then he would be getting 5 yrs (possibly more) for 20+M/yr.

     

    And FWIW he caught back to backs 4 times in September.  As of right now everything is saying that he is on track for a complete recovery from TJ.  This isn't a concussion type injury that will re-occur in the future.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't know the exact odds of a team having ANY players from ANY draft play significantly in the majors, but I know they are large. I read once upon a time where a team hopes each draft produces 1 star (type) player, 1 solid starter and 1 solid contributor/role player. 

     

    I don't have a problem with losing the #17 pick in the draft, (we'll have 2 seconds this year), as there is so little cause to feel we hurt ourselves. I also have no problem paying a 30yo catcher 4 years and $15-16M per. I honestly don't expect him to regress so quickly that he is a negative, (even if value per dollar is down for year 4) I'd rather sign him, and his potential bat, than trade away a couple top players.

     

    My concern remains, what if he just can't hold up for 120 games due to his arm? Players come back all the time these days from TJ and play the field. Sano did this year. So I ask again, why did Wieters play so little behind the plate this year? Why not on consecutive days? I need to know he is 100% before I make this investment. He's just not a good enough to hitter to slide him somewhere else, like DH, and chalk it up to an "oh well."

     

    I've stated before I like AJ for one year if things don't come together. Then re-examine the FA and trade market next season, as well as our own catching prospects a season from now. But I've been thinking about another candidate; Alex Avila. Since his big 2011 season his numbers have been on a 4 year downward slide. But, his career numbers against RHP are .251/ .358/ .423/ .781. He will only be 29 in '16 I believe. His career CS% is 29%, but over 32% if the one poor season of 2013 is removed.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

    I may be naive or mistaken on trade ideas/value, but when trying to place myself in Milwaukee's spikes...granted without intimate knowledge of the Brewer's roster...I would think a trio of quality young prospects would be exactly what is needed to pry a player of Lucroy's ability, albeit, a bit on the outs due to injury and rebuild mode.

     

    While I love me some Trevor Plouffe, I think I might be more interested in Arcia, were I the Brewers on a rebuild. (Maybe both) I'd have to have a top pitching talent, maybe Stewart, as has been mentioned. For a third? Not sure. But no matter how much I respect Lucroy, I have a very hard time trading for a player with recent concussion issues, (especially considering the Twins history with such issues), and giving up Kepler and/or Berrios. I just think it may be asking too much.

     

    Giving up pretty much anything/anyone else for Lucroy...or anyone else who offers long term potential at the catcher spot, works for me.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I may be naive or mistaken on trade ideas/value, but when trying to place myself in Milwaukee's spikes...granted without intimate knowledge of the Brewer's roster...I would think a trio of quality young prospects would be exactly what is needed to pry a player of Lucroy's ability, albeit, a bit on the outs due to injury and rebuild mode.

    While I love me some Trevor Plouffe, I think I might be more interested in Arcia, were I the Brewers on a rebuild. (Maybe both) I'd have to have a top pitching talent, maybe Stewart, as has been mentioned. For a third? Not sure. But no matter how much I respect Lucroy, I have a very hard time trading for a player with recent concussion issues, (especially considering the Twins history with such issues), and giving up Kepler and/or Berrios. I just think it may be asking too much.

    Giving up pretty much anything/anyone else for Lucroy...or anyone else who offers long term potential at the catcher spot, works for me.

     

    Right. I just mention Plouffe because the Brewers have a hole at third. Plouffe, Arcia, and Stewart. Gibson would be another potential candidate, as would Garver (to give them a AA catcher back).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Arcia is the new Casilla in trade talks.  He accounts for <10% of the value of virtually any proposed trade so he really isn't even worth mentioning other than as a throw in.

     

    Including Stewart in virtually every trade talk is just as funny.  Maybe the opposing GM's haven't noticed that he can't strike out and still have him ranked highly?

     

    Quit trying to pawn off mediocre prospects for really good players.  And if the Brewers are rebuilding then they are going to want players with more team control than Plouffe and probably Gibson. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

    I agree, trades that will never happen probably do look better than 4/60. Not sure where that gets us.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Arcia is the new Casilla in trade talks.  He accounts for <10% of the value of virtually any proposed trade so he really isn't even worth mentioning other than as a throw in.

     

    Including Stewart in virtually every trade talk is just as funny.  Maybe the opposing GM's haven't noticed that he can't strike out and still have him ranked highly?

     

    Quit trying to pawn off mediocre prospects for really good players.  And if the Brewers are rebuilding then they are going to want players with more team control than Plouffe and probably Gibson. 

     

    Kab, this is just like fantasy football.  You can just take three guys that don't start for you and bundle them for a really good player.  Get excited for a second, then get a text back from the other guy asking if you are high.

     

    The comedy of the proposed trades is one of my favorite things.   Somehow, guys that could not make our team (Arcia and Nolasco),  releivers that are no good (Duensing) and failing prospects (Kohl) can be packaged for a top 10 catcher or #2 starter.  Don't ruin this for me.

     

     

    Edited by tobi0040
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Kohl Stewart is still a top 10 prospect in the Twins' org. There are many who say (online experty types) that the strikeouts will come. Suggesting he be packaged, along with a 23 YO that OPS over 110 in the majors, and another prospect, for a 29/30 YO catcher is not far fetched.

     

    It might not be enough, but it's nothing to be snotty about.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    If you're going to reject the idea of going after Wieters, I can understand that.  Particularly if you'd prefer we spend that money on the bullpen.

     

    But rejecting it based on some fantasy of trading Plouffe for Lucroy?  No, I can't understand that.

     

    I said a package involving Plouffe, for the record. That could involve some mix of Polanco, Stewart, Garver, etc. I just mentioned Plouffe because there is a likely hole at 3rd base for the Brewers right now.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Kohl Stewart is still a top 10 prospect in the Twins' org. There are many who say (online experty types) that the strikeouts will come. Suggesting he be packaged, along with a 23 YO that OPS over 110 in the majors, and another prospect, for a 29/30 YO catcher is not far fetched.

     

    It might not be enough, but it's nothing to be snotty about.

     

    Arcia could not stick on our team last year.  Most teams have probably concluded, like the Twins that he simply cannot play in the OF.   So I think he holds minimal value, if any to all NL teams.    And his career .614 against lefties makes him at this point a platoon DH.   He would be a throw in project on a deal that I don't think holds a lot of value.

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I said a package involving Plouffe, for the record. That could involve some mix of Polanco, Stewart, Garver, etc. I just mentioned Plouffe because there is a likely hole at 3rd base for the Brewers right now.

    I think that framework might gain some traction with a three-way trade. I don't think the Brewers have any interest in Plouffe themselves, but if you could get some other team to join the trade, then maybe it would work.

     

    Twins get Lucroy

    Team X gets Plouffe

    Brewers get prospects from Twins and Team X.

     

    I still think the Brewers are going to want (and probably get) at least 1 top-50 prospect in return for Lucroy.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I think that framework might gain some traction with a three-way trade. I don't think the Brewers have any interest in Plouffe themselves, but if you could get some other team to join the trade, then maybe it would work.

     

    Twins get Lucroy

    Team X gets Plouffe

    Brewers get prospects from Twins and Team X.

     

    I still think the Brewers are going to want (and probably get) at least 1 top-50 prospect in return for Lucroy.

    Yeah. I am more interested in the "young catcher" route.

     

    The Twins are most interested in the AJ route. Throwing money now at a declining catcher on top of these other contracts is not going to happen. It's less likely than a three-team deal for Lucroy.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...