I didn't love it, but since the reaction to the swap among Twins fans was overwhelmingly negative, I spent a lot of time defending it. Despite his success in the first half, the Twins saw something in Jon Rauch that led them to believe he'd soon become a liability in the closer role (his subsequent slump suggested they were right), so they wanted a proven commodity. Sure, the Twins overvalued Capps' standing as an established closer and gave up a better prospect than they maybe should have, but I accepted the move for three principal reasons: 1) I don't think they could have gotten a much better player for Ramos; 2) in my mind, the probability that the team will heavily regret dealing Ramos when they did is quite low; and 3) I liked the statement that the move made.
It was that last one that I felt most strongly about. We're so used to seeing the Twins play it conservative at the deadline, protecting their future assets at the expense of bettering their present chances. Now, they were dealing one of their top prospects and taking on significant salary with the hopes of ensuring that a bullpen derailment would not impede their budding momentum. Very often has a prospect panned out to be less than we'd hoped; very often, also, have we looked back at the end of a season and said, "Maybe that one extra piece at the deadline would have made the difference."
So the Twins made their bold move. But they did so for another reason, one that they were perfectly transparent about the time, but that I didn't spend much time thinking about then.
"Having him for 2011 was critical," [Bill] Smith said. "We would not have had interest in having him for just two months."As you'll find when reading through your copy of the Offseason GM Handbook, the bullpen becomes a quagmire of tricky decisions for the Twins' front office this winter. I didn't need the headache while focusing on the Twins' 2010 season, so I hadn't spent much time thinking about it. Now that I've turned my gaze to the offseason and started breaking down the numbers, I've reached one inescapable conclusion:
The Twins would be insane to bring back Matt Capps.
He's under team control for 2011 because he's entering his third and final year of arbitration eligibility. He was non-tendered by the Pirates following a crummy 2009 campaign (5.80 ERA, 1.66 WHIP, .324 opponents batting average, just 27 saves in 32 chances), and he earned only a modest $1.2 million raise on his $2.3 million '09 salary when the Nationals signed him this season because of it.
This year, however, Capps put up some of the finest numbers of his career, and scored big in areas that arbitrators put a lot of weight into. Specifically, those areas are ERA (2.47) and saves (42, fifth-best in MLB). While I certainly don't think he's as bad a pitcher as many opponents of his acquisition make him out to be, Capps is at best merely a good reliever and those numbers unquestionably overstate his value.
Unfortunately, that's the type of lens through which arbitration judges are likely to view Capps. The market has been established. For instance, the Giants have Brian Wilson locked up for $8.5 million in 2012, which would be his last year of arbitration, and that contract was signed before he notched an MLB-leading 48 saves this year. Jonathan Papelbon just earned over $9 million in his second year of arbitration. Looking at these numbers, it's not hard to imagine Capps at least doubling his $3.5 million salary in 2011.
Meanwhile, relievers of similar quality to Capps who don't carry the closer label tend to make only a couple million per year. And regardless of how you weigh the value of having an established guy in the closer spot, there's a good chance the Twins won't be using him in that role with Joe Nathan returning.
In the best case scenario, they'd be paying Capps upper-echelon closer money (which they're already paying Nathan, to a higher degree) to be a solid setup man. If you're going to spend that kind of money on a guy who'd fill a setup role and serve as an insurance policy for Nathan, you're much wiser using it to bring back Brian Fuentes who figures to be only slightly more expensive if at all. He's a better pitcher and more useful if Nathan can close. Or you can save a few million and take your pick from the deep pool of strong relievers hitting the market this winter.
I have spent enough energy defending Capps. He served his duty very effectively after being acquired and was a fine -- if ultimately meaningless -- addition to the Twins this season. If he's back next year at $7 million, though, his acquisition will ultimately do more harm than good.
41 comments:
Of all the reason i disliked the trade, and there were a lot, the extra year of capps arb being the deal breaker upset me the most. They must have known that the extra year wasnt going to be any kind of a bargain, so why did they value it? I dont think bill smith understands arbitration very well. We all remember when he traded for and proceeded to over pay craig monroe, who was going to be non tendered by the cubs and might have signed for a minor league deal. And theres no chance they non tender capps. To their credit i think theyll keep him out of incompetence, and not because theyd look silly talking about how they only traded one of their better prospects for the guys because of his extra year and then non tendering him.
The trade did more harm than good the instant it was made.
This year has proven how overrated the closer position really is. Capps' career numbers put him below average in terms of closers, and anyone who watched him pitch will agree.
Also, closer should be just about the last position the Twins should be worried about. Closers are irrelevant when your soft, coddled hitters can't get a clutch hit and your soft, coddled pitchers can't make a clutch pitch. Plus Nathan was absolutely terrible in the '09 sweep, and Capps was Capps-esque in giving up an insurance run in 1 inning of work in the '10 sweep.
Frankly, I'd like to see the Twins jettison both Capps AND Nathan. Free up some salary for an ace. Again, this year proved closers are replaceable, so there's no need to spend $12 mil or, even worse, $20 mil on them.
The Capps trade was a good deal at the time because it solidified a bullpen that needed a boost and it was made early enough in the season to have maximum benefit. Further, Capps was/is a very good pitcher. Scoff all you want but his saves total and ERA show his results. (I know that ERA is a poor stat for most relief pitchers but Capps started each inning clean and thus his ERA is a better indicator of performance.)
The Capps trade is a good deal now because the Twins still need a closer in 2011. Nathan as we all know is coming off of Tommy John surgery. He may be back to his old self some day, but that won't be the case early in the year, if at all (see Nesheck, Pat). I expect Nathan to be the set up man at best next year.
Finally, when did we start criticizing a pitcher for a good performance? "Capps is at best merely a good reliever and those numbers unquestionably overstate his value." Actually we pay for results. He had a very good year, admit that he is good and pay him accordingly.
To all the critics who say that you can pick up any pitcher and make him a good closer I throw down the BS card. Most can only decide who was good closer material after the fact. For every success there may be three of four failures. A playoff capable team doesn't have time to experiment. Let the Nationals or the Pirates experiment and then pick up their best candidate (like we just did with Capps).
"The Capps trade was a good deal at the time because it solidified a bullpen that needed a boost and it was made early enough in the season to have maximum benefit."
Actually, he converted saves at exactly the same rate as Rauch. The trade had absolutely no benefit for the Twins in terms of results. They got the same from his as they did from Rauch, and it cost the Twins their top trade chip. Not a good trade by any stretch of the mind.
"I expect Nathan to be the set up man at best next year."
So his arm is going to be good enough to pitch the 8th, but not the 9th? That makes no sense.
I think most people who are dissatisfied with the trade are people who overrated Wilson Ramos. As the season went on, I thought it became pretty clear that Ramos was way overrated by Twins fans. He wasn't even that high on any top 100 prospects lists, and certainly not rated high enough to bring in any kind of real ace starter. I don't think there were any teams out there dumb enough to give the Twins an ace starter for Ramos, so they took the best guy they could have gotten for Ramos.
I thought getting Capps was a decent move by the Twins. I suppose as Nick wrote in this post the Twins can't really afford to keep him. But getting an effective Nathan back is absolutely no guarantee. I thought Nathan should be working middle relief next season until his arm completely recovers. That means the Twins can use Capps. But of course the salary situation sounds tricky too, so I guess we'll see what they decide to do.
So his arm is going to be good enough to pitch the 8th, but not the 9th? That makes no sense.
Such is the source of closers being overrated.
A "closer" is supposed to be your best reliever, but only pitches in the ninth? What if there's a HUGE spot in a game, say the 7th, where the 3-5 hitters are due up. You run out a "middle relief" guy in today's game. Makes no sense. If the 3-5 guys blow up the inning, you lost the game due to your 3rd best relief pitcher getting beat by the best hitters on the other team.
Let Capps go if he demands "closer money." No need to pay a guy that much to get the value return Capps give a team.
Bring up a young fireballer and "close" by committee based on matchups and game situations; get your best reliever in there when it's appropriate, not when you have a 3 run lead in the 9th with the 7-9 hitters due up.
Yeah, what I just wrote won't happen, but a guy can be an armchair GM/manager, can't he?
"Frankly, I'd like to see the Twins jettison both Capps AND Nathan." The twins cant do this because of course nathans contract is guaranteed.
"Actually we pay for results. He had a very good year, admit that he is good and pay him accordingly." The point here is that the twins would be paying extra because he was given the opportunity to accumulate saves. The 8 mil theyll have to pay capps could be spent to sign 2 middle relievers that are every bit as good as capps. The results the twins should be paying for should be based on his ability to pitch his save totals.
"For every success there may be three of four failures." I dont think theres much evidence to support this claim. I think a good setup man has a very good chance of closing ball games at a suitable rate.
The twins have had incredible success plugging setup men into the closers role, that another reason why its so frustrating they feel the need to foolishly dedicate 20% of their payroll to closers.
I just think we should pay what we do our closers for above average starters.
Capps isn't the problem. Nor was he the solution.
What we needed was Cliff Lee. And if that Pioneer Press article is true, that Aaron Hicks was the deal breaker, then Bill Smith should not be employed by a major league team.
What we needed was Cliff Lee. And if that Pioneer Press article is true, that Aaron Hicks was the deal breaker, then Bill Smith should not be employed by a major league team.
You're right. One single pitcher was clearly the difference between a first-round sweep and a World Series victory. Brilliantly stated.
the main problem was that smith thought we had enough to go far in the playoffs once he "solidified" the closer position. i can't fault him for that because many people thought we did. after another sweep it is clear to everyone that we need a full time hitter who isn't intimidated by the postseason and the yankees (like delmon); and we also need a #1 pitcher. liriano and pavano are better #2 or #3 pitchers and duensing is a good backend guy. i wouldn't be afraid to trade any of the relievers, baker, slowey, blackburn, cuddyer, kubel, span, etc or most of the minor leaguers with a few exceptions (guys like gibson).
When you were for the trade you wrote this:
"Capps' career marks stand at 3.45 and and 1.19 in those categories (ERA/WHIP), and this in spite of a down year in 2009 that has all the signs of a fluke. Capps possesses elite command, misses more bats and deserves more trust in high-leverage situations.
Now that you want to dump Capps, and after citing his "crummy" 2009 numbers you write:
"This year, however, Capps put up some of the finest numbers of his career, and scored big in areas that arbitrators put a lot of weight into. Specifically, those areas are ERA (2.47) and saves (42, fifth-best in MLB). While I certainly don't think he's as bad a pitcher as many opponents of his acquisition make him out to be, Capps is at best merely a good reliever and those numbers unquestionably overstate his value."
So when you were for the trade you cited his good ERA as reason to view his 2009 as a fluke; now that you want to dump Capps, you cite his lousy 2009 as reason to view his good ERA as overstating his value.
And what about this: When you were for the trade you wrote:
"And having Capps under control for next year will undoubtedly turn out to be one of the most crucial aspects of this trade."
Now you write:
"The Twins would be insane to bring Capps back."
So if what, in your mind, was once one of the "most crucial aspects" of the trade now suggests insane thinking, musn't you agree that Bill Smith (who surely did the same number crunching back then that you are doing now) was a little insane to make the trade in the first place?
You were more wrong than right in your initial assessment of this trade. Now you're spinning that initial assessment as you merely you playing some kind of devil's advocate to those who hated the trade. How about a little intellectual honesty?
Option A - Don't give Capps arbitration, let him hit the wire, let some stupid team pay 8 mil for the worst major league closer.
Option B - Give Capps arbitration, let him get 6 mil in arbitration, let another manager that would have paid 8 mil on the market for Capps feel this is a deal and trade Capps to that stupid team.
What I want from the Twins is an agressive offseason. The guy I really want is Jorge De La Rosa. The guy is Liriano light, and his stats have mainly been compiled in Coors. Strikeouts galore.
The next thing I want is a shutdown lefty. Fuentes is great, but so is Scott Downs. One of those guys better be a Twin next year.
The next thing I want is Jason Frasor. He, like Downs, could/should have been closer long term in Toronto. Matty G but better.
Resign Crain, he earned it. Let Rauch leave, we won't need him after signing Frasor and re-signing Crain.
Do not re-sign Pavano. Sign Brandon Webb. Lets roll the dice on a former best-in-the-league pitcher.
Shop Baker/Slowey/Cuddy/Capps? to Oakland and Arizona for any one of (in order of goodness) Brett Anderson, Ian Kennedy, Trever Cahill, or Dallas Braden.
You were more wrong than right in your initial assessment of this trade. Now you're spinning that initial assessment as you merely you playing some kind of devil's advocate to those who hated the trade. How about a little intellectual honesty?
There's nothing dishonest about what I said. When I initially looked at the trade, I was mostly looking at the impact it would have on the Twins for the 2010 season. This was clearly stated in today's post.
I wasn't looking ahead much at how Capps' arbitration might play out, nor did I expect him to finish quite as strongly as he did. His core numbers were all markedly better after the the trade, which only further increases his arbitration value.
Also, saying that his being under team control for 2011 was "one of the most crucial aspects" of the trade was correct. Just not in a good way. Crucial means "decisive" or "critical" and as it turns out, this factor is the one thing that turned me against the trade.
Rauch was told that he was going to be the closer when they were on the airplane back to Minnesota, just a little pressure, do you think? So let take a look at what Rauch has done for the Twins in 2010: He came in to close 16 games with a one run lead and he saves 14 of them and two of the games were blown saves, oh and by the way he won both of these blown games on the road no less, pitching two innings in each game.
At the end of July he gets the word from another player(not the Coach OR GM) that Capps was on his way...how does one mentaly handle that your closing days are over? He was in the top five closers for most the of season, so how is that for a slap on the back!! Could that be the reason Rauch did not pitch very well for the next several weeks. How would you perform at your job getting this type of news?
I quess they made the move because Rauch cannot throw 95-98 MPH fastball, and did not think that he could compete, oh, by the way how did Rauch do against the Yankees during the playoffs? Rauch pitched great!
Lets talk about Capps, comes from Pittsburg and Washington, certainly pitched under a lot of pressure for these two teams. Capps pitches in 4 or 5 one run games and has two blown saves for the Twins and he is the "All Star closer"! If they would have left Rauch alone to do his job he would have in my opinion, done just as well as Capps closing games out for the Twins in 2010. Capps gave up a run in the ninth against the Yankees, during the playoff series.
Since we all have suggestions here is mine, we should sign Rauch for two years, first year at 4 million and the second year at 5 million. Let Capps walk since he will be asking 7-8 million for one year. Rauch then can be the closer for the first half(or less) until Nathan gets back, and then finish the year being one of the set up men. Rauch's second year could be dealt with depending on what kind of year he has in 2011.
GO TWINS!
I am John Rauch
The only thing I like about Matt Capps is his walk-out song.
Wilson Ramos is going to be a beast, and would of been a better backup catcher than Drew 'Butters' Butera. But like I said on my blog, I guess being second fiddle to Joe Mauer wouldn't let Ramos shine, like he will in Washington.
As for Rauch? I don't mind him.
ps: Its sad that JON Rauch here doesn't know how to spell his own name.
Ramos won't even be better then morales. As to being a "beast", look at how beastly Wieters was. He was touted as the can't miss super prospect better then Mauer. If Wieters wasn't a beast Ramos certainly won't be.
Dave, you realize Wieters is one year older than Ramos, right?
While there isn't much I disagree with in the analysis, there's one assumption being made that I think is a big one and far from certain: That Joe Nathan will be the closer in 2011.
While the procedure has become much more common and the success rate has improved considerably, Tommy John surgery is not something you just bounce back from. You only have to look at Liriano to see how long it can take to fully recover. It was three years before he was back to anything resembling his old self. His recovery time is extreme, but other examples show it takes a while to get back to "normal": AJ Burnett took two years to get back to form (at least as measured by WAR), John Smoltz took two years before really establishing himself as a reliever (his first year in the role was ok but far from elite), Kerry Wood took as long as Liriano. Tim Hudson really only missed one year and had a great season this year, but he appears to be the exception historically.
I'm not saying that Capps is worth $8 million if Nathan isn't back or isn't the same pitcher, because he's not. But the fact is that the Twins do need to prepare for the very real likelihood that if the Joe Nathan we were accustomed to ever comes back (far from a sure thing), it may not be until 2012 (at which point he'll be 37, where he may be declining anyway). And if the Twins don't think they have anyone capable of being their No. 1 reliever outside of Capps, they're either going to need to go find one (at who knows what cost) or suck it up and spend the arbitration money.
Can somebody please show me all these teams winning World Series titles with closer-by-committee? Closers are often overvalued, but you guys are undervaluing them. Rauch did a solid job, and when he began to falter Capps came in and did a solid job. Not Mariano Rivera, but not bad at all.
8 2 1 0 13
Yes, Lee would have made the difference
I would add:
Nick, with Cliff Lee on board, what do you think would have been the outcome of the division series?
Please, provide a game-by-game breakdown, starting with Lee pitching game 1.
I still say the pitching was not the problem, the dead bats were the problem in the Twins/Yankees series. Cliff Lee would not have mattered.
Figure out a way to keep Fuentes and Pavano.
There's nothing dishonest about what I said. When I initially looked at the trade, I was mostly looking at the impact it would have on the Twins for the 2010 season. This was clearly stated in today's post.
Nick...you're embarrassing yourself. We know what you said in TODAY's post. Here's what you said at the time of the trade:
Perhaps most importantly, Capps is under team control for next season, which will make the looming free agent departures of Rauch and Guerrier far more palatable as Joe Nathan attempts his comeback from Tommy John surgery.
and
By the time the playoffs roll around this year and onward into 2011, I anticipate that people will be happy Capps is around. I don't think they'll miss Ramos.
But now you're trying to play off his arb as 'crucial' in a BAD way?
Like I said. You're embarrassing yourself.
FWIW, Capps will be with the Twins in 2011, and that's a good thing. As you said when the deal was made, Capps makes the Twins bullpen stronger.
"The dead bats were the problem in the Twins/Yankees series. Cliff Lee would not have mattered."
I honestly don't know how people can watch Cliff Lee pitch and not think he would have made a difference. Dude, he pitched a shutout at Yankee Stadium. Pettitte had a nearly identical game to ALDS game 2. The Rangers won. We didn't.
For all of you who say our pitching wasn't the problem, you've got to adjust your expectations. Six innings of 4 ER baseball does not cut it in the playoffs. You are going to run into the other team's best pitching - to be successful you have to pitch better than the other guy. You aren't going to be able to score 7 runs a game in the playoffs - sorry, aint going to happen. You need to win a 2-1 game every now and then, and the Twins don't have the pitchers to do that.
Is anyone else embarrassed watching the ALCS? The Yanks might end up winning it, but the Rangers haven't been to the playoff in a decade, have a small payroll, don't "match up" against the Yankees by position, etc. None of those excuses seem to matter, do they?
Until fans and the organization stop making excuses for this team, we may as well get accustomed to watching other teams in the ALCS, cause nothing's going to change the way this club is headed.
Also, Nick should be credited for displaying the ability to re-evaluate a position. So many bloggers are too proud to document the fact that they may have gotten something wrong that they end up defending past arguments beyond the boundaries of reasonable discourse.
Nick wasn't the only one who liked the Capps deal at the time, and he certainly isn't the only one to dislike it now. I say thanks for having the guts to publish your change of heart.
Yes, Lee would have made the difference
Again, you can't win the World Series with one player on your team performing well in the playoffs. To say Lee would have made other players better or more confident is baseless speculation.
While there isn't much I disagree with in the analysis, there's one assumption being made that I think is a big one and far from certain: That Joe Nathan will be the closer in 2011.
That assumption was never made. I pointed out that the Twins can find a better reliever than Capps to serve as an insurance policy in the (perhaps fairly likely) event that Nathan can't close.
Like I said in the post, if you're big on closer experience, Fuentes is a far better option at a similar price.
Nick...you're embarrassing yourself. We know what you said in TODAY's post. Here's what you said at the time of the trade:
I know what I said. I don't consider a change of position to be "embarrassing." I liked the trade for this season -- I still feel that way, but I hate it for next season.
Capps is going to be drastically overpaid and the Twins can't afford to spend like that on a player like him. There will be better, less expensive players in free agency, and the only thing that differentiates Capps is his standing as an established closer. That's not worth paying a premium for and the Twins' success without Nathan this year should reinforce that.
I have no idea if Lee would have made the other 24 players better.
I do know that Lee has pitched better in his three starts than any Twin in a post-season game since Jack Morris.
If Lee (as a Twin) shuts down NY in Game 1, we have a 1-0 lead with Lee on tap to pitch a potential game 5.
I am with Ed Bast. I cannot fathom why anyone on this thread does not think that Lee would have given us a better chance of advancing than the chance we had without him.
For my money, I would like to see Lee beat NY in Game 7, and then Philly in games 3 and 7. There will be some eating of crow by Twins fans who shrugged off Smith's passing on him, then.
The bright side (tongue firmly in cheek): Aaron Hicks might hit .300 in 2016, help us win another "division title."
Cliff Lee now has more postseason wins in 2 weeks than Gardy does in 8 years. Also has more postseason wins vs. the Yankees the last 2 seasons than the Twins franchise does, ever.
I cannot fathom why anyone on this thread does not think that Lee would have given us a better chance of advancing than the chance we had without him.
Who has ever said this???
This horse is by now dead and buried, but here is more dirt for the grave.
There are two camps: those who lament Lee, and those who say, "Gosh, our boys just need to play better."
Going forward, would you rather have Lee for 2011, or pass on him, and put your faith in, "Buckle up Cuddyer Kubel et all! Next year will be different!"
If we could conduct a straw poll, I am thinking that a few of us would sign Lee.
Lots of stupid posters here. No one said lee didnt make them better, the point is that he didnt make them significantly more likely to win that series or world series. Its impossible to say how having lee pitch would have changed the series but the way the twins played its a stretch to claim he would make the twins even slight favorites. Lee has pitched great no doubt but the rangers have also scored 20 run in three games. The twins needed to score more runs if they wanted to beat the yankees, not wildly over pay for a rental pitcher.
As for the person that wants to conduct a straw poll, whatever that is, of course everyone would want to sign cliff lee. But people are talking about lee getting sabathia. 6-8 years are 25 per is a foolish amount of money to give a 34 year old. Of course the twins would like to sign lee but they wont, and shouldnt at that price range. I think next we should do a straw poll about whether twins fans want the twins to sign pujols. I say yes but then again hes not an ace so he cant help the twins in the playoffs.
I don't think Lee would have made much of a difference in the series or the twins season but if we won that first game(witch with how good Lee has been in the post seanson thus far could have been accomplished) things might have been a lot different moraly.
And on the topic of trading for Capps, I don't think it was that bad of a deal because having such a good backup catcher would be kinda pointless. But as for getting Capps, I would have been fine with Rauch, because when he was pitching badly we were hardly using him at the time. And when we got Capps there weren't many positions we realy needed that and other ONE individual could have filled.
What could we possibly get in a trade for Capps? Should we wait until we know Nathan is back to being Nathan before we move him?
I doubt many teams would give hardly anything back considering the contract.
The big "Trade-for-a-marquee-player-to-carry-us-through-the-playoffs" approach sure makes sports lame for a fan like me.
If you wanted to see Lee win playoff games, stop complaining- you got your wish! Who cares which uniform he's wearing. He's pitched for 4 teams in 2 seasons. He's an arm for hire, not a Ranger, not a Twin. He'll be a Yankee next year and Twins' fans will rightly hate him.
The long and short of it is this: Players need to bring success to them, not chase it from club to club. Guys like Lee have extreme talent, but an unsatisfying approach to competition. Free agency and trades have their place, but this type of move devalues the whole idea of team sport.
For the record, I didn't like the Capps trade because I liked Rauch where he was. I hoped I was wrong, but in all the times I watched Capps pitch, I might've seen one clean inning. He doesn't look too special to me.
Fuentes looks special.
Okay anon, we'll stop pursuing free agents altogether. It's not like we're really trying to win a world series anyway, so let's officially give up and focus on developing long-term relationships with mediocre players. This team needs more matt tolberts and less Jim thomes.
Post a Comment