The Twins have often been criticized in recent years for the paltry returns they've gotten back when trading away players. We've seen Wilson Ramos, J.J. Hardy, Delmon Young and others flipped for questionable returns, only to quickly boost their value elsewhere. Jose Mijares was non-tendered earlier this offseason because the Twins didn't want to pay him $750,000 through arbitration, and he went on to immediately sign with the Royals for $950,000.
In my mind, the Twins front office has shown a persistent weakness in assessing the value of its own talent.
Kevin Slowey appears to be the latest example. Coming off the worst season of his pro career, Slowey was dealt to the Rockies back in December for relief prospect Daniel Turpen. Six weeks later, Colorado turned around and sent Slowey back to the AL Central, trading him to the Indians on Friday for another relief prospect, Zach Putnam.
Given that the Rockies have loaded up on back-end starters since acquiring Slowey and the Indians are now facing uncertainty in their rotation after "Fausto Carmona" was arrested in the Dominican Republic last week on charges of using a false identity, the move makes sense.
What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is that the Rockies were able to get a significantly superior prospect in return for Slowey, despite the fact that he hasn't done anything to raise his value since Colorado acquired him.
Let's compare Turpen and Putnam. The former is a 25-year-old who spent the 2011 season pitching in Double-A, where he tallied more walks (35) than strikeouts (33) over 59 2/3 innings while posting a 4.83 ERA and 1.64 WHIP. The latter is a year younger, but spent last season in Triple-A, where he posted a strong 68-to-23 strikeout-to-walk ratio in 69 innings to go along with a 3.65 ERA and 1.22 WHIP. Baseball America recently ranked Putnam as the 10th-best prospect in Cleveland's (albeit weak) farm system.
In short, Putnam is a solid prospect who would stand a good chance of factoring into the Twins' bullpen this year and beyond. Turpen is a stagnating minor-leaguer coming off a terrible year, and he didn't receive an invite to big-league camp. He's shuffled between four organizations in the past two years and seems like a long shot to make an eventual impact in the majors.
You can make the case that Slowey was a headache, and that his best days as a pitcher are behind him, and that the Twins won't regret letting him go. But this isn't about Slowey. This is about properly valuing assets and taking advantage of opportunities to infuse the organization with talent -- an opportunity that the front office, at best, failed to take full advantage of here.
Maybe Slowey had to go, but what was the rush to move him in early December? Why not wait until a more motivated buyer than Colorado came along? Perhaps in spring training when injuries pop up and needs arise, potentially leading to a better market?
When the Slowey-for-Turpen swap went down, I was surprised that no club was willing to part with more than a marginal minor-league relief arm for a 27-year-old starting pitcher with a big-league track record, a dominant minor-league résumé and a reasonable price tag. As it turns out, that wasn't the case. The Twins simply acted too hastily and once again cost themselves in the process.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Twins FO has got to be the laughingstock of MLB. They are, however, pretty good at figuring how to squeeze the last nickel out of a seat or a beer - but only because Twins fans are also the laughingstock of MLB.
The Indians sent a superior prospect (a bit of a dubious distinction comparing middle relievers) because Colorado paid for one. The Rockies sent a significant amount of cash along with slowey, so this trade is not as apples-to-apples as you make it seem.
You failed to mention that Cleveland was all of a sudden in a desperate spot and needed some insurance fast, without giving up much... The Rockies had more leverage than the Twins did... And I wouldn't call Putnam some great prospect either...
When Nick is referring to Putnam as "superior" I have to think it's only in comparison to Turpen and nothing else. He's just saying that they could have maybe recieved more in return than they got, a fair assessment in my mind.
It is frustrating that the Rockies could flip him so fast and end up improving overall when it was all said and done.
Hopefully, we can shell Slowey really good when we play those guys!
It's all about the money.
Slowey was yet another salary dump. (And don't lose sight of the fact that Colorado is paying nearly 1/2 of Slowey's salary).
I'd like to hope that it is about the value the Twins feel they are getting for their dollars. Unfortunately my gut feeling is that it is more about the overall dollars.
Given that the Rockies have loaded up on back-end starters since acquiring Slowey and the Indians are now facing uncertainty in their rotation after "Fausto Carmona" was arrested in the Dominican Republic last week on charges of using a false identity, the move makes sense.
What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is that the Rockies were able to get a significantly superior prospect in return for Slowey, despite the fact that he hasn't done anything to raise his value since Colorado acquired him.
The first paragraph kind of explains what you can't wrap your head around in the second paragraph - plus the money Colorado sent in the trade.
You also cherry-picked examples pretty bad. You're going to remember trades when the player you trade prospers somewhere else a lot more than when the player you trade fizzles. There are plenty of examples of players the Twins picked up recently who have done well for the Twins and the player they traded didn't do much for the other organization. Pavano and about 4 relief pitchers in the last two years come to mind for recent examples. Going back further there are some really nice Terry Ryan trades. The biggest one fans complain about these days is the Santana trade, but that's not looking to great for the Mets right now either.
I'd bet the Twins got the best player available to them for Slowey. It was in their best interest to move him quickly to clear his roster spot to take care of other business.
You also cherry-picked examples pretty bad.
You pointed to one specific counterexample, Pavano, and the Twins acquired him three years ago for a nondescript minor-leaguer. Doesn't really qualify in this conversation. I'm not saying the Twins never make good trades, I'm saying they've shown a tendency to sell low on players who have had legit value at one point.
The Rockies sent a significant amount of cash along with slowey, so this trade is not as apples-to-apples as you make it seem.
Money should not have been an issue in this situation, from the Twins' perspective. Slowey is due less than $3 million this season.
You failed to mention that Cleveland was all of a sudden in a desperate spot and needed some insurance fast, without giving up much...
I did not fail to mention this. In fact, it was part of my point. Had the Twins waited on Slowey, the odds would have increased that needs would arise for other clubs, increasing his market.
If both trades were primarily salary dumps, the Twins dumped twice as much salary. That's a pretty significant difference.
And its not really clear either prospect is going to be a huge contributor at the big league level. If both teams end up getting no value from the players, the Twins came out way ahead.
"Money should not have been an issue in this situation, from the Twins' perspective. Slowey is due less than $3 million this season."
You don't really believe that do you? Because I have no doubt that Slowey's salary was a consideration for all three teams, not just Colorado and the Indians.
Since the Indians only have to pay Slowey about $1.5 million makes this an apple to oranges comparison. Slowey was addition by subtraction so the fact that we got a warm body for him is enough. My only regret was missing how that spineless cancer was going to react when his 400 ft fly balls were traveling 10% further in Coors Field.
Because I have no doubt that Slowey's salary was a consideration for all three teams, not just Colorado and the Indians.
I have no doubt of that either, the question is whether it should have been in the Twins' case. Paying half of Slowey's salary would equate to about $1.3 million. If that's the cost of acquiring a legitimate prospect when trading him, there's no reason the Twins shouldn't have been willing to spend it.
And its not really clear either prospect is going to be a huge contributor at the big league level.
Yeah, that's how prospects work. It is also clear that Putnam has a significantly better chance than Turpen.
My only regret was missing how that spineless cancer was going to react when his 400 ft fly balls were traveling 10% further in Coors Field.
Souhan?
You pointed to one specific counterexample
I said Pavano and relief pitchers. I was referring to Rauch and Fuentes, but it seems like there were others. I guess we could say Orlando Cabrera too.
And like I said, the Twins weren't going to hold a roster space for him in case a better marginal relief prospect might become available. It's been clear that they've been trying to trade him for a LONG time. How much longer should they have held out for better return?
"I'm saying they've shown a tendency to sell low on players who have had legit value at one point."
I think that is true of every team. For instance, the Brewers did not exactly sell high on Hardy. The Twins traded Pierzynksi high, but the situation where you have a surplus like that is rare. You don't usually trade away players at their peak. When you do, you can get burned as the Twins did with Garza and Bartlett.
That said, the argument about Ramos has nothing to do with selling low. The Twins thought they needed a closer to win the division and they paid a price for that. They may have overvalued a closer, but they weren't undervaluing Ramos.
And Delmon Young would have gone the way of Jose Mijares if the Twins held onto him. The Tigers decided he was worth close to $7 million, largely based on his hot post-season. I think that is their mistake and the Twins weren't going to pay him that. If Oliveros turns into a late inning setup guy, they came out way ahead on that deal.
"It is also clear that Putnam has a significantly better chance than Turpen."
It is not at all clear he has $1.3 million better chance. Would the Twins sign Putnam to a guaranteed contract at $1.3 million? I doubt it. And Putnam required a roster spot, so the Twins would have, at minimum, had to expose another player to waivers.
So now the question is Putnam worth more than Terpen + $1.3 million + another prospect. My guess is that isn't even a close call.
One very important variable changed. The Twins' relationship with Slowey was publicly sour and their bargaining position was weak as a result. The Rockies were bargaining from a position of strength. That accounts for the difference in value. Also, the Indians are more likely to trade outside of the division. This is insignificant and the Twins' front office couldn't have done any better than this.
The point here is not that the Twins could have traded Slowey for Zach Putnam. The point is that there were teams out there that were willing to give up something of actual value for Slowey in the correct situation, and the Twins missed an opportunity to let those kinds of situations play out by hastily settling for a non-prospect from Colorado.
As for the team's sour relationship with Slowey being public knowledge -- whose fault is that?
The Twins couldn't get anything for Slowey because everyone knew Slowey was done as a Twin. As soon as he left the organization his value immediately went up a little simply because he wasn't on a team that was known to not want him. The Twins couldn't predict Cleveland would be in a spot because one of their starters had a fake name either.
And dude, citing Mijares? The way he's pitched the last couple seasons he should be flipping burgers somewhere, not baseballs. That some other team is stupid enough to throw money at him is their bad, not the Twins'.
The point is that there were teams out there that were willing to give up something of actual value for Slowey
It's one thing to say the Twins didn't get enough for Slowey. It is entirely different to say there were teams that were willing to give up value for Slowey. What evidence is there that they could get anything better than what they got? Are you suggesting that the Twins went against their best interests and opted for a lessor player than teams were willing to give up? What would be the motivation for that?
It seems pretty likely that the Twins traded Slowey for the best player they could at the time.
It seems pretty likely that the Twins traded Slowey for the best player they could at the time.
Did you fail to read the rest of the sentence you quoted?
The point is that there were teams out there that were willing to give up something of actual value for Slowey in the correct situation, and the Twins missed an opportunity to let those kinds of situations play out by hastily settling for a non-prospect from Colorado.
Like I said, the Twins have probably been trying to trade Slowey for an entire year. They had a lot of positions to address this offseason, so why tie up a roster spot indefinitely hoping that something will change. And I should point out that even if they did, they probably wouldn't have had the same deal with Cleveland that Colorado did.
Well hey, when you have a chance to jump on a player like Jason Marquis, you can't pass that up.
Right.
Halle-Fucking-lujah! This column x a million, Nick.
The Twins brain trust has been constantly pissing away value for the past 4 years because of a stubborn adherence to non-evidence based decision making. Nick's detractors need to understand that he's not taking exception with the front office's player evaluation; i.e. whether a given player should be on the team or not), but rather he's arguing that when the Twins give up on a player the front office undervalues what other teams will pay for them, thus netting peanuts in return.
That is a 100% objectively true statement in the case of Slowey, where the Twins got a worse return than the Rockies despite no change whatsoever in Slowey's value over the winter.
"The point here is not that the Twins could have traded Slowey for Zach Putnam. The point is that there were teams out there that were willing to give up something of actual value for Slowey"
The point is your only evidence for this is a trade the Twins wouldn't and shouldn't have made. Your analysis seems to be based on the mistaken notion that $1.3 million is or should be inconsequential. But that is essentially what it costs to sign a first round draft choice.
That is a 100% objectively true statement in the case of Slowey
I think you must not know what most of those words mean.
I dunno, this one still seems like a tempest in a tea cup to me.
The Twins handled the Slowey situation poorly (mostly by publicly denigrating and devaluing an asset), but it's still a pretty marginal move as far as I can tell.
Overall, the franchise has a pretty good track record of players they've let go not coming back and biting them in the ass, especially under Terry Ryan. yes, there's David Ortiz (but keep in mind EVERYONE passed on him at the time too), but otherwise? Torii Hunter? Yes, he's played well for the Angels, but is now a no longer elite player being paid elite money...which is what most of us thought would happen when the Twins declined to give him the contract he wanted. Not really a bad call there.
Wilson Ramos was a huge mistake by Bill Smith (or Ron Gardenhire? hmmm...who might have been the guy pushing for the veteran closer. Just sayin'), as was JJ Hardy (again, a move I lay at Gardy's feet) but I wonder how much of a market there really was for Delmon. I think a lot of teams saw him for what he was: a poor OF with a limited offensive game in line to be paid way more than he's worth through a broken arbitration system.
Mijares is a completely replaceable bullpen cog. Slowey is a completely replaceable 5th starter beginning to make more money than he's worth.
The Indians gave up a better prospect because Colorado took on some salary and they were in real need of more arms with the Carmona situation bubbling over. Can't count on something like that happening before training camp starts, and I understand the twins desire to move on with the Slowey situation before training camp and not have an unhappy player hanging around (whose value was unlikely to increase).
The Hardy situation is the only truly big failure on the Twins part of not recognizing value, and I still believe that was a decision driven by the manager (who consistently gets a pass from a credulous media more interested in currying favor than asking questions), not the organization as a whole.
"as was JJ Hardy "
They actually got something for Hardy when they had already decided to let him walk rather than pay him in arbitration. Just because he managed to stay in the lineup last year doesn't make letting him go a mistake. The real mistake was signing Nishioka to replace him.
As for Ramos for Capps, I am going to repeat what I have said before. The Twins were in a pennant race and needed a closer. Those don't come cheap.
They actually got something for Hardy when they had already decided to let him walk rather than pay him in arbitration.
TT's line of reasoning: "The Twins were super-duper smart! They got $5 in return for their $100 dollar bill, which is WAY better than getting nothing at all!"
Which is a convenient way to direct attention away from the option of just, uh, keeping the $100 bill in the first place.
They didn't HAVE to release Hardy, nor did they HAVE to trade him. They did, and got hosed in the process.
Just like with Slowey.
Good column Nick.
That's a lot of frusteration over a failed 5th starter and a couple of average prospects.
Nick,
I think TT and others have demonstrated a lot of the problems of your analysis but I'd like to add one more. I don't think it's a good idea to compare stats from a pitcher in different leagues. The Texas league is a much better hitters league, for instance. Turpin had similiar numbers in the EL if I recall and the knock on Turpin is that he hasn't been able to convert his 'stuff' into success. I'm not saying he's the better prospect, neither are great, but a simple comparison isn't very fair either.
"They didn't HAVE to release Hardy, nor did they HAVE to trade him. They did, and got hosed in the process."
The Twins decided Hardy wasn't going to stay healthy. They were getting rid of him.
But this is another of those silly discussions where the money involved is just ignored. They traded Hardy for a couple prospects and several million dollars in saved salary.
That wasn't a bad deal for a broken down shortstop. It was a bad deal for a guy who stayed healthy and hit 25+ home runs.
I'm not saying he's the better prospect, neither are great, but a simple comparison isn't very fair either.
Turpen was a year older and pitching at a lower level of competition. I don't think there's any case to be made that hitters in Triple-A are not better than hitters in Double-A. You can talk about stuff all you want, but Putnam has consistently posted good numbers and advanced rapidly. He's much more of a prospect than Turpen.
Nice post, Nick.
Thank you.
And I completely agree with USAFChief.
Dumping Hardy as quickly as they possibly could and getting almost nothing for one of the best fielding shortstops in the AL was a terrible move. Still not over that one.
"That wasn't a bad deal for a broken down shortstop. It was a bad deal for a guy who stayed healthy and hit 25+ home runs.'
So you're saying the Twins completely misevaluated the situation with Hardy's health then, right? ...remembering Hardy talking up Baltimore's training staff as a key to his staying in the lineup this year...
It would be interesting to read the comments in this blog at the time that J.J. Hardy was traded. My guess is the comments would have looked quite a bit different. It's always easy to blast the Twins two/years later for trades that didn't work out and ignore the ones that did and forget the circumstances at the time the trade was made.
The return on investment for players cannot be ignored. The amount of salary saved/spent is always a consideration for virtually any professional sports team, not just the Twins. For any business model really. It's amazing how often that aspect is ignored when it isn't your money to spend.
It would be interesting to read the comments in this blog at the time that J.J. Hardy was traded. My guess is the comments would have looked quite a bit different.
Check the Dec '10 archives, and you won't have to guess.
why mortgage your future Ramos for a closer. Do you really think you had a chance to win the title. Is it really worth getting out of the first round? Being a GM isnt rocket science and I surely wouldnt have all my money tied up in a loser like mauer and Mr. I got a headache morneau.
Nick -
I agree with you that Putnam is a better prospect, which is why Colorado was willing to kick in $1.3 millino to get him. And while this is true:
"I don't think there's any case to be made that hitters in Triple-A are not better than hitters in Double-A"
It is not necessarily true that hitters in the Texas League will get worse results than hitters in the International League against the same pitchers. The Texas League is a notorious hitters league.
"So you're saying the Twins completely misevaluated the situation with Hardy's health then, right?"
Sure and so, apparently, did Milwaukie. Its not like the Twins had a bunch of other teams knocking down the door with offers for Hardy. Its not even clear the Orioles had any different evaluation. It may be the Orioles just were willing to roll the dice and won.
'" My guess is the comments would have looked quite a bit different."
Check the Dec '10 archives, and you won't have to guess.'
Yep, it would confirm that they were "quite a bit different". The complaint was that they were dumping salary and losing Hardy's "potential gold glove" defense. No predictions about his health or that he was going to hit 25+ home runs again.
There are also firm statements of confidence in Bill Smith ...
"Sure and so, apparently, did Milwaukie."
I don't think it's accurate to say that Milwaukee dumped Hardy for health reasons, given that he hadn't had any real health issues since 2006. He was demoted for performance reasons in his last year in Milwaukee, which is why he didn't have a full season with the Brewers. Most people on these boards say that he didn't have a full season due to injury, so they traded an "injury prone" player, which just is a case of not knowing the back situation.
And Milwaukee had a player that they thought was going to be better than Hardy to take the SS position in Escobar. And they didn't have someone with Gomez's defensive outfield skills, which they wanted. That was the biggest reason for the trade from the Brewers' standpoint- they were trading from an area of perceived strength for an area of perceived weakness.
Hardy was still pretty good when he played for the Twins. Very good defense as a shortstop with better than average hitting numbers pretty much across the board when compared to other shortstops. That was an awful trade for the Twins and should have looked like an awful trade for every Twins fan when it happened.
As far as Slowey, I'm not sold that Colorado got a much better return. Yeah, the relief pitcher they now have is better than the one they gave up, but if they're paying about $1.3 million worth of his salary, that makes it different in my mind.
I fully agree with Nick that it's the Twins' FO's fault for making it so clear to everyone else that they didn't like Slowey, but at the point of the trade, it was what it was. The Twins may have made their hand really bad, but it didn't mean that their hand wasn't really bad. When everyone knows that MN couldn't wait to unload Slowey, the trade market was likely going to suffer because of it.
"When everyone knows that MN couldn't wait to unload Slowey, the trade market was likely going to suffer because of it."
Why? I hear this claim repeatedly, but it really makes no sense. The team getting a player is interested in how much that player can help them, not what his value is to the Twins.
The Twins are just one of 30 teams whose valuations they have to be concerned about. If another team valued Slowey more than the Rockies they would have stepped up to give the Twins more than Turpen.
In the grand scheme of things these trades being debated are pointless meaningless players who wont help us beat the big four (new york, anaheim,texas, boston). we need to balance our talent by somehow trading mauer and morneau to build our farm system and balance our team. Yes its a marketing hit, but when your two high priced players never play and are soft, it makes sense. Also out with gardy his views are getting stagnant, get moliter and brunasky to run the field.
"Sure and so, apparently, did Milwaukie. Its not like the Twins had a bunch of other teams knocking down the door with offers for Hardy."
You admit, and are saying, the Twins made a poor evaluation of Hardy's health and relative value, as did most other MLB teams. You said the dumping of Hardy to the Orioles was a "good move" with the "bad move" being the acquisition of Nishioka- as if one move isn't totally related to the other? The Twins are out more money than they would have been by just settling with Hardy in arbitration, even on a two-year deal. This was a disastrous move, even if Hardy had only put up his numbers as a Twin, and an indictment of the FO, the Manager, and the Training Staff.
so someone needs to explain to me how the tigers can afford prince fielder, other than the fact that their owner wants to win and maybe just maybe is spending a couple extra percentage points of revenue this year. you talk about bad markets - detroilet, for gods sake. no brand new stadium. yet our owners cut payroll.
nick, you want more examples for owners that demonstrate an interest in winning?
detroit tigers.
god its frustrating. no chance of competing even in our stupid division, and for 2 reasons. our owner cuts payroll, there owner wants to win.
tigers insurance for v-mart? prince fielder.
twins insurance for mauer? drew butera.
says it all.
Oh simmer down. Signing Fielder doesn't guarantee Detroit anything other than that they'll be writing him some big checks for a while. In case you haven't noticed, spending money does not always translate to winning. Boston showed their "interest in winning" by throwing money around last winter. It didn't mean a damn thing when their players failed to show an interest a winning on the field in late summer. You can certainly argue with HOW the Twins spend some of their money. But their payroll is about the same as the last 2 World Series winners. This isn't 8 or 9 years ago where we were competing with a bottom-5 payroll, people.
"as if one move isn't totally related to the other?"
All moves are related to one another when you operate on a budget. But Nishioka did not cost as much as Hardy cost the Orioles. They paid Hardy $22 million in addition to last year's arbitration award. Otherwise he was a free agent after last year.
As I said, that Hardy stayed healthy for one year does not make the Twins wrong about his durability. But lets be clear, Hardy was only healthy last year by Twins standards. He still missed almost a quarter of the season. There were six Oriole players who played more games.
Twins FO is behind the times and is getting outclassed in recent years, no matter if it is Terry Ryan or Bill Smith they seem to be on the wrong end of every deal. The free agents they bring in are always on the cheap and when they finally make a splash on a free agent it's on a guy like Nishioka who signed for only 3 million a year but with that posting fee he cost them closer to 5 mil. Why not spend somewhat comparable money on a 2 year 10 million a year player who might be able to make a difference? For all the years of the Twins being referred to as a well run organization why does it always seem like the team is a bat or two short in the lineup or an arm or two short on the pitching staff? I'll tell you why, they don't spend money and when they finally do they are so out of practice that they don't know how to spend their money.
Doesn't really matter...Tigers signed Prince....Cabrera, Fielder, Delmon, Peralta, Avila, Verlander, Valverde, Jackson, Boesch...Tigers are going to be the dominant team in the AL Central for the next half dozen years. Mauer and Morneau not only have to be healthy all year but they have to be at their MVP form to hope to even come close to the Tigers in the standings. Might as well start rebuilding now, it's what the FO really wants to do anyway...Ryan has to be itching to get out from under some of the bigger contracts on the roster. I'm surprised they bothered to sign Willingham and Marquis.
Umm, with all due respect, I think it's actually you that's behind the times. The Twins entered the 2010 and 2011 season with the 11th and 9th highest payrolls respectively. Again, in both, they had total payrolls right around those of the teams that WON THE WORLD SERIES in those seasons. You can't argue that it's impossible to win with what the Twins are spending when other teams have done it. Doesn't work. Cheers.
"All moves are related to one another when you operate on a budget. But Nishioka did not cost as much as Hardy cost the Orioles. They paid Hardy $22 million in addition to last year's arbitration award. Otherwise he was a free agent after last year.
As I said, that Hardy stayed healthy for one year does not make the Twins wrong about his durability. But lets be clear, Hardy was only healthy last year by Twins standards. He still missed almost a quarter of the season. There were six Oriole players who played more games."
Hardy actually played in 129 games, which means he missed 1/5th of the season, not 1/4th, and is a tribute to the Oriole's trainers, while a slap at the Twins'.
You're really grasping with your salary numbers. The Twins undoubtedly could have locked Hardy up for up to three years at a number similar to what he made in 2011, $5.85 Million, which is not far off what the Twins paid for Nishioka for three years, with the signing fee. Sorry the FO, the Manager and the Training Staff were no better than a blind squirrel in evaluating the talent difference and relative value between Hardy and Nishi.
As I said, that Hardy stayed healthy for one year does not make the Twins wrong about his durability.
Um, yes it does. There were those of us who pointed out that the "injury-prone" label attached to Hardy was a fallacy and that his replacements were just as likely to miss significant time.
To wit: "Sure, he might suffer another mishap and miss 40+ games for a third straight year at the age of 28. But when he was able to get on the field last year, Hardy was undoubtedly one of the best in the league at his position, in spite of playing through debilitating wrist pain at times. Bill Smith would be taking a pretty big risk by dumping that potential production for fear of another injury, especially if the plan is to entrust Casilla -- a perennial underachiever who has never played 100 games in an MLB season -- and Nishioka -- a relative unknown whose Wikipedia page points out that he has "established a reputation as somewhat of an injury-prone player" -- without any compelling insurance plan in place."
I can argue that those increased payrolls of 2010 and 2011 were not spent wisely.
The Twins did NOT want Slowey. You have to take into effect he wanted to leave and the Twins wanted to get rid of him. They got a bad prospect back for a guy they were going to Non-Tender. They got rid of all his salary. Colorado traded Slowey to the Indians for a marginal prospect. A relief guy that might pan out. Everybody says 10th best prospect. Baseball Prospectus rates him the 20th best prospect in a weak Colorado system. Baseball Prospectus is a really solid source. Colorado also paid more than half the salary so they get a little better return. The Twins didn't want to pay any of Sloweys salary. Everybody knew they were non-tendering him due to the clubhouse and performance issues. Everybody knew Colorado was going to keep him because they TRADED for him. There is a little more leverage there.
This is a non issue.
Post a Comment