Trade Nathan?
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
68 comments
I've been convinced that the Front Office is positioning themselves to be able to trade Joe Nathan during the offseason. He is owed $35 Million over the next three years and is a terrible allocation of resources. I was shocked when the Twins signed him to the extension to begin with, but I really do believe the may be thinking of trading him.
They acquired two arms in the last week, one of which is signed through next year. I do believe that they are going to work to bring back as many bullpen arms as they can, sign a big name free agent, get Mauer signed to his extension, and then trade Nathan. And more importantly I think this is the sound business decision. Closers are terribly overrated, and terribly overpaid.
0 recs |
68 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I would really
like to know what crack you are on…the Twins will never trade Nathan. You could say the same thing about the Yankees getting bullpen help, but they never traded Mariano Rivera. It is not going to happen!
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett
by 33MorneauMVP on Sep 1, 2009 10:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wow.
You’re kidding, right? That’s really insane. Do you have any proof of this, or is this just some paranoid hunch of yours?
And I thought Mauer – Not Mr. Clutch was nuts.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Sep 1, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, there have been some weird posts lately
First someone bashed Mauer, then someone else suggested Kubel be traded because he is young, cheap, and talented, and now we should trade Nathan. The sad thing is I think these posters are serious, not just trying to get us going.
by Sheldon on Sep 1, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you Sheldon
Why would you want to trade someone who is young, cheap, and talented?
by MinnesotaCatFan on Sep 1, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unlikely, but I see your point
I would buy the “they’re positioning to trade him” argument a little more if not for three things:
1) Bill Smith was the one who signed Nathan to that contract. If it had been Terry Ryan, I could see moving Nathan as clearing out some of the cruft from the old regime, but Smith was fully on board with the move in the first place, and it’s not like Nathan’s done anything to make him change his mind.
2) While it’s true that Rauch is signed through next year and has closed before, trading Nathan kind of defeats the purpose of adding bullpen depth – they’d basically be plugging Rauch into Nathan’s spot, so there wouldn’t be any net gain in serviceable relievers (Mahay is nothing more than a situational lefty, which are generally pretty easily replaceable).
3) The Twins are pretty obviously in “win now” mode for at least the next year or two, so any trade would have to garner contributing major league players. Teams that are rebuilding don’t need closers, and teams looking for immediate help would probably prefer to part with prospects unless they are absolutely desperate for a closer.
That said…
Closers are terribly overrated, and terribly overpaid.
This is entirely true, and if they could get a high-end shortstop and/or second baseman for him, I’d pull the trigger on a Nathan deal in a heartbeat. Like I mentioned in #1, though, Smith was the guy who signed Nathan to the giant extension in the first place, so I’m guessing he doesn’t think Nathan is overvalued.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on Sep 1, 2009 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Overpaid? Yes. Overrated? No.
Generally, teams with the best closers are the teams in contention year after year. I agree that paying $12 million dollars/yr to a guy who pitches 2-4 innings a week seems insane, but it is market value and having a closer with excellent stuff and mental toughness is very nice to have.
by Sheldon on Sep 1, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correlation vs. Causation
Generally, teams with the best closers are the teams in contention year after year.
There’s a bit of cause and effect involved there – closers have a hard time getting recognized as “the best” if they don’t pile up a lot of saves, and it’s hard to get saves on a bad team.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on Sep 1, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly agreed with you, but teams can be great without a good closer
Look at the Phillies this year – one of the best teams despite Brad Lidge imploding. Or the Rays, this year and last year, doing well despite not having a closer or having Troy Percival give everyone a heart attack every time he gets on the mound.
Or, on the other side, look at how awful the Royals have been despite Soria generally being dominant the last few years. And George Sherill has been good all year, but that didn’t help the Orioles.
A great closer is a nice thing to have, but a great closer does not make a team great.
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Sep 1, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody would overpay enough to make it worthwhile
Nathan’s being paid market value. Not too many teams are willing to trade a whole lot for someone making market value.
by DJL44 on Sep 1, 2009 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Two views of the closer market
- What are closers worth in terms of wins and losses
- What are closers worth on the market
In terms of wins and losses, closers are not worth what the market demands. So you have a choice, overpay for closers or have a closer who’s substandard. Of the two, I would rather overpay for a closer. There is nothing more infuriating than blowing a lead late, for the fans and the team.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Sep 1, 2009 12:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
for every Nathan, Papelbon, and Rivera
there’s a Franklin, Aardsma, Street, Bell, B. Wilson, etc.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those guys weren't all good
I seem to recall Street sucking hard after he made his payout.
And for every one of those guys, there’s a BJ Ryan, Eddie Guardado, LaTroy Hawkins, or Mitch Williams. Not everyone can do it. I personally would spend more for a guy who gives me the peace of mind can than he might be worth in another role. It’s by no means a consensus that closers are overrated. 25 GMs can’t all be wrong.
Oh, by the way, Nathan was once in the role of Franklin. He pitched well enough for long enough to earn a big contract. If Franklin does the same, he’ll earn a big contract. There’s certainly no guarantee that Seattle will be able to replace him with someone cheaper.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Sep 1, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
duely noted
just threw it out there. BTW I found this, http://www.minorleagueball.com/2006/2/20/12610/7017, fun to look back. You appear to be on the right side of the fence.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
except for
not believing he’d hit more than 25 HRs in a season without changing his approach. That one was proven false last night.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
25 GMs can’t all be wrong.
For a long time, 25 GMs thought that batting average was the most useful stat and speed was the most important attribute for a leadoff hitter.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on Sep 1, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget Wins for a pitcher
Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if 25 GMs still think wins are the most useful stat for a pitcher.
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Sep 1, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
and I think it’d be tough to find 25 GMs that would pay 10 M + for a closer.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there were 25 closers worth that, they would
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Sep 1, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have to disagree
You look at some of the more intelligent front offices and they seem content with mid pay guys getting their save opps. Tampa Bay, St, Louis, Boston, Florida, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Oakland. With Boston, there is talk that they won’t pony up for Papelbon and make Bard their closer.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's your point?
The Twins should just find someone nearly as good as Nathan to be the closer for a fraction of the price? Not gonna happen. The Twins don’t have anyone waiting in the wings, and no team is going to trade a Daniel Bard for a Joe Nathan.
Plus, you have to consider that relievers (and pitchers, for that matter) are pretty volatile (great one year, crap the next) and Nathan is a known entity. Consistency has value.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we do have options
Does Neshek come back healthy, Slama, Delaney, Guerrier, Rauch, Mijares, even Boof. Would they be lock down closers? Maybe. Both Nathan and Mariano were failures before they became the closers they are today.
My point is that Closers are overvalued and overpaid. Why do you need a closer? Why not instead have a bullpen of good relievers? I think within a constraint of a budget there are better ways to improve a team with the $35 Million owed to Nathan.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would agree that you don't need to have a "closer"
That is, you don’t need a lockdown guy who always pitches the 9th inning with a lead . But it is very valuable to have some sort of “relief ace” – a shutdown reliever to put into high leverage situations. I understand your points about closers being overpaid. Francisco Rodriguez is overpaid. Billy Wagner is overpaid. Joe Nathan is not. Truly elite relievers are rarely overpaid. Having great pitchers in high-leverage situations creates a lot more wins than having merely good pitchers in high-leverage situations.
And I’ll say this again. Slama, Delaney, Guerrier, Rauch, Mijares, Gutierrez, Boof, etc. are not even close to being close to as good as Nathan. Maybe in a few years, a replacement candidate will emerge. But you’re mistaken to believe that relief aces just appear out of thin air.
And on a per-inning basis, Joe Nathan is the best pitcher in the world right now.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
Billy Wagner was once better than Joe Nathan. And we’ve seen that relief aces do actually come out of nowhere. As evidenced by Joe Nathan.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Billy Wagner proves nothing
Just because Billy Wagner fell off a cliff does not mean Joe Nathan will. The two are entirely incomparable. It’s a bit like saying “Hey, Richie Sexson used to be better than Justin Morneau, but then all of a sudden he sucked. Trade Morneau!”
And you’re wrong about Nathan “coming out of nowhere.” He was a failed starter turned reliever with the Giants. In his first year as a reliever, he was very effective with a very good strikeout rate. And most importantly, he had great “stuff.” The Twins right now have no one comparable to a 2003 Joe Nathan. And they’d be extremely lucky to trade for one.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bringing up Guardado
proves my point essentially. He was a good ‘closer’ for the Twins in 2002-03. And then he became overvalued and the Twins moved on. Was he as good as Nathan, obviously not.
LaTroy wasn’t a particularly good reliever to begin with, so it makes sense that he didn’t make a good ‘closer’.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What they said
Also, Target Field… marketing… fan base… Mauer… no.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
by AdamOnFirst on Sep 1, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ah yes
but that’s why I put resign Joe Mauer first on the to-do list. Probably a bad choice since you don’t want to infuriate your star.
Am I paranoid, yeah. But like I said, I think it’d actually be the smart business move. I’d rather spend the 35 Million on a Rich Harden or Ben Sheets than Nathan. PA hit? I don’t think it would that large if they were to buy a couple of players in the offseason. I’m not saying they do it so they can remain under an $80 Million payroll. I’m saying they do it so they can remain under a $100 M payroll.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I think it makes sense.
I dont think it will happen, and I don’t necessarily think it should happen. Nathan is a pretty solid team player and team leader even if he is overpaid by our small market teams’ standards.
One thing is certain though, if they were to trade Nathan, and clear up salary space, they had better bring in some good players – preferably an “ace” type starter like Halladay, not an “ace” type starter who spends a couple of months/season on the DL.
And no one is untouchable. “Never” is a silly word to use. Everyone can be had ( and should be considered) for the right price. Well, everyone not named Joe Mauer or Albert Pujols anyway. And even those two are not untouchable should we slide the way of KC or Cleveland…
by montanatwinsfan on Sep 1, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd deal Nathan to the Mets
If they give us Santana back…
by DJL44 on Sep 1, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a terrible contract to take on (4 years, $92.5 million)
for an aging, declining, injury-prone pitcher. I’m glad Santana and his contract aren’t on the team.
Oh, and Nathan’s contract is also a good deal. Were he to pitch in just normal situations, he’d be worth about 2 wins per year, but since he pitches in high-leverage situations, he is worth close to 4 wins per year. In free agency, 4 win players are worth $15+ million per year. And he’s showed no signs of decline despite his age.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nathan's no spring chicken
They’re both the same age
by DJL44 on Sep 1, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The arguement
is that these closers aren’t any more valuable just because of how they are used. You pay for a 2 win pitcher and place him in the high leverage situations.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how else are you going to be able to get a 2 win relief pitcher to put in high-leverage situations
You develop from within or you pay $10-$15 million per year in free agency for him. Or you can stick an inferior pitcher (like a Matt Guerrier) in those high leverage situations and lose something like 2 more games per year.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this brings up
another fact that led me to believe this was possible. The Twins the last two years have seemed to have drafted a lot of college pitchers that project as relievers.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But no one in the minors projects that well.
Who would replace Nathan. Slama, Delaney, Mijares, Gutierrez? No, no, no, and no. They’re not that good.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoa
$35 million for Nathan for three years? How many heart attacks can I stand?
by wcooley on Sep 1, 2009 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I should clarify
it is 11.25 the next two seasons and a 12.5 Million option with 2 M buyout, with the option increasing .5 Million for 55 Games Finished in each 2010, 2011, and 110 between the two seasons. Pretty good chance that the option ends up being 14 Million in 2012. So if you want to look at it as 24.5 Million for the next two seasons with an option for a third at 10.5-12.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 1, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two years in a row
Nathan’s done this to me. Can we trade him for a bag of batting practice balls?
by wcooley on Sep 2, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This debacle
and last years throw into left field make me cry.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nathan is slowing down its obvious in his last few appearances....
I say trade him after next season….
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Sep 1, 2009 5:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You can't be serious
One mediocre week and you think he’s slowing down? I get that he’s 34, but the K’s are up, and the velocity hasn’t gone down at all. There are absolutely no reliable signs of him slowing down. At all. I’ll say this without hyperbole: He’s been the very best reliever in the majors this year. Absolutely worth $12 million per year.
by Mike I on Sep 1, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know Nathan is being paid fair value
and probably should be making more money than he is…
but Just think of the Prospects we could land from him from a team like say the Braves…?
Julio Teheran, Cole Rorborugh……
With Slama and Rob Delaney in AAA, Rauch and Mijares/ Guerrier in the big leagues for us for the next few years…..it could be a better move to deal him after the 2010 season or sometime during the 2011 season than to not move him.
could be
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Sep 1, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trading away star players for prospects is for teams rebuilding
The Twins are not at that point. Also, don’t you think there is something nice about having someone you’re confident will pitch well in big spots late in games? For example, last Sunday against the Rangers when the Rangers loaded the bases with nobody out, I would have been nervous if anyone other than an elite closer was on the mound. With Nathan, I was still confident we would get the win and get it without the Rangers tying the game.
by Sheldon on Sep 2, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It COULD be a good idea to do a lot of things.
It COULD be a good idea to push a grouchy old man down the stairs. That doesn’t mean you do it.
by Jesse on Sep 2, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm tired of seeing the Twins let go/trade away their best players.
I want to see Nathan retire as a member of the Minnesota Twins.
by benhertz on Sep 1, 2009 6:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+ Once Joe Mauer gets extended
look at our petty dollars to play with now folks…..
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Sep 1, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I once advocated for the Twins to move Nathan...
And I’m going to stand by it. Nathan is having the best year of his career, is under contract for a few more years, and is not getting any younger. If ever there were a time to trade Nathan, it’s now.
That said, I would absolutely hold on to Nathan unless we could get two of three things: a) A league-average starter, b) An elite 2B/SS, c) a clear-cut ace a la Halladay/Wainwright… maybe even Johnson.
If we can’t get two of those things, no deal.
(Even if we get the latter two options, there will still be a hole in the closer role. Rauch has closed before, but really now? Slama/Delaney come to mind, but they have a combined zero pitches of major-league experience. Neshek/Guerrier/Mijares could save by committee via selective matchups, and I think that is what I would prefer should Nathan leave us with no closer in return.)
Viking Vigil - The 2nd greatest Vikings community on the internet!
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Twins Fix
http://www.twinsfix.com
by Andersklasen on Sep 2, 2009 1:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You don't give up an all-star closer for a league-average starter
It just doesn’t make sense. All-stars by definition are special, elite players. You can find league-average starters just about anywhere because they are by definition ordinary. If you can get an ace, fine. I’m not saying Joe Nathan is untradeable, just that you are unlikely to get fair value in return so you are much better off keeping the known commodity.
Last point: Adam Wainwright is not an ace, especially in the American League. Nice pitcher but I wouldn’t even consider trading Nathan for him straight up. And who is this Johnson you refer to?
by Sheldon on Sep 2, 2009 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two of three
Andersklasen mentioned getting two of those things in exchange for Nathan, not just one – he’d want an elite middle infielder or starter in addition to an average starter.
Personally, I think that’s overvaluing Nathan quite a bit – I don’t think anyone would trade an elite starter for an elite reliever straight-up, much less throw something else in. An elite middle infielder, maybe if the team was desperate for relief pitching, but again, I don’t know that a throw-in is realistic.
As I think I mentioned elsewhere, though, it’s a hard deal to make – contending teams don’t deal major league contributors, and rebuilding teams don’t need closers.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on Sep 2, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is foolish
if you have the opportunity to trade Nathan for Wainwright or Josh Johnson straight up, you make that trade.
Fact: Wainwright is TWICE as valuable as Nathan this year.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marlins or Cardinals would never ever do that trade
Get real. Your trade proposals are entirely realistic.
by Mike I on Sep 2, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said they would
which is why I called it foolish.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to see you propose an actual trade
A realistic one where we get good value for Nathan.
by Mike I on Sep 2, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nathan
for The Riot and the Jeff Samardzija. Im not sure how realistic that is. But it seems reasonable off the top of my head. Assuming the Cubs were looking for a closer since they’ve struggled this year
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Wainwright TWICE as valuable as Nathan this year
that would be correct
especially after today…… UGH
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Sep 2, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Free Agent Releivers Include
Names like Fernando Rodney, Brandon Lyon, Rafael Soriano, Mike Gonzalez, Billy Wagner, Trevor Hoffman, Jose Valverde, Chad Cordero, and JJ Putz.
The average 2010 Salary for this collection is going to probably be around 5 Million.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hoffman and Soriano
are about the only ones look good off that list
And still I’ll take Nathan over any of them any time
by Hjorvarthr on Sep 2, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Gonzalez
Since the Twins are going to make a splash in Free Agency and sign a Type A or two anyway (right? right?) Sign up Mikey G. He’s got closer stuff. He’s going to be cheap, signing a duplicate of Juan Cruz’s contract. And we wouldn’t lose a 1st rounder!
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 3, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to trade Nathan you need to develop his replacement
The one guy I would groom to be his heir is Liriano. I think he’s LaTroy Hawkins all over again but Liriano just might be an elite closer if you develop him. They have to develop him FIRST before they trade off Nathan though.
by DJL44 on Sep 3, 2009 10:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
as if on cue
Almost as if I were the writer…..
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 3, 2009 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great article,
but no way it was written by Milt on Tilt. Not enough goofy rantings.
by montanatwinsfan on Sep 3, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
I actually didn’t care for the article that much (probably only because he stated Neftali is the closer of the future, which is wrong). But the point of it was good. Overpaying for closers is a suckers game. The value play is developing quality bullpen arms in the system or identifying them on the wire.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 3, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
