Twins sign Capps and Perkins, avoiding arbitration

The Blue Jays got Rauch for 3 and change.

Capps is better, but I don’t know if he’s that much better.

by Luke in MN on Jan 18, 2011 2:31 PM EST reply actions

The worst thing to do....

Is to pay for a lot for a mediocre reliever. Capps isn’t mediocre. He is very solid. Crain’s deal looks good now though… but Guerrier? Rauch? Not so much. I would rather test out some young guys then over spend on them. It’s not my money…

by Al Damlo on Jan 18, 2011 2:39 PM EST reply actions

7.1m

Ouch. I like Capps, but dag.

by ravenfly on Jan 18, 2011 2:43 PM EST reply actions

Capps will be the Closser.

It’s going to take Nathen some time

by b1 on Jan 18, 2011 2:44 PM EST reply actions

I'm not surprised at Capps' number

I hate it and would much rather have Rauch.

Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD

by Twins33 on Jan 18, 2011 2:48 PM EST reply actions

This

by eau claire twins fan on Jan 18, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

Fuentes

by TMW on Jan 18, 2011 10:05 PM EST up reply actions

Trying to see the positive here...

I hated the Capps/Ramos deal last year, which makes this even worse. The only thing I can point to is that Capps will likely be a type A FA next year, so the Twins will get a couple of picks when they don’t re-sign him.

Bill Smith also wanted to make good on the justification last year for the trade, being that he is a built-in Joe Nathan insurance policy.

Still don’t like it, would rather have Rauch back at $3.75m w/2012 option and another type B reliever instead of whatever farm hand the Twins end up with to offset this big deal to Capps.

by Ranger_Bob on Jan 18, 2011 3:03 PM EST reply actions

Not to kick you while you're down,

but the Twins aren’t going to be able to offer Capps arbitration next year because it would force them to be prepared to pay 10 million or so for him in arbitration. If they did offer it, very likely Capps would accept. Pretty unlikely we will get any picks from Capps.

by Luke in MN on Jan 18, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

You are totally right about that, didn’t think that through all the way.

by Ranger_Bob on Jan 18, 2011 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

Ideally, they would be in a position to trade Capps at the deadline

I doubt it will happen, but if Gut and Bullock step up and Nathan returns to form, it could happen.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2011 5:29 PM EST up reply actions

I concur

Capps closes games early until Nathan is back on form and Guts and Bullock are ready. Then trade him for whatever position player piece is most needed (if in contention) or a couple of prospects (if not.)

by Han Joelo on Jan 18, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions

Wow

I really thought he’d be much lower than this I was thinking more in the 5.5 million give or take a little.

I think the contract I look at that I’m a bit envious of is Balfour 2 years/8 million but we also would have had to give up our 1st rounder so that wouldn’t have been so hot.

The other oddity is that Heath Bell only got only 7.5 million in his final year of eligibility, IMO Bell is a much better pitcher than Capps. So either the Padres got a deal or the Twins got a bad one. Probably a bit of both.

Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?

by halfchest on Jan 18, 2011 3:22 PM EST reply actions

I'd call it a bit of both on the Bell/Capps comparison

Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD

by Twins33 on Jan 18, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

Saves inflate the player's value.

Arbitration would’ve been worse. And I agree, it’s going to be either/or with Capps and Nathan next season for sure. I suspect we may trade one before then even.

by Shawn Gillogly on Jan 18, 2011 5:04 PM EST reply actions

That said, I thought this was a dumb trade then and I hate it worse now.

I’d absolutely have rather kept Rauch.

by Shawn Gillogly on Jan 18, 2011 5:05 PM EST up reply actions

I hate this trade, but it was the right thing to do under the circs

Rauch’s season had cratered when they made this trade. He was blowing saves right, left and center. They had no confidence in Crain or Guerrier stepping into the closer role. So they thought they needed to get a closer, and Capps was the best available. I don’t think we would have made the playoffs without him. That has a high cost this year and in years to come, considering what they gave up. But I think people would have been more critical if they hadn’t done anything.

In hindsight, I wish they would have given the job to Crain until they could have acquired Fuentes. But they didn’t know they would be able to get Fuentes and they didn’t trust Crain. So here we are.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2011 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

Seriously?

Wouldn’t have made the playoffs without him? The Twins won the division by six games. brWAR gives him a value of 1.2 wins while he was a Twin. WAR doesn’t capture all of a closer’s value, but you want to tell us that he was really worth over three times that?

Rauch was credited with four blown saves the whole season. The last one was July 1st, over three weeks before Capps was acquired – that’s not exactly “blowing saves right, left and center”. I just can’t believe you’re saying Rauch (or Crain or Guerrier) serving as closer the last two months would cost the Twins all of six games in the standings.

by DK on Jan 18, 2011 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

Rauch fell apart for two weks just before the trade deadline

If it had happened in May and he had righted himself, they might have stuck with him. The timing was bad. In hindsight, they seem to have panicked, but at the time, the situation looked pretty desperate.

I also think Capps was better than his numbers. He’s not a strike-out pitcher. But on that team, pitching to contact was a good way to get the job done. He didn’t blow many saves if I recall correctly.

Seasons like that can spiral out of control. Remember 2001? Hawkins blew up and they got Todd Jones, who failed miserably. Closer wasn’t the only problem, but they lost the division by the number of blown saves after the All-Star break.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2011 6:44 PM EST up reply actions

I thought it was a panic trade then

and I thought Rausch’s “shakiness” wasn’t any more shaky than Capps was after. Honestly, I thought Capps was shakier in fact than Rausch ever was. He’s done nothing to convince me he isn’t gascan RD revisited.

by Shawn Gillogly on Jan 19, 2011 12:36 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I agree

Capps scares the crap out of me in like 95% of his outings, Rauch never did that to me. There were times, but it wasn’t almost all the time like Capps.

Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD

by Twins33 on Jan 19, 2011 8:56 AM EST up reply actions

I disagree

Capps brought stability to a pen that was languishing under the weight of three starters who couldn’t pitch through the fifth inning for two months (Slowey, Baker, Blackburn). This had a ripple effect through Burnett, Guerrier and Rauch. I can show you game logs if you want, but he was giving up two or three runs a game in a two-week stretch in which he blew three saves and very nearly blew two others. He was so bad, Gardy had Guerrier closing for a week.

I think people remember Capps with acrimony because they were so mad about giving up Ramos, they couldn’t see what he did objectively. He was like Eddie G in 2002. The pen needed a guy who came right at hitters and got the job done quickly. Eddie G. gave up a lot of hits and often got the last out with a guy on third. But he got the job done. That was what Capps did. I also think you’re all spoiled by Nathan. Nathan is an elite closer. Only a handful of teams have that.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

I'm definitely not comparing him to Nathan. I think Nathan is only behind Rivera as far as top closers in the league

I agree that Capps did get the job done most of the time, but I did not like the Capps/Eddie G heart attacks almost every outing. He did give up a lot of hits and I wish it went a lot smoother than it did.

None of these guys even touch Nathan in my eyes, so the comparison will never be there for me. I’d just prefer it to be a cleaner ninth. Nathan was almost always perfect…though there were times when he wasn’t.

That being said, I still don’t like Capps. I didn’t like the trade. When he was pitching for the Nats he seemed to be doing close to what Rauch was doing for us. He did improve when he got here though, I will give him credit for that. But like I said, I don’t like the trade and I don’t like paying him +7 million. If he wasn’t Nathan insurance, I don’t see him on this team in 2011…which only makes my view of him to be even worse.

Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD

by Twins33 on Jan 19, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions

You're just making things up now

Rauch didn’t give up more than two runs in a game all season. There were two games in July in which he gave up exactly two runs – a game against the White Sox in which the Twins were already ahead by five runs, and a game against the Indians in which the Twins were already losing by five – hence, neither of them were close to being “closer” situations. The only other run he gave up in July was in his single July blown save against the Rays. Before that, he gave up only one run all of June, so you can’t be referring to June here, and you already argued that you’re not talking about May or earlier. Also, Guerrier’s only credited save occurred in early June. The only game he finished in July was one the Twins were losing, so again, I don’t see the correlation between what you call Rauch’s “collapse” and when you claim Guerrier was closing games.

In all of this, I’m not saying Capps didn’t pitch fine for the Twins – he did. But there’s nothing about him as a pitcher that is so much better than Rauch, Crain, Guerrier, or Fuentes – nothing that makes him worth what they gave up for him in trade, and nothing that makes him worth paying almost as much as any two of those guys are going to make this year.

by DK on Jan 19, 2011 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

I went back and reviewed all the box scores for July

The truth is, Rauch struggled, but he didn’t fall apart as my faulty memory suggested. He wasn’t even the worst pitcher in the bullpen in July. Guerrier was much worse, despite Gardy trying him at closer a couple of times. Burnett sucked. Blackburn got moved to the pen and really sucked. Mijares blew a couple of saves. They tried Slama and he was awful. Even Mayhay had a bad month. Crain was the only guy with a good month. The bullpen was in crisis, and they needed someone to stabilize it.

Now maybe they could have gone out and gotten a set-up man and kept Rauch in the closer role. He did save the game the night before they acquired Capps. But perhaps Capps was the only really competent reliever available. So they got him, move him into the closer role and give Rauch one of the top set-up roles. If you look at the box scores in July, you know they were in desperate need of another reliever. They paid a hefty price and it probably was too much. But after Capps got there, the bullpen started to settle in again.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I didn't really like the Capps trade when it happened,

but you guys sort of wore me down on it. We needed to seal a playoff spot and it was a go-for-it move. I don’t know if his performance really ended up justifying the trade, given the playoff sweep and all, but I guess it was a decent risk. And I’m fine with having him back since he is a decent closer, but I’m not sure if he’s the first thing I would have spent 7 million on this offseason (although I probably would have given Thome 5 million and Pavano 10, so I guess the Twins have the drop on me there).

by Luke in MN on Jan 20, 2011 8:30 AM EST up reply actions

They're both overpaid

Capps is worth $5M (look at Fuentes deal) per year on the open market and Perkins is probably going to be dealt or released. This is what they call “throwing good money after bad”.

by DJL44 on Jan 18, 2011 5:35 PM EST reply actions

In related news

Phil Humber’s stay on the west coast was cut short. Hopefully he makes the big league roster. It would be fun to face down two former Twins 19 times a year.

by PinkiePinkerton on Jan 18, 2011 6:11 PM EST reply actions

Maybe Fuentes is underpaid?

Maybe we are all just a lot smarter than most baseball executives, but the prospect cost to get Capps was Ramos and to get Fuentes was Loek.

At any rate, the Twins closer-turned set-up man costs a lot less than the Yankees.

by Han Joelo on Jan 18, 2011 6:38 PM EST reply actions

Fuentes was making a lot more money than Capps

The Twins only got Fuentes for a month vs Capps who was available for a year and 2 months. That’s the difference in prospects.

by DJL44 on Jan 18, 2011 7:49 PM EST up reply actions

Not Perkins again...

I’m just sick of seeing him in a Twins uniform.

I'm still a Minnesotan at heart...

by urluckyday on Jan 18, 2011 7:27 PM EST reply actions

First they overpaid for Capps, now they've overpaid for Capps.

Me? Just another sheeple on the internets.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 18, 2011 9:25 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Ugh.

We knew they had to keep Capps this year to save face, and many estimated it would be 7 mil in arb at the time of the trade. Now seeing Fuentes sign for 2mil/year less than Capps really stings.

by Buddy Grant on Jan 18, 2011 9:52 PM EST reply actions