Matt Capps and the Value of One Year

by Jesse on Jan 19, 2011 4:30 PM EST in Opinion

When it was announced yesterday that the Twins had avoided arbitration with Matt Capps by tendering him a contract for $7.15 million for 2011, it came as a mild surprise. Not so much that the Twins avoided arbitration, or that the Twins worked out a deal with Capps, but that the deal came in so high. Even the higher estimates had him coming in between $6.5 and, at the most, $7 million. The $150,000 difference between the highest estimate and the actual total isn't really the point. It's that, somehow, the Twins thought that $7.15 million was fair.

Some people have argued that the money spent on Capps could have been better spent on J.J. Hardy, and while money-for-value I certainly agree, I also know that decision wouldn't have helped the bullpen. Spending Capps' ching on Hardy wouldn't have necessarily precipitated keeping Jesse Crain around. Or Matt Guerrier or Brian Fuentes or Jon Rauch.

What seems to be lost in the conversation is that, while $7.15 million is a lot to pay for Capps (especially once you realize that the Twins are dedicating nearly $20 million to two relievers), the Twins are also on a one year committment. There's value in a one-year committment, particularly when you don't have to bid against anyone else.

The free agent market was flush with relief options this winter, and that's something that's been chronicled a number of times here. But anytime you dabble in free agency you're bidding against somebody, especially when you would have been looking to bring in a quality arm to replace not just Guerrier, Crain, Rauch and Fuentes but Capps as well. The four former pitchers are all signed through ages 31 to 36 (or even 37 depending on the option for Fuentes). Capps, on the other hand, will be just 27 this season.

So not only did the Twins retain the services of a good relief pitcher, but they didn't have to out-bid anyone else, they aren't required to pay him multi millions of dollars into his 30s, they didn't surrender a draft pick, and included in all of it is the mitigation of risk. There's more risk in multi-year contracts, and there's a risk that, when banking on the free agent market to fill holes, you don't always get what you want.

Considering the mess this bullpen was headed for this winter, the Minnesota front office elected to go the route of stability and certainty. Yes, $7.15 million is probably more than Capps is worth in one year. But in exchange, the Twins are completely off the hook in 2012. I'm okay with Capps for one year instead of Crain or Guerrier for three.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Maybe

I’m moderately OK with bringing back Capps for one year only. Still, if it’s only one year, it still looks like a bad deal because of what we gave up to get him.

Let’s look at this another way… How big was Nathan’s injury last spring? Well, it looks like it cost the Twins Ramos’s trade chip PLUS J.J. Hardy beyond 2010. -And that’s not even mentioning the production Nathan would have given the Twins had he stayed healthy. The only real gains we get are a year and a half of Matt Capps and dumping Brendan Harris?

-Flip

by Flip27 on Jan 19, 2011 5:02 PM EST reply actions

Are we overvaluing Ramos?

BP currently has him as a 3 star prospect, which is outside the top 100 prospects. By the time of the trade he’d already laid a stink bomb at AAA, making his value less than his preseason 4 star rating (50-100). Michael Burgess was a 4 star prospect going into 2010 and is a 3 star prospect heading into 2011. Packaged with 2 minor league arms he brought back 2 years of Tom Gorzelanny.

by Jon Kammerer on Jan 19, 2011 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

I'm less convinced Ramos is the prospect we thought he was before last year

But he would be an upgrade over Drew. I understand why they made the trade, but if they had not made the trade and managed to right the bullpen without Capps, we could be looking at Ramos as the backup catcher and both Fuentes and Rauch as setup guys. $10 mil and Ramos seems like a lot to pay for a guy for one year and a half of average closing.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2011 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

yep

by by jiminy on Jan 19, 2011 7:59 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

easily.

by Joshua P on Jan 19, 2011 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed 100%

Judged solely on the stats and results Capps gave to us, if we had given up 2 or 3 marginal prospects rather than “our top trading chip” would anyone be even remotely as irked as they are now about this deal? I think people just thought that Ramos was going to get us Cliff Lee, and even though he didn’t, people rated him as such and thought getting anything less than superstar meant we wasted Ramos.

I could be wrong and Ramos may turn out to have a good career a la Victor Martinez. I personally saw nothing like that when he was up here save his first 2 games. If Nathan is healthy, I like our 8 and 9 inning guys. Kind of Yankees-light, so to speak…

Run baby run!

by darren004 on Jan 19, 2011 7:06 PM EST up reply actions

Ramos undervalued

Ramos may or may not become great. The part that bugs me is that people considered him our most expendable prospect because he was “blocked” by Mauer. I think he was our most important prospect because he was backing up Mauer! We’ve got unbelievable numbers of millions invested in a guy who’s position is destroying his body. He needs a break, and lots of them, to have any chance of retaining his value long term. He needs a backup who’s good enough to help the manager resist the temptation to overwork Mauer. Will he become great? I don’t know. But I haven’t heard anyone argue that he wasn’t the second-best catcher we had at any level in the system. We needed him.

(And even if we didn’t, I’d still rather have Fuentes and Rauch than Capps.)

by by jiminy on Jan 19, 2011 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Hindsight is 20/20

If we would have won the WS, or do win a WS this year with, with Capps as our closer all will be forgotten.

by cmb0252 on Jan 19, 2011 9:04 PM EST up reply actions

Well said.

by twinssniwt on Jan 19, 2011 10:41 PM EST up reply actions

Strasberg, Harper, Werth, Zimmerman...and Ramos. World Series 2013.

Or maybe not. But something about Ramos makes me think he’s going to be a dang good catcher.

by Luke in MN on Jan 21, 2011 12:39 AM EST up reply actions

Capps

was a necessary evil ya hes probably not quite worth it but they where going to have to have a backup plan if Nathan isnt the Nathan of old otherwise we could find ourselves right back where we were a year ago going shit Jon Rauch is our closer.
Hardy has had 3 down years in a row was injury prone and slow while he did play solid defense I really dont think his upside warrants spending so much more than another in house option who can offer somewhat equivalent stats with the stick -power +speed probably around the same avg. Plus they got 2 hard throwing strikeout relievers who if the twins coaches can get to have more control could be good bullpen pieces in the future or even soon with Hoey.

by holymackerel on Jan 19, 2011 5:08 PM EST reply actions

Tolleson or Tolbert

Steve Tolleson was just waived by the Athletics. He would make good middle infield depth.

by DJL44 on Jan 19, 2011 5:37 PM EST reply actions

Yes

He’s an upgrade over Tolbert. At least bring him in to compete.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 19, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

The best way to help a bullpen:

Score more runs and allow fewer when the starter is pitching. This allows the bullpen to be better-rested, face fewer high-leverage situations, and in general be far more effective.

Losing JJ Hardy is likely to hurt the pen significantly.

by timprov on Jan 19, 2011 6:48 PM EST reply actions

Comparing Hardy to Capps is pointless

THey wouldn’t have “spent that money” on Hardy. It should be obvious at this point that they just didn’t much want JJ Hardy around anymore. I don’t agree with that, but that was the Twins mindset, and they acted on it. Hopesully Hoey will end up giving us some return value.

"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 Jan 19, 2011 7:41 PM EST reply actions

Well, the point is that they _should_ have spent that money on Hardy, not that they would have.

But if you’re going to tell me that they would have rather had Casilla at short even if Hardy was free, I’d find their behavior even more questionable.

by Luke in MN on Jan 19, 2011 9:24 PM EST up reply actions

Pavano deal is done

by AM. on Jan 19, 2011 7:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Pavano deal is done

by AM. on Jan 19, 2011 7:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Yup.

It’s up in a Fanpost, but still buried over on the right.

by Patrick42 on Jan 19, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

Let's see what Nathan brings

I like the back end of the bullpen if its Capps, Mijares and a healthy Nathan. They shouldn’t blow many late leads. The interesting part will be trying to bridge from the starters to the eighth inning. But, once upon a time no one had ever heard of Guerrier or Crain either.

by Old Twins Cap on Jan 19, 2011 7:48 PM EST reply actions

For PR purposes they pretty much had to retain him....

…but the whole Capps episode makes me have serious doubts about the Twins front office intelligence. I’ll cheer him on of course but can’t imagine he repeats his horseshoes-up-his-a$$ 2010 performance again this year with his very hittable stuff.

by Buddy Grant on Jan 19, 2011 8:01 PM EST reply actions

this ranks right up there

with the most optimistic, homerish posts ever published on this site. What’s next: “Your 2011 starting shortstop isn’t Juan Castro” ?

Me? Just another sheeple on the internets.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 19, 2011 11:23 PM EST reply actions

Really?

Saying that I’m okay with Capps for one year over Crain or Guerrier for three is homerish?

I mean, I won’t deny that I am a homer, but I still think that one year is an advantage.

by Jesse on Jan 20, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

Flexibility does add value. In finance we call it real option value

by joewho112 on Jan 20, 2011 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

hard to argue with the last sentence of your post.

But the last sentence only addresses one small part of the post, and only one small part of the reality. Plus it makes all kinds of unspoken assumptions.

There were a lot of other options out there for bullpen guys rather than Matt Capps. There were even other closer options out there. One of them signed a one year deal with the Toronto Blue Jays for a little less than half of what we paid for Capps.

Me? Just another sheeple on the internets.

by montanatwinsfan on Jan 20, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

Being OK with something is not an endorsement of it over other options

It’s just a lot more complicated than simply comparing one guy at a dollar amount and number of years against another guy at a dollar amount for one year.

There are other variables that come into play as well. For example, Capps was acquired in the midst of a total collapse of the bullpen. With the exception of Crain and Duensing, July was a nightmare for the Twins bullpen. And Duensing was moving into the rotation. There was a real risk to losing the season at the time. So the Twins overpaid for Capps to stabilize the bullpen. And part of that overpayment is deferred to 2011.

Now, they could have non-tendered Capps and signed Rauch and Fuentes. But when they tendered Capps a contract, they had no idea what Fuentes and Rauch would cost on the open market in dollars and years.

Plus, I don’t think it would look good to pay so much for a three-month rental. So acquiring Capps for Ramos meant tendering him the contract. That’s what I mean by the high cost of stabilizing the bullpen being deferred to 2011.

All things considered, the decision to acquire Capps, with all it’s costs and benefits, is defensible. Is it ideal? No. But it’s not like the Twins have control over all the variables. Given the variables they could control, they made the best of the sucky situation they were in in late July 2010.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 20, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

You probably just said it better than I did, in about half the words.

I certainly don’t think it’s ideal. Maybe I didn’t make that clear. I’m not jumping up and down, clapping with an insane grin on my face. It’s just more that I understand the decision, even if they overpaid, and overlooking the money and just focusing on age on years of contracts, I like that we can reset after the season if he has a bad year.

by Jesse on Jan 20, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, it's tough defending this move

But I don’t think I would have done anything differently, if I had been in the same position. I thought maybe they could have acquired Fuentes before the trade deadline instead of Capps. But I don’t think the Angels wanted to do that. The Angels blew it, though, because they got a low 20’s Twins prospect instead of a top 5 Twins prospect.

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

by cmathewson on Jan 20, 2011 6:26 PM EST up reply actions

I'll go out on a limb...

I predict Capps will have a great year. He’s no long term HOF’er, but he’ll get results. Then brings draft picks or prospects in a midseason trade. Prospects are expensive—signing bonuses, salaries. Trading 2 or 3 million of salary for a couple of prospects who have already received their bonuses isn’t bad business.

I don’t dislike Hardy, but I’m starting to, given the unbelievable love this nine hitter has received before, during, and after his brief stint as a Twin. He was O.K. The Twins were happy to package his overratedness along with the horribly bloated contract of Brendan Harris.

Spring is for renewal. If Casilla flops, and Plouffe can’t make like Span, then go out and make a mid-season rental (for Jose Reyes?)

I’m a homer for sure on this one. They may not have maxed Ramos’ value, but they got a really useful major leaguer in return, and they won’t be stuck watching any of the aformentioned old guys (younger than me) struggle a couple or years from now.

by Han Joelo on Jan 19, 2011 11:48 PM EST reply actions

I completely agree with you.

This is a fantastic article and reiterates my sentiments exactly. I actually do not think it is a tremendous blow to lose what we did in our bullpen for the same reasons that you stated, i.e. money and age. Capps is also insurance for Nathan. Although, I am optimistic that Joe will be back to 100% it is not incredulous to believe that there will be times where Capps will need to close and it is obvious that there isn’t another reliever in the pen that has a closer mentality as well as experience in closing. Good deal for the Twins to keep Capps.

"Life is precious and time is a key element. Let's make every moment count and help those who have a greater need than our own." -Harmon Killebrew

by GopherPride on Jan 20, 2011 8:19 AM EST reply actions