WAR Games with Bill Smith After the Santana Trade

We'll never know what coulda/shoulda/woulda happened if we could hit a RESET button somewhere and re-do the Santana trade offseason, but here's review, WAR-style, of the mess Billy Smith's made on a few fronts.

9 months ago jianfu 10 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I still do not believe for a second, that Lester, Masterson and Lowrie were ever offered together.

Let loose the hogs of war!
Dogs of war..
Whatever farm animal of war, Lana...

by darren004 on Aug 21, 2011 6:00 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Me neither

Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera wouldn’t have been much better—maybe worse—a return than what the Twins got.

by Han Joelo on Aug 22, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I would like a wholesale FO makeover

by clutterheart on Aug 21, 2011 10:26 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

what a load of crock

Yeah, Bill Smith WAS AN IDIOT for having chose – at the time – a package from the Mets that included their #2, #3, #4, and #7 prospects for one year of Santana.

WHAT AN IDIOT!

Hindsight is often 20/20 friends … if you are lucky.

See, Terry Ryan is going to go to his grave chuckling over his “MAGNIFICENT FORESIGHT AND WONDERFUL GM TALENTS” for picking a negative WAR player in Joe Nathan, because of course anyone with a brain would have known Joe Nathan was going to become an elite closer a few years later…

I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

by montanatwinsfan on Aug 22, 2011 11:12 AM EDT reply actions

I only half-agree “hindsight” as an apropos term. Is it hindsight to say they should have got Lester because Lester became the move valuable commodity than Santana? Yes. Is it hindsight to say they should have jumped on Lester, who had shown much more than any of the Mets arms as of 2007? I don’t think so. Keep in mind most weren’t excited about the Santana return at the time. And always beware about prospect rankings of a NY-based team…

One thing, in hindsight, that might have changed everything is the Twins were determined to get a young center fielder in the deal (along with a young pitcher), because they had lost Hunter and Span looked like a bust at the time. I don’t see this mentioned much, but they really had little idea who they were playing in center field in 2008. Had they known Span would develop into an everyday player rather quickly at the MLB level, things may have been different.

Also, regarding Ryan, I always thought he got off too clean on the Santana situation.

by jianfu on Aug 22, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

yeah all of that is a much more thoughtful process than the one used in the first article you link to.

I mean, c’mon. Using Nishioka’s WAR against the Santana trade? Disingenuous irrationality.

I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

by montanatwinsfan on Aug 22, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I still found the article interesting because it isn’t really about the Santana trade in a vacuum (despite the title) but more along the lines of taking an abacus to the Bill Smith era (which more or less began with the Santana trade; I don’t recall if the Delmon deal preceded that or not).

No matter how we feel about the decisions at the time or the fairness of criticism or the particualr outcomes (every team makes poor and/or ill-fated decisions sometimes), it’s a results-oriented business, and Smith’s 4 years at the helm haven’t yielded much in the way of positive results.

That said, I think it’s fair to note articles such as this are hardly gospel, as you also to suspend disbelief on a number of fronts. We think we know what might have been offered (particularly since the beat guys were throwing names out), but we don’t for sure. And we think we can pretend Lester in Minnesota 2008-present would be a carbon copy of Lester in Boston 2007-present. But we really can’t. That’s why I noted we’ll never know.

by jianfu on Aug 22, 2011 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I can't argue with any of that (I suppose) =)

it’s a results-oriented business, and Smith’s 4 years at the helm haven’t yielded much in the way of positive results.

If we changed that to, “so far the negatives appear to outweigh the positives in his four years.” I’d be all in on that one.

I don't know, but I've been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold,
'the other hand, I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

by montanatwinsfan on Aug 22, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Picking up Santana in the first place

was one of the most brilliant (in hindsight) moves ever made. Given the success rate of Rule V picks (see Diamond, Scott) I’d say this one move vindicates the Twins management for years to come. That, and picking that bum ahead of the much vaunted Mark Prior.

by Han Joelo on Aug 22, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions

It's a no brainer

…since Prior didn’t want to play for the Twins.

But that attitude is a mistake. It has to a “what have you done lately” that’s the nature of the game. Sometimes the magic is just gone and there’s nothing you can do about it but start fresh with a new team of people at the top.

by MNPundit on Aug 26, 2011 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions