I Like Bill Smith, Part 2
After the Garza/Bartlett/Morlan for Young/Harris/Pridie trade, I wrote, I like Bill Smith. After Johan Santana's salary was dumped for prospects, I wrote Bill Smith, Revisited. Now that Joe Nathan has signed a long-term deal, I weigh in again. Bill Smith did the right thing by signing the most cuddly (per Monica) Twin.
It is well argued that given Joe Nathan's age and innings pitched per year, he is not worth the money. From Aaron Gleeman:
I take Joe Nathan for the same reason I would have signed Johan Santana for 5 years, $125 million, which is roughly what the Mets ended up paying if you add in Johan's previous 2008 salary. You have to sign him if you expect to get full value for him. In July, if the Twins look hopeless, they can trade away Nathan for parts they need, they can plug in Pat Neshek who is ready for the closer role, and they can move on with the rebuilding. If the Twins young pitching and rebuilt offense surprises, then Joe Nathan is a key piece that they need for playoffs. I argue that in trading a signed Santana or Nathan, young talent beyond mere prospects becomes available in return from the contending teams, because with a signed contract the contender gets more in return and has less leverage to force a deal.
What the Twins get when they let contracts expire is the worst case scenario. It is not desirable for the Twins get draft picks as compensation (as with Torii Hunter), because a) the Twins do not pay for the top draft picks, and b) draft picks are long-term rolls of the dice, anyway.
What should the Twins do short-term? Kenny Lofton is available for $2-$5 million, while Carlos Gomez recuperates (we will soon see if he is really hurt), Jason Pridie further develops and while Denard Span remains an average AAA player.
Meanwhile, Barry Bonds still needs a DH gig. Why not offer? He still projects as a top ten offensive force (when playing) and will turn down the Twins anyway.
It is well argued that given Joe Nathan's age and innings pitched per year, he is not worth the money. From Aaron Gleeman:
At the end of the day I'd likely take a) two good prospects and $47 million to spend or b) one season of Nathan, two draft picks, and $41 million to spend over c) Nathan's next four seasons, but that has little to do with Nathan and everything to do with committing to a deal that at best will allow you to pay $170,000 per inning.
I take Joe Nathan for the same reason I would have signed Johan Santana for 5 years, $125 million, which is roughly what the Mets ended up paying if you add in Johan's previous 2008 salary. You have to sign him if you expect to get full value for him. In July, if the Twins look hopeless, they can trade away Nathan for parts they need, they can plug in Pat Neshek who is ready for the closer role, and they can move on with the rebuilding. If the Twins young pitching and rebuilt offense surprises, then Joe Nathan is a key piece that they need for playoffs. I argue that in trading a signed Santana or Nathan, young talent beyond mere prospects becomes available in return from the contending teams, because with a signed contract the contender gets more in return and has less leverage to force a deal.
What the Twins get when they let contracts expire is the worst case scenario. It is not desirable for the Twins get draft picks as compensation (as with Torii Hunter), because a) the Twins do not pay for the top draft picks, and b) draft picks are long-term rolls of the dice, anyway.
What should the Twins do short-term? Kenny Lofton is available for $2-$5 million, while Carlos Gomez recuperates (we will soon see if he is really hurt), Jason Pridie further develops and while Denard Span remains an average AAA player.
Meanwhile, Barry Bonds still needs a DH gig. Why not offer? He still projects as a top ten offensive force (when playing) and will turn down the Twins anyway.
posted by David Rasmussen at 4:24 PM
<< Home