Monday, March 28, 2011

Twins Trade Billy Bullock For Scott Diamond

In yet another baffling move, the Twins have yet again traded a quality player - this time a quality prospect - for a reliever not even capable of cracking the roster. This marks the third time in the past eight months the team has decided to trade a player with the ability to consistently add multiple wins for someone who is likely to have almost no effect what-so-ever.

The list of bad trades began with the Twins dealing off highly regarded catching prospect Wilson Ramos to the Nationals for Matt Capps. It continued with trading J.J. Hardy to the Orioles for a pair of Minor League relievers in Jim Hoey and Brett Jacobson. And now they've dealt Billy Bullock to the Braves to retain junk balling Rule V lefty Scott Diamond. Bullock, a very hard throwing righty who has blown away hitters at every level, including AA last season.

Perhaps more baffling still is that in acquiring the control challenged Hoey and Jacobson for Hardy earlier this off season, the Twins rationalized the move by saying they wanted to add power arms. Now they've gone and dealt off someone who ranks as a much better power arm and long-term bet than either of those acquisitions to acquire someone who profiles as little more than AAA filler.

In total, it's not a stretch to assume that the Twins have essentially traded away a minimum of 6 WAR in Ramos (assuming a minimum of 1 WAR per year for the next six years), and another 2-3 WAR in Hardy, and probably another 3 WAR in Bullock (0.5 WAR per year for six years). In total, they've dealt off a bare minimum of 11 WAR (but likely quite a bit more), most of which they could've had for league minimum. Instead choosing to bring in Matt Capps, the only player likely to contribute positive WAR of any level at a cost of 7.5, this year in addition to the prorated portion of the salary from last year. In total, they could get 2-3 WAR.

For a team lauded for the way it's run, the Twins decision making process in trades recently has been, at best, terrible.

No comments:

Post a Comment