I think most objective-oriented fans probably agree that the Minnesota Twins and Atlanta Braves are two pretty well-run organizations. The Braves have a well-deserved reputation for pulling off crazy trade heists, while the Twins always seem to have a good team and farm system without spending too much.
Today, they made a trade, which could be likened to the old unstoppable force/immovable object saying. But who got the better of this deal? I’d say it’s pretty obvious.
The Twins have a long-standing preference for strike-throwers, and Rule 5 selection Scott Diamond fits that mold. The Canadian lefty walked just 15 batters in 56 1/3 Triple-A innings last year, also allowing just two homers. He’s a classic crafty lefty, with an upper-80’s fastball and three offspeed offerings.
Minnesota didn’t like him enough to keep him on the big league roster, but they wanted to keep Diamond, so they sent relief prospect Billy Bullock to Atlanta in exchange.
I’m trying to think of a nice way to put this…but no. It’s a bad move, and one that really makes no sense to me.
Okay, I get that that Minnesota likes control guys more than power guys, and it would be ridiculous to call the entire organizational philosophy into question when it’s worked this well for this long.
But, hey, entering the year, Bullock was Minnesota’s 15th-ranked prospect according to Baseball America, while Diamond was 29th. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which one is valued more highly.
Now, if that were the only criticism I could muster, that’d be pretty weak. I mean, sure, that points in the Braves’ direction, but it’s just a ranking by a third-party organization. But the problems run much deeper than that.
Scott Diamond is a 24-year-old lefthanded pitcher with Triple-A experience. In short, he’s basically ready for the big leagues, and isn’t likely to get too much better than he already is. He didn’t blow Triple-A hitters away (33 K in 56 1/3 IP), but he limited walks and homers. He’s 25 the day before the trade deadline, isn’t a projectable pitcher, and his only pitch that rates even as an average offering is his curveball, which is a nice pitch. That makes him a poor man’s Chris Narveson as a starter, or a solid lefty reliever.
Bullock, on the other hand, whiffed sixty batters in 37 innings in Double-A last year, and he’ll enter 2011 in Triple-A at age 23. He walked 24 batters in Double-A last year, so his control isn’t very good, which probably explains why Minnesota wasn’t as high on him as other organizations. Still, part of management is making different parts fit on one team, and downgrading severely just to fill your organization with one specific sort of player is far from ideal. Atlanta’s seen this sort of pitcher before with Craig Kimbrel, who was even wilder than Bullock in the minors but cleaned up his command somewhat and torched the big leagues down the stretch last year. Bullock’s fastball is 1-2 mph slower than Kimbrel’s, and his slider isn’t quite at Kimbrel’s level either, but a poor man’s Craig Kimbrel (with better command, to boot) is probably better than an average lefty reliever or a poor man’s Chris Narveson.
What really bugs me about this trade is that Scott Diamond is exactly the sort of player you take in the Rule 5 Draft to be safe. He is what he is, and he’s almost as ready as he’ll ever be, so you bring him into camp, see if he’s a viable MLB’er, and if not, you give him back. It’s as simple as that. You either take a ready-now guy like this in hopes that he’ll be able to actually contribute in 2011, or you take a long-term project guy who has more upside but isn’t good enough to see significant MLB time, thus dragging down the 25-man roster if he’s carried around.
It’s the latter category of player that would make some degree of sense to keep in a trade. Long-term development players need playing time in the minors, so if they look good in camp, you go “Hey, this guy has good long-term potential, so we should try to keep him around without stunting his development.”
But a 24-year-old with a 5.3 K/9 in Triple-A? Sorry, but that just isn’t a guy worth holding on to if the price is a player with actual impact ability, even if said player is a righthanded relief pitcher with spotty command.
I simply fail to see any angle in which Scott Diamond is a superior player to Billy Bullock. Heck, Bullock put up a 3.20 FIP in Double-A last year, while Diamond’s was 3.15, so they basically performed equally. Of course, Diamond was a starter while Bullock was a reliever, but a) Bullock’s 18 months younger, b) his “stuff” is far better, and c) he’s got more room to improve on his polish, whereas Diamond is close to maxed out.
It’s just a real head-scratcher to me as to why the Twins would trade Bullock. Perhaps Shooter Hunt has made them fearful of handling wild pitchers, whereas they know that they’re in their comfort zone with finesse guys. It still doesn’t excuse this. I have to think they could’ve retained Diamond for less, and if they really liked him that much to do this, why not just keep him on the 25-man? They also certainly could’ve gotten a better return on Bullock. Add this trade to the list of Atlanta heists, and while it’s not likely to set Minnesota particularly far back, that doesn’t make it a good move for the Twins.