PDA

View Full Version : Don't trade prospects



Marta Shearing
10-06-2013, 04:22 AM
What sense does it make to trade prospects for pitching right now? Berrios, Meyer, and Stewart are on the way. Don't create new holes. Don't split up this promising group. Whether its LF or 2B, there will be a spot for Rosario. Sign free agent pitchers and flip them for prospects. The only time you trade prospects is when you're contending and looking to add the final piece ala Hicks & Ramos for Cliff Lee.

Major Leauge Ready
10-06-2013, 06:48 AM
Meyer is on his way but Stewart and Berrios won't be here for what might seem like an eternity. The FO is feeling the pressure from the media and declining attendance. They might appease the media short-term until the story turns to the obvious. The obvious being one good starting pitcher is not going to make us a contender anytime soon.

Let's hope they don't sell out our potential for a nice long run of good and potentally great teams for the sake of putting a passbale product on the field now. Pay big on 2-3 year deals or 4 years if absolutely necessary or go after a Tanaka. Our system is deep with very young talent. We will have the opportunity to trade prospects to fill holes 3-5 years from now.

Mr. Brooks
10-06-2013, 07:31 AM
Sometimes people in here discuss our prospects as if they are going to be 100% success rate.
When you mention Meyer, Stewart, and Berrios, please keep in mind that with the average success rate of prospects, especially pitching prospects, that likely gives us one good pitcher, if we are lucky, not 3.

Marta Shearing
10-06-2013, 07:48 AM
I'm well aware not all of these guys will turn out, but I dont trust Ryan to trade the right ones. Besides, it makes little sense to trade prospects for pitching, because you're just solving one problem and creating another. Sign free agent pitchers. Over pay if you must. Flip them for more prospects at the deadline. The only time I'd trade prospects is when the team has reached playoff contender status.

howieramone
10-06-2013, 10:03 AM
I agree with the OP, that one out three "can't miss" starting pitching prospects ends up being a solid Major League starter and that is the area of the rebuild I'm uncomfortable with. I don't believe Ryan is anywhere near done accumulating starting pitching prospects and hope the Butera trade is a sign of things to come.

As far as trading prospects for starting pitching, I believe it's too early, but Ryan recently inferred the Twins have few if any untouchables, which is as it should be. IMO the only thing that can hold us up is starting pitching.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 10:05 AM
There is no reason to trade the top prospects. Some lower ones used to add in value to Doumit or Willingham would be a different story. I have a lot of confidence that the very top prospects: Buxton, Sano, Meyer, and Rosario are going to make it and make it quite successfully.

mnfireman
10-06-2013, 11:37 AM
Meyer, May, Rosario, Gibson, Wimmers, Stewart, Berrios, Gonsalves, plus a few others look like real prospects. So if 1 of 3 develop, the Twins are looking at 3 or 4 good major league starting pitchers in the next 3 years or so. It will be a crapshoot, but I think they could deal from amongst this group.

Mr. Brooks
10-06-2013, 11:41 AM
Meyer, May, Rosario, Gibson, Wimmers, Stewart, Berrios, Gonsalves, plus a few others look like real prospects. So if 1 of 3 develop, the Twins are looking at 3 or 4 good major league starting pitchers in the next 3 years or so. It will be a crapshoot, but I think they could deal from amongst this group.

Alex Wimmers? Yeah, his 4.31 ERA and 77 minor league innings over 4 seasons scream "legit prospect".
I'd say ANYTHING the Twins ever get from Wimmers at the ML level would have to be considered a pleasant surprise.
Rosario is a 2B prospect, not a pitching prospect.
Gonsalves looked good over a small sample size, but he's not even a top 100 prospect, he doesn't even come close to having a 3:1 shot at this point, he's more like a 10:1 shot, if that.
That leaves us Meyer, May , Gibson, Stewart and Berrios that realistically fall into the 30% territory. Most likely we'll get 1 legit starter from that bunch, if we get 2 it will be a wild success.
The 3 or 4 like you say would be 75% or 100%, which would be pretty unprecedented.

ashburyjohn
10-06-2013, 11:59 AM
Sign free agent pitchers and flip them for prospects.

I always cringe when flipping is mentioned as part of the strategy. How many pitchers moved for prospects this year? Scott Feldman is the only FA pitcher I recall being traded, and he fetched a 27-year-old reclamation project starter and an OK 28-year-old reliever. If you're hoping for a Span-for-Meyer caliber of trade by signing a FA pitcher, it would be odds-against, IMO.

I'd like to see the team strengthened through FA signings, period. Roster management after that point should occur organically, not because the plan is to flip a particular acquisition.

Mr. Brooks
10-06-2013, 12:03 PM
I always cringe when flipping is mentioned as part of the strategy. How many pitchers moved for prospects this year? Scott Feldman is the only FA pitcher I recall being traded, and he fetched a 27-year-old reclamation project starter and an OK 28-year-old reliever. If you're hoping for a Span-for-Meyer caliber of trade by signing a FA pitcher, it would be odds-against, IMO.

I'd like to see the team strengthened through FA signings, period. Roster management after that point should occur organically, not because the plan is to flip a particular acquisition.

Francisco Rodriguez.

howieramone
10-06-2013, 12:17 PM
I always cringe when flipping is mentioned as part of the strategy. How many pitchers moved for prospects this year? Scott Feldman is the only FA pitcher I recall being traded, and he fetched a 27-year-old reclamation project starter and an OK 28-year-old reliever. If you're hoping for a Span-for-Meyer caliber of trade by signing a FA pitcher, it would be odds-against, IMO.

I'd like to see the team strengthened through FA signings, period. Roster management after that point should occur organically, not because the plan is to flip a particular acquisition.Theo basically said the same thing in a recent interview. An interviewer asked Theo if the Feldman deals were a preview of future strategic moves, and he let him know that was not the case, it was just how it ended up.

darin617
10-06-2013, 12:17 PM
Exactly never trade prospects! We love losing 90+ games every year. How else do you think the Twins will ever get an ace? I would not trade Sano or Buxton, maybe Rosario in a package to get a starter(ACE) in return. It is sad that KC is heading in the right direction and the Twins are sliding towards the bottom of the league.

twinsfan34
10-06-2013, 12:18 PM
Even if we could land 2 Clayton Kershaw's for whatever combination of prospects, if our offense didn't improve, we'd still be just under .500 as a team. Trading Draft picks isn't going to bring back value that actually changes the team much.

If you want attendance to get better, they won't come to see "middle tier" Free Agents. I don't think signing Jacoby Ellsbury would bring up the attendance either.

It will take a big overall team turnaround. Getting impatient to try to 'compete' and turn attendance around in 2014 is only setting us up for long term failure.

High school prospects typically take 4-6 years to develop. Stewart, Berrios, et al. But they actually have higher payoff than college prospects as a whole. Also, most teams won't give away a 'significant' player for an A-level prospect.

.500 record or better in 2015 is a real possibility if their prospects develop. Our 2014 salary is already $68M. Irony is, we'll lose some salary by 2015 and probably be more talented (Buxton, Rosario, Sano, Meyer, May, Baxendale, Tomkin, Vargas, Hicks, Arcia, Berrios, Gonslaves, Stewart, et al).

The other hope is Willingham and a few other guys provide value at the trade deadline and bring back a AA prospect or higher.

The Tampa Bay Rays were built on the draft, it took about 6-8 years to make it happen though. 2014 will be year 4 of the Terry Ryan regime, and he got a gift from Bill Smith in his signing of Miguel Sano. Year 4 is when a GM's influence begins to take influence. As you start to see players he's acquired account for about 20% of the roster. By year 5 (2015), should be around 50%. Baseball is unlike any other sport, you need time. Football and basketball can see franchises turned around in one pick. In baseball you don't see a LeBron James or David Robinson or Tim Duncan or Andrew Luck or RG III type of affect.

But I love the game.

ThePuck
10-06-2013, 12:21 PM
How is our 2014 salary already 68M?

Oxtung
10-06-2013, 12:22 PM
Alex Wimmers? Yeah, his 4.31 ERA and 77 minor league innings over 4 seasons scream "legit prospect".
I'd say ANYTHING the Twins ever get from Wimmers at the ML level would have to be considered a pleasant surprise.
Rosario is a 2B prospect, not a pitching prospect.
Gonsalves looked good over a small sample size, but he's not even a top 100 prospect, he doesn't even come close to having a 3:1 shot at this point, he's more like a 10:1 shot, if that.
That leaves us Meyer, May , Gibson, Stewart and Berrios that realistically fall into the 30% territory. Most likely we'll get 1 legit starter from that bunch, if we get 2 it will be a wild success.
The 3 or 4 like you say would be 75% or 100%, which would be pretty unprecedented.

He might have been talking about Randy Rosario who pitched very well for Elizabethton this season. Though if he was then he probably should also have tossed Yorman Landa and Felix Jorge onto his list as well. Perhaps Lewis Thorpe too.

Gonsalves was not going to be a top 100 prospect because he wasn't a 1st round draft pick. It is still entirely possible he could end up there in future seasons.

iastfan112
10-06-2013, 12:34 PM
How is our 2014 salary already 68M?

Actual obligations are lower, at 46 million. If the Twins only made move within the organization this offseason the payroll would be in that ballpark(68 is 2-3 million or so high imo).

diehardtwinsfan
10-06-2013, 01:03 PM
This isn't the time to trade prospects. There is a time for that, when you know what you have and you are a piece or two short, but when you need to acquire 10 to 15 pieces, trading off the guys who could be future pieces for some help now is kind of silly. It's a guaranteed way to have lots more 90 loss seasons.

Unfortunately, the Twins are in a position right now where the only thing they can do is wait for the guys coming up and perhaps go out and get a few pieces that they know they will need.

spideyo
10-06-2013, 01:49 PM
I think it greatly depends on what position you are looking at.

At this point, no pitching prospects should be traded. In fact, I would say we should be trading any pitching prospects until we have a minimum of 7-8 A level pitchers in the big leagues (which may not happen for years). You never know when you will get a TJ case, or a late bloomer, or a guy who does better in the pen then starting (see Perkins, Swarzak)

Any 1B only guys should be dangled. We certainly don't have a sure thing in Parmelee or Collabello, but the future could hold Mauer, Plouffe, or Sano at 1B. Plus there are always old guys who can still hit but can't field much beyond 1B on the FA market.

If you believe that Dozier can play like he did in the second half for years to come, and that Rosario is destined for 2B only, we might as well float his name out there and see what we can get.

3B/SS are still too unsettled to send off anybody.

The OF has a lot of good prospects in Hicks, Pressly, Arcia, Buxton, Walker, Keppler, and probably a bunch of guys I don't know. Don't trade Buxton and don't trade anyone you think will be a MLB starter in 2014, but beyond that, if the deal is right we could afford to lose one or two.

Catchers of course, totally depends on if/when Mauer stops catching completely. Of all our prospects, Pinto might be the most likely to get a MLB ready arm (Buxton and Sano are still too far away), but would also be the riskiest. If Mauer is the primary catcher for the rest of his contract, and you send Pinto as part of a deal to get an Ace, you look like a genius. Then again, you could have a repeat of the Ramos trade.

Brock Beauchamp
10-06-2013, 01:51 PM
I'm well aware not all of these guys will turn out, but I dont trust Ryan to trade the right ones.

Because if there's one thing Ryan has done in his career, it's trading prospects who flourish in another organization.

Oh, wait.

twinsfan34
10-06-2013, 02:10 PM
How is our 2014 salary already 68M?

You're right. It's not $68M yet.

It's $46M for 6 players so far. We will have to 34 players to fill out the 40-Man roster and other subsequent minor league contracts purchased who might exceed that 40 man roster.

The major league minimum salary for 2014 is $500,000 (http://www.truebluela.com/2011/11/22/2581951/new-mlb-cba). So 34 players will cost an additional $17M at a minimum. Puts us at $63M.

Sorry, I'm not sure why I said $68M. But if we sign anybody over the minimum, it'll add to that $63M number.

twinsfan34
10-06-2013, 02:11 PM
Actual obligations are lower, at 46 million. If the Twins only made move within the organization this offseason the payroll would be in that ballpark(68 is 2-3 million or so high imo).

Thanks for explaining that iastfan112 - sorry I wasn't more clear earlier.

mnfireman
10-06-2013, 02:30 PM
He might have been talking about Randy Rosario who pitched very well for Elizabethton this season. Though if he was then he probably should also have tossed Yorman Landa and Felix Jorge onto his list as well. Perhaps Lewis Thorpe too.

Gonsalves was not going to be a top 100 prospect because he wasn't a 1st round draft pick. It is still entirely possible he could end up there in future seasons.

Yes, those were all names that I saw and included as "a few others". I didn't want to sound argumentative with Mr. Brooks (I saw the movie, he's a scary dude:)), so I hoped somebody else might help me out.
While its true that most or all of these prospects may not pan out, I am getting tired of 27-30 year old soft tossers continually being trotted out there and we are just supposed to take this because its the Twins Way. Look at all the other teams with 25 year old and younger starters having success. I understand the importance of not advancing these kids too fast, but if the better coaches are at the higher levels, then these kids shouldn't beheld back for the sake of holding them back. I sometimes think this organization hinders there own prospects development by advancing them too slowly (i.e. making them do a whole season at each level unless they are a "super" prospect).
And if our better coaches are not at the higher levels than this organization is in a bigger mess than I, or most of us, would think.

IdahoPilgrim
10-06-2013, 03:26 PM
You're right. It's not $68M yet.

It's $46M for 6 players so far. We will have to 34 players to fill out the 40-Man roster and other subsequent minor league contracts purchased who might exceed that 40 man roster.

The major league minimum salary for 2014 is $500,000 (http://www.truebluela.com/2011/11/22/2581951/new-mlb-cba). So 34 players will cost an additional $17M at a minimum. Puts us at $63M.

Sorry, I'm not sure why I said $68M. But if we sign anybody over the minimum, it'll add to that $63M number.

Except that most players on the 40-man but not on the 25-man won't get major minimum, since they won't be in the major leagues. I think they are guaranteed about $70K/year if they have any MLB experience and about half that if they don't.

Marta Shearing
10-06-2013, 03:38 PM
Because if there's one thing Ryan has done in his career, it's trading prospects who flourish in another organization.

Oh, wait.
How is it that you reserve the right to be so antagonistic?

Marta Shearing
10-06-2013, 03:44 PM
This isn't the time to trade prospects. There is a time for that, when you know what you have and you are a piece or two short, but when you need to acquire 10 to 15 pieces, trading off the guys who could be future pieces for some help now is kind of silly. It's a guaranteed way to have lots more 90 loss seasons.

Unfortunately, the Twins are in a position right now where the only thing they can do is wait for the guys coming up and perhaps go out and get a few pieces that they know they will need.
Couldnt agree more. I would not part with any prospects at this point, because you dont know who's gonna turn out and who wont. Hoard them all while rebuilding, but dont be afraid to do a hicks/ramos for Cliff Lee when the time is right.

old nurse
10-06-2013, 04:32 PM
Francisco Rodriguez.

The prospect received was nothing great.

Brock Beauchamp
10-06-2013, 06:56 PM
How is it that you reserve the right to be so antagonistic?

It wasn't antagonistic. It was poking fun of not trusting Ryan to trade away the right prospects, the one thing that he has a nearly unimpeachable track record of doing right.

gunnarthor
10-06-2013, 07:35 PM
How is it that you reserve the right to be so antagonistic?

He's a mod. Just ignore him.

TheLeviathan
10-06-2013, 07:36 PM
It wasn't antagonistic. It was poking fun of not trusting Ryan to trade away the right prospects, the one thing that he has a nearly unimpeachable track record of doing right.

You know we go way back and I respect you Brock, but this line is becoming increasingly unclear. A lot less than that has been grounds for private messages.

As to this issue, I'm not so sure what the angst is about. Ryan has no track record of dealing significant prospects at all. So there is no past success or failure that anyone should be worried about because, if history has taught us anything, this is a problem we won't have to worry about.

ThePuck
10-06-2013, 07:59 PM
deleted post

snepp
10-06-2013, 08:08 PM
You mean like intentionally derailing a thread in order to complain about the site's moderation?


Just to make sure there's no additional confusion here, get back on topic, or take it to PM's.

:)

Brock Beauchamp
10-06-2013, 08:49 PM
What snepp said. Without delving into details to derail the discussion further, I don't moderate much here anymore so you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm busy on the technical side of the site and rarely post anymore so if you have issues with the moderation, I suggest you talk to Glunn via PM and do not derail a public conversation.

old nurse
10-06-2013, 09:14 PM
You know we go way back and I respect you Brock, but this line is becoming increasingly unclear. A lot less than that has been grounds for private messages.

As to this issue, I'm not so sure what the angst is about. Ryan has no track record of dealing significant prospects at all. So there is no past success or failure that anyone should be worried about because, if history has taught us anything, this is a problem we won't have to worry about.

The question was trading prospects, not significant ones. Ryan has traded prospects before with good results. Some meh results. No real we screwed ourselves results in giving up prospects. Besides, I thought a good GM was suposed to turn nothing prospects into players.

TheLeviathan
10-06-2013, 09:15 PM
The question was trading prospects, not significant ones. Ryan has traded prospects before with good results. Some meh results. No real we screwed ourselves results in giving up prospects. Besides, I thought a good GM was suposed to turn nothing prospects into players.

What good results has he had? (I mean that honestly, I'm having trouble remembering a prospect being dealt. Castillo maybe?)

And what insignificant prospects do you expect to get value for?

snepp
10-06-2013, 09:27 PM
What good results has he had? (I mean that honestly, I'm having trouble remembering a prospect being dealt. Castillo maybe?)


Would you consider Kielty a "prospect"? Not really I suppose, he had 750ish PA's at that point.

TheLeviathan
10-06-2013, 09:50 PM
Would you consider Kielty a "prospect"? Not really I suppose, he had 750ish PA's at that point.

Right, that was a good deal, but it wasn't a prospect he moved there. It was a young MLB player.

richardkr34
10-07-2013, 04:51 AM
If the Rays would take a package of Perkins, Rosario, Berrios, Harrison, and Kepler for Price, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat.

Payroll commitments in Twins Territory are going to be low from 2015 onward, when they'd have to pay Price.

Mr. Brooks
10-07-2013, 07:18 AM
Actual obligations are lower, at 46 million. If the Twins only made move within the organization this offseason the payroll would be in that ballpark(68 is 2-3 million or so high imo).

Not really, the league minimum is roughly 500k. Even if they bring back all their ARB eligible guys, then fill out the rest with league minimum guys, that only brings them up to $57 or $58 million.

Oldgoat_MN
10-07-2013, 07:33 AM
....
And if our better coaches are not at the higher levels ....

Hmmm...

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 10:51 AM
If the Rays would take a package of Perkins, Rosario, Berrios, Harrison, and Kepler for Price, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat.

Payroll commitments in Twins Territory are going to be low from 2015 onward, when they'd have to pay Price.

They wouldn't. Look at the package Shields commanded. However, even if they did, why would Price agree to an extension with the Twins? Why wouldn't he just wait it out the two years until free agency arrived? On a related topic, do we know that Ryan would be comfortable committing the dollars and years that would be necessary to locking up a player like Price? He was either unable or unwilling to shell out for Hunter, Santana, Mauer and Morneau. Those were "home grown" players too. It's not at all clear to me that Ryan would be comfortable enough to even make a prospect for superstar trade that would then require a significant financial commitment to keep said star.

cmb0252
10-07-2013, 12:35 PM
While I prefer to hold onto our prospects, due to the fact we have holes everywhere, you have to explore every possibility to get better. I dislike this FA agency class quite a bit so trading prospects might be our only chance to get a true impact pitcher.

richardkr34
10-07-2013, 01:54 PM
They wouldn't. Look at the package Shields commanded. However, even if they did, why would Price agree to an extension with the Twins? Why wouldn't he just wait it out the two years until free agency arrived? On a related topic, do we know that Ryan would be comfortable committing the dollars and years that would be necessary to locking up a player like Price? He was either unable or unwilling to shell out for Hunter, Santana, Mauer and Morneau. Those were "home grown" players too. It's not at all clear to me that Ryan would be comfortable enough to even make a prospect for superstar trade that would then require a significant financial commitment to keep said star.

They got Shields and Davis for, essentially, Myers. This is a cheap, proven, dependable closer, an almost-ready top 50 prospect, two top 100 prospects, and a projectable power bat. And in two years, with Perk gone, the Twins would have Mauer and little else on the payroll. Shields would be 30 and could ask for, at most, six years. They could afforded it, and the Rays would listen. Just because the Royals made a stupid trade doesn't mean the other 29 teams would do the same.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 02:49 PM
They got Shields and Davis for, essentially, Myers. This is a cheap, proven, dependable closer, an almost-ready top 50 prospect, two top 100 prospects, and a projectable power bat. And in two years, with Perk gone, the Twins would have Mauer and little else on the payroll. Shields would be 30 and could ask for, at most, six years. They could afforded it, and the Rays would listen. Just because the Royals made a stupid trade doesn't mean the other 29 teams would do the same.

First, Price is younger, has 3 years of control not 2, a better pitcher than James Shields and as such will cost more.

Second, Davis was a salary dump. You also forgot to include Odorizzi, a top 100 pitcher and Mike Montgomery who was a top 50 prospect in 2011. So in essence the Rays got $8MM in salary relief, top 5 and 100 prospects, and a potential bounce back flier with very high upside. That is considerably more that "just Myers."

Third, the Rays don't value closers. They prefer to sign old veterans on the cheap so Perkins isn't the chip you are implying.

So, you're offering Perkins, a player they don't value, Rosario (top 100 prospect), Berrios (top 150), and 2 fliers. There is just no way they take that for one of the best pitchers in the game and in his prime.

If you're looking to build a package for Price you have to start with Sano or Buxton. Then include another top 100 prospect (Rosario or Meyer) and either Berrios or Trevor May. Toss in some fliers like Harrison or Kepler to make the deal even out. That is essentially what Shields cost so the Rays might want more.

That is too much since we aren't currently competitive, don't know that Ryan would do what it would take to sign Price long term and we aren't sure that Price would be interested in signing for a team that is likely to be bad during the negotiations, IMO.

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 03:34 PM
On a related topic, do we know that Ryan would be comfortable committing the dollars and years that would be necessary to locking up a player like Price? He was either unable or unwilling to shell out for Hunter, Santana, Mauer and Morneau. Those were "home grown" players too. It's not at all clear to me that Ryan would be comfortable enough to even make a prospect for superstar trade that would then require a significant financial commitment to keep said star.

He signed Hunter, Mauer and Santana to longer deals that bought out some free agency years. (Hunter stayed with the Twins through his age 31 season). Also, those Twins teams had significant payroll issues that limit how much we compare to now.

And, realistically, Ryan will probably retire before any of these elite prospects are out of team control.

Oh, forgot, he also kept Radke here.

TheLeviathan
10-07-2013, 03:41 PM
He signed Hunter, Mauer and Santana to longer deals that bought out some free agency years. (Hunter stayed with the Twins through his age 31 season). Also, those Twins teams had significant payroll issues that limit how much we compare to now.

And, realistically, Ryan will probably retire before any of these elite prospects are out of team control.

those are the easier deals because you have leverage advantage. This is simply a fact, but Ryan has never given more than 3 years to a FA or even an impending one. That trend has to stop.

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 03:44 PM
This is simply a fact, but Ryan has never given more than 3 years to a FA or even an impending one. That trend has to stop.

It is a fact but it might not be a relevant one b/c a different fact, Metrodome Twins payroll issues, significantly impacted Ryan's ability to do so.

ThePuck
10-07-2013, 03:53 PM
On a related topic, do we know that Ryan would be comfortable committing the dollars and years that would be necessary to locking up a player like Price? He was either unable or unwilling to shell out for Hunter, Santana, Mauer and Morneau. Those were "home grown" players too. It's not at all clear to me that Ryan would be comfortable enough to even make a prospect for superstar trade that would then require a significant financial commitment to keep said star.

While he did spend give Hunter, Mauer and Santana contracts, none of them were for big money (as it pertains to baseball contracts)...all of them were for less than an average 10M a year. He made an offer to Hunter in August 2007 that he knew Hunter would turn down after not working a deal in the offseason prior to 2007, but that was mostly for show...not that he wouldn't have been happy if Hunter lost his mind and took it when he knew he could likely get more years somewhere else.

ThePuck
10-07-2013, 03:58 PM
those are the easier deals because you have leverage advantage. This is simply a fact, but Ryan has never given more than 3 years to a FA or even an impending one. That trend has to stop.

We don't have the Metrodome financial issues anymore, so while it's a decent excuse for how things were run his first time around, not sure how it applies now....other to say we can't base his history of transactions on his previous time as GM because the financial landscape is different.

That's fine and dandy, but he has yet to adjust to the new money available...or so it seems. It seems that way because he considers the Willingham deal a huge deal. So, yeah, there's more money available...but having available money and actually spending the available money are two different things entirely.

In any event, this thread is about trading prospects. The question is, since we won't pay for quality FAs, and we have no real tradable talent on the MLB roster, how does a team get proven quality MLB pitching unless they are willing to trade some of that depth we have in the farm...depth, mind you, that hasn't proven a thing yet at the major league level...depth no one knows for sure how they'll work out.

TheLeviathan
10-07-2013, 04:07 PM
It is a fact but it might not be a relevant one b/c a different fact, Metrodome Twins payroll issues, significantly impacted Ryan's ability to do so.

Those concerns have been gone for awhile now. How much longer does that excuse get to work? As I said...it has to change.

nicksaviking
10-07-2013, 04:22 PM
He signed Hunter, Mauer and Santana to longer deals that bought out some free agency years. (Hunter stayed with the Twins through his age 31 season). Also, those Twins teams had significant payroll issues that limit how much we compare to now.

Oh, forgot, he also kept Radke here.



And each of those three could have been extended longer then they got. He bought out one (1) year of free agency for a 26-year-old left handed Cy Young Award winner. That's not exactly going out on a limb. Same with Mauer, the 23-year-old batting champ catcher.

Target Field may increase how much money Ryan can spend, but it's not going to make him feel more comfortable about handing out multi-year deals.

I'll give him Radke, that was a nice save.

Brock Beauchamp
10-07-2013, 04:24 PM
If you're looking to build a package for Price you have to start with Sano or Buxton. Then include another top 100 prospect (Rosario or Meyer) and either Berrios or Trevor May. Toss in some fliers like Harrison or Kepler to make the deal even out. That is essentially what Shields cost so the Rays might want more.

I think you're skewing a bit high but yeah, Price will cost a fortune.

But the Rays would have to be certifiably insane to not take Sano/Buxton and Meyer for Price. There is no shot in hell that another team could offer that package.

ThePuck
10-07-2013, 04:27 PM
If you're looking to build a package for Price you have to start with Sano or Buxton. Then include another top 100 prospect (Rosario or Meyer) and either Berrios or Trevor May. Toss in some fliers like Harrison or Kepler to make the deal even out. That is essentially what Shields cost so the Rays might want more.

Would you be against the idea of Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler/Harrison for Price deal?

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 04:40 PM
And each of those three could have been extended longer then they got. He bought out one (1) year of free agency for a 26-year-old left handed Cy Young Award winner. That's not exactly going out on a limb. Same with Mauer, the 23-year-old batting champ catcher.

Target Field may increase how much money Ryan can spend, but it's not going to make him feel more comfortable about handing out multi-year deals.

I'll give him Radke, that was a nice save.

Well, Mauer is still here and Hunter stuck around through the traditional prime years and was able to get a large FA contract. Same with Santana. Takes two to tango. Extending guys in their arbitration years is a fantastic way to get value for money since the team has leverage over the player. (And I believe the Twins got two of Santana's FA years). Most agents want the security of a contract over the arb years but don't want to limit the FA years. I don't know if Santana or Hunter would have nec agreed to an extra year on their extensions.

And was Santana's extension a bad deal? It took him through his age 29 season (Mets ripped up his last year and gave him a new contract but he was signed to be with us through 2008). He's had a few good years since then but nothing close to what they would've been paying him to be (and that also assumes he continued to pitch well in the AL).

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 04:42 PM
Those concerns have been gone for awhile now. How much longer does that excuse get to work? As I said...it has to change.

He's only been GM for two offseasons and the team has been so bad that free agency isn't the fix.

twinsfan34
10-07-2013, 04:48 PM
Except that most players on the 40-man but not on the 25-man won't get major minimum, since they won't be in the major leagues. I think they are guaranteed about $70K/year if they have any MLB experience and about half that if they don't.

so 15 guys...at $70k. $850k. Assuming we sign no one for anything other than the MLB minimum after that. 19 guys at $500k gives us $9.5M...so $10.35M assuming we sign only minimum salary contracts.

$57 million....bare minimum.

LaBombo
10-07-2013, 05:41 PM
He's only been GM for two offseasons and the team has been so bad that free agency isn't the fix.
That's absolutely true when you don't sign any free agents.

Few people expect free agency to "fix" the 2014 Twins. But quite a few still expect the front office to fill at least one rotation spot with a free agent pitcher who has at least a chance to be better than what they have.

cmb0252
10-07-2013, 06:59 PM
Those concerns have been gone for awhile now. How much longer does that excuse get to work? As I said...it has to change.

The excuse might not work on FA signings but I see no reason why it wouldn't work on impending FAs. Ryan hasn't had anyone really worthy of throwing big money too since coming back. While the argument can be made for Cuddyer no one was making that argument last year and who knows if we will after next season.

Smith was the one who didn't sign Torii and traded Santana. The organization reportedly offered Torii a 3 year $45 million contract which was blow away by the Angels and offered Santana 4 year $80 million extension before trading him (Santana gave the Mets ~600 great innings and 117 bad innings for $132 million). Twins did sign Nathan, Mauer, and Morny to big deals with that Target Field money.

Back to the main topic. When you have lost 95+ games three seasons in a row you have to explore every possibility. Sano+ for Price is an interesting scenario depending on if Price would sign an extension with us.

TheLeviathan
10-07-2013, 07:04 PM
He's only been GM for two offseasons and the team has been so bad that free agency isn't the fix.

Pits a trend that goes a ways back and is supported by public comments about not liking long contracts. At some point the mentality has to change as a way to improve and retain talent. You have hope that it will, I have skepticism because it never has. Time will tell.

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 07:44 PM
Pits a trend that goes a ways back and is supported by public comments about not liking long contracts. At some point the mentality has to change as a way to improve and retain talent. You have hope that it will, I have skepticism because it never has. Time will tell.

Maybe, maybe not. But when Smith was GM, the team did spend money. Whether or not they spent it well is a different matter.

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 07:46 PM
That's absolutely true when you don't sign any free agents.

Few people expect free agency to "fix" the 2014 Twins. But quite a few still expect the front office to fill at least one rotation spot with a free agent pitcher who has at least a chance to be better than what they have.

Well, that won't be too hard. Heck, you could correctly say that they did that last year when they signed Correia as he was better than what they had.

gunnarthor
10-07-2013, 07:50 PM
Back to the main topic. When you have lost 95+ games three seasons in a row you have to explore every possibility. Sano+ for Price is an interesting scenario depending on if Price would sign an extension with us.

I'd disagree with that. Price, I believe has two years left before he's a free agent. That's what Sano would be buying. If he had two more years of similar production to this year, the Twins would be giving up 6 years of control of the best power prospect in the minors for 374ip, 114 ERA+, 5.6 WAR. That would be a horrible, horrible trade for us.

ThePuck
10-07-2013, 07:52 PM
Smith was the one who didn't sign Torii and traded Santana.



Ryan had multiple chances to sign Hunter. Smith can't be the one blamed for Hunter leaving. The time to try to sign an impending FA of your own isn't two months before he becomes a FA. It's at least the offseason before a player plays his last season before becoming a FA. Smith had no shot to sign Hunter. Smith also had to trade Santana, because Santana made it clear he wasn't going to sign...but Ryan probably could have signed him before 2007 or before to a longer contract extension than the one he did.

The other contract you mentioned that the Twins did were done by Smith.

cmb0252
10-07-2013, 08:18 PM
Ryan had multiple chances to sign Hunter. Smith can't be the one blamed for Hunter leaving. The time to try to sign an impending FA of your own isn't two months before he becomes a FA. It's at least the offseason before a player plays his last season before becoming a FA. Smith had no shot to sign Hunter. Smith also had to trade Santana, because Santana made it clear he wasn't going to sign...but Ryan probably could have signed him before 2007 or before to a longer contract extension than the one he did.

The other contract you mentioned that the Twins did were done by Smith.

I mentioned Nathan, Mauer, and Morny just as examples of the Twins resigning their big time impending FAs since moving into Target field.

TheLeviathan
10-07-2013, 08:27 PM
Maybe, maybe not. But when Smith was GM, the team did spend money. Whether or not they spent it well is a different matter.

Smith isn't Ryan. One could argue it's precisely this issue tht cost him his job.

Major Leauge Ready
10-07-2013, 08:34 PM
I'd disagree with that. Price, I believe has two years left before he's a free agent. That's what Sano would be buying. If he had two more years of similar production to this year, the Twins would be giving up 6 years of control of the best power prospect in the minors for 374ip, 114 ERA+, 5.6 WAR. That would be a horrible, horrible trade for us.

It would basically be the same as trading Will Meyers, right? Except, at least KC was doing it to take a crack at the playoffs. Price and one other quality FA starter and we would be respectable but unlikely to be in contention unless we had a bunch of things go right.. That is going to put big pressure on KC to retain Santana. If he leaves their chances of getting to playoffs deminishes substantially and they might have traded Meyers for an unsuccessful single season playoff run. I can't imagine KC is not going to get outbid for him. I would not mind if we were the ones who outbid them.

ThePuck
10-07-2013, 08:59 PM
It would basically be the same as trading Will Meyers, right? Except, at least KC was doing it to take a crack at the playoffs. Price and one other quality FA starter and we would be respectable but unlikely to be in contention unless we had a bunch of things go right.. That is going to put big pressure on KC to retain Santana. If he leaves their chances of getting to playoffs deminishes substantially and they might have traded Meyers for an unsuccessful single season playoff run. I can't imagine KC is not going to get outbid for him. I would not mind if we were the ones who outbid them.

KC has Zimmer coming and Ventura has already shown up. Nice if they keep Santana, but they'll be fine if he leaves.

howieramone
10-07-2013, 09:04 PM
It would basically be the same as trading Will Meyers, right? Except, at least KC was doing it to take a crack at the playoffs. Price and one other quality FA starter and we would be respectable but unlikely to be in contention unless we had a bunch of things go right.. That is going to put big pressure on KC to retain Santana. If he leaves their chances of getting to playoffs deminishes substantially and they might have traded Meyers for an unsuccessful single season playoff run. I can't imagine KC is not going to get outbid for him. I would not mind if we were the ones who outbid them. You make a very good point. The Royals rebuild for 7 years, IMO they panicked and made a premature trade, now they maybe looking at being one and done.

Edit: Zimmer had 18 innings at AA last season, and Ventura made 3 September starts totaling 15 innings.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 10:13 PM
Hunter was 26 and signed for $32MM over 4 seasons. Joe Mauer was 23 when he signed a 4 year $33MM contract. Santana was 25 when he signed a 4 year $40MM contract. Brad Radke was 28 when he signed a 4 year $36MM contract.

Each of those players had come up through the Twins system and were fan favorites. The medical history was known. The players attitude was known. How they fit in the locker room, how they handled the press. Other than Radke they all signed contracts that ran only through their "prime" years. Each contract was only 4 years and $10MM/yr or less.

On the other hand David Price will be 28 or 29 and will receive a 6 or 7 year contract for $170MM-$200MM. He will be 35 or 36 when his contract expires. His peripherals (makeup, attitude, etc...) will all be relatively unknown at the time the trade happens. He is also going to cost the Twins 3 or 4 very significant prospects. Oh yeah, and he might decide he wants to test out free agency anyways.

Ryan has never brokered any deal even remotely similar to this and all of his quotes in the paper indicate he despises these kinds of deals.


Would you be against the idea of Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler/Harrison for Price deal?

I think you're skewing a bit high but yeah, Price will cost a fortune.

But the Rays would have to be certifiably insane to not take Sano/Buxton and Meyer for Price. There is no shot in hell that another team could offer that package.

Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler/Harrison isn't even what the Rays got in return for Shields. They got a pitcher instead of Rosario and $8MM in salary relief. Take that plus the fact that Price is younger and a better pitcher and I think it would cost the Twins more. Sano/Buxton, Meyer/Stewart (depending on when the deal is made), May/Berrios, plus one or two sweetners like Kepler and Harrison.

So no, I wouldn't do that deal. I might do the Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler deal. I think Sano's K-rate is going to hurt him, not that he won't turn into a fine player but I don't think he's the second coming of Cabrera or even Beltre, and I think May ends up as a backend starter or in the bullpen.

Frankly, if the Twins wanted a front of the rotation starter, the solution was to throw big money at Greinke or Sanchez last off season. That way they didn't have to give up any prospects. I think this is all a mirage though because I don't think Ryan will have the courage to sign Price to a long term big money contract and he isn't going to make the deal for just the two years remaining on Price's contract with where the Twins currently are at.

Thegrin
10-07-2013, 10:44 PM
Trading rule #1 Never trade a big league bat for an arm unless
a. The bat is old
b. The bat is flawed (see Delmon Young)
c. Unless you get at least 2 arms (May & Worley for Revere)
Span for Meyers will probably prove to be a very bad trade.

Trading Rule #2 Never trade a top batting prospect unless
a. You have a superstar playing that position already.
b. That player has flaws, known only to your organization.
c. Unless you are on the verge of winning a pennant.

Oxtung
10-07-2013, 11:25 PM
But the Rays would have to be certifiably insane to not take Sano/Buxton and Meyer for Price. There is no shot in hell that another team could offer that package.

I did a little bit of digging.

Cleveland could offer a comparable package fronted by either or both of Lindor and Kipnis plus Trevor Bauer and sweetners. The Red Sox certainly have the talent in their minor league system to match our offer. Some combination of Bogaerts, Jackie Bradley, Webster, Owens, Barnes plus sweeteners. I don't think they will though because they look pretty set at pitcher for the foreseeable future. The Mariners probably could put a package together between Zunino, Walker, Paxton, Hultzen, Montero and Franklin. Again though I don't think they would because they have quite a few pitching prospects lined up to go with Hernandez and Iwakuma. The Rangers are intriguing though. They have Darvish and Holland and ... ? They could build a package fronted by Profar and some combination of Sardinas, Odor, Alfaro and Gallo plus sweetners. The Cubs absolutely could, they are stocked with young talent, and they are in need of pitching. My question is if the timing is right for them to make this move (just like the Twins). The Reds might be able to depending on how you view Billy Hamilton but I don't think they would. They have quite a bit of pitching talent at the major league level right now. The Pirates could muster up the prospects but it seems unlikely they'd be able to afford Price any more than the Rays can. The Cardinals could probably make a similar offer with Taveras and Wong but they too have quite a few nice young pitching prospects so they won't be interested. The Dodgers are interesting. They don't necessarily need Price but they are definitely in win now mode, so if they wanted an absolutely dominant rotation he would be interesting. They don't have any top end talent but they do have quite a bit of middle end talent they could perhaps package four 50-100 type prospects together.

So the Rangers, Dodgers, Cleveland and Cubs in that order of likelihood IMO. Toss the Twins in where you feel appropriate.

Brock Beauchamp
10-08-2013, 06:55 AM
Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler/Harrison isn't even what the Rays got in return for Shields. They got a pitcher instead of Rosario and $8MM in salary relief. Take that plus the fact that Price is younger and a better pitcher and I think it would cost the Twins more. Sano/Buxton, Meyer/Stewart (depending on when the deal is made), May/Berrios, plus one or two sweetners like Kepler and Harrison.

You're assuming two things:

1. Another team with that kind of prospect package is going to be willing to trade for Price

2. Another team with that kind of prospect package is going to be insane enough to trade them away

The Rays absolutely jobbed the Royals in that deal. I don't see it happening twice.

spideyo
10-08-2013, 09:27 AM
All this talk of sending a huge package of players for Price is starting to give me flashbacks of Herschel Walker.

No matter how good a starting pitcher is, at most he will be contributing in 32-33 games during the regular season.

Even if he managed to never miss a start and we won every single game he started, that alone will not be enough to be champions.

Gutting our farm system and/or getting rid of a fantastic and affordable closer is certainly not going to help us win any of the other 130 games.

ThePuck
10-08-2013, 09:45 AM
Having a big time ace helps save the bullpen which will rest them and help us in all the other games. On top of that , in your hypothetical, if we won all his starts that would mean we only need around 60 wins coming from the starts of the other four. The winning all his starts scenario wouldn't happen though. In any event, an ace is very valuable and that value extends past his own starts

richardkr34
10-08-2013, 12:17 PM
First, Price is younger, has 3 years of control not 2, a better pitcher than James Shields and as such will cost more.

Second, Davis was a salary dump. You also forgot to include Odorizzi, a top 100 pitcher and Mike Montgomery who was a top 50 prospect in 2011. So in essence the Rays got $8MM in salary relief, top 5 and 100 prospects, and a potential bounce back flier with very high upside. That is considerably more that "just Myers."

Third, the Rays don't value closers. They prefer to sign old veterans on the cheap so Perkins isn't the chip you are implying.

So, you're offering Perkins, a player they don't value, Rosario (top 100 prospect), Berrios (top 150), and 2 fliers. There is just no way they take that for one of the best pitchers in the game and in his prime.

If you're looking to build a package for Price you have to start with Sano or Buxton. Then include another top 100 prospect (Rosario or Meyer) and either Berrios or Trevor May. Toss in some fliers like Harrison or Kepler to make the deal even out. That is essentially what Shields cost so the Rays might want more.

That is too much since we aren't currently competitive, don't know that Ryan would do what it would take to sign Price long term and we aren't sure that Price would be interested in signing for a team that is likely to be bad during the negotiations, IMO.

1) Price has two years of arbitration, not three.

2) Montgomery has completely fallen off the map (4.72 ERA and 48/77 BB/K ratio) and Odorizzi is the consummate #5 starter-type prospect. Joe Blanton-esque.

3) Rosario just missed Parks' top 50 midseason; he was 41 on Law's. Berrios just missed Parks' midseason 50. Kepler is not a throw in; if you think that, you're just saying things right now that have no meaning. Harrison has 65 raw power and has some idea how to hit.

4) The Rays paid Rodney 2.5 mil; Perk made the same. He gets a raise in the next few years, but he's younger and better.

5) Again, just because the Royals made a stupid trade doesn't mean 29 other teams are going to. The Cubs got a 3b who can't hit, a fringe top-100 guy, and two throw ins for Garza. I know it's different talent/contract issues, but an elite closer, a top 50 guy, a top 50-75 guy, a top 100 guy, and a 20-year-old with 65 raw and an at least average hit tool blows that out of the water and is more realistic than basing a presumed Price trade on Dayton Moore's stupidity.

twinsfan34
10-08-2013, 12:21 PM
Trading rule #1 Never trade a big league bat for an arm unless
a. The bat is old
b. The bat is flawed (see Delmon Young)
c. Unless you get at least 2 arms (May & Worley for Revere)
Span for Meyers will probably prove to be a very bad trade.

Trading Rule #2 Never trade a top batting prospect unless
a. You have a superstar playing that position already.
b. That player has flaws, known only to your organization.
c. Unless you are on the verge of winning a pennant.


This is great. Yours?

1. Agree. Bat is way more project-able for value.

2. I see how the Tampa Bay Rays basically fleeced the Royals. The Royals had top arms in in AA and AAA. Shields is solid. But Wade Davis? And you give the Rays 2 top pitching prospects (Mike Montgomery #31 ovr (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=montgo001mic), Jake Odorizzi, #45 ovr (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=odoriz001jac)) and Wil Myers (#4 prospect ovr (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=myers-006wil))!!?

Welp, they are what we thought they were. They are, in fact, the Royals.

twinsfan34
10-08-2013, 12:33 PM
I did a little bit of digging.

Cleveland could offer a comparable package fronted by either or both of Lindor and Kipnis plus Trevor Bauer and sweetners. The Red Sox certainly have the talent in their minor league system to match our offer. Some combination of Bogaerts, Jackie Bradley, Webster, Owens, Barnes plus sweeteners. I don't think they will though because they look pretty set at pitcher for the foreseeable future. The Mariners probably could put a package together between Zunino, Walker, Paxton, Hultzen, Montero and Franklin. Again though I don't think they would because they have quite a few pitching prospects lined up to go with Hernandez and Iwakuma. The Rangers are intriguing though. They have Darvish and Holland and ... ? They could build a package fronted by Profar and some combination of Sardinas, Odor, Alfaro and Gallo plus sweetners. The Cubs absolutely could, they are stocked with young talent, and they are in need of pitching. My question is if the timing is right for them to make this move (just like the Twins). The Reds might be able to depending on how you view Billy Hamilton but I don't think they would. They have quite a bit of pitching talent at the major league level right now. The Pirates could muster up the prospects but it seems unlikely they'd be able to afford Price any more than the Rays can. The Cardinals could probably make a similar offer with Taveras and Wong but they too have quite a few nice young pitching prospects so they won't be interested. The Dodgers are interesting. They don't necessarily need Price but they are definitely in win now mode, so if they wanted an absolutely dominant rotation he would be interesting. They don't have any top end talent but they do have quite a bit of middle end talent they could perhaps package four 50-100 type prospects together.

So the Rangers, Dodgers, Cleveland and Cubs in that order of likelihood IMO. Toss the Twins in where you feel appropriate.

Is there really this much interest in David Price? He'd have to be traded this Fall to get two "cheap" ($11M-$15M) seasons, before he asks for $25M a season for 5-8 years at age 30.

I don't see that as a smart move for m(any) teams.

Oxtung
10-08-2013, 02:04 PM
1) Price has two years of arbitration, not three.

2) Montgomery has completely fallen off the map (4.72 ERA and 48/77 BB/K ratio) and Odorizzi is the consummate #5 starter-type prospect. Joe Blanton-esque.

3) Rosario just missed Parks' top 50 midseason; he was 41 on Law's. Berrios just missed Parks' midseason 50. Kepler is not a throw in; if you think that, you're just saying things right now that have no meaning. Harrison has 65 raw power and has some idea how to hit.

4) The Rays paid Rodney 2.5 mil; Perk made the same. He gets a raise in the next few years, but he's younger and better.

5) Again, just because the Royals made a stupid trade doesn't mean 29 other teams are going to. The Cubs got a 3b who can't hit, a fringe top-100 guy, and two throw ins for Garza. I know it's different talent/contract issues, but an elite closer, a top 50 guy, a top 50-75 guy, a top 100 guy, and a 20-year-old with 65 raw and an at least average hit tool blows that out of the water and is more realistic than basing a presumed Price trade on Dayton Moore's stupidity.

1) you're absolutely correct. I saw that last night and wanted to see who would catch it. :)

As for the rest I'm at work so can't write much now but will try to get back to it later. I'll just say that you're overvaluing the Twins prospects a bit and undervaluing other teams.

Oxtung
10-08-2013, 05:24 PM
You're assuming two things:

1. Another team with that kind of prospect package is going to be willing to trade for Price

2. Another team with that kind of prospect package is going to be insane enough to trade them away

The Rays absolutely jobbed the Royals in that deal. I don't see it happening twice.

Perhaps. Do you know of any other recent comps for this potential David Price trade and sign? Sanchez last year, but he was a trade deadline move and doesn't comp particularly well.

diehardtwinsfan
10-08-2013, 05:35 PM
So no, I wouldn't do that deal. I might do the Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler deal.


Even this is a terrible deal. The Rays would jump on this so fast your head would spin. Way too much to give up. Price won't transform this team from 90 losses to 90 wins. Those four guys have a far better chance of doing that.

Brock Beauchamp
10-08-2013, 05:53 PM
Perhaps. Do you know of any other recent comps for this potential David Price trade and sign? Sanchez last year, but he was a trade deadline move and doesn't comp particularly well.

Greinke to the Brewers. As a headliner, the Brewers gave up Escobar, BA's #12 prospect (in other words, very good but a far cry from Myers/Sano). After that, they had a bunch of marginal-to-decent prospects who weren't in BA's top 100 as of February 2010.

Johan is another decent comp (only one year but guaranteed an extension and a better pitcher than Shields, Greinke, and Price by a country mile). But we all know the Twins basically pulled an anti-Rays with that particular trade.

Oxtung
10-08-2013, 06:38 PM
1) Price has two years of arbitration, not three.

2) Montgomery has completely fallen off the map (4.72 ERA and 48/77 BB/K ratio) and Odorizzi is the consummate #5 starter-type prospect. Joe Blanton-esque.

3) Rosario just missed Parks' top 50 midseason; he was 41 on Law's. Berrios just missed Parks' midseason 50. Kepler is not a throw in; if you think that, you're just saying things right now that have no meaning. Harrison has 65 raw power and has some idea how to hit.

4) The Rays paid Rodney 2.5 mil; Perk made the same. He gets a raise in the next few years, but he's younger and better.

5) Again, just because the Royals made a stupid trade doesn't mean 29 other teams are going to. The Cubs got a 3b who can't hit, a fringe top-100 guy, and two throw ins for Garza. I know it's different talent/contract issues, but an elite closer, a top 50 guy, a top 50-75 guy, a top 100 guy, and a 20-year-old with 65 raw and an at least average hit tool blows that out of the water and is more realistic than basing a presumed Price trade on Dayton Moore's stupidity.

2) I'm not sure what Montgomery (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=montgo001mic)'s 2013 stats have to do with his value during the 2012 off season. He certainly had a tough year before he was traded but he was considered a top prospect, #23 by BA and #31 by mlb.com, going into the 2012 season. So while he had a tough year he still had value. Clearly the Rays were hoping for a bounce back year, just like the Twins were with Trevor May.

Odorizzi (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=odoriz001jac) was not considered a #5 type starter at the time of the trade (I haven't been following him closely but I doubt he is considered that now even.) He averaged 9 k/9 for his minor league career including at AAA. He was a dominant pitcher at almost every step along the way. I would guess he was considered a potential #2 starter but likely #3. For reference at the time of the trade Odorizzi was ranked #92 by BA (down from 68 the year before) and #45 by mlb.com.

3) Rosario will end up somewhere between 40 and 70 probably. Depends on how people view his second half. Berrios however will not be in any top 100's (just like he wasn't last season) because he hit a wall in the second half. He has talent but he has yet to put together a full season justifying a high ranking. Kepler is a rule 5 eligible OF/1B with big questions and has only played half a season at low A ball. He most definitely is a sweetner. He has a chance to be a MLB player some day if he can put things together but he isn't what this trade hinges on, not when you're talking about the best prospect and a top 10 pitcher in baseball headling the trade. Harrison is not even at Kepler's level. Again, I'm not saying these guys don't have a chance to play at the major league level, but at this point they aren't what this trade hinges on. They are just two of a potential ten-ish guys that could be used to even the deal out to both sides satisfaction.

4) I'm not arguing if Perkins is better than Rodney, although Rodney's 2012 season is one of the two greatest seasons for a reliever ever, only rivaled by Eckersley's 1990 season, I'm saying that the Rays don't highly value the closer position. Here is a list of their closers for the last 8 years: 36yo Al Reyes who was coming off of TJ surgery, 38 & 39yo Troy Percival, 30yo Rafael Soriano whom they traded a bag of beans for, 35yo Kyle Farnsworth, 35 & 36yo Fernando Rodney who hadn't had an ERA below 4.20 in five seasons before signing with the Rays. Other than Soriano each of those players are old guys past their prime that hadn't been "closers" for at least a year (and in a couple cases had never been) before they signed cheaply with the Rays. The Rays have an uncanny ability to take an old has been and squeeze 1 or 2 good years of closing duty out at a cheap price.

5) You could end up being right about how teams view David Price's value. We won't know until a trade actually happens. Garza is a pretty poor comp though, so don't put any stock into his trade return (although you're underrating the return here, especially Olt who had vision problems this season but was a top 25 prospect to begin the season). Again, you're overrating the Twins prospects here, this time by quite a bit. The Rays don't value closers as I showed above so Perkins won't move the needle like you think, Berrios is a 100-200 prospect (where he sits depends on how you view his second half difficulties), and Kepler is no where near the top 100 after this season.

In the end you're left with a closer they don't want, a second baseman that is a poor defender (good bat though will make up for it hopefully), a potential middle to back of the rotation starting pitcher at low a-ball and a lottery ticket that has all kinds of questions that I mentioned earlier. I just don't see that package getting it done.

Oxtung
10-08-2013, 07:03 PM
Is there really this much interest in David Price? He'd have to be traded this Fall to get two "cheap" ($11M-$15M) seasons, before he asks for $25M a season for 5-8 years at age 30.

I don't see that as a smart move for m(any) teams.

Not nessecarily that much interest. I was merely speculating. Though, aces are hard to come by and if you're in "win now" mode there really are only two ways to acquire one. Sign one in FA, which there aren't any this off season, or trade for one. Other potential trade targets include Cliff Lee, though he is 35 and is owed $25MM in both '14 and '15 with an achievable vesting option of $27.5MM in 2016 when he'll be 37, perhaps CC Sabathia if you think he'll bounce back and the Yankees want to get out from underneath his contract and your team can afford it, 38 year old RA Dickey if you think he'll bounce back to his 2012 form (he's signed through 2015 as well at which point he'll be 40 years old, he's cheap though), Matt Cain if the Giants are looking to rebuild and you think he'll return to pre-2013 form, and lastly perhaps Lester or Lackey from Boston if they believe one of their young arms is ready to step up and replace them (though that seems unlikely to me, also I'm not sure they qualify as "aces").

As you can see the market is quite slim and each one has big question marks. Price, by far is the best available (assuming the Rays want to move him). The Rangers, IMO, are the only team likely to make a deal for Price this off season. They have the prospects and the need.

Oxtung
10-08-2013, 07:41 PM
Greinke to the Brewers. As a headliner, the Brewers gave up Escobar, BA's #12 prospect (in other words, very good but a far cry from Myers/Sano). After that, they had a bunch of marginal-to-decent prospects who weren't in BA's top 100 as of February 2010.

Johan is another decent comp (only one year but guaranteed an extension and a better pitcher than Shields, Greinke, and Price by a country mile). But we all know the Twins basically pulled an anti-Rays with that particular trade.

Odorizzi was a part of that Greinke trade too and had a very nice 2010 season just before the trade. Pre-2011 he was ranked #69 by BA. So they basically gave up one very highly rated player (Escobar) and a second top-100 prospect plus 2 sweeteners.

David Price is a better pitcher than Greinke was though and he doesn't have the mental questions (rightly or wrongly applied to Greinke).

I think the Santana trade was too long ago to draw many conclusions from as well. The way star pitchers (and pitchers in general) are valued has changed, IMO.

Perhaps a Sano, Rosario, May, Hicks package as a comp for the Greinke haul? If you don't like Hicks maybe Danny Santana? Sano is probably a little more highly regarded than Escobar was, Rosario and Odorizzi are close to a wash, May and Jeffress seem in the ball park, and Hicks/Santana are close to ready but question marks surround both like Lorenzo Cain. I think Price is a better pitcher than Greinke though, with less questions too, so perhaps upgrade May to Berrios? Or perhaps Sano's value is enough to carry the difference between Price and Greinke. Thoughts?

Brock Beauchamp
10-08-2013, 08:34 PM
Odorizzi was a part of that Greinke trade too and had a very nice 2010 season just before the trade. Pre-2011 he was ranked #69 by BA. So they basically gave up one very highly rated player (Escobar) and a second top-100 prospect plus 2 sweeteners.

David Price is a better pitcher than Greinke was though and he doesn't have the mental questions (rightly or wrongly applied to Greinke).

I think the Santana trade was too long ago to draw many conclusions from as well. The way star pitchers (and pitchers in general) are valued has changed, IMO.

Perhaps a Sano, Rosario, May, Hicks package as a comp for the Greinke haul? If you don't like Hicks maybe Danny Santana? Sano is probably a little more highly regarded than Escobar was, Rosario and Odorizzi are close to a wash, May and Jeffress seem in the ball park, and Hicks/Santana are close to ready but question marks surround both like Lorenzo Cain. I think Price is a better pitcher than Greinke though, with less questions too, so perhaps upgrade May to Berrios? Or perhaps Sano's value is enough to carry the difference between Price and Greinke. Thoughts?

If you align stats to the time of the trade, Greinke was considered the better pitcher. Yeah, he struggled in 2010 (then again, Price wasn't great this season either) but his 2009 was probably better than any season Johan had, much less Price. Price is an ace. Greinke was an ACE. Possibly considered the best pitcher in baseball.

And you can't compare Sano to Escobar. Right or wrong, there is a huge perception difference between a top 5 prospect and a top 15 prospect. One is very good. The other is can't miss unless something goes horribly wrong.

Oxtung
10-08-2013, 11:55 PM
If you align stats to the time of the trade, Greinke was considered the better pitcher. Yeah, he struggled in 2010 (then again, Price wasn't great this season either) but his 2009 was probably better than any season Johan had, much less Price. Price is an ace. Greinke was an ACE. Possibly considered the best pitcher in baseball.

And you can't compare Sano to Escobar. Right or wrong, there is a huge perception difference between a top 5 prospect and a top 15 prospect. One is very good. The other is can't miss unless something goes horribly wrong.

I'm don't think I agree with you on Price vs. Greinke. Greinke certainly had that phenomenal season and it was better than anything Price has put up. However, when comparing their statistics, up to this season for Price (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/priceda01.shtml#2008-2013-sum:pitching_standard) and to the point Greinke (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/greinza01.shtml#2004-2010-sum:pitching_standard) was traded, Price is equal or better across the board.

Price had a very good year this season. He was bad to start with then sat out a couple games, presumably an injury, then was phenomenal over his last 18 starts (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=priceda01&t=p&year=2013&share=3.97#135-152-sum:pitching_gamelogs). Greinke on the other hand was the definition of average (ERA+ 100) the season before he was traded and there was nothing to point to where a GM could say, "oh clearly there was something wrong, it got fixed, and Price is now back to his ace-like ways."

Another way to look at it, though I'm not sure how much weight it should carry, is that Greinke had that phenomenal year but other than that one year he didn't even receive votes for any other major award. Price on the other hand is a 3 time All-Star (Greinke 1), won the Cy Young award (like Greinke) and finished runner up a second time (unlike Greinke).

Anyways, moving on because we've likely hashed that to death, I'm not sure you're correct about the difference between Sano and, let's say, Addison Russell who will likely end up around 12 when the rankings come out. Sano certainly has his share of pluses but he has holes in his game just like almost every other prospect. There are plenty of top #5 "can't miss" prospects that do in fact miss. I would agree with your statement about a clear cut #1 prospect like Buxton, Trout or Mauer who appear to have no real holes in their game but that isn't Sano.

Still, in trying to reach a consensus, what do you think a comparable set of current Twins prospects are to those in the Greinke trade? I'm trying to come up with a set for the Greinke and Sheilds trade so that we can have a better idea of what it might actually cost the Twins if they were to trade for Price.

Brock Beauchamp
10-09-2013, 07:08 AM
Still, in trying to reach a consensus, what do you think a comparable set of current Twins prospects are to those in the Greinke trade? I'm trying to come up with a set for the Greinke and Sheilds trade so that we can have a better idea of what it might actually cost the Twins if they were to trade for Price.

Really, I think you're not that far off the mark. I'd say Sano, May, Rosario, and Danny Santana would be a good comp. Hicks is still regarded too highly to be on that list, I think. I don't like the Sano/Escobar comp that much but the Twins don't have anyone between Sano and Meyer so it'll have to do.

As for Greinke, we'll just have to disagree. His 2009 was so much better than anything Price has posted (and is the closest thing to a 1999 Pedro we've seen since Martinez was in his prime) that it (unfairly or not) skewed the perception of each pitcher.

And, while Johan may have been traded a half decade ago, he's a far better pitcher than either Greinke or Price. The comp has merit, I think. The evaluation tools may have changed a bit since then but Johan was just so much better than Greinke and Price that it more than compensates for the difference. Johan had four seasons with an ERA+ over 150.

Greinke, Shields, and Price have one combined.

God, it's frustrating to go back and look at Johan's numbers as a Twin.

cmathewson
10-09-2013, 07:34 AM
I agree with the overall sentiment of this post, except in special circumstances. For example, when you are missing that one piece for a championship. But I'm not worried. Ryan rarely trades prospects. The last time he did, I believe, was when he traded a couple of relief prospects for Castillo. That was a good trade because it solidified a position of need and the prospects didn't ever do anything. But I remember some members of the community complained about it at the time.

The last time we traded a prospect for an established player (under BS), it was a total disaster. Considering how far away this team is from contention, I don't see it happening.

Major Leauge Ready
10-09-2013, 08:10 AM
KC has Zimmer coming and Ventura has already shown up. Nice if they keep Santana, but they'll be fine if he leaves.

I am not quite sure of your position here. Are you saying these two (Alex Meyer) equivalent prospects will be able to match Santan's production this year. Therefore, KC will have an equivalent chance to make a playoff run this year or are you saying they will be fine long-term?

Brock Beauchamp
10-09-2013, 08:20 AM
I am not quite sure of your position here. Are you saying these two (Alex Meyer) equivalent prospects will be able to match Santan's production this year. Therefore, KC will have an equivalent chance to make a playoff run this year or are you saying they will be fine long-term?

Yeah... Santana was a 127 ERA+, 2.8 WAR player in 2013. The Royals are going to struggle to replace his numbers and it's quite a leap to assume that Ventura will come anywhere close to that in 2014. Zimmer won't be a factor in the first few months of 2014, methinks.

Of course, there's also a damned good chance that Santana won't come close to that in 2014 either... But we're talking about replacing Santana's 2013, not his potential 2014.

But if you're talking long-term future of the Royals, yeah, it's a decent bet that at least one of them will step up and be a factor.

ThePuck
10-09-2013, 08:20 AM
I am not quite sure of your position here. Are you saying these two (Alex Meyer) equivalent prospects will be able to match Santan's production this year. Therefore, KC will have an equivalent chance to make a playoff run this year or are you saying they will be fine long-term?

I'm saying they have arms on the brink to help cushion the loss of Santana. Now, on top of that, as late as early August, they had 5 players who had a combined OPS of 500 points lower than it was just the year before. With the turnaround some of those guys had as the end (living up to what they were capable of all year), I expect that will continue and, with the addition of Ventura for a full season and Zimmer probably mid-season, I think they will be fine.

Major Leauge Ready
10-09-2013, 10:58 AM
I'm saying they have arms on the brink to help cushion the loss of Santana. Now, on top of that, as late as early August, they had 5 players who had a combined OPS of 500 points lower than it was just the year before. With the turnaround some of those guys had as the end (living up to what they were capable of all year), I expect that will continue and, with the addition of Ventura for a full season and Zimmer probably mid-season, I think they will be fine.

OK, I have to agree your long-term perspective here but I don’t think their emergence of these players is relevant to the subject at hand which I thought was the wisdom of KC trading Meyers, Montgomery, and Odorizzi for Shields/Davis. The value proposition in that transaction was 2 years of Shields/Davis for six years of Meyers, Montgomery, and Ordozzi. Their remaining value in that deal is one more year of Shields/Davis. That’s what they traded for in this transaction.

If you are correct that Zimmer and Ventura are legitimate replacements for Santana and Shields, KC pushed the orchestration of this rebuild IMO and it will likely prove to be a big mistake. Instead of a two year run with shields/Davis, they could have had the following scenario.

#29 Zimmer, #31 Montgomery, #34Ventura, and #45 Odorizzi for 6 years instead of Shields/Santana/Davis for 2. These players would not only be assets for an additional 4 years, they would net a payroll flexibility/availability in the neighborhood of $25M

Retaining Meyers would have allowed them to trade Alex Gordon. KC could get some pretty nice prospects for Gordon, gain another 8M+ in payroll flexibility while inserting a roughly equivalent player. Gordon is a little better right now in his prime as compared to Meyers as a rookie. Meyers is likely the better player in the long run.

With the $33M, KC can cover all of the arbitration increases and now have several years of their core in their prime. They also would have gained the prospects from trading Gordon. Instead, they panicked for a short-term gain.

They also have Manaea who could find it again and be a top 25 prospect.
#40 Starling and #46 Mondesi. They could also potentially trade Escobar now that his cost will be going up and gained more prospects and more salary flexibility. Starling is a Rosario level prospect. You have to believe he makes them better.

Had this scenario played out, they could afford to extend Hosmer, cover their other arbitration cases ’s and probably still have some money left over for free agent additions.

The net is that they lost Meyer, Montgomery, Odorizzi, and some additional prospects (had they traded Gordon) from what should be a pretty good team for a few years. Would they have made them a contender? Only time will tell but they very likely would have been better for several more years had they not rushed the process.

ThePuck
10-09-2013, 11:09 AM
OK, I have to agree your long-term perspective here but I donít think their emergence of these players is relevant to the subject at hand which I thought was the wisdom of KC trading Meyers, Montgomery, and Odorizzi for Shields/Davis. The value proposition in that transaction was 2 years of Shields/Davis for six years of Meyers, Montgomery, and Ordozzi. Their remaining value in that deal is one more year of Shields/Davis. Thatís what they traded for in this transaction.

If you are correct that Zimmer and Ventura are legitimate replacements for Santana and Shields, KC pushed the orchestration of this rebuild IMO and it will likely prove to be a big mistake. Instead of a two year run with shields/Davis, they could have had the following scenario.

#29 Zimmer, #31 Montgomery, #34Ventura, and #45 Odorizzi for 6 years instead of Shields/Santana/Davis for 2. These players would not only be assets for an additional 4 years, they would net a payroll flexibility/availability in the neighborhood of $25M

Retaining Meyers would have allowed them to trade Alex Gordon. KC could get some pretty nice prospects for Gordon, gain another 8M+ in payroll flexibility while inserting a roughly equivalent player. Gordon is a little better right now in his prime as compared to Meyers as a rookie. Meyers is likely the better player in the long run.

With the $33M, KC can cover all of the arbitration increases and now have several years of their core in their prime. They also would have gained the prospects from trading Gordon. Instead, they panicked for a short-term gain.

They also have Manaea who could find it again and be a top 25 prospect.
#40 Starling and #46 Mondesi. They could also potentially trade Escobar now that his cost will be going up and gained more prospects and more salary flexibility. Starling is a Rosario level prospect. You have to believe he makes them better.

Had this scenario played out, they could afford to extend Hosmer, cover their other arbitration cases ís and probably still have some money left over for free agent additions.

The net is that they lost Meyer, Montgomery, Odorizzi, and some additional prospects (had they traded Gordon) from what should be a pretty good team for a few years. Would they have made them a contender? Only time will tell but they very likely would have been better for several more years had they not rushed the process.

If you read the post I responded to, your I believe, and what I said, the only thing I was talking about was the loss of Edwin Jackson and how they'll replace him. The Shields/Myers trade I'm not going to get into again...I've debated that enough. Some think it was a good idea, some think it wasn't. Some are sure it didn't work out, some think it worked out fine. No minds getting changed there, and since it's not about our team, it's not worth the hassle.

FSP
10-09-2013, 11:33 AM
Retaining Meyers would have allowed them to trade Alex Gordon.

I don't understand why you think they would have traded Alex Gordon. He is good, he is cheap, and he plays LF while Wil Myers play RF. They likely would have just had Myers replace Jeff Francour since he is the worst player in baseball and improved in that way.

Oxtung
10-09-2013, 12:46 PM
Really, I think you're not that far off the mark. I'd say Sano, May, Rosario, and Danny Santana would be a good comp. Hicks is still regarded too highly to be on that list, I think. I don't like the Sano/Escobar comp that much but the Twins don't have anyone between Sano and Meyer so it'll have to do.

As for Greinke, we'll just have to disagree. His 2009 was so much better than anything Price has posted (and is the closest thing to a 1999 Pedro we've seen since Martinez was in his prime) that it (unfairly or not) skewed the perception of each pitcher.

And, while Johan may have been traded a half decade ago, he's a far better pitcher than either Greinke or Price. The comp has merit, I think. The evaluation tools may have changed a bit since then but Johan was just so much better than Greinke and Price that it more than compensates for the difference. Johan had four seasons with an ERA+ over 150.

Greinke, Shields, and Price have one combined.

God, it's frustrating to go back and look at Johan's numbers as a Twin.

Oh I agree Santana was a better pitcher and would have been a good comp but for a couple things. First he pitched at a time when a good offense, and therefore a good slugger like Bonds, was more important to a team than an ace. That isn't true today because people aren't getting on base at as high a clip a sluggers HRs aren't as valuable as they were even 5 years ago. If you want to be a World Series contender the first thing you need to start with is a rotation and that is lead by an ace. Second, as you mentioned earlier, the twins didn't do a particularly good job with that trade. That is why I think it isn't relevant. He was certainly good enough.

If , despite that, the consensus is that people think the Johan comp is valid then we should determine comparable a from the Twins farm system currently.

I'm at work and can't look right now but if anyone wants to take a shot at the Johan trade or the shields trade ill look when I get home tonight.

Major Leauge Ready
10-09-2013, 02:40 PM
I don't understand why you think they would have traded Alex Gordon. He is good, he is cheap, and he plays LF while Wil Myers play RF. They likely would have just had Myers replace Jeff Francour since he is the worst player in baseball and improved in that way.

You are absolutely right. They might not have traded Gordon. I offered that only because some have suggested (probably correctly) they had to make move when they did because they would not have been able to affford to keep their core together when they reached the arbitration years. I love Gordon but that's how I would have played that situation given KCs budget. They could afford to retain their core and had a very nice group of young pitchers. It is also in keeping with the sell high theme that has been discussed here of late. They would have had an equivalent player + a couple nice prospects unless I misjudge Gordon's value + addition financial capacity to retain Hosmer and others.

No, this is not about our team but the two situations in terms of orchestrating the timing of a rebuild, maximizing assets, and the need for patience are very similar in IMO.

diehardtwinsfan
10-09-2013, 08:33 PM
I did a little bit of digging.

Cleveland could offer a comparable package fronted by either or both of Lindor and Kipnis plus Trevor Bauer and sweetners. The Red Sox certainly have the talent in their minor league system to match our offer. Some combination of Bogaerts, Jackie Bradley, Webster, Owens, Barnes plus sweeteners. I don't think they will though because they look pretty set at pitcher for the foreseeable future. The Mariners probably could put a package together between Zunino, Walker, Paxton, Hultzen, Montero and Franklin. Again though I don't think they would because they have quite a few pitching prospects lined up to go with Hernandez and Iwakuma. The Rangers are intriguing though. They have Darvish and Holland and ... ? They could build a package fronted by Profar and some combination of Sardinas, Odor, Alfaro and Gallo plus sweetners. The Cubs absolutely could, they are stocked with young talent, and they are in need of pitching. My question is if the timing is right for them to make this move (just like the Twins). The Reds might be able to depending on how you view Billy Hamilton but I don't think they would. They have quite a bit of pitching talent at the major league level right now. The Pirates could muster up the prospects but it seems unlikely they'd be able to afford Price any more than the Rays can. The Cardinals could probably make a similar offer with Taveras and Wong but they too have quite a few nice young pitching prospects so they won't be interested. The Dodgers are interesting. They don't necessarily need Price but they are definitely in win now mode, so if they wanted an absolutely dominant rotation he would be interesting. They don't have any top end talent but they do have quite a bit of middle end talent they could perhaps package four 50-100 type prospects together.

So the Rangers, Dodgers, Cleveland and Cubs in that order of likelihood IMO. Toss the Twins in where you feel appropriate.

Several of these teams could offer that type of package, but as Brock said, that type of package would make them certifiably insane. I want the Twins to add talent as much as everyone else here, but with wave coming up, and all the holes at the ML level, trading prospects right now (unless they are marginal) is not how you do it.

That's how you end up with a 85 loss team and a barren farm system.

Oxtung
10-09-2013, 11:14 PM
I agree for the most part. The twins shouldn't be lookin to make a trade like this currently. I was trying to flesh out the idea to see what it would really look like, who the competitors would be and then what the cost might be. In the end this doesn't currently make sense for the twins this season.

There is a caveat I have and haven't looked into yet. When will the next opportunity be to trade for a sure thing ace? They certainly don't appear very often it seems. We are seeing with this years class of FA pitchers that you can't just assume one will be there when you're "ready" whatever that word means to you.


Several of these teams could offer that type of package, but as Brock said, that type of package would make them certifiably insane. I want the Twins to add talent as much as everyone else here, but with wave coming up, and all the holes at the ML level, trading prospects right now (unless they are marginal) is not how you do it.

That's how you end up with a 85 loss team and a barren farm system.