Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Forums

Minor Leaguers to get a Raise

Twins Minor League Talk Today, 08:24 AM
https://apnews.com/1...a2641244e0c00fd     Players at rookie and short-season levels will see their minimum weekly pay raised...
Full topic ›

Romero not in camp?

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 08:20 AM
As a post note on the Hardy article, Do-Hyoung Park mentions that Fernando Romero is not in camp.   "He is stuck in the Dominic...
Full topic ›

Twins Daily 2020 Top Prospects: #5 Jordan Balazovic

Twins Minor League Talk Today, 07:17 AM
Who is the best pitching prospect in the Twins system? That answer has changed several times over the past few years as promising arms ha...
Full topic ›

Astros, Bauer, Pohlad's, Twins, Future of MLB

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 06:13 AM
BIG title right? But I think MLB is sitting at a unique precipice right now, and we, as baseball fans, should be concerned about everythi...
Full topic ›

Astros Being Investigated for Using Tech to Steal Pitchin...

Other Baseball Yesterday, 07:54 PM
I can no longer say I want the Twins to emulate the Astros. Bush league maneuver to use cameras in order to steal signs.
Full topic ›

Offseason Underway: Twins Make Flurry of Moves

The Minnesota Twins' offseason officially kicked off on Monday, with the club announcing several significant roster moves.

Nelson Cruz will be back, Martin Perez will not (at least not on the same contract), and Jake Odorizzi faces a tough decision. Meanwhile, another key instructor was extracted by another (dreaded) team, and a pair of former top pitching prospects exited the organization.

Read on for more detail on each of these developments as the Hot Stove begins to spark.
Image courtesy of David Berding-USA TODAY Sports
NELSON CRUZ 2020 OPTION ACTIVATED

This barely qualifies as news. Activating the ultra-reasonable $12 million club option on Cruz was a total no-brainer, and the club's intention had already been announced via media reports. Nevertheless, it's now official: Boomstick is back.



MARTIN PEREZ 2020 OPTION DECLINED

Around the middle of May, the decision to activate Perez's team option in 2020 looked about as obvious Cruz's does now. Through his first eight starts he put up a 2.17 ERA, pairing a standout cutter with eye-catching fastball velocity, but it was all downhill from there. He posted a 6.17 ERA the rest of the way and was left off the ALDS roster.

The Twins are exercising a $500,000 buyout on the southpaw's $7.5 million option for next year, so he'll enter free agency.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Perez coming back on a one-year deal as a reliever (lefty batters hit just .228/.291/.294 against him this year), but the Twins clearly need to aim higher for the rotation.

QUALIFYING OFFER EXTENDED TO JAKE ODORIZZI

Coming off a breakthrough season, Odorizzi is poised to hit the open market, but the Twins now have an inside track on retaining him. By making him one of 10 free agents to receive a qualifying offer, the Twins have placed the ball in Odorizzi's court – he can either accept a one-year deal worth $17.8 million, or reject it and negotiate with other teams. Should he sign elsewhere, Minnesota will receive valuable draft pick compensation. Should he find the market underwhelming with this stipulation, the Twins gain leverage as the only team that won't lose a pick by signing him. Carl Pavano's 2010-11 offseason exemplifies such a scenario.

It really could go either way with Odorizzi. On the one hand, $17.8 million is a lot of money (especially for a guy who's made around $20 million total in his MLB career), and accepting the QO would enable him to hit free agency unencumbered next winter. On the other hand, he's coming off an All-Star season, and he's still under 30. This might be his best chance to shop himself and score a career-making payday. If his market isn't hot, I assume the Twins would be amenable to a longer deal that makes sense for both sides (we suggested three years, $36 million in the Offseason Handbook). Either outcome puts the team in a favorable position. Odorizzi has 10 days to decide.

Michael Pineda was not extended a qualifying offer, so he'll head to free agency with no hindrance other than the 39-game ban carrying over from this year.

STEPHEN GONSALVES CLAIMED BY METS

Minnesota tried to sneak the lanky left-handed pitching prospect through waivers, but weren't so lucky. Though his entire 2019 season was basically washed out by elbow issues, Gonsalves – Twins Daily's No. 4 prospect as recently as spring of 2018 – has a 2.50 ERA and 9.6 K/9 rate in the minors. He showed some intriguing signs during an altogether inconspicuous MLB debut last year. It's a bummer to lose him for nothing.



But it's also not a shocking or controversial call by the front office. The elbow issues are concerning and likely to linger. Even beyond that, there have always been questions about the viability of his middling fastball against big-league hitters. Turning 26 next season, he isn't young by prospect standards.

There's certainly a chance the Twins could live to regret this, but they can mitigate that risk by aggressively pursuing high-caliber arms to replace Gonsalves and his enduring promise.

KOHL STEWART OUTRIGHTED, ELECTS FREE AGENCY

And there goes one of the most painful busts in franchise history. Drafted with the No. 4 overall pick in 2013, at a time where the Twins desperately needed a transcendent pitcher to reverse their sagging fortunes, Stewart never developed into anything more than a mediocre sinkerballer, incapable of missing bats or consistently throwing strikes anywhere above rookie ball. He departs Minnesota with a 4.79 ERA and 1.47 WHIP in 62 big-league innings.

Stewart isn't totally hopeless. He's still only 25 and a very good athlete. His outstanding ability to induce grounders is a building-block skill. Maybe a change of scenery will turn him around but the Twins could no longer justify giving him a 40-man spot.

CATCHING COORDINATOR POACHED BY YANKEES

Amidst this flurry of roster maneuvering, it was a non-player personnel move that hit me hardest today. Per Zone Coverage's Brandon Warne, Twins catching coordinator Tanner Swanson is leaving the club to join the Yankees (UGH) as Major League Catching and Quality Control Coach.



I've always heard good things about Swanson. My appreciation for him grew upon reading Parker's excellent spring training feature on his efforts to refine Mitch Garver's receiving technique, only to be crystallized as I saw those efforts pay off magnificently during the summer. Swanson is the real deal, and another tough loss in a young offseason that has already seen Minnesota lose hitting coach James Rowson and minor-league hitting coordinator Pete Fatse.

If there's any silver lining to be found in this scavenging by rivals, it's that having baseball powerhouses like Boston and New York hiring out of your ranks says a lot about your eye for talent. The Twins' newly reassembled baseball ops unit is becoming a hotbed, and that's about the highest praise you could give Derek Falvey as he enters his third year on the job.

(Speaking of which, let's us all just breathe a sigh of relief that Minnesota has evidently missed the biggest potential bullet: I wondered openly if the Red Sox would come calling on Falvey to replace fired GM Dave Dombrowski – turns out they did, and he said no.)

How are you feeling about this smattering of moves to kick off Twins' offseason? Anything you'd have done differently? Sound off in the comments.

And now an odd request from the Twins Daily community: if you found this page via Facebook, can you please add a comment telling us from which Facebook Page you followed it? It's getting quite a bit of traffic, and we would love to know who is sharing it. Thanks.

  • Oldgoat_MN, mikelink45, DocBauer and 2 others like this

  • Share:
  • submit to reddit
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

83 Comments

Photo
birdwatcher
Nov 05 2019 01:35 PM

 

Gonsalves and Stewart are examples 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,001 why you never, ever resist trading "prospects" for established major league players.

 

I acknowledge there are most likely dozens of examples in those 1,000,000,001 where you'd end up regretting the move.

 

Never, ever resist trading "prospects" for whatever the market will bear in the way of established major league players? Am I interpreting this right?

 

We can't just say trade the dang prospects, but only the ones who flunk out or get injured.

 

I don't have to name dozens to make the point that, sometimes, you resist. I'll try to counter your position with a dozen examples or so.

 

What do you think the club would have fetched in the way of established major league players for these prospects: Carew, Puckett, Oliva, Blyleven, Mauer, Hrbek, Knoblauch, Hunter, Radke, and A.J. Pierzynski? I am convinced every one of those would have been catastrophic one-sided trades.

 

And once Pierzynski became an established major league player, weren't prospects Liriano and Nathan, and Boof too, an awfully nice return? And once Liriano was an established major league player, wasn't Eduardo Escobar, a guy with all of 45 MLB games under his belt, a nice prospect to get in return? How about veteran Aguilera for prospects Viola and Tapani in 1989?

 

I don't want these guys to avoid trading prospects like Ryan did, I want the opposite to happen. And I want the trades to never, ever create a shortage, and instead come from a surplus. And I'd love it if it always involved a redundancy among established major league players who are blocking the next Gaetti, Knoblauch, Morneau, or Johan Santana (wishful, I know).

 

The reason I favor trading proven players for prospects as often as possible is because established major league players are valuable, often at peak value, and while prospects flunk out at a high rate, it's game-changing when you land a future star on the cheap.

 

I'd trade Jake Cave for Luis Gill in a New York nanosecond.

 

 

    • SQUIRREL likes this

 

If you take a look at that 2013 draft, there really wasn't a lot of talent available.Kind of takes the sting out of Stewart not turning out.There weren't many guys in the 1st round that look like MLB regulars, and 2 of them were drafted before Kohl so the Twins didn't even have a shot at them.Only 4 players drafted 4-31 overall have more than 2 bWAR.  

 

It's true that 2013 is looking like a down year (although players like Tim Anderson and Hunter Dozier are certainly going to be adding value to their clubs for the next few years); only Aaron Judge has really emerged as a great player. 2014 is definitely looking much more productive already...but it doesn't change the fact that the Twins had a top 5 pick bust.

 

But your math is a little arbitrary. here's what round 1 looked like post twins pick for bWAR in 2019 and career-wise for players with 2+ bWAR: Austin Meadows (3.8 in 2019, 3.6 career), Hunter Renfroe (2.6 & 6.2), Tim Anderson (4.0 & 10.2), Marco Gonzalez (3.2 & 5.4), Aaron Judge (5.4 & 18.6), Sean Manaea (1.4 & 8.7), Michael Lorenzen (2.0 & 4.4), Corey Knebel (0.3 & 4.3)

 

Which doesn't even include Hunter Dozier, who was 2.1 bWAR in 2019 after a rough 2018.

 

but Kohl Stewart was the start of a stretch that hasn't gone so great for the twins in drafts: Stewart, Nick Gordon (jury still out, looks like an MLB player to me in the next year either with the twins or elsewhere) and Tyler Jay (out of baseball). Two out of three years busting on your first round pick when all three of them fell between 4-6 is rough on an organization.

 

    • stringer bell, adorduan and wabene like this
Photo
birdwatcher
Nov 05 2019 01:59 PM

 

Milwaukee says hi.

 

Milwaukee may not be our best poster child to bolster a MLB player versus prospect discussion.

 

Personally, I think it's a more complicated thing anyway, but back to Milwaukee:

 

For 2019, their player payroll exploded by almost $33M a larger dollar increase than all but NYY ($38M) and PHI ($45M). They ended the year behind 10 other clubs in the power rankings, have the 29th-best farm system according to Fangraphs, and at roughly $125M, don't have a lot of wiggle room in the budget. A tight window.

 

The Yelich trade was terrific, but it doesn't support an argument that the MLB player side of trades is a surefire way to go. Even looking at the Yelich trade, Brinson started his MLB career, as did Yamamoto and Diaz, and Monte Harrison is a Top 100 prospect. May end up being a good deal for both clubs. FanGraphs thinks Miami's farm system is the 4th-best in baseball, and their payroll is $50M less than Milwaukee's. Might be a club that turns a GM into a superstar.;)

 

Never, ever resist trading "prospects" for whatever the market will bear in the way of established major league players? Am I interpreting this right?

 

We can't just say trade the dang prospects, but only the ones who flunk out or get injured.

 

I don't have to name dozens to make the point that, sometimes, you resist. I'll try to counter your position with a dozen examples or so.

 

What do you think the club would have fetched in the way of established major league players for these prospects: Carew, Puckett, Oliva, Blyleven, Mauer, Hrbek, Knoblauch, Hunter, Radke, and A.J. Pierzynski? I am convinced every one of those would have been catastrophic one-sided trades.

 

And once Pierzynski became an established major league player, weren't prospects Liriano and Nathan, and Boof too, an awfully nice return? And once Liriano was an established major league player, wasn't Eduardo Escobar, a guy with all of 45 MLB games under his belt, a nice prospect to get in return? How about veteran Aguilera for prospects Viola and Tapani in 1989?

 

I don't want these guys to avoid trading prospects like Ryan did, I want the opposite to happen. And I want the trades to never, ever create a shortage, and instead come from a surplus. And I'd love it if it always involved a redundancy among established major league players who are blocking the next Gaetti, Knoblauch, Morneau, or Johan Santana (wishful, I know).

 

The reason I favor trading proven players for prospects as often as possible is because established major league players are valuable, often at peak value, and while prospects flunk out at a high rate, it's game-changing when you land a future star on the cheap.

 

I'd trade Jake Cave for Luis Gill in a New York nanosecond.

In my post I believe I acknowledged the possibility you might find literally dozens of examples that you would later regret.

 

Among the 1,000,000,001 prospects cited.

 

With respect..do the math.:)

 

Side note re bolded text: You're talking about Christian Yelich here, amiright? Or Verlander? Garrett Cole? Can't tell. 

Milwaukee may not be our best poster child to bolster a MLB player versus prospect discussion.

Personally, I think it's a more complicated thing anyway, but back to Milwaukee:

For 2019, their player payroll exploded by almost $33M a larger dollar increase than all but NYY ($38M) and PHI ($45M). They ended the year behind 10 other clubs in the power rankings, have the 29th-best farm system according to Fangraphs, and at roughly $125M, don't have a lot of wiggle room in the budget. A tight window.

The Yelich trade was terrific, but it doesn't support an argument that the MLB player side of trades is a surefire way to go. Even looking at the Yelich trade, Brinson started his MLB career, as did Yamamoto and Diaz, and Monte Harrison is a Top 100 prospect. May end up being a good deal for both clubs. FanGraphs thinks Miami's farm system is the 4th-best in baseball, and their payroll is $50M less than Milwaukee's. Might be a club that turns a GM into a superstar. ;)


No one said sure fire. I responded to a post that said no mid market team ever trades prospects to get better when they aren't already good. I merely pointed out one team that does.

No one said it always works.... What we've said is that prospects don't either, and maybe trading them sometimes is a good idea... No one said it will always work.
  1. In the current economic scenario, Odorizzo should take the qualifying offer and run.As long as he has a decent year next year, he should be able at the minimum to get a 2 year 20 million contract or 3 year 30 million contract next year when he has full leverage.Players who have not taken the qualifying offers have been the ones hurt, and often getting less for a single year of service than what they would have received for the qualifying offer, hoping for a bigger day and often putting up pedestrian numbers when they come back mid season because they didnt go to spring training.He should bet on himself and see what happens, either way he is $17.5 million richer than he was yesterday.  
    • birdwatcher, Mike Sixel, ken and 2 others like this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 05 2019 05:26 PM

 

"Never" is a mighty strong word (both you saying lower revenue teams have never agreed, and Chief for saying never resist trading prospects), but the Brewers have made these deals (Sabathia, Greinke, and now Yelich). The Royals obviously had a few famous examples (Shields and Cueto). Discussed recently, and it didn't work out quite the way Oakland hoped at the time, but their Samardzija moves were a net positive. The White Sox side of the Samardzija trade wasn't so good, but they did well with Peavy a few years earlier. Toronto did well in the Donaldson deal, although less good (but far from crippling) in their Price rental. Detroit did very well in the Cabrera trade, plus all right in deals for Sanchez, Price, and even Upton.

 

I think you need to take another look at my post and perhaps I should have been more descriptive. Atba minimum I should have centered the discussion on top prospects. I think you interpreted this as I said they "never trade" when what I said was that lower revenue teams definitely do not agree with Chief's assertion that prospects should be traded for MLB talent whenever possible. Obviously it happen but their practices have obviously been to highly value prospects. Would you agree that even larger revenue teams have placed more value on prospects over the last decade, even last 5 years?I think it is also accurate to say that GMs from lower revenue teams have NEVER agreed with Chief's preference to trade prospects for MLB talent.A few weeks ago I asked for examples of top 25 prospects that were traded by teams of equal or lower level. Not one response. It is extremely rare.  

 

 

If you take a look at that 2013 draft, there really wasn't a lot of talent available.Kind of takes the sting out of Stewart not turning out.There weren't many guys in the 1st round that look like MLB regulars, and 2 of them were drafted before Kohl so the Twins didn't even have a shot at them.Only 4 players drafted 4-31 overall have more than 2 bWAR.  

Also thinking how disappointing it was that we wasted the #4 overall pick that year.Just took a look at the 2013 draft.There were 10 pitchers drafted after Stewart, only one (Marco Gonzalez, drafted by St. Louis) has done anything special in the big leagues. 

 

Granted a couple could be late bloomers and still do something, but not what I expected when I starter my research.Truth is 2013 was a terrible draft for pitchers.Didn't look to see what has developed from later rounds, but you can't blame the Twins for missing guys that weren't considered top prospects that year.  

    • birdwatcher and snap4birds like this

 

I think you need to take another look at my post and perhaps I should have been more descriptive. Atba minimum I should have centered the discussion on top prospects. I think you interpreted this as I said they "never trade" when what I said was that lower revenue teams definitely do not agree with Chief's assertion that prospects should be traded for MLB talent whenever possible. Obviously it happen but their practices have obviously been to highly value prospects. Would you agree that even larger revenue teams have placed more value on prospects over the last decade, even last 5 years?I think it is also accurate to say that GMs from lower revenue teams have NEVER agreed with Chief's preference to trade prospects for MLB talent.A few weeks ago I asked for examples of top 25 prospects that were traded by teams of equal or lower level. Not one response. It is extremely rare.  

 

fair, but Chief is pretty clear....he's talking minor league players in general, not just top prospects......Gonsalves was never a top prospect (on some lists, on others he might have made a top 100 list).....Chief's point stands, as you yourself point out, teams should not be afraid to trade prospects that aren't ELITE.

 

Gonsalves and Stewart are examples 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,001 why you never, ever resist trading "prospects" for established major league players.

 

I acknowledge there are most likely dozens of examples in those 1,000,000,001 where you'd end up regretting the move.

Exactly, prospects are cool but parades are cooler.

    • Battle ur tail off likes this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 05 2019 06:22 PM

 

fair, but Chief is pretty clear....he's talking minor league players in general, not just top prospects......Gonsalves was never a top prospect (on some lists, on others he might have made a top 100 list).....Chief's point stands, as you yourself point out, teams should not be afraid to trade prospects that aren't ELITE.

 

I don't think anyone here cares if our team trades prospects outside the top 5 or 6. The rub here is that the desire of those always stressing trading prospects is that they are looking to acquire proven impact players. You don't generally get that done without giving up top prospects. 

    • wabene likes this
Photo
tarheeltwinsfan
Nov 05 2019 07:14 PM

 

Part of what makes it fun following this team now is the decisive maneuvering. Cutting bait with guys and not hanging on. I look at the 40 man and I don't see more than a couple of guys that have had their chances and they might not make the opener either. I also expect a variety of acquisitions during an off season worth watching.

Ryan Pressley, Nick Anderson and Liam Hendricks sure could have helped the pen this past season.

I don't think anyone here cares if our team trades prospects outside the top 5 or 6. The rub here is that the desire of those always stressing trading prospects is that they are looking to acquire proven impact players. You don't generally get that done without giving up top prospects.


But a good team can. Odorrizi, Yellich, others....

Ryan Pressley, Nick Anderson and Liam Hendricks sure could have helped the pen this past season.


No one should be criticizing the Liam Hendriks decision. The error in Anderson was not trying him out before letting him go.... Pressley I just don't get that one.
    • birdwatcher, DocBauer and tarheeltwinsfan like this
Last we heard of Gonsalves, Wes Johnson was on a mission to add 2-3 MPH to his fastball. Within two weeks of those reports, the elbow fails. Then he’s cut loose. Hope he’s healthy. If so, my guess is the Mets have him focus on what the bigger issue was. That being his command and getting the ball anywhere close to where he wanted it.
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 06 2019 06:52 AM

 

But a good team can. Odorrizi, Yellich, others....

 

No argument here but and I am pretty confident there is not a person on this board that would object to any trade similar to the Yelich or Odorizzi trade. However, do those examples really support the type of trade practices being promoted here? Are the trade prospects advocates promoting trading for another Odorizzi? It sure seems to me that that the demand of these posters is to trade for top of the rotation SPs and/or elite BP arms. Those are not acquired without a very steep prospect price. Many posters have written that they would trade any prospect including Lewis / Kirilloff Graterol and Balazovic for player X? Using not trading Gonsalves to support what they really want is misguided. Trading Gonsalves or Stewart after his 1st couple years in the minors was not bringing an established impact player.

 

Are you really going to suggest another Odorizzi trade is the basis of this argument? That’s not what’s been argued here so it makes no sense to use this as an example. The Yelich example would be great if you could substantiate that it is not an anomaly. The twins and every poster here would never argue such a trade but to use that as the basis of supporting trading prospects at every opportunity is not exactly an objective argument. You are basically suggesting our strategy should be to engage in the practice of extremely lopsided trades. We would all love to make another AJ Perzinski which BTW demonstrates Lopsided trades also favor the team trading away the established player just as often as the reverse. Just ask Pittsburg how they feel out trading for Chris Archer.

 

Let’s debate the same question.

No argument here but and I am pretty confident there is not a person on this board that would object to any trade similar to the Yelich or Odorizzi trade.


I suggest you review the "trade for Verlander" thread.

You'll find plenty of objection, based on prospect cost.
Photo
nicksaviking
Nov 06 2019 08:49 AM

 

But a good team can. Odorrizi, Yellich, others....

 

Neither of those players were really elite at the time of the trade though.They both blossomed afterwards.

 

If the Twins used their prospect capital to get say, Mike Foltynewicz and Michael Conforto right now, I'm sure there would be folks who don't like the move because they prefer the prospects.

 

However, I'd also guess that many of the people who DO want to trade prospects for MLB talent would be disappointed because those two players wouldn't be nearly impactful enough and the team should have aimed higher.

    • birdwatcher likes this
Chief and I are pretty clear.... We literally know what is in our brains.... Don't be afraid to trade prospects.... No fancy but,if, and or rules.....I can't speak for others, but we are literally talking about what we are talking about. If you all want to argue that some fans are saying something else, go argue with them.....
    • LA VIkes Fan likes this
Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 06 2019 10:02 AM

 

I suggest you review the "trade for Verlander" thread.

You'll find plenty of objection, based on prospect cost.

 

I don't view those as even remotely similar trades. Yehlich was a good player who broke out big time. How are Verlander and Odorizzi in the same discussion? Palacios is a 40FV prospect. Was he even in the top 30 prospects?

 

Using Yehlich over and over as trade proponents tend do exemplifies a biased view IMO. That deal was an extreme outlier. How many others like it can you point to in the last decade. Now compare that to trades like the Archer trade or Torres or Gregorius before him. How did Cleveland build sustained sucess? Pretty sure they traded for Kluber / Bauer & Clevinger as prospects? Should they have traded them? How about Bieber? Should he have been traded to bolster the team back then? 

 

BTW ... the most recent highly lopsided trade was the Glasnow/Meadows/Baz trade for Chris Archer which had the effect of immediately and dramtically improving the team trading for less established players and a prospect. That's the deal I want to make.

    • birdwatcher likes this
Photo
yarnivek1972
Nov 06 2019 12:08 PM

Never, ever resist trading "prospects" for whatever the market will bear in the way of established major league players? Am I interpreting this right?

We can't just say trade the dang prospects, but only the ones who flunk out or get injured.

I don't have to name dozens to make the point that, sometimes, you resist. I'll try to counter your position with a dozen examples or so.

What do you think the club would have fetched in the way of established major league players for these prospects: Carew, Puckett, Oliva, Blyleven, Mauer, Hrbek, Knoblauch, Hunter, Radke, and A.J. Pierzynski? I am convinced every one of those would have been catastrophic one-sided trades.

And once Pierzynski became an established major league player, weren't prospects Liriano and Nathan, and Boof too, an awfully nice return? And once Liriano was an established major league player, wasn't Eduardo Escobar, a guy with all of 45 MLB games under his belt, a nice prospect to get in return? How about veteran Aguilera for prospects Viola and Tapani in 1989?

I don't want these guys to avoid trading prospects like Ryan did, I want the opposite to happen. And I want the trades to never, ever create a shortage, and instead come from a surplus. And I'd love it if it always involved a redundancy among established major league players who are blocking the next Gaetti, Knoblauch, Morneau, or Johan Santana (wishful, I know).

The reason I favor trading proven players for prospects as often as possible is because established major league players are valuable, often at peak value, and while prospects flunk out at a high rate, it's game-changing when you land a future star on the cheap.

I'd trade Jake Cave for Luis Gill in a New York nanosecond.


I don’t get this statement at all. Aguilera wasn’t established as anything in 1989. He was a swingman on a stacked Mets pitching staff. Viola was the reigning AL Cy Young winner. Also, Aguilera was traded WITH Tapani (and David West and Jack Savage) FOR Viola.
    • tvagle likes this
Photo
Battle ur tail off
Nov 06 2019 12:24 PM

 

I don't think anyone here cares if our team trades prospects outside the top 5 or 6.

 

The Twins front office does though...

Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 06 2019 12:31 PM

 

Chief and I are pretty clear.... We literally know what is in our brains.... Don't be afraid to trade prospects.... No fancy but,if, and or rules.....I can't speak for others, but we are literally talking about what we are talking about. If you all want to argue that some fans are saying something else, go argue with them.....

 

So, are you saying its a reasonable expectation that they acquire impact players without trading top prospects or are you saying we should trade top prospects? It has to be one or the other.

Photo
birdwatcher
Nov 06 2019 12:40 PM

 

In my post I believe I acknowledged the possibility you might find literally dozens of examples that you would later regret.

 

Among the 1,000,000,001 prospects cited.

 

With respect..do the math.:)

 

Side note re bolded text: You're talking about Christian Yelich here, amiright? Or Verlander? Garrett Cole? Can't tell. 

 

 

I don't think we're in complete disagreement. If by "never, ever resist a trade" you mean to always, always consider it? Then I'm on board, with the one caveat of not digging one hole (Pressly) in an attempt to fill another off in the future (Alcala). Or maybe the reverse of that might be giving up Graterol, Duran, and Balasovic for a #3 starter past his prime or something. Cuz we can pick up #3 starters in FA and those three guys have higher ceilings. And yes two of them will probably flop.

,

And yes, it should be evident that I'd include Yelich in the same way I'd include Tatis, Jr. Both were terrific trades. We don't need to bother with the arithmetic, we can find dozens upon dozens of examples of prospect trades that were good, prospect trades that were bad, and prospect trades we are glad never happened. 

 

Seeing the rationale behind not trading a Lewis or a Buxton or a Mauer is not the same as thinking Terry Ryan's aversion to trading prospects was smart. Not saying that's where YOU go with the discussion, but others do far too often IMO.

 

When I argue that trading off the Lewis type prospect is a massive risk, especially for a pitcher? It's because the historical evidence says that 75% of those prospects pan out, and in a big way, whereas the historical frequency of performance collapses by stud pitchers must be taken into account in one's risk assessment. We don't get to pick our Verlanders, but man o man was that a great trade!

 

Where you and I will likely always have a difference of opinion is in how, in general, we value the prospect pipeline, but to be clear, I personally don't value individual prospects and don't have my own opinion about any of them. I mean, what do I know? Instead I see value for an organization in having an exceptional prospect pipeline, both as the primary source of talent and as a critical means of procuring more and sustaining an advantage.

Photo
Major League Ready
Nov 06 2019 12:43 PM

 

The Twins front office does though...

 

My original point was that GMs of average or below average teams all have proven to value prospects much more than Chief and some others here so I won't totally disagree. However, we should take a practical look at how trading lower ranking prospects would impact this team at the moment. Which position players could be upgraded without trading a top prospect? Maybe 1st base but is that how you would suggest we use top prospects? Are we going to get impact pitching without trading a top prospect? Can you give me an example of how you would acquire impact players without trading one of our top 5? The only way I see that happening is to take on a big contract and I am not sure who that would be.

 

I would love to see another Odorizzi type deal. The Mike Minor idea that was mentioned is good. I would think the cost would be outside the top 5 given he only has 1 year of control. I am on board with anyone who is advocating we find this type of trade.  

    • birdwatcher likes this

Similar Articles


by renabanena , 13 Feb 2020
Photo


by Cody Christie , 13 Feb 2020
Photo


by Cody Christie , 03 Feb 2020
Photo


by Cody Christie , 27 Jan 2020
Photo


by Cody Christie , 08 Jan 2020
Photo