Jump to content

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

Go get Verlander

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
816 replies to this topic

#801 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 07:25 AM

 

All of this talk about Verlander and trades.

Well, if we would've gotten Verlander, imagine what we could trade him for before this year's deadline.

I would have liked to get Verlander. The remaining years and price were reasonable. However, do you suppose the fact that our team was not nearly as complete and that he likely would be traded again was a major detriment in terms of getting to waive his no trade clause? Players don't like to uproot their life and they are not going to do so for a long-shot like our team was last year. There sure was a lot of complaining over something that had almost no chance of happening.


#802 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,804 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 19 June 2018 - 07:30 AM

 

I would have liked to get Verlander. The remaining years and price were reasonable. However, do you suppose the fact that our team was not nearly as complete and that he likely would be traded again was a major detriment in terms of getting to waive his no trade clause? Players don't like to uproot their life and they are not going to do so for a long-shot like our team was last year. There sure was a lot of complaining over something that had almost no chance of happening.

You must have changed your mind.Here's your take from last August (1st page of posts in this thread):

 

 

Bingo.It's short-sighted.Why on earth would you take on the last years of this type of contract and give up prospects.If you are going to spend the money associated with this type of SP, go get one next year that is 3-5 years younger and hold on to our prospects to boot.Don't spend $28M/yr and only get the years that they are very likely to decline.Go get someone still in their prime and keep the prospects.

 

Plus, Nicksavings is likely right about his willingness to waive his NT clause.

 

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#803 MangLitch

MangLitch

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 08:18 AM

I wasnt sure where to put this, but I am very surprised that there is not a huge conversation about what the Nationals paid for Herrera. 

 

I would have a hard time believing that we shouldnt have been in those talks for the price that was paid. #10 prospect and some throw-ins? I'd have gone higher than that to get a very good bullpen arm to take some pressure off our current arms.

 

Instead, we sign Belisle......................................hmpf.

 

What am I missing. 1.47 ERA. I don't care if rental or not, that is a steal for the Nats


#804 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,331 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 19 June 2018 - 08:29 AM

I wasnt sure where to put this, but I am very surprised that there is not a huge conversation about what the Nationals paid for Herrera.

I would have a hard time believing that we shouldnt have been in those talks for the price that was paid. #10 prospect and some throw-ins? I'd have gone higher than that to get a very good bullpen arm to take some pressure off our current arms.

Instead, we sign Belisle......................................hmpf.

What am I missing. 1.47 ERA. I don't care if rental or not, that is a steal for the Nats



Lots of sellers out there. The buying teams are going to find steals like this and build up their super teams.

KC found some prospects that may develop into something one day though!

Edited by Vanimal46, 19 June 2018 - 08:30 AM.

  • Mike Sixel and MangLitch like this

#805 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,065 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 08:38 AM

I wasnt sure where to put this, but I am very surprised that there is not a huge conversation about what the Nationals paid for Herrera.

I would have a hard time believing that we shouldnt have been in those talks for the price that was paid.


Interesting idea. You'd have to think the Royals would be open to this kind of intra-division trade too, because they clearly aren't competing this year and Herrera is a rental (and they could potentially weaken a competitor's farm system).
  • MangLitch likes this

#806 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 26,749 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 08:52 AM

I wouldn't do a rental if I was the Twins, not this year....I'm only dealing from way down on the list, or for players with more than 1 year left on their deal.

 

The hard part is what position.....catcher and 1B and maybe MIF are about it, unless one is moving Sano to 1B full time, which isn't happening in A ball....

  • MangLitch likes this

There's always next year, or the next, or maybe by the time I'm Chief's age, I guess....


#807 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 10:15 AM

 

You must have changed your mind.Here's your take from last August (1st page of posts in this thread):

 

 

Bingo.It's short-sighted.Why on earth would you take on the last years of this type of contract and give up prospects.If you are going to spend the money associated with this type of SP, go get one next year that is 3-5 years younger and hold on to our prospects to boot.Don't spend $28M/yr and only get the years that they are very likely to decline.Go get someone still in their prime and keep the prospects.

 

Plus, Nicksavings is likely right about his willingness to waive his NT clause.

My recollection was his salary was $20M/yr. and I did not remember they gave up 3 good prospects to get Verlander. My recollection was the prospects were marginal because Houston took on the salary. Looking at what Houston gave up, It would have cost us Romero or Gordon plus somethink like Kirilloff and Baddoo, maybe Rorvert instead of Baddoo but that cost makes no sense for a team that even with the addition of Verlander is not even close to NY, Boston or Houiston. So, having looked at the deal again, I would not have traded for Verlander. Great move when you are in Houstons position, absolutely stupid in the Twins position. We had a less than 10% chance of making the wildcard game which of course is a 50/50 proposition at best. Expending 3 valuable resources for a 10% shot gets you fired in the real world and baseball management practices are catching up to the real world.

 

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 19 June 2018 - 10:28 AM.


#808 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,804 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 19 June 2018 - 10:28 AM

 

My recollection was his salary was $20M/yr. and I did not remember they gave up 3 good prospects to get Verlander. My recollection was the prospects were marginal because Houston took on the salary. Looking at what Houston gave up, It would have cost us Romero or Gordon plus somethink like Kirilloff and Baddoo, maybe Rorvert instead of Baddoo but that cost makes no sense for a team that even with the addition of Verlander is not even close to NY, Boston or Houiston. So, having looked at the deal again, I would not have traded for Verlander. Great move when you are in Houstons position, absolutely stupid in the Twins position. We had a less than 10% chance of making the wildcard game which of course is a 50/50 proposition at best. Expending 3 valuable resources for a 10% shot gets you fired in the real world.

I guess you changed your mind again.

 

 

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#809 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,331 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 19 June 2018 - 10:54 AM

I wouldn't do a rental if I was the Twins, not this year....I'm only dealing from way down on the list, or for players with more than 1 year left on their deal.

The hard part is what position.....catcher and 1B and maybe MIF are about it, unless one is moving Sano to 1B full time, which isn't happening in A ball....


The options are limited unless they want to give up on what we think are 'core' players.

It wouldn't surprise me if Sano is the primary 1B starting next season.
  • MangLitch likes this

#810 MangLitch

MangLitch

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 12:03 PM

 

Interesting idea. You'd have to think the Royals would be open to this kind of intra-division trade too, because they clearly aren't competing this year and Herrera is a rental (and they could potentially weaken a competitor's farm system).

 

My thoughts exactly. If he had years I would have understood. But KC is out and they shouldn't care who he goes to, highest bidder.

 

It looks like it was 10/15/throw in.... so you could have gone Diaz/Blankenhorn and a mid 20 and outbid them...... Or something of that nature.. I would jump on that in a heartbeat for 3 months. If the FO truly believes that this is a blip and good things are ahead this season, this seems like a move that could have really paid off for the rest of the season and potentially playoffs. 

 

Who knows, might have been able to sign him too if wanted. Rodney's replacement next year. 

 

I guess that is why I work in Banking and not the FO of a MLB team


#811 MangLitch

MangLitch

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 12:20 PM

 

I wouldn't do a rental if I was the Twins, not this year....I'm only dealing from way down on the list, or for players with more than 1 year left on their deal.

 

The hard part is what position.....catcher and 1B and maybe MIF are about it, unless one is moving Sano to 1B full time, which isn't happening in A ball....

 

If you could get 3 impact months out of a guy that could allow Molly to back off Reed and Pressly. While only giving up mid level guys..... I think you do it in a heart beat if you truly believe you still have a shot. That is one heck of a solid piece. 

 

I don't think the Twins odds are great but this would not be a make or break move and could have huge upside if the twins would sneak in the playoffs. Just seemed odd. We have good depth in the system at some of the positions they got back and figured we could have offered a better package. 

  • USAFChief and jimmer like this

#812 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,179 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 01:07 PM

 

If you could get 3 impact months out of a guy that could allow Molly to back off Reed and Pressly. While only giving up mid level guys..... I think you do it in a heart beat if you truly believe you still have a shot. That is one heck of a solid piece. 

 

I don't think the Twins odds are great but this would not be a make or break move and could have huge upside if the twins would sneak in the playoffs. Just seemed odd. We have good depth in the system at some of the positions they got back and figured we could have offered a better package. 

 

You keep calling this odd. It is possible the Twins did try to make a deal and the Royals liked what they got from Washington.Believe it or not, MLB teams use their own prospects rankings and scouting reports, not the lists you and I do to decide on players. It is also possible the Twins did not want to give up what the Royals wanted. Also possible the Twins didn't have interest in Herrerra. Lots of players will be traded between now and the end of August. Some may be traded by the Twins, some may be traded to the Twins, some may be traded between teams who are not the Twins. 

 

Or even more plausible, since the GM has come out and said it, it was really hard for them to trade a player they signed at 16, and they wanted to put him in a great spot where he could compete for a title... 

Edited by alarp33, 19 June 2018 - 01:32 PM.

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#813 MangLitch

MangLitch

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 03:36 PM

You keep calling this odd. It is possible the Twins did try to make a deal and the Royals liked what they got from Washington.Believe it or not, MLB teams use their own prospects rankings and scouting reports, not the lists you and I do to decide on players. It is also possible the Twins did not want to give up what the Royals wanted. Also possible the Twins didn't have interest in Herrerra. Lots of players will be traded between now and the end of August. Some may be traded by the Twins, some may be traded to the Twins, some may be traded between teams who are not the Twins.

Or even more plausible, since the GM has come out and said it, it was really hard for them to trade a player they signed at 16, and they wanted to put him in a great spot where he could compete for a title...


That’s exactly why it’s odd....

If it’s true they offered a lower package for him, that’s poor value attribution. No matter the rankings, the Nats got a steal and most agree. The royals may have asked for slightly more from Twins, sure. But it’s odd because slightly more than what Washington paid is still a good deal

If it’s true the twins weren’t interested in Herrera then I’m not real sure what they are looking at. It’s an elite arm at a position of need for a decent price.

And the bit about sentimental trades???? Cmon, that’s pandering. You don’t keep your job for feel good trades, you keep it for making good decisions. If they would have got what they wanted from the twins, they would have taken it and said the same thing. Twins are technically still in the race.

So ya, I find it odd that we couldn’t have made a better offer. The “odd” about it is that it signals we aren’t looking that direction and don’t want to give up mid level prospects. This isn’t the mark of a team that thinks it can win now. It’s the mark of a team not sure with what it has.

And maybe they are right to think that, just not a sign I want to see if I am looking forward to a push this year.

So ya, odd. A team pushing this year finds a way to make that deal happen at that cost or slightly higher

#814 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 03:45 PM

 

The options are limited unless they want to give up on what we think are 'core' players.

It wouldn't surprise me if Sano is the primary 1B starting next season.

We will need move Sano to 1st after we get Machado this winter.:)He would be the mega dollar free agent I could get behind. We would have a great IF for several years. In a couple years it would hopefully be Sano/Gordon/Lewis & Machado. We jsut need Buxton to get respectable in terms of hitting and we would be right there with the Yankees in terms of position players. Sano might flame out but we can hope Rooker pans out. Machado is in great shape. He has stayed healthy and you have to believe he is more likely to age well than some of the guys that got big deals and then declined relatively young. Yes, I am the first guy to point out some other teams have a decided revenue advantage but this is a monster contract I can get behind and we will have the greatest available payroll dollars since Target field opened.

  • Vanimal46 likes this

#815 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 10,331 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 19 June 2018 - 04:02 PM

We will need move Sano to 1st after we get Machado this winter. :) He would be the mega dollar free agent I could get behind. We would have a great IF for several years. In a couple years it would hopefully be Sano/Gordon/Lewis & Machado. We jsut need Buxton to get respectable in terms of hitting and we would be right there with the Yankees in terms of position players. Sano might flame out but we can hope Rooker pans out. Machado is in great shape. He has stayed healthy and you have to believe he is more likely to age well than some of the guys that got big deals and then declined relatively young. Yes, I am the first guy to point out some other teams have a decided revenue advantage but this is a monster contract I can get behind and we will have the greatest available payroll dollars since Target field opened.

That's the dream... The Twins have the money too. It would be quite the accomplishment to sign Machado.

I do believe 3B is a priority for next season. Whether it's Escobar, Machado, another FA, or trade. We can't head into next season thinking Sano will be the star 3B we dreamed of.

EDIT: Sano would need a complete transformation of his body like Schwarber for me to believe he can play 3B going forward.

Edited by Vanimal46, 19 June 2018 - 04:08 PM.

  • Major Leauge Ready likes this

#816 MangLitch

MangLitch

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 04:08 PM

That's the dream... The Twins have the money too. It would be quite the accomplishment to sign Machado.

I do believe 3B is a priority for next season. Whether it's Escobar, Machado, another FA, or trade. We can't head into next season thinking Sano will be the star 3B we dreamed of.


Watch him come back and rake for the last two months and prove us wrong. Only to fall back into the buffet line next year. Meanwhile the twins sign no one because he figured it out for 2 months...... ugh
  • Vanimal46 likes this

#817 Carole Keller

Carole Keller

    It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,190 posts

Posted 19 June 2018 - 04:48 PM

Moderator Note:

 

This thread has surpassed its usefulness. While having a discussion thread, even one to express useful frustration, is a good thing, this thread is now sounding more like a partisan stand off, with various stances being repeated over and over and over again. If you have a specific topic you wish to discuss, please focus your thoughts and start a new thread. There are also many other threads to jump in on.

 

This one is now locked.

 

Thanks.

 

 

  • USAFChief, jorgenswest and nicksaviking like this

“May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.” ~Laura Dern