Jump to content

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

Article: MIN 2, BOS 1: Gibby the Great

kyle gibson fernando rodney mitch garver
  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#21 mngopherguy

mngopherguy

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:16 PM

 

Better when? If they are certain the trade makes them a better team in 2019, I am all in. If not, I would keep Gibson. Too much can happen to prospects whose prime is 4-5 years away.

 

Prospects are definitely a gamble, and I'm not sold on dealing Gibson.He's in his 30's, so age has to at least be considered as well.Without no reported offers, it's impossible to say if I would deal him or not. 

  • MN_ExPat likes this

#22 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:17 PM

If the Twins are blown away by an offer for Gibson, I'm fine with trading him.But beyond that extending him over the offseason is looking pretty palatable.I wouldn't want to go very long in years.But something like 3/40 would be awesome, but probably too light. 

  • Sconnie and Dozier's Glorious Hair like this

#23 wyowib

wyowib

    Elizabethton

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:18 PM

 

No one wants to trade Gibson because they are a "hater", that's preposterous.Seriously.

 

He's 31 at the end of the year, 32 by the end of his team control.He's not a long-term asset, so it's worthwhile to see what long-term assets he might yield in a trade.

 


#24 mngopherguy

mngopherguy

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:18 PM

 

I’d rather have 1.4 years of Gibson. Easily.

 

 

How can you say that without knowing the alternative?  

  • Dozier's Glorious Hair likes this

#25 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:18 PM

 

Depends on the return.You don't have to deal him, but you should shop him.

 

Getting blinded by immediate returns/value over long-term value is just as good a way to make mistakes as the reverse.

Sure, that's true.But the Twins have an exclusive opportunity to extend him, not much money on the books, and a keen need for top and mid starting pitching.There's more value in keeping then you're letting on.

  • Loosey and MN_ExPat like this

#26 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:19 PM

 

How can you say that without knowing the alternative?  

To be fair, do we ever know the alternative when they aren't traded?


#27 mngopherguy

mngopherguy

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:21 PM

 

To be fair, do we ever know the alternative when they aren't traded?

 

To be fair, I've never said I would keep someone without knowing the alternative.Itdoesn't make any sense. 


#28 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,906 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:21 PM

How can you say that without knowing the alternative?


The Twins will not get a return that will be better in 2019 than Gibson. I’m 99 percent confident in that. I want the Twins to do everything in their power to compete not later than 2019.

So I don’t care if some team offers a top prospect. That guy will be in A ball, or lower, and I’m not interested.
  • Jerr, Loosey, h2oface and 6 others like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#29 twinssouth

twinssouth

    Senior member

  • Members
  • 561 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:22 PM

Also, Wilson was great behind the plate. Hats off to Garver for that big time clutch hit and Ehire Adrianaza brilliant defensive play
  • USAFChief, Han Joelo, Jerr and 2 others like this

#30 mngopherguy

mngopherguy

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:23 PM

 

The Twins will not get a return that will be better in 2019 than Gibson. I’m 99 percent confident in that. I want the Twins to do everything in their power to compete not later than 2019.

So I don’t care if some team offers a top prospect. That guy will be in A ball, or lower, and I’m not interested.

 

That makes more sense to me. 


#31 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:23 PM

 

To be fair, I've never said I would keep someone without knowing the alternative.Itdoesn't make any sense. 

As fan, you never will.

 

We're guessing at the return, and Chief, in his guess, suggests he'd keep Gibson.I'm inclined to agree.Gibson is awesome now, but his track record isn't encouraging and will effect his return.  


#32 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 26,979 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:23 PM

Help me out here, assuming Gibson has finally broken the code, why in the world would we want to trade him?


Because he's signed for one more year. It really depends on if you think they are contenders next year or not.
  • Jerr, Dman and Platoon like this

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


#33 mngopherguy

mngopherguy

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:24 PM

 

Also, Wilson was great behind the plate. Hats off to Garver for that big time clutch hit and Ehire Adrianaza brilliant defensive play

 

You are not supposed to compliment Wilson, Rodney or Belisle on this forum. Shhhh. ;)

  • DocBauer likes this

#34 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,171 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:25 PM

 

Sure, that's true.But the Twins have an exclusive opportunity to extend him, not much money on the books, and a keen need for top and mid starting pitching.There's more value in keeping then you're letting on.

 

If Gibson was a normally aged pitcher at the end of his team control I'd probably agree with you.But an extension to a 32 year old is a major gamble right from the outset, regardless of who they are.

 

So, sure, there is value in keeping him, but I wouldn't let that stop me from aggressively shopping him.  

  • wsnydes likes this

#35 mngopherguy

mngopherguy

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:29 PM

 

Because he's signed for one more year. It really depends on if you think they are contenders next year or not.

 

Agreed, I don't see them as contender's next year, so I would at least listen to a trade.Contending next year is going to take a 180 from this season.I don't see it, especially if the payroll goes back down.  


#36 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 3,395 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:35 PM

 

If Gibson was a normally aged pitcher at the end of his team control I'd probably agree with you.But an extension to a 32 year old is a major gamble right from the outset, regardless of who they are.

 

So, sure, there is value in keeping him, but I wouldn't let that stop me from aggressively shopping him.  

 

Amazing they ever even signed Santana, then, and especially for 4 years.

  • Jerr, DocBauer, twinssouth and 1 other like this

#37 wyowib

wyowib

    Elizabethton

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:38 PM

So if he's signed to a 4 year extension, that makes him the same age that Santana is now (or there abouts).I'm a believer in what he's been doing, and having 2 out of 5 spots essentially locked down for the next 3-4 years (Berrios timeline) with consistent, above average-to-better pitchers, is better than we've experienced in a long, loooong, time.I guess it comes down to whether or not people believe that a couple of the pitching prospects can make it in the next 3-4 years to fill in or, in some cases, more than just be mlb filler (romero, graterol, thorpe, gonsalves)

  • birdwatcher, Jerr, h2oface and 5 others like this

#38 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 3,395 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:39 PM

 

Agreed, I don't see them as contender's next year, so I would at least listen to a trade.Contending next year is going to take a 180 from this season.I don't see it, especially if the payroll goes back down.  

 

That's too bad. Already signing your team off for next year before the previous season is even over. Some teams even still go from last to first, and this team doesn't even have that far to go, especially if healthy and progressing instead of regressing. Tell Oakland they have no right to be doing so well.

 

Nobody has said they wouldn't listen to offers. Listening is a fine and noble skill.

Edited by h2oface, 26 July 2018 - 09:40 PM.

  • pbrezeasap, adorduan, SF Twins Fan and 2 others like this

#39 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:41 PM

 

Because the trade could make the team better?He's the best trade chip they have?

Best case return: They get a player who might one day be as good as he is right now. Pass. 

  • USAFChief, Han Joelo, birdwatcher and 10 others like this

#40 wyowib

wyowib

    Elizabethton

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 09:41 PM

Don't know why my response was separated from the op I was responding to, still new to posting (though I've been a "lurker" since this sites inception).

 

  • birdwatcher likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: kyle gibson, fernando rodney, mitch garver