Article: The Top 20 Minnesota Twins Assets of 2019: Part 1 (16-20)

[Nick Nelson]

FWIW: Seth, Cody and Tom had Gordon ranked as the 12th/13th/8th best prospect in the Twins system in the Prospect Handbook. Complaining about arguments not supported by facts, while calling Nick Gordon a "borderline top 100 prospect" is odd to me. 

 

Numerous prospects that are arguably better than Gordon and didn't make this list at all. Let's just come to grips with this – the methodology here is heavily weighted against non-elite prospect types because they don't offer either of the following: 1) short-term value for a team that's trying to win now/soon, or 2) the proper combination of upside/safety to outweigh #1 with their future value. 

[Mr. Brooks]

FWIW: Seth, Cody and Tom had Gordon ranked as the 12th/13th/8th best prospect in the Twins system in the Prospect Handbook. Complaining about arguments not supported by facts, while calling Nick Gordon a "borderline top 100 prospect" is odd to me.

 

Numerous prospects that are arguably better than Gordon and didn't make this list at all. Let's just come to grips with this – the methodology here is heavily weighted against non-elite prospect types because they don't offer either of the following: 1) short-term value for a team that's trying to win now/soon, or 2) the proper combination of upside/safety to outweigh #1 with their future value.

Mlb.com has him 4th, one spot behind Graterol, who they have ranked #70.

I'll wager that he makes at least one top 100 list this spring, and is mentioned as just missing on at least one more.

[TheLeviathan]

Would you agree, that in spite of what Cron or Cave would fetch in a trade, they are more valuable to the Twins this season than Gordon is likely to be?

Sure! But then Wander Javier being 16th ahead of all three makes absolutely no sense. He will provide nothing to this Twins team.

 

Jay made a great post on the first page, I'd suggest Nick take it under consideration as this series continues.

Edited December 29, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[TheLeviathan]

Mlb.com has him 4th, one spot behind Graterol, who they have ranked #70.

I'll wager that he makes at least one top 100 list this spring, and is mentioned as just missing on at least one more.

And even if he's not, Nick can't possibly, seriously contend Nick Gordon's value is less than nothing or Luis Gil. Which is sorta what he suggested.

 

So going back to the scenario Nick posed...no one in their right mind would refuse Gordon for Cave or Cron. You'd make that swap in a heartbeat and sign Adam Jones. Or some other 4th outfielder. Or deal for Santana.

 

And you'd come out way ahead. If the FO refused a Gordon-esque prospect for Cron or CaveI'd want them immediately fired.

Edited December 29, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Twodogs]

I think the Twins have put themselves in a spot where they can go in either direction and be in ok shape. For instance if the core players like Buxton, Sano, et al. all figure it out and with the new additions the Twins have a great season then it would appear that they have a nice stockpile of players that they could trade to get a nice deadline deal that could put them over the top. Also if everything falls apart again like last year then again they have some good depth and talent that looks to be close to ready to start implementing a transition to a new wave of potential players ready to take the reigns. To me now it's just up to the players to determine which route that management will have to go.

[jorgenswest]

Nick-

 

Does the Cruz signing reduce the Twins need for Cron? At best his value this year is the difference between he and Austin in 2019 performance. Cron projects at 1.6 WAR. We also have control in 2020 but Rooker or Kirilloff may be in the picture at that point.

 

If you did the rankings with Cruz in mind would Cron slot in the same place given the reduction in need?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sure! But then Wander Javier being 16th ahead of all three makes absolutely no sense. He will provide nothing to this Twins team.

Jay made a great post on the first page, I'd suggest Nick take it under consideration as this series continues.

But Javier would have significant trade value if he were healthy, despite not being able to contribute currently. The equation seem to be current value to the Twins PLUS value in a trade. I think Nick is implying that Javier's value as a tradeable asset is greater than Cron's current value to the Twins. And Gordon's value as a tradeable asset and currently does not eclipse Cron's current value to the Twins. 

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by PseudoSABR

[Nick Nelson]

 

Nick-

Does the Cruz signing reduce the Twins need for Cron? At best his value this year is the difference between he and Austin in 2019 performance. Cron projects at 1.6 WAR. We also have control in 2020 but Rooker or Kirilloff may be in the picture at that point.

If you did the rankings with Cruz in mind would Cron slot in the same place given the reduction in need?

Yeah, I think you've got it right. Cron would slide out of the top 20 now that they have Cruz, who's basically just a much better version – minus the ability to stand at first – controllable for the same timespan. 

[ashbury]

Jay made a great post on the first page, I'd suggest Nick take it under consideration as this series continues.

It would make for a less interesting place if everyone operated under the same definitions.

 

I do hope that Nick can extract from these various comments a way to further refine his description of how he values assets. I have asked similar of Seth when he provides his prospect rankings. Prospect A is ranked higher than Prospect B because he is... uh, more... um...what?

 

One way to arrive at a sharp definition is to imagine a team liquidating its assets by auction. The highest bidder would scoop up Player B for $5M, Player A would fetch $20M, etc. While we amateurs would be purely guessing at these values, even a GM would be unwilling to sign his name to his estimates - no one can know for sure. But at least it would be something pretty well defined, and would allow for a ranked list. But... since teams don't liquidate, and haven't done so for more than a century, would this neat and tidy definition correspond to any kind of actual reality? I have my doubts.

 

Also, highest bid for each player, would not necessarily correspond to any given bidder's rankings of all the players. There are some paradoxes contained even in thought experiments (which here boil down to game theory), to say nothing of real-world complexities.

 

It's hard. I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing Nick too earnestly. JMO.

[TheLeviathan]

But Javier would have significant trade value if he were healthy, despite not being able to contribute currently. The equation seem to be current value to the Twins PLUS value in a trade. I think Nick is implying that Javier's value as a tradeable asset is greater than Cron's current value to the Twins. And Gordon's value as a tradeable asset and currently does not eclipse Cron's current value to the Twins.

 

What Gordon could fetch in a trade is absolutely better than Cron. That should not be a disputed claim. Unless you think Gordon is worth less than it took to acquire Cron.

 

Do you think Gordon's value is beneath nothing?

[TheLeviathan]

It would make for a less interesting place if everyone operated under the same definitions.

 

I do hope that Nick can extract from these various comments a way to further refine his description of how he values assets. I have asked similar of Seth when he provides his prospect rankings. Prospect A is ranked higher than Prospect B because he is...

 

It's hard. I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing this too diligently.

Fine.

 

Though I'd have an easier time not pressing if the responses stopped becoming more vexing each time.

 

We went from a loose, easy enough explanation to trying to argue in a hypothetical whether you'd take Gordon (a fringe topp 100 prospect) or a dude who just got waived. And it was implied that the waiver claim is the right answer. Now my brain hurts trying to wrap around that.

Edited December 29, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[PseudoSABR]

 

What Gordon could fetch in a trade is absolutely better than Cron. That should not be a disputed claim. Unless you think Gordon is worth less than it took to acquire Cron.

Do you think Gordon's value is beneath nothing?

Again, it's Gordon's trade value (much more than Cron) PLUS his current value to the Twins (much less than Cron).   So of course Gordon has more trade value than Cron, but his value to the Twins is so beneath Cron's that Nick has him ranked below Cron.  

 

You are horseshoeing the metric as trade value only or current value to the Twins only; it's a combination of the two.  You're being a bit obtuse, my friend.  

Edited December 29, 2018 by PseudoSABR

[TheLeviathan]

You are horseshoeing the metric as trade value only or current value to the Twins only; it's a combination of the two. You're being a bit obtuse, my friend.

 

Please go read Nick's hypothetical again and save your obtuse accusations.

Edited December 30, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Nick Nelson]

 

 

Fine.

Though I'd have an easier time not pressing if the responses stopped becoming more vexing each time.

We went from a loose, easy enough explanation to trying to argue Gordon couldn't net omething more than a waiver claim. Now my brain hurts trying to wrap around that.

This isn't strictly a ranking of trade value! That's literally been stated multiple times on this thread. I'm sorry to say it man, but if you're getting so vexed maybe it's because you're reading what you want to read instead of what's being written. 

 

Teams don't usually make a habit of just trading prospects randomly left and right, so to me, it doesn't make sense to think in those terms. Could they trade Gordon right now? I'm sure they could, though it'd require finding a partner that has a need, and likes his scouting reports more than his track record, and has something to offer that you want (Ohm by the way, you'd be dealing a former first-round pick with his value at the lowest point it's ever been! Sounds unsmart.) 

 

When you talk about what a "Gorden-esque prospect" would net in a trade, in some vacuum, you're completely missing the point of this exercise. That's all very theoretical. I'm dealing with the facts at hand, which are these:

 

Cron is the Twins' starting first baseman, and before Cruz he was arguably their best power bat. Nick Gordon is occupying a 40-man roster spot as a total question mark. The hope that he can rebound and take over Schoop's roster spot in 2020 is the reason he's on this list, over several prospects that I actually feel are better. 

 

[ashbury]

I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing this too diligently.

 

Now my brain hurts trying to wrap around that.

 

I see we are on the same page in this.

[Nick Nelson]

Having rambled all that out, I am hereby retiring from all Cron/Gordon debate. I'm trying my hardest to clearly convey what I'm going for with this series, and I'm glad some folks seem to get it, but I feel I'm just repeating myself now.

 

Rest of the rankings are coming next week (M/W/F). I suspect we'll have less confusion around these comparative valuations as we move away from the fringes and into the top 15. 

[ashbury]

...You're being a bit obtuse, my friend.  

 

...and save your obtuse accusations.

Mod note: Agreed, characterizing another poster rarely ends well.

[TheLeviathan]

When you talk about what a "Gorden-esque prospect" would net in a trade, in some vacuum, you're completely missing the point of this exercise. That's all very theoretical. I'm dealing with the facts at hand, which are these

 

Holy monkey balls Nick. You introduced a theoretical in post 56. Could you go back and read that again? Maybe, just maybe, you can see how that wasn’t a productive way to illustrate your point.

 

I’ll let it drop here, but it’s really unfair to Frame your stance as cold hard facts and mine as hypothetical after you laid out that scenario. And it’s that scenario that lead to this point.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Please go read Nick's hypothetical again and save your obtuse accusations.

I meant the obtuse comment playfully (hence, my friend).  I've read Nick's post, and it isn't inconsistent with what I've been saying.  And yet, you can't seem to accept him at his word that the metric is something more than just trade value or just current value to the Twins.  If I'm characterizing the metric incorrectly, Nick would have corrected me rather than liking my posts.  

[TheLeviathan]

I had/have accepted that. Then a hypothetical was posed that made the matter more confusing. Subsequent explanations to me and Brooks have only furthered confusion. That hypothetical, and the dubious logic behind it, are to blame.

 

But I'm done with it, Ashbury is right, clarity here is a futile endeavor beyond what has been said.

Edited December 30, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[PseudoSABR]

 

I had/have accepted that. Then a hypothetical was posed that made the matter more confusing. Subsequent explanations to me and Brooks have only furthered confusion. That hypothetical, and the dubious logic behind it, are to blame.

I don't find the hypothetical all that problematic--I think Nick was off-the-cuffing it, and you shouldn't hold him to one poor hypothetical.   But the point of his hypothetical is that Cron has more value to the Twins than he does to nearly every other club to the point where he wouldn't trade him for another organization's Gordon. I.e. Cron's current value to the Twins eclipses Gordon's trade value.  

 

But I'll let it be as well.

Edited December 30, 2018 by PseudoSABR

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Nice warm-up act to the Buxton-Lewis ranking!!