The Twins could have traded just about every prospect for the last 6 or so years and not really missed out on anybody but Berrios. Yes, there are major league players and some pretty good ones, and some we are still hoping (fingers crossed) figure it out.
But prospects are just that until they prove otherwise.
What would they have gotten for Rogers? Polanco? Kepler? So that's an utterly silly claim. I think you're going to be dead wrong about a dozen times real quick-like.
And sorry, I think some commenters become delusional on BOTH sides of an argument to trade a prospect or not. I used Gordon as an example of how preposterous it is for any of us to 1) think we can really be at all certain about a prospect's ceiling when he's 21 and getting his feet wet at AA, or to 2) conclude that we have a good idea about what kind of MLB talent a prospect like Gordon can attract.
It's hard enough for the pros to gauge this.
But my point is simply this: when you trade a big-time prospect with Gordon's clear athletic talents, you're doing so knowing there can be a wide variance of future outcomes regarding his skill development. Even when his minor league performance has gone from super encouraging to abysmal, like Gordon's has, there is a much narrower variance in his trade value. This risk should be acknowledged and managed, IMO. The way I would manage it is to trade from positional surplus so that when you DO lose on a trade it hurts you less because you have another option, and to avoid trades involving multiple high-profile prospects so as to decrease your chances of giving up the next Tatis Jr. for the next James Shields. That's all I'm saying.
Edited by birdwatcher, 01 February 2019 - 02:23 PM.