As I've told MLR in private conversations, being wrong when you post here does not mean you are wrong next time. Like he said, it's kind of hard to predict a man that old will still be good.
But, as you and I agree, I'd take that chance a lot more than the Twins seem willing to do. Prospects are nice, flags are nicer.
I was wrong about Verlander declining most everyone here understands the odds are heavily weighted toward a 34 Y/O declining. What’s missing here is context. Detroit ended up covering 8M/YR in salary. That in itself changes the scenario somewhat. However, what is far more relevant is that Houston making this move is completely different than the Twins making that move at that specific time. The Twins are now in a similar position although our core is not quite as good as the core they had assembled at that point. Anyway, I have said on a couple occasions Verlander was a good decision for Houston at that point in time.
The macro view of that discussion back then was those who believed the Twins were “ready to contend” and therefore should trade prospects for established players. This was a constant point of contention. I did not believe it. Therefore, it made no sense to trade away good young players and or prospects as was proposed in 2017. Verlander was just one of several established players that many insisted back then we needed to acquire because the team was ready to contend.
The year before (2016) there were many who felt we should trade away top prospects ( I believe Kepler was mentioned) for LuCroy because we were ready to contend. How would that have impacted our current position and long-term outlook? BTW … That was the same year many posters insisted we should sign Cueto. Some others suggested Zimmerman or Samardjzia because (you guessed it) were ready to contend. Cueto’s contract runs through 2021 and the other two through 2020.We would not have the entire cast we have today had we made those deals and we would not have room to add to next year.
In 2015, there were many TD posters who felt we should give up top prospects for Troy Tulowitzki because we were ready to contend. To be fair, there were quite a few opposed to this trade.
How about more recently. Many TD posters were very much in favor of trading away prime assets for Archer. The eventual trade for Archer was one of the worst of this century. I think a couple years ago Berrios was even mentioned.Darvish was a no brainer because we were ready to contend. How would you like to have that anchor of a contract right now?
How about this year when many posters insist we trade top prospects for Realmuto? Great player but it still would have been a horrible move. There was also insistence we sign two of the top 10 free agent RPs that signed for AAVs of $7.5M and up. Their combined war for all 10 is roughly 0 and we would be saddled with contracts that would significantly diminish our options next year and beyond. Only the two signed the Yankees have been good. Yet, there are still people complaining they did not sign those RPs.
The point is my that whole discussion was much deeper than Verlander and the fact that it was a good decision by Houston does not mean it would have been a good decesion for the Twins. The debate and my position has been consistent in past years about trading assets before the team had demonstrated they were ready. Some posters continue to ignore they insisted our FO was stupid or cheap when history has proven the deals they insisted upon would have severely diminished our current position and future outlook. We would be in sad shape had we followed the advice of those who insisted we had to make these moves because the Twins were ready to contend.