Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Matthew Boyd and Shane Greene for............

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#61 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 22,873 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 07:05 PM

 

Please don't put in links that are locked behind a paywall.

We encourage people to put paywall links on this site. At Twins Daily, we view the entire baseball community as a, well, community. And, just like us, every site needs to pay the bills. Some go about it differently and that's okay by us.

 

In short, share away,

  • ashbury, Mike Sixel, diehardtwinsfan and 3 others like this

#62 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,889 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:51 AM

 

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.

 

Mike,

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.

  • Jacks02 likes this

#63 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 25,311 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 12 July 2019 - 07:14 AM

 

Mike,

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.

I think the point being made was, trade for exceptional talent whenever you can get it, because it isn't often available, and you will never regret having great talent. If you trade for Verlander, and don't end up with a good team, you can always recoup the minor league lotto tickets you spent to get it.

 

Who are the Twins going to get in 2019, that will be in the same ballpark as Justin Verlander? 

  • Twins33 likes this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#64 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 30,566 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:41 AM

Mike,
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.


Of course, this team would be better with Verlander on it. Depending on what they gave up. I was about acquiring guys for multiple years, so they'd still be in the team when it was good.

If anyone thought Castro and Garver would be the best hitting tandem in the game, I'd be shocked.

In any event, they are there now, and lose sixty percent of their rotation in the off season. They better try to make themselves better now.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#65 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,889 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:52 AM

 

I think the point being made was, trade for exceptional talent whenever you can get it, because it isn't often available, and you will never regret having great talent. If you trade for Verlander, and don't end up with a good team, you can always recoup the minor league lotto tickets you spent to get it.

 

Who are the Twins going to get in 2019, that will be in the same ballpark as Justin Verlander? 

 

So teams like Detroit, Baltimore or Miami should trade for established players? You and I have very different views on building. You have demonstrated a extreme bias to the present. Did you disagree with any of the failures I mentioned? Where would this team be had the F/O followed an all about the present approach? I want to watch baseball every year. I want to see the best team possible over years not a given year and in general believe sustained success is always preferable to the KC model of sucking for 20 years / being good fort a couple years and then sucking again. We will never agree and the league most certainly does not follow the model you suggest. There is not a single team with a losing record trading for Verlander type players.SanDiego is 500, has a loaded farm system and spent a pile of money in free agency. Even they have not traded for any high profile players to support their huge free agent spending unless I missed something. 

 

 


#66 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 14,898 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 10:00 AM

 

Boyd as outperformed Syndergaard by a considerable margin... and he pitches in the AL, not the NL... No way I give up Lewis for Syndergaard. 

 

I wouldn't argue against Wheeler, but he's an FA next season and doesn't really solve any problems for us long term.

 

But only for three months. If kind of feels like people are looking at him as an established above average pitcher instead of someone who the Tigers probably had to have a serious discussion about offering arbitration to last winter.

  • Rigby and FlauerPauer like this

#67 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,514 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 12 July 2019 - 10:14 AM

 

But only for three months. If kind of feels like people are looking at him as an established above average pitcher instead of someone who the Tigers probably had to have a serious discussion about offering arbitration to last winter.

 

So you'd rather (over)pay for a guy with an established track record who hasn't lived up to it in a weaker league vs one a bit less established who is getting results? 

 

Players have breakout seasons all the time. One could argue Boyd broke out last year and then has turned up an more impressive encore performance. 

 

And I highly doubt there was much of a discussion as to whether or not to offer him arb. Boyd upped his K rate, dropped his walk rate, and dropped his hit rate pretty considerably last year in his first truly full season and turned in a league average performance... that's what you want out of a pre-arb guy... 

 

This team has a window right now... I don't think it's wise at all to trade for a guy they will need to fix. 

  • Sconnie likes this

#68 cmoss84

cmoss84

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 438 posts
  • LocationBakersfield, CA

Posted 12 July 2019 - 10:45 AM

I am in the "get Noah (and Diaz) camp".

 

People like to talk about NL vs AL. The NL East has some teams that can hit. 

Never fun getting rid of your top prospects, but I would give up Lewis, Kiriloff, Graterol and change for Syndergaard and Diaz. 

 

Mets are sliding fast. Chairs are being thrown. Might be the right time. 

  • FlauerPauer likes this

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.


#69 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,406 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 10:54 AM

 

So you'd rather (over)pay for a guy with an established track record who hasn't lived up to it in a weaker league vs one a bit less established who is getting results? 

 

Players have breakout seasons all the time. One could argue Boyd broke out last year and then has turned up an more impressive encore performance. 

 

And I highly doubt there was much of a discussion as to whether or not to offer him arb. Boyd upped his K rate, dropped his walk rate, and dropped his hit rate pretty considerably last year in his first truly full season and turned in a league average performance... that's what you want out of a pre-arb guy... 

 

This team has a window right now... I don't think it's wise at all to trade for a guy they will need to fix. 

The other thing worth pointing out with Boyd is that pitchers take leaps in their late 20s ALL THE TIME. 

 

Jake Arrieta went from just a guy to a CY candidate at age 28. He had a couple very good years after.

Max Scherzer transitioned from merely good at age 26 to CY winner at age 28. He is still amazing.

Corey Kluber pitched 125 innings in AAA at age 26, and won the CY at age 28. Several CY-caliber seasons after.

Gerrit Cole took a leap at age 27, and is having arguably his best season at age 28.

Zack Wheeler struggled for years, and turned in his best season in 2018 - at age 28. Solid this year.

Patrick Corbin had the best season of his career last year - at age 28. Solid again this year.

 

Martin Perez is having a breakout season at... age 28.

Odorizzi is having a breakout season at... age 29.

 

I understand that this is a bit of cherry-picking. But there is enough evidence for me that I'm too not concerned that Boyd is just a flash in the pan.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#70 twins1095

twins1095

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 240 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:19 AM

 

I'd rather have Stroman, Madbum, or Syndergaard/Wheeler. Royce Lewis seems like too much. Seems like a 2000s Twins pickup

Boyd would actually be a very 2019 Twins pick up along the lines of Cron/Cruz/etc. Boyd's age, peripheral stats, contract, and relative value in terms of what we *should* have to give up to get him compared to other top targets make him arguably and I would say *probably* the guy who should be the #1 target on the Twins list.

  • Diesel likes this

#71 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 14,898 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:21 AM

 

So you'd rather (over)pay for a guy with an established track record who hasn't lived up to it in a weaker league vs one a bit less established who is getting results? 

 

Players have breakout seasons all the time. One could argue Boyd broke out last year and then has turned up an more impressive encore performance. 

 

And I highly doubt there was much of a discussion as to whether or not to offer him arb. Boyd upped his K rate, dropped his walk rate, and dropped his hit rate pretty considerably last year in his first truly full season and turned in a league average performance... that's what you want out of a pre-arb guy... 

 

This team has a window right now... I don't think it's wise at all to trade for a guy they will need to fix. 

 

If we're talking about trading one of the team's top prospects for Boyd, isn't Boyd the overpay? People are talking about him like he's the hottest player on the market (not just here, he's gotten some really odd helium everywhere).

 

His profile looks like a fluke to me. I can understand a starter getting good results for three months going almost exclusively to his only two good pitches, but I can't see that guy continuing to get good results much longer. The league is almost certainly going to catch up, that's why these guys almost always end up in the pen, starters without usable off speed pitches are rare.

 

I'm more than happy trading for non-established pitchers thinking our team can get them going. I love the idea really. But I don't like this player, and I don't think he's being evaluated like typical non-established pitchers.

 


#72 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 14,898 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:23 AM

But whatever is going on with Boyd, hats off to Rick Anderson if he had a hand in it.

  • Sconnie and FlauerPauer like this

#73 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,889 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:50 AM

 

Of course, this team would be better with Verlander on it. Depending on what they gave up. I was about acquiring guys for multiple years, so they'd still be in the team when it was good.

If anyone thought Castro and Garver would be the best hitting tandem in the game, I'd be shocked.

In any event, they are there now, and lose sixty percent of their rotation in the off season. They better try to make themselves better now.

 

Big picture Mike. Recent history is quite clear. Most of the moves that posters insisted were obviously great moves would have hurt this team both short and long-term and some of them would have hurt the team substantially for multiple years. Fans are not accountable for these failures and many just don't seem to gain any increased awareness of how damaging these deals can be or gain any understanding of why teams wait to make moves as opposed to simply adding talent whenever possible.

 

I posted last year that Garver was the best hitter on the team for the 2nd half last year by OPS. I also posted that his number were very similar to Realmuto for the 2nd last year. His defense was also improving rapidly. I am not exactly sure what I posted on a Realmuto trade but my thought was that the package required was not worth the modest upgrade and that we would be trading 5 years of Garver for 2 of Realmuto not to mention the cost in prospects Realmuto commanded. Sanchez is 20 pitching at AA and is a top 25 prospect. The equivalent would have been Kirilloff and Garver for no net gain. These are the kind of deals that kill sustained success.

 

It's also premature to say they will lose 60% of their rotation. Generally speaking the current team has the best shot at signing a free agent. Plus, we will have the payroll available to sign a SP better than the 60% going away unless Odorizzi continues and sustains this level of play after 2019. Point being, it is quite reasonable they resign one or two of the current SPs and we are in a much better position to attract FAs then we have in recent history. While it's too early to tell ... Smeltzer and Thorpe look like they could perform at the Pineda or Gibson level while opening up even more payroll to land a front of the rotation guy.

Edited by Major League Ready, 12 July 2019 - 11:53 AM.


#74 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,396 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 12:08 PM

Teams don't want our junk. Yes, Stewart still has potential, but Cave is basically a replacement players who can be had in a non-trade situation. If the Twinsa re going all in from their strengths, they would part with a middle infieler (Gordon, Javier or perhaps Lewis), one of Rooker or Haley, possibly two A+ starters, and one other arm that might be on the cusp of major league ready (be it Stewart, Thorpe or maybe a Gonsalves). They Twins could also market one of their minor league catchers...Rortveldt or Jeffers.

 

From the other team's view, they are looking at players that they expect will be on the team in 2021 and beyond, so that is the key, as well as places they have weaknesses in their system.

 

But I;m not so sure that Boyd fits into the ACE category of, say, a Verlander. And Greene is a good solid arm, could be better, but IS better than all of the arms in the bullpen that throw right-handed.

 

Joel Thingvall
www.joelthingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#75 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,514 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 12 July 2019 - 12:46 PM

 

If we're talking about trading one of the team's top prospects for Boyd, isn't Boyd the overpay? People are talking about him like he's the hottest player on the market (not just here, he's gotten some really odd helium everywhere).

 

His profile looks like a fluke to me. I can understand a starter getting good results for three months going almost exclusively to his only two good pitches, but I can't see that guy continuing to get good results much longer. The league is almost certainly going to catch up, that's why these guys almost always end up in the pen, starters without usable off speed pitches are rare.

 

I'm more than happy trading for non-established pitchers thinking our team can get them going. I love the idea really. But I don't like this player, and I don't think he's being evaluated like typical non-established pitchers.

 

To answer the first question, it depends on how he performs. But you're talking 3+ years of control, and if I'm giving up Graterol or someone like that, I'd rather do that for the control over that has the upside to perform at that level or better for a while. I think the risks to the downside are pretty minimal given his age, peripherals, and how he's succeeding. The risk that someone like Thor or Madbum don't perform when brought over is much greater in my opinion.

 

Boyd probably is the hottest player on the market, because unless Scherzer, Wheeler, or Grienke come on the market, he's without the question the best performer that can help a team right now, and under control for the foreseeable future. And in a season where the WS is a real possibility, I want the guy who's pitching well NOW... not the guy who did it a few years ago but is as of right now a marginal at best upgrade over what is currently in our rotation. My issue with Madbum or Thor is that both of these guys haven't been that good this year... and in the NL where you have a pitcher batting. We have to fix those guys. 

Boyd, like it or not, is about the same Berrios at the moment, though his peripherals say he's actually a bit unlucky. I don't think the others will be available (and if they are this is a different conversation). I know Berrios isn't the mythical 'ace' that some clamor for, but he's a pretty good pitcher that I have zero issue going toe to toe with the league's best (especially with our offense). 

 

P.S.Boyd is not a two pitch pitcher anymore... having two swing and miss pitches doesn't make you a two pitch pitcher. I'd be more concerned about him facing AL central bottom feeder teams for most of his games... but I'm not sure (and too lazy to confirm) that this is in play here given that his team is one of them. 

  • Sconnie likes this

#76 FlauerPauer

FlauerPauer

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,483 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 12 July 2019 - 12:50 PM

Gonna be rough next year for FA SP. Gerritt Cole is the only guy outside of Gibson and Wheeler that I'd give a contract to.

 

Edit to add Wheeler

Edited by FlauerPauer, 12 July 2019 - 12:51 PM.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#77 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 30,566 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 01:24 PM

Big picture Mike. Recent history is quite clear. Most of the moves that posters insisted were obviously great moves would have hurt this team both short and long-term and some of them would have hurt the team substantially for multiple years. Fans are not accountable for these failures and many just don't seem to gain any increased awareness of how damaging these deals can be or gain any understanding of why teams wait to make moves as opposed to simply adding talent whenever possible.

I posted last year that Garver was the best hitter on the team for the 2nd half last year by OPS. I also posted that his number were very similar to Realmuto for the 2nd last year. His defense was also improving rapidly. I am not exactly sure what I posted on a Realmuto trade but my thought was that the package required was not worth the modest upgrade and that we would be trading 5 years of Garver for 2 of Realmuto not to mention the cost in prospects Realmuto commanded. Sanchez is 20 pitching at AA and is a top 25 prospect. The equivalent would have been Kirilloff and Garver for no net gain. These are the kind of deals that kill sustained success.

It's also premature to say they will lose 60% of their rotation. Generally speaking the current team has the best shot at signing a free agent. Plus, we will have the payroll available to sign a SP better than the 60% going away unless Odorizzi continues and sustains this level of play after 2019. Point being, it is quite reasonable they resign one or two of the current SPs and we are in a much better position to attract FAs then we have in recent history. While it's too early to tell ... Smeltzer and Thorpe look like they could perform at the Pineda or Gibson level while opening up even more payroll to land a front of the rotation guy.

I'm not sure what your are arguing. No trade to improve this year? Because that was the point of my post. This is the kind of year you try to win. The Sox have three top twenty prospects, likely on their team next year. They have money.

The Twins are one of the best teams in the league, if they don't add this season, when would they?

Or are you still arguing about the past, which I said was not the important point any more? The team is in its competitive phase. Why are you still arguing about the earlier phase?

Edited by Mike Sixel, 12 July 2019 - 01:27 PM.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#78 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 16,793 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 01:28 PM

I posted last year that Garver was the best hitter on the team for the 2nd half last year by OPS. I also posted that his number were very similar to Realmuto for the 2nd last year. His defense was also improving rapidly. I am not exactly sure what I posted on a Realmuto trade but my thought was that the package required was not worth the modest upgrade and that we would be trading 5 years of Garver for 2 of Realmuto not to mention the cost in prospects Realmuto commanded. Sanchez is 20 pitching at AA and is a top 25 prospect. The equivalent would have been Kirilloff and Garver for no net gain. These are the kind of deals that kill sustained success.


FWIW, even Falvey and Levine tried to sign Grandal to a 3 year contract this year.
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#79 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,889 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 01:38 PM

 

I'm not sure what your are arguing. No trade to improve this year? Because that was the point of my post. This is the kind of year you try to win. The Sox have three top twenty prospects, likely on their team next year. They have money.

The Twins are one of the best teams in the league, if they don't add this season, when would they?

Or are you still arguing about the past, which I said was not the important point any more? The team is in its competitive phase. Why are you still arguing about the earlier phase?

 

The later.I am now on board with adding and I have been consistent with the position of adding once the team demonstrated we are a real contender. You may recall I said during the off season that could be as soon as the 2019 deadline. My argument was actually with Chief but you interjected what I thought was a good point and I responded to you instead of him because Chief would not accept my position if I said it was Friday today.


#80 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,889 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 01:45 PM

 

FWIW, even Falvey and Levine tried to sign Grandal to a 3 year contract this year.

 

Granted, I was really high on Garver after his second half last year.Perhaps more than a half season warranted. Part of it was pure optimism because his break-out being real would be big for the team.

 

They were right about Grandal but that needs context too.Big difference in signing a free agent as opposed to giving up the necessary assets to trade for Realmuto. In addition, the shot at Grandal was probably before signing Cruz. They could have gotten Garver ABs at 1st, DH and catcher so adding Grandal as a free agent when they had not yet added Cruz makes sense.