Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Article: Trade Deadline Thread: How Far Would You Go to Add an Ace?

noah syndergaard byron buxton royce lewis alex kirilloff derek falvey
  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 Tibs

Tibs

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,228 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis

Posted 30 July 2019 - 07:26 AM

What I would be willing to give up for a top tier pitcher is largely dependent on the years of team control for that pitcher. I’m not giving up Lewis for less than 3 years of the pitcher in return. The Twins can’t afford to make trades like that unless the financial strategy changes drastically. Now other prospects are more expendable because of depth or talent. But the Twins always need to give a little consideration to the future when trading prospects.
  • Vanimal46 and IAMNFan like this
I couldn't be a player because of bad eyesight, so I decided to be an umpire instead.

#22 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,063 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 07:58 AM

I'm skeptical that it was, but their new GM seems completely inept at his job, so maybe it really was their best and final.


Most people seem to think the Mets did all right in the Stroman trade, even if the timing was a bit of a surprise. The Vargas salary dump seems fine. The deGrom extension is all right in its early stages.

They did poorly in the Cano trade for sure, although that was basically just a massive overpay for a closer.

#23 SgtSchmidt11

SgtSchmidt11

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 501 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:12 AM

I saw a quote stating the Mets GM was basically a kindergartner practicing finger-painting when it comes to these trade negotiations.

 

I fully understand starting at a high price, but asking for Buxton seems downright childish.  

 

If he asked for all the Twins top 100 prospects I'd understand (it wouldn't get the deal done obviously), but asking for a guy who is a key piece in a team looking to contend for a championship just seems more likely to stop a conversation then start one.

  • Dantes929, Reider and TFRazor like this

#24 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,683 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:13 AM

 

Always difficult to know with pitchers, but I'm pretty confident this is the lowest Syndergaard's trade value is going to get. This would be buying low, in my eyes. *Assuming the asking price comes down, which I believe will.

 

I think you'd have been shouting the same thing about Gerrit Cole in his last year with the Pirates. Look at him now. Syndergaard has one of the most elite arsenals in the game. Put him in a situation to be comfortable and give him the information he needs to succeed and you've got an ace on your hands. 

For every Cole and Verlander there is a Darvish and an Archer but that's the risk/reward part of the game.Syndergaard hasn't been a top 10 Cy Young since 2016 but has been very good. His year so far hasn't been that great and it is hard to argue he has been as good as Stroman who just went for not that much. My point is Thor's trade value SHOULD be at its lowest but their reported ask would reflect value beyond his highest. Your caveat of "Assuming the asking price comes down, which I believe will."changes the whole dynamic.Buxton plus top prospects would be buying high while selling our assets low.If the asking price comes down to Kiriloff or Lewis plus lower prospects that changes everything. Everyone here would like to get Thor and many would be ok with a slight overpay.If the current asking price doesn't come down would you want to pay that to get him and would you consider that a reflection of a low point in Thor's value? If the ask does come down then we have a different conversation. I don't think the Mets want to part with him and are not considering the "lowest Syndergaard's trade value is going to get."part of the equation. They are asking what we would hope the Twins would ask for if someone came to us now wanting Berrios.I get a bit attached to top prospects and don't like giving them up but it certainly projects like at least one of them will be blocked or one of the current guys we like will be expendable so I have come around to the idea of giving up some of the young talent for a guy like Thor. If their ask DOES come down I hope we can pull the trigger.What would you be willing to give up?

If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

#25 strumdatjaguar

strumdatjaguar

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 336 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:14 AM

I'd trade Sano or Garver (and two second tier prospects) for Syndegaard, but Buxton is off-limits.The Twins win when Buck plays, and lose when he is out of the line-up.

  • IAMNFan likes this

#26 djvang

djvang

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 116 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:15 AM

I wouldn't give up much for Syndegaard. Too injury prone. I'm fine with them turning down bad deals. They need a starter and two relievers to help this year. That would be too expensive.

  • Reider likes this

#27 hugelycat

hugelycat

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 47 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:24 AM

I don't think any prospect should be off limits. Our window is now, and we should be willing to trade long-term value for short-term success (as long as it's not the type of lopsided trade that LEN cites).

As far as whether Syndergaard is an ace, I'll leave that to the Twins to evaluate. They have a lot more information than I do, and they're in a better position to analyze why his results this year don't match his past.

  • Dantes929 and LVTwinsfan like this

#28 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,707 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:44 AM

 

I'd trade Sano or Garver (and two second tier prospects) for Syndegaard, but Buxton is off-limits.The Twins win when Buck plays, and lose when he is out of the line-up.

Really? Garver is putting up near MVP numbers as a catcher this year. No way he should be traded if the WS is at all something we want to get to.

  • Brock Beauchamp, 70charger, SgtSchmidt11 and 4 others like this

#29 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,357 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:45 AM

 

I don't think any prospect should be off limits. Our window is now, and we should be willing to trade long-term value for short-term success (as long as it's not the type of lopsided trade that LEN cites).
 

The window is just opening. It could be open for a good long while, especially if there is a steady stream of MLB ready prospects in the pipeline, which is not quite yet the case. Next year it might be, but not if you trade away all the best ones.

 

 

  • wabene likes this

#30 TFRazor

TFRazor

    Who's on first?

  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:50 AM

 

I would top out at Kirloff, Garver, Romero, and Duran as my finalbest Offer for Syndegaard and Ramos. Your going to have to give up one of your top two prospects, and a major league starter to acquire Syndegaard that is top of rotation guy. Mets can wait to the offseason, time is of the essence for Twins, it's the penance you pay for waiting this long. Price of Poker is rough someone is going to pay the Piper. Twins want Syndergaard, they are going to feel some pain from the trade. Garvers a stud with the bat it takes type of player to garner a controllable starter that can strike people out. Romero only top pitching prospect we have that is major league ready it experience. I dont if i would do it admitting full well that is a boatload of talent to lose. Kirloff and Romero , Poppen for Stromen if Mets wanted to flip him. None of it would likely move Mets to do deal with Twins. I don't think Mets really want to move Syndergaard.

I really hope this is sarcasm because there is no way in h*ll I'm packaging garver for anyone. We may be sitting on one of the best offensive catchers in the league who has also improved defensively. You don't trade that.

  • Blake, Highabove, Twins33 and 6 others like this

#31 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Content Editor

  • Administrator
  • 2,423 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:50 AM

 

If the ask does come down then we have a different conversation. I don't think the Mets want to part with him and are not considering the "lowest Syndergaard's trade value is going to get."part of the equation. They are asking what we would hope the Twins would ask for if someone came to us now wanting Berrios.I get a bit attached to top prospects and don't like giving them up but it certainly projects like at least one of them will be blocked or one of the current guys we like will be expendable so I have come around to the idea of giving up some of the young talent for a guy like Thor. If their ask DOES come down I hope we can pull the trigger.What would you be willing to give up?

Reports have indicated the Mets are definitely interested in parting with Syndergaard, but Jon Heyman recently reported that it seems more likely Zack Wheeler gets traded. That makes a lot of sense, since Wheeler is set to hit free agency at the end of this season.

 

But, let me answer your question anyway. I already said in the article the highest guy I'd feel comfortable potentially parting with is Alex Kirilloff. How do we get there? Since they're asking for Buxton, I'd respond by letting them know they'd have to throw in Wheeler/Seth Lugo and Pete Alonso in addition to Thor. Basically give them a dose of their own medicine in asking for something unrealistic. Of course the Mets would not do that trade, but I think that counter offer puts the Twins back in the driver's seat, now the Mets are on the defensive.

 

From there, I'd make the counter offer of Trevor Larnach, Ryan Jeffers and Nick Gordon for Syndergaard. It's entirely possible the Mets just stop responding to messages at that point, and I'd be OK with that, but it's also possible they'd counter with asking to step it up from Larnach to Kirilloff and boom, you've led them where you were trying to get to in the first place.

 

Of course this is all just hypothetical speculation and the hidden element is we don't know what other teams are willing to offer the Mets or truly how motivated they are to move Thor. 

  • Dantes929 and IAMNFan like this

Find me on Twitter @TFTwins and subscribe to my YouTube channel.


#32 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 15,149 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 08:52 AM

 

.I think you'd have been shouting the same thing about Gerrit Cole in his last year with the Pirates. Look at him now. Syndergaard has one of the most elite arsenals in the game. Put him in a situation to be comfortable and give him the information he needs to succeed and you've got an ace on your hands.

 

I really want Syndergaard and think he can become an ace, but I don't think he is an ace right now. I'd guess if other clubs were willing to pay for future ace potential, he'd already be dealt. I'm not sure who, if any team will get him, but my money is on nobody meeting anything close to the Mets asking price. 

 

Not that it would impact my desire for Syndergaard, but I really liked Mickey Calloway as Cleveland's pitching coach, so the overall regression of the Mets' staff does have me a bit concerned. Maybe it's all the organizational dysfunction, or was there some kind of gimmick last year that the rest of the league figured out?


#33 TFRazor

TFRazor

    Who's on first?

  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:01 AM

 

I really want Syndergaard and think he can become an ace, but I don't think he is an ace right now. I'd guess if other clubs were willing to pay for future ace potential, he'd already be dealt. I'm not sure who, if any team will get him, but my money is on nobody meeting anything close to the Mets asking price. 

 

Not that it would impact my desire for Syndergaard, but I really liked Mickey Calloway as Cleveland's pitching coach, so the overall regression of the Mets' staff does have me a bit concerned. Maybe it's all the organizational dysfunction, or was there some kind of gimmick last year that the rest of the league figured out?

Sometimes guys are great positional coaches because it allows them to specialize on one facet of the game but make them the head honcho and they can't focus on what they're really good at. Kinda like in the NFL. You can have a guy who's a great defensive coordinator but he's not very successful as a head coach. Then he goes back to being a D.C. and he's great again (ex. Wade Phillips)


#34 SwainZag

SwainZag

    Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,503 posts
  • LocationMontana

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:05 AM

If I am the GM I am not giving up a player on the 25 man roster to get someone in return.If someone is demanding Buxton, Sano, Garver, etc, then I look at another avenue.If that limits the teams that want to trade with me, then so be it.

  • Blake, Twins33, Danchat and 3 others like this

#35 TFRazor

TFRazor

    Who's on first?

  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:05 AM

Honestly this would all be a heck of a lot easier if we could assume that the Mets are making these moves because they have a plan. I have to say that I'm not too confident that they actually know what they are doing.

Edited by TFRazor, 30 July 2019 - 09:06 AM.


#36 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,063 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:18 AM

Honestly this would all be a heck of a lot easier if we could assume that the Mets are making these moves because they have a plan. I have to say that I'm not too confident that they actually know what they are doing.


What's the problem with what the Mets are doing, aside from the Cano trade? They extended deGrom through 2022-2024; they seem to have made a good deal for Stroman who has 2020 control; they salary dumped the mediocre Vargas; they are shopping Wheeler who is a pending FA; and they have a high asking price for Syndergaard and his 2.5 years of control, and likely Diaz and Lugo with their 3.5 years control, for whom there is no urgency to deal.

Is it because they inquired about Buxton, after the Twins quite possibly said neither Lewis or Kirilloff were on the table for Syndergaard?

Look, I would have never hired Brodie as my GM, and I glad he is not the GM of my team, but I think some of this "Mets are crazy/bad/crazybad" talk is rather exaggerated, at this point in time.
  • ashbury, 70charger, Vanimal46 and 1 other like this

#37 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,100 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:21 AM

I'd like an ace, but I don't know that one is available this year. Give me a reasonable Syndergaard deal; I'd be OK with Robbie Ray or Zack Greinke, but all of them would be slotting in behind Berrios.

Concur. But if a real ace were available, I'd go far in terms of prospects. Because an ace is almost never available.

In the draft, I'm constantly told it is better to draft hitters and trade for pitching..... And that that is the Twins plan. Let's see.

Edited by Mike Sixel, 30 July 2019 - 09:22 AM.

  • Vanimal46 and Tomj14 like this

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


#38 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,100 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:23 AM

The window is just opening. It could be open for a good long while, especially if there is a steady stream of MLB ready prospects in the pipeline, which is not quite yet the case. Next year it might be, but not if you trade away all the best ones.


That's what people said about the beginning of the M and M era. There are no guarantees of health. This team has one legit starting pitcher under contract for next year....
  • Dantes929 likes this

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


#39 TFRazor

TFRazor

    Who's on first?

  • Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:30 AM

 

What's the problem with what the Mets are doing, aside from the Cano trade? They extended deGrom through 2022-2024; they seem to have made a good deal for Stroman who has 2020 control; they salary dumped the mediocre Vargas; they are shopping Wheeler who is a pending FA; and they have a high asking price for Syndergaard and his 2.5 years of control, and likely Diaz and Lugo with their 3.5 years control, for whom there is no urgency to deal.

Is it because they inquired about Buxton, after the Twins quite possibly said neither Lewis or Kirilloff were on the table for Syndergaard?

Look, I would have never hired Brodie as my GM, and I glad he is not the GM of my team, but I think some of this "Mets are crazy/bad/crazybad" talk is rather exaggerated, at this point in time.

The problem is that there seems to be no decision on whether they are buyers or sellers. You trade prospects during the offseason for Diaz/Cano. That would indicate that you are in "win now mode". For the last month you're in sell mode as you're actively looking to move Syndergaard, Wheeler and Diaz. Then you turn around and grab Stroman for prospects. Then you flip Vargas. Taken in a vacuum all these moves make sense. But they're not in a vacuum. One leads to another and you've got a team flipping back and forth between selling and buying. THEN you've got players and coaches going after reporters, you've already fired one of your coaches and your manager is probably out at the end of the year. Now maybe I'm reading too much into it but there definitely doesn't seem to be a current strategy to make the Mets organization better. As someone posted earlier, another exec has compared their organizational strategy to "a kindergarten student finger painting". You can disagree with that characterization if you want, but I feel pretty comfortable with stating that I'm not sure they have a plan.

 

Also don't know why you brought the buxton thing up. I've never mentioned it.

Edited by TFRazor, 30 July 2019 - 09:32 AM.


#40 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,063 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 09:37 AM

Since they're asking for Buxton, I'd respond by letting them know they'd have to throw in Wheeler/Seth Lugo and Pete Alonso in addition to Thor. Basically give them a dose of their own medicine in asking for something unrealistic.


Have you considered the possibility that asking about Buxton was perhaps the Mets way of giving the Twins "a dose of our own medicine"? It's still quite possible the Twins were unwilling to commit two top prospects to a Syndergaard package, you know. (Especially given the delayed, Twins-sided reporting of this Buxton thing.)
  • Dantes929 and Vanimal46 like this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: noah syndergaard, byron buxton, royce lewis, alex kirilloff, derek falvey