Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Front Page: Offseason Underway: Twins Make Flurry of Moves

jake odorizzi martin perez nelson cruz stephen gonsalves kohl stewart
  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#41 jkcarew

jkcarew

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 05 November 2019 - 09:05 PM

Last we heard of Gonsalves, Wes Johnson was on a mission to add 2-3 MPH to his fastball. Within two weeks of those reports, the elbow fails. Then he’s cut loose. Hope he’s healthy. If so, my guess is the Mets have him focus on what the bigger issue was. That being his command and getting the ball anywhere close to where he wanted it.

#42 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 06:52 AM

 

But a good team can. Odorrizi, Yellich, others....

 

No argument here but and I am pretty confident there is not a person on this board that would object to any trade similar to the Yelich or Odorizzi trade. However, do those examples really support the type of trade practices being promoted here? Are the trade prospects advocates promoting trading for another Odorizzi? It sure seems to me that that the demand of these posters is to trade for top of the rotation SPs and/or elite BP arms. Those are not acquired without a very steep prospect price. Many posters have written that they would trade any prospect including Lewis / Kirilloff Graterol and Balazovic for player X? Using not trading Gonsalves to support what they really want is misguided. Trading Gonsalves or Stewart after his 1st couple years in the minors was not bringing an established impact player.

 

Are you really going to suggest another Odorizzi trade is the basis of this argument? That’s not what’s been argued here so it makes no sense to use this as an example. The Yelich example would be great if you could substantiate that it is not an anomaly. The twins and every poster here would never argue such a trade but to use that as the basis of supporting trading prospects at every opportunity is not exactly an objective argument. You are basically suggesting our strategy should be to engage in the practice of extremely lopsided trades. We would all love to make another AJ Perzinski which BTW demonstrates Lopsided trades also favor the team trading away the established player just as often as the reverse. Just ask Pittsburg how they feel out trading for Chris Archer.

 

Let’s debate the same question.

Edited by Major League Ready, 06 November 2019 - 06:54 AM.


#43 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 25,350 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 06 November 2019 - 08:29 AM

No argument here but and I am pretty confident there is not a person on this board that would object to any trade similar to the Yelich or Odorizzi trade.


I suggest you review the "trade for Verlander" thread.

You'll find plenty of objection, based on prospect cost.

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#44 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 14,958 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 08:49 AM

 

But a good team can. Odorrizi, Yellich, others....

 

Neither of those players were really elite at the time of the trade though.They both blossomed afterwards.

 

If the Twins used their prospect capital to get say, Mike Foltynewicz and Michael Conforto right now, I'm sure there would be folks who don't like the move because they prefer the prospects.

 

However, I'd also guess that many of the people who DO want to trade prospects for MLB talent would be disappointed because those two players wouldn't be nearly impactful enough and the team should have aimed higher.

  • birdwatcher likes this

#45 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 30,796 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 09:45 AM

Chief and I are pretty clear.... We literally know what is in our brains.... Don't be afraid to trade prospects.... No fancy but,if, and or rules.....I can't speak for others, but we are literally talking about what we are talking about. If you all want to argue that some fans are saying something else, go argue with them.....
  • LA VIkes Fan likes this

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


#46 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 10:02 AM

 

I suggest you review the "trade for Verlander" thread.

You'll find plenty of objection, based on prospect cost.

 

I don't view those as even remotely similar trades. Yehlich was a good player who broke out big time. How are Verlander and Odorizzi in the same discussion? Palacios is a 40FV prospect. Was he even in the top 30 prospects?

 

Using Yehlich over and over as trade proponents tend do exemplifies a biased view IMO. That deal was an extreme outlier. How many others like it can you point to in the last decade. Now compare that to trades like the Archer trade or Torres or Gregorius before him. How did Cleveland build sustained sucess? Pretty sure they traded for Kluber / Bauer & Clevinger as prospects? Should they have traded them? How about Bieber? Should he have been traded to bolster the team back then? 

 

BTW ... the most recent highly lopsided trade was the Glasnow/Meadows/Baz trade for Chris Archer which had the effect of immediately and dramtically improving the team trading for less established players and a prospect. That's the deal I want to make.

Edited by Major League Ready, 06 November 2019 - 10:31 AM.

  • birdwatcher likes this

#47 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Member
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:08 PM

Never, ever resist trading "prospects" for whatever the market will bear in the way of established major league players? Am I interpreting this right?

We can't just say trade the dang prospects, but only the ones who flunk out or get injured.

I don't have to name dozens to make the point that, sometimes, you resist. I'll try to counter your position with a dozen examples or so.

What do you think the club would have fetched in the way of established major league players for these prospects: Carew, Puckett, Oliva, Blyleven, Mauer, Hrbek, Knoblauch, Hunter, Radke, and A.J. Pierzynski? I am convinced every one of those would have been catastrophic one-sided trades.

And once Pierzynski became an established major league player, weren't prospects Liriano and Nathan, and Boof too, an awfully nice return? And once Liriano was an established major league player, wasn't Eduardo Escobar, a guy with all of 45 MLB games under his belt, a nice prospect to get in return? How about veteran Aguilera for prospects Viola and Tapani in 1989?

I don't want these guys to avoid trading prospects like Ryan did, I want the opposite to happen. And I want the trades to never, ever create a shortage, and instead come from a surplus. And I'd love it if it always involved a redundancy among established major league players who are blocking the next Gaetti, Knoblauch, Morneau, or Johan Santana (wishful, I know).

The reason I favor trading proven players for prospects as often as possible is because established major league players are valuable, often at peak value, and while prospects flunk out at a high rate, it's game-changing when you land a future star on the cheap.

I'd trade Jake Cave for Luis Gill in a New York nanosecond.


I don’t get this statement at all. Aguilera wasn’t established as anything in 1989. He was a swingman on a stacked Mets pitching staff. Viola was the reigning AL Cy Young winner. Also, Aguilera was traded WITH Tapani (and David West and Jack Savage) FOR Viola.
  • tvagle likes this

#48 Battle ur tail off

Battle ur tail off

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 406 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:24 PM

 

I don't think anyone here cares if our team trades prospects outside the top 5 or 6.

 

The Twins front office does though...


#49 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:31 PM

 

Chief and I are pretty clear.... We literally know what is in our brains.... Don't be afraid to trade prospects.... No fancy but,if, and or rules.....I can't speak for others, but we are literally talking about what we are talking about. If you all want to argue that some fans are saying something else, go argue with them.....

 

So, are you saying its a reasonable expectation that they acquire impact players without trading top prospects or are you saying we should trade top prospects? It has to be one or the other.


#50 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,234 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:40 PM

 

In my post I believe I acknowledged the possibility you might find literally dozens of examples that you would later regret.

 

Among the 1,000,000,001 prospects cited.

 

With respect..do the math.:)

 

Side note re bolded text: You're talking about Christian Yelich here, amiright? Or Verlander? Garrett Cole? Can't tell. 

 

 

I don't think we're in complete disagreement. If by "never, ever resist a trade" you mean to always, always consider it? Then I'm on board, with the one caveat of not digging one hole (Pressly) in an attempt to fill another off in the future (Alcala). Or maybe the reverse of that might be giving up Graterol, Duran, and Balasovic for a #3 starter past his prime or something. Cuz we can pick up #3 starters in FA and those three guys have higher ceilings. And yes two of them will probably flop.

,

And yes, it should be evident that I'd include Yelich in the same way I'd include Tatis, Jr. Both were terrific trades. We don't need to bother with the arithmetic, we can find dozens upon dozens of examples of prospect trades that were good, prospect trades that were bad, and prospect trades we are glad never happened. 

 

Seeing the rationale behind not trading a Lewis or a Buxton or a Mauer is not the same as thinking Terry Ryan's aversion to trading prospects was smart. Not saying that's where YOU go with the discussion, but others do far too often IMO.

 

When I argue that trading off the Lewis type prospect is a massive risk, especially for a pitcher? It's because the historical evidence says that 75% of those prospects pan out, and in a big way, whereas the historical frequency of performance collapses by stud pitchers must be taken into account in one's risk assessment. We don't get to pick our Verlanders, but man o man was that a great trade!

 

Where you and I will likely always have a difference of opinion is in how, in general, we value the prospect pipeline, but to be clear, I personally don't value individual prospects and don't have my own opinion about any of them. I mean, what do I know? Instead I see value for an organization in having an exceptional prospect pipeline, both as the primary source of talent and as a critical means of procuring more and sustaining an advantage.

Edited by birdwatcher, 06 November 2019 - 12:59 PM.


#51 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,932 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:43 PM

 

The Twins front office does though...

 

My original point was that GMs of average or below average teams all have proven to value prospects much more than Chief and some others here so I won't totally disagree. However, we should take a practical look at how trading lower ranking prospects would impact this team at the moment. Which position players could be upgraded without trading a top prospect? Maybe 1st base but is that how you would suggest we use top prospects? Are we going to get impact pitching without trading a top prospect? Can you give me an example of how you would acquire impact players without trading one of our top 5? The only way I see that happening is to take on a big contract and I am not sure who that would be.

 

I would love to see another Odorizzi type deal. The Mike Minor idea that was mentioned is good. I would think the cost would be outside the top 5 given he only has 1 year of control. I am on board with anyone who is advocating we find this type of trade.  

  • birdwatcher likes this

#52 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 30,796 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:44 PM

So, are you saying its a reasonable expectation that they acquire impact players without trading top prospects or are you saying we should trade top prospects? It has to be one or the other.


I guess it depends on the meaning of impact. A decent relief pitcher would make an impact for this team. A number four innings eater would. I think those can be had without trading a top 80 prospect.

You can also get good players if you will take their contract, though I have no idea if any are available this year. And, good players can be acquired by trading multiple good prospects.

I'm also saying for the right player, is consider dealing any prospect. But that would be a unique, player by player, decision.

And, other teams have other needs.... Where they might be able to get a corner outfielder for a good prospect or three. The Twins don't need one of those.

Also, I'm saying there are no absolutes, like some here insist.
  • birdwatcher, Twins33, Danchat and 3 others like this

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


#53 wabene

wabene

    Wahoo

  • Member
  • 1,059 posts
  • LocationDuluth

Posted 06 November 2019 - 12:57 PM

Ryan Pressley, Nick Anderson and Liam Hendricks sure could have helped the pen this past season.

I don't know much about Nick Anderson probably because we didn't get a look at him so that could be a strike against the FO. I don't agree on the other two. Hendricks was a marginally talented AAAA type starter that I was ok with letting go. That he was reinvented for what so far is a super small run of success in the pen doesn't move the needle for me at all. Pressly was an undeniable talent who couldn't seem to quite harness it and was equal parts inconsistent and maddening. They moved him for a good return while he had his world turned upside down and was jolted into some changes and a good run. Hey you can't win them all and the jury is still out on the trade anyway. Meanwhile the Twins three years in look as good from any perspective as any of us have seen (ok maybe not starting pitching at this moment). Now that they've got their bullpen manufacturing department in full swing we'll have plenty of young bullpen arms to trade for talent going forward!
  • birdwatcher likes this

#54 Kelly Vance

Kelly Vance

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 743 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 01:20 PM

It is not as simple as "trade prospects or don't trade prospects" or "Trade veterans or acquire veterans."

 

There is usually a lot of reasoned calculated thinking involved.Would be contending teams with a glaring need at the MLB level should look to fill that hole with an established veteran who is likely to work out.When you are close to making the playoffs one or two veteran presences can make the difference.Case in point, our own Marwin Gonzalez.This is even more the case with established front line starters like Verlander. In those cases prospects are most valuable, not for their future contribution, but for what they can bring in a trade.

 

On the other hand, teams that are several players away, need to evaluatetheir upcoming talent and plan for the future. Like the White Sox currently.In those cases, an established stud is more valuable for what he can bring in the way of prospects that are likely to pan out in the show, a little bit downstream.

 

To me, the overriding factor is that, if you are close, there are only 9 spots on the field... 9 positions.You need your best 9. If you have a hole in your lineup, you are not likely to make the post season.And when trading for or moving prospects, you can't evaluate the trade right away. It usually takes a couple years at least.Nobody thought Frankie, Joe or Boof etc were all goingto pan out but the FO. If one or two worked out it was a fair trade. AJ was established so SF knew what they were getting. In hindsight they would not have made the trade, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time. 

 

The Twins are in a "future is now" position. Prospects are not just valuable for what they may contribute in 2 or 3 years, but in what they may bring right now by way of a trade. But that assumes that the Twins would go "all in" to win a Series.Houston decided to do that. We all know how that worked out for Steinbrenner. Like him or hate him, he played to win and win now. 

 

The Twins have traditionally valued low salary prospects more highly than a big market team would. We can understand that. But now that they are at thewindow of opportunity, they should try to capitalize on a solid core and make their move. That line of thinking means moving top prospects for a key difference maker or two. 

Edited by Kelly Vance, 06 November 2019 - 01:24 PM.

  • birdwatcher, Mike Sixel, diehardtwinsfan and 4 others like this

#55 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,234 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 06:17 PM

 

No one said sure fire. I responded to a post that said no mid market team ever trades prospects to get better when they aren't already good. I merely pointed out one team that does.

No one said it always works.... What we've said is that prospects don't either, and maybe trading them sometimes is a good idea... No one said it will always work.

 

 

I get that, Mike. I was simply pointing out that "saying hi to Milwaukee" as an example of a team that got better has a longer and much more complex story that may not turn out well for the organization. I applauded the Yelich trade, like I applauded the Verlander and Cole trades. But somehow, Milwaukee is now showing some strains, which I pointed out with facts. More facts have surfaced now, including trading Chase Anderson and his $8M cost. 

 

I remember having some of the very same types of discussions about the Detroit Tigers back when they emptied the farm system and strained their financial capacity. I remember that it paid off, but my point back then and is now that if my team's FO decides against a boom and bust approach, like the Red Sox have done and the Brewers have done, I can fully understand that. Falvey is trying to avoid having any of the three pillars, MLB, farm, and cash, crumble on him. In short order, he's strengthened this organization on all three fronts. I think he'll solve the pitching problem here too.

  • Riverbrian likes this

#56 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,234 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 06:29 PM

 

I don’t get this statement at all. Aguilera wasn’t established as anything in 1989. He was a swingman on a stacked Mets pitching staff. Viola was the reigning AL Cy Young winner. Also, Aguilera was traded WITH Tapani (and David West and Jack Savage) FOR Viola.

 

 

My bad on the facts, and it's a crappy example anyway for showing a good prospect haul for a veteran, even if the Twins won the trade of Viola for those good years of Aggie and Tapani. Frankie had some good years too.


#57 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,617 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 06 November 2019 - 06:35 PM

 

No argument here but and I am pretty confident there is not a person on this board that would object to any trade similar to the Yelich or Odorizzi trade. However, do those examples really support the type of trade practices being promoted here? Are the trade prospects advocates promoting trading for another Odorizzi? It sure seems to me that that the demand of these posters is to trade for top of the rotation SPs and/or elite BP arms. Those are not acquired without a very steep prospect price. Many posters have written that they would trade any prospect including Lewis / Kirilloff Graterol and Balazovic for player X? Using not trading Gonsalves to support what they really want is misguided. Trading Gonsalves or Stewart after his 1st couple years in the minors was not bringing an established impact player.

 

Are you really going to suggest another Odorizzi trade is the basis of this argument? That’s not what’s been argued here so it makes no sense to use this as an example. The Yelich example would be great if you could substantiate that it is not an anomaly. The twins and every poster here would never argue such a trade but to use that as the basis of supporting trading prospects at every opportunity is not exactly an objective argument. You are basically suggesting our strategy should be to engage in the practice of extremely lopsided trades. We would all love to make another AJ Perzinski which BTW demonstrates Lopsided trades also favor the team trading away the established player just as often as the reverse. Just ask Pittsburg how they feel out trading for Chris Archer.

 

Let’s debate the same question.

 

The Odorizzi trade was a good one, but let's not forget that he wasn't the same Jake in his first season here. It took 2/3rds of that season for him to figure it out. 

 

This is my big problem with any "project" or buy low guy. You're going to have to give him innings. There's a lot of risk there that it doesn't pan out for several months, like Odorizzi, or once MLB hitters adjust, like Perez... 

 

Those games cost wins, and just because the windows is open doesn't mean that we should sleep on Cleveland or Chicago. 

 

They really need to spend some cash and get some difference makers. 

  • SQUIRREL and birdwatcher like this

#58 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,420 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 07:19 PM

Gonsalves was an interesting move, unless the Twins know more than others do. If he is not a reliable alternative for 2020, then I guess adios is fine. But at some point you ask if his upside still wasn't above say, Hildenberger, Harper, Wisler or Poppen...not to mention Romero (who needs to be on the roster in 2020).

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

#59 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,234 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 07:21 PM

 

Exactly, prospects are cool but parades are cooler.

 

 

Yep, we all agree with that, and most of us also realize that the streets are clear in 29 out of 30 cities the day after the WS.


#60 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,234 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 07:40 PM

 

The Twins front office does though...

 

 

Nonsense IMO. ;)

 

Falvey isn't Ryan. And he's got more talent than Ryan often had. Falvey traded 3 40FV prospects and a 45FV prospect at the deadline. Boston has 5 45FV prospects in their whole system. 

 

Time to ditch that tired old trope. It ain't ringin' as true these days.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: jake odorizzi, martin perez, nelson cruz, stephen gonsalves, kohl stewart