Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Michael Bourn or Kyle Lohse?

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 616 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

I was listening to Jim Bowden on SiriusXM's "Inside Pitch" and he had some interesting things to say about signing Michael Bourn & Kyle Lohse. Ok both are Scott Boras clients that can't find a job because of Boras (which is my guess).

If the Twins signed either player they would give up their #2 round pick or you if signed both #2 & #3 round pick. His idea would be to sign them and basically deal them either at the trade deadline or June 15th. June 15th would be the earliest day you could trade a free agent you just signed.

So why not offer 3YR $45M for a rental for a few months and then trade for prospects. You would get a great return from a contending team needing that extra player to put them over the top.

Also, the Twins could sign either player to keep the ARB clock from starting on Aaron Hicks and Kyle Gibson.

#2 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,562 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:09 PM

The probability of them signing Lohse is about 0%. Not with Gardenhire around.
The Bourne (sic) objective is intriguing as a sign and trade but:
a. There are limits on when you can trade someone you just signed (so teams would not do exactly what you propose) And he will be around for a season blocking a Twins' prospect (or 2)
b. Signing a veteran you don't need to this kind of a contract, you are a torn ACL in ST away from having an albatross of a contract.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#3 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,339 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:29 PM

a. There are limits on when you can trade someone you just signed (so teams would not do exactly what you propose)


Really? No way! Wait a minute, it seems that I've read something like that before.....oh yeah, he already said that in the original post.


His idea would be to sign them and basically deal them either at the trade deadline or June 15th. June 15th would be the earliest day you could trade a free agent you just signed.


#4 twins4121

twins4121

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:05 PM

Although this is highly unlikely, I think this is a brilliant strategy. Hopefully Terry Ryan takes it into serious consideration, we could get a huge return on a Michael Bourn trade

#5 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 616 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:25 PM

The probability of them signing Lohse is about 0%. Not with Gardenhire around.
The Bourne (sic) objective is intriguing as a sign and trade but:
a. There are limits on when you can trade someone you just signed (so teams would not do exactly what you propose) And he will be around for a season blocking a Twins' prospect (or 2)
b. Signing a veteran you don't need to this kind of a contract, you are a torn ACL in ST away from having an albatross of a contract.


A player can be traded any time after June 15th.
Sign Bourn, trade Bourn and then call up Hicks.

#6 crapforks

crapforks

    Member

  • Members
  • 79 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:52 PM

How can you spin that to the casual fan? It makes sense, but I can't think of a time that happened.

#7 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,192 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:54 PM

Hey, wait...why wouldn't the "proposed" trade partner just sign them now, today, for the multi-year contract...filling a major need, and still able to trade them in year one, two or three for a comparable draft pick who has been thru the system of another team, rather than a complete draftee unknown. Then, there is the additional cost that could happen with a limited no-trade clause. If a player thinks they might just be flipped, they will sign a generous one-year contract and hope they don't get injured enough to get a multi-year next season, and getting a new agent in the process.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#8 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 616 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

Hey, wait...why wouldn't the "proposed" trade partner just sign them now, today, for the multi-year contract...filling a major need, and still able to trade them in year one, two or three for a comparable draft pick who has been thru the system of another team, rather than a complete draftee unknown. Then, there is the additional cost that could happen with a limited no-trade clause. If a player thinks they might just be flipped, they will sign a generous one-year contract and hope they don't get injured enough to get a multi-year next season, and getting a new agent in the process.


Because teams that don't have their 1st round pick protected don't want to lose it. The Twins would only lose their 2nd round pick if they signed Bourn. The Twins could also sign Lohse and only lose a 3rd round pick. The Twins could also sign a another Boras client Rafael Soriano and do the same thing.

It would be just like what the Marlins do all the time with fire sales.

#9 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,259 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

So Terry Ryan, who has publicly stated it is wrong to trade a guy and then trade him, will now sign two players, only planning to deal them? That seems unlikely. Also, what if they get hurt, and you are stuck with the contracts?

#10 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:02 PM

Easily the dumbest thread on this site...a site that included 258 pages full of slama junk. In a fantasy baseball league this stuff happens but not in the real world of baseball. IF this would ever happen that team would never sign a free agent again. And bourn will get a 10 to 15 mil deal for a one year make good contract. Not 4.

#11 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:27 PM

Justin Morneau said Thursday that he's "miles ahead of where I've been the last two years" physically.

"I'm feeling good, feeling strong, building strength instead of just doing rehab like I've done the last two winters -- not recovering from surgery, but actually building toward the goal of getting strong and being ready for spring training and being ready early for that World Baseball Classic," Morneau said. The first baseman has added weight this offseason after feeling fatigued at the end of a 2012 campaign that saw him bat a disappointing .267/.333/.440 with 19 home runs. Finally healthy and in his walk year, Morneau is a rebound candidate in 2013.

Source: 1500ESPN.com

#12 crapforks

crapforks

    Member

  • Members
  • 79 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 02:13 AM

Is Top Gun a bot?

#13 twins4121

twins4121

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:13 AM

Justin Morneau said Thursday that he's "miles ahead of where I've been the last two years" physically.

"I'm feeling good, feeling strong, building strength instead of just doing rehab like I've done the last two winters -- not recovering from surgery, but actually building toward the goal of getting strong and being ready for spring training and being ready early for that World Baseball Classic," Morneau said. The first baseman has added weight this offseason after feeling fatigued at the end of a 2012 campaign that saw him bat a disappointing .267/.333/.440 with 19 home runs. Finally healthy and in his walk year, Morneau is a rebound candidate in 2013.

Source: 1500ESPN.com


That's great news. I think he's due for a big year

#14 twinsfaninsaudi

twinsfaninsaudi

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 155 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:32 AM

What if they suffer a bad injury before you can trade them? You can't make an agreement to spend money that you have no intent on actually paying. This is baseball, not congress.

#15 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,738 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:57 AM

I thought teams didn't "lose" their picks anymore? I really have to get caught up on that element of the new CBA.

#16 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,930 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:54 AM

I was listening to Jim Bowden on SiriusXM's "Inside Pitch" and he had some interesting things to say about signing Michael Bourn & Kyle Lohse. Ok both are Scott Boras clients that can't find a job because of Boras (which is my guess).

If the Twins signed either player they would give up their #2 round pick or you if signed both #2 & #3 round pick. His idea would be to sign them and basically deal them either at the trade deadline or June 15th. June 15th would be the earliest day you could trade a free agent you just signed.

So why not offer 3YR $45M for a rental for a few months and then trade for prospects. You would get a great return from a contending team needing that extra player to put them over the top.

Also, the Twins could sign either player to keep the ARB clock from starting on Aaron Hicks and Kyle Gibson.


As just this scenario was discussed on TD a couple weeks ago, it's obvious that Bowden checks in at this site to generate ideas and topics.:o

Seriously, the Twins have surprised this offseason in their willingness to take on not one, but two, Boras clients. It is plausible that if the relationship has warmed to the point that the MN Twins might become Boras's MLB version of the St Paul Saints and be willing to park his "clients in transition", ala JD Drew, at Target Field for a short run--- it would make sense all around for both Lohse and Bourn to sign here. The Twins could get more proven prospects than merely a 2nd and 3rd rounder and the clubs that really want these guys won't lose a high draft pick and save some money in the process.

I also doubt that lame-duck Gardy at this point in his tenuous tenure, would have any say on whether or not Lohse comes here.

#17 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:05 AM

Draft Pick Compensation
1. Starting in 2012, “Type A” and “Type B” free agents and the use of the Elias ranking
system will be eliminated.
2. The current system of draft pick compensation will be replaced with the following
system:

A. Only Players who have been with their Clubs for the entire season will be subject
to compensation.

B. A free agent will be subject to compensation if his former Club offers him a
guaranteed one-year contract with a salary equal to the average salary of the
125-highest paid Players from the prior season. The offer must be made at the
end of the five-day free agent “quiet period,” and the Player will have seven days
to accept the offer.

C. A Club that signs a player subject to compensation will forfeit its first round
selection, unless it selects in the top 10, in which case it will forfeit its second highest
selection in the draft.

D. The Player’s former Club will receive a selection at the end of the first round
beginning after the last regularly scheduled selection in the round. The former
Clubs will select based on reverse order of winning percentage from the prior
championship season.

#18 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,461 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

It's a fun idea, but Lohse has been far from the model of consistancy through his career. If he pitched like he did in 2011 and 2012 the Twins could move him, if he pitched like he did in 2009 and 2010 they're left holding the bag.

In Bourn, that would mean you're risking paying a guy $15 million + with a career .704 OPS and who's never topped .740 in a single season. He looks a lot like Ben Revere but takes a few more walks, strikes out a ton more and has a much better PR team. There's a good chance the draft pick isn't the biggest issue, perhaps Bourn isn't signing because no one sees him as a $10 million player yet Boras is trying to get him $20 million.

Also, I believe you can trade players before June 15 as long as the player agrees to the deal. Surely they would if that was the plan all along. At some point MLB probably would need to consider interceding though if teams used this technique often and blatently skirted the CBA.

Edited by nicksaviking, 28 December 2012 - 11:25 AM.


#19 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:28 AM

This idea makes no sense. A team that won't sign Lohse/Bourn because they don't want to lose their 1st round draft pick isn't going to then turn around a few months later and trade away significant prospects. From the Twins perspective they would need significant compensation for their risk like a top prospect which our trading partner would seemingly already have determined Lohse/Bourn aren't worth in the offseason.

#20 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,930 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:31 AM

This idea makes no sense. A team that won't sign Lohse/Bourn because they don't want to lose their 1st round draft pick isn't going to then turn around a few months later and trade away significant prospects. From the Twins perspective they would need significant compensation for their risk like a top prospect which our trading partner would seemingly already have determined Lohse/Bourn aren't worth in the offseason.


You need to take into account the simple fact that the risk/reward equation and the hierarchy of needs model are both subject to constant change.

#21 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:53 AM

You need to take into account the simple fact that the risk/reward equation and the hierarchy of needs model are both subject to constant change.

It would also assume that by adding a front line pitcher and CF the Twins would would still be a poor team and thus selling at the trade deadline. By adding the players and being in contention the fans would be in an uproar if they were traded for the future. If the Twins would not be in contention with adding these two then the conversations about the Twins being cheap is moot.

#22 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,183 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

You need to take into account the simple fact that the risk/reward equation and the hierarchy of needs model are both subject to constant change.


This is true. A 2012-Orioles-like team is highly likely to show up next year, competing out of nowhere at the deadline. Hell, even the Indians were "contenders" in June.

The flip side of the coin, though, is that the risk/reward equation disfavors the Twins if either gets off to a sluggish start and can't be flipped, or if either gets injured and just becomes deadweight.

This is sort of the equivalent of flipping houses. You buy not because you want to live in it but to make a quick buck. Sometimes it works and you make out like a bandit, but if it falls through your leverage quickly leads to a total loss. I'm of the old school, I guess. If you don't want to own it, don't buy it.