Article: Early Offseason Rumors

[Mike Sixel]

It simply isn't "overpaying" if that is what the market is. If that's the price to play, that's the price to play. You can choose to sit out the market, and be a bad team until your farm delivers talent.....that's a choice. Not a choice I'd make, but others here (and I'd argue TR) are willing to make that choice.

[Steven Buhr]

Yeah, I admit I tend to overuse the term "overpay" at times, too. You can argue that whatever the "winning" price is for a FA contract, it was what the market would bear, so it is not "overpaying." Then again, you can argue that the "winning" bid is pretty much always more than any other team deems to be the appropriate value for the FA, so every FA signing is "overpaying."

 

When I use the term, I'm usually defining it as, "more than what the specific team should reasonably expect to receive in value, given the player's likely performance over the term of the contract."

[SwainZag]

I'm not the one presuming he can outsmart the market. People think 1 year guaranteed bounceback contracts on injured players is a smart gamble. That opinion underemphasizes the likelihood of sub-replacement level production and overemphasizes the upside, and the proof is in the price. The Twins are already hoping for bouncebacks from 3-4 players. Therefore, what this team needs is to take on as little additional risk as possible, not waste precious roster spots on  players with very long odds to reach their upside. Get out of the bargain bin, in other words.

 

While i get what you are saying, how much more risk is a 1 year, $7M deal to a guy like Anderson, or a 5 year, 105M  deal to a guy like Shields or 4/65 to Santana?

 

If Anderson stays healthy you could have a very nice pitcher either to sign to an extension or a great trade chip.  If he can't, you only committed to 1 year and a younger player gets starts.

 

With a vet like Shields/Santana you lose a draft pick, pay considerably more per season and become committed to multiple years on players on the wrong side of 30. 

 

I do really think both of these kind of signings have a fair share of risk involved.

[Brandon]

While i get what you are saying, how much more risk is a 1 year, $7M deal to a guy like Anderson, or a 5 year, 105M  deal to a guy like Shields or 4/65 to Santana?

 

If Anderson stays healthy you could have a very nice pitcher either to sign to an extension or a great trade chip.  If he can't, you only committed to 1 year and a younger player gets starts.

 

With a vet like Shields/Santana you lose a draft pick, pay considerably more per season and become committed to multiple years on players on the wrong side of 30. 

 

I do really think both of these kind of signings have a fair share of risk involved.

How much risk is there on a 1 year deal to the Johan?   Santana can probably be had on a minor league deal.  Plus he helps fill the reunion tour quota. 

 

Really though I think the Twins would be better off trading for a starter.  Less risk than a long term contract.  plus next year there will be lots of good free agent pitchers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The idea of a 72 win team giving up valuable prospects for a pitcher makes my stomach turn.

[twinscowboysbulls]

The idea of a 72 win team giving up valuable prospects for a pitcher makes my stomach turn.

Ya, but you've always been known to have a weak stomach. Suck it up pansy.

[Steven Buhr]

The idea of a 72 win team giving up valuable prospects for a pitcher makes my stomach turn.

That's understandable. It's an uneasy proposition.

 

Still, the downside of having a relatively stacked farm organization is that the time will come when you can not make room on your MLB roster for all of your legitimate MLB-ready players at every position. You would like to hold on to them until you're relatively certain which are going to turn in to the best big leaguers, but part of being a GM is knowing when to take a calculated risk and turn some of your projected "surplus" of talent at one position in to big league talent at another position where your organizational depth is more shallow.

 

If the Twins could turn some of their minor league OF/MIF talent in to big league pitching that will be around for a while, that would be a risk I'd consider worth taking at this point.

[Mike Sixel]

The idea of a 72 win team giving up valuable prospects for a pitcher makes my stomach turn.

 

Which prospect for which pitcher? If you have "one of the best farm systems EVAR!", that is your surplus to deal from. Would you trade Kepler for a real MLB pitcher (not that I think that gets it done)?

 

let's not forget, most prospects don't have good, long term, MLB careers. You are trading a possible MLB player for an actual MLB player.

[Linus]

Which prospect for which pitcher? If you have "one of the best farm systems EVAR!", that is your surplus to deal from. Would you trade Kepler for a real MLB pitcher (not that I think that gets it done)?

 

let's not forget, most prospects don't have good, long term, MLB careers. You are trading a possible MLB player for an actual MLB player.

Correct.  And every MLB player (including future HOF players) were prospects at one time. 

 

There isn't anything wrong with trading prospects, or not trading prospects, per se.  It really depends on the situation the team is in at that time.

 

And no, Kepler alone isn't getting you anything close to a quality MLB pitcher.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Which prospect for which pitcher? If you have "one of the best farm systems EVAR!", that is your surplus to deal from. Would you trade Kepler for a real MLB pitcher (not that I think that gets it done)?

 

let's not forget, most prospects don't have good, long term, MLB careers. You are trading a possible MLB player for an actual MLB player.

I don't think the Twins have the best farm system in MLB right now, much less the best ever.

 

With Alex Meyer and Jose Berrios due in Minnesota this year or next, I think trading away a prospect is short-sighted, especially coming off a 72 win season.

 

If nobody breaks out in the rotation and the Twins win 78 games this year based on an offensive surge, then maybe... But right now? It seems like forcing the issue. If you want another pitcher, go buy one.

[Mike Sixel]

That's not what you said, though, Brock.......if you want to argue they should not deal for pitching because they have 2 guys close, that's a very different argument than they shouldn't be trading prospects for proven MLB players.

 

I'm not holding my breath on them adding a guy even as good as Gibson right now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's not what you said, though, Brock.......if you want to argue they should not deal for pitching because they have 2 guys close, that's a very different argument than they shouldn't be trading prospects for proven MLB players.

 

I'm not holding my breath on them adding a guy even as good as Gibson right now.

I'm not a fan of 72 win teams trading prospects for rental players, period (which is what the Twins would get in trade... Maybe two years of a guy for a prospect). I think that's putting too much stock in the "now" and not enough stock in the "later".

 

I feel even more strongly about it when the Twins have two top 100 prospects, at least one of which will get 2015 MLB innings and the second has a good shot at getting 2015 MLB innings. Add in a fringe prospect like May who already has MLB innings and trading away a guy for an MLB pitcher seems like an even worse idea.

 

The Twins have a lot of open money this offseason. If they feel they need a pitcher that badly, go buy one. Personally, I'd let the kids play and run with the staff as-is and I'd look for OF help with that money.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, it's a good thing they didn't deal Hicks the last two years......I just don't agree that prospects work out enough to never deal them....

[Mike Sixel]

I do agree, they are sitting on money, and I'd rather they just sign a player or two......but I don't agree that precludes trades of prospects.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well, it's a good thing they didn't deal Hicks the last two years......I just don't agree that prospects work out enough to never deal them....

Or they could have traded Santana or Vargas. It goes both ways.

 

I'm not against trading prospects, I simply don't believe the timing is right. You fill a roster with a few question marks and try to become competitive and then you start considering trades. Give up prospects when you think it gets you to the postseason. Giving up prospects to win 84 games would just piss me off.

[Mike Sixel]

And trading Vargas, we are sure, is a bad idea?

 

Agreed, it does. So does signing a FA, so does keeping a prospect.....

[cmb0252]

Why not use the depth of our farm system AND our extra money to trade for and extend someone? I don't believe anyone is suggesting trading multiple assets for a one year rental if the Twins don't plan on extending them.

[Steven Buhr]

I'm ok with taking a flyer on an Anderson/Masterson-type with upside. I'm all for taking a shot at the Korean pitcher, if it turns out they did win the bid for him.

 

But my preference, with regard to pitching, is to acquire a guy who is as close to a top-of-the-rotation arm as they can get, provided it comes with 3 years of team controlin some manner (years/options).

 

How they acquire such a pitcher, whether through free agency or trade, is secondary to me. I'm not saying you pay any asking price, whether in dollars or return talent, but money and prospects are both essentially assets and you shouldn't rule out using either form if you believe you can improve your team over the next 3 years.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But my preference, with regard to pitching, is to acquire a guy who is as close to a top-of-the-rotation arm as they can get, provided it comes with 3 years of team controlin some manner (years/options).

I don't think any such pitchers are available for less than $100+ mil in FA or a king's ransom in prospects, and I am thoroughly against paying the latter price.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Why not use the depth of our farm system AND our extra money to trade for and extend someone? I don't believe anyone is suggesting trading multiple assets for a one year rental if the Twins don't plan on extending them.

If a guy you like is a FA next winter and can't/won't sign an extension with his current team, why not just keep your prospects and aggressively try to buy him next winter?

 

I'm not against trading prospects for MLB talent -- it's something I'd like to see TR try at some point -- but I have yet to see such a proposal that makes sense, at least concerning the 2015 Twins and top-of-the-rotation starters.

[Steven Buhr]

I don't think any such pitchers are available for less than $100+ mil in FA or a king's ransom in prospects, and I am thoroughly against paying the latter price.

If the price is excessive, you don't make the deal.

 

My point was simply that you keep an open mind. Going in to an offseason with a mindset of, "we won't spend over $100 million," or, "we won't trade prospects," is foolish. It costs absolutely nothing to listen to any proposal.

 

The thing you ask yourself is, "will making this move make a championship, at some point, more likely or less likely?" Then say yes or no, accordingly.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Steven BUHR

[Otto von Ballpark]

My point was simply that you keep an open mind. Going in to an offseason with a mindset of, "we won't spend over $100 million," or, "we won't trade prospects," is foolish. It costs absolutely nothing to listen to any proposal.

We agree then -- TR should absolutely wait for a team to call offering a top-of-the-rotation pitcher with team control for something less than our top 4 prospects.

 

So, now that we're not making any trades, what do you think we should do?

[Brock Beauchamp]

If the price is excessive, you don't make the deal.

 

My point was simply that you keep an open mind. Going in to an offseason with a mindset of, "we won't spend over $100 million," or, "we won't trade prospects," is foolish. It costs absolutely nothing to listen to any proposal.

 

The thing you ask yourself is, "will making this move make a championship, at some point, more likely or less likely?" Then say yes or no, accordingly.

Sure, I'm all for keeping an open mind to any possibility but realistically, a top of the rotation arm is going to cost one of Meyer, Buxton, Sano, or Berrios.

 

And I'm not willing to pay that price for any pitcher not named Clayton Kershaw.

[Mike Sixel]

Then you need to be willing to pay more than $100 MM in FA, or just hope your prospects work out.....or get unbelievably lucky in signing someone that does work out for less....what's the track record on the last two?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sure, I'm all for keeping an open mind to any possibility but realistically, a top of the rotation arm is going to cost one of Meyer, Buxton, Sano, or Berrios.

 

And I'm not willing to pay that price for any pitcher not named Clayton Kershaw.

I can think of a few more pitchers, in addition to Kershaw (or perhaps even more than Kershaw, given their salaries).  Chris Sale and Corey Kluber come to mind.  Would never happen in a million years, though, not within the same division, unless we parted with at least 2 of those top 4 prospects and then some.

[nicksaviking]

Looks like Miami got Aaron Crow from the Royals for the Twins equivalent of Logan Darnell and Jason Wheeler*. Who would have been interested in that? 

 

I always thought the Royals gave up on him as a starter way too early but he struggled last year and his K numbers plummeted.

 

*Guestimation based soley on position, handedness and close** approximation of minor league numbers.

 

**Close is a relative term and used here loosely

Edited November 28, 2014 by nicksaviking

[ashbury]

I always thought the Royals gave up on him as a starter way too early

They've had since 2011 to revisit that decision.  For another team to want to start him, two things have to happen: their talent evaluators have to think the Royals' talent evaluators are wrong (this overlaps the coaching aspect of correcting something they think they see), and their GM has to think his evaluators are better than theirs.

[nicksaviking]

They've had since 2011 to revisit that decision.  For another team to want to start him, two things have to happen: their talent evaluators have to think the Royals' talent evaluators are wrong (this overlaps the coaching aspect of correcting something they think they see), and their GM has to think his evaluators are better than theirs.

 

Right, his first couple of years I was of the opinioin that the Royals were wrong and he could be fixed, which coupled with Royal futility at the time of his arrival was not an outlandish assumption.  I think he's too far gone to start now and if that velocity is kaput, he's possibly too far gone to pitch at all.

 

I threw the question out there, but I do not have interest in Crow.  Although I do like giving away two 40-man spots and taking on only one.

[USAFChief]

Do we know they intend to try converting him back into a starter? He had a poor year, but was a very nice bullpen piece for a couple years before that.

[nicksaviking]

Do we know they intend to try converting him back into a starter? He had a poor year, but was a very nice bullpen piece for a couple years before that.

 

They indeed may try him as a starter again:

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-marlins/sfl-marlins-royals-trade-20141128-story.html

 

Suspiciously I was not cited in Mr. Rodriguez's piece and the Marlins failed to give me credit for the idea though I posted it nearly 45 minutes before the article was published.  No doubt if a search history was performed on Rodriguez or GM Dan Johnson's computer this page would show up.

Edited November 29, 2014 by nicksaviking