Realistic trade return ideas

[tobi0040]

 

no way you bring in a guy like Hammels unless you are jettisoning Nolasco or Santana.

 

I will add

 

"No way the Phillies have any interest in taking back either of those guys in a deal for Cole Hamels"

 

Frankly, both Nolasco and Ervin are probably immovable right now unless we are taking back someone equally immovable.

[Rosterman]

It is a good idea. The Twins do have a very small window to make the decision if Meyer and May are their future (because of others guys like Berrios and Stewart in the wings). They are dynamite prospect trade pieces today. A bad year at AAA and they become non-prospects, because of age more than likely. Polanco is also one of those guys that if you keep Dozier, and you have Gordon in the wings, you can dangle him. I wish Kepler had more value, as he would also be enticing.

 

But this shows the difficulty of being a general manager. Do you go out and get a Big Name innings-eater winner for $20+ million a year to totally stabalize your pitching staff, or do you hope the guys you keep will develop into $20 million dollar starters in the near future.

 

And anytime you start throwing out pieces, you have to evaluate the other team. Do they need starting pitchers, or outfielders, or a third baseman. Besides salary releif, they want prospects that will fill weaknesses in their own system. Like they may want a Burdi or Jones over a second aging starter.

[tobi0040]

It is a good idea. The Twins do have a very small window to make the decision if Meyer and May are their future (because of others guys like Berrios and Stewart in the wings). They are dynamite prospect trade pieces today. A bad year at AAA and they become non-prospects, because of age more than likely. Polanco is also one of those guys that if you keep Dozier, and you have Gordon in the wings, you can dangle him. I wish Kepler had more value, as he would also be enticing.

 

But this shows the difficulty of being a general manager. Do you go out and get a Big Name innings-eater winner for $20+ million a year to totally stabalize your pitching staff, or do you hope the guys you keep will develop into $20 million dollar starters in the near future.

 

And anytime you start throwing out pieces, you have to evaluate the other team. Do they need starting pitchers, or outfielders, or a third baseman. Besides salary releif, they want prospects that will fill weaknesses in their own system. Like they may want a Burdi or Jones over a second aging starter.

 

And equally important.  Is your current team one good pitcher away from contention?  If not, you don't want to give up with two assets you have (cap room and prospects) in order to be a little better but still 3rd or 4th in the division.

 

The premature 1.5 games in answer is no.  We have been outscored 11-0 and given up 4 more runs than we have hits.

[jimmer]

 

I guess I don't get the contract at all. His numbers to date are not league average.  I know he is young. But now that you have given him $22M a year, what is your upside?

 

According to Cot's, the only pitchers that make more annually are:

 

Kershaw, Max, Lester, Verlander, Felix, Greinke, CC, Lee, and Hamels.  Porcello has a long way to be in this club.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/league-info/highest-paid-players/

It really does matter what one considers league average in regards to what numbers one is looking at when making that determination.  Then one has to consider how much growth is left in the player  He's not the caliber pitcher that those other guys are, but in fairness, their contracts were/are longer and worth way more overall.  No one was going to give him Scherzer money or Kershaw money overall. On top of that, I envision way more names entering that zone here soon with all the money being thrown around.  

 

So, I mean, I get what you are saying and not saying you are wrong at all, but the article I showed sort of explained how this kind of contract was coming if he saw the open market. 

 

Here's another article about the signing:

 

'Porcello has been consistently above average, topping two wins in each of the last four seasons. His 2.7 WAR from last year ranked 28th in the American League, but his 5.5 WAR over the last two years is 17th, and his 8.1 fWAR over the past three seasons ranks 14th in the AL during that time. Through his Age-25 season, Porcello has pitched 1073 1/3 innings after debuting as a 20-year-old in 2009. If not for a rough period in 2010 when he was sent down to the minors for a few weeks, Porcello would have been eligible for free agency after last season. Over the past 20 years, only 11 pitchers have pitched more than 900 innings through their Age-25 season like Porcello and had a WAR above two in their Age-25 season. Clayton Kershaw, Madison Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez and Matt Cain have yet to play through their Age-30 seasons, leaving six players for future comparison.'

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/red-sox-lock-up-rick-porcello/

 

 

[Hrbowski]

Hamels will block a trade to the Twins, and the trade you proposed would only get us Aaron Harang, that is how weird RAJ is.

[tobi0040]

 

It really does matter what one considers league average in regards to what numbers one is looking at when making that determination.  Then one has to consider how much growth is left in the player  He's not the caliber pitcher that those other guys are, but in fairness, their contracts were/are longer and worth way more overall.  No one was going to give him Scherzer money or Kershaw money overall. On top of that, I envision way more names entering that zone here soon with all the money being thrown around.  

 

So, I mean, I get what you are saying and not saying you are wrong at all, but the article I showed sort of explained how this kind of contract was coming if he saw the open market. 

 

Here's another article about the signing:

 

'Porcello has been consistently above average, topping two wins in each of the last four seasons. His 2.7 WAR from last year ranked 28th in the American League, but his 5.5 WAR over the last two years is 17th, and his 8.1 fWAR over the past three seasons ranks 14th in the AL during that time. Through his Age-25 season, Porcello has pitched 1073 1/3 innings after debuting as a 20-year-old in 2009. If not for a rough period in 2010 when he was sent down to the minors for a few weeks, Porcello would have been eligible for free agency after last season. Over the past 20 years, only 11 pitchers have pitched more than 900 innings through their Age-25 season like Porcello and had a WAR above two in their Age-25 season. Clayton Kershaw, Madison Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez and Matt Cain have yet to play through their Age-30 seasons, leaving six players for future comparison.'

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/red-sox-lock-up-rick-porcello/

 

The fangraphs stat of number of innings pitched by a pitcher before 25 number is not exactly eye opening. He was below average for 3-4 years.  If anything it means he may not age as well as others and therefore negate a bit of how young he is.

 

Last year was really a career year for him or close to it.  His WAR was 2.7.  The 30th best pitcher in MLB was Mark Buerhle at 3.1.  So according to fangraphs he was about 35th or so in WAR in his best season, yet he is now going to be paid as a top 10 pitcher in baseball on an annual basis.

 

So he is young and might get better, but he has a very long way to go in order to simply move into the range they are now locked into paying him.  If he was a free agent, which he is not, I would not be shocked if someone gave him that deal.  But it doesn't mean it is a good calculated bet.  I don't get it.

[jimmer]

Did you read the whole article? Cause they said he's been above average.

 

In any event,  just giving you info as I find it buddy.  Not at all saying you are wrong. I like his contract better than the ones we've signed recently, excluding Hughes.

[tobi0040]

 

Just giving you info as I find it buddy.  Not at all saying you are wrong.

 

I think we were talking about two different things.  What would a guy get on the open market and is he worth it are two very different things.  i think the fangraphs article is really saying why  he will get paid. Not neccesarily that he is worth it or will pitch to that kind of deal.

[jimmer]

 

I think we were talking about two different things.  What would a guy get on the open market and is he worth it are two very different things.  i think the fangraphs article is really saying why  he will get paid. Not neccesarily that he is worth it or will pitch to that kind of deal.

I think there may come a time, and it may be soon, where we need to all adjust what we think a player is worth due to all the money in the game now

[tobi0040]

 

I think there may come a time, and it may be soon, where we need to all adjust what we think a player is worth due to all the money in the game now

 

Yeah.  But 30 pitchers have to get paid more than $22M a year in order for this to be in balance.  I don't see that over the next four years, especially with all the team friendly deals out there.

[jimmer]

 

Yeah.  But 30 pitchers have to get paid more than $22M a year in order for this to be in balance.  I don't see that over the next four years, especially with all the team friendly deals out there.

If only it worked like that in any business :-)  Timing of contracts, lengths of contracts, the teams that give the contracts, etc.  It will never line up like the way you think it should.

 

Free agent prices are going to go through the roof and continue to do that.  FA salaries aren't going down.

[tobi0040]

 

If only it worked like that in any business :-)  Timing of contracts, lengths of contracts, the teams that give the contracts, etc.  It will never line up like the way you think it should.

 

Free agent prices are going to go through the roof and continue to do that.  FA salaries aren't going down.

 

Right, but only two starters were signed this FA season at a higher clip. Max and Lester.  Not enough over four years to bridge the gap between 35 and 10.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Right, but only two starters were signed this FA season at a higher clip. Max and Lester.  Not enough over four years to bridge the gap between 35 and 10.

 

I'm with you tobi, my first thought when I saw that was it was an absolutely preposterous amount of money given his track record.  It literally puts him as being paid as a top 20 player in all of baseball.

 

The Red Sox situation is relevant to it and makes it at least minimally understandable, but this is a guy with a lot of mileage on that arm for his age and now being paid open market value for considerably less value in actual production.  If I were a Sox fan, I wouldn't like that deal at all.

[markos]

 

Right, but only two starters were signed this FA season at a higher clip. Max and Lester.  Not enough over four years to bridge the gap between 35 and 10.

One thing to keep in mind with this deal is that it is only for 4 years, and it doesn't seem crazy to me that the Red Sox would agree to pay a slightly higher AAV ($20.6M in this case) in order to have a shorter deal - he obviously wasn't able to get a 6-year, $123M deal. I don't know what price the Red Sox would have agreed to for a 6-year deal, but I would assume it would be for significantly less than that. 

 

I think the Homer Bailey deal is a good comparison. They are both relatively young and roughly league-average pitchers. Bailey got more guaranteed money ($105M vs $80M), but it is spread over 6 years instead of 4. There is added risk to the team with the longer deal, so the Reds probably asked for a bit of a discount to go to 6 years. Even with a bit of a discount, the AAVs are still close ($17.5M vs $20.6M), especially considering the two extra years of salary inflation. 

[TheLeviathan]

In fairness though, Bailey signed his extension coming off a season significantly superior to anything Porcello has done.

[jimmer]

 

One thing to keep in mind with this deal is that it is only for 4 years, and it doesn't seem crazy to me that the Red Sox would agree to pay a slightly higher AAV ($20.6M in this case) in order to have a shorter deal - he obviously wasn't able to get a 6-year, $123M deal. I don't know what price the Red Sox would have agreed to for a 6-year deal, but I would assume it would be for significantly less than that. 

 

I think the Homer Bailey deal is a good comparison. They are both relatively young and roughly league-average pitchers. Bailey got more guaranteed money ($105M vs $80M), but it is spread over 6 years instead of 4. There is added risk to the team with the longer deal, so the Reds probably asked for a bit of a discount to go to 6 years. Even with a bit of a discount, the AAVs are still close ($17.5M vs $20.6M), especially considering the two extra years of salary inflation. 

The article I read said that the Red Sox expect the FA prices in 2016 to be crazy (and that's not a bad guess) and since Porcello was going to be a FA after this season, they decided paying a bit more for less years (4 years) to a 26 year old was better than having to pay the same amount for more years (6 or more) to an older pitcher that will likely include go in to declining years.

[blairpaul715]

Now that we are a quarter of the season in, are we a contender? Would anyone that posted change their mind on anything?????? For me, I am a fan of Hamels in his ability, and now instead of thinking what our team might look like with him, now i am thinking, maybe we could be good with him.........Now I am not saying trade for him today, but come July 1st and we are in the hunt, I would be open to it, since we would be buyers then.........but what would you give up to get a pitcher like him???? When i started this thread, it was unrealistic to be contenders, and i was just throwing it out there to get some discussion, and maybe it is still unrealistic, but getting closer.............................do we ride out the year, with what we have this yr, and then go for it next yr??? We should know more about our prospects then, being one yr closer to the show............I know alot has been said about Twins not doing this kind of deal, but again we have never had this many prospects in the pipeline before, and the FO is starting to show a willingness for 4 yr contracts, and for me, if we are a contender, I would be all in for Hamels...............throw out your ideas what you want , if anything , or stand put.

[spinowner]

I would not trade any prospects right now. Not any. No matter who we would get back. Not at this stage in the rebuilding process. Do not give up a prospect that we could wind up needing later. Wait another year or so, maybe even two. If and when we have the good problem of too many players succeeding at AAA and the majors, THEN make a trade. Players who are major league ready will return more in a trade and we'll have a better idea of what we need and who is available.

[drjim]

 

I would not trade any prospects right now. Not any. No matter who we would get back. Not at this stage in the rebuilding process. Do not give up a prospect that we could wind up needing later. Wait another year or so, maybe even two. If and when we have the good problem of too many players succeeding at AAA and the majors, THEN make a trade. Players who are major league ready will return more in a trade and we'll have a better idea of what we need and who is available.

 

Do you mean no trades at all or no trade for one year rentals? Those are different equations.

 

I would absolutely trade depth prospects for rentals, and I would trade good prospects for guys with multiple years of control, but like you I would hesitate to trade the better prospects for one year rentals this year.

[nicksaviking]

My mind isn't changed, I'm still looking at the future, and my hope is that it doesn't include any more aging pitchers.

[DaveW]

If Hamels and/or Tulo are actually available there will be a significant bidding war, one that would cost Sano, or other top prospects to win.

 

Pass. It's not that time for the Twins IMO to do something silly that they will regret.

[Craig Arko]

I wouldn't change much yet. The two areas this team needs filled are reliability in the bullpen and left-handed power hitting. The first can be filled from within the organization and I'm willing to give Arcia and Vargas one more look before trading for the second.

 

Clearly one of the starters (probably Pelfrey) will have to go somewhere to make room for Santana, and Milone is definitely forcing the issue about a second one; which may turn out to be Milone himself.

 

But I see no reason to rush things.

[spinowner]

 

Do you mean no trades at all or no trade for one year rentals? Those are different equations.

 

I would absolutely trade depth prospects for rentals, and I would trade good prospects for guys with multiple years of control, but like you I would hesitate to trade the better prospects for one year rentals this year.

No trades involving prospects. Don't get impatient. Don't sacrifice years of future performance for an improved chance at the WS this year, or even next. Wait to see who develops the best. I would, however, trade someone like Pelfrey or Nolasco.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No trades involving prospects. Don't get impatient. Don't sacrifice years of future performance for an improved chance at the WS this year, or even next. Wait to see who develops the best. I would, however, trade someone like Pelfrey or Nolasco.

 

You realize that things could go bad in the future, and that they COULD be contenders this year. What if Sano or Buxton gets a concussion? At some point, this year, they maybe should bank the wins and deal some prospects.

 

Everyone thought Mauer and Morneau would carry this team for years......but stuff happens. If they are 8-10 games over at the ASB, they should be buyers, because of the more certain present vs the very unknown future.

[spinowner]

 

You realize that things could go bad in the future, and that they COULD be contenders this year. What if Sano or Buxton gets a concussion? At some point, this year, they maybe should bank the wins and deal some prospects.

 

Everyone thought Mauer and Morneau would carry this team for years......but stuff happens. If they are 8-10 games over at the ASB, they should be buyers, because of the more certain present vs the very unknown future.

Yes, things could go bad in the future. What if we trade Sano for a top line pitcher and that pitcher gets a concussion?

The Twins organization is the goose that is beginning to lay golden eggs. TR's rebuilding plan is maturing as hoped. There are many people who say the Twins farm system has enough good players to keep the Twins in a dominant position for many years. Don't kill the goose for the sake of 2015.

[MileHighTwinsFan]

I don't see the Twins buying into any long term deals, particularly for veterans past their prime.   Instead, I would suspect the Twins would be interested in players who are at the end of their contract and who can help them win now.  A veteran DH, a reliever and possibly a center fielder would be my best bet of trades the team will make. 

 

I would not be surprised to see the team trade one starting pitcher for a low-level prospect (Milone or Pelfrey) - but definitely not more than that.  The pitching depth will be a key asset as the team moves into the stretch run. 

 

 

[stringer bell]

I would be hesitant to trade any pitching prospects.  There is some redundancy in the hitting prospects, especially corner OF/1B/DH types.  It would be risky, but at some point parting with one or two of those guys (perhaps one of Arcia/Vargas) might be something to do to get help this season and beyond. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, things could go bad in the future. What if we trade Sano for a top line pitcher and that pitcher gets a concussion?

The Twins organization is the goose that is beginning to lay golden eggs. TR's rebuilding plan is maturing as hoped. There are many people who say the Twins farm system has enough good players to keep the Twins in a dominant position for many years. Don't kill the goose for the sake of 2015.

 

They have a GREAT farm system. The comment that they shouldn't trade SANO is not the same as "they should not trade any prospect". Why do people jump to the extremes all the time?

[Dman]

Prospects and predicting future results is hard.  Although I am in the camp that values them more than I should the Twins are reaching a point where they can't keep them all.  I believe at the end of this year the following players might need to be added to the 40 man or risk losing them in the rule 5 draft.

 

Byron Buxton
Jose Berrios
Tyler Duffy
Taylor Rogers
Zach Jones
J.T. Chargios
AB Walker

 

Some other players that are borderline depending on how they perform this year. would be.

 

D.J. Hicks
Mason Melotakis
Jorge Fernandez
D.J. Baxendale

 

Also more often than not several of these prospects will not turn out to be MLB players.  Yes there is always the pain of having let someone go that turns out to be really good or better than what you got but at the rate the Twins are going in the next few years they are going to lose guys in the rule 5 anyway.  Granted they don;t need to do anything right away and some of these players may play themselves out of high prospect status but the farm seems loaded so it might be time to think about getting something for some of these players if you can.

 

 

[kab21]

I would trade prospects but I haven't seen a reasonable target mentioned yet. I don't see them going after a blockbuster deal like Hamels or Tulo.  I would probably be interested in something that doesn't involve Buxton or Sano but that won't be enough.