Realistic trade return ideas

[Rosterman]

 

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.

Plus you have prospects on the roster like Hicks, Kepler, Santana, Pinto, Arcia, Rosario that could be trade chips with some showcase experience.

[USAFChief]

 

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.

I disagree, for several reasons.

 

One, I think that's a slap in the face to the team, and to many fans.  Players play to win.  I watch hoping to win.  When you have a chance to win, you should go for it, IMO.  

 

Two, if you wait to see who develops the best, not only have you sacrificed the present, you lost all or most of the potential value of all the other prospects in your system.  The Twins should have an idea of who they think is a real prospect, and who is false gold.  Act on that information, and get some present value for the prospects you don't think you'll need, or won't have room for.

 

Three, at the very least, you're not going to have space on the 40 man roster if you keep all the prospects in the minors waiting for them to prove themselves.  Then what?  You lose them, and get nothing now, AND nothing in the future from them.

[blairpaul715]

 

Would the Dodgers have interest in Nolasco? Return him to the National League.

 

Look at the bigger picture. What starters will be dangled out there for teams to add/upgrade. Who might be too expensive (prospect wise) like Hamels. 

 

The Twins might find a taker for Noalsco, or Pelfrey or someone. Remember, we have Santana coming back. We have Milone and a couple of 5th guys in the minors. We may have Berrios as earlya s next season. Where do we put these guys?

 

Is Gibson the one you dangle. Is May the one you work to dangle next year?

If we are in the playoff picture come July, we will be buyers and not sellers, but if we fall out of the playoff picture, sure look at trading a Nolasco or Pelfrey, but if we fall out of the playoff picture, it will probably be because Pelf and Nolasco are not doing their job, and hence , NO VALUE

[Brock Beauchamp]

As much as it pains me to say this - and trust me, I'm wincing as I type this - the Twins cannot trade Mike Pelfrey if he continues to pitch like he has this season. The goal is to win baseball games and Pelfrey is helping the Twins do that every fifth night.

 

At some point, you need to just keep your best players and try to win as many baseball games as possible. As unlikely as it seemed just six weeks ago, the Twins are in the position to win a lot of baseball games this season.

 

On the other hand, there is still a lot of baseball left to be played before the deadline. A lot can and will happen during that time.

[spinowner]

 

I disagree, for several reasons.

 

One, I think that's a slap in the face to the team, and to many fans.  Players play to win.  I watch hoping to win.  When you have a chance to win, you should go for it, IMO.  

 

Two, if you wait to see who develops the best, not only have you sacrificed the present, you lost all or most of the potential value of all the other prospects in your system.  The Twins should have an idea of who they think is a real prospect, and who is false gold.  Act on that information, and get some present value for the prospects you don't think you'll need, or won't have room for.

 

Three, at the very least, you're not going to have space on the 40 man roster if you keep all the prospects in the minors waiting for them to prove themselves.  Then what?  You lose them, and get nothing now, AND nothing in the future from them.

Love having discussions like this.

 

I'll disagree back at you on point one. The Twins have an opportunity to set themselves up for 5-10 years if they manage their prospects properly. I'd consider it a slap in the face to have done the work to be in that position and then give some of it away for a short-term gamble. What I don't want to see is what the Tigers did in 1987. As the trading deadline approached they traded for a veteran pitcher, Doyle Alexander. They wound up losing in the first round of the postseason. And for that outcome they gave up a prospect by the name of John Smoltz.

 

Regarding point two, if the Twins have a fool's gold guy in the minors he's not really a prospect. Trade that guy, of course.

 

Point three is a fair one to make, but I don't think this is a pressing issue. Without naming names I think there are at least five veterans on our 40-man whom we could DFA with little adverse effect on the organization as a whole, even if we get nothing back for them. So we're not at the logjam stage yet. I think it will be at least a year, probably more, before the decisions start to get difficult.

[tobi0040]

 

Love having discussions like this.

 

I'll disagree back at you on point one. The Twins have an opportunity to set themselves up for 5-10 years if they manage their prospects properly. I'd consider it a slap in the face to have done the work to be in that position and then give some of it away for a short-term gamble. What I don't want to see is what the Tigers did in 1987. As the trading deadline approached they traded for a veteran pitcher, Doyle Alexander. They wound up losing in the first round of the postseason. And for that outcome they gave up a prospect by the name of John Smoltz.

 

Regarding point two, if the Twins have a fool's gold guy in the minors he's not really a prospect. Trade that guy, of course.

 

Point three is a fair one to make, but I don't think this is a pressing issue. Without naming names I think there are at least five veterans on our 40-man whom we could DFA with little adverse effect on the organization as a whole, even if we get nothing back for them. So we're not at the logjam stage yet. I think it will be at least a year, probably more, before the decisions start to get difficult.

 

I think the Twins are going to have log jams all over the place.  Given the talent level in the minors I think the Twins may actually be forced to make some trades.  I wouldn't be shocked if we made some trades not for MLB talent, but really talented players in the lower levels. I don't see us adding a starting pitcher to add to the logjam.  I don't see us giving up some of the names we have for a reliever.  The only real MLB target IMO would be a catcher.

 

A few examples.

 

SS - Polanco would be a top five prospect in most systems. He has a .779 OPS at SS with 9 SB in just 40 games.  Danny Santana has struggled, but the 3.9 WAR he had last year would likely entice someone.  Most likely to go is Santana IMO.  I think Polanco is going to be a better SS.

 

DH/OF logjam.  Casting Torii aside for a second because he likely won't be here next year.  Buxton will be the CF starting in as early as 30 days.  Going for the other two OF spots and DH, on the 40 man you have Hicks, Rosario, Arcia, Vargas, Kepler (.939 OPS at AA), Harrison will need to be added soon (.811 OPS at AA), and I really don't know how the Twins can move Plouffe off 3B with way he is playing on both sides of the ball, so add Sano and his .851 OPS and almost 40 HR pace over 162 games into this equation. And realistically Sano has one of the other spots locked, so you have six guys going for two spots (one OF and DH).

 

Starters - Nolasco and Ervin aren't going anywhere, I think we would have a tough time finding someone to take those contracts off our hands.  Hughes isn't going anywhere.  Gibson isn't going anywhere.  Now you have Pelfrey.  Milone ripping up AAA.  Berrios has 56 IP, 63 K, 2.89 ERA, and a 1.16 WHIP at AA.  Meyer could get back on track.  And you have a few guys at AAA that some team may want as a back of the rotation guy.   I think the most likely to go would be Pelfrey, then Milone.

 

So I think the Twins have a system that is deep enough to where we may not need to give up blue chip guys in order to get a talented catcher, especially if you target one in say AA or so that could be up next year.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think the Twins are going to have log jams all over the place.  Given the talent level in the minors I think the Twins may actually be forced to make some trades.  I wouldn't be shocked if we made some trades not for MLB talent, but really talented players in the lower levels. I don't see us adding a starting pitcher to add to the logjam.  I don't see us giving up some of the names we have for a reliever.  The only real MLB target IMO would be a catcher.

Agreed. Not only does it make sense to trade down to stock the farm for 2020 and beyond but it's also a known preference of Terry Ryan to make those kinds of trades.

 

If the Twins stay in contention in 2015, I expect to see a mix of trades over the next two years. Some trades to fill MLB holes (catcher), others to move players off the 40 man and retool the lower minors.

[clone52]

 

I think the Phillies are going to want a few top prospects in return.  Padres got a couple top 50 prospects plus a pretty strong reliever and Edison Volquez for Mat Latos.  Obviously, salary is gong to be a part of any deal but I don't think Meyer's trade stock is all that strong, as he is 25 and still has control issues.  Berrios doesn't have the ceiling and Stewart is too far away.  I don't think the Phillies would trade Hamels without Sano or Buxton being a key piece.  

 

Pitching is expensive right now and even non-aces, guys like Chris Archer, would probably be pretty hard to get.  

 

I think Hamels has a no trade clause, but maybe he'd waive it to play for a contender.

 

This is just me, but I would trade Sano (not Buxton), for Hamels.  I'd offer Sano, Kepler (a 1B replacement for Howard) and their choice of Milone/May/Meyer/Pelfrey for Hamels.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think Hamels has a no trade clause, but maybe he'd waive it to play for a contender.

 

This is just me, but I would trade Sano (not Buxton), for Hamels.  I'd offer Sano, Kepler (a 1B replacement for Howard) and their choice of Milone/May/Meyer/Pelfrey for Hamels.

If the Phillies wouldn't trade Hamels for Sano straight-up, Ryan should tell Amaro to go screw himself and the horse he rode in on. That's aside from the point whether I think the offer should be made in the first place (I don't think it's a good idea). Hamels is owed a lot of money and he's not particularly young anymore. Getting one of the best prospects in baseball for a guy owed close to $100m is a fair trade.

[clone52]

 

I like realistic trade ideas. I would actually go the other way and trade guys like Plouffe, Escobar, Fien, and maybe Gibson for mid-tier prospects to provide more depth . . . because they aren't going to get a high pick after next year, right? Right!?

 

Also, there is no possibility of trading Ricky Nolasco this season. It isn't happening. He might be terrible, and even if he is Nolasco-average, there are two more years after this one!

 

Maybe this is just me, but I think the Twins minor league system has a plethora of mid-tier prospects and there is absolutely no way they should be looking to trade for more mid-tier depth.  If anything, they should trade away some of that depth if they can contend this year.

 

I wouldn't trade Plouffe unless he was part of a package that go you a guy that is going to help right now.  For instance, if the Phillies wanted Plouffe and he could be the centerpiece of a trade for Hamels (keeping Sano and Buxton off the table), I'd jump at it.

 

I wouldn't trade Escobar for anything, unless it was part of an All Star type trade.  Escobar gives you so much flexibility.  It allows them to trade Plouffe for the right deal and Escobar can fill in until Sano is ready.  It allows them to trade Santana if he can be a piece of a key trade and Escobar can be the everyday SS until Polanco is ready.

 

Fien is tradeable, but I'd only trade him if the Twins fall out of contention.  Given the Twins minor league depth, I'd actually be more inclined to trade a mid-tier prospect for bullpen help if the Twins stay in contention.

 

I wouldn't trade Gibson at all (unless it brought in a top-tier starting pitcher).

[tobi0040]

If the Phillies wouldn't trade Hamels for Sano straight-up, Ryan should tell Amaro to go screw himself and the horse he rode in on. That's aside from the point whether I think the offer should be made in the first place (I don't think it's a good idea). Hamels is owed a lot of money and he's not particularly young anymore. Getting one of the best prospects in baseball for a guy owed close to $100m is a fair trade.

 

Here is the trade as I see it.

 

3 years of Hamels for $90M (approaching or slightly past prime years) or 10 years of Sano for about $60M (entire prime)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Here is the trade as I see it.

 

3 years of Hamels for $90M (approaching or slightly past prime years) or 10 years of Sano for about $60M (entire prime)

I'll take Sano and $30m, thanks.

[tobi0040]

 

I'll take Sano and $30m, thanks.

 

Yeah....In those ten years he may hit the ball over the fence 350 times. 

[drivlikejehu]

Organizations seemingly overflowing with talent nonetheless can implode. The Rangers are a perfect example. Key pitchers get hurt, some position player prospects fail to develop as expected, and all of the sudden things aren't so rosy anymore.

 

Young, cost-controlled talent is the most important thing in baseball. It should only be surrendered in rare situations. The Twins have "logjams" that largely consist of mediocre or decent players. At what positions do the Twins have too much impact talent? As of now, none.

 

The way pitchers are, it's very rare for any kind of logjam to remain in place there, assuming one were to develop. And I don't see it with the position players either, except maybe outfield and DH in a best-base scenario.

[clone52]

 

Love having discussions like this.

 

I'll disagree back at you on point one. The Twins have an opportunity to set themselves up for 5-10 years if they manage their prospects properly. I'd consider it a slap in the face to have done the work to be in that position and then give some of it away for a short-term gamble. What I don't want to see is what the Tigers did in 1987. As the trading deadline approached they traded for a veteran pitcher, Doyle Alexander. They wound up losing in the first round of the postseason. And for that outcome they gave up a prospect by the name of John Smoltz.

 

Regarding point two, if the Twins have a fool's gold guy in the minors he's not really a prospect. Trade that guy, of course.

 

Point three is a fair one to make, but I don't think this is a pressing issue. Without naming names I think there are at least five veterans on our 40-man whom we could DFA with little adverse effect on the organization as a whole, even if we get nothing back for them. So we're not at the logjam stage yet. I think it will be at least a year, probably more, before the decisions start to get difficult.

 

You bring up 1 example of a team trading a prospect to try and contend and getting burned.  What about all the times a team has made that trade and won the World Series, or the times the team traded that prospect and the prospect turned out to be a bust.

 

In 2013, the Red Sox traded for Jake Peavy and won the World Series.  They traded away Jose Iglesias (.811 OPS as a SS this year).

 

Almost every World Series champion has made a trade or 2 to pick up the pieces they needed to win the World Series.  You had to go back to 1987 to find an example where a team got burned.  

 

I think its too early to say Berrios is untouchable becuase he might turn out to be Hall of Famer John Smotlz.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Almost every World Series champion has made a trade or 2 to pick up the pieces they needed to win the World Series.  You had to go back to 1987 to find an example where a team got burned. 

Or he could have simply pointed out the 2014 Oakland Athletics.

[nicksaviking]

Hamels tossed 200 innings of 2.46 ERA ball last year, has a sub 3 ERA this year.

 

Personally, I don't give a rat's behind what his WAR was.  Or is.

While I agree with the thoughts on WAR (Aaron Harangue is top 10) I also don't care what his WAR or any other nuber was, only because I care what it will be going forward. The way baseball is played now is telling us that you don't want pitchers past their early 30's. We all should know by now that you don't pay for past success. Just because we haven't seen the decline yet doesn't mean it's not looming.

[USAFChief]

Here is the trade as I see it.

 

3 years of Hamels for $90M (approaching or slightly past prime years) or 10 years of Sano for about $60M (entire prime)

It would be 3.75 years of Hamels, not 3. Plus a team option. All of which align with the time frame when the prospect mavens tell us the Twins should be improving into contention. I think you could dump Nolasco's contract by trading Sano, so reduce Hamels' costs by that amount, too.

 

If Sano is as good as many hope, he can certainly play 10 years or more, but how much that will cost is anyone's guess.

 

The thing is, he might also never amount to anything worth even $6m, much less $60m. There's a much greater chance Hamels is worth a great deal of money over the next three years than Sano earning $60M over the next 10.

[spinowner]

The title of this thread is "Realistic trade return ideas". Any post discussing a trade involving Buxton, Sano or Berrios belongs in a thread entitled "Unrealistic trade return ideas" because I think none of those three will be traded unless another team gives us an unrealistic offer.

[Loosey]

I am not on board with trading a top prospect at this point.  Especially for a 31 year old pitcher with 4 years on left on his contract.  Using Hamels as the example, he would be great this year and next year, but what happens when he is 34 years old?  That is a lot of money, a lot of age, and injury risk with each passing year.  Add in the fact he currently pitches to a an ERA of about 3.00 in the national league which would certainly creep up in the AL and over time as he ages.

 

I am of the belief of holding onto your prospects until you are proven winners and really have no spots for them.  Take Sano, on a trade value scale of 1-100 I would probably rank him around 75-80.  However, give him time to prove himself in the Majors and that could jump to 100 . . . or it could plummet if he fails.  But either way I say hold on to top prospects as long as you can.

[USAFChief]

Organizations seemingly overflowing with talent nonetheless can implode. The Rangers are a perfect example. Key pitchers get hurt, some position player prospects fail to develop as expected, and all of the sudden things aren't so rosy anymore.

 

Young, cost-controlled talent is the most important thing in baseball. It should only be surrendered in rare situations. The Twins have "logjams" that largely consist of mediocre or decent players. At what positions do the Twins have too much impact talent? As of now, none.

 

The way pitchers are, it's very rare for any kind of logjam to remain in place there, assuming one were to develop. And I don't see it with the position players either, except maybe outfield and DH in a best-base scenario.

your first two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. No team had more young talent, with more on the way. How the heck were they going to squeeze Profar into the lineup??

 

There is nothing so over rated as prospects, IMO.

 

Except ours, of course.

[clone52]

 

Organizations seemingly overflowing with talent nonetheless can implode. The Rangers are a perfect example. Key pitchers get hurt, some position player prospects fail to develop as expected, and all of the sudden things aren't so rosy anymore.

 

Young, cost-controlled talent is the most important thing in baseball. It should only be surrendered in rare situations. The Twins have "logjams" that largely consist of mediocre or decent players. At what positions do the Twins have too much impact talent? As of now, none.

 

The way pitchers are, it's very rare for any kind of logjam to remain in place there, assuming one were to develop. And I don't see it with the position players either, except maybe outfield and DH in a best-base scenario.

 

I would say SS is a position of strength and depth.  You've got Santana there now.  Escobar could easily be the everyday SS.  If both of those guys got hurt/weren't there, Polanco could probably take over and be adequate as he built on the job.  Personally, I would say Santana and Polanco should be available for the right trade (one of the other, not both of them).  

 

As amazing as it sounds, SP depth is a real strength right now.  Gibson is locked into the rotation.  Hughes is locked into the rotation.  Neither of those guys is getting traded (Unless its Gibson as part of a deal for a real SP upgrade).  Santana will get his shot at the rotation.  Nolasco has been good enough to stay in the rotation (3.77 ERA, 7.8 K/9 since his injury).  Pelfrey has been great.  May has been okay (really only 2 bad starts skewing his numbers).  Milone deserves a spot in a rotation.

 

I think anyone would trade Nolasco for almost anything.  If they could trade him and get someone to eat his salary, that would be wonderful.  If I were the Twins, I'd rather keep him than may more than 50% of his salary in a trade.

 

I would trade Pelfrey if you could get a piece that would help, even if it was just bullpen help.  I don't think the Twins would resign him next year.

 

I even think the Twins could use May/Milone/Meyer/Berrios as trade bait, for an impact trade.

[spinowner]

 

Or he could have simply pointed out the 2014 Oakland Athletics.

Oakland rolled the dice last year partly out of desperation because Beane knew it would be their last shot for at least a few years. The Twins, in almost everyone's opinion, have a rosy future. IMHO we should trade a high-level prospect only if we think it gives us an excellent chance to win the WS this year. And I don't see such a trade doing that for us.

[clone52]

 

Or he could have simply pointed out the 2014 Oakland Athletics.

 

Didn't work out for the A's, but still pending on how big of a loss Addison Russell is/was.

 

The A's are a great example example of both sides of it.  Last year they tried to make a big trade to win now and it didn't work out.  For the last 15 years, they've been the "moneyball" team.  Get rid of higher priced veterans, stockpile prospects with low cost and years of control.  What has that gotten them?  Not a single championship.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Organizations seemingly overflowing with talent nonetheless can implode. The Rangers are a perfect example. Key pitchers get hurt, some position player prospects fail to develop as expected, and all of the sudden things aren't so rosy anymore.

 

Young, cost-controlled talent is the most important thing in baseball. It should only be surrendered in rare situations. The Twins have "logjams" that largely consist of mediocre or decent players. At what positions do the Twins have too much impact talent? As of now, none.

 

The way pitchers are, it's very rare for any kind of logjam to remain in place there, assuming one were to develop. And I don't see it with the position players either, except maybe outfield and DH in a best-base scenario.

 

I'd say it is the opposite....since you can implode at any moment, when things are actually working, you should double down, because the next year Mauer and Morneau might get injured.......

[drivlikejehu]

 

I'd say it is the opposite....since you can implode at any moment, when things are actually working, you should double down, because the next year Mauer and Morneau might get injured.......

 

Or the acquisitions do no good, the team loses in the playoffs, and now the club is way more screwed than it otherwise would be.

 

I'm all for supplementing a playoff-caliber roster with trades, within reason, but I wouldn't trade away a guy that I expect to be a core element of the team for 5+ years. The playoffs are too random to justify it.

[clone52]

 

Oakland rolled the dice last year partly out of desperation because Beane knew it would be their last shot for at least a few years. The Twins, in almost everyone's opinion, have a rosy future. IMHO we should trade a high-level prospect only if we think it gives us an excellent chance to win the WS this year. And I don't see such a trade doing that for us.

 

Lets say the Twins are in 1st place in July and looking the part of a playoff team.  What is the one piece the team is definitely missing for the playoffs?  A bonafide Ace SP.  What if the Tigers made David Price available for a 1 year rental?  What if the Red Sox were crumbling and made Buchholz available (a very team friendly contract)?   How about Cueto for a 2015?

 

What if the Pirates didn't think they could resign Gerrit Cole and made him available?  

What if the Rays made Chris Archer available?  (Berrios and Rosario?)

[tobi0040]

 

It would be 3.75 years of Hamels, not 3. Plus a team option. All of which align with the time frame when the prospect mavens tell us the Twins should be improving into contention. I think you could dump Nolasco's contract by trading Sano, so reduce Hamels' costs by that amount, too.

If Sano is as good as many hope, he can certainly play 10 years or more, but how much that will cost is anyone's guess.

The thing is, he might also never amount to anything worth even $6m, much less $60m. There's a much greater chance Hamels is worth a great deal of money over the next three years than Sano earning $60M over the next 10.

 

I don't think the Phillies would take Nolasco as part of a Sano/Hamels swap.  They aren't going to get rid of one of the best 5-10 pitchers in the game at $22M just to take one of the worst for $14M.  I actually think Nolasco has negative trade value right now.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Or the acquisitions do no good, the team loses in the playoffs, and now the club is way more screwed than it otherwise would be.

 

I'm all for supplementing a playoff-caliber roster with trades, within reason, but I wouldn't trade away a guy that I expect to be a core element of the team for 5+ years. The playoffs are too random to justify it.

 

Again, why do all trades have to be about Sano or Buxton? If they are this deep, they have excess guys. Or, you know, most of the guys NEVER work out, that's how prospects work........so I don't get this obsession with not trading prospects for proven MLB players.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Again, why do all trades have to be about Sano or Buxton? If they are this deep, they have excess guys. Or, you know, most of the guys NEVER work out, that's how prospects work........so I don't get this obsession with not trading prospects for proven MLB players.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing against trading mid-level prospects. Trading Sano has been a prominent theme in recent posts on the thread. Is there a post somewhere about refusing to trade, I dunno, Kepler, that I'm not seeing?