Realistic trade return ideas

[tobi0040]

 

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?

 

That is the sweet spot. I think we have guys that can play elsewhere but won't get a shot here, say a Kepler, Danny Santana when Polanco arrives, Tommy Milone, etc.. And we have them in droves.  Now two or three of those guys aren't going to net you Cole Hamels, but they may net you something better than our best, certainly our second best catcher. 

 

I would target a guy in AA or AAA that can be up later this year and take over longer term for us at catcher.  I am trying to stay realistic here.  Kepler, Walker, and Duensing does not equal Hamels.

[USAFChief]

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.

Maybe not. Then I say "no deal."

 

But I think Sano and Nolasco for Hamels is a realistic trade framework, and in the ballpark of what Philly eventually settles for. Perhaps you have to tweak the deal by adding minor parts on both sides.

 

They want premium prospect(s) and salary relief.

 

They aren't going to get a more highly rated prospect. And they'd be getting something like $60m in salary relief. Hamels is owed something like $90m over the next 3.75 seasons, Nolasco something like $34m over the next 2.75.

 

Philly gets both parts they want in a trade, Twins get a top of the rotation starter for the next few years, at much less cost than would be available via free agency.

[ExpectMorePayLess]

I heard Buck Showalter say that righthanded power hitting is the most difficult thing to find as a manager.    It is a rare comodity.    We seem to have 3 young prolific power hitters in the system.    Sano, Vargas, and Walker.    I might trade a quality infielder, another OF prospect, young pitcher, but I'm not giving up what Bucks considers the hardest thing to find.    Sano is our power phenom of the future and is getting his groove back lately.    Walker has led every league he has played in (RBI & HR).    Vargas has the ability to hit for power from both sides.    All three might strikeout alot but the first two also score alot of runs (ala Dozier).   Keep our young power hitters because all of our current power hitters are starting to have the same offensive credentials [.275 BA / .340 OBP / 18-23 HRs / 70-80 RBI].  Quality statline, but not superstar potential there to lift you when pitching is down.  Although the team is on a HR tear, none of the current Twins is expected to keep this pace for the remainder of the season.    Just look how Dozier cooled off last year.    Just like pitching, you can never have too much power.

[Mike Sixel]

 

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?

 

Lots of posts on this site say "don't trade any prospects until 2016 or 2017", or "don't trade any prospects until you know which are going to work out", which doesn't work because there is no value in them then. They say not to give up on Hicks or player X because they "might be David Ortiz".

 

the theme of the site seems to largely be, never trade a prospect for anyone, ever. With the exception of chief and a few others, of course.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I heard Buck Showalter say that righthanded power hitting is the most difficult thing to find as a manager.    It is a rare comodity.  We seem to have 3 young prolific power hitters in the system.    Sano, Vargas, and Walker.    I might trade a quality infielder, another OF prospect, young pitcher, but I'm not giving up what Bucks considers the hardest thing to find.    Sano is our power phenom of the future and is getting his groove back lately.    Walker has led every league he has played in (RBI & HR).    Vargas has the ability to hit for power from both sides.    All three might strikeout alot but the first two also score alot of runs (ala Dozier).   Keep our young power hitters because all of our current power hitters are starting to have the same offensive credentials [.275 BA / .340 OBP / 18-23 HRs / 70-80 RBI].    Although the team is on a HR tear, none of the current Twins is expected to keep this pace for the remainder of the season.    Just look how Dozier cooled off last year.    Just ike pitching, you can never have too much power.

 

And, here you go....a post saying don't trade Vargas or Walker......so, yup, right in this thread.

 

Btw, I'd rather pay Mauer to retire, and put Sano at 1B, why not? I mean, if you are paying Joe anyway?

[tobi0040]

 

Maybe not. Then I say "no deal."

But I think Sano and Nolasco for Hamels is a realistic trade framework, and in the ballpark of what Philly eventually settles for. Perhaps you have to tweak the deal by adding minor parts on both sides.

They want premium prospect(s) and salary relief.

They aren't going to get a more highly rated prospect. And they'd be getting something like $60m in salary relief. Hamels is owed something like $90m over the next 3.75 seasons, Nolasco something like $34m over the next 2.75.

Philly gets both parts they want in a trade, Twins get a top of the rotation starter for the next few years, at much less cost than would be available via free agency.

 

By swapping Hamels for Nolasco, they are giving up a 2.50-3.00 ERA guy for a 4.50 to 5.00 ERA guy for 2.5 years. At 180 innings a year Nolasco is going to give up 100 more runs than Hamels over that time period.

 

That is moving backwards and they only save $8M per year over that 2.5 years.  I get that they also get Sano, but I think they end up getting a top 20 prospect without taking a terrible pitcher on a terrible contract. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Lots of posts on this site say "don't trade any prospects until 2016 or 2017", or "don't trade any prospects until you know which are going to work out", which doesn't work because there is no value in them then. They say not to give up on Hicks or player X because they "might be David Ortiz".

 

the theme of the site seems to largely be, never trade a prospect for anyone, ever. With the exception of chief and a few others, of course.

 

Well I didn't say it, nor did the more cogent posts on the topic. I guess there are some I didn't read closely.

 

To the extent some posters are against trading anyone, I don't agree and I don't think the majority of posters do either. 

 

It's also a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to oppose acquisitions this year under the theory that the Twins aren't actually contenders, even with some additions. In that case, trading away mid-level prospects for rental players is basically pointless, even if the prospects dealt aren't a huge loss.

[Thegrin]

Trade Hicks as soon as Buxton is brought up. Get rid of him while his  value is highest.  We know he doesn't have the character to be a quality big league player.  Of course, I would be happy to be proven wrong, but i doubt it will happen. 

[clone52]

 

By swapping Hamels for Nolasco, they are giving up a 2.50-3.00 ERA guy for a 4.50 to 5.00 ERA guy for 2.5 years. At 180 innings a year Nolasco is going to give up 100 more runs than Hamels over that time period.

 

That is moving backwards and they only save $8M per year over that 2.5 years.  I get that they also get Sano, but I think they end up getting a top 20 prospect without taking a terrible pitcher on a terrible contract. 

 

Philly might balk at that and maybe the Twins shouldn't look at it, but honestly, thats a pretty good deal from the Philies side of things.

 

If you are convinced Hamels will be an ace for the next 3-4 years, I think you'd seriously have to consider Hamels for Nolasco, Sano and any pitching prospect other than Berrios.  The Phillies would like to dump Ryan Howard as well, so maybe throw him in.

 

Hamels, Howard and $30 million

Nolasco, Sano, Kepler, Stewart

 

 

[clone52]

 

Trade Hicks as soon as Buxton is brought up. Get rid of him while his  value is highest.  We know he doesn't have the character to be a quality big league player.  Of course, I would be happy to be proven wrong, but i doubt it will happen. 

 

Questioning Hicks' character is pretty low.  You can question his maturity, but to question his character is pathetic.

 

It does seem like he is maturing, though.  The fact that he is putting in the work and made a massive adjustment to his left handed batting approach tells me that he's trying to get better and not just go through the motions.

 

If he has turned a corner, can you imagine the pitchers salivating at the thought of a Rosario, Buxton, Hicks outfield next year?

[SwainZag]

 

Trade Hicks as soon as Buxton is brought up. Get rid of him while his  value is highest.  We know he doesn't have the character to be a quality big league player.  Of course, I would be happy to be proven wrong, but i doubt it will happen. 

 

How is Hicks value at his highest?  I would say if anything, trading him now would be getting pennies on the dollar for the type of potential talent he has.  He is under team contract for 4 more years, he is only 25 and is a much better 3rd or 4th OF going forward than Robinson, Schafer and Hunter.

[nytwinsfan]

No trading Sano, Buxton or Berrios for Hamels. Just no.  Other prospects I would consider, but really, I'd rather not trade for anymore pitchers. We have some good pitching prospects in the pipeline, and may draft another one (including maybe a college one) this year. The biggest long-term organizational need in my opinion is catcher, and even that we have a couple of guys who could be decent.

[Trov]

I was thinking of a potential trade for Hamels involving Nolasco and not Sano.  It would involve taking on Howard's deal as well.  The trade would be we get Hamels and Howard, trade Nolasco, One or possibly two of our top pitching prospects, and Kepler or someone of his level. 

 

We get rid of Nolasco and his unwanted contract, and they get rid of Howard's unwanted contract, and get pitching prospects, and a possible replacement at first in Kepler.

[tobi0040]

 

 maybe throw him in.

 

Hamels, Howard and $30 million

Nolasco, Sano, Kepler, Stewart

 

I could not say NO any louder to that deal.

 

[Mike Sixel]

I do agree, I'd be looking for a catcher. Now, who is going to trade a good, cost controlled, not old catcher? Because, you know, those are so available......unless you are just going to trade for another prospect, but prospect for prospect trades are rare, very rare.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think we're setting our sights a little high talking about Hamels.  I doubt if the Twins can pull off a trade for a top of the rotation starter.  I would concentrate on getting a good bat to put in the 5 or 6 hole, and drop Suzuki down to 7 where he belongs. The team that needs another mid to back end starter is the Dodgers and they want to win NOW. They might take Nolasco - he was there before and the Dodgers can easily eat bad contracts- and tey have a surplus of outfielders that can hit.  That surplus gets even bigger when  Puig comes back off of the DL.  We could potentially get either Van Slyke or Ethier for Nolasco or Pelfry, put that guy into the lineup in LF, lengthen and improve the batting order, and still have flexibility for new players.  Rosario can stay as a 4th OF/part time starter or maybe even take over for Hicks in CF. Both Ethier and Van Slyke can play CF at an above average but not elite level. There may be other similar deals available with other teams. I think this is a more realistic way to go to improve for this year without mortgaging the future.   

 

0% chance you can get Van Slyke for one of those pitchers. Zero.

[tobi0040]

 

I do agree, I'd be looking for a catcher. Now, who is going to trade a good, cost controlled, not old catcher? Because, you know, those are so available......unless you are just going to trade for another prospect, but prospect for prospect trades are rare, very rare.

 

True, but if you start with the 8-10 teams that have a good catcher and look at what they have at AA or AAA, my guess is you find something better than Fryer, Hermann, or Stuart.

 

[SwainZag]

 

I think we're setting our sights a little high talking about Hamels.  I doubt if the Twins can pull off a trade for a top of the rotation starter.  I would concentrate on getting a good bat to put in the 5 or 6 hole, and drop Suzuki down to 7 where he belongs. The team that needs another mid to back end starter is the Dodgers and they want to win NOW. They might take Nolasco - he was there before and the Dodgers can easily eat bad contracts- and tey have a surplus of outfielders that can hit.  That surplus gets even bigger when  Puig comes back off of the DL.  We could potentially get either Van Slyke or Ethier for Nolasco or Pelfry, put that guy into the lineup in LF, lengthen and improve the batting order, and still have flexibility for new players.  Rosario can stay as a 4th OF/part time starter or maybe even take over for Hicks in CF. Both Ethier and Van Slyke can play CF at an above average but not elite level. There may be other similar deals available with other teams. I think this is a more realistic way to go to improve for this year without mortgaging the future.   

 

I would want nothing to do with Eithier and the $35M he is owed over the next 2 years.  33 years old and is having his best season this year after having his worst last year? No thanks.  

[Vanimal46]

 

Who cares what he's owed for 2 years? It's less that what Nolasco is owed and the organization has salary room. Ethier is doing better this year because he was hurt most of last year.  Over his roughly 10 year career before this year, he's had an OPS over .800 7 times, two over .780, and one clunker at .691 last year when he was playing hurt. His OPS this year is over .900. He would be a major upgrade offensively for the Twins (he would walk in as one of the team's 3 best hitters) and he is a very good defensive corner outfielder and a decent CF. He would be a good catch for Nolasco (and that deal would solve any $$ issue since you trade one big contract for another) and also for Pelfry unless you think Pelfry's recent success will continue AND that he will stay in Minnesota for a reasonable deal after this year, both questionable assumptions.  When you think it through, while it would be better to trade Nolasco or Pelfry for Van Slyke even if you have to throw in a mid level prospect, a Nolasco or Pelfry for Etheir deal is also good for the Twins and probably for both teams. His age is a positive, not a negative, because he won't block others coming up over the next 2 years and he will be relatively easy to trade when you don't want him any more.  Don't let his salary blind you to the real possibilities here. 

 

 

Out of all the trade possibilities out there, Nolasco for Ethier or Nolasco + mid-level prospect for Van Slyke feels like the most realistic option thrown out. I would be thrilled to see something like this happen. Like BMCACCAL mentioned, it would be relatively easier to dangle Either/ Van Slyke in future trade negotiations than Nolasco. If this were a real trade offer, I would pull the trigger on it.

[drivlikejehu]

Nolasco for Van Slyke is exactly the kind of ludicrous suggestion that renders most trade discussions pointless.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Nolasco for Van Slyke is exactly the kind of ludicrous suggestion that renders most trade discussions pointless.

Why? He only has a career OPS+ around 125 and is making the minimum. Seems entirely reasonable to me... but only if you throw in Duensing.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Why? He only has a career OPS+ around 125 and is making the minimum. Seems entirely reasonable to me... but only if you throw in Duensing.

 

You know full well that they would insist on Stauffer to close the deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You know full well that they would insist on Stauffer to close the deal.

Then I'm not sure I'd agree to that deal.

[tobi0040]

I will say this again.  Ricky Nolasco has negative trade value. He is owed something like $30M over 2.5 years and he has been absolutely terrible.  His ERA has been 5.38 and 5.12.  His WHIP last year was 1.51 and this year it is 1.61. 

 

No team will give anything up for a guy that is putting up numbers that are much worse than replacement level and is owed that much money.  And he has had elbow issues to boot.  The only way we are trading Nolasco is if we give up a prospect that has much more value than the guy we are getting in return, effectively giving away a prospect in exchange for salary relief.

 

If it happens, I assure you it will be for MLB's equivalent of a player to be named later and/or cash considerations.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Who here would trade Trevor Plouffe or Brian Dozier for Ricky Nolasco and a C prospect?

 

*crickets*

 

Okay, I'm glad we can all agree on the Van Slyke thing.

[tobi0040]

 

Who here would trade Trevor Plouffe or Brian Dozier for Ricky Nolasco and a C prospect?

 

*crickets*

 

Okay, I'm glad we can all agree on the Van Slyke thing.

 

It doesn't work like that.  The other teams in our discussions always get ripped off and they are okay with it.

 

 

[Vanimal46]

Haha sorry, I get excited by any opportunity to get Nolasco off of this team. We're all acting like that one guy in our fantasy football/baseball leagues that offers the #28 scoring 3B for the #4 scoring 1B and thinks you're crazy for not accepting the deal of a lifetime.

[blairpaul715]

 

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)

You would be way under estimating Sanos cost over 10yrs, he would be at least $140 for 10 yrs........Yrs 1-3 total cost about $2M......Arb 1-$3M, Arb 2-$6M, Arb 3-$10M, and I think that is being conservative, plus 4 FA yrs at about $30M if he is what he could be........if we got Sano for $60M over 10 yrs, that would mean he didnt live up to expectations..................earlier in this thread i said I wouldnt trade Sano for Hamels, but if that is the only piece to lose to get a Hamels, I might do it.............with the caveat, that we are in first place and playing for a division title and not a wild card.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You're right that $60m is on the low side but the Twins will almost surely control Sano for seven years, not six.

[blairpaul715]

 

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.

Not sure by playoffs if you mean they are just to random, or getting to World Series is just to random, but if it is the former , i disagree, playoffs are not random if things are done right, but after getting to the playoffs, the World Series is mostly random, look at how many Wild Card teams make it in......its about getting in and hoping you get HOT!