Article: Twins, Rockies Talk Tulowitzki

[nicksaviking]

I don't get the outrage though. Everyone keeps pointing to the Royals but the Royals didn't start trading the farm until they were ready to win. Does anyone seriously think the Twins are in that position yet?

 

There will be superstars available at next year's deadline, and the deadline after that and after that. Perhaps some won't even have terrible contracts. If the Twins are actually a good and team worthy of contention at that time, then we can all join together in indignation when Ryan once again is too indecisive to act.

[USAFChief]

I don't get the outrage though. Everyone keeps pointing to the Royals but the Royals didn't start trading the farm until they were ready to win. Does anyone seriously think the Twins are in that position yet?

There will be superstars available at next year's deadline, and the deadline after that and after that. Perhaps some won't even have terrible contracts. If the Twins are actually a good and team worthy of contention at that time, then we can all join together in indignation when Ryan once again is too indecisive to act.

The Royals started trading the farm when they sent Myer and Odirizzi to TB for Shields...a move they were widely criticized for here, because they weren't "ready to win." And SIX YEARS of Will Myer!

[drjim]

I don't get the outrage though. Everyone keeps pointing to the Royals but the Royals didn't start trading the farm until they were ready to win. Does anyone seriously think the Twins are in that position yet?

 

There will be superstars available at next year's deadline, and the deadline after that and after that. Perhaps some won't even have terrible contracts. If the Twins are actually a good and team worthy of contention at that time, then we can all join together in indignation when Ryan once again is too indecisive to act.

Indeed.

 

For me it just isn't time to trade good prospects for rentals or to take $100 million gambles on declining players.

 

Yes they should add a reliever or three, perhaps a better catcher option but there is still a longer view I'm excited about.

[drjim]

except Ryan has never done the 'striking when the moment was right' move and it took eight years last time to build a team that had sustained success. And it's convenient that it's never the right time to strike until Ryan does it. Then, and only then, will some say THAT was the exact time to strike. If Ryan doesn't strike, those same people will say it wasn't time to strike.

I would argue we still can't make that decision on Ryan. Comparing a pre Target Field to post Target Field situation is comparing two different realities.

[jimmer]

OF COURSE we can't put that on Ryan.OF course not.

 

Because contracts were just as huge back then making everyone we could have traded for to put us over the top very expensive...

Edited July 29, 2015 by jimmer

[drjim]

The Royals started trading the farm when they sent Myer and Odirizzi to TB for Shields...a move they were widely criticized for here, because they weren't "ready to win." And SIX YEARS of Will Myer!

Also widely supported.

[USAFChief]

I would argue we still can't make that decision on Ryan. Comparing a pre Target Field to post Target Field situation is comparing two different realities.

That's a fair point. I hope you're right.

 

Actually, what I really hope is the Twins get to a point where we can find out if you're right.

[jimmer]

Chief, I'm going out on a limb and say, with very few exceptions, that the ones praising it supports an aggressive approach for our team too and the ones who panned it support Ryan's approach?

[USAFChief]

Indeed.

For me it just isn't time to trade good prospects for rentals or to take $100 million gambles on declining players.

Yes they should add a reliever or three, perhaps a better catcher option but there is still a longer view I'm excited about.

I do agree they should be careful on rentals.

 

As for gambles on $100m gambles on declining players, aren't we both arguing for that? We just disagree on the timing?

[drjim]

That's a fair point. I hope you're right.

 

Actually, what I really hope is the Twins get to a point where we can find out if you're right.

The best evidence I can cite is his aggressive free agent signings this time around compared to his last tenure.

 

Obviously a mixed bag as far as results but can't really dispute the change in thinking.

 

I also hope he has a real chance to prove me right too. I just really really don't think it is prudent this year to do more than add a few smaller pieces and see what happens.

[jimmer]

 

That's a fair point. I hope you're right.

Actually, what I really hope is the Twins get to a point where we can find out if you're right.

I'll believe it when I see it.  Like the Lock Ness monster and Sasquatch. :-)

 

And going for it doesn't require getting a guy with a huge contract.

[drjim]

Chief, I'm going out on a limb and say, with very few exceptions, that the ones praising it supports an aggressive approach for our team too and the ones who panned it support Ryan's approach?

I actually don't think it shook out that way, much more mixed. I think it shook out more along the lines of people thinking Tampa could do no wrong. We could go back to the thread and look.

[drjim]

I do agree they should be careful on rentals.

 

As for gambles on $100m gambles on declining players, aren't we both arguing for that? We just disagree on the timing?

Maybe. But those are unique types of gambles. I think we both are looking for a more aggressive approach with a disagreement on timing.

[drjim]

I'll believe it when I see it. Like the Lock Ness monster and Sasquatch. :-)

 

And going for it doesn't require getting a guy with a huge contract.

Agree, but it often means trading legit prospects for rentals. I don't think the Twins should do that this year.

 

I would be in favor, right now today, of trading legit prospects for guys with multiple years of control and significantly less risk/money than someone like Tulo. I'm skeptical that trade is out there at the deadline.

Edited July 29, 2015 by drjim

[USAFChief]

Maybe. But those are unique types of gambles. I think we both are looking for a more aggressive approach with a disagreement on timing.

Agreed. And I viewed Tulowitzki as a unique opportunity. a combination of fit, need, motivated seller, buyer with money. The kind that won't come around often.

[drjim]

Agreed. And I viewed Tulowitzki as a unique opportunity. a combination of fit, need, motivated seller, buyer with money. The kind that won't come around often.

Will be interesting to see how he does going forward and if the Twins blew it.

[jimmer]

 

Agree, but it often means trading legit prospects for rentals. I don't think the Twins should do that this year.

I would be in favor, right now today, of trading legit prospects for guys with multiple years of control and significantly less risk/money than someone like Tulo. I'm skeptical that trade is out there at the deadline.

it doesn't have to, in any way, be about just trading for rentals.  He didn't do it for players that would help us for that season and future ones either when it was during a time you are saying would be right to go for it..Or do we never do it, period, lest goodness forbid, losing a unproven prospect sets us back 4 years (like what happened to KC when they lost top prospect Myers) and we're seen as 'losing a trade'.

 

And when we are doing really well, it won't be time because we would be winning without said player who would put us over the top.him.  An argument can and is often made to NEVER be aggressive (because Ryan isn't aggressive) because we are too far away or we are already supposedly set where we don't need the guy.  

 

We have no one for shorstop in the next 4 years.  We are, miraculously, still in the hunt.  We are supposedly going to be competitive from 2016 on.  Be a nice time to have the best shortstop in baseball and a proven leader when that happens. Especially since it's always such a huge hole. Player like that won't be available next year.  

Edited July 29, 2015 by jimmer

[USAFChief]

Will be interesting to see how he does going forward and if the Twins blew it.

I guess my opinion won't change much regardless the results...that'd be hindsight. you can only act on the best info you have at the time.

 

Unless we learn there's some chronic injury that is inevitably going to debilitate him, of course. And its likely the Twins knew of it. Then I would have to change my opinion.

[jimmer]

 

I guess my opinion won't change much regardless the results...that'd be hindsight. you can only act on the best info you have at the time.

Unless we learn there's some chronic injury that is inevitably going to debilitate him, of course. And its likely the Twins knew of it. Then I would have to change my opinion.

Exactly.  Just like the Span/Meyer trade.  Liked the thinking behind it/ Wasn't thrilled about the player targeted, but still liked the idea behind the move itself. Didn't work out, but that's about the execution, not the thought process behind it.

 

Tulo is a great player.  Toronto won't regret this trade. I can't believe we couldn't do better than that with some of the ideas rolling around here. Neither Sano or Bryant would have been needed.

 

BTW, Jeff Sullivan (who writes for Fangraphs, ESPN, etc) says if Reyes hadn't been included, the Rockies would have had to throw money in to cover some of Tulo's contract to get the prospects they got and that was the main reason why he was included.  It's a way for them to eat some contract and still get a player (who will likely be moved right away or during the offseason.).

Edited July 29, 2015 by jimmer

[tobi0040]

The irony of that KC/TB deal is the secondary pieces have provided a lot more value than people thought.  Although, I am not giving up on Myers.  He had an OPS of over .800, OPS + of 120 this year prior to getting hurt.

 

Since the trade, Odorizzi has put up 295 IP, 3.66 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 8.5 K per 9.  Controlled for four more years. 

 

I think KC got lucky with Davis.  They targeted him because he was a cheap back of the rotation guy.  Much like Perkins, something changed when he went to the pen.

[DaveW]

If Kansas City and the blue jays can be so aggressive there is zero reason why the twins can't.

[tobi0040]

 

If Kansas City and the blue jays can be so aggressive there is zero reason why the twins can't.

 

I am not sure we should be modeling our strategy after the Blue Jays.  Don't they have a history of "going for it" by taking their payroll to the max and then realizing they are an expensive .500 team and being stuck for years?

 

Mark B., Reyes, BJ Ryan, AJ Burnett, Dickey, etc.  Does Tulo make them a contending team?  I don't think so.  They are 12th in ERA in the AL. 

 

Frankly, they are doing exactly what I hoped the Twins would not do.  Go all in on a crappy hand.

Edited July 29, 2015 by tobi0040

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If Kansas City and the blue jays can be so aggressive there is zero reason why the twins can't.

Well, it depends. I like what KC is doing right now because this is their shot at winning it all.

 

If you asked me whether I think the Twins should have traded for Tulo or Lucroy this past offseason, I would have laughed you out of the room.

 

But then the Twins started winning. Their window arrived a lot faster than any of us expected.

 

Situations change. The front office needs to be agile enough to keep up with the situation.

 

I don't think this team is that good but a good player at a position of need makes it better, both this year and next.

 

As I've said multiple times, I don't really care what is done... but something needs to be done.

[jimmer]

I get confused sometimes about the idea that the only time to trade for a proven quality player, when you have a strong farm system, is when you are in playoff contention.  Just because the Royals didn't make the playoffs the very first season they traded for Shields and Davis doesn't mean it was the wrong time to do it.  They won 14 more games the first season.  They were in the playoff hunt most of the season. There is value in that, from a team perspective and a fan interest perspective, to get back over .500 for the first time in a decade.

 

And when I argued for the trade, I didn't expect the Royals to throw Davis back in the rotation, but rather leave him in the pen where he excelled for TB.  That decision alone MIGHT have cost them a playoff spot. Maybe.

 

Still, winning an additional 14 games, there's value in that, and doesn't prove it was that it was the wrong time to make the trade.  Just like I don't think a team has to be a playoff contender to trade for the best shortstop in baseball who will also be around when we're told the team will be contenders.

Edited July 29, 2015 by jimmer

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I get confused sometimes about the idea that the only time to trade for a proven quality player, when you have a strong farm system, is when you are in playoff contention.  Just because the Royals didn't make the playoffs the very first season they traded for Shields and Davis doesn't mean it was the wrong time to do it.  They won 14 more games the first season.  They were in the playoff hunt most of the season. There is value in that, from a team perspective and a fan interesting perspective.

There's value in competing but the fan interest angle doesn't fly with me. KC drew the same number of fans in 2013 as 2012.

 

Fans come to see playoff teams or something resembling a playoff team, yes... But they don't come in droves to see a team finish six games out of the playoff picture just because that team was no longer awful.

 

There are many reasons to be in favor of KC's approach but that isn't one of them.

[whydidnt]

I think Terry Ryan, and some of the posters here tend to have "Loss Aversion Bias":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

 

This is where people prefer to avoid losses rather than attempt to make a gain. Ryan is pretty risk-adverse, and pulling the trigger on a deal for Tulowitzki was frought with potential losses. It's pretty easy to just focus on the potential downside and not consider the potential benefit. 

 

Water under the bridge at this point, but for me, if you have a chance to acquire one of the top players at his position without giving up one of your cornerstone building blocks, I'd do it every time. I prefer to look at what may be gained rather than what I'm losing. I'm weird that way, I guess.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think Terry Ryan, and some of the posters here tend to have "Loss Aversion Bias":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

 

This is where people prefer to avoid losses rather than attempt to make a gain. Ryan is pretty risk-adverse, and pulling the trigger on a deal for Tulowitzki was frought with potential losses. It's pretty easy to just focus on the potential downside and not consider the potential benefit. 

 

Water under the bridge at this point, but for me, if you have a chance to acquire one of the top players at his position without giving up one of your cornerstone building blocks, I'd do it every time. I prefer to look at what may be gained rather than what I'm losing. I'm weird that way, I guess.

 

I'm with you all the way. This team seems to be all about not losing, rather than about winning. I am pretty sure I wouldn't be a fan of this team if I wasn't raised here.......

[jimmer]

 

There's value in competing but the fan interest angle doesn't fly with me. KC drew the same number of fans in 2013 as 2012.

 

Fans come to see playoff teams or something resembling a playoff team, yes... But they don't come in droves to see a team finish six games out of the playoff picture just because that team was no longer awful.

 

There are many reasons to be in favor of KC's approach but that isn't one of them.

except we've seen time and time again that the team doesn't see the effects until the next season.  As fans are buying season tickets and thinking all offseason, 'hey we won 86 games last year, we may really be serious contenders next year.'

 

and there is fan interest past attendance too.

 

And, BTW, perhaps if they don't trade for Shields and Davis, they don't win 14 more games in 2013 and they are still sitting there waiting for 'the right time' to improve their ballclub.

Edited July 29, 2015 by jimmer

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

except we've seen time and time again that the team doesn't see the effects until the next season.  As fans are buying season tickets and thinking all offseason, 'hey we won 86 games last year, we may really be serious contenders next year.'

If KC wins 81 games (I'm giving Shields a whopping five games here), the same effect is in place. They're an exciting young team on the upswing with or without Shields (and given my opinion all along was to strike a big deal the offseason you start on the upswing, the overall effect is probably the same).

 

Anyway, I think this horse has been beaten enough times. It comes down to overall strategy and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to our approaches, just personal preference. I think the end result is similar either way.

 

Staying consistent with this approach, I'll be really disappointed if Ryan doesn't make significant moves this offseason. Now is the time.

[drjim]

 

I think Terry Ryan, and some of the posters here tend to have "Loss Aversion Bias":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

 

This is where people prefer to avoid losses rather than attempt to make a gain. Ryan is pretty risk-adverse, and pulling the trigger on a deal for Tulowitzki was frought with potential losses. It's pretty easy to just focus on the potential downside and not consider the potential benefit. 

 

Water under the bridge at this point, but for me, if you have a chance to acquire one of the top players at his position without giving up one of your cornerstone building blocks, I'd do it every time. I prefer to look at what may be gained rather than what I'm losing. I'm weird that way, I guess.

 

Probably not a radical position to think people weigh costs and benefits differently.

 

Plus it's much easier to be reckless in thought when there are no consequences.