To trade or not to trade Plouffe this offseason.

[kab21]

 

I'm not interested in trading Plouffe if the return is minor league talent that might be useful in 2019.

Jeebus, can we ever worry about winning actual games now, instead of theoretical ones far off in someone's imagination?

Plouffe can be dealt, but if so, the return better be on the field, and producing, in 2016.

That will almost certainly have to be the first part of the trade.  those prospects can be important trade chips for something the Twins actually need.

 

It also depends on where the Twins can spend that 8-10M that he will make.

 

I would take Sano (3B) and Davis (DH) and good prospects over Plouffe (3B) and Sano (DH) and a little money.  Sano (3B), Vargas/Kepler/? (DH), Wieters © and prospects.  That sounds better also.

 

 

[Dman]

Like most posters I am fine if they trade or do not trade Plouffe.  To me the Plouffe scenario feels a lot like the Escobar scenario from earlier this year.  You have a player with trade value but the player is likely worth more to the Twins than to another team in trade.

 

We already have posts here talking about how easy it might be to replace his bat.  He appears to be league average at best at third base and his decline years are not far away.  I just don't see a lot of teams giving up much for him.  If a team were to trade I think it would be for younger further away prospects or maybe a relief arm with some control.  

 

If the Twins can get something worth while they should pull the trigger otherwise just hang onto him as he is a good fit for this team.

[dgwills]

When Plouffe started playing 3rd, the best thing we hoped for is that he would have trade value when Sano was ready. I actually happened! They should trade him and take the best deal they can get. Even if it's just for prospects.

 

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

We have no idea how good Sano is defensively at 3B. The way he is currently being handled is keeping us in the hunt and will again next season. If Arcia, Vargas, or even a committee prove they can outperform Plouffe offensively, then make a trade. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Catcher is broken. We've got tools to fix it in a trade.

[Jham]

I am fine with Sano DHing and getting some time at third with Plouffe going to first and Mauer to the bench.  At this point, we don't really have a DH that can outproduce Mauer, but that shouldn't be super hard to go get, even using internal options.  Our best line-up probably doesn't have Mauer in it if he's not catching next year.  Mauer came up as a 4 or 5 tool prospect at a premium position, but his best tool now may actually be his arm...  which he never uses at first...  

 

Hold on to Plouffe, trade Hicks, Kepler, Buxton or Rosario.

[USAFChief]

 

That will almost certainly have to be the first part of the trade.  those prospects can be important trade chips for something the Twins actually need.

 

It also depends on where the Twins can spend that 8-10M that he will make.

 

I would take Sano (3B) and Davis (DH) and good prospects over Plouffe (3B) and Sano (DH) and a little money.  Sano (3B), Vargas/Kepler/? (DH), Wieters © and prospects.  That sounds better also.

1.  The Twins aren't signing Chris Davis.  Let's be realistic.

 

2.  If they did sign Davis, they can still get something that will be on the field and producing in 2016 for Plouffe.  It's not one or the other.

 

3.  The Twins aren't siging Wieters.  Let's be realistic.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Let's get one thing straight - a DH would not have to "equal Plouffe." He would have to equal Plouffe's bat + the difference in Plouffe's 3B glove vs. Sano's. That is not any old .740 batter like Gerardo Parra and maybe not even a Chris Davis if he lays an egg which he is more than capable of doing.

Yeah, but (1) you have to also value whatever we get back in return for Plouffe, such as a catching upgrade and (2) you have to value what happens after Plouffe would likely be gone in 2018. Plouffe has two more years of team control and Sano has six. If Sano doesn't play 3B the next year or two, it may very well make it more difficult to move him there in 2018, (or if Sano still does move there in 2018, it will mean his defense there is mediocre in 2018 when we are more likely to be a contender versus mediocre next year when we are less likely to be a contender and then improving so that he is decent by 2018) thus losing the option of a DH for up to six years.  That is a lot of lost value.

[tobi0040]

 

Fear not, the Twins aren't going to trade Plouffe this offseason for prospects, this isn't 2003 anymore. If he's traded it will be for a SP or possibly a C.

 

I would not be shocked if he was dealt for a AA or AAA guy we thought would be ready next year.  Because very few teams have two good catchers.  The most likely scenario is finding a team with a good catcher and good guy on the cusp, then they move one.

[nicksaviking]

 

Let's get one thing straight - a DH would not have to "equal Plouffe." He would have to equal Plouffe's bat + the difference in Plouffe's 3B glove vs. Sano's. That is not any old .740 batter like Gerardo Parra and maybe not even a Chris Davis if he lays an egg which he is more than capable of doing.

 

Well there's also the less tangible benefit of having the option of not using a full-time DH but instead having much more flexibility to put guys in the lineup based on matchups.

[Willihammer]

Let’s get a second thing straight. You completely ignored the value of whatever we get in trade. Let’s assume we get fair or equal value back and you have ignored a very significant if not the most significant part of the equation. I presume you are failing to recognize this because you are only considered the immediate or short term. This is a flawed approach to managing assets and applying it limits the team long-term success. There is going to be a season after 2015 and another after 2016 and so on. I would rather be better for many years to come than a little better next year.

 

I am all for a strong farm but I see little to no downside in waiting. A trade will be there next July or winter. The extra year of control doesnt move the needle for a lot of teams. And if a trade isn't there then keeping Plouffe thru 2017 and taking the comp pick would be fine too. The Twins are in an enviable spot and should be patient IMO.

[David HK]

Yes, please.  Why wait til his value goes thru the floor, like we always seem to do?  Sano at 3B frees up DH spots for whichever of the young sluggers finally figures it out enough to be productive- and could provide the competitive spur for Arcia to finally knuckle down and get after it the right way.  Which in turn gets ol' Joe out of the 3 spot and down to the 6 or 7 where he belongs.

 

Heck of a guy, Poof, would wish him well anywhere but SSide Chicago.  But if the right deal with a C comes along, pull that trigger.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

My main point is that the prevailing wisdom that is constantly repeated around here is unobtainable.  Plouffe will almost certainly not be traded to make the 2016 team better or for a C or SS upgrade.  If you want to trade Plouffe to open up 3B for Sano then that is an argument.

 

Every offseason teams find ways to match up their needs and wants.  Sometimes it takes three team deals or another trade from a team, but things can change and circumstances can change.

 

He should be shopped for an area of weakness to help the 2016 team or to be blown out of the water in some fashion.  That's pretty much all my point is, keeping him around after this offseason is a serious hit on his trade value and pretty much guarantees he's either signed to a bad contract or let go for nothing.

[tobi0040]

 

Every offseason teams find ways to match up their needs and wants.  Sometimes it takes three team deals or another trade from a team, but things can change and circumstances can change.

 

He should be shopped for an area of weakness to help the 2016 team or to be blown out of the water in some fashion.  That's pretty much all my point is, keeping him around after this offseason is a serious hit on his trade value and pretty much guarantees he's either signed to a bad contract or let go for nothing.

 

His value goes down each year from here, no question.

[blindeke]

This is just like the AJ Pierzynski situation. Hopefully TR can get as good of a deal.

[DJSim22]

It's a tough decision, but it really comes down to this:

 

Would you rather have Plouffe's all around game and Sano's bat or Sano's all around game with Vargas's bat and whatever the return for Plouffe is. 

[Mike Sixel]

I don't believe in Vargas, and he has no positional flexibility like Plouffe. So it is almost impossible to answer without knowing the return.

[SwainZag]

 

It's a tough decision, but it really comes down to this:

 

Would you rather have Plouffe's all around game and Sano's bat or Sano's all around game with Vargas's bat and whatever the return for Plouffe is. 

 

You have to look beyond one year as well.  This offseason is probably when Plouffe's value will be the highest.  A full year of control left and a lot more options than at the deadline when it comes to potential suitors.  If you wait until the deadline they are going to have to hope the right situation comes along to make a deal, or potentially take less in return.

 

If they do hang on to all year, now you are looking at a multi year extension to a guy who just turned 30.  If they hang on to him they have a lot of time to ponder whether the step back in defense transitioning to Sano is worth getting a guy like Vargas/Arcia/Kepler in lineup to replace Plouffe's bat in the lineup.  If indeed one steps up, they missed out on acquiring assets for Plouffe in a trade, but having him next year would be a really nice failsafe if all 3 of the options above fail.  

 

Either way it's going to be easy decision, and based on time on this board, won't be a popular decision either way they go with it.

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't believe in Vargas, and he has no positional flexibility like Plouffe. So it is almost impossible to answer without knowing the return.

Mike,

 

If we are going to have a discussion of this nature, you have to assume that the trade is perceived to be assets of equal value.  If you don't make that assumption, there is absolutely no point in having a discussion of this nature.  There are people here who will argue about the timing of the return but that argument assumes the assets can't be traded for assets that perform sooner. 

 

The "only do it if the players contribute in 2016" assumes a win in 2016 is more important than the same number of wins for multiple years.  I don't know about you but if you offer me $200,000 in 2016 or nothing in 2016 but $200,000/yr for the five years after 2016, I will take the later.  

[USAFChief]

 

Mike,

 

If we are going to have a discussion of this nature, you have to assume that the trade is perceived to be assets of equal value.  If you don't make that assumption, there is absolutely no point in having a discussion of this nature.  There are people here who will argue about the timing of the return but that argument assumes the assets can't be traded for assets that perform sooner. 

 

The "only do it if the players contribute in 2016" assumes a win in 2016 is more important than the same number of wins for multiple years.  I don't know about you but if you offer me $200,000 in 2016 or nothing in 2016 but $200,000/yr for the five years after 2016, I will take the later.  

But that's not a fair representation of the options.

 

It's something in 2016, followed by the possibility of something in the five years after 2016,

 

or

 

nothing in 2016, followed by the possibility of something in the five years after 2016.

 

 

[Craig Arko]

But that's not a fair representation of the options.

 

It's something in 2016, followed by the possibility of something in the five years after 2016,

 

or

 

nothing in 2016, followed by the possibility of something in the five years after 2016.

Although perhaps not equally likely options.

[Major League Ready]

 

But that's not a fair representation of the options.

 

It's something in 2016, followed by the possibility of something in the five years after 2016,

 

or

 

nothing in 2016, followed by the possibility of something in the five years after 2016.

It’s only an unfair or flawed representation if the $200,000 is a best case scenario.  My firm generally constructs a best case, worse case and most likely scenario when substantial variability exists but it is extremely flawed decision process to assign no value because returns are in a later date and/or uncertain.  Best practices here would entail whatever methodology the Twins use to project their prospects and then an appropriate adjustment for risk but there is an inherent adjustment for risk already built into a mean projection.    Of course, I used dollars but we are really talking about wins and player projections are a common part of the sport.  There are countless business decisions made every day based on projections with great variability in potential outcomes.  The personnel decision here should be made on a reasonable (mean) projected value.

[nokomismod]

Sounding like a broken record here, but I'd rather the Twins trade Dozier over Plouffe, as I see it being easier to replace 2b defense over 3b defense within the current 40 man roster. Sano also needs to stay healhy and in the lineup and if he either becomes injured or struggles mightily at 3b, it could affect his MVP-esque bat.

 

I also think Plouffe projects as a better long term player than Dozier based on his ability to use all fields.

[nokomismod]

This is just like the AJ Pierzynski situation. Hopefully TR can get as good of a deal.

It's similar, but is anyone else concerned about Sano's defense or keeping him healthy for his bat? I wouldn't mind seeing Plouffe continue to play for the Twins with the Sano, Plouffe, Mauer (DH, 1B,3B) rotation that we have see this year.

[tobi0040]

 

Sounding like a broken record here, but I'd rather the Twins trade Dozier over Plouffe, as I see it being easier to replace 2b defense over 3b defense within the current 40 man roster. Sano also needs to stay healhy and in the lineup and if he either becomes injured or struggles mightily at 3b, it could affect his MVP-esque bat.

I also think Plouffe projects as a better long term player than Dozier based on hisability to use all fields.

 

 

BREF has Dozier as having a WAR of 8.5 last year and this year (so far).  Plouffe is at 4.9. .  We also have him another year than Plouffe.  

 

I think Sano at 3B makes Plouffe replaceable.  Granted you take a step back defensively, but Sano has a WAR of 2 in 50 games, which is .2 more than Plouffe.  The bat difference is worth more than the glove difference.

[USAFChief]

It’s only an unfair or flawed representation if the $200,000 is a best case scenario.  My firm generally constructs a best case, worse case and most likely scenario when substantial variability exists but it is extremely flawed decision process to assign no value because returns are in a later date and/or uncertain.  Best practices here would entail whatever methodology the Twins use to project their prospects and then an appropriate adjustment for risk but there is an inherent adjustment for risk already built into a mean projection.    Of course, I used dollars but we are really talking about wins and player projections are a common part of the sport.  There are countless business decisions made every day based on projections with great variability in potential outcomes.  The personnel decision here should be made on a reasonable (mean) projected value.

So the "$200k in each of the five years after 2016" isn't a sure thing after all?

 

That was your hypothetical, not mine.

 

To get back to something baseball related, I stand by my earlier opinion...if the Twins are going to trade one of their best assets this winter, they need to get something in return that will provide equal or greater value to the major league team starting on opening day in 2016.

 

I'm not at all interested in weakening the 2016 team for potential gain years down the road. Not to mention a player(s) who is on the field in 2016 can still be there in subsequent years.

[kab21]

 

1.  The Twins aren't signing Chris Davis.  Let's be realistic.

 

2.  If they did sign Davis, they can still get something that will be on the field and producing in 2016 for Plouffe.  It's not one or the other.

 

3.  The Twins aren't siging Wieters.  Let's be realistic.

 

The way you you get something that will be on the field and producing in 2016 is to trade for prospects and then flip those prospects and/or others for what you want (targeting all of the other teams instead of just a handful). 

 

If you aim for a MLB for MLB trade then almost for sure you will be compromising on the package value since the Twins only have a couple of need positions where very few teams have multiple good options at those positions and want a 29 yr old 3B.

 

Norris for Plouffe is one of the few where the value matches up reasonably close and both teams have a need/replacement available.

[tobi0040]

 

So the "$200k in each of the five years after 2016" isn't a sure thing after all?

That was your hypothetical, not mine.

To get back to something baseball related, I stand by my earlier opinion...if the Twins are going to trade one of their best assets this winter, they need to get something in return that will provide equal or greater value to the major league team starting on opening day in 2016.

I'm not at all interested in weakening the 2016 team for potential gain years down the road. Not to mention a player(s) who is on the field in 2016 can still be there in subsequent years.

 

I would be shocked if the Twins traded Plouffe and got prospects below AAA back.  After four 90 loss seasons and now being in the WC hunt, moving a 2-3 WAR player for young prospects would seem really foolish to me. 

 

 

[howieramone2]

Catcher is broken. We've got tools to fix it in a trade.

Suzuki is good enough to get us in the playoffs this year, and he will be good enough to get us into the playoffs next year. We do need to upgrade catcher sometime in the future, but no one is standing on the ledge.

[kab21]

 

I would be shocked if the Twins traded Plouffe and got prospects below AAA back.  After four 90 loss seasons and now being in the WC hunt, moving a 2-3 WAR player for young prospects would seem really foolish to me. 

that is exactly what the Twins did in the AJ trade except it was one year later in the recovery.  This is a little different because Mauer was completely blocked by AJ whereas Sano can play other positions but I don't see an uproar by fans since it will be obvious to most of them that sano is replacing Plouffe even if there is more to it than that.

[SwainZag]

 

I would be shocked if the Twins traded Plouffe and got prospects below AAA back.  After four 90 loss seasons and now being in the WC hunt, moving a 2-3 WAR player for young prospects would seem really foolish to me. 

 

I don't see what the 90 loss seasons have anything to do with trading Plouffe.  They would be trading him for 3 reasons 1) they have a better everyday option 2) he has current value and 3) he is going to require an expensive multi-year deal soon.

 

IF Sano is good enough to be your everyday 3B and either/or/platoon of Vargas/Arcia/Kepler/Mauer can put a respectable line at the DH slot......why are we NEEDING a MLB/AAA player?  Unless you can get a young catcher everyone wants, why not take the prospects, especially if it's a decent return?