Twins players potentially on the block

[drock2190]

In my mind, players that have a chance to be moved are as follows:

Trevor Plouffe - This is obvious as this would allow Sano to play the field and open up the DH spot. I think Molitor and the Twins would like flexibility to put other guys in that spot. Plouffe could play 1st but Joe Mauer isn't going anywhere so Plouffe gets traded.

Jorge Polanco - Doesn't have the arm for shortstop and profiles better as a 2nd baseman which is blocked right now, so he will dangled as trade bait.

Kyle Gibson - Rotation is crowded, he could be moved to help better the club in another area.

Tyler Duffey - Another player that could be traded. His value has continued to grow and if the Twins front office isn't convinced on his long term potential he could be moved. He's basically a two pitch pitcher so unless he develops a 3rd pitch, teams could catch up to him.

Aaron Hicks - Rebounded so he has some value now. Obviously, with the way Buxton has played so far, it would be unwise to just give him the keys to center field. A one year stopgate could be had in free agency and Hicks could be bait to get a catcher like Norris from San Diego.

Oswaldo Arcia - Would be a classic sell low move but its been known to happen in the past.

 

Did I miss any other players that could be moved? Keep in mind, all these players are assets right now. 

[Rosterman]

Suzuki has some value due to his iron-man work behind-the-plate and the cost of his contract. But then the Twins would have to move Mauer back to catcher.

[HitInAPinch]

While a fun year, the reality is they finished 12 games behind KC and were in the Wild Card race only because MLB created the 2nd WC spot for lowly teams like the Twins.

 

All but a few should be considered available.  But I always have the same question: 

Who would want/need them?

[HitInAPinch]

 

 

Suzuki has some value due to his iron-man work behind-the-plate and the cost of his contract. But then the Twins would have to move Mauer back to catcher.

...and that would never happen.  I wish he were still capable of doing it.  He was something special.

[ashbury]

At this stage of the rebuild, players should be traded because there is an oversupply at the position, not because they might be "sell-high" candidates.

[SweetOne69]

I agree that Plouffe and Arcia may be on the trading block, but definitely not Gibson, Duffy or Hicks.

 

We need to improve our pitching staff and Gibson and Duffy were arguably the 2 best pitchers behind Santana.  While I do agree they need to make room for guys like May and Berrios, I'd rather they try to deal Nolasco (even if the have to eat some salary) then part with Gibson or Duffy.

[drock2190]

I didn't include Nolasco because he has negative trade value and it's tough to move players like that. I wouldn't be surprised if he performs badly next season he will be released and the Twins will eat the last year of his contract.

 

As for Duffey and Gibson, it hurts but if it's for the good of the club, you pull the trigger. Lots of depth at starting pitching.

[Vanimal46]

I wouldn't make it known, but I think Rosario could be included in a trade that could bring back a young, promising C or SP in return. That is if the other team is not excited about Hicks. The scenario I'm thinking of is if Hicks could bring back a C+ to B level prospect in return, and Rosario could net a B to B+ prospect.. It's something I would consider

[Kwak]

Whatever trades the Twins make will be for major league players not "prospects".  They might trade a prospect or three, but they will be players they can use immediately.

[SweetOne69]

 

As for Duffey and Gibson, it hurts but if it's for the good of the club, you pull the trigger. Lots of depth at starting pitching.

 

That's what Detroit thought this year as well when the let Scherzer, Porcello, and Smyly go.

[DaveW]

 

That's what Detroit thought this year as well when the let Scherzer, Porcello, and Smyly go.

Porcello was absolutely terrible this year FWIW.

[Major League Ready]

 

Whatever trades the Twins make will be for major league players not "prospects".  They might trade a prospect or three, but they will be players they can use immediately.

So, if you were looking at investments and one paid $1M in 2016 and $0 in 2017 and the other projected to return $0 in 2016 but $2M in 2017, would you take the $1M in 2016.  That is an extremely poor investment strategy and this infatuation with immediacy of return is a very parochial strategy.   It severely limits the number of trade partners and the potential return.  Trade for the best return.  You can have greater flexibility and more assets to trade for exactly what you need.

[Thrylos]

This team is still some ways to go, and has a few fatal flaws:  Need to reinvent the pen, need quality vs quantity in the rotation and need some LH power bats and a catcher.

 

When you trade, you either have to sell high or get rid of someone with no or future in the team.  And I don't think that Mauer or Nolasco are tradable at this point.

 

Sell high candidates:  Plouffe, Dozier (he regressed big time this season both in OBP and running stats), Perkins (maybe), Jepsen, E. Santana, Milone, Gibson, Buxton.

 

Do not need candidates:  Any reliever who pitched more than 3 innings this season and is not named May, Pressly or Graham (he will go to AAA), D. Santana, Nunez, Suzuki.

 

This team should not have any untouchables other than Sano and maybe Polanco, everyone else should be available in the right trade.   I'd trade Buxton for a young MLB-ready top-rated catcher (eg. d'Arnaud or Swihart) or shortstop (e.g. Correa or Lindor) in a heartbeat, for example. 

 

 

[Willihammer]

I would definitely listen on  players 26-40 on the roster right now. Buxton, Kepler, Polanco, Santana, Tonkin (if they have any value), etc. for actual MLB players.

[Jham]

 

So, if you were looking at investments and one paid $1M in 2016 and $0 in 2017 and the other projected to return $0 in 2016 but $2M in 2017, would you take the $1M in 2016.  That is an extremely poor investment strategy and this infatuation with immediacy of return is a very parochial strategy.   It severely limits the number of trade partners and the potential return.  Trade for the best return.  You can have greater flexibility and more assets to trade for exactly what you need.

 

Of course, the infatuation with future return limits trade partners as well.  In order to be fair, your example should be $1M guaranteed in 2016 and $0 after vs. $0 in 2016 and a possibility of up to $2M after that.  There is some value in a known commodity.  Even if you feel you have multiple serviceable options, you might still pick the wrong one for half a season and cost your team.

I agree on maximizing your return.  I disagree that trading for immediate return is worse than trading for prospects or over-paying in FA.    Hasn't seemed to hurt the Yankees.  The Tigers gave up Smyly, Austin Jackson, and a utility infielder for Price, and still received 3 prospects back when they dealt him to the Jays.  

[USAFChief]

 

So, if you were looking at investments and one paid $1M in 2016 and $0 in 2017 and the other projected to return $0 in 2016 but $2M in 2017, would you take the $1M in 2016.  That is an extremely poor investment strategy and this infatuation with immediacy of return is a very parochial strategy.   It severely limits the number of trade partners and the potential return.  Trade for the best return.  You can have greater flexibility and more assets to trade for exactly what you need.

Do you also advise people to keep investing for their retirement right up to the day they die?

 

 

[Craig Arko]

Do you also advise people to keep investing for their retirement right up to the day they die?

That would make him an insurance company.

[Shaitan]

Only one bit of advice: never trade for need, never trade from surplus.

 

Only trade because it's smart.  

 

Depth is key.

[drock2190]

 

Only one bit of advice: never trade for need, never trade from surplus.

 

Only trade because it's smart.  

 

Depth is key.

 

So Twins never trade for a catcher because its a need?

 

I don't know man, doesn't seem too logical. I get the smart thing but I think you mean draft for need.

[sane]

 

So Twins never trade for a catcher because its a need?

 

The result would be to play nine players in fair territory and to let un-hit pitches roll to the backstop.

[Dr. Evil]

Work on the pen as priority number one.

[Dr. Evil]

This will be unpopular, Dozier to Nats for Ramos, start Polanco at 2b.

[Major League Ready]

 

Of course, the infatuation with future return limits trade partners as well.  In order to be fair, your example should be $1M guaranteed in 2016 and $0 after vs. $0 in 2016 and a possibility of up to $2M after that.  There is some value in a known commodity.  Even if you feel you have multiple serviceable options, you might still pick the wrong one for half a season and cost your team.

I agree on maximizing your return.  I disagree that trading for immediate return is worse than trading for prospects or over-paying in FA.    Hasn't seemed to hurt the Yankees.  The Tigers gave up Smyly, Austin Jackson, and a utility infielder for Price, and still received 3 prospects back when they dealt him to the Jays.  

For starters, this completely ignores the part where I said Trade for the best return and then trade the prospects to fill holes.  This provides more assets and more flexibility.  Of course, this premise is key to the entire strategy but these things get ignored here when it sounds like a strategy is not meant to maximize immediacy.   

 

Another problem is when MN fans thinking the Twins should run their team like the Yankees is part of the problem on TD.  The Yankees have twice the Twin’s revenue.  It makes zero sense to say the Twins should act like the Yankees.  As a matter of fact, they have to do things differently because there are several teams with much greater revenue than the twins.  Ask Billy Beane if he thinks a mid-market team should be run like a large market team.

 

There is also absolutely no presumption that trading “for immediate return is worse than trading for prospects or over-paying in FA”, at least not the trade part.  This presumption on your part is a product of ignoring the part about trading the prospects for what you need at the ML level.

 

Where over paying for FAs is concerned ... There are a number of people on TD who are really high on paying for big name free agents.  While I am not totally against this practice the realities (risk) for the Twins is far greater than for the Yankees.  Sure, we could have signed Ellsbury like a few people here were very insistent upon?  We would have 21.142M for the next 5 years plus a $5M buyout for a guy who played slightly above replacement level.   We could have $83M in Mauer / Ellsbury / Santana / Hughes and Nolasco through 2017 and $71M through 2018 minus Nolasco.  What do you suppose their combined war will be in 2017 & 2018?.   Would Rosario be here had they signed Ellsbury?

[Blackjack]

Hicks and Plouffe would be on the top of my list as possible Twins to trade, mainly because they both play positions where the Twins have a surplus.

 

Let Sano roll at third. Its too soon to make him a permanent DH and we know he's not going to play first base for a few years.

 

Outfield is trickier because all the notable suspects - Rosario, Buxton, Hicks, Kepler, Arcia - are young and could regress, or have yet to prove themselves.  I predict they'll start the season with Rosario, Hicks, Arcia in the outfield, Robinson in reserve, Buxton and Kepler at AAA.  By June Arcia will be gone - released - Robinson soon to follow, then you have a rotation of Rosario, Hicks, Buxton, Kepler, then you have exess to trade.  Just my opinion.

[Blackjack]

Also forgot to add, I don't care if they trade is made for a prospect or a 'major league ready player', just get the best players(s) you can, keep the pipeline stocked. If its players like Hicks or Plouffe that could help a contending team, I would think you'd be able to get multple teams interested and bidding. If you don't like whats offered, don't trade.

[nicksaviking]

 

This will be unpopular, Dozier to Nats for Ramos, start Polanco at 2b.

 

Probably not popular with the Nats either.  Even losing Ian Desmond, they still have lots of options for the middle infield and will need to find playing time for Anthony Rendon, Trea Turner, Yunel Escobar and Danny Espinosa.

 

I don't know that they have much in the way of catching depth to replace Ramos either.

[stringer bell]

I want to say that Hicks looked like a major leaguer this season. He made real progress. However, it leaves the club a bit thin in the power department if Hicks and Rosario are the corner OFs. That said, I think Hicks is the logical outfielder to trade. He's shown himself capable defensively for parts of three seasons (about a season and a half of playing time) and hit well enough last year to be a center fielder. He just turned 26, so he should get better, but his star isn't as bright of Buxton's. I don't think Hicks will ever hit enough to be a regular corner outfielder.

 

If the Twins are relatively sure that Buck will be what he's projected to be, trade Hicks this offseason.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I don't think Hicks should be on the block.  Buxton needs more AAA time and Rosario, like it or not, is still a regression candidate.  Ask me again next year on Hicks.  He takes another step forward and Buxton does the same, Hicks can not only be traded, but will net a far better return.  Heck, given how bad Hicks was the last two years, another season as a league average offensive CF with + defense would increase his value. 

[bluechipper]

 

I would definitely listen on  players 26-40 on the roster right now. Buxton, Kepler, Polanco, Santana, Tonkin (if they have any value), etc. for actual MLB players.

I don't understand how anyone can justify even throwing out the possibility of trading Buxton at this point. Unless you're getting a Trout, Harper, or Correa, I don't see how it's worth the risk of him turning into the greatest player of all time (slight exaggeration) for another team., 

[tobi0040]

 

I didn't include Nolasco because he has negative trade value and it's tough to move players like that.

 

I don't know about that. I have seen some really intriguing offers made here by Twins fans.

 

Sounds like we have our pick of who we want in return. It is a sellers market when you are holding Ricky Nolasco.