Trade Kyle Gibson

[by jiminy]

I'm intrigued by the idea of trading Gibson, but not for relievers.

 

I think you're on the right track to focus on who other teams might actually want. Most trade speculation starts with people we wish weren't on the team. Why would other teams want those guys?

 

If you have two players with similar production, but one is highly priced (Nolasco, Hughes, Santana) or has low perceived upside (Milone), and the other is enticingly young and cheap, perhaps you trade the young, cheap one. That guy will bring back more talent.

 

The hope would be that the expensive or limited upside players will produce almost as much as the young guy, while the new players will significantly increase the over-all talent level. Dumping Nolasco or Milone to make room for young players already here doesn't upgrade the team's total talent (even if it did upgrade the rotation by making room for Berrios, May, or Duffey).

 

This way of thinking feels backward to me -- I've always felt like you build around young, cheap players, especially starting pitching. But Billy Beane always does it the other way, asking, Who are the guys on my team that other teams really, really want?  Badly enough to give up real prospects for? 

 

If someone is at peak value, no matter who they are, perhaps that is the guy to trade.  It just depends what you think of Gibson.  Was last year a showcase year?  Or can he bring it up another whole level? 

 

Either way, though, the talent I would seek in return is not relievers, unless they are truly elite. Very good relievers can be had for two or three year contracts. Keep your talent and spend some money.  It's not like signing a hundred million dollar starter.

 

If someone offers a young catcher with all-star upside, though, then trade Gibson.

 

Same with Rosario, another guy who had a showcase year but may never be worth more. Package those two and you could really upgrade the team, without a precipitous decline in the outfield or the starting rotation.

[jun]

 

I would consider trading Gibson for an upgrade at SS...

Absolutely no. Escobar is fine at SS. No need for upgrade.

[Boom Boom]

The Twins have historically not traded high. That's what trading Gibson amounts to. If you go out on the market and ask what you can get for iffy prospects and major leaguers you no longer have use for, you won't get much. Gibson might be an attractive target for another team. More attractive than Santana and Hughes with their contracts.

 

I don't know what you could get for Gibson. The idea of bullpen help was to allow May to continue to start. If you want May in the bullpen, aren't you effectively trading a starter for a reliever?

[Vanimal46]

Hard pass on trading Gibson, unless the offer is too good to pass up. And unfortunately Arizona doesn't have much left to trade from their farm.....

[tobi0040]

 

Why on earth would you want to even waste 6-8 starts on Nolasco if he hasn't "earned" them? Those 6-8 starts could sink the team come "stretch time" (assuming the Twins want to aim for the playoffs in 2016 of course)

Stick him in the pen, if he by some miracle starts contributing, then you think about giving him a shot at the rotation, but off the bat? No way, he is behind: Santana, Gibson, Hughes, Duffey, Milone, May, Berrios for guys who should be getting looks as a SP these days.

 

He is my mop up guy or starting in AAA.  If he is healthy AND productive and a guy goes down give him a look. 

[James Richter]

 

If you have two players with similar production, but one is highly priced (Nolasco, Hughes, Santana) or has low perceived upside (Milone), and the other is enticingly young and cheap, perhaps you trade the young, cheap one. That guy will bring back more talent.

 

The hope would be that the expensive or limited upside players will produce almost as much as the young guy, while the new players will significantly increase the over-all talent level.

This is a really good point. But can we expect similar production from the other starters? At the moment, Fangraphs does. Here are their projections for Twins starters, normalized for WAR/100 IP*:

 

Hughes (1.0), Santana (1.0), Gibson (1.2), Nolasco (1.1), Milone (1.0), Duffey (1.2), Berrios (1.4), May (1.5), Meyer (1.3), Rogers (1.0)

 

*Very small projected innings from May, Meyer and Rogers, so I rounded down for them to be on the conservative side.

 

Gibson is projected to be better than the other incumbents, but replacing him with Duffey, Berrios, May, or the pre-2015 Alex Meyer is a likely upgrade to the rotation, while still leaving a couple of good depth options at Rochester. And the return for Gibson would almost certainly be better than what the Twins could get for Milone or Nolasco. More value on 2016 Opening Day, more value for the future... That's what we're after, right?

 

[Major League Ready]

 

Why on earth would you want to even waste 6-8 starts on Nolasco if he hasn't "earned" them? Those 6-8 starts could sink the team come "stretch time" (assuming the Twins want to aim for the playoffs in 2016 of course)

Stick him in the pen, if he by some miracle starts contributing, then you think about giving him a shot at the rotation, but off the bat? No way, he is behind: Santana, Gibson, Hughes, Duffey, Milone, May, Berrios for guys who should be getting looks as a SP these days.

Because the Minnesota Twins are business.  Anyone who absolutely refuses to acknowledge this fact will continue to be disappointed.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Why on earth would you want to even waste 6-8 starts on Nolasco if he hasn't "earned" them? Those 6-8 starts could sink the team come "stretch time" (assuming the Twins want to aim for the playoffs in 2016 of course)

Stick him in the pen, if he by some miracle starts contributing, then you think about giving him a shot at the rotation, but off the bat? No way, he is behind: Santana, Gibson, Hughes, Duffey, Milone, May, Berrios for guys who should be getting looks as a SP these days.

It's way too early to make a decision about who starts versus who relieves but yeah, Nolasco should be on the outside looking in at this point.

 

If he looks fantastic in ST, maybe you give him a shot at the rotation but paycheck and seniority should not be a big factor.

[kellyvance]

The Twins need young pitching to take the place of Santana and Hughes when their contracts are up. Gibson is one of those guys and he is a decent starter NOW. We have power arms in the minors and I think Burdi and Reed are almost ready. 

 

I would try to move Vargas and Arcia, who is perfect for Yankee Stadium

[tobi0040]

 

This is a really good point. But can we expect similar production from the other starters? At the moment, Fangraphs does. Here are their projections for Twins starters, normalized for WAR/100 IP*:

 

Hughes (1.0), Santana (1.0), Gibson (1.2), Nolasco (1.1), Milone (1.0), Duffey (1.2), Berrios (1.4), May (1.5), Meyer (1.3), Rogers (1.0)

 

*Very small projected innings from May, Meyer and Rogers, so I rounded down for them to be on the conservative side.

 

Gibson is projected to be better than the other incumbents, but replacing him with Duffey, Berrios, May, or the pre-2015 Alex Meyer is a likely upgrade to the rotation, while still leaving a couple of good depth options at Rochester. And the return for Gibson would almost certainly be better than what the Twins could get for Milone or Nolasco. More value on 2016 Opening Day, more value for the future... That's what we're after, right?

 

What these numbers tell me is that May is our best pitcher.  200 IP nets you 3 WAR.  60 nets you about 1.

 

I think the Twins need to build a rotation around Gibson, May, Berrios, and Duffey is he pitches like last year.  That gives you the best rotation and payroll flexibility as an added bonus.

 

My April 1 rotation is Hughes, Santana, May, Duffey, and Gibson.

 

Milone is moved for a reliever.  Nolasco is in Rochester and I ask him to prove me wrong.  Berrios is in AAA to start.

[Boom Boom]

The Twins need young pitching to take the place of Santana and Hughes when their contracts are up. Gibson is one of those guys and he is a decent starter NOW. We have power arms in the minors and I think Burdi and Reed are almost ready.

 

I would try to move Vargas and Arcia, who is perfect for Yankee Stadium

The Yankees wouldn't trade anything for Vargas or Arcia. Arcia is out of options which Nerfs the Twins' bargaining power, and just recently there was talk that the Twins might trade Vargas to a Korean team for nothing but money.

[by jiminy]

 

What these numbers tell me is that May is our best pitcher.  200 IP nets you 3 WAR.  60 nets you about 1.

 

I think the Twins need to build a rotation around Gibson, May, Berrios, and Duffey is he pitches like last year.  That gives you the best rotation and payroll flexibility as an added bonus.

 

My April 1 rotation is Hughes, Santana, May, Duffey, and Gibson.

 

Milone is moved for a reliever.  Nolasco is in Rochester and I ask him to prove me wrong.  Berrios is in AAA to start.

 

May still has to prove he can make it three times through the batting order. His late-inning numbers are alarming.

 

[James Richter]

 

 

My April 1 rotation is Hughes, Santana, May, Duffey, and Gibson.

 

I would pretty happy if that were the case. For me, getting Nolasco and Milone out of the rotation in a way that maximizes future value is the major puzzle that TR has to solve over the next 3 months.

[tobi0040]

 

May still has to prove he can make it three times through the batting order. His late-inning numbers are alarming.

 

True, but of the guys that will likely start in the rotation, May isn't the only one that has a few things to prove. It's all relative.  Duffey has to prove he is not a fluke.  Hughes has to prove he has velocity.  Ervin that his past numbers weren't inflated by PED's, etc.

 

 I just get frustrated when we hand guys like Pelfrey or Nolasco, who have the most to prove the reps to prove it. 

 

 

[Brandon Warne]

This was the boat I was in until I dug in further. 

 

But here's why you don't trade him: 

 

1. Not many miles on his arm, especially for his age. He's older than Madison Bumgarner by 2 years, yet has thrown fewer than half as many innings.

 

2. His slider-changeup-sinker repertoire continues to evolve to the point where one more adjustment could make him a legitimate solid No. 2 in the league.

 

3. The Twins own his rights until after he turns 32 (through age-31 season). That's pretty much his prime, cost-controlled.

 3a. Take a look at what mid-rotation guys cost on the free agent market/otherwise (Porcello, Leake)

[gocgo]

 

The rotation out of ST, barring a trade, injury, or another suspension, will be Hughes, Santana, Gibson, Milone, and Nolasco. If you think it won't, I've got some ocean front property you might be interested in.

Assuming the Twins are dead serious about not trading Plouffe, then trading Gibson for relievers could keep May as a starter and open up a spot for him or Duffey. I believe that either of those guys could be a better SP than Gibson, but your results may vary.

I would love to argue that Nolasco won't be in the starting rotation, but I can't.  Money talks and we are paying him a lot of money.  Even if he gets belted around in ST and Berrios, Duffey, or anyone else is untouchable, Nolasco will still get every opportunity to fail at a major league level.

[Monkeypaws]

You gotta remember the Twins went shopping for Nolasco not all that long ago: he has also had injuries.

 

To think they will just punt on him without giving him  a full shot is not likely to happen. He has some believers in the organization, or they never would have given him a then record contract.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I am sure you are right that the Twins or just about any other team would not just write of the $115M dues to Santana/Hughes and Nolasco so the options are somewhat limited.  However, I would think Duffey has at least as good a chance as Milone.  Hopefully, they give Nolasco a dozen starts to prove himself and then move him to the pen or cut him if he performs on par with 2014-15.

 

Because the Minnesota Twins are business.  Anyone who absolutely refuses to acknowledge this fact will continue to be disappointed.

 

Why is it perfectly reasonable to give Nolasco a dozen more starts before cutting him, but it's unreasonable and disingenuous for anyone to suggest giving Nolasco just a handful of starts before cutting him? 

 

[tobi0040]

 

You gotta remember the Twins went shopping for Nolasco not all that long ago: he has also had injuries.

 

To think they will just punt on him without giving him  a full shot is not likely to happen. He has some believers in the organization, or they never would have given him a then record contract.

 

I think we need to discuss the definition of "full shot". 

 

He has been given two years, 36 starts across 200 IP at a 5.38 and 6.75 ERA. 

 

He has fit the definition of scholarship that last two years and has been killing this team.

[jorgenswest]

The Yankees wouldn't trade anything for Vargas or Arcia. Arcia is out of options which Nerfs the Twins' bargaining power, and just recently there was talk that the Twins might trade Vargas to a Korean team for nothing but money.

Yet they both project to provide a better OPS than Mauer.

 

Back to Gibson...

 

I think the Twins will regret trading off their younger starters when injuries or decline hit Santana and Nolasco and they are calling up Pat Dean for a start. Keep Gibson unless a trade nets a good starting pitching prospect.

[Major League Ready]

 

Why is it perfectly reasonable to give Nolasco a dozen more starts before cutting him, but it's unreasonable and disingenuous for anyone to suggest giving Nolasco just a handful of starts before cutting him? 

The 2nd quote (That The Twins are a business) was in direct response the following post from Dave W.

Why on earth would you want to even waste 6-8 starts on Nolasco if he hasn't "earned" them? Those 6-8 starts could sink the team come "stretch time" (assuming the Twins want to aim for the playoffs in 2016 of course)

 

Someone else responded to my suggestion of a dozen starts by stating they would use a “shorter leash” and I did not respond to that opinion.  Actually, the right number of starts by which to base an opinion is very debatable and I have no problem with a shorter leash if he is not showing well.  I probably should have said 6-12 depending on circumstances.  The point being I am obviously on-board with dumping Nolasco if he does not rebound, I just don’t expect any organization to just dump $25M when there is a reasonable chance to salvage some value.

 

You quoted my response to Dave but omitted the quote from Dave that very clearly +states Nolasco should be given no opportunity.  You then very specifically link my response to the post where adorduan suggested he only be given 6-8 starts which is a very different premise.  I am going to give you the benefit of doubt that you did not purposefully omit the actual post to which I was responding and then completely misrepresent my statements.  However, I would appreciate you tie my quotes to the correct statements/posts if you are going to quote me.

[TheLeviathan]

I just don’t expect any organization to just dump $25M when there is a reasonable chance to salvage some value.

Businesses do this all the time, but it is uncommon in baseball.

[DaveW]

It's way too early to make a decision about who starts versus who relieves but yeah, Nolasco should be on the outside looking in at this point.

 

If he looks fantastic in ST, maybe you give him a shot at the rotation but paycheck and seniority should not be a big factor.

Exactly, he needs to EARN any real "starts" or even "innings" at this point, which IMO means he needs to not only meet, but outperform the Duffeys, Berrios, May's, milones and even the Meyers of the world in spring training.

 

I'm not saying cut him (though I think that would be a good plan) but stick him in mop up until he earns his way back into some real innings. If you get a few months into the season and he still sucks, then you finally cut bait. If he has a 5+ ERA and is still on this roster in June I imagine everyone will be furious.

 

If he doesn't put up some very good numbers in ST (sub 3.75 era minimum) then he should not be considered for a starting rotation spot to start the season at all.

[DaveW]

Businesses do this all the time, but it is uncommon in baseball.

I still think that even now the Twins could find a taker for Nolasco if they picked up 50-60% of the salary. Bite the bullet, ship him back to Miami and eat 50% of the rest of the contract. Open up a 25 man spot for any number of young pitchers or potentially a bench spot for one of our position players out of options.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I just don’t expect any organization to just dump $25M when there is a reasonable chance to salvage some value.

 

I agree. However, if they give Nolasco your dozen starts and then cut him, that's still roughly $7.5m + $12m = $20 million in salary they are dumping. Not much of a difference in dollars, really, and not counting the benefit of getting those roster spots back. 

 

Or, to put it another way.......welcome to free agency, Mr. Pohlad. Some guys just don't work out. 

[DaveW]

I agree. However, if they give Nolasco your dozen starts and then cut him, that's still roughly $7.5m + $12m = $20 million in salary they are dumping. Not much of a difference in dollars, really, and not counting the benefit of getting those roster spots back.

 

Or, to put it another way.......welcome to free agency, Mr. Pohlad. Some guys just don't work out.

Also important is getting those starts back, imagine if the twins go 4-8 during those twelve starts, and then miss a playoff spot by a couple games.... But I agree with the roster spot as well, would hate to give up a Santana or Arcia because we had to make room for Nolasco and continue to make room for him on roster.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I still think that even now the Twins could find a taker for Nolasco if they picked up 50-60% of the salary. Bite the bullet, ship him back to Miami and eat 50% of the rest of the contract. Open up a 25 man spot for any number of young pitchers or potentially a bench spot for one of our position players out of options.

 

Trade with cash, yes.  Cut....no.

[DaveW]

Trade with cash, yes. Cut....no.

That's what I was saying. Though it he continues to suck this year, you have to think about cutting him eventually, no?

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's what I was saying. Though it he continues to suck this year, you have to think about cutting him eventually, no?

 

I'm not saying it's a good or bad move, just that "cutting" like that doesn't happen in baseball.  It would be extremely unusual.

 

But I agree, at this point I don't see how it's a bad thing to dump him with cash just to open a roster spot.

[DaveW]

I'm not saying it's a good or bad move, just that "cutting" like that doesn't happen in baseball. It would be extremely unusual.

 

But I agree, at this point I don't see how it's a bad thing to dump him with cash just to open a roster spot.

Agreed, doesn't happen much, but I can't recall a free agent who has performed as poorly as Nolasco. Not the same thing, but this is Nishioka level bad/ineffectiveness!

 

Like you said though, toss in cash and trade him.