Trade Kyle Gibson

[Major League Ready]

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

Absolutely true but the more salient point here is not baseball vs other businesses but would any business cut $25M where there is a reasonable chance of salvaging the $25M. Perhaps you experience differs from mine but over the past 25 years I have worked with about 100 fortune 500 companies where this analysis was a significant portion of determining a strategy and the decision generally comes down to the financial implications of the alternatives. In other words, is the financial loss mitigated or even a net positive with a different direction which is not the case here.

 

The reason it does not happen is that the situations are generally very similar to this where there is a reasonable chance the player returns to form. Should that happen with Nolasco, I would think he would easy to trade at the deadline and the trade might even bring a decent prospect.

 

It would be a whole different scenario if Dave is correct that they could get 50-60% of his salary. That would be a reasonable business decision because there is a good possibility he fails and they get nothing. I advocated for this quite some time ago but other posters were sure the Twins would have to cover virtually all of his salary and they made good points as to why this was the case.

 

It really sucks that he has sucked. How nice would it be if he had performed at career norms and was a trade asset right now?

[lukeduke1980]

I wouldn't really worry about trading Gibson until you need to decide whether he's worth Mike Leake money - I would think he'll command a similar deal by the time he's a free agent.

[Linus]

When starting pitching is the most important ingredient for winning, why would you trade a youngish starter who is still improving and who you will control through his prime?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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.

The closest guy I can think of off-hand is Carl Pavano.

[tobi0040]

 

The closest guy I can think of off-hand is Carl Pavano.

 

But he had a career ERA+ around 90 when we signed him.  He was likely not going to be as good from 30-34.  But that is the free agent market. 

 

Gibson is a guy that helps us avoid going to that well again.  We basically have him under control through his prime.

 

That is the frustrating thing for me.  We can find an effective reliever for 3-20.   An effective starter is many times more expensive than that. So filling bullpen holes with guys that can be above average starters makes zero sense to me. 

Look at Mike Leake.  5 years and $80M.   Signed from 28-33.  Career ERA 3.88, FIP 4.21. ERA+ 101.  K per 9 is 6.1. 

[DaveW]

 

The closest guy I can think of off-hand is Carl Pavano.

Yeah, which is an interesting case in itself, he pitched exactly 145 innings in his 4 years as a Yankee, from 2006-2008 he pitched 45 innings.

 

Terrible "contract" no doubt, but since he was injured like 99% of the time those last 3 years it was just "wasted money" instead of "wasted money, and, oh yeah, this bum is also costing us wins left and right"

 

Which is why in another thread I half joked that I hoped that Nolasco would be named in the Al Jazeera report. The money we owe him is annoying, but it's not stopping us from signing other guys, it might be stopping us from signing some big named guys, but for now, that money is spent. What will upset me is if they give him a starting role and he looks like he did in 2014, so at that point, not only is it a complete waste of money, but he is actively hurting the team as well, sort of a worst case scenario thing.

So what I would like to see in order is:

1. Trade him, pick up 50-60% of the salary, hell if you can get a "real" prospect back, or ANY piece that can help in 2016, I would pick up 75%-80% At this point, the money is spent/owed, you might as well try to "get" something out of it.

 

2.If you can't trade him prior to ST, then let him know that he currently has a spot on the 25 man roster, however that spot is on the bullpen due to other guys passing him by. Give him starts in ST, and if he blows you away, looks good, puts up big numbers AND out pitches Milone, Duffey, Berrios, May then try to trade him ASAP! If not go ahead and give him starts in the regular season (but have a short leash) If he pitches OK in the regular season, then try to trade him as well! Basically keep trying to trade him until someone bites.

 

3. If he looks anywhere from (ok to meh to terrible) then slot him in the pen accordingly where he won't "hurt you" if he ends up pitching well eventually again, then maybe he makes his way back to the rotation when someone struggles/gets hurt. If not, you keep him in the pen and bite the bullet, keep trying to trade him, but if he sucks and is untradeable at least he isn't actively costing the club ball games.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But he had a career ERA+ around 90 when we signed him.  He was likely not going to be as good from 30-34.  But that is the free agent market. 

To be clear, I was speaking of Pavano's time with the Yankees, not the Twins. I think you're talking about Nolasco here but I'm not positive.

[Linus]

Yeah, which is an interesting case in itself, he pitched exactly 145 innings in his 4 years as a Yankee, from 2006-2008 he pitched 45 innings.

 

Terrible "contract" no doubt, but since he was injured like 99% of the time those last 3 years it was just "wasted money" instead of "wasted money, and, oh yeah, this bum is also costing us wins left and right"

 

Which is why in another thread I half joked that I hoped that Nolasco would be named in the Al Jazeera report. The money we owe him is annoying, but it's not stopping us from signing other guys, it might be stopping us from signing some big named guys, but for now, that money is spent. What will upset me is if they give him a starting role and he looks like he did in 2014, so at that point, not only is it a complete waste of money, but he is actively hurting the team as well, sort of a worst case scenario thing.

 

So what I would like to see in order is:

1. Trade him, pick up 50-60% of the salary, hell if you can get a "real" prospect back, or ANY piece that can help in 2016, I would pick up 75%-80% At this point, the money is spent/owed, you might as well try to "get" something out of it.

 

2.If you can't trade him prior to ST, then let him know that he currently has a spot on the 25 man roster, however that spot is on the bullpen due to other guys passing him by. Give him starts in ST, and if he blows you away, looks good, puts up big numbers AND out pitches Milone, Duffey, Berrios, May then try to trade him ASAP! If not go ahead and give him starts in the regular season (but have a short leash) If he pitches OK in the regular season, then try to trade him as well! Basically keep trying to trade him until someone bites.

 

3. If he looks anywhere from (ok to meh to terrible) then slot him in the pen accordingly where he won't "hurt you" if he ends up pitching well eventually again, then maybe he makes his way back to the rotation when someone struggles/gets hurt. If not, you keep him in the pen and bite the bullet, keep trying to trade him, but if he sucks and is untradeable at least he isn't actively costing the club ball games.

I take door number 3.

In fairness to the guy he's been hurt practically the whole time but we are done waiting around. Help us in the pen.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So what I would like to see in order is:

1. Trade him, pick up 50-60% of the salary, hell if you can get a "real" prospect back, or ANY piece that can help in 2016, I would pick up 75%-80% At this point, the money is spent/owed, you might as well try to "get" something out of it.

 

2.If you can't trade him prior to ST, then let him know that he currently has a spot on the 25 man roster, however that spot is on the bullpen due to other guys passing him by. Give him starts in ST, and if he blows you away, looks good, puts up big numbers AND out pitches Milone, Duffey, Berrios, May then try to trade him ASAP! If not go ahead and give him starts in the regular season (but have a short leash) If he pitches OK in the regular season, then try to trade him as well! Basically keep trying to trade him until someone bites.

 

3. If he looks anywhere from (ok to meh to terrible) then slot him in the pen accordingly where he won't "hurt you" if he ends up pitching well eventually again, then maybe he makes his way back to the rotation when someone struggles/gets hurt. If not, you keep him in the pen and bite the bullet, keep trying to trade him, but if he sucks and is untradeable at least he isn't actively costing the club ball games.

I mostly agree though I wouldn't tell him anything going into ST. I'd tell Hughes, Santana, and Gibson they have a spot and let the rest of them fight for the last two spots without anyone having a real advantage (all things being equal, I'd lean toward Nolasco in the pen, though).

 

(to be clear, ST results wouldn't be the only deciding factor... training, attitude, "stuff", etc would weigh more heavily)

[Major League Ready]

Nobody is trading Gibson for a couple relievers but what if it was a Shelby Miller type return.  Gibson is not worth quite as much as Miller but what if the return was slightly less than what the Braves got for Miller?

 

I don't know how you pass that up.  Everyone wants a big trade.  Well, you cant do that trading Brian Duensing.

[DaveW]

 

I mostly agree though I wouldn't tell him anything going into ST. I'd tell Hughes, Santana, and Gibson they have a spot and let the rest of them fight for the last two spots without anyone having a real advantage (all things being equal, I'd lean toward Nolasco in the pen, though).

 

(to be clear, ST results wouldn't be the only deciding factor... training, attitude, "stuff", etc would weigh more heavily)

The only thing I would tell him was he had a spot on the 25 man roster, now whether that spot is a mop up man or a starter is up to him, but he would HAVE to outpitch, perform etc several guys ahead of him if he wanted to start.

[Kwak]

Relief pitching isn't and wasn't the Twins #1 problem.  There are several candidates in the minors to be cycled through the twins in search of an improved bullpen.  Trading regulars for part-timers is foolish--especially for those teams that live on a budget!  The Twins all too frequently failed to "add on" to leads to finish-off opponents or at least make the bullpens task much easier.  The offense needs to step-up in these situations!  The other is the Twins aversion to starting pitching.  Clearly, the FO "crunched the numbers" and learned that starting pitchers cost more per inning than comparable relief pitchers.  This caused the "P2C" theory and the reliance on mediocre starters combined with an army of relief pitchers.  The bench is shorted, requiring "flexibility" at the cost of quality and the use of the excuse of "inadequate" relief pitchers.  The root cause is the belief in mediocrity at the start and the deleterious snowball effect through the rest of the Active Roster.  That problem can only be solved (without a change in philosophy) by exceptional performance by young, cost-controlled (cheap) players.  That philosophy is unsustainable--but for now, is possible if they (Sano, Park, Duffey, Buxton) live up to the fantasy projections established.  True, they might do so, but it's quite a long shot.  Wasting quality regular players like Gibson for bit players (relief pitchers) would make accomplishing that goal more difficult, not less difficult.  Therefore trading Gibson for relief pitching should be rejected--immediately!

[tobi0040]

 

To be clear, I was speaking of Pavano's time with the Yankees, not the Twins. I think you're talking about Nolasco here but I'm not positive.

 

I was speaking about Nolasco

[laloesch]

 

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 think Nolasco is a 50/50 at this point.  TR is trying to get rid of him and he was straight up horrible last season.  I think the rotation is Hughes, Santana, Gibson, Duffey and Milone (as much as I would like to see May get the nod over  him).  If the Twins can't find a taker for Nolasco he will come down with a mystery injury and be on the DL for most of the year and the Twins will unload him in 2017 or cut him.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

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

tough to prove this in the bullpen

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

Nobody is trading Gibson for a couple relievers but what if it was a Shelby Miller type return.  Gibson is not worth quite as much as Miller but what if the return was slightly less than what the Braves got for Miller?

 

I don't know how you pass that up.  Everyone wants a big trade.  Well, you cant do that trading Brian Duensing.

especially since he isn't currently on the roster

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I do agree with several posters that depth is critical to the Twins success, but the current roster construction problem is the 4/5 depth pitchers are on multi-year contracts. Which is why I get the idea of trading Gibson. It's just a little misguided. Don't trade for relief pitchers, sign them in FA or develop them.

 

I wouldn't trade Gibson unless I was knocked of my feet. The rotation needs to get younger and better and trading your youngest/best veteran starter doesn't help.

 

unless it is for a younger/betterer starter and brings with him one of Nolasco/Hughes to be offloaded, but that won't happen.

 

[nicksaviking]

 

I mostly agree though I wouldn't tell him anything going into ST. I'd tell Hughes, Santana, and Gibson they have a spot and let the rest of them fight for the last two spots without anyone having a real advantage (all things being equal, I'd lean toward Nolasco in the pen, though).

 

(to be clear, ST results wouldn't be the only deciding factor... training, attitude, "stuff", etc would weigh more heavily)

 

Telling Nolasco that he is most likely destined for the pen might be a cleaver way of getting his agent to do all the legwork on a trade. It seems to me action is more likely to happen if it's the player who initiates the trade. The Twins then also don't have to act like they want to get rid of him, only that they are accommodating the player's wishes.

[laloesch]

 

Telling Nolasco that he is most likely destined for the pen might be a cleaver way of getting his agent to do all the legwork on a trade. It seems to me action is more likely to happen if it's the player who initiates the trade. The Twins then also don't have to act like they want to get rid of him, only that they are accommodating the player's wishes.

 

That's an interesting point.

[tobi0040]

 

Telling Nolasco that he is most likely destined for the pen might be a cleaver way of getting his agent to do all the legwork on a trade. It seems to me action is more likely to happen if it's the player who initiates the trade. The Twins then also don't have to act like they want to get rid of him, only that they are accommodating the player's wishes.

 

Based on his results here and public statements I would not be shocked if his agent has called around already.  The issue is nobody wants him.

[tobi0040]

I wouldn't trade Gibson unless I was knocked of my feet. The rotation needs to get younger and better and trading your youngest/best veteran starter doesn't help

 

Yeah, I would have to be approached and knocked of my feet and with guys that help now.  Gibson is probably going to make $20-$25M over the next four years in pre-arb and arbitration.  He would probably fetch 5/60 or 5/75 on the open market right now.

 

So you have a guy that is a top 3 arm on your team and will save the Twins $40-$50M dollars in the process, with almost no downside risk unless we do something dumb like extend him.  I just don't see any reason to trade him.

[stringer bell]

 

Based on his results here and public statements I would not be shocked if his agent has called around already.  The issue is nobody wants him.

I would suspect that nobody wants Nolasco at the salary that he has now. The Twins have been historically reluctant to eat any salary. I doubt Ryan went to anyone and said "we'll give you Ricky Nolasco and 6 million dollars."

[tobi0040]

 

I would suspect that nobody wants Nolasco at the salary that he has now. The Twins have been historically reluctant to eat any salary. I doubt Ryan went to anyone and said "we'll give you Ricky Nolasco and 6 million dollars."

 

Terry Ryan would not waste his time on the phone with other teams thinking that someone would take Nolasco at his current salary.  It would be deliusional to think that could be accomplished.

 

Spycake has thrown out some comps of guys with similar or more upside than Nolasco that have received minor league deals in some cases, others 1 year with very little commitment.  If Ricky was a free agent I think he gets a 1 year deal at $5M, tops.

[James Richter]

 

I do agree with several posters that depth is critical to the Twins success, but the current roster construction problem is the 4/5 depth pitchers are on multi-year contracts. Which is why I get the idea of trading Gibson. It's just a little misguided. Don't trade for relief pitchers, sign them in FA or develop them.

 

I wouldn't trade Gibson unless I was knocked of my feet.

Good points. The premise of this thread is that a Gibson trade would open a rotation spot for higher-upside pitchers while bringing a better return than, say, dumping Nolasco. That could lead to more present and future value, but only if what they get back has at least much potential as 4 cost-controlled seasons of a 2.5 WAR starter. The Shelby Miller trade was insane - Gibson could maybe net half that package. But even half that package would be several times more than anyone would give for Nolasco right now.

[tobi0040]

 

Good points. The premise of this thread is that a Gibson trade would open a rotation spot for higher-upside pitchers while bringing a better return than, say, dumping Nolasco. That could lead to more present and future value, but only if what they get back has at least much potential as 4 cost-controlled seasons of a 2.5 WAR starter. The Shelby Miller trade was insane - Gibson could maybe net half that package. But even half that package would be several times more than anyone would give for Nolasco right now.

 

But you don't want to dump your second or third best starter to open up a spot for the guy with the most upside.  Ideally you dump your 5th or 6th best starter.  It goes without saying that you won't net the same return. 

[James Richter]

 

But you don't want to dump your second or third best starter to open up a spot for the guy with the most upside.  Ideally you dump your 5th or 6th best starter.  It goes without saying that you won't net the same return. 

Do you think Gibson is better than May? Duffey? Berrios? What about Hughes and Santana? I get what you're saying (you know I like your Opening Day rotation), but for me, Gibson is #4 at best in this group. To have a #4 that good is definitely valuable, especially in this winter's market. But maybe that means it's a good time to trade him - would his value ever be higher?

[Boom Boom]

But you don't want to dump your second or third best starter to open up a spot for the guy with the most upside. Ideally you dump your 5th or 6th best starter. It goes without saying that you won't net the same return.

If they can get rid of Nolasco, I say go right ahead and dump him.

 

Trading Gibson wouldn't be a dump. The idea is that it could be a win-win for the Twins and whoever takes him.

[Major League Ready]

 

I do agree with several posters that depth is critical to the Twins success, but the current roster construction problem is the 4/5 depth pitchers are on multi-year contracts. Which is why I get the idea of trading Gibson. It's just a little misguided. Don't trade for relief pitchers, sign them in FA or develop them.

 

I wouldn't trade Gibson unless I was knocked of my feet. The rotation needs to get younger and better and trading your youngest/best veteran starter doesn't help.

 

unless it is for a younger/betterer starter and brings with him one of Nolasco/Hughes to be offloaded, but that won't happen.

I thought he had 3 years of controlled but he has 4 years of control.  Count me on board with it would take a deal one heck of a deal.  The Miller deal might still be a stretch because I don't see another FO going nuts like AZ did for a SP that is not a true front of the rotation guy.

 

Would anyone not trade him for the package Atlanta got for Miller?  If Swanson were a little closer that would have been a great deal for us.  Inciarte would have been a good fit right out of the gate.  Hopefully, Buxton and Kepler reach their potential and we would have had an abundance e of outfielders in that scenario but sign me up for that problem.  Blair is MLB.com #61.  He probably profiles to be a touch better than Gibson.

 

That's the type of trade that could really help a team sustain a long successful run.

[tobi0040]

 

Do you think Gibson is better than May? Duffey? Berrios? What about Hughes and Santana? I get what you're saying (you know I like your Opening Day rotation), but for me, Gibson is #4 at best in this group. To have a #4 that good is definitely valuable, especially in this winter's market. But maybe that means it's a good time to trade him - would his value ever be higher?

 

Odds are 2-3 in that group at most end up better than Gibson. 

 

May - If given the innings I think he would put up better numbers than Gibson

 

Duffey - Came out of nowhere and had 10 good starts up here.  His numbers in those 56 innings here were better than his numbers in the minors.  His k per 9 jumped almost a full batter.  He would not be the first guy that had a handful of good starts and tailed off.  I am not saying he will but it would not surprise me in the least bit.

 

Berrios - I am very high on him, but prospects do fail sometimes.

 

Hughes - Was last year an abberation or the new norm?

 

Santana - He wasn't that good when he pitched last year.  For all I know he had help his whole career.

[DaveW]

Santana pitched pretty well down the stretch. He is the guy I am least concerned about.