Escobar

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This would be my first plan to shore up pitching. If you can't move Dozier, I'd consider the opposite: moving Gordon and Gonsalves/Romero for either an established MLB pitcher or someone on the verge of graduating to MLB. The latter would be more difficult, as a team that wants Gordon is unlikely to give up a pitching prospect.

 

That depends on how established/projectable said pitcher is.  Not sure I'd trade any of those guys for back of the rotation help, but a solid 3 with a few more years of control might make me willing to part with a guy like Gonsalves. 

 

Personally, I think the Twins should think hard about breaking the bank for an ace this offseason, which if that is the case means that I wouldn't give up much at all (sans a Dozier move or a cheap back of the rotation rental).

 

I'd also note that given the schedule for the rest of June, we should have a very clear picture as to whether we are buyers or sellers.  They have a brutal schedule coming up the next 3 weeks with very few off days.  If the team is going to collapse, this will be it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That depends on how established/projectable said pitcher is.  Not sure I'd trade any of those guys for back of the rotation help, but a solid 3 with a few more years of control might make me willing to part with a guy like Gonsalves.

That would be my target as well. I'd want a decent #3 in return for Gordon (likely a top 30 prospect in midseason rankings) and Gonsalves (a fringy 100-150 prospect).

[Shaitan]

One of this team's weaknesses is its bench. He's currently one of the best bench players (and he understands the role), which means trading him probably makes the team worse. Especially during a mid-season stretch without many days off.

 

[bird]

 

That would be my target as well. I'd want a decent #3 in return for Gordon (likely a top 30 prospect in midseason rankings) and Gonsalves (a fringy 100-150 prospect).

 

Isn't that a rather paltry return for two of your top 3 prospects going into the season when both are performing with such promise?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Isn't that a rather paltry return for two of your top 3 prospects going into the season when both are performing with such promise?

Not really. A pre-arb #3 pitcher is going to cost a lot. If that price is too steep for some, I get that.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Good points.

 

Though on the flip side, all of the above (other than the winning team aspect) could have been said about Nunez last year, and he netted us a guy in Mejia who certainly has promise as a SP and has shown some flashes (though has struggled his share as well)

 

Basically: you never know what the trade value of a guy is until you trade him.

 

All it takes is a contender to lose a 2B, 3B or SS

if you could repeat the Nunez deal, you do it every time. I don't think they can do it again, this time. However if Nunez plus a minor leaguer could move the needle for a solid rotation #3 piece with at least a season of contract left, do it.

 

Other than something that really improves arms, hold on to him, he does have a lot of value to the Twins

[bird]

The original question had to do more with Polanco versus Escobar and their playing time. But my take on the trade opportunity is that it's almost nonexistent if the goal is shoring the pitching up adequately enough to improve the postseason chances here in 2017. I have a hard time believing Escobar nets you a Mejia-like talent, and remember, Mejia didn't help the club in the year of the trade and is pitching like a #4-5 presently. 

 

One of the things I'm liking about the new regime is the apparent value they place on "makeup" and good clubhouse guys like Escobar and Giminez. When viewing Escobar's asset value, I'd say he's very valuable as is, as a near-term contributor to the goal of competing for the ALC or WC in 2017. I don't view him as an easily replaceable surplus piece at all.

[nicksaviking]

If people are looking for a move to help the team now, I actually might be more inclined to trade Polanco or Polanco+, unless he's lost all value. Gordon's knocking on the door anyway.

 

Polanco would be a long term asset, meaning a non-contender may be more interested in him. It's the non-contenders that tend to trade off established pitchers. Escobar is 28 and a free agent after one more season, he's the kind of guy you trade off to contenders for speculative pieces.

 

And I'm fine with speculative pieces, but I know lots of folks around here are wanting moves to help with this year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This would be my first plan to shore up pitching. If you can't move Dozier, I'd consider the opposite: moving Gordon and Gonsalves/Romero for either an established MLB pitcher or someone on the verge of graduating to MLB. The latter would be more difficult, as a team that wants Gordon is unlikely to give up a pitching prospect.

 

prospects aren't traded for prospects, so that's not happening.

 

If they deal Gordaon for less than 3 years of control, I'll start rooting for the FO to be fired. This team isn't that close.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

prospects aren't traded for prospects, so that's not happening.

 

If they deal Gordaon for less than 3 years of control, I'll start rooting for the FO to be fired. This team isn't that close.

Agreed. You need to net a pre-arb guy to give up Gordon.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The original question had to do more with Polanco versus Escobar and their playing time. But my take on the trade opportunity is that it's almost nonexistent if the goal is shoring the pitching up adequately enough to improve the postseason chances here in 2017. I have a hard time believing Escobar nets you a Mejia-like talent, and remember, Mejia didn't help the club in the year of the trade and is pitching like a #4-5 presently.

 

One of the things I'm liking about the new regime is the apparent value they place on "makeup" and good clubhouse guys like Escobar and Giminez. When viewing Escobar's asset value, I'd say he's very valuable as is, as a near-term contributor to the goal of competing for the ALC or WC in 2017. I don't view him as an easily replaceable surplus piece at all.

the pitching trade talk is very much related. The bench is not so thin as it is short.

 

i think the assumption with all of the trade talk of improving the rotation is being able to permanently drop to a 12 man pitching staff, adding another bat to the bench.

 

Escobar is extremely valuable to this team, and the only way I'd trade him is to improve the rotation. I would not trade him for a reliever as that would not necessarily give the flexibility to carry fewer relievers.

 

I would be on the trade market for at least one very solid setup man, but would not sacrifice major league talent to acquire.

[Darius]

As long as he's hitting this, no question he should keep starting.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with going with the hot hand. The guy performing should play. When you're in the hunt, it shouldn't be based on anything else.

 

There are days when you can get both in the lineup with DH, 3B, etc.