Article: BREAKING: Twins Acquire Garcia From Braves

[KirbyDome89]

 

Everybody? I don't recall ever having said that ...

Pat yourself on the back then. 

 

There was an entire thread devoted to earlier in the season. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I like the Garcia for Ynoa straight up. The Recker portion, not so much. That cost us Haley. Recker must have negative trade value- I mean the Braves tossed in $100k. So we probably had to take him off of the Braves in order to talk them down from different prospect they were set on, but we weren't willing to let go.

 

People have been complaining all season about the space Haley is taking up on the roster given his inability to be a useful RP option. I suspect he was headed back to Boston regardless, so I'm not sure Recker cost us Haley. The Twins wanted Busenitz up instead, and that I'm fine with...

 

Personally, this tells me that Giminez's time with the Twins is coming to an end, whether he's being traded for a lotto ticket himself or simply released for Garver, I think the Twins are ready to give Garver his shot and need an acceptable backup in case he fails.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

People have been complaining all season about the space Haley is taking up on the roster given his inability to be a useful RP option. I suspect he was headed back to Boston regardless, so I'm not sure Recker cost us Haley. The Twins wanted Busenitz up instead, and that I'm fine with...

 

Personally, this tells me that Giminez's time with the Twins is coming to an end, whether he's being traded for a lotto ticket himself or simply released for Garver, I think the Twins are ready to give Garver his shot and need an acceptable backup in case he fails.

That's how I'm reading the tea leaves as well.

 

And I'm not being snarky here but it always fascinates me how people seem to get upset every time the Twins release a mediocre player.

 

Honestly, why does anyone really care about Haley? He was on the DL for a couple of months and was a marginal talent in the first place.

 

If anything, I'm in favor of the Twins releasing more players of his ilk (which they've been doing more, though I wish it had started a month ago).

[cmoss84]

No the issue is that the Twins have a -66 run differential this season meaning teams have outscored them by 66 runs this season.  I don't know about you but when I go gambling, I like to go  in knowing what my chances are of actually winning.  The Twins need to be thinking the same way too. They have a 10.6% chance of making the playoffs as one of the two wildcard teams and a 2.6% chance of winning the division.  

 

Want to know the other teams with a worse run differential than the Twins? Orioles (-71), Athletics (-72), Phils (-77), Reds (-80), Blue Jays  (-90), Giants  (-114), Padres (-132).  Not exactly good company.

Are you really worried about run differential? I'm sure there have been plenty of teams that have snuck in the playoffs with bad run differentials. If you get in, you get in. Does not matter how. Wins are the only thing that matter right now. I guess everyone has their own gambling tactics...to me, being within close reach at the end of July means time to throw in some chips. An evaluation has to be made about how many.

It seems like a lot of good teams have been vulnerable this year (minus Hou). A ten percent chance of making it might be as high as it's going to be for a while.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Are you really worried about run differential? I'm sure there have been plenty of teams that have snuck in the playoffs with bad run differentials. If you get in, you get in. Does not matter how. Wins are the only thing that matter right now. I guess everyone has their own gambling tactics...to me, being within close reach at the end of July means time to throw in some chips. An evaluation has to be made about how many.
It seems like a lot of good teams have been vulnerable this year (minus Hou). A ten percent chance of making it might be as high as it's going to be for a while.

By no means is run differential the be all end all but it sure is a great predictor of even making the playoffs, Twins are at -66 the Indians are at +85.  Anytime you can score more runs than what you give up to your opponent is a good thing. In the past five years, there is only one team that has had a negative run differential that has made the playoffs.  That team being the 2016 Texas Rangers who overshot their Pythagorean record by a record of +13 meaning they got lucky very very lucky as no team in the past 40 years has a +13 PythaLuck score or higher. Right now the Twins are +6 on their PythaLuck score while the Indians are -5 on the Luck score.

 

Just stating the obvious that at this point the Twins are just tilting at windmills.

 

2016 

Cubs +270 WS Winner

Indians  +113 WS

Blue Jays  +104 ALCS

Dodgers  +68 NLCS

Rangers  -4  ALDS

Red Sox  +176 ALDS

Giants  +83 NLDS

Nationals  +156 NLDS

Orioles  +26 Wildcard 

Mets  +51 Wildcard

 

2015

Cubs  +81 NLDS

Pirates +101 Wildcard

Yankees   +66 Wildcard

Mets  +70  WS 

Dodgers  +72 NLDS

Astros   +111 ALCS

Cardinals   +122 NLDS

Rangers  +18 ALDS

Blue Jays  +221 ALCS

Royals  + 83  WS Winner

 

 

 

2014
Athletics, +157 -- Wild Card
Angels, +143 -- Division Series
Nationals, +131 -- Division Series
Orioles, +112 -- League Championship Series
Dodgers, +101 -- Division Series
Tigers, + 52 -- Division Series
Pirates, + 51 -- Wild Card
Giants, + 51 -- WON WORLD SERIES
Royals, + 27 -- World Series
Cardinals, + 16 -- League Championship Series

 

2013
Red Sox, +197 -- WON WORLD SERIES
Cardinals, +187 -- World Series
Tigers, +172 -- League Championship Series
Athletics, +142-- Division Series
Braves, +140-- Division Series
Reds, +109 -- Wild Card
Indians, + 83 -- Wild Card
Dodgers, + 67 -- League Championship Series
Pirates, + 57 -- Division Series
Rays, + 54 -- Division Series

 

2012
Nationals, +137 -- Division Series
Yankees, +136 -- League Championship Series
Cardinals, +117 -- League Championship Series
Rangers, +101 -- Wild Card
Braves, +100 -- Wild Card
Athletics, + 99 -- Division Series
Reds, + 81 -- Division Series
Giants, + 69 -- WON WORLD SERIES
Tigers, + 56 -- World Series
Orioles, + 7 -- Division Series

And here's how the run differential leader fared in the decade prior to that:

2011 Yankees, +210 -- Division Series
2010 Yankees, +166 -- League Championship Series
2009 Yankees, +190 -- WON WORLD SERIES
2008 Cubs, +170 -- Division Series
2007 Red Sox, +206 -- WON WORLD SERIES
2006 Yankees, +163 -- Division Series
2005 Cardinals, +171 -- League Championship Series
2004 Cardinals, +196 -- World Series
2003 Braves, +167 -- Division Series
2002 Angels, +207 -- WON WORLD SERIES

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

you forgot the 87 Twins

[Bob Sacamento]

 

you forgot the 87 Twins

Before last year's 2016 Rangers, there were only four teams with a negative run differential to ever make the playoffs and yes the 1987 Twins are the only team with a negative run differential to ever win it all:

 

2007 Arizona Diamondbacks
Record: 90-72

Run Differential: -22

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Lost in NLCS

 

1997 San Francisco Giants
Record: 90-72

Run Differential: -9

Pythagorean W-L: 80-82

Finish: Lost in NLDS

 

 

1987 Minnesota Twins
Record: 85-77

Run Differential: -20

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Won World Series

 

1984 Kansas City Royals
Record: 84-78

Run Differential: -13

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Lost in ALCS

[Mike Sixel]

 

Before last year's 2016 Rangers, there were only four teams with a negative run differential to ever make the playoffs and yes the 1987 Twins are the only team with a negative run differential to ever win it all:

 

..................

 

1984 Kansas City Royals
Record: 84-78

Run Differential: -13

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Lost in ALCS

 

Not sure why you are trying, good sir. IME, fans don't much care about odds and probabilities. 

[whydidnt]

 

Before last year's 2016 Rangers, there were only four teams with a negative run differential to ever make the playoffs and yes the 1987 Twins are the only team with a negative run differential to ever win it all:

 

Yep run differential isn't always great at identifying a teams current record (the wins in the bank still count). But, it is a useful predictor of future records. The  thing that strikes me isn't just that this years Twins are negative, but by how far negative they are. Just seems like we are really going to be rowing upstream the rest of the season. 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Before last year's 2016 Rangers, there were only four teams with a negative run differential to ever make the playoffs and yes the 1987 Twins are the only team with a negative run differential to ever win it all:

 

2007 Arizona Diamondbacks
Record: 90-72

Run Differential: -22

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Lost in NLCS

 

1997 San Francisco Giants
Record: 90-72

Run Differential: -9

Pythagorean W-L: 80-82

Finish: Lost in NLDS

 

 

1987 Minnesota Twins
Record: 85-77

Run Differential: -20

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Won World Series

 

1984 Kansas City Royals
Record: 84-78

Run Differential: -13

Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

Finish: Lost in ALCS

 

BTW Bob, I was giving you some crap, but I really really really do appreciate your contributions to this site... 

 

I tend to agree in that I don't think we should be significant buyers, but it can happen.  If they cannot find some SP help that can stick around for a while in the next week, I really do hope they are willing to open the checkbook for 2018. No offence to Garcia, but he's a 'stop the bleeding' type pickup. Given that this team has about 20 MLBers on it's 25 man roster (OK, 21 now), that might actually help with the playoffs by taking pressure off the pen and giving us a decent option every 5th day. It's not a long term answer though, and given how the hitting core is progressing, I hope they aim high this offseason.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Not sure why you are trying, good sir. IME, fans don't much care about odds and probabilities. 

Tempered expectations is what I'm going for, the team has been extremely lucky to this point and the Indians have been extremely unlucky, but law of averages evens out over a large enough sample size which does not bode well for Twins Nation.  

 

But yeah well the good thing is the front office cares very much about odds and probabilities thus not likely mortgaging the future of 2018/2019/2020 for sliver of possibility in 2017.  Gladly the fans are not running the organization.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Tempered expectations is what I'm going for, the team has been extremely lucky to this point and the Indians have been extremely unlucky, but law of averages evens out over a large enough sample size which does not bode well for Twins Nation.  

 

But yeah well the good thing is the front office cares very much about odds and probabilities thus not likely mortgaging the future of 2018/2019/2020 for sliver of possibility in 2017.  Gladly the fans are not running the organization.

 

would you deal Gordon + for Gray or some other cost controlled pitcher (not Archer, Archer isn't being traded).

[cmoss84]

Bob-thanks for posting that. Quite interesting to read. My point is if you are close, why not try? I'm not saying to sell the farm. But you never know how a few small/medium sized deals can impact the last 2 months. I also think the run differential is skewed from about 5 really bad games. But I get your point. I'm just naively optimistic and want to go down with a fight

[Mike Sixel]

 

Bob-thanks for posting that. Quite interesting to read. My point is if you are close, why not try? I'm not saying to sell the farm. But you never know how a few small/medium sized deals can impact the last 2 months. I also think the run differential is skewed from about 5 really bad games. But I get your point. I'm just naively optimistic and want to go down with a fight

 

I actually agree with you, a few small moves works for me. But, if this is the only real move, then, imo, it was a waste. They need a DH and 2 RPs. Either from inside the org, or out.

[drjim]

I initially thought taking on Recker was strictly about a next move involving Garver, but I wonder if part of it was about the Twins taking on more money to help facilitate the trade and perhaps lower the prospect cost.

 

But surely the Pohlads would veto that.

[Major League Ready]

 

Not sure why you are trying, good sir. IME, fans don't much care about odds and probabilities. 

 

Very good point but at the same time competent management utilizes odds and probabilities to guide their decision making process.   Bob did a great job with those facts of illustrating that this team really is not a contender,  They are simply in a very weak division. 

 

Of course, run differential is just a quantification of what we all know to be true about this team.  We have a well below average SP staff and a bullpen with significant holes.  We have an average offense and above average defense.  We don't really need run differential to understand these are not the characteristics of a contender and making the playoffs is not very probable.  Winning a series is real long shot.  Mortgaging the future would be by definition incompetent on the part of management.   Therefore, if anyone is angry that the Twins are not mortgaging the future, they are made that our new management is not acting in an incompetent manner.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I initially thought taking on Recker was strictly about a next move involving Garver, but I wonder if part of it was about the Twins taking on more money to help facilitate the trade and perhaps lower the prospect cost.

 

But surely the Pohlads would veto that.

I can't imagine $200k really matters in terms of the prospect cost. Occam's Razor says the Braves wanted to get rid of him a bit, the Twins wanted to add him a bit, and they compromised to make it happen. I suspect largely independent of the other trade parts. Edited July 26, 2017 by spycake

[drjim]

I can't imagine $200k really matters in terms of the prospect cost. Occam's Razor says the Braves wanted to get rid of him a bit, the Twins wanted to add him a bit, and they compromised to make it happen. I suspect largely independent of the other trade parts.

I suspect more the former than the latter.

[Mr. Brooks]

I suspect more the former than the latter.

Well the Twins have no incentive to take him if they didn't want him.

200k of 4.9m in salary in the deal wasn't going to make or break the deal.

Most likely, IMO, is the Twins expect they'll have to call up Garver at some point and like to keep depth at that position in the high minors, so they asked for him in the deal.

[drjim]

Well the Twins have no incentive to take him if they didn't want him.

200k of 4.9m in salary in the deal wasn't going to make or break the deal.

Most likely, IMO, is the Twins expect they'll have to call up Garver at some point and like to keep depth at that position in the high minors, so they asked for him in the deal.

That was my initial thought too.

 

As was mentioned, if it was strictly to backfill Rochester, there were plenty of other internal options.

[Mr. Brooks]

That was my initial thought too.

 

As was mentioned, if it was strictly to backfill Rochester, there were plenty of other internal options.

Well I think they don't want just token depth at AAA, but guys that could actually play a game or 2 if needed in MLB.

Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I don't think there are any internal options that fit that bill.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That was my initial thought too.

 

As was mentioned, if it was strictly to backfill Rochester, there were plenty of other internal options.

It appears the Twins don't want to do too much to upset the Chattanooga juggernaut this season. Hence, external backfill for Rochester.

[Oxtung]

would you deal Gordon + for Gray or some other cost controlled pitcher (not Archer, Archer isn't being traded).

Mike this not aimed entirely at you because many people have typed it on this forum, but you seem to also be implying that it is absurd to go get someone like Grey given their peripheral numbers.

 

I think in order to compete in 2018 the Twins need to acquire 2 above average pitchers before next season and the better they are the better the Twins chances of competeing. I think acquiring 2 good pitchers is a tall task for one offseason and see acquiring a pitcher like Grey as getting a jump on staffing for 2018 with the added benefit that we also get a significant upgrade for 2017 as well.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike this not aimed entirely at you because many people have typed it on this forum, but you seem to also be implying that it is absurd to go get someone like Grey given their peripheral numbers.

I think in order to compete in 2018 the Twins need to acquire 2 above average pitchers before next season and the better they are the better the Twins chances of competeing. I think acquiring 2 good pitchers is a tall task for one offseason and see acquiring a pitcher like Grey as getting a jump on staffing for 2018 with the added benefit that we also get a significant upgrade for 2017 as well.

 

I don't know how I feel about Grey/Gray/not sure how it is spelled....and no issues! 

 

I agree, they need to get at least one legit SP from outside the org. They needed to do that this year also, and didn't (it doesn't appear they even tried). I actually feel one of the AA pitchers can be the other good addition, even if others don't. They'll then need another good SP the following year, if not sooner, as ESan ages. 

 

My question was not about him in particular, but "buying" in general, if the SP is here for 3 yearish time.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

would you deal Gordon + for Gray or some other cost controlled pitcher (not Archer, Archer isn't being traded).

If you believe Flash Jr is average to maybe slightly above average defensive SS (like I do), then Gordon should solve a long term problem at SS and be a top of the order hitter for years to come.  Gray has electric stuff but his health history scares me.  But acquiring young cost controlled pitching is what the Twins should be doing now and/or in the offseason as the 2018 Free Agent SP market is very thin on difference makers.  I'd much rather deal some of my lower level minor leaguers (Kiriloff, Wander, Diaz, Blankenhorn) it's just not going to garner as much as Gordon., Still I had heard that Beane was wanting a high level CF in return for Gray.

[SwainZag]

Well....this could get interesting.

 

Jon Morosi‏
@jonmorosi

Sources: #Twins will consider moving Ervin Santana - and even the recently acquired Jaime Garcia - if team's recent struggles continue. @MLB

 

[drjim]

Well....this could get interesting.

 

Jon Morosi‏

@jonmorosi

 

Sources: #Twins will consider moving Ervin Santana - and even the recently acquired Jaime Garcia - if team's recent struggles continue. @MLB

 

https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/890360473023004672

Prudent, but I still hope unnecessary.

 

If they can scratch out 3 of the next 4, should feel good enough to make a run at a playoff spot. And if so, I'd add a cheap rental reliever by the deadline.

[Oxtung]

I don't know how I feel about Grey/Gray/not sure how it is spelled....and no issues! 

 

I agree, they need to get at least one legit SP from outside the org. They needed to do that this year also, and didn't (it doesn't appear they even tried). I actually feel one of the AA pitchers can be the other good addition, even if others don't. They'll then need another good SP the following year, if not sooner, as ESan ages. 

 

My question was not about him in particular, but "buying" in general, if the SP is here for 3 yearish time.

Sounds like we have similar thoughts then. I just don't think the AA guys are going to start in the rotation in 2018 so I think they need to acquire another good starter.

 

Earlier this season I looked at 50 starting pitchers who premiered in the last 5ish years across MLB and only 2 began the year in the rotation. Some even had been called up the previous year for up to 10 starts but they all went back to start the next season at AAA.

 

The only exceptions were Dylan Bundy, I think we can all agree we don't have anyone with his talent or contract situation pushing for a spot, and a guy from the Rangers who was a pretty poor prospect and has never turned into more than a back of the rotation starter.

 

None of the other 48 starters were called up until at least 10 starts into the season.

 

Given all of that I think we need 2 significant starters.