Article: Are The Twins Suddenly Sellers?

[Minfidel]

If they do it right, they could sell off the pieces acquired this deadline by 2020. Really restock the farm system.

Why? So they can really compete in 2024? B.S. The Twins had the top-ranked farm system a couple years back; these guys are here now and learning their craft and seeing first-hand what it is going to take to compete. The offense has been productive in spurts (look at the number of 5-run innings), only to be undone by the pitching staff giving up 6-run innings. You want to reboot just as Kepler and others are getting the experience to hit in pressure situations?

 

By all means, clear out the never-gonnas from the bullpen and rotation (and the FO appears to be doing just that, bit by bit) but let the young guys get the feeling of being in it, even it its at .500 and in struggling division. This will pay off in the next couple of seasons, rather than being in constant rinse and repeat mode.

[TKGuy]

I agree they should certainly listen, one way to get minor leaguers up

 

I'm a no on trading Rogers though

[SarasotaBill]

 

"Buying" and "selling" aren't mutually exclusive. Acquiring Garcia doesn't prevent them from dealing Santana/Dozier/Kintzler. They also suddenly find themselves with another Major League arm that we know other teams are interested in—there's nothing stopping them from dealing Garcia. I think it's perfectly reasonable to try and improve the immediate roster and try to acquire assets for the future.

Teams didn't want to outbid the Twins earlier this week for Garcia but may pay more for him within the week. I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense.

Garcia doesn't help in the future since he's a free agent. 

[jimmer]

 

Teams didn't want to outbid the Twins earlier this week for Garcia but may pay more for him within the week. I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense.

Garcia doesn't help in the future since he's a free agent. 

don't go making sense now :-)

[DocBauer]

LOVE Monkeypaws take but can't seem to like or quote on my phone for some reason.

 

1] This team needs pitching. Period. So we trade away a good, solid, quality, at times excellent SP in Santana to gain a couple more milb pitching prospects that could help in a year or two? With the talented young core of players growing up before us, this helps how in 2018 exactly? Santana appears to be more than capable of being a quality SP for at least another season, maybe two even. But we don't want him because he's not 23? How about keeping him until a prospect is ready to take his spot?

 

2] I could argue almost the same for Kintzler as above. Is he lights out? Absolutely not. Used properly has he been reliable and quite good? Absolutely. Could he play up his sudden success with the Twins in to a huge payday? Maybe, but I have serious doubts. I'd sign him to a fair 2-3 year deal and won't feel bad if someone overtakes him and he slides down to a 7-8th inning guy who might even have trade value.

 

3] Love BD. I don't like him batting leadoff but feel he is a quality ballplayer. I don't know what his trade value could be, but as I've stated before, this is the one guy you can afford to move.

 

You have Polanco (get off his back people-young, talented, filled with potential and probably struggling with expectations and his grandfathers death), Escobar, Adrianza with Vielma, Gordon and maybe even Goodrum in the wings.

 

If the value can be found, this is the guy you trade.

 

And this off season, unless Vargas shines still, or you really believe in him, you sign or trade for a 1B to platoon with Mauer for 2018 and DH before taking over fulltime in 2019. You replace Dozier's bat, and have the INF depth to replace him.

[DocBauer]

If Garcia does well and likes his 2 months with the Twins, would a re-sign be out of the question? I'd say no.

[DocBauer]

Old joke:

 

"You know what burns my ass?"

 

"No. What?"

 

"A flame about 3 feet high!"

 

Kind of how I feel as I realized my big post/rant here is almost the same one I made in a similar post on this subject. Lol

 

But my opinion remains the same darnit.

[Darius]

This is a pipe dream. But, there may be a real opportunity here.

 

Pitching: Move Santana, and roll with Berrios, Garcia, Mejia, Colon, Gibson (or Slegers, Gee, Gonsalves). In the 'pen, see what you can get for anyone (Kintzler, Rogers, Duffey, Belisle), and start churning up from AAA.

 

Position: Try and trade Rosario, Dozier, and/or Mauer, and roll out an infield of Sano, Adrianza, Polanco, and Vargas, with Escobar as utility. Plug Granite in LF, and call up Garver for a bench bat (and emergency LF).

 

Pick up one of the random starters and a bullpen arm or two heading into '18, and you're right back where you started. But, you're minor league system is better, and there is plenty of cash to extend guys like Sano or Kepler.

 

Then, turn into the Astros in 2019/2020. Simple as that.

[Mr. Brooks]

Teams didn't want to outbid the Twins earlier this week for Garcia but may pay more for him within the week. I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense.

Garcia doesn't help in the future since he's a free agent.

Teams might have offered more but wanted the Braves to eat salary.

If the Twins eat all the salary they should get a significantly better prospect, IMO.

It seems silly that a few million would impact the return so much, but the reality is that it does.

[D.C Twins]

Me wonder whats we could get for Castro?! 

[D.C Twins]

Sell has always been the right answer (even if we sweep Oakland this weekend). This team will NOT progress deep into the playoffs under any circumstances.  I lament that we did not trade Santana 2-4 weeks ago when he was truly at peak value if a good offer was on the table. 

And I am very happy about this season and the progress being made. But the window opens in 2019….Santana will not be part of that.

[drjim]

If they actually sell, the return they get is going to be a huge letdown. 

 

I don't think it's going to be worth it.

[sthpstm]

So we want them to build a consistent winner, BUT they're not allowed to trade veterans who are good or decent. You can't improve a system much by trading only what you don't want.

I'm guessing most people here bought into the "total system failure" when it was stated by Pohlad last year. Do you think a year later everything is fixed by hanging on to what you have, expecting the guys in the minors will all come up and be successful and that a few FA's we plug in will contribute?

I say no. Give the new guys time. And yes, turn over some of roster, even some successful players. I want to see some aggressive moves to build a continuous winner, even if that means a drop in on the MLB team this year, and even next.

Almost everyone complained about TR's recent stint, and yet, it seems like most people want to continue his blueprint, with his roster in tact.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It seems silly that a few million would impact the return so much, but the reality is that it does.

Cite? I think a few million can sometimes be a condition on which a deal is dependent, but I really doubt it meaningfully swings prospect quality. In 2013 many here were saying the Twins should eat Morneau's salary to get a better return, but it was quite clear that the cheap Pirates were resisting paying it at all, not that they were haggling over prospect quality.

 

I think you'd have to get into more extreme amounts, likely tens of millions, to seriously affect prospect negotiations. Remember it took ~$10 mil for Atlanta to "buy" Toussaint from Arizona a couple years back (although Arizona GM Dave Stewart has been fired since then, so maybe that is a touch low?).

[KidBro]

 

No doubt this will be a bittersweet moment, considering everything that Garcia has done for us

 

Interesting take, I'm actually blaming him for the LA series.  It's not like he came in and hit a Grand Slam for the Twins (we all know how many chances there were for that to happen).  

[Mr. Brooks]

Cite? I think a few million can sometimes be a condition on which a deal is dependent, but I really doubt it meaningfully swings prospect quality. In 2013 many here were saying the Twins should eat Morneau's salary to get a better return, but it was quite clear that the cheap Pirates were resisting paying it at all, not that they were haggling over prospect quality.

 

I think you'd have to get into more extreme amounts, likely tens of millions, to seriously affect prospect negotiations. Remember it took ~$10 mil for Atlanta to "buy" Toussaint from Arizona a couple years back (although Arizona GM Dave Stewart has been fired since then, so maybe that is a touch low?).

No, I don't have a citation.

But, the Twins flipped their #21 prospect( Ynoa) for a guy that slots in at #16, plus a depth catcher and a wild card bullpen/6th starter option.

Anecdotal, but good enough evidence for me.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No, I don't have a citation.

But, the Twins flipped their #21 prospect( Ynoa) for a guy that slots in at #16, plus a depth catcher and a wild card bullpen/6th starter option.

Anecdotal, but good enough evidence for me.

Recker was basically a waiver claim that no one else wanted.

 

Enns was probably going to be waived too, to make room for Garcia. We did get to jump the line, although I suspect the Yankees didn't care.

 

Littell and Ynoa actually don't appear to be meaningfully separated in rank or future value, it is primarily just a preference of ceiling vs floor, closeness to MLB, etc. I won't dispute that the $4 mil cash bought us the opportunity to swap similar value prospects for one in our preferred position.

Edited July 30, 2017 by spycake

[nicksaviking]

I like the players this team is getting but they are starting to take on quite a few 2018 40-man responsibilities. With the ensuing trades ( if there are any) I hope they consider "sweetening" the offer with guys like Vargas, Park or Vielma.

[Mr. Brooks]

Recker was basically a waiver claim that no one else wanted.

 

Enns was probably going to be waived too, to make room for Garcia. We did get to jump the line, although I suspect the Yankees didn't care.

 

Littell and Ynoa actually don't appear to be meaningfully separated in rank or future value, it is primarily just a preference of ceiling vs floor, closeness to MLB, etc. I won't dispute that the $4 mil cash bought us the opportunity to swap similar value prospects for one in our preferred position.

We'll have to agree to disagree that 21 vs 16 in the same system isn't significant.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Are the Twins suddenly sellers?

 

Uh.... yep

[Otto von Ballpark]

We'll have to agree to disagree that 21 vs 16 in the same system isn't significant.

By any ranking that attaches a numerical or letter grade (i.e. Fangraphs or Sickels), 16 is usually about equal to 21. At that point the only difference is ceiling vs floor, evaluator preference, etc. (FWIW, Sickels had Ynoa at 14 preseason, while Pipeline had him 23.)

 

Also, credit to Hosken in another thread, but the Yankees are actually right up against a luxury tax threshold right now:

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/7/30/16064814/jaime-garcia-trade-twins-yankees-zack-littell-dietrich-enns-strategy-buyers-sellers-deadline

 

With an opening-day payroll of $212.9 million, the Yankees are over the standard luxury tax threshold, but there is also a surtax that is assessed whenever a team crosses $215 million, and that’s what New York is looking to stay below for 2017. By taking on García but leaving much of his salary in Minnesota, the Yankees managed to get better and stay on the right side of the surtax.

So I strongly suspect the Twins eating the salary was a simple condition of any deal, not a negotiating tactic to get a prospect ~5 spots higher or whatever.

 

It is possible that the Braves simply preferred Ynoa to Littell, but to the extent that they may have not, remember that Littell perhaps was not available to them a week ago (assuming the Yankees were holding him back for Gray negotiations).

 

Edit: none of this is to say I don't like the deals. Just that I don't think the inclusion of cash necessarily bought us a better prospect, just a different one (who we may like better, or prefer his readiness, etc.).

Edited July 30, 2017 by spycake

[Mr. Brooks]

Like I said, agree to disagree.

By definition, numerical rankings are indeed better (at least in the rankers opinion), not just different. That is the whole idea behind numerical rankings.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Like I said, agree to disagree.

By definition, numerical rankings are indeed better (at least in the rankers opinion), not just different. That is the whole idea behind numerical rankings.

Sickels and Fangraphs both have ordered rankings, but admit large swaths of them have identical values attached, and they just order them on preference. Pretty much every prospect evaluator does the same, whether they share the details or not. The gap between 16 and 21, while obviously "real" in a particular evaluator's opinion, is quite likely so small in absolute valuation as to be meaningless for our purposes here.

 

Maybe the Twins really value Littell $4 mil more than Ynoa, in absolute terms. Or maybe their preference for MLB readiness is worth $4 mil. Or some mix. But given what we know, though (16/21, the Yankees luxury tax threshold, and the Twins falling way back in the race in just a week), it appears the $4 mil was more of an incidental cost of aiming to compete with Garcia, and getting a near MLB ready arm to replace him as a fallback option, than it was a deliberate investment in upgrading Ynoa to Littell, in absolute terms.