Go get Verlander

[Major League Ready]

 

Totally ignoring the trade part of that post.....

 

I gave examples of trades that many here were insistent upon that would have substantially detoured our chances of contending in a previous post.  You chose to ignore that information.

 

How about acknowledging that the constant insistence that we should be able to land the highest price free agents ignores very basic financial and economic principles.   You don't need a MBA to understand this one.  It is flat sticky one's head in the sand.

 

Had we made many of the trades suggested here, we would have traded away our future and insured mediocrity at best.  Tulo and LuCroy would have been horrible.  The Quintana example assumes a crystal ball because trading away a top 5 prospect and a very high ceiling (top 50ish) SP plus a couple other pieces after a 100 loss season would be incompetent.  One could make a case for this type of trade for 2018 but your position is all about the past.   

[prouster]

What are the right moves?

 

Quintana and Gray, for example, had multiple cheap years left?

 

And, what is it about Verlander that is wrong, other than maybe timing by a year if you don't think the Twins were all that good last year?

I'm not sure what the right moves are. I trust that Falvey and Levine know better than me. I agree that Quintana and Gray would have been good to target. Maybe Gerrit Cole. Maybe Odorizzi. Maybe someone whose shine has worn off. Verlander's NTC was a problem, though (that's all I'm gonna say about him, because anything else will just go in circles).

 

I think their best option is to sign a decent guy to a shortish contract (Cobb, Lynn, whom ever), then try to uncover value elsewhere, whether through trade, free agency, rule v, or international signings. Some of the best pitchers in the world weren't heralded prospects, nor was the greatest pitcher in franchise history, who happens to be one of the best lefties of the last fifty years. Also, it's possible The Guy is already in the system. This strategy may or may not take longer to pay dividends--maybe Berrios levels off next year, or maybe he puts up 8 wins--but I think it's the most prudent way for them to go.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I gave examples of trades that many here were insistent upon that would have substantially detoured our chances of contending in a previous post.  You chose to ignore that information.

 

How about acknowledging that the constant insistence that we should be able to land the highest price free agents ignores very basic financial and economic principles.   You don't need a MBA to understand this one.  It is flat sticky one's head in the sand.

 

Had we made many of the trades suggested here, we would have traded away our future and insured mediocrity at best.  Tulo and LuCroy would have been horrible.  The Quintana example assumes a crystal ball because trading away a top 5 prospect and a very high ceiling (top 50ish) SP plus a couple other pieces after a 100 loss season would be incompetent.  This year one could make a case but your position is all about the past.   

 

i've not said they can afford the highest priced free agents. As a matter of fact, I've pointed out over and over again, once you convinced me, they can't. Like, every thread where Darvish's name comes up, I've suggested a more realistic option is to make a trade, or sign Lynn or some such....every, single, thread.

 

so, this year they can? 

 

I'm not sure how trading for Quintana would be bad, since he has 4-5 years on his deal. That was about trading for him still being here when the window was widest open with Buxton and Sano and Kepler and Rosario and others....

[drjim]

i've not said they can afford the highest priced free agents. As a matter of fact, I've pointed out over and over again, once you convinced me, they can't. Like, every thread where Darvish's name comes up, I've suggested a more realistic option is to make a trade, or sign Lynn or some such....every, single, thread.

 

so, this year they can?

 

I'm not sure how trading for Quintana would be bad, since he has 4-5 years on his deal. That was about trading for him still being here when the window was widest open with Buxton and Sano and Kepler and Rosario and others....

How exactly would they trade for Quintana and keep all those guys listed? Not sure the front office is that good.

[Mike Sixel]

 

How exactly would they trade for Quintana and keep all those guys listed? Not sure the front office is that good.

 

they wouldn't. I was just listing names. I didn't even list the older players, who will be gone by the time one of the prospects matters that was drafted in the last 2 years.

 

edit: well, maybe they would, if they dealt Gordon, Gonsalves, and 1-2 lower level players, or whatever combo of minor league players.

[drjim]

 

they wouldn't. I was just listing names. I didn't even list the older players, who will be gone by the time one of the prospects matters that was drafted in the last 2 years.

 

edit: well, maybe they would, if they dealt Gordon, Gonsalves, and 1-2 lower level players, or whatever combo of minor league players.

 

That package doesn't get it done (maybe if they still had Duensing as one of the unnamed lower level guys). The Cubs traded a significantly better hitting prospect and a better pitching prospect. Twins couldn't match the offer.

 

Quintana is exactly the type of guy they should go for, but they can't get it done strictly with minor leaguers, they don't have a good enough system with enough high end talent. Important to remember as we lament a lack of trades.

[Squirrel]

 

For me, I was focusing on Verlander, Quintana and Gray when talking about a lack of prospects. Verlander didn't want to come here, they didn't have the prospect inventory to get Quintana, and Gray was gettable, but that really would have cleaned out the system. I don't think that type of all in move at that point for a player of Gray's ability/risk going forward would have been a wise move - but it was doable.

 

They'll have another shot at a similar type pitcher over the next couple of seasons, or they can perhaps get one this offseason by dangling Rosario/Kepler/Polanco.

I'm not sure that Gray or Quintana would have cleaned out the system. However, we don't know if inquiries were made at all and who the FO thinks is 'untouchable' and who other GM's would have taken a hardline stance on. Who knows? Why I wished I could be privy to the conversations, and also why I won't expend too much energy on it. Yeah ... gets a bit frustrating and a lot disappointing ... but there's too much I don't know, both in the actual and talked about ... and it's also completely out of my control. Too me it's all just spilled milk ... not to infer that anyone's opinions or frustrations aren't valid ... that's just how I look at all of it.

[Major League Ready]

 

i've not said they can afford the highest priced free agents. As a matter of fact, I've pointed out over and over again, once you convinced me, they can't. Like, every thread where Darvish's name comes up, I've suggested a more realistic option is to make a trade, or sign Lynn or some such....every, single, thread.

 

so, this year they can? 

 

I'm not sure how trading for Quintana would be bad, since he has 4-5 years on his deal. That was about trading for him still being here when the window was widest open with Buxton and Sano and Kepler and Rosario and others....

 

You're right.  My bad!  I have noticed you had taken a significantly different position and I am not giving you credit here.  

 

The only place we differ is on Quintana is timing.  They just came off a 103 loss season and most people here were predicting a 90 loss season this year.  That's not the time to be trading away top prospects. The core made nice progress last year but not a single one of them showed any consistency with perhaps the exception of Rosario.  Buxton, Kepler, and Berrios showed periods where they looked like high impact players.  Sano showed no progress offensively this year.

 

The interesting question is what would we likely have needed to give for Quintana.  They got a top 10(5) OF prospect and a SP with front of the rotation potential plus a couple other pieces.  What would have taken to beat the Cubs offer?  They would not have done the deal without at least one very good SP prospect and I don't think Gonsalves qualifies. That likely would have made it necessary to include Berrios and we still have a big gap in terms of competing with the Indians.

[Doomtints]

 

It seems to me that there's a lot of straw-manning going on. I think the general argument against a Verlander-type trade is that the prospect cost outweighs the benefit, and that such a move, while it might have some immediate impact, would actually hurt long term sustainability. No one is arguing that the Twins shouldn't make moves, just that they need to make the right moves, which aren't always the splashy ones.

As far as Verlander is specifically concerned, I think there are plenty of reasons why he was never a viable option. Listing those reasons would be redundant.

 

Right. The Tigers got themselves into a position to where they had to let Verlander go in spite of his upside. The Twins would have been going down a similar path had they given up a lot to get him. The Twins don't have a lot that I would call "expendable" and they still would have half a pitching staff that needs upgrading.

[spinowner]

I haven't thoroughly read every post in this thread. But I'll say this: Everything comes back to scouting and player development. If we want to make a splashy trade we need to have quality prospects to trade or we need to have quality prospects to step into the void left by quality higher-level players who are traded. If we want make a splashy free-agent-signing we need to have quality players to make this team an attractive destination. We can't afford to buy players to cover mistakes. We have to do a better job than everyone else of making our acquisitions into good players.

[laloesch]

 

Our draft position due to poor results has yielded us Buxton, Stewart, Gordon, Jay, and Lewis. The last 4 still have bright futures. How do you figure they had more to spend on IFA than most teams? This is the first year of the hard cap, and it's not even close to being over. Few teams have had as good of results as we've had in IFA.

 

Stewart is looking like a bust.  It's not a forgone conclusion yet, but I would be absolutely shocked if he even makes it to the majors and sticks in any given role due to his inability to get strikeouts at AA ball and the 5+ walks he's averaging a game there.  I'm not sure about Jay either.    

[old nurse]

 

Stewart is looking like a bust.  It's not a forgone conclusion yet, but I would be absolutely shocked if he even makes it to the majors and sticks in any given role due to his inability to get strikeouts at AA ball and the 5+ walks he's averaging a game there.  I'm not sure about Jay either.    

The new direction that the minor league development under Falvey won't let Stewart reach his potential? Come on, where are the Twins colored glasses.?  A new year with new plans and coaching he could get there. Optimism.    Goofy emoji here.

[Vanimal46]

Fun fact: Justin Verlander's stats with Houston...

 

19 starts 13-2 record, 1.34 ERA, 11 K/9, 1.8 BB/9, 5.4 bWAR

 

Houston spent too much in prospects to get him was the narrative.

[USAFChief]

Fun fact: Justin Verlander's stats with Houston...

19 starts 13-2 record, 1.34 ERA, 11 K/9, 1.8 BB/9, 5.4 bWAR

Houston spent too much in prospects to get him was the narrative.

He’s also clearly over the hill.

 

And no better than Matt Moore, or Jeremy Hellickson.

[Squirrel]

Fun fact: Justin Verlander's stats with Houston...

19 starts 13-2 record, 1.34 ERA, 11 K/9, 1.8 BB/9, 5.4 bWAR

Houston spent too much in prospects to get him was the narrative.

Seriously, stop with this kind of ‘I told you so posting,’ especially since that wasn’t the narrative. The narrative was he didn’t want to come here, not that it would cost us too much. If you are going to resort to posting, at least get it right.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The narrative was he didn’t want to come here, not that it would cost us too much.

On a non-Twins level, there was absolutely a national narrative that he wouldn't be worth the price to Houston.

 

I do wonder, though, if the Twins could have changed their narrative by claiming him on waivers, and actually being willing to pony up a prospect package equivalent to Houston's. Would have put a little pressure on Verlander to consider us.

[Squirrel]

On a non-Twins level, there was absolutely a national narrative that he wouldn't be worth the price to Houston.

 

I do wonder, though, if the Twins could have changed their narrative by claiming him on waivers, and actually being willing to pony up a prospect package equivalent to Houston's. Would have put a little pressure on Verlander to consider us.

Not trying to be rude here, because I know this. It’s a woulda, shoulda, coulda issue at this point and has been hashed over to death except by those who still have axes to grind. IMHO of course.

[SwainZag]

Can we quit beating this horse to death?  

[USAFChief]

Seriously, stop with this kind of ‘I told you so posting,’ especially since that wasn’t the narrative. The narrative was he didn’t want to come here, not that it would cost us too much. If you are going to resort to posting, at least get it right.

That was one potential roadblock.

 

That was not the primary objection.

 

And IMO, this thread is quite illustrative of the objections we see every day on TD whenever someone proposes a potential upgrade for the Twins. Too expensive. The other team won’t trade to the Twins. It’ll cost actual prospects. He’s really not that good. We can’t play in that end of the pool.

 

We see the same thing today about Realmuto.

 

Meantime, we’re under .500. Verlander was none of those things.

[Kelly Vance]

 

Agree, but what are you willing to give up to get him? And would he waive his no-trade clause to come to the Twins?

In a word, NO.  Why leave a world series champion and contender this year to join a long shot team? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And IMO, this thread is quite illustrative of the objections we see every day on TD whenever someone proposes a potential upgrade for the Twins. Too expensive. The other team won’t trade to the Twins. It’ll cost actual prospects. He’s really not that good. We can’t play in that end of the pool.

We see the same thing today about Realmuto.

Meantime, we’re under .500. Verlander was none of those things.

Well, the Tigers probably preferred not to deal Verlander within the division, although presumably that could be overcome with extra cash/prospects. (And of course if Detroit figured he'd be anywhere close to this valuable, they wouldn't have been willing to deal him at all!)

 

Plus the no-trade clause. MLBTR alluded to Verlander waiting for a deal to the Cubs, which is why the Astros deal was only accepted at the last minute. The only way to force him to consider us was claiming him on waivers -- but looking back, Verlander cleared waivers very early, on August 4th. Which is when we were still fading in the wild card race, after just having dealt Kintzler and Garcia at the deadline. With only 48 hours after a claim to make a deal, it seems very doubtful we would have accomplished anything with that claim, except annoying a lot of people (keep in mind the gentlemen's agreement not to claim players in August unless there is actually a chance to finalize a trade). Even if we were willing to trade any and all players/prospects to Detroit, it's highly doubtful that Verlander would have waived his no-trade to go to the Twins as they stood on August 4.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, the Tigers probably preferred not to deal Verlander within the division, although presumably that could be overcome with extra cash/prospects. (And of course if Detroit figured he'd be anywhere close to this valuable, they wouldn't have been willing to deal him at all!)

 

Plus the no-trade clause. MLBTR alluded to Verlander waiting for a deal to the Cubs, which is why the Astros deal was only accepted at the last minute. The only way to force him to consider us was claiming him on waivers -- but looking back, Verlander cleared waivers very early, on August 4th. Which is when we were still fading in the wild card race, after just having dealt Kintzler and Garcia at the deadline. With only 48 hours after a claim to make a deal, it seems very doubtful we would have accomplished anything with that claim, except annoying a lot of people (keep in mind the gentlemen's agreement not to claim players in August unless there is actually a chance to finalize a trade). Even if we were willing to trade any and all players/prospects to Detroit, it's highly doubtful that Verlander would have waived his no-trade to go to the Twins as they stood on August 4.

Always a reason the Twins don't deal prospects for serious,costly, veterans. That's the point of the resurrection of the thread..... It is never time, it is never one piece away, it is always too costly, the other player never wants to come here......

[Nine of twelve]

 

Always a reason the Twins don't deal prospects for serious,costly, veterans. That's the point of the resurrection of the thread..... It is never time, it is never one piece away, it is always too costly, the other player never wants to come here......

It's not time now and it wasn't time last August. We're not one piece away now, and we weren't one piece away last August. It is too costly now and it was too costly last August. The player doesn't want to come here now and he didn't want to come here last August. These are not excuses. These are reasons, and good ones.

Will it be time at some point in the future? Will we be one piece away at some point in the future? Will the cost be acceptable at some point in the future? Will the player want to come here at some point in the future? I truly hope so.

[FunnyPenguin]

 

Seriously, stop with this kind of ‘I told you so posting,’ especially since that wasn’t the narrative. The narrative was he didn’t want to come here, not that it would cost us too much. If you are going to resort to posting, at least get it right.

Sheesh, told him

 

I thought he was just pointing out a valid point of how excellent he's been since then and that many (perhaps including himself) was wrong about what he would do post trade...

[Vanimal46]

Sheesh, told him

 

I thought he was just pointing out a valid point of how excellent he's been since then and that many (perhaps including himself) was wrong about what he would do post trade...

Meh, you're giving me too much credit. Carole knows I was very much on board trading for Verlander, Cole, frankly every legitimately good player that's been traded over the last couple of years.

 

I'm just frustrated that every year there are 'excuses', or 'reasons', depending how you want to think of it for not improving the MLB team through trades. When will the stars align where we can seriously consider making a trade such as this?

[nicksaviking]

 

Meh, you're giving me too much credit. Carole knows I was very much on board trading for Verlander, Cole, frankly every legitimately good player that's been traded over the last couple of years.

I'm just frustrated that every year there are 'excuses', or 'reasons', depending how you want to think of it for not improving the MLB team through trades. When will the stars align where we can seriously consider making a trade such as this?

 

Geez, says the guy who also choose Texas over Minnesota!

 

My guess is after global warming finally stops making it snow in Minnesota in May and when the American coastline has disappeared enough putting Minneapolis right on a sandy beach on the East Coast. Sorry St. Paul, nice knowing ya.

[Vanimal46]

My guess is after global warming finally stops making it snow in Minnesota in April and October and when the American coastline has disappeared enough putting Minneapolis right on a sandy beach on the East Coast.

Thanks, that made me smile. You're probably not that far off either.

 

I have a gut feeling a couple years down the road if Chicago's mega prospects work out, and Detroit buys their way to contention we'll look back at this time like the mid 2000s. Wasted opportunity....

[nicksaviking]

 

Thanks, that made me smile. You're probably not that far off either.

I have a gut feeling a couple years down the road if Chicago's mega prospects work out, and Detroit buys their way to contention we'll look back at this time like the mid 2000s. Wasted opportunity....

 

I will regret this period if they don't put an honest effort into getting better players, but I won't regret Verlander; just no chance he'd agree to come here when Houston was calling and a significantly better situation.

 

I didn't want Gerrit Cole, but only because I hated his sinker usage and thought he'd stink in the AL. I was wrong on that one and he's basically dropped that pitch! I was much more bullish on Darvish and trading for Chris Archer.

 

You guys think teams vet Twins Daily archives when they interview you for a GM gig?

[ewen21]

A lot of people were pushing to get Darvish whatever it takes so.....

 

Verlander might have us at or near .500, but this team has so many holes and other things to be concerned about rather than a guy we weren't going to get anyay

[Mike Sixel]

 

Meh, you're giving me too much credit. Carole knows I was very much on board trading for Verlander, Cole, frankly every legitimately good player that's been traded over the last couple of years.

I'm just frustrated that every year there are 'excuses', or 'reasons', depending how you want to think of it for not improving the MLB team through trades. When will the stars align where we can seriously consider making a trade such as this?

 

next year, promise.