Go get Verlander

[Vanimal46]

Cleveland has sustained success? How long have they been good?

You know, those 2 years of sustained success. Thank God for them they developed and kept Andrew Miller all of these years.

 

Wait.... They traded for him to take them to the next level?

[old nurse]

Trade talk on DeGrom

 

 

 

Gordon, Gonsalves, Rooker and a lower prospect enough? Get em while they are hot or drive up the price the other team pays

 

For ease of rankings, There are only about 5 prospects in the top 25 I wouldn't trade.

[jorgenswest]

I am not sure Lewis would be enough to get DeGrom. I would advocate for sending Lewis plus others for DeGrom.

[alarp33]

 

Thank God for them they developed and kept Andrew Miller all of these years.

Wait.... They traded for him to take them to the next level?

 

You do understand that everyone you're arguing with in this thread is totally fine with and advocating for trading for pieces like a Andrew Miller during an actual contention window, like the Indians did.  

 

Which is totally different than trading a boatload for 1 piece in Mid-June while 6 games under .500

[Major League Ready]

 

You know, those 2 years of sustained success. Thank God for them they developed and kept Andrew Miller all of these years.

Wait.... They traded for him to take them to the next level?

 

I am not certain the Indian will sustain their success. However, they have demonstrated how to build a team for sustained success. I hope the Twins follow a similar blueprint. The Indians built their team through shrewd trades for unproven players, the draft and international signings. They did not trade away top prospects or sign any expense free agents until they were poised to contend. They have Lindor on a rookie contract through 2022. Ramirez extension through 2022. Kluber and Carrasco extensions through 2012. Clevinger is on a rookie contract through 2023.  They have (RHP) McKenzie who is a top 25 prospect and Bieber who is a top 100 prospect. They also have Meija who is a top ranked catching prospect (#11 MLB.com) This looks like a very good blueprint for sustained success to me. Like I said, contrasted to the Royals who many here praised, sucked for 20 years, had a couple good years and now look to be bad for several years, the Indians model looks pretty good. I stand by position that they have built a team that is likely to sustain success.

 

The trade for Miller and the signing of Encarcion are moves I hope the twins will make when they get to the point of being contenders. The Indians trade for Miller would be characterized as a final piece. They were already one of the elite teams in all of baseball before trading for Miller and signing Encarcion. Miller was added at the 2016 deadline. It would be extremely hard to argue they were not ready given they made it to the World Series and took a great Cubs team to a 7th game. They signed Encarcion to a 3 year deal after winning 94 games in 2016. The combination of Miller/Encarcion helped them jump to 102 wins. The Indians FO demonstrated how a mid-market team gets great. If you think the Twins situation is remotely similar to the Indians in 2016 or the Astros when they signed Verlander, we will have to agree to disagree.  You and some posters here are going to continue to be disappointed because there is not a GM in the league that would think our team remotely resemble the Indians or the Astros teams that made moves for “final pieces”.

 

Even when they reached contention, the Indians did not sign any mega free agents. They made one trade (Miller) involving their top prospects (Frazier and Sheffield) for 2 ½ years of Miller when they were clearly a contender. At the time Frazier looked like a good but not great prospect. It just been this year that he has looked like he could be a very good player at the ML level. Sheffield was a 20 y/o at the time. He is now the Yankees #2 prospect. As it turns out the cost for Miller looks like it will be very substantial. It might end up being a bad trade given Miller pitched 5 inning in the 2017 WS and is out now. However, I still don’t have a problem because Miller is the type of addition you make when you have a contender.

 

The bottom line is that the Indians are a product of drafting and trading for prospects and then adding the final pieces when the team was no doubt a contender and would be a contender and likely to remain one for a few years. Anyone who feels they can make a case the Twins are in the same position as the 2016 Indians... Have at it.

[Major League Ready]

 

Trade talk on DeGrom

 

 

 

Gordon, Gonsalves, Rooker and a lower prospect enough? Get em while they are hot or drive up the price the other team pays

 

For ease of rankings, There are only about 5 prospects in the top 25 I wouldn't trade.

I would make that deal in a millisecond but I would think it takes a top 20 + Top 75 + two others with a reasonable shot at contributing at the ML level. I don't think we have any shot without including Lewis. In addition, Romero or Kirilloff + couple others.

 

I would think the Yankees would be willing to pay big. They would be incredible with the position players they have under contract for several years. They could give up Florial who is an outfielder ranked the #37 by MLB.com. They are not likely to have any room in their OF for several years.  Abreu a RHP ranked #64 and they have several other good candidates for the 3rd and 4th pieces. This would allow them to keep Sheffield (ranked #40) who they got in the Andrew Miller trade. The Yankees will be very tough to beat if DeGrom becomes available. Can you imagine Degrom, Severino, Tanaka, and Gray with that lineup and bullpen. Holy $#!%.

[old nurse]

The Indians traded Drew Pomeranz for Ubaldo. They traded Chris Archer for Mark DeRosa. In the end bad trades indeed. When they traded Choo, they won that one. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Indians traded Drew Pomeranz for Ubaldo. They traded Chris Archer for Mark DeRosa. In the end bad trades indeed. When they traded Choo, they won that one. 

Interesting. Ubaldo scuffled a bit in Cleveland, but rebounded with a solid 2013 season. 1.09 ERA as Cleveland was 6-0 in his September starts that year, including beating the Twins on the last day of the season as they claimed a postseason berth by just 1 game. They also got pick #31 in the 2014 draft as compensation for Ubaldo leaving as a free agent, and they selected Justus Sheffield who they used to get Andrew Miller.  Given that is also took Pomeranz 5 years and 2 additional trades to do much, I'd say Cleveland did all right there.

 

Obviously DeRosa didn't provide comparable benefits, although they did manage to flip him for Chris Perez who at least had a couple seasons as a decent closer. And it took Archer another trade before he broke through (and arguably, he's never really broken through to be an ace in MLB). A bad trade, but perhaps not one that really hurt them -- they haven't really been held back by a lack of rotation depth the past few years. Same goes for missing out on Pomeranz.

[USAFChief]

"Prospects" on the whole are the most overrated thing in baseball. Every team has a hundred of 'em. Every team will add 25 or more this summer. Today's "top 100" won't look much like next June's "top 100," and few from either list will end up having much impact on the major leagues. 

 

 

 

 

[alarp33]

 

Interesting. Ubaldo scuffled a bit in Cleveland, but rebounded with a solid 2013 season. 1.09 ERA as Cleveland was 6-0 in his September starts that year, including beating the Twins on the last day of the season as they claimed a postseason berth by just 1 game. They also got pick #31 in the 2014 draft as compensation for Ubaldo leaving as a free agent, and they selected Justus Sheffield who they used to get Andrew Miller.  Given that is also took Pomeranz 5 years and 2 additional trades to do much, I'd say Cleveland did all right there.

 

Obviously DeRosa didn't provide comparable benefits, although they did manage to flip him for Chris Perez who at least had a couple seasons as a decent closer. And it took Archer another trade before he broke through (and arguably, he's never really broken through to be an ace in MLB). A bad trade, but perhaps not one that really hurt them -- they haven't really been held back by a lack of rotation depth the past few years. Same goes for missing out on Pomeranz.

 

Not to mention, both trades completed by a different front office. 

[alarp33]

 

"Prospects" on the whole are the most overrated thing in baseball. Every team has a hundred of 'em. Every team will add 25 or more this summer. Today's "top 100" won't look much like next June's "top 100," and few from either list will end up having much impact on the major leagues. 

 

"few" prospects from the top 100 will have an impact in the major leagues...?  Huh?

[ashbury]

"Prospects" on the whole are the most overrated thing in baseball. Every team has a hundred of 'em. Every team will add 25 or more this summer.

That is using a fuzzy term. There are prospects, as in guys who are signed to play for an organization's minor league teams. And then there are prospects, as in guys who have a chance to make an impact. When we talk about trading "prospects" for a key player, the other team's GM isn't interested in "a hundred" of our guys.

 

And when you do trade your top organizational prospects for a guy, the next draft doesn't replace them just like that. Sure, you'll have a new top-10, but they won't be near as good.

 

By the same logic, every other team has 25 or so new prospects as of this month. So they won't give you a plugged nickel for any but about 5 of your new guys, and they'll give something of actual value for only about 1 or 2, and paired up at that.

 

Today's "top 100" won't look much like next June's "top 100," and few from either list will end up having much impact on the major leagues.

Just glancing through the top of the MLB Top 100 I can predict that names like Gleyber Torres and Ronald Acuna and Walker Buehler will not appear the next time the list is compiled, because they will have exhausted their rookie eligibility. Ditto for Jesse Winker and Miguel Andujar down around #100. Drat those know-it-alls who place them high on these rankings and then will change their minds.

 

And yes, other prospects will move down or off the list, as others move up. Just as some number of established veterans seemingly dis-establish themselves at random every year - even big names like Sonny Gray and Jonathan Lucroy and Troy Tulowitzki.

 

Top 100 prospects as a whole are, to me, not particularly more over-rated (or under-rated) than any other kind of baseball player. No player comes with a bumper-to-bumper new car warranty when you acquire one and see things through.

[ashbury]

"few" prospects from the top 100 will have an impact in the major leagues...?  Huh?

That's because they stop being prospects anymore.

[old nurse]

 

"Prospects" on the whole are the most overrated thing in baseball. Every team has a hundred of 'em. Every team will add 25 or more this summer. Today's "top 100" won't look much like next June's "top 100," and few from either list will end up having much impact on the major leagues. 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/article/13078/future-shock-bps-2011-top-101-prospects/

 

Randomly hit the top 50 list for 2011. From that list your starting team would be something like  Trout, Harper, Machado, Gary Sanchez, Rizzo, Jose Igleseas, Kipness, Cosart, Sano, Hicks, Will Meyer, Grandal, Hosmer or Moustakas,   Pitching gets a little sketchy.  Teheran, Tallion,  Chris Sale, Carlos Martinez,  Harvey was good,  Pommeranz, Betance,  Gibson (Kyle, not Bob)  Chapman, Kimbrel, Jansen.  I think you might have a fairly competitive team off that top 101 list

 

There are also about 40 names on the list that did very little. What was your favorite Domonic Brown or Jesus Montero moment?

[Major League Ready]

 

"Prospects" on the whole are the most overrated thing in baseball. Every team has a hundred of 'em. Every team will add 25 or more this summer. Today's "top 100" won't look much like next June's "top 100," and few from either list will end up having much impact on the major leagues. 

You are really in LF on this one. 

 

NY – Outside of Stanton, their best position players were either drafted of traded for before becoming established. Sanchez, Judge, Andujar, Torres, and Gardner were “just prospects”.  Their best SP and three great relief pitchers were all prospects. (Severino / Betances / Green Holder) I guess NY’s FO did not have your insight. And, what were they thinking trading for Gregorius and Hicks. 

 

Houston – Their top six position players were drafted or acquired as minor leaguers
(Altuve / Correa / Springer / Bregman / Stassi / Gonzalez
Keuchel and McCullers were drafted.  Morton traded for while a prospect.  They did trade for Verlander and Cole after they established this incredible core.  I hope the Twins will get to that point and do the same thing.

 

Boston – Betts, Benintendi, and Bogaerts all prospects. They did sign Martinez to a five year deal.  Smart move they are paying for Age 30-34 seasons. Would love to see the Twins make a similar deal.  Boston did build their starting rotation through trades.

 

Dodgers – They drafted this Kershaw guy. Buehler has been their best SP this year. Stripling was drafted by the Dodgers. I have not seen him pitch but his stats suggest he has been great. I am not sure what to call Alex Wood but he certainly was not a big name when acquired by the Dodgers. Their starting pitching staff were all “just prospects”.

 

Matt Kemp has made a comeback and is one of their best position players. All of their other top position players acquired when they were just prospects. This includes Seager / Bellinger / Puig / Pederson / Muncy / Taylor / Hernandez / Grandal and Barnes.

 

Anyone who continues to insist that prospects are not critical to building an elite team after looking at the construction of these teams is simply unwilling to acknowledge the obvious IMO. The position that they are overrated is a head in the sand position.

[nicksaviking]

 

"Prospects" on the whole are the most overrated thing in baseball. Every team has a hundred of 'em. Every team will add 25 or more this summer. Today's "top 100" won't look much like next June's "top 100," and few from either list will end up having much impact on the major leagues. 

 

I think you've just grown accustomed to the home team's prospects.

[USAFChief]

 

You are really in LF on this one. 

 

NY – Outside of Stanton, their best position players were either drafted of traded for before becoming established. Sanchez, Judge, Andujar, Torres, and Gardner were “just prospects”.  Their best SP and three great relief pitchers were all prospects. (Severino / Betances / Green Holder) I guess NY’s FO did not have your insight. And, what were they thinking trading for Gregorius and Hicks. 

 

Houston – Their top six position players were drafted or acquired as minor leaguers
(Altuve / Correa / Springer / Bregman / Stassi / Gonzalez
Keuchel and McCullers were drafted.  Morton traded for while a prospect.  They did trade for Verlander and Cole after they established this incredible core.  I hope the Twins will get to that point and do the same thing.

 

Boston – Betts, Benintendi, and Bogaerts all prospects. They did sign Martinez to a five year deal.  Smart move they are paying for Age 30-34 seasons. Would love to see the Twins make a similar deal.  Boston did build their starting rotation through trades.

 

Dodgers – They drafted this Kershaw guy. Buehler has been their best SP this year. Stripling was drafted by the Dodgers. I have not seen him pitch but his stats suggest he has been great. I am not sure what to call Alex Wood but he certainly was not a big name when acquired by the Dodgers. Their starting pitching staff were all “just prospects”.

 

Matt Kemp has made a comeback and is one of their best position players. All of their other top position players acquired when they were just prospects. This includes Seager / Bellinger / Puig / Pederson / Muncy / Taylor / Hernandez / Grandal and Barnes.

 

Anyone who continues to insist that prospects are not critical to building an elite team after looking at the construction of these teams is simply unwilling to acknowledge the obvious IMO. The position that they are overrated is a head in the sand position.

Tell me which 5 or 10 prospects from this year's top 100 list will be above average MLB players 5 years from now. Tell me which 50 will flame out without spending even 2 years in the majors. Tell me the 40 or so that will spend a few years in the big leagues without ever being more that part time players.

 

Then tell me the same about prospects who aren't in this year's top 100 list.

 

Mike Trout was a great prospect. So was Bryon Buxton. So were Neftali Felix and Chris Carter and Brian Buchanan and on and on. 

 

Prospects are way overrated....because they're prospects. Every team needs talent infusion, and hitting on a prospect is a fantastic way to get it. But when you can trade a "maybe" for an "already is," you should always consider it. And often do it.

[USAFChief]

 

That's because they stop being prospects anymore.

Precisely. 

[Major League Ready]

 

Tell me which 5 or 10 prospects from this year's top 100 list will be above average MLB players 5 years from now. Tell me which 50 will flame out without spending even 2 years in the majors. Tell me the 40 or so that will spend a few years in the big leagues without ever being more that part time players.

 

Then tell me the same about prospects who aren't in this year's top 100 list.

 

Mike Trout was a great prospect. So was Bryon Buxton. So were Neftali Felix and Chris Carter and Brian Buchanan and on and on. 

 

Prospects are way overrated....because they're prospects. Every team needs talent infusion, and hitting on a prospect is a fantastic way to get it. But when you can trade a "maybe" for an "already is," you should always consider it. And often do it.

I was 99% sure you would look at absolutely undeniable proof that the top teams were assembled from  players who were drafted or traded for while still prospects and remain steadfast in your position. The fact that we don't know exactly which ones not only does not support a position that they are overrated, it highlights the need to hold on to them because we don't know which ones will reach or exceed their potential.

 

The increasing unwillingness of GMs to part with prospects or give p picks to acquire free agents is well documented. In other words, MLB GMs don't agree with you. Do you suppose it's you or them that don't understand?

[USAFChief]

 

I was 99% sure you would look at absolutely undeniable proof that the top teams were assembled from  players who were drafted or traded for while still prospects and remain steadfast in your position. The fact that we don't know exactly which ones not only does not support a position that they are overrated, it highlights the need to hold on to them because we don't know which ones will reach or exceed their potential.

 

The increasing unwillingness of GMs to part with prospects or give p picks to acquire free agents is well documented. In other words, MLB GMs don't agree with you. Do you suppose it's you or them that don't understand?

I predict between today and Aug 31 prospect for veteran trades will occur, including some prospects from top 100 lists.

 

So I do not agree your premise.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I was 99% sure you would look at absolutely undeniable proof that the top teams were assembled from  players who were drafted or traded for while still prospects and remain steadfast in your position. The fact that we don't know exactly which ones not only does not support a position that they are overrated, it highlights the need to hold on to them because we don't know which ones will reach or exceed their potential.

 

The increasing unwillingness of GMs to part with prospects or give p picks to acquire free agents is well documented. In other words, MLB GMs don't agree with you. Do you suppose it's you or them that don't understand?

Can you support this statement with data? 

[USAFChief]

 

I was 99% sure you would look at absolutely undeniable proof that the top teams were assembled from  players who were drafted or traded for while still prospects and remain steadfast in your position. The fact that we don't know exactly which ones not only does not support a position that they are overrated, it highlights the need to hold on to them because we don't know which ones will reach or exceed their potential.

 

The increasing unwillingness of GMs to part with prospects or give p picks to acquire free agents is well documented. In other words, MLB GMs don't agree with you. Do you suppose it's you or them that don't understand?

Or can you support either of these statement?

[Major League Ready]

 

I predict between today and Aug 31 prospect for veteran trades will occur, including some prospects from top 100 lists.

 

So I do not agree your premise.

 

So your position is that GMs have not become less willing to trade prospects or sign free agents with draft pick compensation tied to them?

[Major League Ready]

 

Or can you support either of these statement?

I just posted a list that clearly shows that the top players on the top teams were drafted or acquired while still prospects. How could you possibly say this position is unsubstantiated? For god sake, what type of substantiation would be more meaningful than to examine how the best players were examined. This argument has reached absurdity. 

 

Obviously, I have no data directly from GMs on their position on prospects. However, the increasing unwillingness to trade prospects or sign players with draft compensation has been discussed frequently on the baseball TV and Radio shows. The media is certainly of the opinion that GMs have become less inclined to trade top prospects. I guess you have a better grip on this then them as well.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

The Yankees just traded for Stanton, so I'm not sure what the league has figured out.

One instance does not depict the leagues general position of GMs. Are you really going to take a position that the FO's around the league have become considerably less inclined to sign deals that take a player well past their prime. Every high profile baseball writer in the country pointed out this trend last off-season. You know damn well this is what has happened. You just are not willing to admit it because it points out the league has adjusted and you have not.

 

Next time you ask a question of one of these writers ... Ask them if GMs are less likely to trade top prospects as compared to 10 years ago and if teams have become less inclined to sign free agents with draft pick compensation. The response might be ... is this a rhetorical questiont?

 

 

[Vanimal46]

Because of this fascination with hoarding prospects, teams like NYY, BOS, CHC, and LA are going to create super teams... Every trade rumor site out there highlights those teams saying they should target DeGrom, Syndergaard, Machado, etc.

 

They are certainly going to take advantage of the market and be dominant for the foreseeable future.

[alarp33]

 

Because of this fascination with hoarding prospects, teams like NYY, BOS, CHC, and LA are going to create super teams... Every trade rumor site out there highlights those teams saying they should target DeGrom, Syndergaard, Machado, etc.

They are certainly going to take advantage of the market and be dominant for the foreseeable future.

 

The Yankees have the #2 Farm System in baseball (ESPN).  Is your argument that they somehow unfairly bought that farm system to create a super team?  Or are you supporting the others argument that having a stocked farm system is useful when trying to acquire a player like Degrom?

 

EDIT: The comments on the rankings article.  Seems like the Yankees have done in recent years what many of us are advocating and you are arguing against? The Yankees are going to be dominant for the future precisely because they stopped making stupid trades that mortgaged their future and largely stopped signing absurd FA contracts (until this Winter, when their payroll plummets - which just so happens when Harper and Machado hit FA).  

 

The brilliance of Brian Cashman has been in how he has deployed the products of his farm system to bolster the big league club while holding on to the core guys. In another era, Aaron Judge or Gary Sanchez or Luis Severino would have been used to trade for established veterans, but Cashman has held on to the right guys -- you might even argue he has been too conservative in trading prospects, but I doubt Yankees fans would complain right now. Even in trades for Giancarlo Stanton and three players from the White Sox at the deadline, the Yankees have kept their top tier of prospects intact. The result is a system with five guys in the top 100, three more with strong cases and continued depth for future acquisitions.

[alarp33]

The Yankees were 4 games over .500, 6.5 games out of 1st, and 4 games out of a WC when they traded Chapman for Gleybar Torres. Just some prospect. I hope the Twins don't make any of those types of moves this summer, who neds just some prospect  

[Mike Sixel]

One instance does not depict the leagues general position of GMs. Are you really going to take a position that the FO's around the league have become considerably less inclined to sign deals that take a player well past their prime. Every high profile baseball writer in the country pointed out this trend last off-season. You know damn well this is what has happened. You just are not willing to admit it because it points out the league has adjusted and you have not.

 

Next time you ask a question of one of these writers ... Ask them if GMs are less likely to trade top prospects as compared to 10 years ago and if teams have become less inclined to sign free agents with draft pick compensation. The response might be ... is this a rhetorical questiont?

You read way too much into a simple statement. I'm literally not sure the league has changed. Darvish got real money. What has changed is teams are not willing to pay much for mediocre players, but I'm not certain they have stopped paying for elite players. Imo, we don't have enough data on that.

[Mike Sixel]

Other than Chief, no one is saying prospects aren't worth much. No one is saying only use one channel to acquire talent.