What will it take to get Gerrit Cole?

[beckmt]

Last I looked the Pohlads were rated the richest owners in baseball.  That does not translate into spending the money.  

Saw an article that the Astro's found Darvish was tipping his pitches, that is fixable.  I think it is time for the Twins to step up or be relegated to either being a wild card or a division winner (maybe like 2019,2020) with little chance of going forward.  We need big time pitchers and you have to buy them or trade for them.

[Riverbrian]

The Cubs going after Darvish has become the most recent rumor. 

 

If true: What does that say about Arrieta? To me it says we'd rather pay a lot of money and a little bit more to a pitcher that we haven't worked with before. To me it says... We have the money to spend on a pitcher... we just won't spend it on Arrieta.

 

If it's not True: It says that the Cubs are trying to lower the price on Cobb or Arrieta or Darvish agents are trying to up the price on Darvish. 

 

[ashbury]

 

The Cubs going after Darvish has become the most recent rumor. 

 

If true: What does that say about Arrieta? To me it says we'd rather pay a lot of money and a little bit more to a pitcher that we haven't worked with before. To me it says... We have the money to spend on a pitcher... we just won't spend it on Arrieta.

 

If it's not True: It says that the Cubs are trying to lower the price on Cobb or Arrieta or Darvish agents are trying to up the price on Darvish. 

[Darius]

Cole & Archer are not aces. If you are going to deal prospects I would rather over pay for a pitcher not arbitration eligible yet.

Why does the "ace" label matter? They are both excellent pitchers. Both would step in and be the staff "ace" from day 1 and would make the pitching much, much better.

 

If you're sitting around waiting to acquire an "ace," via trade or free agency, you might want to consider being cryogenically frozen.

[Darius]

Last I looked the Pohlads were rated the richest owners in baseball. That does not translate into spending the money.

Saw an article that the Astro's found Darvish was tipping his pitches, that is fixable. I think it is time for the Twins to step up or be relegated to either being a wild card or a division winner (maybe like 2019,2020) with little chance of going forward. We need big time pitchers and you have to buy them or trade for them.

This probably isn't the place for the "Pohlad's are cheap" observation.

 

Even though there is probably more evidence to support that notion than the earth being round, many people still feel that the Pohlad's spending is right where it should be. There are even those who think the "cheap" issue is a myth altogether.

 

I know, mind boggling.

[Brandon]

So an offer of say Gonsalves, Mejia, May, Gordon, Poppin and Lamont Wade wouldnt be a good offer for Archer. Thats 3 rotation arms that are cheap with lots of control and a SS who is from Florida an OF and a solid rotation prospect in lower minors. Not saying that offer gets it done but should get conversation going. I would replace Wade with Killeroff if need be. But i wouldnt make this trade without a Darvish signing. Cause i would want another top of rotation arm locked up for 4 years while we develop next round of pitchers.

[drjim]

This probably isn't the place for the "Pohlad's are cheap" observation.

 

Even though there is probably more evidence to support that notion than the earth being round, many people still feel that the Pohlad's spending is right where it should be. There are even those who think the "cheap" issue is a myth altogether.

 

I know, mind boggling.

It is more or less right where it would be with a different owner in the same market/revenue base. Lots of evidence for that position.

 

Saying the Pohlads, because they have massive wealth, should outspend their market is a different argument. To which I say good luck.

[DocBauer]

Love and hate these scenarios. Its obvious we dont knkw what going on behind closed doors, and also don't usually know the wants and needs of the other teams involved enough, much less what they think of the Twins prospects, to make such a deal happen.

 

But I will attempt to play "Doctor" obvious.

 

1] If the Twins are serious about Darvish and actually sign him, everything changes. From the ML level on down.

 

2] I'd rather look at Duffy from KC, but inter divisional trades are rare.

 

3] Are we better off, at this time and place to add to Cole for 2 years, barring an extension, because that is what we may be talking about. With Darvish, the cost, and without Darvish, the ultimate outcome changes. WITH Darvish, we are adding a huge piece to deepen the rotation for the next couple of years, at least, and may have Gibson as part of a trade for whatever. WITHOUT Darvish, the cost/reward factor changes quite a bit. In other words, is it worth giving up 3-4 quality prospects for what might be only 2 years?

 

4] We heard Granite, Jay and someone else, forgive my memory at the moment. Thought it was Gonsalves or Romero. Was it Gordon??? Any combination I'm all in. Its fair to both teams and makes sense.

 

Without Darvish signing, I'm more skeptical of the trade. And I'm just not 100% sold on more for Archer. Does he really jump to #1 status with a change of scenery? Or are we better off with someone like Lynn and keeping Gibson as our #4?

[Brandon Warne]

 

Cole & Archer are not aces. If you are going to deal prospects I would rather over pay for a pitcher not arbitration eligible yet.

 

Archer is an ace.

[TheLeviathan]

So an offer of say Gonsalves, Mejia, May, Gordon, Poppin and Lamont Wade wouldnt be a good offer for Archer. Thats 3 rotation arms that are cheap with lots of control and a SS who is from Florida an OF and a solid rotation prospect in lower minors. Not saying that offer gets it done but should get conversation going. I would replace Wade with Killeroff if need be. But i wouldnt make this trade without a Darvish signing. Cause i would want another top of rotation arm locked up for 4 years while we develop next round of pitchers.

No, its not a good offer. You'd be lucky to get a polite "no" when you would deserve to be hung up on.

 

Youre trying to have your cake and eat it too: yes, Archer is a far better player. But that comes at a far higher cost. You dont want Cole cost for Cole performance, but You want to pay Cole-cost (maybe, not even sure of that) for Archer performance.

 

Sorry, thats just not reaslistic.

[nater79a]

 

To be frank...it's more likely we simply don't have the pieces for Archer.  Which may be why we're more closely associated with Cole.  You can't cobble together C-list prospects and get an ace and while I like the long term potential of some of these prospects, they aren't lighting up anyone's prospect radar.

 

Correct. The conversation starts with Royce.  Then you still have a long way to go to get Archer.

[gunnarthor]

Look at recent trades and figure out who you think Archer is most similar to in both terms of talent and years of control. Then see what the other team gave up.

 

For example, the Phillies traded Cole Hamels (and a cost controlled relief pitcher) who had 4 years + option year left on his contract when Hamels was in his age 31 season. He was still owed 94m plus either another 20m or a 6m buyout, meaning the Rangers were going to commit 100m to Hamels age 31-35 seasons, and possibly more.

 

In return, the Phillies got 6 players back, two top 50ish prospects (Alfaro and Thompson), a top 100ish prospect (Nick Williams), a high floor #4 (Eickhoff) and a relief arm. The sixth player involved was Harrison who was there b/c of his high salary going back to Phillies.

 

Hamels was the better pitcher when he was traded. Six seasons top 10 in WAR while Archer only has one. Innings workhorse, etc. (And for those who consider WAR, keep in mind that Archer posted a 1.2 bWAR last year, although fWAR was much higher. Are we convinced Archer is really an ace?) But Hamels' high salary limited the number of teams that could trade for him.

 

On the other hand, Archer will make significantly less than Hamels and is younger. He'll be paid about 14m the next two seasons and then two seasons more of club control totaling 20m. A team is only forced to pay 15.125m if they let him walk after two seasons. So while Archer isn't as good on the field, the Rays could demand a trade similar or slightly better in a seller's market if they feel he's an ace.

 

A similar trade would maybe be Gordon and Gonsalves (two top 50ish prospects), Romero (top 100ish), Thopre (the high floor guy. Maybe Mejia? Not sure how Thorpe is viewed) and one of our hundred or so relief arms, say, Jay? Maybe that's a bit too much and Jay isn't included or the Rays kick back a C prospect in return? Not sure. But I think the Rays could start any conversation with Gordon and both Gonsalves and Romero. That's a big price especially if you're not convinced that fWAR is accurate.

[beckmt]

I am of the view you have to spend money to make money.  Signing a major free agent will help other free agents to look at the Twin Cities as a destination. 

That being said the price for Cole seems fair, would not like to give up Jay.  Part of it would be the view if I could sign Cole to an extension.  Archer is probably costwise out of reach.  Next step would be to sign a free agent starter, another FA reliever and call it good.

[peterb18]

Last I looked the Pohlads were rated the richest owners in baseball.  That does not translate into spending the money.  

Saw an article that the Astro's found Darvish was tipping his pitches, that is fixable.  I think it is time for the Twins to step up or be relegated to either being a wild card or a division winner (maybe like 2019,2020) with little chance of going forward.  We need big time pitchers and you have to buy them or trade for them.

Yes, for many years the Pohlads were the riches owners in baseball. The Dodger group might have surpassed them now. But still they are in the top group. We must remember that they tried to sell the team to a group from North Carolina and they also agreed with contraction only to be saved by Selieg(sp).

I’ve always felt the weakness of the Twins is ownership. You can see the same thing developing with the current management team.....same as with Ryan....no bold moves...always under the radar stuff.

We’ll see the true colors of the Pohlads when we try to sign some of these young players to contracts, etc.

Sure they they have reorganized the structure of the team but this was due to losing money with such poor teams over the past few years.

[nater79a]

 

I am of the view you have to spend money to make money.  Signing a major free agent will help other free agents to look at the Twin Cities as a destination. 

That being said the price for Cole seems fair, would not like to give up Jay.  Part of it would be the view if I could sign Cole to an extension.  Archer is probably costwise out of reach.  Next step would be to sign a free agent starter, another FA reliever and call it good.

 

Cole is a Boras client so he is going to free agency in a couple years.  Then it would be a matter of whether the Twins could step up at that point.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Yes, for many years the Pohlads were the riches owners in baseball. The Dodger group might have surpassed them now. But still they are in the top group. We must remember that they tried to sell the team to a group from North Carolina and they also agreed with contraction only to be saved by Selieg(sp).
I’ve always felt the weakness of the Twins is ownership. You can see the same thing developing with the current management team.....same as with Ryan....no bold moves...always under the radar stuff.
We’ll see the true colors of the Pohlads when we try to sign some of these young players to contracts, etc.
Sure they they have reorganized the structure of the team but this was due to losing money with such poor teams over the past few years.

 

I'm not aware of any support for the idea that the Pohlads have long been the "richest owners in baseball." If that was ever true, it certainly hasn't been for quite a while. 

 

Also, the Twins were not "saved" by Selig, who was 100% on board with contraction; it was stopped only by a judge in Minnesota who had to abuse his discretion to do it.

 

In any case, the Pohlads are basically typical sports franchise owners that don't want to support the team with outside capital. To the extent that the club has been too risk-averse or otherwise run sub-optimally, the explanation lies more with the baseball leadership and Minnesota's mid-market status.

[peterb18]

I'm not aware of any support for the idea that the Pohlads have long been the "richest owners in baseball." If that was ever true, it certainly hasn't been for quite a while. 

 

Also, the Twins were not "saved" by Selig, who was 100% on board with contraction; it was stopped only by a judge in Minnesota who had to abuse his discretion to do it.

 

In any case, the Pohlads are basically typical sports franchise owners that don't want to support the team with outside capital. To the extent that the club has been too risk-averse or otherwise run sub-optimally, the explanation lies more with the baseball leadership and Minnesota's mid-market status.

 

 

http://www.twincities.com/2014/07/10/contraction-nearly-stole-twins-baseball-from-minnesota/

You are correct.... here is an article from the pioneer press concerning the issue.

[peterb18]

http://www.twincities.com/2014/07/10/contraction-nearly-stole-twins-baseball-from-minnesota/

You are correct.... here is an article from the pioneer press concerning the issue.

Here is info on the wealthiest owners in baseball....at that time.http://www.startribune.com/pohlad-richest-owner-in-baseball-forbes-list-shows/16332206/