Twins, OAK a good match? Gibson & Odorizzi available

[Mr. Brooks]

Absolutely. It's not as if I'd throw a fit if they traded Odorizzi, I just don't see the point.

Does he have options?

If he has an option remaining, then that is probably more valuable than the return they'd get.

But perhaps they'd like to upgrade his spot next year. In that case, (if he's out of options) might as well get something for a guy you're not committed to anyway.

[Dman]

 

If you're another team, what would you give up for Gibson? A top 25 prospect?

 

I wouldn't. So what would you give up? A top 50 prospect? I'd hesitate on that, too.

 

So exactly what kind of game-changer are you expecting here? Gibson will get a decent return but nothing guaranteed, not even close to it.

 

And even if you get a good player in return, you usually have to deal with a player sucking up negative WAR appearances for awhile, which hurts your team before it helps.

 

I don't care about the chance of advancing in the 2019 postseason right now, I care about the chance of getting there. Because none of us know how 2019 will shake out. What happens if Buxton comes back strong? Or Sano? Or Rooker comes out of nowhere? Or Gonsalves is a stud?

 

Put yourself in the situation to succeed so that if young players turn you from an 85 win team into a 95 win team, you're ready for it.

 

The time has passed to sit on your hands and wait for the prospects. Let's see a real attempt to win some ****ing baseball games. If you end the season with just 83 wins and miss the postseason and the most significant free agent casualty is Kyle Gibson, **** it. I don't care.

 

Look the odds of them trading Gibson is extremely low.  The Twins value him more than other teams will.  But yeah if they get offered a top 100 prospect and a couple more decent options you need to do that deal. 

 

Find something in free agency to replace him then.  I don't think Gibson will make or break the Twins next year.   Hell he could return to old Gibson or hurt his arm or a million other things but I doubt he would be the difference in the Twins making it to the post season or not.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't understand this line of thinking in the least. Thankfully the front office knows their job is to build a consistent winner, not playing to win a division only in 2019 and forgetting about the future beyond that

I agree. Where we disagree is that "forgetting about the future" involves the loss of Kyle Gibson without getting prospects in return.

 

If Kyle Gibson is who he is, the Twins QO him and either get him back or get a first round supplemental.

 

But come on... It's absurd to suggest that I'm arguing the future doesn't matter when I'm saying that it's completely okay to not trade Kyle Gibson and see what happens.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Does he have options?
If he has an option remaining, then that is probably more valuable than the return they'd get.
But perhaps they'd like to upgrade his spot next year. In that case, (if he's out of options) might as well get something for a guy you're not committed to anyway.

This brings us back around to the classic Spring Training argument people on this forum have every year:

 

You can never have "too many" starters. If you have fewer than eight ready for MLB hitters on Opening Day, you're understaffed.

 

Do the Twins have eight or more starters you're comfortable watching pitch in Minnesota?

[alarp33]

 

I agree. Where we disagree is that "forgetting about the future" involves the loss of Kyle Gibson without getting prospects in return.

 

If Kyle Gibson is who he is, the Twins QO him and either get him back or get a first round supplemental.

 

But come on... It's absurd to suggest that I'm arguing the future doesn't matter when I'm saying that it's completely okay to not trade Kyle Gibson and see what happens.

 

Your post read to me as you don't care about the future, you care about attempting to win the division in 2019. I wouldn't necessarily pursue a Gibson trade, I think there's an outside chance with the right moves the Twins could improve substantially next season... but I would certainly answer the call and pull the trigger if someone is desperate enough for a starter like Gibson next week 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't think Gibson will make or break the Twins next year.   Hell he could return to old Gibson or hurt his arm or a million other things but I doubt he would be the difference in the Twins making it to the post season or not.

You can say that about almost any player, though. My point is that a good Gibson is worth a few wins on a staff that has been notoriously weak for a decade. I'm not banking on Gibson being a stud, I'm keeping the option open that other players will be studs and Gibson will prevent a shaky staff from stopping those players from reaching the postseason.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Your post read to me as you don't care about the future, you care about attempting to win the division in 2019. I wouldn't necessarily pursue a Gibson trade, I think there's an outside chance with the right moves the Twins could improve substantially next season... but I would certainly answer the call and pull the trigger if someone is desperate enough for a starter like Gibson next week 

Not caring about the future would be calling for a Lewis trade or looting Thorpe/Gonsalves/Rooker/etc. for rentals.

 

The Kyle Gibson situation isn't even in the same league as that argument.

[akmanak]

I dont get the deal with trading Gibson at this point. Sure his trade value is high but out of everyone except Berrios he is obviously our number 2 starter.

 

We need help when it comes to pitching but do we really need to toss all of our key players into the mix and get just prospects? We need pitching and he has established himself as a decent pitcher.

 

The obvious trade bait would be Dozier, Or, Escobar, and Rodney. Sure you could dump Lynn, but you aren't going to get anything of value for him.

[alarp33]

 

Not caring about the future would be calling for a Lewis trade or looting Thorpe/Gonsalves/Rooker/etc. for rentals.

 

The Kyle Gibson situation isn't even in the same league as that argument.

 

I was simply commenting on this statement; 

 

The time has passed to sit on your hands and wait for the prospects. Let's see a real attempt to win some ****ing baseball games. If you end the season with just 83 wins and miss the postseason and the most significant free agent casualty is Kyle Gibson, **** it. I don't care.

 

BTW, if having Kyle Gibson or not having Kyle Gibson next season makes a huge difference, odds are you didn't have a very good team in the first place

[Dman]

 

You can say that about almost any player, though. My point is that a good Gibson is worth a few wins on a staff that has been notoriously weak for a decade. I'm not banking on Gibson being a stud, I'm keeping the option open that other players will be studs and Gibson will prevent a shaky staff from stopping those players from reaching the postseason.

 

Sure I like the Twins chances in 2019 better with Gibson than without him but I think the goals we have in mind are just different.  My guess is the FO thinks more like you do so nothing will get done on a deal for Kyle.  But we just fundamentally disagree on the best course of action to win a World Series.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I was simply commenting on this statement; 

 

The time has passed to sit on your hands and wait for the prospects. Let's see a real attempt to win some ****ing baseball games. If you end the season with just 83 wins and miss the postseason and the most significant free agent casualty is Kyle Gibson, **** it. I don't care.

 

BTW, if having Kyle Gibson or not having Kyle Gibson next season makes a huge difference, odds are you didn't have a very good team in the first place

It can be a huge difference if the guy you replace him with is -2 wins while Gibson is +3 wins. That doesn't mean Gibson was amazing, it means his replacement was absolutely atrocious.

 

The default is not neutral wins, as we've seen with so many Twins teams over the past few years.

 

Gibson will not make or break the team by himself but his roster spot likely means you won't bleed out a potential postseason spot if you trade him. He's a complementary player at an absolutely crucial position, particularly on this team.

[Mr. Brooks]

This brings us back around to the classic Spring Training argument people on this forum have every year:

 

You can never have "too many" starters. If you have fewer than eight ready for MLB hitters on Opening Day, you're understaffed.

 

Do the Twins have eight or more starters you're comfortable watching pitch in Minnesota?

But only if he has an option.

If he doesn't have an option, then you are either guaranteeing him a spot, even if he's bad, when perhaps they'd prefer to upgrade his spot.

Or, they waive him if he's bad, and lose him for nothing when they could have gotten a lottery ticket.

 

If he has an option, then absolutely, he's one of 8 or 9 hopeful competent starters to get through the season.

If he's out of options, then he's 1 of 5 rotation spots unless he gets hurt, or waived for nothing.

The FO might not be interested in guaranteeing a rotation spot to a replacement level pitcher next year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sure I like the Twins chances in 2019 better with Gibson than without him but I think the goals we have in mind are just different.  My guess is the FO thinks more like you do so nothing will get done on a deal for Kyle.  But we just fundamentally disagree on the best course of action to win a World Series.

If you want the best chance to win a World Series, trade everyone, start over, and try to win a Series in 2023. Berrios will bring an enormous haul by himself. That's the position the Twins are in right now.

 

The Twins aren't the 2011 Astros but have a ton of upside in the next couple of years, though it's a risky proposition. Work with what you've got.

 

Because what you're arguing is that 2023 is more important than 2019-20, though you're not really committing to it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But only if he has an option.
If he doesn't have an option, then you are either guaranteeing him a spot, even if he's bad, when perhaps they'd prefer to upgrade his spot.
Or, they waive him if he's bad, and lose him for nothing when they could have gotten a lottery ticket.

If he has an option, then absolutely, he's one of 8 or 9 hopeful competent starters to get through the season.
If he's out of options, then he's 1 of 5 rotation spots unless he gets hurt, or waived for nothing.
The FO might not be interested in guaranteeing a rotation spot to a replacement level pitcher next year.

An interesting thing I've never really thought about. An option on Odorizzi does kinda change his situation a bit.

[alarp33]

 

It can be a huge difference if the guy you replace him with is -2 wins while Gibson is +3 wins. That doesn't mean Gibson was amazing, it means his replacement was absolutely atrocious.

 

The default is not neutral wins, as we've seen with so many Twins teams over the past few years.

 

Gibson will not make or break the team by himself but his roster spot likely means you won't bleed out a potential postseason spot if you trade him. He's a complementary player at an absolutely crucial position, particularly on this team.

 

For what it's worth, there wasn't 1 qualified pitcher in the majors last season who was worth even -1 WAR, let alone -2. So I would assume they wouldn't replace him with someone that bad. And Gibson is just about at his career high WAR right now and its 2.0, so banking on him being worth 3 next season is a stretch. 

 

With Berrios, Romero, Odorizzi, Pineda, Mejia, Gonsalves, Little, May and whatever else they do in FA/ Trades, the cupboard certainly is not bare. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

For what it's worth, there wasn't 1 qualified pitcher in the majors last season who was worth even -1 WAR, let alone -2. So I would assume they wouldn't replace him with someone that bad.

The Twins (and other teams) often have multiple pitchers who combine for -2 wins in the same "spot". IIRC, even the Dodgers did it just a year or two ago when they were a very good team overall.

 

No, a front office generally doesn't allow one player to be so bad for so long that they accrue -2 wins.

 

But that doesn't mean the guy who replaces that -1.2 win player isn't a -0.6 player. Or that the guy who replaces that second bad play isn't a -0.4 player.

 

The negatives accumulate.

[Dman]

 

If you want the best chance to win a World Series, trade everyone, start over, and try to win a Series in 2023. Berrios will bring an enormous haul by himself. That's the position the Twins are in right now.

 

The Twins aren't the 2011 Astros but have a ton of upside in the next couple of years, though it's a risky proposition. Work with what you've got.

 

Yeah my take is wave two.  The FO is already working on it IMO.  We have players now that will be worth something in the next two to three years (i.e. Berrios, Polanco, Rosario, maybe Buxton, Maybe Sano, Maybe Kepler).  We have some young talent in Graterol, Lewis, Kiriloff, Badoo, Javier, Enlow etc.  They can trade a Berrios, Polanco or Rosario and suppliment the core young guys coming up.  They can build a super team if they don't just play for today but play for the future.  

 

Hey maybe this year was a fluke and Buxton and Sano return next year.  The Twins have enough money to sign Esco and Dozier if they want them back next year.  Maybe the key players we currently have will take us where we need to go, but if they don't then yes sell what you have and move to make the best super team you can.

[alarp33]

 

The Twins (and other teams) often have multiple pitchers who combine for -2 wins in the same "spot". IIRC, even the Dodgers did it just a year or two ago when they were a very good team overall.

 

No, a front office generally doesn't allow one player to be so bad for so long that they accrue -2 wins.

 

But that doesn't mean the guy who replaces that -1.2 win player isn't a -0.6 player. Or that the guy who replaces that second bad play isn't a -0.4 player.

 

The negatives accumulate.

 

As bare as the cupboard was in 2016 + 2017, the respective "negative WARs" add up to -0.9 and -1.0 total for those seasons.  And the cupboard is not nearly as bare heading into 2019, even if they don't trade for or sign a starter this offseason, which I would expect they do 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah my take is wave two.  The FO is already working on it IMO.  We have players now that will be worth something in the next two to three years (i.e. Berrios, Polanco, Rosario, maybe Buxton, Maybe Sano, Maybe Kepler).  We have some young talent in Graterol, Lewis, Kiriloff, Badoo, Javier, Enlow etc.  They can trade a Berrios, Polanco or Rosario and suppliment the core young guys coming up.  They can build a super team if they don't just play for today but play for the future.  

 

Hey maybe this year was a fluke and Buxton and Sano return next year.  The Twins have enough money to sign Esco and Dozier if they want them back next year.  Maybe the key players we currently have will take us where we need to go, but if they don't then yes sell what you have and move to make the best super team you can.

A completely fair take. I disagree but it's not a terrible strategy.

[Dman]

 

A completely fair take. I disagree but it's not a terrible strategy.

 

To be honest I want the team we have to make it, but if they can't then get what value you can and move to the next window.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As bare as the cupboard was in 2016 + 2017, the respective "negative WARs" add up to -0.9 and -1.0 total for those seasons.  And the cupboard is not nearly as bare heading into 2019, even if they don't trade for or sign a starter this offseason, which I would expect they do 

And this is where I think Fangraphs' WAR for pitching breaks. Using FIP for bad pitchers breaks at a certain point when a pitcher is so awful that using things like expected probability of hits falling just goes to pieces. The batting average on line drives is what, like .720 or something?

 

Berrios' 2016 was a -1.6 rWAR. That was just Berrios.

 

And he deserved every lick of that negative value.

 

Using expected probability works for the majority because that's how it's accumulated, by the majority. But when you reach the fringes, you're assuming those majority numbers apply to the fringes. And that doesn't make sense.

[glunn]

Getting back to a deal with Oakland, their #3 prospect is a catcher --  As you can see he is now at AA.  http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2018?list=oak

 

In my mind this guy sounds like a worthwhile risk:

 

"Murphy draws raves from evaluators for his athleticism, agility and defensive tools behind the plate. He stymies the running game with plus-plus arm strength and above-average pop times, so much so that only 46 baserunners attempted to steal against him over 91 games in 2017. His blocking, game-calling and receiving skills have all improved in the professional ranks, and club officials consistently praise his ability to handle pitchers.

 

Offensively, Murphy possesses an intriguing blend of power potential and on-base skills from the right side of the plate. There's some natural hitting ability there too, and he proved comfortable using the entire field in his first full season. Even if his production is only modest, Murphy's defensive chops alone could make him an everyday catcher at the highest level."

 

Odorizzi, Lynn and ??? for this prospect? Or Gibson and the A's add a player? 

[alarp33]

Getting back to a deal with Oakland, their #3 prospect is a catcher -- As you can see he is now at AA. http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2018?list=oak

 

In my mind this guy sounds like a worthwhile risk:

 

"Murphy draws raves from evaluators for his athleticism, agility and defensive tools behind the plate. He stymies the running game with plus-plus arm strength and above-average pop times, so much so that only 46 baserunners attempted to steal against him over 91 games in 2017. His blocking, game-calling and receiving skills have all improved in the professional ranks, and club officials consistently praise his ability to handle pitchers.

 

Offensively, Murphy possesses an intriguing blend of power potential and on-base skills from the right side of the plate. There's some natural hitting ability there too, and he proved comfortable using the entire field in his first full season. Even if his production is only modest, Murphy's defensive chops alone could make him an everyday catcher at the highest level."

 

Odorizzi, Lynn and ??? for this prospect? Or Gibson and the A's add a player?

Not familiar with him prior to your post, but would Gibson even be enough (let alone asking the A’s to add a player). This guy looks legit

[jsteve96]

 

To trade Gibson now that he is the pitcher we always wanted would be insanity. Trade for hope and dreams? Even a higher degree of insanity. He is home grown. He is a Twin, not a visitor. Stop the insanity.

Sell high. I bet you wish that the Twins would have gotten something good for Santana last year when he was at his peak instead of leaving this year giving us nothing.. Gibson has 1 more year and he's more valuable now than he will be next year on in his last season at age 31

[Otto von Ballpark]

But only if he has an option.

If he doesn't have an option, then you are either guaranteeing him a spot, even if he's bad, when perhaps they'd prefer to upgrade his spot.

Or, they waive him if he's bad, and lose him for nothing when they could have gotten a lottery ticket.

 

If he has an option, then absolutely, he's one of 8 or 9 hopeful competent starters to get through the season.

If he's out of options, then he's 1 of 5 rotation spots unless he gets hurt, or waived for nothing.

The FO might not be interested in guaranteeing a rotation spot to a replacement level pitcher next year.

Odorizzi actually has 2 options left -- BUT he is also 18 days shy of 5 years service time and thus the right to refuse any optional assignment. So unless you want to option him right now, Odorizzi is effectively out of options going forward.

[nclahammer]

Under no circumstances do I trade Kyle Gibson at this point.  He's turned the corner and is now one of our best starters.

 

[laloesch]

No-one is untouchable on a rebuilding team and this team may not be done rebuilding. If Buxton and Sano continue their trajectory into mediocrity then you might as well blow up the current team and start again with the exception of Romero, Berrios and Rosario.  I hate to lose Gibson at this point but if someone offers a couple of good prospects in exchange I would definitely listen to their offer to say the least.  Same goes for Dozier, Escobar, Rodney, etc.

 

Sano and Buxton are key spindles in the wheel and without them i don't know if they can roll with what they have without trading pieces for more prospects and retooling.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Odorizzi actually has 2 options left -- BUT he is also 18 days shy of 5 years service time and thus the right to refuse any optional assignment. So unless you want to option him right now, Odorizzi is effectively out of options going forward.

That was the other factor I was wondering. It’s hard to demote a guy this close to free agency due to the five year rule. Thanks for doing the math on that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Getting back to a deal with Oakland, their #3 prospect is a catcher --  As you can see he is now at AA.  http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2018?list=oak

 

...

 

Odorizzi, Lynn and ??? for this prospect? Or Gibson and the A's add a player? 

 

Sean Murphy was 50 FV preseason at Fangraphs (#65 right now at MLB.com). IF a team was willing to pay full freight for what Kyle Gibson has done this year, we could possibly get that level of a prospect -- but I suspect no one wants to do that.

[Dman]

 

Sean Murphy was 50 FV preseason at Fangraphs (#65 right now at MLB.com). IF a team was willing to pay full freight for what Kyle Gibson has done this year, we could possibly get that level of a prospect -- but I suspect no one wants to do that.

 

Yeah I think there are a lot of better pitching options for teams to go after than Gibson.  Not many huge overpays happen at the deadline.  I think the only way the Twins would be able to move Gibson is if they brought down the price so to speak.  The Twins won't do that so the odds of him being traded are very low.  I haven't even really heard him rumored on the trade market other than the Twins are listening on most all of their players for trades.

 

Anything can happen at the deadline but I doubt trading Kyle Gibson will be one of them.