Twins, OAK a good match? Gibson & Odorizzi available

[snap4birds]

 

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.

I agree on Sano and Buxton.  How they progress, and how the Twins handle them, is going to go a long way in the success or failure of this front office.  If the minor league stints work out & they come back next year producing ~5 WAR, it won't be too hard for the Twins to fill in the other spots on the roster to make a run.  If they continue to struggle, Falvey & Levine will have to decide how long of a leash to give them.  And that probably means more of a 'total reboot'.  

[Mike Sixel]

Check out the MLBT list of likely pitchers to be traded.....Gibson is better than every single one of them.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Check out the MLBT list of likely pitchers to be traded.....Gibson is better than every single one of them.

 

Significantly more valuable in fact.  I made the same observation this morning.

 

You don't have to deal Gibson, but it would be a terrible move not to shop him actively.

[Dman]

 

Check out the MLBT list of likely pitchers to be traded.....Gibson is better than every single one of them.

 

Yeah but he is not a rental and he is older so it might be tough for the acquiring team to get value back from the deal.  Also Gibsons good track record is short.  Another team has to believe this is the pitcher he is now and going forward.  Not sure those are bets I would want to take as the acquiring team.  If you think he is the guy to put you over the hump this year maybe some team just goes for it but I don't see it.  Top 100 prospects don't grow on tree's so it seems like it is hard to get those deals done.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah but he is not a rental and he is older so it might be tough for the acquiring team to get value back from the deal.  Also Gibsons good track record is short.  Another team has to believe this is the pitcher he is now and going forward.  Not sure those are bets I would want to take as the acquiring team.  If you think he is the guy to put you over the hump this year maybe some team just goes for it but I don't see it.  Top 100 prospects don't grow on tree's so it seems like it is hard to get those deals done.

 

I think we'll disagree.....look at the Dodgers. They went cheap on 2B last year, and paid the price this year (and last?). Now they are supposedly dealing 5 players for Machado.

 

If I'm a team like the Brewers, I want a very good pitcher, not a cheap/meh pitcher. There was a study released this week that said trading for elite players at the deadline is a better idea than we think.

[alarp33]

 

I think we'll disagree.....look at the Dodgers. They went cheap on 2B last year, and paid the price this year (and last?). Now they are supposedly dealing 5 players for Machado.

 

If I'm a team like the Brewers, I want a very good pitcher, not a cheap/meh pitcher. There was a study released this week that said trading for elite players at the deadline is a better idea than we think.

 

(and last?) - Didn't they play in Game 7 of the World Series? We don't need to rehash that argument again but I would say it worked out pretty well, and their very good pitcher they acquired at the deadline threw up a stinker in game 7. 

 

As for your 2nd paragraph, is this Gibson we are talking about "very good pitcher" and "elite player"? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just making sure we're talking about the same Kyle Gibson

[Mike Sixel]

 

(and last?) - Didn't they play in Game 7 of the World Series? We don't need to rehash that argument again but I would say it worked out pretty well, and their very good pitcher they acquired at the deadline threw up a stinker in game 7. 

 

As for your 2nd paragraph, is this Gibson we are talking about "very good pitcher" and "elite player"? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just making sure we're talking about the same Kyle Gibson

 

compared to other available pitchers, and for the last year since he made an obvious change in approach, yes. And yes, I'm mind boggled I'm typing those words too.....

 

the and last part was with a ?....and probably wasn't an issue, but we'll never know how the world is different. It certainly would be this year for them by now, I think.

[alarp33]

 

compared to other available pitchers, and for the last year since he made an obvious change in approach, yes. And yes, I'm mind boggled I'm typing those words too.....

 

the and last part was with a ?....and probably wasn't an issue, but we'll never know how the world is different. It certainly would be this year for them by now, I think.

 

I guess I'll disagree. Just because options are limited, doesn't change the fact Kyle Gibson is a pretty avg pitcher, so I would never use the words "very good" or "elite".  Could lack of other options change the return the Twins could potentially get? Maybe. 

 

As for the Dodgers, lets not forget to factor in a Cody Bellinger type may not have been on last years team or this years if they didn't "cheap out" on 2nd base and traded for Dozier, as it sounds as if they Twins may have been holding out for him. I doubt they'd make that trade even in hindsight

[Brock Beauchamp]

Significantly more valuable in fact. I made the same observation this morning.

 

You don't have to deal Gibson, but it would be a terrible move not to shop him actively.

I’m generally against trading Gibson but roughly 22-23 players on this roster should be shopped this deadline.

 

But I think this is a buyer’s market so I’m not holding my breath on a good return.

[markos]

 

compared to other available pitchers, and for the last year since he made an obvious change in approach, yes. And yes, I'm mind boggled I'm typing those words too.....

Yeah, it is hard to believe, but over the past calendar year he is #21 in ERA- and #23 in FIP- among pitchers who have thrown at least 150 innings. Steamer and ZiPS both project Gibson to be the best pitcher on the A's or Brewers for the rest of the season.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I’m generally against trading Gibson but roughly 22-23 players on this roster should be shopped this deadline.

But I think this is a buyer’s market so I’m not holding my breath on a good return.

 

Absolutely - they can walk away if they aren't enticed.  What I think the Twins have going for them is that several of the teams that are shopping (Phillies, Brewers, D-backs, Rockies, A's) all match up well with the Twins.

 

Gibson is a big part of that and he isn't part of the long-term plan here, so even more reason to explore.

[h2oface]

 

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? 

 

Oh, no! Not another catcher named Murphy! The Murphy name at catcher hasn't carried any good fortune on the Twins. 

[Doomtints]

Oakland just picked up Edwin Jackson and they can call up Frankie Montas and Chris Bassitt whenever they want.

 

They also cut Santiago Casilla who is both better and cheaper than Lynn and Odorizzi.

 

Next....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Oakland just picked up Edwin Jackson and they can call up Frankie Montas and Chris Bassitt whenever they want.

 

They also cut Santiago Casilla who is both better and cheaper than Lynn and Odorizzi.

 

Next....

 

I'm not sure why cutting a reliever has anything to do with their interest in starters.

[Mike Sixel]

mike sixel
1:44 Kyle Gibson on that list of guys to trade now, rather than wait? Or can the Twins compete next year?
Keith Law
1:44 I think they think they can compete next year, so perhaps not.

[alarp33]

 

Question - why do we think that Gibson isn't part of the long term plan here? I know we only control him for one more year. There's always the possibility of signing him for a 3-4 year deal now or after next year. 

 

Because he'll be 32 at the end of his team control, has not been exactly good or even average pitcher until last August.. and those are generally not the guys to extend early or build around

[alarp33]

 

I think trading Gibson for less is kind of like waiving the white flag on 2019. I'm not ready to do that.      

 

I have made this point in another thread, but if you think Kyle Gibson in 2019 is the difference between being a contender or waving a white flag for the season... there's a very good chance you were never a real contender anyways. 

 

*I'm not saying I would 100% trade him or anything, but they'd be foolish not to listen

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I have made this point in another thread, but if you think Kyle Gibson in 2019 is the difference between being a contender or waving a white flag for the season... there's a very good chance you were never a real contender anyways. 

To be fair, Gibson has been pitching for the last calendar year like a fairly durable 3 WAR starter. His likely internal replacements have little or no experience and could easily be replacement level or worse in 2019. That's a pretty big difference to overcome, so I could see it being a bit of a white flag.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Because he'll be 32 at the end of his team control, has not been exactly good or even average pitcher until last August.. and those are generally not the guys to extend early or build around

Just thinking -- IF Gibson keeps this up, he'd probably be worth a QO after 2019 which could possibly buy you his age 32 season without a long-term commitment.

[alarp33]

 

To be fair, Gibson has been pitching for the last calendar year like a fairly durable 3 WAR starter. His likely internal replacements have little or no experience and could easily be replacement level or worse in 2019. That's a pretty big difference to overcome, so I could see it being a bit of a white flag.

 

He certainly looks much better over the past calendar year, and I'm probably less of a believer in him long term than most... but if trading away a 3 WAR player signifies a white flag, they likely had; a - 0 depth b - no real chance anyways. 

 

Trading him away also gives you a chance to fill that rotation spot this off-season in another fashion. What would happen if they brought him back and he got hurt in April.. pack it in and call it a season?

 

I'm not arguing they are a better team in 2019 without him (assuming they don't get a ML ready catcher or player in return). I'm just arguing he's not good enough to make that big of difference

[jorgenswest]

I am concerned the drop from Gibson to the starter(s) that replace him at the end of the rotation will cost at least 3 wins next year. I don’t trust that he can be replaced in free agency.

 

Any return must have a positive impact on wins in both 2019 and beyond. If that can’t happen I am keeping him next year.

 

I would listen to offers but teams better be ready to overpay.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

He certainly looks much better over the past calendar year, and I'm probably less of a believer in him long term than most... but if trading away a 3 WAR player signifies a white flag, they likely had; a - 0 depth b - no real chance anyways. 

What's "no real chance anyways"? Weak division, Cleveland has some challenges too. We obviously won't be favorites but we'll have some kind of chance. But with that chance means marginal wins are going to be pretty important, so subtracting a durable 3 WAR SP would be a big deal, whether you want to call it a white flag or not.

 

I guess we could try to replace him this winter but you're likely to be looking at a mix of older/worse/more expensive options. And given how important marginal wins are to us, if you're making a significant SP addition, maybe you want it in addition to Gibson rather than replacing him? Gibson's salary is negligible. Bump Odorizzi or Mejia or whomever instead.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Just thinking -- IF Gibson keeps this up, he'd probably be worth a QO after 2019 which could possibly buy you his age 32 season without a long-term commitment.

Quoting myself, thinking again -- maybe that QO potential for Gibson is potential upside you could sell now, that you couldn't sell next summer. (Still not sure if anyone's ready to buy now, of course.)

[alarp33]

 

What's "no real chance anyways"? Weak division, Cleveland has some challenges too. We obviously won't be favorites but we'll have some kind of chance. But with that chance means marginal wins are going to be pretty important, so subtracting a durable 3 WAR SP would be a big deal, whether you want to call it a white flag or not.

 

I guess we could try to replace him this winter but you're likely to be looking at a mix of older/worse/more expensive options. And given how important marginal wins are to us, if you're making a significant SP addition, maybe you want it in addition to Gibson rather than replacing him? Gibson's salary is negligible. Bump Odorizzi or Mejia or whomever instead.

 

I'm admittedly probably nit picking the "white flag" term used. But if you really thought not having Gibson next season was a white flag - meaning I surrender we have no chance.. would you really pack it in next April if he suffered a season ending injury? A team that simply cannot compete without a singular 3 WAR player cannot compete even with that player

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm admittedly probably nit picking the "white flag" term used. But if you really thought not having Gibson next season was a white flag - meaning I surrender we have no chance.. would you really pack it in next April if he suffered a season ending injury? A team that simply cannot compete without a singular 3 WAR player cannot compete even with that player

Well. that's the literal white flag. I don't think you do that in April ever, but yes, your chances go down considerably when you need those marginal wins and you lose them.

 

With our front office and ownership and current roster, I feel like dealing Gibson now would be a bit of a figurative white flag for 2019, a signal we expect to rebuild a bit and contention will be seen as more of a hope/surprise than a goal. A bit more than the Garcia/Kintzler trades last year, definitely less than the Johan Santana deal but in the same pattern. Could we still sign Livan Hernandez to take his place?

 

Part of this is also that I don't think Gibson would get any great value in trade right now. Obviously if he could attract a Mejia or even a Justus Sheffield, that would change the calculus, so we're probably in agreement on the actual issues, and just going back and forth on the phrasing/framing.

[Dman]

 

Quoting myself, thinking again -- maybe that QO potential for Gibson is potential upside you could sell now, that you couldn't sell next summer. (Still not sure if anyone's ready to buy now, of course.)

 

I agree that is a benefit to a team trading for Gibson but it also means they are going to have to give up a lot in prospect value.  It is a tough trade to complete so I don't see it happening. 

 

He would bring back a good return but who can we get to do a deal?  They have to believe the new and improved Gibson is for real long term and not be afraid of his age if they would want to sign him longer term.  That risk seems to high to me if I am the buyer but who knows deadline deals can be crazy.