SELL!

[jorgenswest]

A trade to the Yankees that brings in Sheffield and Gray has the potential for improving 2019. Both could be in next year’s rotation.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

A trade to the Yankees that brings in Sheffield and Gray has the potential for improving 2019. Both could be in next year’s rotation.

Like I said in another thread, wouldn't you worry about why the Yankees would be willing to give these guys up, for a player at the same position?

[jorgenswest]

 

Like I said in another thread, wouldn't you worry about why the Yankees would be willing to give these guys up, for a player at the same position?

 

Worry? No.

A trade like this is what it is going to take to get Gibson. The return has to improve their 2019 rotation. I don't think they will find a partner but if I take the position of not trading Gibson someone is going to push back and ask why I wouldn't listen to any offer. I would listen to this one or any that has a good chance of improving 2019.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Worry? No.

A trade like this is what it is going to take to get Gibson. The return has to improve their 2019 rotation. I don't think they will find a partner but if I take the position of not trading Gibson someone is going to push back and ask why I wouldn't listen to any offer. I would listen to this one or any that has a good chance of improving 2019.

That's fair. I'd listen too... but also worry.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kyle Gibson is not "young"

 

Did people forget KC swept us but a few days ago?

 

Yes, yes they did.

 

they also forget that some of those wins came against a BAL team on pace to win around 40-50 games on the year.....

 

Look, I love fans and optimism. But if we are talking about what the Twins Should do (not hope, but should) to make the team better......nm. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Like I said in another thread, wouldn't you worry about why the Yankees would be willing to give these guys up, for a player at the same position?

 

wouldn't the Yankees, by this logic, worry about why the TWins are giving up Gibson for the same position?

[USAFChief]

 

Kyle Gibson is not "young"

 

Did people forget KC swept us but a few days ago?

The Twins overall record, and run differential, are both valid arguments about their viability in 2018. I think they still have a chance, but I'm certainly understanding of opposite opinions.

 

However, I don't think "They got swept in KC" is any kind of valid argument.  

 

No more so than the fact they're 11-5 vs Cleveland, Boston, and Houston this year.

 

Every team in MLB is capable of sweeping any other team over a given series. Who your latest sweep was over, or who you lost a series to, is virtually meaningless, compared to your overall record.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

wouldn't the Yankees, by this logic, worry about why the TWins are giving up Gibson for the same position?

Well, the Twins could be sellers, and looking long-term. The Yankees would be buyers, thinking short-term.

 

But if we're not true "sellers", and we're thinking about contending in 2019 (to say nothing of 2018 yet) -- if the Yankees don't like either Gray or Sheffield in the short term, perhaps we shouldn't either.

 

Now, I don't mean to apply this to all trades, or you'd never get anything done. But it struck me as curious, because of the position/level/contention overlap. It would almost be like the MLB equivalent of the rare "prospect-for-prospect" trade.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, the Twins could be sellers, and looking long-term. The Yankees would be buyers, thinking short-term.

 

But if we're not true "sellers", and we're thinking about contending in 2019 (to say nothing of 2018 yet) -- if the Yankees don't like either Gray or Sheffield in the short term, perhaps we shouldn't either.

 

Now, I don't mean to apply this to all trades, or you'd never get anything done. But it struck me as curious, because of the position/level/contention overlap. It would almost be like the MLB equivalent of the rare "prospect-for-prospect" trade.

 

I think there are two things about this particular trade that make it different than that.....

 

1. The Yankees are legit contenders for the WS this year, so they want to be better this year. Gibson is better than either of those two this year.

2. Gibson is signed for next year also, meaning that while they lose out on 6 years of Justus, they at least get 1.4 years of a very good pitcher in return.

 

Yes, prospects are not as likely to be good as MLB players, and certainly not in the present. But Sheffield is 28th overall on MLB's prospect list. He's got legit ace type stuff. He's Gaterol or Berrios, but in AAA. Gray has been bad in NY, but might be better if he left. At worst, he's an innings eater next year, or traded, or whatever.

 

Would I deal Gibson for Sheffield? Probably. But that's only because I don't think they'll do what it takes to plug all the holes next year. Even with that......Berrios, Romero, veteran FA/ESan, Sheffield, Mejia/ODO looks like a pretty good group to me....and that group would be here for a long time.

 

Would I keep Gibson? Only if the FO has plans to go much more all in next year, which I'm not convinced they should do, but would understand if they did.

[Battle ur tail off]

To get Gibson a team is gonna have to give up one of their top 3 or so prospects. That's just what it is. A starting pitcher with his experience throwing as good as he has this year, with team control is as valuable as any asset in baseball. 

 

Not sure why people think he isn't worth anything. If the Twins were to try and pry a guy like that away from someone, you know dang well teams would be asking for the SS stud in the minors and/or Romero. 

 

I'd keep the guy unless the offer is significant. Gibson is better than any FA they would be able to sign the next couple years. If the move improves the team, then go for it. However if they dump him for some nobody or a guy in A ball or something, I would get the pitchforks out. 

 

Trade off the guys we won't sign next year for whatever we get if you don't want them back next year. Don't move Gibson or Pressly unless you get some REAL value close to the majors. 

 

 

[AlwaysinModeration]

 

You can start with explaining how you know this without knowing the return. You can add how we are going to compete with several teams that are positioned to be great for the next several years without adding talent that will be here for several years.

 

If you don't look beyond next year, I understand how you can immediately dismiss trading Gibson. Thankfully, our CBO has pledged to build a sustainable winner.  If an offer comes along that offers a good probability of achieving that status, Falvey/Lavine will take it. Fan's who don't like it will curse them and claim they don't care about winning just like they did when Cuddyer was not resigned. Of course, the comp pick (Berrios) is to our chances of becoming a contender.

 

I don't know what the return is, true.  It's possible they will offer some sort of crazy return that would an offer they couldn't refuse.  However, I doubt it.  And I wouldn't like it, because:

 

1)It would signal punting on the season, and I think they have a (small but real) chance to keep this hot streak going and make the playoffs.

 

2)It would be selling a player they have invested a decade in who is finally reaching his potential.  It would hurt to see him continue this year of excellence elsewhere.

 

3)Maybe we aren't seeing the best that Gibson can be.  He appears really confident right now, and is fun to watch. 

 

4)The idea of Gibson succeeding for NY makes my skin crawl.  It's already painfully watching Hicks to well in the Bronx.  

 

5)I expect the Twins to be in the playoff hunt next year (and haven't ruled out this year, as noted).  The idea of Gibson extending the Yankee dominance over Twins in the postseason after the Twins  is one of the worst thoughts I can conjure.

 

So, I get that it's not totally rational, but I'd be really opposed, even if the return was big.

 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't know what the return is, true.  It's possible they will offer some sort of crazy return that would an offer they couldn't refuse.  However, I doubt it.  And I wouldn't like it, because:

 

1)It would signal punting on the season, and I think they have a (small but real) chance to keep this hot streak going and make the playoffs.

 

2)It would be selling a player they have invested a decade in who is finally reaching his potential.  It would hurt to see him continue this year of excellence elsewhere.

 

3)Maybe we aren't seeing the best that Gibson can be.  He appears really confident right now, and is fun to watch. 

 

4)The idea of Gibson succeeding for NY makes my skin crawl.  It's already painfully watching Hicks to well in the Bronx.  

 

5)I expect the Twins to be in the playoff hunt next year (and haven't ruled out this year, as noted).  The idea of Gibson extending the Yankee dominance over Twins in the postseason after the Twins  is one of the worst thoughts I can conjure.

 

So, I get that it's not totally rational, but I'd be really opposed, even if the return was big.

 

I appreciate the sentiment about NY but emotion does not belong in business decisions. I think Milwaukee is just as good a bet.

 

Where this year is concerned, we would be managing the club based on a less than 10% chance of making the playoffs. That in itself would be cause for termination. Then, if we beat those considerable odds, we would be huge underdogs no matter who we faced in the playoffs. The previous regime refused to do what was necessary to rebuild or in this case retool.

 

As for next year, we have much to be resolved before we can expect to compete with Cleveland and we are not going to actually contend with NY / Boston / Houston for the next several years unless we fix some of the players currently struggling and infuse some serious talent. Passing on these opportunities is a good way to stay mediocre at a time where several teams have constructed rosters that are likely to be 95+ win teams for several years.

 

I keep seeing on this board a call for the F/O to build a contender. This does not happen by passing on opportunities to bring in the type of players necessary to get to that position.

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins overall record, and run differential, are both valid arguments about their viability in 2018. I think they still have a chance, but I'm certainly understanding of opposite opinions.

 

However, I don't think "They got swept in KC" is any kind of valid argument.  

 

No more so than the fact they're 11-5 vs Cleveland, Boston, and Houston this year.

 

Every team in MLB is capable of sweeping any other team over a given series. Who your latest sweep was over, or who you lost a series to, is virtually meaningless, compared to your overall record.

Typically....sure. I might accept that if the "We still have a chance" folks also acknowledged that the chance they speak of is as a remote as a Powerball ticket.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Typically....sure. I might accept that if the "We still have a chance" folks also acknowledged that the chance they speak of is as a remote as a Powerball ticket.

Posted this elsewhere too, but Powerball odds might be overstating it? Admittedly I don't know Powerball, but our coin flip odds at Fangraphs are 12.5% right now. And we have some control. A good showing vs Cleveland at home next week, behind Berrios and Gibson, could put us in position to double those odds rather quickly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Posted this elsewhere too, but Powerball odds might be overstating it? Admittedly I don't know Powerball, but our coin flip odds at Fangraphs are 12.5% right now. And we have some control. A good showing vs Cleveland at home next week, behind Berrios and Gibson, could put us in position to double those odds rather quickly.

 

Yes,it's overstating things, but if you're hanging your hat on 12.5%....well, doesn't that say a lot right there?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yes,it's overstating things, but if you're hanging your hat on 12.5%....well, doesn't that say a lot right there?

No, not really. It's not a lottery where you have a fixed chance of a random drawing. We have some control too. The 12.5% chance is just an estimate, and it is prone to big fluctuations if we can perform. (We have 7 games with Cleveland the next 2 weeks)

[AlwaysinModeration]

I appreciate the sentiment about NY but emotion does not belong in business decisions. I think Milwaukee is just as good a bet.

 

Where this year is concerned, we would be managing the club based on a less than 10% chance of making the playoffs. That in itself would be cause for termination. Then, if we beat those considerable odds, we would be huge underdogs no matter who we faced in the playoffs. The previous regime refused to do what was necessary to rebuild or in this case retool.

 

As for next year, we have much to be resolved before we can expect to compete with Cleveland and we are not going to actually contend with NY / Boston / Houston for the next several years unless we fix some of the players currently struggling and infuse some serious talent. Passing on these opportunities is a good way to stay mediocre at a time where several teams have constructed rosters that are likely to be 95+ win teams for several years.

 

I keep seeing on this board a call for the F/O to build a contender. This does not happen by passing on opportunities to bring in the type of players necessary to get to that position.

I respect your take on this, which is very thoughtfully written. You’ve convinced me.

 

In order to trade Gibson to the Yankees, it would have to be Justus Sheffield plus.

[Otto von Ballpark]

12.5% are a long ways from powerball numbers. However, passing on opportunities to obtain assets with potential i pact for several years is incompetence that will get you fired as the leader of any orgnization, including a baseball team.

What are the odds on that "potential impact" we are acquiring? Keep in mind even if you forecast them for 2 future WAR or whatever, there is no guarantee those will come at a meaningful/valuable time either (i.e. another season below .500, or spread out such that they don't gain much trade value). The odds of a meaningful future impact from these prospects might not be all that different than 10% or whatever.

[USAFChief]

12.5% are a long ways from powerball numbers. However, passing on opportunities to obtain assets with potential i pact for several years is incompetence that will get you fired as the leader of any orgnization, including a baseball team.

actually, I believe you're much more likely to get fired if you try to sell stockholders on the notion that it's really a good thing that their stock crashed, because you've invested in some penny stocks that will possibly pay off big time in only half a decade.

[Major League Ready]

 

No, not really. It's not a lottery where you have a fixed chance of a random drawing. We have some control too. The 12.5% chance is just an estimate, and it is prone to big fluctuations if we can perform. (We have 7 games with Cleveland the next 2 weeks)

 

12.5% is a long ways from powerball numbers. However, passing on opportunities to obtain assets with potential i pact for several years is incompetence that will get you fired as the leader of any organization, including a baseball team.

 

We also need to qualify exactly what we have a 12.5% chance of winning. That would be the central. Our chance of winning a playoff series is about 4%.

[Major League Ready]

 

actually, I believe you're much more likely to get fired if you try to sell stockholders on the notion that it's really a good thing that their stock crashed, because you've invested in some penny stocks that will possibly pay off big time in only half a decade.

You are going to have to elaborate on this logic because it makes absolutely no sense to me. We have a 12.5% chance of winning the central and roughly a 4% chance of winning a playoff series. As proven last year, we can still get in the playoffs and improve our holdings (prospects). The chances of winning a playoff series remains extremely low. 

 

Both involve significant risk. I guess if getting crushed in a playoff series is somehow a goal, I can see your point that 12.5% are not terrible odds. What are the odds that one of the 5 players the Twins traded for so far will contribute to the ML team? We just had a thread where several people articulated the value of coming up with low cost trades that produce big. Pretty hard to do that if you refuse to trade assets of modest value (pending FAs). 

 

I think we can look the national baseball reporters to see what an unbiased view looks like. Plus, I am very certain I could present this argument before a BoDs and be well received. 

[Han Joelo]

This is an excellent clash of "Are Sports a Science or an Art" aficionados.  As I've stated often, teams overcoming seemingly overwhelming odds is the most captivating thing to watch in sports, for me.  For others, building the robot exactly according to plan and then watching it walk around in perfect circles, and maybe bring you a beer from the refrigerator is more satisfying.

 

Selling right in the middle of a competitive game against arguably the best team in baseball is...pretty unfortunate, karmically speaking.

[Otto von Ballpark]

12.5% is a long ways from powerball numbers. However, passing on opportunities to obtain assets with potential i pact for several years is incompetence that will get you fired as the leader of any organization, including a baseball team.

 

 

Not sure what happened, but I responded to this identical post already this morning.

[Otto von Ballpark]

We also need to qualify exactly what we have a 12.5% chance of winning. That would be the central. Our chance of winning a playoff series is about 4%.

Fangraphs only gave us 5.6% chance of winning a playoff series before the season. We still played the games, didn't we?

 

As I understand, making the playoffs is fairly valuable on its own. I doubt the front office buys into the theory that "it's not even worth going to the dance if no one thinks we'll be homecoming queen".

[Major League Ready]

 

Not sure what happened, but I responded to this identical post already this morning.

I deleted the original when I realized after it could not longer be edited that it was written with 3rd grade grammar. Sorry!

[Otto von Ballpark]

I deleted the original when I realized after it could not longer be edited that it was written with 3rd grade grammar. Sorry!

So your grammar wasn't "major league ready"?

[Major League Ready]

 

Fangraphs only gave us 5.6% chance of winning a playoff series before the season. We still played the games, didn't we?

As I understand, making the playoffs is fairly valuable on its own. I doubt the front office buys into the theory that "it's not even worth going to the dance if no one thinks we'll be homecoming queen"

 

You will have to explain this to me and I am not trying to be cute. I have no idea what relevance the preseason odds have in terms of decision making now. Are you suggesting there was an option for us to forfeit. Companies, especially large start-ups project losses for the first year(s). They don't just not try. They make the best decisions possible. Are you suggesting that no team should ever sell unless they have been mathematically eliminated?

 

Several other teams that still technically have a chance have sold assets. Actually, it's a well-accepted practice. Are you saying the entire industry just does not understand that they should never trade current players for prospects if they have even the slightest of chances?

[Major League Ready]

 

So your grammar wasn't "major league ready"?

 

It was not even ready for the minor leagues. I have to scrutinize my writing extremely carefully for clients and I tend to not even look for errors in this type of casual writing. It can be pretty ugly sometimes.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You will have to explain this to me and I am not trying to be cute. I have no idea what relevance the preseason odds have in terms of decision making now. Are you suggesting there was an option for us to forfeit. Companies, especially large start-ups project losses for the first year(s). They don't just not try. They make the best decisions possible. Are you suggesting that no team should ever sell unless they have been mathematically eliminated?

 

Several other teams that still technically have a chance have sold assets. Actually, it's a well-accepted practice. Are you saying the entire industry just does not understand that they should never trade current players for prospects if they have even the slightest of chances?

Just noting that the given odds were similar. There's quite a lot of room between our position and mathematically eliminated, so no, that is not my threshold.

 

The Twins actually had by far the best "coin flip" playoffs odds (reflecting how much control they had over their destiny) of any seller so far, with the exception of the Cardinals who have really only done a "soft sell" so far, if that -- they sold a non-rental middling reliever and simultaneously DFA'd two veterans and promoted a couple top pitching prospects, so it looks like it was more baseball than business.

 

The Giants also had similar odds, and they are still kicking the tires on buying, so I think it's fair to say the Twins were in a gray area, and reasonable people can disagree about the path they should have pursued.

 

Edit to add: Pirates and Nationals have similar "coin flip" odds too, neither has yet sold. Pirates were reportedly looking to buy a reliever, and the Nationals already bought a reliever back in June although they are reportedly considering selling now.