So....Time to make a call to Kimbrel?

[USAFChief]

I'm more than willing to say the odds of the trade working out are smaller for the Twins than the Astros. Maybe even significantly so. Impossible is unreasonable, however.

that's fair.

[Brock Beauchamp]

There is no reason we can't offer 3 years/33M right now and see who blinks first.

See, now this is the range I’m more interested in seeing. I can see $11-12m per for a reliever but can’t get behind $15-16m per.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It was a bad trade, even if Alcala turns into a hall of famer.

 

The odds of that are so remote as to be irrelevant to the discussion. And I don't care if he does. The important point is the value of something in hand and really needed today, vs the value of something remotely possible to be more valuable years from now.

 

You haven't answered...would you trade Alcala and Celestino for Pressly today?

I have no issues with the trade and quite liked it at the time.

 

What I didn’t like was an entire offseason of sitting on hands in regards to relievers.

 

So you traded a very good reliever and got a nice return. Rarely a bad play.

 

But replace the guy the following winter, for crying out loud.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

There is no reason we can't offer 3 years/33M right now and see who blinks first.

 

If memory serves me right, they had a higher one on the table earlier this year...

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I have no issues with the trade and quite liked it at the time.

What I didn’t like was an entire offseason of sitting on hands in regards to relievers.

So you traded a very good reliever and got a nice return. Rarely a bad play.

But replace the guy the following winter, for crying out loud.

 

Pretty much this... this trade was the only one that made me pause, mainly b/c they had him under contract for 2019... now that said, had they gone out and spent cash on a capable reliever to replace him, I'd have been much happier than I am right now...

 

Fact of the matter is that they didn't, and they could have. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Pretty much this... this trade was the only one that made me pause, mainly b/c they had him under contract for 2019... now that said, had they gone out and spent cash on a capable reliever to replace him, I'd have been much happier than I am right now...

 

Fact of the matter is that they didn't, and they could have. 

 

It would've been a net positive too.  We probably would have acquired a reliever with more control than Pressley (Like a three year deal to Kimbrel or someone of that ilk), got the quality deal from AZ, and all we had to do was spend money.

 

The failure was this offseason and Chief - I was right there clamoring for it with you.  And disappointed by the effort.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It would've been a net positive too. We probably would have acquired a reliever with more control than Pressley (Like a three year deal to Kimbrel or someone of that ilk), got the quality deal from AZ, and all we had to do was spend money.

 

The failure was this offseason and Chief - I was right there clamoring for it with you. And disappointed by the effort.

Also consider me in full agreement. Trading 1.3 seasons of Pressly is great if you get two valuable prospects.

 

But you need to fix the roster hole the following offseason using dollars.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It would've been a net positive too.  We probably would have acquired a reliever with more control than Pressley (Like a three year deal to Kimbrel or someone of that ilk), got the quality deal from AZ, and all we had to do was spend money.

 

The failure was this offseason and Chief - I was right there clamoring for it with you.  And disappointed by the effort.

There's risk in trying that switcheroo, though. Even an honest effort to acquire a couple suitable replacements might not work out in a short time frame.

[USAFChief]

Pretty much this... this trade was the only one that made me pause, mainly b/c they had him under contract for 2019... now that said, had they gone out and spent cash on a capable reliever to replace him, I'd have been much happier than I am right now...

 

Fact of the matter is that they didn't, and they could have.

Keep Pressly AND add a couple arms.

 

Strong, deep bullpens are enormously valuable in today's baseball. They are tasked with 3 or more innings almost every night, and the better bullpen performance is often the deciding factor.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There's risk in trying that switcheroo, though. Even an honest effort to acquire a couple suitable replacements might not work out in a short time frame.

 

There is risk in all transactions.  Pressly was no guarantee, certainly not to become the weapon Houston helped create.  But ultimately it'll be a few years before we'll know if they made the right play.  Though they certainly made their chances more remote by doing nothing this offseason.

[Brock Beauchamp]

There's risk in trying that switcheroo, though. Even an honest effort to acquire a couple suitable replacements might not work out in a short time frame.

Given the fluidity of relievers, was keeping Pressly any lower risk than acquiring another reliever in the offseason? Sure, there’s price and years but that’s the risk you run with both prospects and free agents, just on opposing sides of the coin.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Keep Pressly AND add a couple arms.

 

Strong, deep bullpens are enormously valuable in today's baseball. They are tasked with 3 or more innings almost every night, and the better bullpen performance is often the deciding factor.

Then you end up without a combination of Cron, Schoop, and Gonzalez. Let’s not pretend this isn’t a zero sum game.

 

I don’t agree with a lot of this offseason but suggesting “you can just do ALL the things and then be better” isn’t a real solution.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Keep Pressly AND add a couple arms.

Strong, deep bullpens are enormously valuable in today's baseball. They are tasked with 3 or more innings almost every night, and the better bullpen performance is often the deciding factor.

 

There are two major problems with your take on this:

 

(1) You want posters to consider whether they would trade Alcala and Celestino for a version of Pressly that the Twins *never had*. Maybe they would have gotten him there later in the year, or this year. But it's an invalid counterfactual on its face. The question can only be whether the Twins should have retained *their* version of Pressly.

 

(2) There is no relationship between the Twins' lack of off-season bullpen moves and whether they should have dealt Pressly. You're saying the Pressly trade was bad in part because no subsequent additions were made, which again is an invalid hindsight bias. The lack of bullpen additions is a separate topic (certainly a valid point of criticism), but is irrelevant to the Pressly deal. That trade has to be considered with a Rawlsian veil of ignorance over whether the Twins would or would not making corresponding moves.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess, when you trade a player like this, there's a combination of a few factors.

 

1. The return -- is it too good to pass up?

2. The player -- is there a significant gap between what we think he can do, versus what other teams think

3. The replacements -- do we think we can replace the player easily

 

I know a poster here has suggested #1 a few times, and Alcala looks interesting, but I am not sure that was the primary motivator.

 

I think #2 and #3 came into play here as well, and the Twins look like they may have made mistakes there. Pressly is still looking good, and no one has really been found to replace him. Some may want to separate that effort, to replace him, but given the Twins position as a solid young team, and the ubiquity of solid bullpens among contenders, I think it should be considered as a factor in this deal. It's not like the Twins were tanking for 2019, or were planning to win in 2019 without a good pen.

 

Still possible that factors 2 and 3 change over this year, and of course factor 1 will develop over a few more years.

[Jham]

I guess, when you trade a player like this, there's a combination of a few factors.

 

1. The return -- is it too good to pass up?

2. The player -- is there a significant gap between what we think he can do, versus what other teams think

3. The replacements -- do we think we can replace the player easily

 

I know a poster here has suggested #1 a few times, and Alcala looks interesting, but I am not sure that was the primary motivator.

 

I think #2 and #3 came into play here as well, and the Twins look like they may have made mistakes there. Pressly is still looking good, and no one has really been found to replace him. Some may want to separate that effort, to replace him, but given the Twins position as a solid young team, and the ubiquity of solid bullpens among contenders, I think it should be considered as a factor in this deal. It's not like the Twins were tanking for 2019, or were planning to win in 2019 without a good pen.

 

Still possible that factors 2 and 3 change over this year, and of course factor 1 will develop over a few more years.

It appears obvious now that their plan to replace him was Romero. Moving him to the pen after a mostly ok rookie season as a starter was a bold move. I think they took his success in the new role for granted. IMO, his k rate never screamed lock down reliever. Still, I can't say that was an absurd replacement plan. But we all know depending on prospects is a risk. Parker is not a suitable back up plan. The Astros will never trade back. Time to swallow your pride and get Kimbrel in. He doesn't need to be the best closer in baseball to significantly around this club. The FO should be happy that there still is any option to address your no.3 consideration at this late off date that doesn't require trading AK or Brusdar. They should jump on it. Of course it's an overpay. That's the real risk they took in dealing Presley: replacement cost might be higher than your return on sale. If you can't afford to lose a trade (bet), you shouldn't make the trade (bet) .

[USAFChief]

 

Then you end up without a combination of Cron, Schoop, and Gonzalez. Let’s not pretend this isn’t a zero sum game.

I don’t agree with a lot of this offseason but suggesting “you can just do ALL the things and then be better” isn’t a real solution.

That sounds more like an argument against trading Pressly than an argument for the trade. You're the one arguing they should have dealt with the bullpen through free agency this past winter.

[USAFChief]

 

There are two major problems with your take on this:

 

(1) You want posters to consider whether they would trade Alcala and Celestino for a version of Pressly that the Twins *never had*. Maybe they would have gotten him there later in the year, or this year. But it's an invalid counterfactual on its face. The question can only be whether the Twins should have retained *their* version of Pressly.

 

(2) There is no relationship between the Twins' lack of off-season bullpen moves and whether they should have dealt Pressly. You're saying the Pressly trade was bad in part because no subsequent additions were made, which again is an invalid hindsight bias. The lack of bullpen additions is a separate topic (certainly a valid point of criticism), but is irrelevant to the Pressly deal. That trade has to be considered with a Rawlsian veil of ignorance over whether the Twins would or would not making corresponding moves.

1. The Pressly the Twins *had* last year was their best reliever. He had a 128 ERA+, 2.95 FIP, and a 13.0 K/9 strikeout rate. They absolutely should have retained *their* version of Pressly, he'd be their best reliever this year, too. The reason Houston wanted Pressly was, he was already damn good.

 

2. "There is no relationship between the Twins' lack of off-season bullpen moves and whether they should have dealt Pressly." 

 

- You're addressing this to the wrong person. You should be addressing this to the folks who want to justify the trade by claiming the mistake was inaction over the winter. I only addressed their point.

 

"That trade has to be considered with a Rawlsian veil of ignorance over whether the Twins would or would not making corresponding moves."

 

- I mostly agree...the trade is largely unrelated to the lack of help acquired over the winter. They aren't just one reliever short of a good bullpen.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That sounds more like an argument against trading Pressly than an argument for the trade. You're the one arguing they should have dealt with the bullpen through free agency this past winter.

No, I think they could have passed on Gonzalez in favor of a reliever. I like Gonzalez but not more than a good bullpen arm.

[USAFChief]

 

No, I think they could have passed on Gonzalez in favor of a reliever. I like Gonzalez but not more than a good bullpen arm.

Again...an argument for retaining Pressly. 

 

There can be no argument for the trade that doesn't start from the position "they don't need bullpen help." That's the whole point.

 

If you believe this team doesn't need any bullpen help, fine. They should have made that trade. 

 

Otherwise, it was shortsighted and is likely to cost them dearly.

[yarnivek1972]

No, I think they could have passed on Gonzalez in favor of a reliever. I like Gonzalez but not more than a good bullpen arm.

Would it not have made more sense to pass on Cron? The Twins have (had) a lot more MLB players that can play 1b than 3b.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That trade has to be considered with a Rawlsian veil of ignorance over whether the Twins would or would not making corresponding moves.

 

Ryan Pressly to the Twins: "You'll never find... another reliever like me..."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTrCBAqTyM

[Brock Beauchamp]

Would it not have made more sense to pass on Cron? The Twins have (had) a lot more MLB players that can play 1b than 3b.

Possibly. It depends on the money required to get a reliever.

[nicksaviking]

I don't think Cron, Schoop or Gonzalez had anything to do with the team not signing relievers this off season seeing as how many perfectly usable relievers had to settle for minor league deals and only 6 got more than $3M AAV. 

 

If they didn't want to use the A list, this team could have overhauled the pen on the cheap but they didn't. I mean if in November someone had said the Twins were going to sign Tyler Clippard, Bud Norris, Nick Vincent and Daniel Hudson, we probably would have said, eh, not great, but not bad.

 

I'm not sure why they sat on their hands but it couldn't have been because of financial constraints. I'd guess it has to do with (?misplaced?) faith in internal options, but it would be nice if we could get an answer or two.

 

[ashbury]

 

There are two major problems with your take on this:

 

(1) You want posters to consider whether they would trade Alcala and Celestino for a version of Pressly that the Twins *never had*. Maybe they would have gotten him there later in the year, or this year. But it's an invalid counterfactual on its face. The question can only be whether the Twins should have retained *their* version of Pressly.

 

(2) There is no relationship between the Twins' lack of off-season bullpen moves and whether they should have dealt Pressly. You're saying the Pressly trade was bad in part because no subsequent additions were made, which again is an invalid hindsight bias. The lack of bullpen additions is a separate topic (certainly a valid point of criticism), but is irrelevant to the Pressly deal. That trade has to be considered with a Rawlsian veil of ignorance over whether the Twins would or would not making corresponding moves.

"Twins Daily: come for the baseball, stay for the Problems In Modern Philosophy roundtable."

 

Thank you for this one.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again...an argument for retaining Pressly. 

 

There can be no argument for the trade that doesn't start from the position "they don't need bullpen help." That's the whole point.

 

If you believe this team doesn't need any bullpen help, fine. They should have made that trade. 

 

Otherwise, it was shortsighted and is likely to cost them dearly.

 

No, it can start from "the season was lost and we got a value offer that blew us away"

 

They had ways to repair the bullpen for 2019.  Pressley does not have to be part of a successful bullpen, not for here or anywhere else.  This is why the earlier analogy does not fit, it presupposes it was Pressley or death.  That notion is inherently flawed and it's causing a ripple down of other flawed arguments.

 

One of the things smart teams do is buy low/sell high.  The Twins could've sold high on Pressley and bought low several other ways (trade/FA) and come out ahead.  They didn't, that's the problem.

[drivlikejehu]

 

No, it can start from "the season was lost and we got a value offer that blew us away"

 

They had ways to repair the bullpen for 2019.  Pressley does not have to be part of a successful bullpen, not for here or anywhere else.  This is why the earlier analogy does not fit, it presupposes it was Pressley or death.  That notion is inherently flawed and it's causing a ripple down of other flawed arguments.

 

One of the things smart teams do is buy low/sell high.  The Twins could've sold high on Pressley and bought low several other ways (trade/FA) and come out ahead.  They didn't, that's the problem.

 

Right. If the Twins trade away a 2.95 FIP reliever during 2018, and then in the off-season acquire a 2.95 FIP reliever, the team essentially converts free agent money into 2 prospects (since the acquisition replaces Pressly on a 1-1 basis). Money for prospects is a great thing.

 

Obviously, the Twins didn't do that. They could still salvage an arbitrage gain if they acquire a Pressly-equivalent reliever through trade for a lesser prospect price than they received (e.g., if they traded for a more costly reliever with less surplus value).

[TheLeviathan]

 

Right. If the Twins trade away a 2.95 FIP reliever during 2018, and then in the off-season acquire a 2.95 FIP reliever, the team essentially converts free agent money into 2 prospects (since the acquisition replaces Pressly on a 1-1 basis). Money for prospects is a great thing.

 

Obviously, the Twins didn't do that. They could still salvage an arbitrage gain if they acquire a Pressly-equivalent reliever through trade for a lesser prospect price than they received (e.g., if they traded for a more costly reliever with less surplus value).

 

Exactly right.  As an example, I had advised Herrera and Allen for about 2 years/20M in the offseason.  That's about what each of them got.  In that scenario: For 40M we bought some pretty nice prospects, more team control over two relievers, and (so far this year) similar production to Pressley.  

 

We do not have to have Pressley this year ot have a good bullpen.  I don't know how that bizarre notion came to be.

[yarnivek1972]

The Twins needed to do more than replace Pressly. Overall, the bullpen was bad with him. Replacing him just maintained status quo. Last year, the bullpen allowed more runs than league average, allowed inherited runners to score slightly more than league average and had the worst save percentage and most blown saves in the league. Bottom line, one of the worst bullpens in the league. Certainly, far worse than any contender.

 

This year, bullpen runs are down but inherited runs are much worse than league average. As of today, the bullpen probably grades as about average. But it still ranks considerably worse compared with the teams that are leading their respective divisions.

 

Bottom line, this is not the bullpen of a contender. It’s at least two quality relievers short of that.

[Jham]

Exactly right. As an example, I had advised Herrera and Allen for about 2 years/20M in the offseason. That's about what each of them got. In that scenario: For 40M we bought some pretty nice prospects, more team control over two relievers, and (so far this year) similar production to Pressley.

 

We do not have to have Pressley this year ot have a good bullpen. I don't know how that bizarre notion came to be.

I think the flawed premise is assuming we can trade away assets and simply hire replacements. FA is tough. You are bidding against other teams. You have your list of guys. Signing your 3rd option might preclude you from signing your first option. waiting for your first option may leave you without any remaining options.

 

From the sound of it, the club expressed interest in a number of relievers and came away with Parker. When we traded Presley away, and I criticized the move, I was told we can ALWAYS resign him in FA. I don't mind some calculated risks, but if you lose, be prepared to rectify the error.

[USAFChief]

 

Right. If the Twins trade away a 2.95 FIP reliever during 2018, and then in the off-season acquire a 2.95 FIP reliever, the team essentially converts free agent money into 2 prospects (since the acquisition replaces Pressly on a 1-1 basis). Money for prospects is a great thing.

 

Obviously, the Twins didn't do that. They could still salvage an arbitrage gain if they acquire a Pressly-equivalent reliever through trade for a lesser prospect price than they received (e.g., if they traded for a more costly reliever with less surplus value).

An "arbitrage gain"?

 

Is that the goal? I thought the goal was to win baseball games.