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

[TheLeviathan]

 

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.

 

Let me get this straight, the counter to this argument is "FA is tough?"

 

Somehow I don't believe you'd buy this argument if Falvey and Levine came out and said it about pursuing an upgrade in the offseason.  Hell, I know you and Chief wouldn't accept that argument.

 

You know how you land someone better than Parker?  Offer more money.  It ain't tough.  And I'd be willing to bet that's not an argument you'd accept from any Pohlad pocket-protector, so it seems odd to employ it here.

 

So I say bunkum to that.  Acquiring players to make your team better is never easy.  That's a lame excuse.  And if you're being honest with yourself, you probably agree. 

[TheLeviathan]

Also, to state it agian, the real flaw is believing Pressley or death.

 

That's just an absurd stance.  Yes, it's hard to acquire good players, but I'm pretty sure the other 29 teams hvane't given up on having a good bullpen because they don't have Pressley.  Not sure why the Twins should be any different.

[USAFChief]

 

Let me get this straight, the counter to this argument is "FA is tough?"

 

Somehow I don't believe you'd buy this argument if Falvey and Levine came out and said it about pursuing an upgrade in the offseason.  Hell, I know you and Chief wouldn't accept that argument.

 

You know how you land someone better than Parker?  Offer more money.  It ain't tough.  And I'd be willing to bet that's not an argument you'd accept from any Pohlad pocket-protector, so it seems odd to employ it here.

 

So I say bunkum to that.  Acquiring players to make your team better is never easy.  That's a lame excuse.  And if you're being honest with yourself, you probably agree

The counter to this argument is, trading away a needed asset, with the vague promise of free agency or some possible benefit in 2023, is a really bad idea.

[Mike Sixel]

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).

Less the season they lost, by not having him. Half of last year, half of this. Gonna be hard to make that up in a trade for a rental.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The counter to this argument is, trading away a needed asset, with the vague promise of free agency or some possible benefit in 2023, is a really bad idea.

 

Sometimes.  Sometimes the reverse is a bad idea - trade a valuable asset of the future for a possible present asset.  The board is littered with bad ideas of the past like trading Berrios for Tulo. 

 

We've had this discussion before, so I won't belabor the point, but a good FO cannot be as short-sighted as you stump for.  It's an untenable position.  There has to be a balance of aggression for the present and attention to the stability of the future.

 

Either way, I can't imagine you would actually argue, in good faith, that "FA is hard" is an excuse for asset acquisition.  

[nicksaviking]

 

The counter to this argument is, trading away a needed asset, with the vague promise of free agency or some possible benefit in 2023, is a really bad idea.

 

The "needed" part is probably the sticking point.

 

They were a bad team last year so they didn't need him then. This year it appears they could make some noise and could use him, but we already heard from Falvey (maybe it was Lavine) that they weren't going to chase big ticket free agents yet until they thought their window was open. I'm sure marketing and ticket sales loved that interview by the way.

 

So if they didn't feel the window was yet open, I'd assume the same logic (even if inaccurate) would have been applied to the trade of Pressly. 

[ashbury]

Well, I disagree. If you need food today, but trade away food for penny stocks, you starve.

[USAFChief]

 

Sometimes.  Sometimes the reverse is a bad idea - trade a valuable asset of the future for a possible present asset.  The board is littered with bad ideas of the past like trading Berrios for Tulo. 

 

We've had this discussion before, so I won't belabor the point, but a good FO cannot be as short-sighted as you stump for.  It's an untenable position.  There has to be a balance of aggression for the present and attention to the stability of the future.

 

Either way, I can't imagine you would actually argue, in good faith, that "FA is hard" is an excuse for asset acquisition.  

It is hard.

 

If it's not, why the **** didn't they acquire help this winter?

[Mike Sixel]

It is hard.

 

If it's not, why the **** didn't they acquire help this winter?

Because the FO doesn't think they are good. They said they'd invest when they were good.....

 

Therefore, since they didn't, they must not think they are good. That's my conclusion.

 

Of course, the Phillies weren't good last year, but invested in Arrieta, and more this year, and now they are good. Weird how that works....

[ChrisKnutson]

Wouldn’t be suprised if we break even on the Pressly trade. I mean, Celestino is nice (comparable to Almora of the Cubs), but it’s seems very likely that Alcala becomes who Pressly would’ve been if we didn’t trade him, either at some point this season, or right out the gates next year.

[USAFChief]

 

Wouldn’t be suprised if we break even on the Pressly trade. I mean, Celestino is nice (comparable to Almora of the Cubs), but it’s seems very likely that Alcala becomes who Pressly would’ve been if we didn’t trade him, either at some point this season, or right out the gates next year.

Non concur.

[Jham]

Let me get this straight, the counter to this argument is "FA is tough?"

 

Somehow I don't believe you'd buy this argument if Falvey and Levine came out and said it about pursuing an upgrade in the offseason. Hell, I know you and Chief wouldn't accept that argument.

 

You know how you land someone better than Parker? Offer more money. It ain't tough. And I'd be willing to bet that's not an argument you'd accept from any Pohlad pocket-protector, so it seems odd to employ it here.

 

So I say bunkum to that. Acquiring players to make your team better is never easy. That's a lame excuse. And if you're being honest with yourself, you probably agree.

I'm not making that excuse. The opposite, actually. Acquiring talent is hard and or expensive. Trading away talent is easy. If you trade away talent, the risk is that you end up needing it later and have to pay way more to get it back. I'm fine with trading Pressley IF they would have had better options to replace him. Heck, if the Romero move had worked we probably wouldn't be arguing here. BUT it didn't. Trading away our best reliever in an era where good relievers are as valuable as starters in a season we were pointing to for 5 years has a substantial risk of back fire. To the point where it is reasonable to doubt the soundness of the trade rationale to begin with.

 

I get that replenishing in FA is an option. But if i'm Jim P, and you just traded away Pres, watched Pres sign a super reasonable extension, then ask me for $45 mil to sign a guy we don't think is as good as the guy we just traded... I might give you the money, but I'm probably firing you if it doesn't work out. From a human perspective, that's a hard sell for Falvey.

 

But I agree. Agression in FA is what they should have done. Somehow they still have that chance. They should take it, again knowing there's a risk of back fire.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It is hard.

 

If it's not, why the **** didn't they acquire help this winter?

 

Sure it's hard.  Is the fact that it's hard a sufficient reason for you that they did nothing?

 

If not, it's not a viable argument against my point either.

[USAFChief]

 

Sure it's hard.  Is the fact that it's hard a sufficient reason for you that they did nothing?

 

If not, it's not a viable argument against my point either.

Well no, it's not sufficient reason. But it's certainly something to consider, when you're contemplating trading away from a bullpen that will surely need help in the coming year and a half, if you expect to be more than mediocre.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not making that excuse. The opposite, actually. Acquiring talent is hard and or expensive. Trading away talent is easy.

 

Well, I don't agree with that last part at all.  Making smart trades is not at all easy.  All aveues are hard, that's why navigating player trades, signings, etc. is hard.  But it's not an excuse.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Is it possible that the FO traded Pressley because they thought at the time that this team was more than a year away? Maybe they thought "get value for Pressley now since he may be gone by 2020 when we're turning the corner".

Possibly, but that's trying to time things a little too fine. Berrios, Buxton, Kepler, Polanco... no reason to think 2019 was that likely to be another non-competitive year.

[TheLeviathan]

Well no, it's not sufficient reason. But it's certainly something to consider, when you're contemplating trading away from a bullpen that will surely need help in the coming year and a half, if you expect to be more than mediocre.

Consider? Sure! But there are other considerations too. For example, good, hard throwing starters are valuable and hard to acquire. If the Twins believe Alcala is that, wouldn't a year of a reliever be worth six years (or more) of that. I know your answer, but that is a hard question, not easily answered.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Agreed, but we do have the benefit of hindsight. 

You didn't need hindsight to see that this was going to be a prime age season for Berrios, Polanco, Kepler, Rosario, Buxton, Rogers, and even Sano. Plus Gibson looked solid, and they went out and got Cruz... I mean, you don't predict a World Series title and push the chips all in for that squad, but you don't really count them out of contention enough to meaningfully influence a Pressly deal.

 

I think they were betting Pressly would regress, thus we wouldn't miss him that much, and they thought Alcala could be pretty good. The former hasn't happened yet, so they might need the latter to exceed expectations to ultimately make this deal look good.

[USAFChief]

Falvine probably don't second guess themselves that often, but I bet in a private moment each have thought to themselves..."yeah...prolly shouldn't have dealt Pressly."

[Jham]

You didn't need hindsight to see that this was going to be a prime age season for Berrios, Polanco, Kepler, Rosario, Buxton, Rogers, and even Sano. Plus Gibson looked solid, and they went out and got Cruz... I mean, you don't predict a World Series title and push the chips all in for that squad, but you don't really count them out of contention enough to meaningfully influence a Pressly deal.

 

I think they were betting Pressly would regress, thus we wouldn't miss him that much, and they thought Alcala could be pretty good. The former hasn't happened yet, so they might need the latter to exceed expectations to ultimately make this deal look good.

A third option that makes sense in a cynical way is that the team knew how good Pres was and knew he was in line for a raise and didn't want to pay for a non- closer. They'd just been burned by Reed and Perkins. They had other guys they wanted to extend. AND historically, this team's found some gems for the pen while dumpster diving. Presley included. Could have basically been a cost save. (compare presley's extension to Palanco and Kepler's)

[yarnivek1972]

Is it possible that the FO traded Pressley because they thought at the time that this team was more than a year away? Maybe they thought "get value for Pressley now since he may be gone by 2020 when we're turning the corner".

Then why not trade Gibson at his peak value?

 

And if you don’t believe you are contenders, why add pieces like Schoop, Cron, Cruz and Perez? Why not evaluate the younger players you have?

[Mr. Brooks]

An "arbitrage gain"?

 

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

It is. But don't you want them to build a sustainable winner? I know I do.

When you have a mid market budget, the way you do that is with a pipeline.

I know you dismiss prospects, but nearly every good player was once a good prospect.

If you were trying to build a sustainable village, you wouldn't dismiss the value of seeds for crops.

[howieramone2]

 

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.

Duh.

[howieramone2]

 

The counter to this argument is, trading away a needed asset, with the vague promise of free agency or some possible benefit in 2023, is a really bad idea.

This is overly simplistic. 

[howieramone2]

 

Falvine probably don't second guess themselves that often, but I bet in a private moment each have thought to themselves..."yeah...prolly shouldn't have dealt Pressly."

What he's saying is I can't believe how I robbed the Astros.

 

[USAFChief]

 

It is. But don't you want them to build a sustainable winner? I know I do.
When you have a mid market budget, the way you do that is with a pipeline.
I know you dismiss prospects, but nearly every good player was once a good prospect.
If you were trying to build a sustainable village, you wouldn't dismiss the value of seeds for crops.

Fair enough, and I do.

 

But I don't think the way to build a sustainable winner is to trade off your good pieces. 

 

And those were not my seeds, officer.

[Mr. Brooks]

Fair enough, and I do.

 

But I don't think the way to build a sustainable winner is to trade off your good pieces.

 

And those were not my seeds, officer.

Teams aren't trading good prospects for bad players though.

[Pius Jefferson]

The Twins don't fix Ryan Pressley. 

[Mike Sixel]

Then why not trade Gibson at his peak value?

 

And if you don’t believe you are contenders, why add pieces like Schoop, Cron, Cruz and Perez? Why not evaluate the younger players you have?

This. So much this.

[Mike Sixel]

It is. But don't you want them to build a sustainable winner? I know I do.

When you have a mid market budget, the way you do that is with a pipeline.

I know you dismiss prospects, but nearly every good player was once a good prospect.

If you were trying to build a sustainable village, you wouldn't dismiss the value of seeds for crops.

What year are they trying to win? Because if not this year, why is Gibson on the roster? Either they are rebuilding, and not trying to win, or not.

 

I'm reading a lot of posts here saying they aren't trying to contend this year. When will they?