Take Advantage of the Banked Wins

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

no, having someone like Pressly wouldn't change that one game. But it would have a large chance of affecting the numerous 1, 2, and 3 run games upcoming between now and the end of July. There'll be plenty of them, and not many 10 run games, I wager.
 

 

We've started out great, but we've lost several games already due to the pen imploding. While there's no guarantee that everyone of them would have been affected by an addition to the pen, I have to think that it's a bigger need than a starter... just my 2 cents there. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Given the state of the 2020 rotation, I'd be fine with that expenditure. Though Lewis/Kiriloff/Graterol are untouchable, but I still think there's enough in the system to get a trade like that done.

 

yeah, we have Berrios under contract going into next season. I could see some QOs if Odorizzi, Gibson, and Perez keep pitching well, but not all will sign them... I'm hoping at least one gets extended...

 

But with this said, I have to agree with Pseudo that a trade for an SP that's under contract for at least 2020 makes a lot of sense. We've got plenty of assets that could be offloaded in that scenario too. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You're missing a year, as Archer is controlled through 2021. Stroman is through 2020.

 

Also, you're discounting on quality across the board. I'd guess the Pirates preferred discount, should they even view it that way, would be a discount on quantity (i.e. i.e. lopping off the third prospect, but still aiming for similar quality in the top 2). Again, quality over quantity. If Archer is performing better than he was last summer, that could offset any potential discount too.

 

I admit Javier is a bit of a wild card -- if he can come back soon and start raking while playing up the middle, he'd be an interesting asset.

 

The others? I don't know. They're not bad, but they're also not special enough to think a team couldn't get comparable offers from a number of other teams, either at this deadline, this offseason, or at the 2020 deadline. Even if the Pirates or Jays saw an urgency to make a deal this summer, that package might be one of 5 or more similar ones.

 

I've got to think that at the very least Kirilloff would be on the table for a high end pitcher. I could see holding back on Graterol or Lewis, but AK is redundant right now. I love that bat too, but our corners are set for a while and he'd only be a DH. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I've got to think that at the very least Kirilloff would be on the table for a high end pitcher. I could see holding back on Graterol or Lewis, but AK is redundant right now. I love that bat too, but our corners are set for a while and he'd only be a DH. 

 

He's going to be the 1B/DH/OF of the future, unless they have to move Sano to 1B/DH sooner than planned. IMO.

[RaoulDuke]

I think this team was smartly built to win the division.  This offense should mash the lackluster rotations in the division and help hide the pitching staffs weaknesses.  They can win a lot of 7-4 games.

 

If they want to be serious come playoff time they need at least 1 top of the rotation and 1 back of the bullpen guy. 

[Mr. Brooks]

yeah, we have Berrios under contract going into next season. I could see some QOs if Odorizzi, Gibson, and Perez keep pitching well, but not all will sign them... I'm hoping at least one gets extended...

 

But with this said, I have to agree with Pseudo that a trade for an SP that's under contract for at least 2020 makes a lot of sense. We've got plenty of assets that could be offloaded in that scenario too.

Perez is under team control for next season.

[bird]

 

If the Twins are in contention, they're not going to trade Reed or Pineda if they are contributing. If the Twins aren't in contention, who cares. If Reed or Pineda aren't contributing, they might be released, but they have zero trade value.

 

I also strongly doubt they trade Castro, if in contention. 

 

 

I agree with this take in general terms and also doubt they trade, except I can envision a case where they conclude that someone in the minors is highly likely to contribute MORE than say, Reed or Pineda, therefore rendering them surplus.

 

I want my FO to basically ignore the standings and look to always be sellers of surplus at the trade deadline, and always for FUTURE help. Why? Because sellers have the upper hand at the deadline. And because future help gets discounted due to the time value of their projected production, meaning you get a higher-ceiling return for your lower ceiling surplus player. So, if Pineda is a marginal contributor that another club will overpay for and Thorpe and Gonsalves are tearing it up in Rochester and the FO believes they have an untapped upgrade on their hands? That's the scenario I hope they get to soon. They're not there yet. What I DON'T want them to do is peddle off Pressly, not because of where they are in the standings, but because they don't have an upgrade. He was anything but surplus.

 

Buyers? Heck yeah, when they're contending and don't have to agree to a stupid deal? (Think Ramos for Capp stupid). I don't want them to get "Martin Perez hubris" or to get too cute with their W-L calculations. Go into the deadline looking to upgrade the pen instead of maybe thinking you have another "fixed" diamond in the rough in the form of a Morin, Magill, or anyone else.

[bird]

 

That's probably the only type of player who's available for reasonable cost right now -- a contract that another team would like to shed while they can. Although even the Shields trade netted Tatis Jr. for the Padres...

 

 

Yeah, talk about stupid desperation trades, right?

[PseudoSABR]

 

 What I DON'T want them to do is peddle off Pressly, not because of where they are in the standings, but because they don't have an upgrade. He was anything but surplus.

I largely agree with your post, but surplus value is a benefit of an already good club.  Under the conditions of your scenario, the Twins hold onto Pressly (or whoever) until whatever trade value they have is utterly diminished.  If the team is not contending, it should seek to deal short-term-controlled assets (1-2 years) before their trade-value is near-zero.  The Twins had no way of knowing last year that they'd compete this year (sure they'd hope and plan for, but that was pie in the sky a year ago), so they acted to deal short term assets, regardless of surplus.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Twins had no way of knowing last year that they'd compete this year (sure they'd hope and plan for, but that was pie in the sky a year ago), so they acted to deal short term assets, regardless of surplus.

So they'd plan for competing... but trade Pressly without a replacement? That doesn't make sense. And I don't think "pie in the sky" is an accurate way to frame our 2019 odds -- I know we were pretty much out of the 2018 race at the trade deadline last year, but only by a couple games, and nothing about our roster suggested a crash was imminent (if anything, we probably stood a good chance of gaining a couple wins through positive regression).

 

Obviously we weren't anyone's WS favorites, but we were 100% aiming to compete in 2019 in such a way that Pressly had clear value to us in that effort.

 

I still think that trade was more of a bet on Pressly being unable to maintain his great performance than anything else.

[PseudoSABR]

 

So they'd plan for competing... but trade Pressly without a replacement? That doesn't make sense. 

Reread my post. I say the opposite of this.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Reread my post. I say the opposite of this.

"sure they'd hope and plan for" was the line that confused me from your post.

 

I think they were planning enough, and less reliant on just hope, that they probably don't trade Pressly if they think he can continue pitching great.

[PseudoSABR]

 

"sure they'd hope and plan for" was the line that confused me from your post.

I think they were planning enough, and less reliant on just hope, that they probably don't trade Pressly if they think he can continue pitching great.

Or they balance their belief in competing while Pressly is under contract and his likelihood to continue produce against  the prospects being offered for him.  The latter simply overcame the former. 

[USAFChief]

Or they balance their belief in competing while Pressly is under contract and his likelihood to continue produce against the prospects being offered for him. The latter simply overcame the former.

really poor trade. Awful. Case closed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Or they balance their belief in competing while Pressly is under contract and his likelihood to continue produce against  the prospects being offered for him.  The latter simply overcame the former. 

Perhaps. Obviously there's more than one factor that goes into a decision, but I just don't get the impression that they had any particular disbelief in their ability to compete in 2019. And I also don't get the impression that Alcala/Celestino are so good to make this a can't-refuse deal if Pressly could really continue pitching like he did in July 2018. And I don't think they would be naive enough to assume we'd have an internal option who could replicate that level of performance that quickly.

 

Hence, the primary factor, to me at this point in time, seems to have been a lack of belief in Pressly's chances of maintaining that effectiveness. Which isn't perhaps unwarranted, given the volatility of relievers and Pressly's own career arc, but it may be a bet that we lose.

[PseudoSABR]

 

really poor trade. Awful. Case closed.

Case closed? Pfft. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Perhaps. Obviously there's more than one factor that goes into a decision, but I just don't get the impression that they had any particular disbelief in their ability to compete in 2019. And I also don't get the impression that Alcala/Celestino are so good to make this a can't-refuse deal if Pressly could really continue pitching like he did in July 2018. And I don't think they would be naive enough to assume we'd have an internal option who could replicate that level of performance that quickly.

 

Hence, the primary factor, to me at this point in time, seems to have been a lack of belief in Pressly's chances of maintaining that effectiveness. Which isn't perhaps unwarranted, given the volatility of relievers and Pressly's own career arc, but it may be a bet that we lose.

Clearly this argument looks better with his non-ERA this year and his 0.77 ERA last year for Houston. We're just guessing when we speculate about the primary factor or whether they believed they could compete in 2019 (given the lack of long-term investments in the FA, and low-risk, short-term-deal approach, my guess there was at least some skepticism). 

[WLFINN]

 

"sure they'd hope and plan for" was the line that confused me from your post.

I think they were planning enough, and less reliant on just hope, that they probably don't trade Pressly if they think he can continue pitching great.

Not disagreeing with you I just picked a post to quote to add my two cents about Pressly, (to some I am sure 2 cents is an overpay). 

 

I think if the Twins knew they had the Pressly that he has been for the Astros they wouldn't have traded him for what they did.  Whatever Houston was able to do with him in my opinion is akin to what the Twins have done so far with Martin Perez.  I have to believe there are 20 plus GM's out there scratching their heads wondering why they "missed" on Perez.  Houston knew what they were getting with Pressly more accurately than what the Twins knew when trading him.  You win some, you lose some...

 

In my recollection Pressly caused much consternation on these boards with his "straight" fastball.  Now with his "tweaks" or "coaching" with the Astros he is the one that got away.  All of this being compounded by the fact that the Twins are doing well and our glaring weakness is back end bullpen.

 

I am over losing out on Pressly and excited about what we have going this season and look forward to seeing progress from the new regime.  I know it is purely hypothetical and not how it works and why can't we have both... but how many here would trade Houston's Pressly for our own Martin Perez??

 

Go Twins!

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Whatever Houston was able to do with him in my opinion is akin to what the Twins have done so far with Martin Perez.

FWIW, Pressly started dominating before he left the Twins, although perhaps only for a month or so:

14 G, 32.7 K%, 9.1 BB%, .204 AVG, .300 BABIP, 95.9 LOB%

 

The Astros definitely refined that a bit further, especially in the control department -- here are his regular season stats with Houston since the trade:

39 G, 34.3 K%, 2.2 BB%, .143 AVG, .212 BABIP, 97.2 LOB%

 

In some ways, trading Pressly at the deadline last year would be more like trading Martin Perez right now, after he's shown some flashes of success.

 

I wonder what Wes Johnson could have done with Pressly?

[WLFINN]

 

FWIW,

 

 

 

I wonder what Wes Johnson could have done with Pressly?

Yes that could have been fun...

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

We're just guessing when we speculate about the primary factor or whether they believed they could compete in 2019 (given the lack of long-term investments in the FA, and low-risk, short-term-deal approach, my guess there was at least some skepticism). 

The organization has never really made notable long-term investments in FA, beyond Nolasco/Santana (a class of FA SP that has perhaps disappeared?). I'm not sure the absence of such deals is much of a signal about anything.

 

I mean, the team made the playoffs in 2017 (perhaps with a bit of good luck), and were only a few games out near the deadline in 2018 (perhaps with some bad luck). 28.7% odds to make the playoffs at Fangraphs before 2018, and 35.8% this year. Their two highest payrolls on record in 2018 and 2019 too.

 

Obviously they weren't going "all in" on a World Series push or anything, but I think it's clear enough they were aiming at, and capable of, competing at a level where Pressly could be a real asset. It would be hyper-threading-the-needle to try to flip Pressly for prospects in that environment if they gave him good odds of continued success.

 

 

Clearly this argument looks better with his non-ERA this year and his 0.77 ERA last year for Houston

Well, he wouldn't need to be *that* good to have provided good value for the Twins in 2019. Something more like his July 2018 stats with the Twins would have sufficed. I understand if they didn't believe he could keep that level up either -- but at the same time, I think it's also fair to point out that they possibly lost that bet.

 

Teams lose bets like these all the time, even good teams. The good ones just win more bets than they lose, and/or they make the most of their wins and are able to minimize their losses. Hopefully we can do that in the pen yet this year.

[USAFChief]

 

 

 

 

Well, he wouldn't need to be *that* good to have provided good value for the Twins in 2019. Something more like his July 2018 stats with the Twins would have sufficed. I understand if they didn't believe he could keep that level up either -- but at the same time, I think it's also fair to point out that they possibly lost that bet.

 

 

He didn't need to be "July 2018" good.

 

When traded, his stats for the year he had a 128 ERA+, 2.95 FIP, and 13 K/9.

 

He was already the Twins best or second best reliever, with the arm and stuff to continue to get better results. 

 

He didn't magically transform into something way better in Houston. 

[Mike Sixel]

The team won a good number of games last year, without a good Buxton. Or even a mediocre Buxton. They added Pineda, who the FO must have liked. They added Cruz and Cron and Shoop and Gonzalez.

 

It looked like they thought they were on the verge of the playoffs, if not SERIOUS contenders (the FO pretty much said they weren't when misdirecting about why there weren't signing Machado or Harper).......so I don't really understand the plan.

 

I don't understand trading your best RP if you think you are going to contend while he's under control. And if you don't think you are going to contend, I don't understand paying Cruz what they paid him. 

[bird]

 

Or they balance their belief in competing while Pressly is under contract and his likelihood to continue produce against  the prospects being offered for him.  The latter simply overcame the former. 

 

 

That was the point of my dissatisfaction with that trade. I want them to have a strict and uncompromising sell discipline at all times, regardless of any clever calculations about nebulous things like windows and W-L probabilities. Sell from surplus only! And if they thought Pressly's value might have peaked, they would have clearly been wrong.

 

If you have a prospect in the high minors that projects as an almost immediate upgrade during a down year, trade the lesser surplus player at the first opportunity to get your price. But for heaven's sake, don't create a hole when your bullpen already looks like a slice of Swiss cheese.

 

If the Pressly return was just too good to pass up? Pass it up anyway. Maybe it will be too good later when you have two more guys in the high minors ready to become the next Pressly.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

He didn't need to be "July 2018" good.

 

When traded, his stats for the year he had a 128 ERA+, 2.95 FIP, and 13 K/9.

 

He was already the Twins best or second best reliever, with the arm and stuff to continue to get better results. 

 

He didn't magically transform into something way better in Houston. 

Thanks, I remembered a little rough patch in June, but you're right, he was pretty good before that too. A K% of at least 31.8% every month, plus a solid ERA/FIP, that is pretty good, roughly on par with some fine seasons from Nathan, Neshek, Rincon, and Perkins.

[yarnivek1972]

Clearly this argument looks better with his non-ERA this year and his 0.77 ERA last year for Houston. We're just guessing when we speculate about the primary factor or whether they believed they could compete in 2019 (given the lack of long-term investments in the FA, and low-risk, short-term-deal approach, my guess there was at least some skepticism).

If Falvine didn’t believe 2019 was going to be a competitive year at the 2018 deadline, why wasn’t Kyle Gibson dealt at literally the apex of his value?

 

No plan that they are willing to commit to. From day one.

[Mr. Brooks]

If Falvine didn’t believe 2019 was going to be a competitive year at the 2018 deadline, why wasn’t Kyle Gibson dealt at literally the apex of his value?

 

No plan that they are willing to commit to. From day one.

Maybe nobody blew them away with an offer they couldn't turn down for Gibson?

 

It's interesting that everyone always says something like, "nobody should be untouchable for the right price", then everyone gets upset when they actually do deal a guy because the return is too good to turn down.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Maybe nobody blew them away with an offer they couldn't turn down for Gibson?

It's interesting that everyone always says something like, "nobody should be untouchable for the right price", then everyone gets upset when they actually do deal a guy because the return is too good to turn down.

 

I think more people are "upset" that they did nothing to plug the hole they chose to create. Also, at some point, play for the present, please......

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's interesting that everyone always says something like, "nobody should be untouchable for the right price", then everyone gets upset when they actually do deal a guy because the return is too good to turn down.

I'd guess most of us critical of the trade do not feel the return was "too good to turn down." I mean, by definition, every completed trade apparently features a return that is "too good to turn down" because, well, it wasn't turned down!

 

Or maybe it was only "too good to turn down" under the assumption that Pressly would fail to sustain his good performance into 2019? That's my working theory, anyway.

[bird]

The problem with taking a return that's too good to pass up? It's that, if you have to go out into the market to patch the hole you created, in order for the new guy to become "touchable", you have to be willing to pay "the right price".

 

If the return you got could patch the hole you created, why would another team, or your team, make that move?

 

Fernando Tatis, Jr., Yoan Moncada, and Gleyber Torres were not surplus assets.

 

Trade. From. Surplus. Period.