Take Advantage of the Banked Wins

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

How can anyone know how good the trade was until we see how the prospects turn out?

 

And, that's not what everyone is criticizing. We have at least one poster that says it's a bad trade, case closed, even if Alcala becomes a perennial Cy Young contender.

[Mr. Brooks]

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......

I don't agree that playing for the present has to mean that literally every single move is geared 100% only towards the present.

I think a smart FO of a middle budget team has to balance moves for short, medium, and long term plans.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

The reason the other team might pay that price is budgetary.

Houston isn't burdened with a middle market budget cap like the Twins are.

If Alcala becomes an ace or good #2, it's not a huge deal to Houston. Sure, they'd love to develop their own aces, as any team would. But, they can go buy a Verlander if need be.

The Twins will never do that. They desperately need to throw as many darts at that ace target as they can. Alcala is one more dart for them to throw. It's always a longshot, for pitching prospects, but the best chance to get one is by having a ton of those potential longshots.

If Alcala becomes a top of the rotation pitcher, that's a huge deal for the Twins, but just a minor inconvenience for Houston.

[yarnivek1972]

How can anyone know how good the trade was until we see how the prospects turn out?

 

And, that's not what everyone is criticizing. We have at least one poster that says it's a bad trade, case closed, even if Alcala becomes a perennial Cy Young contender.

How many REAL wins has not having Pressly already cost the Twins this year?

 

Would his pressence and the subtraction of the worst reliever have made a difference?

 

I think the answer is yes and I would further speculate (there is no way to know for sure of course, but Mejia is -.6 bWAR and Pressly is +1) that not having another reliable reliever has cost the Twins at least one win so far. And we aren’t even 1/4 into the season yet.

 

 

It’s a pretty basic bottom line: teams that are trying to “win now” shouldn’t trade away pieces that can help do that. If the counter arument is that factors changed, I say hogwash. That is THEIR shortsightedness to fail to see the window opening as Cleveland’s “sell off” was pretty well known by July last year. Indeed, it was discussed on this board at that time.

[jkcarew]

I liked the trade at the time. And it might still end up being a good trade, ignoring context. But, as Mike points out above, the FO then was (or should have been, IMO) obligated to plug the 2019 hole it created.

 

Maybe they though one or more of May/Mejia/Romero, etc. were going to take that step? If so, they appear to have been wrong, so still obligated to do something. I don't feel that strongly about it...yet. But I see the argument, for sure.

[USAFChief]

 

How can anyone know how good the trade was until we see how the prospects turn out?

And, that's not what everyone is criticizing. We have at least one poster that says it's a bad trade, case closed, even if Alcala becomes a perennial Cy Young contender.

I think one judges a decision by the information known at the time the decision was made.

 

Just because I got home safely doesn't make the decision to drive drunk a good one.

 

Just because Alcala later becomes a good pitcher, which can't be known at the time of the decision (and in fact, there is an extremely large chance he never becomes a good MLB pitcher, the same as any lower minors pitcher), doesn't change the math at the time of the decision.

 

At the time of the decision, it was a poor choice to trade away a very good asset at a position of huge need during the time he was under contract. 

 

If, in fact, Alcala becomes a Cy Young contender, that'd be great. It won't change my opinion of the decision to trade him. And it shouldn't change yours. If you like the trade, great, but you had to have made that decision last summer, not five years from now.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't agree that playing for the present has to mean that literally every single move is geared 100% only towards the present.
I think a smart FO of a middle budget team has to balance moves for short, medium, and long term plans.

 

It's almost like you ignored the point....if you create a hole, plug it. Play for the present too.......

[Mr. Brooks]

I think one judges a decision by the information known at the time the decision was made.

 

Just because I got home safely doesn't make the decision to drive drunk a good one.

 

Just because Alcala later becomes a good pitcher, which can't be known at the time of the decision (and in fact, there is an extremely large chance he never becomes a good MLB pitcher, the same as any lower minors pitcher), doesn't change the math at the time of the decision.

 

At the time of the decision, it was a poor choice to trade away a very good asset at a position of huge need during the time he was under contract.

 

If, in fact, Alcala becomes a Cy Young contender, that'd be great. It won't change my opinion of the decision to trade him. And it shouldn't change yours. If you like the trade, great, but you had to have made that decision last summer, not five years from now.

And you've been adamant with that stance, but I don't agree.

You are essentially saying that trading for a prospect is always a bad move. After all, nobody knows for sure if they'll make it.

 

I'm guessing the FO evaluates deals like this based on EV (expected value). I'm sure that as many variables as they can attempt to calculate are baked into this EV decision.

The fact is, some prospects WILL make it. And the ones that do, will contribute to varying degrees.

Each prospect has an EV. It's never 0, even though many will never contribute. And it's never 100, even though some prospects are near locks.

 

I don't want my FO passing up +EV deals, just because they are shortsighted.

They may be wrong in their evaluation, but that is a separate issue.

I want them making evaluations, then trusting them.

 

You do have to factor in opportunity cost as well, of course. I'll grant you that.

It'd be foolish to risk your entire net worth on a coin flip given 51% odds. Even though it's technically +EV, it's not worth the devastating risk of losing everything for such a small gain.

But, I don't view Pressley as being a devastating enough loss to pass up +EV in this case.

 

Again, we don't have to agree on whether this return actually was +EV, none of us know.

What matters to me is that if the FO believes it was, then I'm happy they didn't pass on it.

 

I want a long term, perennial contender. I don't believe that's possible for a mid budget team to accomplish by only making short term decisions.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's almost like you ignored the point....if you create a hole, plug it. Play for the present too.......

I agree.

Most of us withholding judgment on the trade itself agree that they failed to adequately plug the hole, although Parker has been good.

 

That was a later and separate decision though, IMO. They are related, but not connected.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think one judges a decision by the information known at the time the decision was made.

 

Just because I got home safely doesn't make the decision to drive drunk a good one.

 

Just because Alcala later becomes a good pitcher, which can't be known at the time of the decision (and in fact, there is an extremely large chance he never becomes a good MLB pitcher, the same as any lower minors pitcher), doesn't change the math at the time of the decision.

 

At the time of the decision, it was a poor choice to trade away a very good asset at a position of huge need during the time he was under contract.

 

If, in fact, Alcala becomes a Cy Young contender, that'd be great. It won't change my opinion of the decision to trade him. And it shouldn't change yours. If you like the trade, great, but you had to have made that decision last summer, not five years from now.

Why are the only options to like or dislike the trade?

Why can't one admit that I know 1% of what these guys do regarding how they evaluate players and prospects, and withhold judgment until we see how the prospects do? Or if they use those or other prospects to get help at the deadline?

 

I'm not arguing that I like the trade. I'm suggesting it's far too early to judge.

[yarnivek1972]

And you've been adamant with that stance, but I don't agree.

You are essentially saying that trading for a prospect is always a bad move. After all, nobody knows for sure if they'll make it.

 

I'm guessing the FO evaluates deals like this based on EV (expected value). I'm sure that as many variables as they can attempt to calculate are baked into this EV decision.

The fact is, some prospects WILL make it. And the ones that do, will contribute to varying degrees.

Each prospect has an EV. It's never 0, even though many will never contribute. And it's never 100, even though some prospects are near locks.

 

I don't want my FO passing up +EV deals, just because they are shortsighted.

They may be wrong in their evaluation, but that is a separate issue.

I want them making evaluations, then trusting them.

 

You do have to factor in opportunity cost as well, of course. I'll grant you that.

It'd be foolish to risk your entire net worth on a coin flip given 51% odds. Even though it's technically +EV, it's not worth the devastating risk of losing everything for such a small gain.

But, I don't view Pressley as being a devastating enough loss to pass up +EV in this case.

 

Again, we don't have to agree on whether this return actually was +EV, none of us know.

What matters to me is that if the FO believes it was, then I'm happy they didn't pass on it.

 

I want a long term, perennial contender. I don't believe that's possible for a mid budget team to accomplish by only making short term decisions.

Point one: Chief isn’t saying all trades are bad. Just ones that trade away pieces that you need and that you control during that time of need.

 

Second point: That’s an ironic statement. Trading away Pressly has been one of the few decisions this FO has made with long term (more than one season) implications. The others are signing Jason Castro, Addison Reed and Marwin Gonzalez. As well as the extensions of Polanco and Kepler. So, this FO track record on making non-short term decisions has not been very good - and that’s being kind.

[Mr. Brooks]

Point one: Chief isn’t saying all trades are bad. Just ones that trade away pieces that you need and that you control during that time of need.

 

Second point: That’s an ironic statement. Trading away Pressly has been one of the few decisions this FO has made with long term (more than one season) implications. The others are signing Jason Castro, Addison Reed and Marwin Gonzalez. As well as the extensions of Polanco and Kepler. So, this FO track record on making non-short term decisions has not been very good - and that’s being kind.

I never argued whether their track record, or this trade specifically, was very good or not. So why is that ironic?

I simply stated that, philosophically, I don't want them only focusing on the short term.

How successful those moves are is a completely different argument than the one you highlighted.

 

As to that argument. Reed looks like a bad signing. But Castro has already been worth 2.8 bWAR with 5 months left to add to that. That signing has already been a success.

Gonzalez is far to early to judge, and so are the Polanco and Kepler extensions, though those look brilliant with the small sample size we have so far.

Martin Perez is under control for 2 years. Again, too early to judge, but that looks brilliant with the SS we have.

Jake Odorizzi was acquired for a fringe prospect, he's provided 2.5 bWAR, that's more than likely a slam dunk.

 

I don't understand how these are bad moves.

[Vanimal46]

The next 19 games are against non-playoff teams last season. Most likely non-playoff teams this season...

 

It's not crazy to think this team will be double digit games above .500 after this stretch.

[Vanimal46]

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/1126108131849715712?s=19

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/1126108131849715712?s=19

 

And again, very similar story at Fangraphs: Twins 53.6%, Cleveland 46.1%. (Preseason, Cleveland was 88.6% vs the Twins 11.1%.)

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

[Mr. Brooks]

Those odds must factor in that there will be a mid air collision between MIN and CLE's planes once every 100 simulations? If not, KC having 1% is nonsense.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Those odds must factor in that there will be a mid air collision between MIN and CLE's planes once every 100 simulations? If not, KC having 1% is nonsense.

BP must be incorporating 2019 Pythag and/or BaseRuns a bit, where the Royals are notably better than their actual record so far (and by the same token, Cleveland's Pythag/BaseRuns records are worse).

 

Fangraphs still only has KC, CHW, and DET with a combined 0.3% chance of winning the division, same as their preseason forecast. (Although using their mode that favors "Season to Date Stats", KC's chances climb to 7.3% -- again, must be the Pythag/BaseRuns effect.)

 

EDIT: FWIW, BP had KC with a 3.1% chance of winning the division preseason. So they've at least fallen significantly from that, down to 0.6%. BP must use a bit more randomness in their simulations?

[ashbury]

Indians were 81% to win the division as of Opening Day. Six weeks later they're looking up at the Twins.

Perhaps when we check back in six weeks, we will see different odds again.

 

I mean, I'm happy to see all the recent success, but IMO we're still in small sample size territory. Cautiously optimistic we're seeing real trends of our players improving, though.

[Vanimal46]

Perhaps when we check back in six weeks, we will see different odds again.

 

I mean, I'm happy to see all the recent success, but IMO we're still in small sample size territory. Cautiously optimistic we're seeing real trends of our players improving, though.

That's fair. I'm cautiously optimistic about the starting staff right now... Not ready to hop on the Odorizzi bandwagon yet without more evidence. Perez I feel better about since his transformation is easier to see with the new cutter in his arsenal.

[Joe A. Preusser]

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.

 

I have nothing to back this up, but I assume every team in baseball has lost several games due to their pen so far this year.

[Mike Sixel]

I have nothing to back this up, but I assume every team in baseball has lost several games due to their pen so far this year.

And? The goal is to get better, and the pen was an obvious spot in the off season, and still is now. Every team had lost for a lot of reasons, not sure what that means to what should have, or should now, happen.

[Jham]

While posting in another thread, I realized 4 of our 5 starters are unrestricted Free Agents this year... This seems like the opposite of sustainable success. We have no one in the minors to replace even Pineda really.

 

The time to win has to be NOW!! This is why trading Pressley hurts. This is why planning for 2020 and beyond was dumb to begin with, and the idea that we could add pieces on top of giving our young players large amounts in arb or extensions was even dumber.

 

After saying all the 1 yr deals were a mistake, the FO did the same thing this year. Well, it's worked really well. But I think it's fair to ask, "Now what?"

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

While posting in another thread, I realized 4 of our 5 starters are unrestricted Free Agents this year

In addition to control over Berrios, we also have a team option on Perez for 2020.
 

Also, "unrestricted" might be too far for the rest -- Odorizzi, Gibson, and Pineda are eligible to receive a qualifying offer. True, it would be a high salary, and they may not be worth it, but forcing other teams to give up a draft pick could also give us extra leverage to negotiate a better deal for their services. (Looking way ahead, Perez could get a QO after 2020 too. Hope he's worth it! )

[Jham]

In addition to control over Berrios, we also have a team option on Perez for 2020.

 

Also, "unrestricted" might be too far for the rest -- Odorizzi, Gibson, and Pineda are eligible to receive a qualifying offer. True, it would be a high salary, and they may not be worth it, but forcing other teams to give up a draft pick could also give us extra leverage to negotiate a better deal for their services. (Looking way ahead, Perez could get a QO after 2020 too. Hope he's worth it! )

Thanks. The option still doubles his salary, but looks like a no-brainer at this point. I hope Pineda gets a QO. If he joins the others, this rotation could be very tough.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

While posting in another thread, I realized 4 of our 5 starters are unrestricted Free Agents this year... This seems like the opposite of sustainable success. We have no one in the minors to replace even Pineda really.

The time to win has to be NOW!! This is why trading Pressley hurts. This is why planning for 2020 and beyond was dumb to begin with, and the idea that we could add pieces on top of giving our young players large amounts in arb or extensions was even dumber.

After saying all the 1 yr deals were a mistake, the FO did the same thing this year. Well, it's worked really well. But I think it's fair to ask, "Now what?"

Perez has an option... so 3 of 5... Next season will be interesting. I suspect one starter gets extended... and if things keep going well, I wouldn't be surprised if a QO went to another one. 

 

But yeah, I get your point. Wouldn't be surprised if Romero and maybe even May were starting come next season. If the win the division, I wouldn't be surprised if the team splurged on a starter too. 

[Jham]

Perez has an option... so 3 of 5... Next season will be interesting. I suspect one starter gets extended... and if things keep going well, I wouldn't be surprised if a QO went to another one.

 

But yeah, I get your point. Wouldn't be surprised if Romero and maybe even May were starting come next season. If the win the division, I wouldn't be surprised if the team splurged on a starter too.

Well, Levine basically said we'd splurge to put the boot on the throat. But dang we've got pitchers and position players to extend or replace, plus arb raises. I'm starting to really like Schoop and Cron as teammates, pros, and solid players on both sides of the ball.

[Vanimal46]

But yeah, I get your point. Wouldn't be surprised if Romero and maybe even May were starting come next season. If the win the division, I wouldn't be surprised if the team splurged on a starter too.

I'm convinced Trevor May will have to pass away in order for the thought of him starting goes away. He hasn't started in 4 years. The ship has sailed.

[Joe A. Preusser]

And? The goal is to get better, and the pen was an obvious spot in the off season, and still is now. Every team had lost for a lot of reasons, not sure what that means to what should have, or should now, happen.

You're not sure? Clearly the OP was indicating that because we have lost several games due to our pen, that was evidence that we should add to our pen. My post suggested his relation was not a correlation. Nowhere did I say I wouldn't like to sign a reliever, simply that to point at that piece of information and draw that conclusion might not be valid.

[Mr. Brooks]

In addition to control over Berrios, we also have a team option on Perez for 2020.

 

Also, "unrestricted" might be too far for the rest -- Odorizzi, Gibson, and Pineda are eligible to receive a qualifying offer. True, it would be a high salary, and they may not be worth it, but forcing other teams to give up a draft pick could also give us extra leverage to negotiate a better deal for their services. (Looking way ahead, Perez could get a QO after 2020 too. Hope he's worth it! )

The player can turn down the QO, so they are still unrestricted free agents.

Restricted free agents have no ability to leave if their current team matches a FA offer, which baseball doesn't currently have.

[MVP Nick Punto]

Those odds must factor in that there will be a mid air collision between MIN and CLE's planes once every 100 simulations? If not, KC having 1% is nonsense.

I know my post doesn't contribute to the dialogue on a good thread, but dude, you had me laughing into my pillow to not wake my roommates up with this.