Who's a more valuable trade asset, Buxton or Kepler?

[John Bonnes]

At the deadline, it was reported that the Mets asked for Byron Buxton (plus more players) for Noah Syndergaard. With the Twins are least calling teams about trading for high impact starters, I wonder who we think is the more valuable asset for a team looking for a centerfielder: Byron Buxton or Max Kepler? I'd like the community's analysis on two things:

 

1) Which do you think is more valuable to other teams? (Especially to teams looking for a centerfielder.)

2) Which would you want to hang onto?

 

Here's the high-level analysis:

 

Buxton

- 827 OPS (10 HR, .262 BA, 19 BB, 68 K) but only played in 87 games

- saves about 15 runs per year in CF per UZR metric

- under team control for three more years via arbitration, probably at salaries of something like $4M/$7M/$10M = $21M

 

Kepler

- 855 OPS (32 HR, .252 BA, 60 BB, 99K) in 134 games

- saves about 10 runs per year in CF per UZR metric (though I have trouble believing that)

- under team control for up to five more years via contract. Approximately $6M/$7M/$7M/$8M + $10M team option = $38M

[diehardtwinsfan]

Both were pretty sketchy with the bat up until this year, but given where Kepler has hit in the lineup, I'd say he's clearly seen as the better hitter, even though the OPS results are pretty similar, but like you I'm pretty skeptical that the defensive drop off is that minimal between the two.

 

Given health though, and that's the big one for me, I'd have to say Kepler. Buxton has missed way too many games... I'm really hoping he can change that narrative next year... He needs to. 

[Sssuperdave]

I think Kepler's contract puts him over the top as a more valuable trade asset. 

 

Which would I want to hang on to? Both! If forced to choose I guess I would choose Kepler due to Buxton's injury history, but Buxton has the higher ceiling.

[Battle ur tail off]

I wouldn't trade either if I were running the team unless it bring back controllable, high end starting pitching(probably have to package someone else with them to get that). But I would say Buxton's athleticism and defensive prowess still probably makes him more desireable to other teams. 

 

That said, he is probably a lot more "risky" as an asset no matter who he plays for. Kepler is a better hitter, more patient, takes good at bats and while not flashy in the OF, is very solid. He is also signed to a very nice contract. 

 

If you wanted more the sure thing, I would say Kepler. If you were trying to take a little more risk, for possibly a little more reward, I would say Buxton. 

[In My La Z boy]

I think Buxton is more valuable to other teams and I think he is the one to trade while he still is of utmost value. One more injury plagued year with only 2 years of control is the risk you take by waiting one more season to cash in on his upside. This winter may be his last at peak value. Now I don't necessarily want him dealt. 2019 is a good example of his value when he plays. Can we ever get 140 games out of him? 

This is certainly a worthy discussion. No mystery on why it is Nats v Stros - we will see the very best 4 starting pitchers in all of baseball in this years WS. We need to be open to any ideas and options available to acquire high quality starting pitching this winter.

[ashbury]

It probably depends on the needs of the team we're trading with. If they are a contender who envisions missing the pennant race due to a lack of an adequate center fielder, then they'd pay more to get Kepler since he carries a lower risk of their having to revert to a backup. If they already have an adequate centerfielder (someone like Kepler) but want to go for the brass ring, they'd probably pay more for Buxton. For a rebuilding team, the extra control probably tilts toward Kepler again.

 

Buxton and Kepler really are an ideal combo, so I'm not eager to deal either. Max supplements and complements Byron so well.

[birddog]

I believe Buxton is more attractive to other teams for his defensive prowess and speed, but I think Kepler is more important to the Twins for his ability to stay on the field.

 

I agree with those who say they would prefer not to trade either, but I don't see us getting a top SP without losing one of them. I don't think teams would accept Rosario as a replacement for either.

[JW24]

I think Kepler's trade value is higher in part because of his relative versatility on defense. He plays a better than average CF along with really solid defense in RF. For a team looking to add an outfielder, Kepler could play all 3 positions well. Due to the excellence of Byron Buxton in CF, there is no way he gets moved out of that position for a corner spot for the foreseeable future, which could block the path of a prospect to the big leagues temporarily (good problem to have, certainly, but not one you have with Kepler).

 

Kepler also has a team-friendly contract for a known duration of time, which is valuable. Once Buxton gets an extension, the comparison between him and Kepler will become more clear, but I think the certainty of Kepler's contract gives him added value.

[Mike Sixel]

Buxton's high upside, and less years of control vs Kepler's health and team friendly contract?

 

Wow, that's a tough one! I think Buxton, but only for 1 more year. Then Kepler's contract and years of control take over.

[prouster]

At the deadline, it was reported that the Mets asked for Byron Buxton (plus more players) for Noah Syndergaard. With the Twins are least calling teams about trading for high impact starters, I wonder who we think is the more valuable asset for a team looking for a centerfielder: Byron Buxton or Max Kepler? I'd like the community's analysis on two things:

 

1) Which do you think is more valuable to other teams? (Especially to teams looking for a centerfielder.)

2) Which would you want to hang onto?

 

Here's the high-level analysis:

 

Buxton

- 827 OPS (10 HR, .262 BA, 19 BB, 68 K) but only played in 87 games

- saves about 15 runs per year in CF per UZR metric

- under team control for three more years via arbitration, probably at salaries of something like $4M/$7M/$10M = $21M

 

Kepler

- 855 OPS (32 HR, .252 BA, 60 BB, 99K) in 134 games

- saves about 10 runs per year in CF per UZR metric (though I have trouble believing that)

- under team control for up to five more years via contract. Approximately $6M/$7M/$7M/$8M + $10M team option = $38M

I think this question is beside the point, since it’s unlikely either will be traded this offseason.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

I believe Buxton is more attractive to other teams for his defensive prowess and speed, but I think Kepler is more important to the Twins for his ability to stay on the field.

 

I agree with those who say they would prefer not to trade either, but I don't see us getting a top SP without losing one of them. I don't think teams would accept Rosario as a replacement for either.

 

Nope, they will take Lewis or Kiriloff though. Not sure things. Worth just as much in a trade most likely. 

 

 

[jkcarew]

 

It probably depends on the needs of the team we're trading with. If they are a contender who envisions missing the pennant race due to a lack of an adequate center fielder, then they'd pay more to get Kepler. If they already have an adequate centerfielder (someone like Kepler) but want to go for the brass ring, they'd pay more for Buxton. For a rebuilding team, the extra control probably tilts toward Kepler again.

 

Buxton and Kepler really are an ideal combo, so I'm not eager to deal either. Max supplements and complements Byron so well.

I also think it'd be in the eye of the beholder...on multiple dimensions. Could be this (above) type of scenario...or could be two different clubs both expecting to compete for championships over the next couple of years, but with different types of lineup constructions/weaknesses: maybe one lacks pop from the left-side; maybe one has all the pop in the world, but is weak defensively in the outfield.

[jkcarew]

I think it's a good question, and probably in the eye of the beholder...different clubs would value one more than the other.

 

I do think most clubs would still consider Buxton's offensive game to be a work in progress. Then there's  his track record of injuries and missed time. Then there's his contract status (relative to Kepler's). I would think these factors would give Kepler the edge with at least some clubs.

 

Unfortunately, Buxton in 2019 left us with yet another year where, if you traded him, you would feel like you were selling low.

[prouster]

Can someone explain why the twins should trade important pieces off the MLB roster now that they’re firmly in contention? What other contending team has done this? I know it’s the off-season and we need stuff to talk about, but I legitimately don’t understand the reasoning behind all these replace/move/trade so and so threads.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

Can someone explain why the twins should trade important pieces off the MLB roster now that they’re firmly in contention? What other contending team has done this? I know it’s the off-season and we need stuff to talk about, but I legitimately don’t understand the reasoning behind all these replace/move/trade so and so threads.

 

I'm with you. To me it almost seems like a no brainer to use your prospect depth when you have a young roster that is controllable and producing. 

[insagt1]

Buxton is a concern for sure. I think he has one more season with the Twins to prove he can finally play a full season without spending half of it injured. Kepler's September injury totally messed with his offense.

Both are valuable, and if they could stay healthy, Twins would be in great shape.

I wonder if they would remotely consider trying to get Hicks back to replace the mostly ineffective Cave. Having said that, Hicks also seems to be injury prone...but I think he's a ton more valuable than Cave.

Maybe they give Wade Jr a long look?

 

For me, you keep Buxton and Kepler for sure...at least for one more year.

[Dman]

 

I think Kepler's trade value is higher in part because of his relative versatility on defense. He plays a better than average CF along with really solid defense in RF. For a team looking to add an outfielder, Kepler could play all 3 positions well. Due to the excellence of Byron Buxton in CF, there is no way he gets moved out of that position for a corner spot for the foreseeable future, which could block the path of a prospect to the big leagues temporarily (good problem to have, certainly, but not one you have with Kepler).

 

Kepler also has a team-friendly contract for a known duration of time, which is valuable. Once Buxton gets an extension, the comparison between him and Kepler will become more clear, but I think the certainty of Kepler's contract gives him added value.

 

I really like your analysis but I am going to go the other direction and say Buxton is the most valuable.  I am going to base that on the fact he has elite speed and defense in center field coupled with the fact he has very good power for a center fielder.  While Max might have more power he isn't the same threat to steal bases and play gold glove D in center.  I admit that Buxtons health is a real concern and you would have to see past that to give him most valuable but I think he has more elite skills so I would give it to him.

 

Based on what both of them have done so far I would give it to Kepler for the reasons you mention above.  Kepler is a good defender in center and elite in right field.  He has the power to play the corners and a good eye at the plate.  He is a very valuable player on a team friendly contract.  He has generally been pretty healthy in MLB ball.

 

It is a tough choice to be sure and personally I would keep both of them.

[Jham]

Kepler is more coveted. Not close. Buxton carries a stigma of intense struggle that Kepler doesn't really have.

[JW24]

 

Can someone explain why the twins should trade important pieces off the MLB roster now that they’re firmly in contention? What other contending team has done this? I know it’s the off-season and we need stuff to talk about, but I legitimately don’t understand the reasoning behind all these replace/move/trade so and so threads.

The purpose of this thread, as I see it, is to evaluate the value of Buxton and Kepler in regards to what other teams see. The Twins should not do anything for the sake of doing something; they should do something if they identify the move they make adds more value to their organization than they are giving up.

 

Sure, the Twins are firmly in contention, but they should never stop trying to improve. These threads provide an avenue for discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

Can someone explain why the twins should trade important pieces off the MLB roster now that they’re firmly in contention? What other contending team has done this? I know it’s the off-season and we need stuff to talk about, but I legitimately don’t understand the reasoning behind all these replace/move/trade so and so threads.

Or we can just discuss who has more trade value for fun....

 

But an outfielder will be traded this off season. Either one of their MLB players, or a minute league player, I'd bet.

[prouster]

Or we can just discuss who has more trade value for fun....

 

But an outfielder will be traded this off season. Either one of their MLB players, or a minute league player, I'd bet.

If any of their outfielders get traded, I think there’s a very good chance it’s Rosario (and an even better chance it’s not Buxton or Kepler). And Rosario will very likely not get them a difference maker.

 

I think any trade of a MLB outfielder would have limited upside—at most a win or two. It’s not worth it to replace Kepler’s 4 wins with Pitcher X’s five. And this is the implicit claim behind the question, isn’t it? By asking, “what’s their value?” aren’t we asking what they could realistically get, and if it’s worth trading either, and whether it should be done?

[jkcarew]

 

Can someone explain why the twins should trade important pieces off the MLB roster now that they’re firmly in contention? What other contending team has done this? I know it’s the off-season and we need stuff to talk about, but I legitimately don’t understand the reasoning behind all these replace/move/trade so and so threads.

Happens all the time. Clubs trade from positions of depth...including major-league depth, to address areas of weakness. In the Twin's case, the acquisition of pitching this off-season is not an option, it's a requirement. It's totally fair, IMO, to argue that the Twins should limit acquisitions to FA acquisitions...or that the Twins don't have 'enough' depth in the OF to warrant a trade of either Buxton or Kepler...or should trade minor league prospects instead, etc., etc. But, I think this thread just asks...if the Twins 'had' to consider trading from the major-league depth (maybe the trade partner demands a major-league-ready piece) which of Kepler/Buxton could be expected to return more.

[prouster]

Happens all the time. Clubs trade from positions of depth...including major-league depth, to address areas of weakness. In the Twin's case, the acquisition of pitching this off-season is not an option, it's a requirement. It's totally fair, IMO, to argue that the Twins should limit acquisitions to FA acquisitions...or that the Twins don't have 'enough' depth in the OF to warrant a trade of either Buxton or Kepler...or should trade minor league prospects instead, etc., etc. But, I think this thread just asks...if the Twins 'had' to consider trading from the major-league depth (maybe the trade partner demands a major-league-ready piece) which of Kepler/Buxton could be expected to return more.

Name one example of a contending team trading an important player when their competitive window is wide open. The premise of this thread isn’t “trading from depth.” It’s a suggestion that they should consider trading a 4-5 win player for a marginal upgrade in starting pitching. Seriously, what’s one example? Teams just don’t do this, because the benefits simply aren’t there.

[USAFChief]

 

If any of their outfielders get traded, I think there’s a very good chance it’s Rosario (and an even better chance it’s not Buxton or Kepler). And Rosario will very likely not get them a difference maker.

I think any trade of a MLB outfielder would have limited upside—at most a win or two. It’s not worth it to replace Kepler’s 4 wins with Pitcher X’s five. And this is the implicit claim behind the question, isn’t it? By asking, “what’s their value?” aren’t we asking what they could realistically get, and if it’s worth trading either, and whether it should be done?

I think Rosario, plus perhaps an add in, can return a pitcher in a similar situation. Talent, but warts, with both teams believing there's more in there, and it can be realized. Perhaps with both teams' immediate needs matchup up.

 

Cleveland dealt a top line starter at the deadline, for example.

 

The trick, of course, is to be the one on the right side of that deal, so you don't end up sending off Hicks for a AAAA catcher.

[prouster]

I think Rosario, plus perhaps an add in, can return a pitcher in a similar situation. Talent, but warts, with both teams believing there's more in there, and it can be realized. Perhaps with both teams' immediate needs matchup up.

 

Cleveland dealt a top line starter at the deadline, for example.

 

The trick, of course, is to be the one on the right side of that deal, so you don't end up sending off Hicks for a AAAA catcher.

I don’t think anything is impossible, but I do think some things are more likely than others. Cleveland is maybe a good example of what I’m arguing against, but I’m not sure they viewed themselves as real contenders this year. Their off-season was...quiet.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

This is certainly a worthy discussion. No mystery on why it is Nats v Stros - we will see the very best 4 starting pitchers in all of baseball in this years WS. We need to be open to any ideas and options available to acquire high quality starting pitching this winter.

 

I mean, this ignores the reality that minus a bases-loaded single + error against Hader, the Nats were 4 outs away from losing in the wild-card game.  Ace(s) increase odds of getting to the postseason, and increase the margin for error when you get there, but they are nowhere near a guarantee for success.  It just so happens that this year two teams with "super-rotations" also have 20 other good players each as well.

[ewen21]

What is Byron Buxton really?  We can go all day on how fast he is and how his glove cures cancer, but he is nothing more than a question mark for me coming into next season.  He has played in 115 major league games over the last two seasons and in 361 major league at bats he has 10-50-.235.  He has never had an OBP over .314.

 

it doesn't seem like he will learn that running into walls  In fact, he has acted somewhat defiant about it.  As if that is one of the most essential things that makes up his identity.  I can't say for sure what he is going to be going forward, but I wouldn't bet a penny on him getting at least 400 at bats next year.  He has made it to 300 at bats once.  He has played over 100 games once.

 

These are facts.  We can talk him up and hype him up from here to eternity, but it isn't going to change what has happened and will happen.  If history teaches us anything he will need to tweak his game to be able to stay on the field.  

 

 

[ewen21]

 

I mean, this ignores the reality that minus a bases-loaded single + error against Hader, the Nats were 4 outs away from losing in the wild-card game.  Ace(s) increase odds of getting to the postseason, and increase the margin for error when you get there, but they are nowhere near a guarantee for success.  It just so happens that this year two teams with "super-rotations" also have 20 other good players each as well.

 

Right.  This argument I have seen about how pitching wins is a load of BS.  No one thing wins it for any team.  You have to have balance.   Houston has Carlos Corriea bating 7th.  They have a pretty darn formidable lineup.  I think pitching and hitting are the most important thing with defense clocking in at third.  If I had to have one thing that was below average and two things well above then give me offense and pitching all day long.

[jkcarew]

 

Name one example of a contending team trading an important player when their competitive window is wide open. The premise of this thread isn’t “trading from depth.” It’s a suggestion that they should consider trading a 4-5 win player for a marginal upgrade in starting pitching. Seriously, what’s one example? Teams just don’t do this, because the benefits simply aren’t there.

The thread asks if a team came asking for a major-league OF (that could play center), who would return more in terms on an impact pitcher...not a 'marginal upgrade' in starting pitching.

 

If your point is that 'good' teams usually trade prospects, not major-league talent, I agree. If your argument is that it's dumb to trade major league talent when you are in a position to contend, I say not necessarily. If you have two outfielders that are 'really' good, but you think you have two more that can be just as good or better (or in the case of Buxton, good, and way more durable), why would you limit opportunities by not at least listening to teams that might be interested in one of the major-league pieces?

 

(FWIW...off the top of my head, the Cardinals traded Garry Templeton coming off a division championship, Boston traded Nomar Garciappara for help at other positions literally while they were trying to win their first world series in 90 years. The Dodgers traded Puig because they had a ton of outfield depth...and they didn't want to sign him...but arguably, could have used him in this post-season. Nevertheless, I concede that it's usually prospects, even that prospects would be 'less risky'. But there are instances of it working out the other way, as well.)

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I think Buxton has more value this offseason. Because he’s still in arbitration and has so much potential. Buxton was the same at the trade deadline as now.

 

All it takes is one season for Buxton to change the narrative from injury prone to superstar.

 

Kepler has been steady and reliable, but it feels like we’ve seen his peak. It’s dang good... but not like the promise of a healthy Buxton.