Who Says No?

[Cap'n Piranha]

The Twins Trade: Byron Buxton, Royce Lewis, and Alex Kiriloff

 

The Twins Receive: Mike Trout and Albert Pujols

 

 

Why the Angels do it--they get out from under $66M in salary this year, and $67M next year.  If they use that space to sign Cole and Rendon, they can add 15-20 WAR to the 2020 team (when Buxton is included), while only giving up 8-10 WAR, and all for about the same cost.  Not to mention they catapult their farm system into the top 5, with 3 near MLB ready hitters.

 

Why the Angels don't do it--they give up the franchise icon, who may be the best player in baseball history, at the height of his powers.

 

 

Why the Twins do it--the 101 win 2019 team loses less than 3 WAR, while picking up 8-10.  An Arraez/Cruz/Trout/Kepler/Garver/Sano/Polanco Top 7 of the lineup is as good as anything in baseball.  With 4 first division regulars (Kepler/Polanco/Garver/Arraez) under contract for (probably) $11M, $16M, $22M, and $35M over the next 4 years, you can afford to stomach the two massive contracts, particularly since Pujols' deal expires after 2021.  Butts in seats.

 

Why the Twins don't do it--the Twins and $300M contracts don't really go together.  While Pujols only has two years left, it's two years of negative value for a team trying to win now.  It leaves little to no money for pitching, which means at best one of Odorizzi and Pineda--if at least 2 of the Graterol/Balazovic/Thorpe/Dobnak/Smeltzer group can't become good MLB starters, the Twins will lose a lot of 9-8 ballgames.

[glunn]

Interesting idea, but I hope that the Twins don't do it, for the reasons that you have stated.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think both say no?

 

The Angels would probably be better off just eating the Pujols money, keeping Trout, and signing Cole or Rendon (no guarantee they get either, much less both). Buxton still has potential but is pretty unreliable and Lewis/Kirilloff are still gambles too (especially right away for 2020, which is when Cole and Rendon would have maximum impact).

 

And if the Twins were willing to take on $450 mil in future salaries this offseason, they're probably better off just making aggressive offers to Cole or Rendon themselves. And if they are willing to trade Lewis and Kirilloff, they could probably get cheaper talent.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I think both say no?

 

The Angels would probably be better off just eating the Pujols money, keeping Trout, and signing Cole or Rendon (no guarantee they get either, much less both). Buxton still has potential but is pretty unreliable and Lewis/Kirilloff are still gambles too (especially right away for 2020, which is when Cole and Rendon would have maximum impact).

 

And if the Twins were willing to take on $450 mil in future salaries this offseason, they're probably better off just making aggressive offers to Cole or Rendon themselves. And if they are willing to trade Lewis and Kirilloff, they could probably get cheaper talent.

 

All fair points.  My thoughts were that the Angels would free themselves from an albatross contract, while improving immediately.  No guarantee they get either of Cole or Rendon, but with the ability to give Cole 7/$245 and Rendon 7/$215 while staying salary neutral for the length of those contracts (except for 2022).  Given the Angels resources, they could add on top of these two as well.  While 2020 is the year of maximum impact for Cole/Rendon, the Angels are quickly running out of maximum impact years of Mike Trout too.  He turns 31 in 2022, which is the first year Pujols is off the books, at which point he has probably 1-2 years of incredible production left, after which he'll have "just" good production left.  Additionally, getting rid of Pujols opens up 1st base, allowing them to have a productive player there too.

 

For the Twins, 7/$245 and 7/$215 might not be enough to get Cole and Rendon--you may have to pay a premium to get them to Minnesota, as they would know that signing those deals might max out the Twins for years to come.  It's possible you could attract cheaper talent in return for Lewis and Kiriloff, but it probably wouldn't be equivalent to Trout.  If you're going to cash in your top two chips, do it for premium talent, not reasonably priced talent.

[Mike Sixel]

angels. I think they sign Cole w/o this move.

 

twins, because if they are spending that much, why not just sign 3-5 very good to great players and keep their two hot prospects?

[twinsfanstreif]

 

angels. I think they sign Cole w/o this move.

 

twins, because if they are spending that much, why not just sign 3-5 very good to great players and keep their two hot prospects?

Because A. You can't sign 3-5 very good players for that money on the FA market, maybe one very good and a couple average-ish guys. and B. It's Mike Trout

[prouster]

The PlayStation’s AI says no.

[Otto von Ballpark]

FWIW, the Baseball Trade Values website calls it a major overpay by the Twins.

 

But if you drop Pujols, it's accepted.

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trade-simulator/

 

Of course, this is a trade of extremes that probably break the formula a bit!

[Riverbrian]

 

angels. I think they sign Cole w/o this move.

 

twins, because if they are spending that much, why not just sign 3-5 very good to great players and keep their two hot prospects?

 

Trout signed a long term contract at free agent prices. In the real world, when you sign a free agent, you can't turn around and trade him for any value at all because you priced out the other teams by signing him. I know Trout didn't sign a free agent contract, it was an extension but it's at free agent prices so the concept should still be close the same principal.  

 

Trout by himself with that contract wouldn't require multiple highly rated players to acquire. Don't get me wrong, there are teams that will take on that contract... they just won't give up a lot for the privilege. The money on the deal zeroes out the value. 

 

Add Pujols to the deal and now we are talking negative value. Meaning, if we gave the Angels the squirrel carcass it would be an overpay. 

 

The Twins would be crazy... this would add 65 million to next years payroll and the year after that and we currently have a cannonball that has run through our pitching staff that is going to require resources to fix. .65 Million on more offense??? That money needs to be spent on pitching. 

 

The Twins say no without question and the Angels should say yes but they will also say no because they are crazy enough to think that they can spend their way out of the mess that spending caused. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ashbury]

Trout signed a long term contract at free agent prices. In the real world, when you sign a free agent, you can't turn around and trade him for any value at all because you priced out the other teams by signing him. I know Trout didn't sign a free agent contract, it was an extension but it's at free agent prices so the concept should still be close the same principal.  

 

Trout by himself with that contract wouldn't require multiple highly rated players to acquire. Don't get me wrong, there are teams that will take on that contract... they just won't give up a lot for the privilege. The money on the deal zeroes out the value.

I think your economics is sound for almost all players, but not for truly one-of-a-kind acquisitions.

 

If you acquire a Picasso from someone who's cash strapped, you might still have to hand over a Grandma Moses or a Norman Rockwell to cover the bare spot on his wall.

[Jham]

Probably Mike Trout. Full no-trade clause.

[nicksaviking]

I think your economics is sound for almost all players, but not for truly one-of-a-kind acquisitions.

 

If you acquire a Picasso from someone who's cash strapped, you might still have to hand over a Grandma Moses or a Norman Rockwell to cover the bare spot on his wall.

Call me quaint, but Grandma Moses and Rockwell both fit better with my decor anyway. I’d probably keep them both and use my money on a Gustov Klimt instead. The guy has a real live arm which this team needs as it has a whole wall to fill.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You pay a king's ransom for Trout. You don't pay a king's ransom for Trout and the albatross that is Pujols.

 

It's a terrible deal for the Twins financially and a terrible deal for the Angels public relationally.

[Riverbrian]

 

I think your economics is sound for almost all players, but not for truly one-of-a-kind acquisitions.

 

If you acquire a Picasso from someone who's cash strapped, you might still have to hand over a Grandma Moses or a Norman Rockwell to cover the bare spot on his wall.

 

I agree that Trout is special. He's an odd case... before he signed the extension. You couldn't trade him because there is no way you could get enough. Now that he has signed the extension... you can't trade him because there is no way you could get enough. 

 

I'll leave you with this for your wall. 

 

[ashbury]

It's a masterpiece! How much are you asking for it? HOW MUCH ???

 

It'll go great next to Billy Bass in my den.

[gunnarthor]

Twins don't have the payroll to do this.

[Number3]

Response to this crazy off season idea....see Bryce Harper. If you want to doom the Twins to another decade of mediocrity execute a deal like this.

 

One thing the Twins had in 2019 is team chemistry and everyone contributing. If you want to ruin that sign a high priced free agent and watch everyone just sit back and say "ok big boy carry us".

 

See Joe Mauer and see the Nats this year with no Bryce Harper.

 

Just hang in there and improve the pitching staff when it makes sense along with everyone else.

 

BTW, a player like Tony Rendon would be great but his price would be so high that its just not worth it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Twins say no without question and the Angels should say yes but they will also say no because they are crazy enough to think that they can spend their way out of the mess that spending caused. 

Actually, the Angels problem hasn't really been spending, at least not lately. They've just been buying all of the wrong modestly-priced guys (Harvey, Cozart, etc.), and largely failing at drafting and developing. (With a sprinkle of injury decimation at times too.)

 

If anything, they've probably been a bit too conservative in their spending, for their market, and should have gone big on another guy like Corbin, at least. They still should be able to absorb a deal like Pujols and compete.

[Battle ur tail off]

I'd be totally against this. 

 

For sure Pujols gives negative value. And honestly, even with as good as Trout is, that contract makes him a wash as it pertains to building a roster as well. 

 

If we are going to spend that kind of money and prospects, use it to get pitching and also to get more than one outfielder. I just don't feel Trout makes that kind of difference on our team. If he did, the Angels would be better than they are. 

 

Trout has been the best player in the league for how long now? How many playoff wins or even apprearance does he have?

[alarp33]

Everyone

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Why the Angels do it--they get out from under $66M in salary this year, and $67M next year.

FWIW, even after arbitration, the Angels are already getting out from about $20 mil this winter, due to expiring contracts from players who were basically already gone/replaced (Harvey, Cahill, Allen). Potentially an additional $27 mil expiring before 2021 too (although some of that is Simmons, who will require replacing). So it's not an imperative to shed Pujols just to spend more money in 2020-2021.

 

And given they knew Ohtani wasn't going to pitch in 2019, it's likely they already weren't spending at their limit in 2019. So they don't necessarily need to remain completely "spending neutral" with 2019 either.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Probably Mike Trout. Full no-trade clause.

Technically, Pujols has a full no-trade too! So he'd have to agree to the indignity of being a salary dump.

[Mike Sixel]

Response to this crazy off season idea....see Bryce Harper. If you want to doom the Twins to another decade of mediocrity execute a deal like this.

 

One thing the Twins had in 2019 is team chemistry and everyone contributing. If you want to ruin that sign a high priced free agent and watch everyone just sit back and say "ok big boy carry us".

 

See Joe Mauer and see the Nats this year with no Bryce Harper.

 

Just hang in there and improve the pitching staff when it makes sense along with everyone else.

 

BTW, a player like Tony Rendon would be great but his price would be so high that its just not worth it.

I have no idea what this means. The Phillies lost most of their rotation to injury this year. The Astros have three highly paid players.... The Yankees also have highly paid players. The dodgers too. So do the Nationals.

[Riverbrian]

 

Actually, the Angels problem hasn't really been spending, at least not lately. They've just been buying all of the wrong modestly-priced guys (Harvey, Cozart, etc.), and largely failing at drafting and developing. (With a sprinkle of injury decimation at times too.)

 

If anything, they've probably been a bit too conservative in their spending, for their market, and should have gone big on another guy like Corbin, at least. They still should be able to absorb a deal like Pujols and compete.

 

When you get down to the root of any team with roster issues. It's my opinion that development is almost 100% the heart of the problem. 

 

My opinion is in line with yours... Development is the primary issue with the Angels. The thing that I will question is exactly how much of that development issue is self inflicted? Did they commit to spending because they didn't develop or did they not develop because they committed to spending? I don't know but either way... they didn't develop and if you don't develop... it kinda forces you to spend. 

 

It sure looks like Eppler has done a great job on the farm but to me... the question still remains on how they will use these improved farm resources going forward. Will they trade it for more Upton types or will they actually use it to stabilize future payroll in an attempt to establish a young core? 

 

Teams need 600K talent... they can't FA across the diamond with expensive 30 plus downside players because they leave themselves no wiggle room and every team has a budget. The 600k talent allows you to go big on Trout and Machado's without breaking the budget. The Red Sox built their core. The Dodgers built their core. The Cubs built their core and they spent money. The Angels tried to buy it and ran plum out of resources and now I'm hearing rumors that they will be targeting Cole. Which is just more of the same trip on the U.S.S Good Money After Bad.  

 

Will Fletcher and Rengifo get playing time if La Stella and Cozart are healthy? Lot's of questions yet to be answered and I'll be watching. Hiring Joe Maddon was a step in the right direction because he has shown the ability to produce 600K talent and utilize it. The hiring of Ausmus was the exact opposite of Joe Maddon. Is Moreno a bigger force in the decision making than Eppler or Maddon could ever be. 

 

If I was the GM... I'm not... but if I was and Moreno gave me some breathing room. I'd tear it down to Trout and Ohtani and take my lumps for a couple of years so I have a chance at delivering a title contender before Trout's contract is up and Trout won't play for a title contender if they think adding Cole to an already astronomical payroll with multiple holes on the mound and no depth across the diamond and these things will require even more money to fix. 

 

I love Maddon... just don't know what he walked into. A roster mess with expectations is a bad combination. 

 

I'd love to have Trout... but, the Twins need pitching. The Angels have trapped themselves into keeping Trout with the contract extension. 

 

It feels really good to say that the Twins are in much better shape than the Angels are. 

[Nine of twelve]

I say no to any trade that results in us receiving the ghost of Albert Pujols.