The Trade Route

[sthpstm]

 

There is a good chance if it is by trade it is a trade similar to the Odorizzi trade.  We would obtain a good starting pitcher none of us have thought about, someone similar to Odor two years ago.  We would give up a prospect, or two, without either being Top 10 in our system.  It will appear to most of us to not be the big move we were expecting, hoping for.  Others will be very disappointed at the front office failing, again.  

 

When the season arrives, they would have a starter who can slide in to their Top 4 as an equal talent to the three we have.  Don't have a clue who this could be, probably someone I have never heard of...but I don't follow most teams so it could be someone many of you are more familiar with.

 

Just don't see this front office giving up two or three of our top half dozen prospects for one starter who may be here for two years.  I really see them working to build a team that will be competitive most years for the next decade or longer.  

 

When we look at teams like Cleveland, who seem to bring up one great young starter after another, you don't do that in two or three years.  So it is doubtful we will see that run of young studs arriving this year, unless one of the four who was up late last season surprises us, big time. 

 

If we look at the starters they brought in at the 2018 trade deadline, there is nearly a half dozen who COULD develop into that type of starter and begin arriving late next year or the following year.  Combine that with better drafting could turn the Twins into such an organization, it just takes time. 

 

I totally agree and I love that we seem to be developing this with Balazovic, Duran, Graterol, etc. The problem is that the Twins window is NOW so they have to find a way to at least make a push for 1 solid starter through trade or signing this year. When you talk about a guy like Odorizzi, well, he took a couple of years to get there. We need a guy who can become a 4+ WAR starter in 2020.

[DocBauer]

There is a good chance if it is by trade it is a trade similar to the Odorizzi trade. We would obtain a good starting pitcher none of us have thought about, someone similar to Odor two years ago. We would give up a prospect, or two, without either being Top 10 in our system. It will appear to most of us to not be the big move we were expecting, hoping for. Others will be very disappointed at the front office failing, again.

 

When the season arrives, they would have a starter who can slide in to their Top 4 as an equal talent to the three we have. Don't have a clue who this could be, probably someone I have never heard of...but I don't follow most teams so it could be someone many of you are more familiar with.

 

Just don't see this front office giving up two or three of our top half dozen prospects for one starter who may be here for two years. I really see them working to build a team that will be competitive most years for the next decade or longer.

 

When we look at teams like Cleveland, who seem to bring up one great young starter after another, you don't do that in two or three years. So it is doubtful we will see that run of young studs arriving this year, unless one of the four who was up late last season surprises us, big time.

 

If we look at the starters they brought in at the 2018 trade deadline, there is nearly a half dozen who COULD develop into that type of starter and begin arriving late next year or the following year. Combine that with better drafting could turn the Twins into such an organization, it just takes time.

LOVE this post!

 

In a few posts, I'm sure I have come across as 100% behind Wheeler. But I have also stated I was very torn between he and Bumgarner. Each offers up a lot, potentially, for different reasons.

 

But I have also stated, many times, that I have been about 50/50 whether or not the "out of family" arm we bring in was via FA or trade. Like you, I dont know who that will be. A surprise the way Odorizzi was? A name we all know like Gray, etc? Or maybe Archer back to the AL to work with Johnson and recapture himself?

 

I find myself really trusting the process this FO is following. And I wouldn't be surprised if we "lose out" on the big FA arms and end up bringing a surprise in via trade.

[tvagle]

 

LOVE this post!

In a few posts, I'm sure I have come across as 100% behind Wheeler. But I have also stated I was very torn between he and Bumgarner. Each offers up a lot, potentially, for different reasons.

But I have also stated, many times, that I have been about 50/50 whether or not the "out of family" arm we bring in was via FA or trade. Like you, I dont know who that will be. A surprise the way Odorizzi was? A name we all know like Gray, etc? Or maybe Archer back to the AL to work with Johnson and recapture himself?

I find myself really trusting the process this FO is following. And I wouldn't be surprised if we "lose out" on the big FA arms and end up bringing a surprise in via trade.

 

If you loved that post you'll die over my 2020 Twins BluePrint

 

There's Signings and Trades and we turn $40M into $10M in less than 181 games!

[jud6312]

Chicago apparently is in need of cutting money: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/cubs-reportedly-signaling-need-to-clear-payroll.html

 

Do you give them a call and check in on Hendricks or Darvish?

[Mike Sixel]

Chicago apparently is in need of cutting money: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/cubs-reportedly-signaling-need-to-clear-payroll.html

 

Do you give them a call and check in on Hendricks or Darvish?

Of course.

[jud6312]

 

Of course.

 

I hope the FO agrees with you.

[Rosterman]

The Cubs are looking for Payroll relief. Would you fancy the Twins making an offer for Lester, Darvish or Hendricks for the remainder of any of those contracts? Lester would be a max of 45 million the next two season.s Hendicks would probably cost less than Bumgarner. Is Darvish worth the flyer? For $81 million?

 

What would the Twins have to give up in trade to absorb these salaries?

[FlauerPauer]

 

The Cubs are looking for Payroll relief. Would you fancy the Twins making an offer for Lester, Darvish or Hendricks for the remainder of any of those contracts? Lester would be a max of 45 million the next two season.s Hendicks would probably cost less than Bumgarner. Is Darvish worth the flyer? For $81 million?

 

What would the Twins have to give up in trade to absorb these salaries?

 

I just saw this as well. Hendricks would be the guy of those three that I'd make a move for. Maybe not a top of the line starter, but would be a quality #2/3 for this team. Not a terrible huge commitment in terms of money. 54 million over the next four years. Would beat any deal they're going to make on the FA market.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

I'm surpised by the number of people who aren't (very) interested in Matthew Boyd. He does need to rediscover another secondary pitch but starters who can strike out over 11 per 9 are pretty uncommon and his walks are low. His swinging strike was great. I think if you get him out of Detroit and there terrible team, and put him with the Twins, their development team and Wes Johnson, it's not hard to envision a number 1 starter. I would definitely push hard for him, even if a trade within the division can be difficult. The other bonus is the Tigers should be looking for offense to pair with their AA starters and I think the Twins can afford to start their package with Larnach or perhaps even Kirilloff. They just have to make sure the keep the one they want long term.

I'm all for a trade for Boyd. But not one that starts with Larnach or Kirriloff for Boyd. I'm not against trading one of those guys or even both. But I want someone who has a better track record of success than Boyd if its for our top 5 prospects. I'd go for a deal of Enlow, Gordon and another wild card, or something along those lines.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

I just saw this as well. Hendricks would be the guy of those three that I'd make a move for. Maybe not a top of the line starter, but would be a quality #2/3 for this team. Not a terrible huge commitment in terms of money. 54 million over the next four years. Would beat any deal they're going to make on the FA market.

He'd be a great tag team with Berrios. He's salary wise affordable. I'd give up a couple of my top 5's for him. I'd actually be in favor of Darvish too, but I give up less for him. A top 10ish type and another out of the top 30. Lester, I'd give up something like we gave for Odorizzi. Nothing more and would want the Cubs to throw in some cash.

 

I'd be very surprised if the Twins and Cubs don't swing a deal this winter.

[ashbury]

He'd be a great tag team with Berrios. He's salary wise affordable. I'd give up a couple of my top 5's for him. I'd actually be in favor of Darvish too, but I give up less for him. A top 10ish type and another out of the top 30. Lester, I'd give up something like we gave for Odorizzi. Nothing more and would want the Cubs to throw in some cash.

 

I'd be very surprised if the Twins and Cubs don't swing a deal this winter.

With Lester, the question isn't how much you have to give to get him, the question is how much else the Cubs will offer you to take his $30M obligation off their hands.

 

Conversely, even if a franchise is momentarily cash-strapped, I can't see why Hendricks would be the guy they unload. His contract goes on for a while, but isn't onerous, and his performance has been quite valuable. Only a team with analysts who believe every pitcher turns into a pumpkin on the same calendar schedule after age 30 would be looking to part ways with him. Or, a team like the Marlins or the Rays. $12-14M for a productive player is peanuts.

 

Darvish is, to me, the one in the middle. If the Cubs think 2020 is hopeless for them, maybe they would look to move his future-seasons risk to someone else who does want to compete right now. Otherwise, it's hard to see how they find a suitable trade partner who will provide them current value in return.

 

[FlauerPauer]

 

He'd be a great tag team with Berrios. He's salary wise affordable. I'd give up a couple of my top 5's for him. I'd actually be in favor of Darvish too, but I give up less for him. A top 10ish type and another out of the top 30. Lester, I'd give up something like we gave for Odorizzi. Nothing more and would want the Cubs to throw in some cash.

 

I'd be very surprised if the Twins and Cubs don't swing a deal this winter.

 

Larnach, Balazovic, adnd Javier get it done for Hendricks? Kirilloff, Balazovic, Thorpe, Miranda? 

 

Berrios

Hendricks

Odorizzi

Pineda

SmeltzerDobnak

 

I just don't see Lester improving the rotation by much. Definitely improve the backend of the rotation, but doesn't move anyone they have now down a peg. Darvish actually had a better year than I thought he did

 

Berrios

(Darvish)
Odorizzi

Pineda

Lester

Smeltzer/Dobnak

[nicksaviking]

Hendricks is actually the guy I have the least interest in. His inability to miss bats makes him the least likely to lead a championship rotation.

[darin617]

 

Chicago apparently is in need of cutting money: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/cubs-reportedly-signaling-need-to-clear-payroll.html

 

Do you give them a call and check in on Hendricks or Darvish?

 

Why not Anthony Rizzo. basically 2 years 33M. 2nd year is team option.

[prouster]

With Lester, the question isn't how much you have to give to get him, the question is how much else the Cubs will offer you to take his $30M obligation off their hands.

 

Conversely, even if a franchise is momentarily cash-strapped, I can't see why Hendricks would be the guy they unload. His contract goes on for a while, but isn't onerous, and his performance has been quite valuable. Only a team with analysts who believe every pitcher turns into a pumpkin on the same calendar schedule after age 30 would be looking to part ways with him. Or, a team like the Marlins or the Rays. $12-14M for a productive player is peanuts.

 

Darvish is, to me, the one in the middle. If the Cubs think 2020 is hopeless for them, maybe they would look to move his future-seasons risk to someone else who does want to compete right now. Otherwise, it's hard to see how they find a suitable trade partner who will provide them current value in return.

 

I agree with this. I think it makes a ton of sense to strike a deal for Darvish. Honestly, I think they could probably get him for a couple okay-not-great prospects if they took on his whole contract.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The Cubs are looking for Payroll relief. Would you fancy the Twins making an offer for Lester, Darvish or Hendricks for the remainder of any of those contracts? Lester would be a max of 45 million the next two season.s Hendicks would probably cost less than Bumgarner. Is Darvish worth the flyer? For $81 million?

 

What would the Twins have to give up in trade to absorb these salaries?

Hendricks is on a 4 year 55 mil with a ‘24 vesting option.

 

Darvish 6 year 126m thru ‘23. Darvish did not opt out this year. Does Darvish have another opt out clause?

 

I would think Darvish would be the cheaper trade in terms of prospects even with the sexier k rate.

 

Hendricks being three years younger and 8 mil per year cheaper with a similar FIP would leave room for Donaldson, and my preference. I’d be happy with either, or both.

[jud6312]

 

Why not Anthony Rizzo. basically 2 years 33M. 2nd year is team option.

 

Wouldn't be opposed to that, either. 

[Post-Concussive Blues]

Darvish and Bryant for Larnach, Balazovich, and Gordon. We take all of Darvish’s salary.

[ashbury]

Darvish and Bryant for Larnach, Balazovich, and Gordon. We take all of Darvish’s salary.

Bryant has a grievance in-progress regarding his major-league service time. Might be under team control for 2 years, might be for only 1 if he wins. Would that change your thinking?

 

[tony&rodney]

No to Lester, Hendricks, and/or Bryant - just no. If the Twins are to trade prospects they need players who are currently effective and are able to contribute for three years. Unless the Twins have soured on Sano, there is already someone manning 3B. The Twins need pitching.

[jorgenswest]

Darvish Has little excess value beyond his contract so if the Cubs truly want to reduce payroll the Twins can help by taking his full contract.

 

Strike now while teams are still fighting over free agents.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Why not Anthony Rizzo. basically 2 years 33M. 2nd year is team option.

Because the Cubs wouldn't actually be clearing much salary by moving him, so they're likely not moving him (at least not affordably, for us).

[Major League Ready]

 

I agree with this. I think it makes a ton of sense to strike a deal for Darvish. Honestly, I think they could probably get him for a couple okay-not-great prospects if they took on his whole contract.

 

This one is interesting. He has 4/81 left and he is already 33. He was very good the last half of 2019. I am not sure why the Cubs would have to reduce payroll. They were the 2nd most profitable team in the league in 2018 according to Forbes with over $90M in net profit so I wonder if this report is true.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Cubs are looking for Payroll relief.

Actually, the post at MLBTR says the Cubs would need to clear payroll to sign FAs -- not that they need to clear payroll, period. (At least not significant payroll.)

 

If the Cubs don't sign any FAs, they could mostly just stand pat with their current roster -- and it's not a bad one. 90 Pythag wins last year, and they don't have many departures this winter -- Hamels, the rental Castellanos, and a few relievers. They have a few young players who could step up to bigger roles, and there are probably reclamation project guys they could sign for minimal cost. That strategy wouldn't boost their 2020 contention chances, of course -- but neither would salary dumping quality players like Darvish, Bryant, etc.

 

If their immediate payroll situation was that dire, they probably wouldn't have picked up the 2020 option on Quintana, or signed Kimbrel back in June.

[ashbury]

Darvish Has little excess value beyond his contract

True but not really relevant. To a high-revenue team, a high-salary player whose value is approximately in line with his salary is very valuable indeed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Rather than a straight salary dump, I think a more likely payroll-cutting route for the Cubs would be the recent Dodgers model, where high salary guys are swapped but the Cubs get the guy with more years left on his deal, thus spreading out the luxury tax hit.

[jorgenswest]

True but not really relevant. To a high-revenue team, a high-salary player whose value is approximately in line with his salary is very valuable indeed.

My qualifier was if the Cubs truly want to move Darvish but that was edited out. As a high revenue team they may not need to move him. Then it is not relevant.

 

Is it relevant to the expected return? If his salary is similar to one that he would receive as a free agent then wouldn’t teams until the winter first pursue free agents where the cost is little to nothing in prospects? If he doesn’t have much excess value can the Cubs expect a return of a Kirilloff or Graterol or Larnach?

[Post-Concussive Blues]

Bryant has a grievance in-progress regarding his major-league service time. Might be under team control for 2 years, might be for only 1 if he wins. Would that change your thinking?

 

Yes, I know. I doubt it will go in the player’s favor, but even for 1 year of Bryant, I think I would do the deal.

[howieramone2]

No denying Darvish had a very good second half. For those of you keeping score at home, he has now paid for himself 25% of the time since he signed that bad contract. He's a huge injury risk, turns 35 during his 4th contract year, 36 during his 5th, and 37 during his 6th. 

[Mike Sixel]

No denying Darvish had a very good second half. For those of you keeping score at home, he has now paid for himself 25% of the time since he signed that bad contract. He's a huge injury risk, turns 35 during his 4th contract year, 36 during his 5th, and 37 during his 6th.

Like Pineda, who only pitched 25 percent of his contract, and hasn't pitched a full season in five years?

 

If you want free agents, and they are really good, you have to pay for their decline. You can always pay on them, but then you have to be significantly better at trades and development than everyone else that is competitive.