Right Now Is (Unfortunately) the Right Time to Trade Trevor Larnach

[Nick Nelson]

5 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

What about Larnach and either Sands or Winder for Hader?

Pretty sure Larnach would realistically need to be the 2nd or 3rd best piece going back to San Diego in a Hader trade. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, tony&rodney said:

What about Larnach and either Sands or Winder for Hader?

I wouldn't do that at all. Larnach and a rookie ball flier. Hader is better than Robertson, but he's still a rental reliever. Robertson just got 2 rookie ball prospects as a return. Larnach alone should really be enough, but if they demand someone else I'm not giving up anyone above Low A ball, and none of my highest ceiling guys down there either.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

Pretty sure Larnach would realistically need to be the 2nd or 3rd best piece going back to San Diego in a Hader trade. 

For 2 months of Hader?! I don't see it.

[tony&rodney]

6 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

Pretty sure Larnach would realistically need to be the 2nd or 3rd best piece going back to San Diego in a Hader trade. 

I wonder about that too. I'm not sure what younger pitcher the Twins would offer as a first piece. Hard to know what Preller thinks. Heck, I have no idea what Falvey thinks for that matter.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

Oh yeah? If Larnach has a 125 OPS+ next year you won't be moved, huh.

Rooker had one great month, and since had been not good. 

I said nothing about Larnach. He's been better than rooker in the majors, when given a chance and healthy. I like Larnach.... people here seem somewhat irrational about his actual play. 

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

For 2 months of Hader?! I don't see it.

I'm sure not giving three pieces that good for one RP .... No way

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

Oh yeah? If Larnach has a 125 OPS+ next year you won't be moved, huh.

Come on, Nick. Rooker hit 9 HRs in March/April. He's hit 7 since. OPS of .616 in May. .620 in June. Slugged .327 and .353 in those months. Up to .757 OPS in July, but that's only been 13 games for him. He's only had a month long OPS over .700 while playing at least 20 games in that month twice in his career. April this year, and a .740 OPS in September 2021. His 1.245 OPS in April is an extreme outlier. Brent Rooker is not good, and nobody should be moved by Larnach doing what Rooker is doing this year.

[nicksaviking]

32 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Come on, Nick. Rooker hit 9 HRs in March/April. He's hit 7 since. OPS of .616 in May. .620 in June. Slugged .327 and .353 in those months. Up to .757 OPS in July, but that's only been 13 games for him. He's only had a month long OPS over .700 while playing at least 20 games in that month twice in his career. April this year, and a .740 OPS in September 2021. His 1.245 OPS is April is an extreme outlier. Brent Rooker is not good, and nobody should be moved by Larnach doing what Rooker is doing this year.

Larnach's career AAA OPS is only .737. Obviously it's possible to improve on that at the majors, but there are other players they can start trying, I don't see why the best option isn't to cycle through these players until they find the right ones. They don't need to keep going back to Larnach. When you're a college player, 1st Round Draft status five years removed shouldn't be of any consideration when evaluating young talent.

If Larnach has value, even as a complementary piece, I don't see much harm in moving him now.

[saviking]

15 hours ago, silverslugger said:

Or, now seems like the right time to DFA Gallo, trade Kepler for a bucket o' balls and give the corner outfield spots to Wallner and Larnach and let them become the next TWO Brent Rooker's for the Twins.

It's not Larnach's fault the Twins risked 11 million on Gallo to the detriment of Larnach and Wallner. The Twins seem to favor keeping players that are out of options so maybe it's good he will be out of options next year. They can leave him alone and let him develop because Gallo isn't going to be here next year and Kepler should get traded .. 

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Larnach's career AAA OPS is only .737. Obviously it's possible to improve on that at the majors, but there are other players they can start trying, I don't see why the best option isn't to cycle through these players until they find the right ones. They don't need to keep going back to Larnach. When your a college player, 1st Round Draft status five years removed shouldn't be of any consideration when evaluating young talent.

If Larnach has value, even as a complementary piece, I don't see much harm in moving him now.

We agree on this. 

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Larnach's career AAA OPS is only .737. Obviously it's possible to improve on that at the majors, but there are other players they can start trying, I don't see why the best option isn't to cycle through these players until they find the right ones. They don't need to keep going back to Larnach. When your a college player, 1st Round Draft status five years removed shouldn't be of any consideration when evaluating young talent.

If Larnach has value, even as a complementary piece, I don't see much harm in moving him now.

I'd move Larnach, too, in the right deal. I don't know that I love the idea of cycling through players, though. Depends exactly what you mean by that. But you need to give guys chance to acclimate and make adjustments before cycling through another guy. My point in that post was simply that pointing at Rooker as some late bloomer that we should hope Larnach becomes is ignoring literally all but 1 month of his career.

I'd trade any, and all, of their lefty cOF bats for the right package. Wallner, Larnach, Kepler, Gallo, Gordon would all be on the block for me. Only question is which moves help the team best overall.

[Nick Nelson]

38 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Come on, Nick. Rooker hit 9 HRs in March/April. He's hit 7 since. OPS of .616 in May. .620 in June. Slugged .327 and .353 in those months. Up to .757 OPS in July, but that's only been 13 games for him. He's only had a month long OPS over .700 while playing at least 20 games in that month twice in his career. April this year, and a .740 OPS in September 2021. His 1.245 OPS in April is an extreme outlier. Brent Rooker is not good, and nobody should be moved by Larnach doing what Rooker is doing this year.

The point is that sometimes hitters take a while to find their stride, it's one example to illustrate a point. Want another example, see LaMonte Wade, who also was completely unaccomplished through age 26.

I really don't care about Rooker's monthly splits, they are irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. I only referenced him as a comp because of the close career timeline parallels to Larnach. Still, you can't just ignore that Rooker's been 25% better than the average hitter based on where the production was concentrated or what you presume will happen going forward. His OPS is up 130 points from his previous career norm, even with all that slumping after April. 

Bottom line: Larnach is not a finished product. He's been better through age 26 than either of the two mentioned above.

[chpettit19]

12 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

The point is that sometimes hitters take a while to find their stride, it's one example to illustrate a point. Want another example, see LaMonte Wade, who also was completely unaccomplished through age 26.

I really don't care about Rooker's monthly splits, they are irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. I only referenced him as a comp because of the close career timeline parallels to Larnach. Still, you can't just ignore that Rooker's been 25% better than the average hitter based on where the production was concentrated or what you presume will happen going forward. His OPS is up 130 points from his previous career norm, even with all that slumping after April. 

Bottom line: Larnach is not a finished product. He's been better through age 26 than either of the two mentioned above.

LaMonte Wade is a good example. My point is that Brent Rooker doesn't illustrate your point.

His monthly splits are 100% relevant if your point is that he's a late bloomer that we should be happy having someone like Larnach turn into. We shouldn't be happy with 1 Judge-esque month. Brent Rooker wouldn't be on a contending team's roster at this point. He'd already be back in AAA. He hasn't "found his stride" or "broken out" or any of those other catch phrases. He's been well below an average hitter for 3 months. Where that production is concentrated absolutely matters. He's had an entire career of being an unplayable major leaguer, but you want us to be impressed that he had 1 completely and totally unsustainable month to start the year? Not buying that for a second.

I agree Larnach isn't completely finished, but Brent Rooker is a bad example to use. A guy who wouldn't make a playoff roster isn't an impressive comp.

Edited to add: Joey Gallo had 1.063 OPS in March/April. He's gone .654, .674, .573 since. Should we not care about where his production was concentrated because he's been an overall average hitter?

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

The point is that sometimes hitters take a while to find their stride, it's one example to illustrate a point. Want another example, see LaMonte Wade, who also was completely unaccomplished through age 26.

I really don't care about Rooker's monthly splits, they are irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. I only referenced him as a comp because of the close career timeline parallels to Larnach. Still, you can't just ignore that Rooker's been 25% better than the average hitter based on where the production was concentrated or what you presume will happen going forward. His OPS is up 130 points from his previous career norm, even with all that slumping after April. 

Bottom line: Larnach is not a finished product. He's been better through age 26 than either of the two mentioned above.

But LaMonte Wade was the Chris Williams/Anthony Prato kind of prospect and the Twins traded him because they intended to give at bats to the more heralded guys like Brent Rooker and Jake Cave. Would have been better to trade high on Rooker/Cave. In the end they lost all of them because the best guy had the lowest pedigree, which shouldn't have mattered, and they moved on from the other two after they had next to no value.

[nicksaviking]

Also, I think we took a bit of a tangent here because we're debating things other than the actual topic of this thread currently. It seems like we all think Larnach could still produce, thus still has value. Which is why he could/should be traded.

[Nick Nelson]

32 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

LaMonte Wade is a good example. My point is that Brent Rooker doesn't illustrate your point.

His monthly splits are 100% relevant if your point is that he's a late bloomer that we should be happy having someone like Larnach turn into. We shouldn't be happy with 1 Judge-esque month. Brent Rooker wouldn't be on a contending team's roster at this point. He'd already be back in AAA. He hasn't "found his stride" or "broken out" or any of those other catch phrases. He's been well below an average hitter for 3 months. Where that production is concentrated absolutely matters. He's had an entire career of being an unplayable major leaguer, but you want us to be impressed that he had 1 completely and totally unsustainable month to start the year? Not buying that for a second.

I agree Larnach isn't completely finished, but Brent Rooker is a bad example to use. A guy who wouldn't make a playoff roster isn't an impressive comp.

Edited to add: Joey Gallo had 1.063 OPS in March/April. He's gone .654, .674, .573 since. Should we not care about where his production was concentrated because he's been an overall average hitter?

Joey Gallo is 30 years old with 3000 MLB plate appearances! He's NOT a developing player. I feel like you're intentionally ignoring the topic of discussion to rail on Rooker. 

Take away the specific names and circumstances and just look at the numbers. Rooker went from a 668 career OPS and 85 OPS+ to a 796 OPS and 125 OPS+ this year. (Again, this is WITH all the slumping you keep hammering on!) If Larnach saw a similar jump at age 27 he'd be in like the 840 OPS and 130 OPS+ range. As a left-handed hitter with solid defense and some patience. 

Take out Rooker's name (since they're not super comparable profiles anyway) and swap in one of any number of seemingly future-less players who break out in their late 20s. It happens all the time. Larnach has a lot of attributes of being such a candidate. And I think that will intrigue other teams.

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

Joey Gallo is 30 years old with 3000 MLB plate appearances! He's NOT a developing player. I feel like you're intentionally ignoring the topic of discussion to rail on Rooker. 

Take away the specific names and circumstances and just look at the numbers. Rooker went from a 668 career OPS and 85 OPS+ to a 796 OPS and 125 OPS+ this year. (Again, this is WITH all the slumping you keep hammering on!) If Larnach saw a similar jump at age 27 he'd be in like the 840 OPS and 130 OPS+ range. As a left-handed hitter with solid defense and some patience. 

Take out Rooker's name (since they're not super comparable profiles anyway) and swap in one of any number of seemingly future-less players who break out in their late 20s. It happens all the time. Larnach has a lot of attributes of being such a candidate. And I think that will intrigue other teams.

You said the concentration of performance doesn't matter. Why should it matter for a 30 year old instead of a 28 year old? I feel like you're intentionally ignoring any context whatsoever to try to force Rooker into a narrative that he doesn't fit in. 

No. I will not take away the circumstances. Just like you normally wouldn't either. Not sure why you even chose Rooker in the first place. Context matters. I will not be impressed by Larnach going ballistic for a month and spending the rest of the season being a 60 OPS+ guy. Just like I wasn't impressed by Sano doing it. Or Kepler doing it to a lesser degree right now. The season is 6+ months long. Being out of this world good for the first and terrible for the next 5 isn't impressive.

If there's "any number of" players who break out in their late 20s why didn't you use one of them that actually fit your narrative instead of a guy who's going to get non-tendered again at the end of the year by an all time bad team? Larnach could be one of those guys. And I'm sure other teams would like to get him in their clubhouse to see if they can unlock what needs unlocking. But if all they get is a 1 month surface of the sun hot stretch and a bunch of unplayable months they won't go around pointing to him as some great success story. Rooker is a bad example for what you're trying to say.

[Mike Sixel]

You two agree on Larnach.....

[Larry Janisewski]

16 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

This should be true. The exceptions are those with no trade clauses which they will not drop. 

I like Larnach and believe he will do well if given plenty of time. The Yankees have been giving Volpe a ton of playing time and he has his average up over .200 now. 

San Diego might be interested in Larnach. Would Preller send Hader for Larnach, Winder, and a lower level pitcher? 

I don't see Kepler going anywhere and he still has skills. Gallo has reached the end. Even if Gallo goes, Larnach still doesn't have a path to playing time. Both Larnach and Wallner need playing time. One of them should be traded.

That would be giving up way too much for Hader.

[DocBauer]

What do I want? I want Gallo and Kepler gone by 2024 and Larnach and Wallner as the corner OF producing far better than what we've gotten from the vets this year. And that's not a real high bar. Neither is expensive, neither is old, both have potential, and neither has been given an extended (healthy)  look yet.

That's what I want. But what's practical? Gallo should have already been gone as a failed experiment, letting either of Larnach or Wallner playing time. He should be gone by next week. Not only because he's been bad, not only for opportunity for a younger bat, but if the Twins want to add a RH OF, SOMEONE has to go to make room. 

After that, I just don't know. I'm glad Kepler has been much better since the break. He even looks like he's having fun out there. But do we really think this is the new and improved Kepler and he's going to maintain this going forward after a 2+ year consistent downturn? And does he fitnin for $10M in 2024?

I'd rather move Kepler instead of Larnach, hoping someone bites on his hot streak, experience, and defense. But I also understand Larnach is behind Wallner now, and I understand all the reasons as to why it might be the beat time now to move him.

But with Gallo gone, a trade of Larnach, and not even sure what version of Kepler we'd have next year, or if he'd even be back, the OF suddenly looks a little thin. 

Right package, something that helps the team in the long run, I can be on board with a Larnach trade. I may not like it, but I can see it. I just think moving Kepler makes better sense for the long term.

[LA Vikes Fan]

6 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd move Larnach, too, in the right deal. I don't know that I love the idea of cycling through players, though. Depends exactly what you mean by that. But you need to give guys chance to acclimate and make adjustments before cycling through another guy. My point in that post was simply that pointing at Rooker as some late bloomer that we should hope Larnach becomes is ignoring literally all but 1 month of his career.

I'd trade any, and all, of their lefty cOF bats for the right package. Wallner, Larnach, Kepler, Gallo, Gordon would all be on the block for me. Only question is which moves help the team best overall.

This is the answer. In the right deal any of the LH Of bats should be available. Don't trade any of them just to make a trade, well except for Gallo, trade him if you can get anything, but none of them are untouchable. I would just want a controllable asset back if we trade Larnach, and a higher end controllable asset wif we trade Wallner. Trade Gallo for anything of value, Gordon can go for a solid rental, and Kepler is tradable for a solid controllable asset or a high end rental. 

[jorgenswest]

6 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

Larnach's options, per MLB.com:

• Aug 16, 2021
• March 30, 2022
• May 5, 2023 (also June 14 and July 26)

They optioned him in 2021 before they shut him down with the hand injury. What am I missing here?

He was recalled in 2022 short of 20 days.

[dxpavelka]

12 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

If not, what are all our hitting coaches here for?

Some things you just can't coach in some guys.  The ability to hit breaking pitches is that thing for many guys. 

[dxpavelka]

11 hours ago, DJL44 said:

That didn't stop them from giving Gallo $11M and a season's worth of playing time.

A mistake they likely regret and should try to avoid repeating.