Eve of the Deadline: The Latest on Twins Trade Rumors

[chpettit19]

I don't think Cleveland is "selling." I think they're doing what they almost always do, buying and selling. They sold a piece. They're not blowing things up. Would we be shocked if they bring in an OF bat? If they were truly just "selling" and not still trying to win this year they would've gotten any prospect possible for Rosario instead of Thor. They're still trying to win this year. They're not blowing anything up by any means.

[KirbyDome89]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

And how did they get Josh Naylor?  They got him by trading away an established player (Clevinger) and he produced nothing for the Padres. Of course, they got own Miller, Cal Quantrill and Austin Hedges as well.  You are criticizing the strategy / practice that allowed them to acquire the good player you are referencing.  How does that make any sense?  The fact is that Cleveland has had more 90 win seasons than any other team in the bottom 1/2 of revenue over the last 20 years as a result of the practices you are criticizing.  

Keeping one of the few productive (and young) hitters on an inept offensive squad doesn't make sense? I'm criticizing the notion that constantly shipping out established major league talent is a necessary evil, particularly at their current payroll. 

[Major League Ready]

8 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Keeping one of the few productive (and young) hitters on an inept offensive squad doesn't make sense? I'm criticizing the notion that constantly shipping out established major league talent is a necessary evil, particularly at their current payroll. 

You have a concept in your mind because you don't like the thought of trading away established players.  I am talking about assessing the relative merit of their strategy based on results / winning seasons.  (I use 90 wins as a standard).  You are assuming your preferred approach is a better strategy than the team that has outperformed every other team in the bottom half of revenue for the last couple of decades.  Their history is quite clear if you bother to take an objective look at how they have built teams.

[KirbyDome89]

10 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You have a concept in your mind because you don't like the thought of trading away established players.  I am talking about assessing the relative merit of their strategy based on results / winning seasons.  (I use 90 wins as a standard).  You are assuming your preferred approach is a better strategy than the team that has outperformed every other team in the bottom half of revenue for the last couple of decades.  Their history is quite clear if you bother to take an objective look at how they have built teams.

I don't want to listen to you preach about objectivity if you're going to purposely ignore other variables involved in getting to your 90 win standard. 

[Winston Smith]

8 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

No team has the ability to see such things. 

Can you see such things? 

Called dreaming.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I don't want to listen to you preach about objectivity if you're going to purposely ignore other variables involved in getting to your 90 win standard. 

How would you propose we compare success if not by wins?  Do you want to factor in division?  Cleveland has had far more 90 win seasons than any other team in the Al central.

[DJL44]

9 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

Yes, I predict that the Twins will not win the World Series this year. 

Those are the odds for every MLB team, including the Braves. What odds would you give me to bet on the Twins? 200-1?

If the Twins just sneak into the playoffs they will not be the favorite but sometimes the underdog wins, especially in baseball. I'm fine with rooting for an underdog this October. Beats the hell out of watching football.

[DJL44]

Looks like they're counting on Royce Lewis to carry them across the finish line.

[MABB1959]

So is it over?  No trades for Minnesota?

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

How would you propose we compare success if not by wins?  Do you want to factor in division?  Cleveland has had far more 90 win seasons than any other team in the Al central.

Ah so we'll continue to ignore it? I thought we were being objective....

[Major League Ready]

10 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Ah so we'll continue to ignore it? I thought we were being objective....

Ignore what?

[RpR]

1 hour ago, MABB1959 said:

So is it over?  No trades for Minnesota?

Yep, now we will see what is still here, can or cannot do.

[KirbyDome89]

54 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Ignore what?

The fact that the metric you're using isn't close to being a direct correlation?

[Major League Ready]

11 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The fact that the metric you're using isn't close to being a direct correlation?

Wins isn't a measure of a team's success?   This is a ridiculous argument.  This is the kind of argument you make up when unwilling to concede cold hard fact.

[MABB1959]

12 hours ago, RpR said:

Yep, now we will see what is still here, can or cannot do.

I am actually okay with this as long as they spend the rest of the season seeing what the young kids have.  I don't think sitting any of the veteran's would be terribly missed or game changing, especially if the are batting below .250.

[MABB1959]

13 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Looks like they're counting on Royce Lewis to carry them across the finish line.

We need to seriously hope he isn't made of glass.   IMO this team needs a strict conditioning program that focuses on strengthen their core.  

[MABB1959]

17 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Keeping one of the few productive (and young) hitters on an inept offensive squad doesn't make sense? I'm criticizing the notion that constantly shipping out established major league talent is a necessary evil, particularly at their current payroll. 

Which "established major league talent" are you referring to?  I do not believe a single one of them is expendable.  The few productive bats are the young ones.

[KirbyDome89]

11 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Wins isn't a measure of a team's success?   This is a ridiculous argument.  This is the kind of argument you make up when unwilling to concede cold hard fact.

Strawman.

Do you believe that trading MLB talent with years of control, for prospects, correlates directly with team wins or losses? 

[Major League Ready]

48 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Strawman.

Do you believe that trading MLB talent with years of control, for prospects, correlates directly with team wins or losses? 

Strawman my ass.  I have collected the data from the last 20 years tracking all the 90 win teams in the bottom half of revenue and how any players with over 1.5 WAR were acquired.  I know exactly what percentage was contributed to everyone of those teams so you are relatively unarmed in this debate.  Trades for prospects have contributed literally 5X the WAR as trading prospects for established talent.  In other words, I do know and the facts are easily established.  I have even posted several examples here in the past.

[KirbyDome89]

19 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Strawman my ass.  I have collected the data from the last 20 years tracking all the 90 win teams in the bottom half of revenue and how any players with over 1.5 WAR were acquired.  I know exactly what percentage was contributed to everyone of those teams so you are relatively unarmed in this debate.  Trades for prospects have contributed literally 5X the WAR as trading prospects for established talent.  In other words, I do know and the facts are easily established.  I have even posted several examples here in the past.

Are player for prospect swaps directly correlated to MLB wins? Idk why you won't answer the question if you've got such an advantage in this debate. Is Cleveland winning games because they're doing this, or as I said earlier, are there other variables being ignored? 

Wins measuring team success was never a point I made, hence it's a strawman. Same goes for the "trades for prospects yield 5x the WAR as trades for established players," snippet, and that's assuming you aren't larping on an internet forum. 

 

 

[Major League Ready]

19 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Are player for prospect swaps directly correlated to MLB wins? Idk why you won't answer the question if you've got such an advantage in this debate. Is Cleveland winning games because they're doing this, or as I said earlier, are there other variables being ignored? 

Wins measuring team success was never a point I made, hence it's a strawman. Same goes for the "trades for prospects yield 5x the WAR as trades for established players," snippet, and that's assuming you aren't larping on an internet forum. 

 

 

I did answer.  Apparently, you didn't understand the answer.   WAR does not measure team wins.  It measure the wins above replacement added by a given player.  Why are you arguing if you don't understand something this fundamental.  IDK how more I can be more clear.  I measured the wins above replacement by acquisition method.  

BTW .... The reason I went through the trouble of gathering all this data because it's so common for people to just assume they understand the most effective way to build a winning a team without ever testing their theory.  I wanted to test these theories with actual test cases.

[KirbyDome89]

21 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I did answer.  Apparently, you didn't understand the answer.   WAR does not measure team wins.  It measure the wins above replacement added by a given player.  Why are you arguing if you don't understand something this fundamental.  IDK how more I can be more clear.  I measured the wins above replacement by acquisition method.  

BTW .... The reason I went through the trouble of gathering all this data because it's so common for people to just assume they understand the most effective way to build a winning a team without ever testing their theory.  I wanted to test these theories with actual test cases.

I'm aware of what WAR measures. You introduced team wins as your metric for determining the success of moving established MLB talent for prospects. What I'm asking you is whether or not Cleveland's success is attributable entirely to those moves. You haven't answered that. You spit out a WAR comp between MLB players and their prospect counterparts without any parameters other than a floor and then ranted about how you "know the facts." Are they winning because they move players, or is that merely part of it? I vote the latter. 

All this supposed data and knowledge yet no FO has scooped you up yet. Their loss right?

[Major League Ready]

15 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'm aware of what WAR measures. You introduced team wins as your metric for determining the success of moving established MLB talent for prospects. What I'm asking you is whether or not Cleveland's success is attributable entirely to those moves. You haven't answered that. You spit out a WAR comp between MLB players and their prospect counterparts without any parameters other than a floor and then ranted about how you "know the facts." Are they winning because they move players, or is that merely part of it? I vote the latter. 

All this supposed data and knowledge yet no FO has scooped you up yet. Their loss right?

Of course, it was not entirely based on trading for prospects.  That's just ridiculous and I did not even remotely suggest that was the case.  I am not suggesting other acquisitions not be used, just the relative historical influence.  I gave you the relative impact of trading for prospects as compared to trading for established players which is the real issue here.  Apparently, you just chose to ignore it.   

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Of course, it was not entirely based on trading for prospects.  That's just ridiculous and I did not even remotely suggest that was the case.  I am not suggesting other acquisitions not be used, just the relative historical influence.  I gave you the relative impact of trading for prospects as compared to trading for established players which is the real issue here.  Apparently, you just chose to ignore it.   

Hallelujah! Took a minute but we got there right?

You immediately jumped to "here's how many 90 win seasons they have," in defense of cheap ownership selling at .5 games back in the most winnable division in baseball....

You threw out WAR in vs. out with no parameters other than a floor from which you're counting. That doesn't really tell us anything, i.e. you could acquire an army of 1.5 WAR players with 4+ years of team control and and win the WAR battle vs. a shipping out one or two years of a 3+ WAR player, but that doesn't mean your team is better off. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Hallelujah! Took a minute but we got there right?

You immediately jumped to "here's how many 90 win seasons they have," in defense of cheap ownership selling at .5 games back in the most winnable division in baseball....

You threw out WAR in vs. out with no parameters other than a floor from which you're counting. That doesn't really tell us anything, i.e. you could acquire an army of 1.5 WAR players with 4+ years of team control and and win the WAR battle vs. a shipping out one or two years of a 3+ WAR player, but that doesn't mean your team is better off. 

Their success speaks for itself.  The relative impact of trading for prospects vs trading for established players is crystal clear if you examine the facts as I have.  Trading long-term assets for short-term assets is not sustainable.  The practices of Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa are proof.   Go ahead and ignore the facts that don't support your opinion if it makes you feel better.  

[KirbyDome89]

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Their success speaks for itself.  The relative impact of trading for prospects vs trading for established players is crystal clear if you examine the facts as I have.  Trading long-term assets for short-term assets is not sustainable.  The practices of Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa are proof.   Go ahead and ignore the facts that don't support your opinion if it makes you feel better.  

"Only once you've opened your third eye will you be able to understand the "fact," that throwing in the towel this season and not extending a relatively affordable player in Josh Naylor is the key to winning 90+ games."

- MLR