What Could a Corbin Burnes Trade Look Like?

[specialiststeve]

We are not a "one year rental" type team ... nor should we be. Unless they would do a Polanco and Kepler type thing which they won't ... pass. 

[Hunter McCall]

15 hours ago, ashbury said:

Polanco and Burnes on expiring contracts (Polanco with an option year) is a good foundation for a trade.  It's just that the talent level doesn't match, so we obviously have to pony up more.  Do I also give up two legitimate prospect arms for 1 year of Burnes?  I do not.  Maybe Prielipp plus Polanco, but not Festa too. 

The trade values site is a useful tool but isn't gospel, and even if Burnes is a stud I don't see 1 year of him as worth what they assign.  If some other Brewers trading partner values him like that, and is willing to outbid us, so be it.

If the Brewers would do it for just Prielipp obviously that would be better, but I doubt they would. I don't this trade blows up the farm by any means. The starting rotation at this point is all under team control beyond this year and relatively young. It's not like the Twins have a dire need for Festa in the next two seasons. I could see why you would want to hold onto the prospects, but personally I would do it.

[Hunter McCall]

12 hours ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

I would too, in a heartbeat. This proposal is an easy no if you are Milwaukee. imo. I love Prielipp's potential. But lets be honest, he is damaged goods. Zero value. Festa looks to be a very backend SP if he pans out. You aren't getting Burnes for a potential #5 SP and Polanco. But on the other hand if we are offering a more lucrative haul for Burnes I'm not interested if its for a 1 year rental.

I tried to make a deal that would help both sides and provide extra value for Milwaukee since Burnes is a more valuable asset than Polanco. I agree it may be light on the Twins' side, but any heavier would be hard to justify for a one-year rental. This is one that was close in value overall I think. I also am still really high on Prielipp though.

[jorgenswest]

10 hours ago, PatPfund said:

If you think Burnes wins you the World Series next year (the only year he'll be here), then it is worth it. If they don't win the World Series, they are worse the year after, because they may have infield depth, but they don't have that depth on the pitching side, and this gives up two parts of their future where they are weakest. I'd be in the latter camp.

Not that it really matters, because this team doesn't spill heavy for pitching rentals.

Can you ever think that though? No team is going to have the likelihood of winning the World Series. Would it be enough to think that adding Burnes would put them among the top 8 teams in likelihood to win the World Series?

[chpettit19]

11 hours ago, Brandon said:

Trading Burnes is not a win now move for the Brewers.  Getting Polanco is a good start.  But wouldn’t Milwaukee also want a decent starter.  Maybe make it a 3 team deal where Milwaukee sends some of their prospects and Minnesota includes some too and Minnesota gets Burnes, Milwaukee get Polanco and Dylan Cease and Chicago gets several good prospects.  I don’t know what prospects Chicago wants from us or Milwaukee but I think that’s how the trade would make sense for them.  That would extend their window for 2 seasons instead of just one.  Chicago would want good prospects too.  They don’t want to feel like they helped the Twins win.  

That's an interesting idea. 3 team trades are really hard to pull off, and I don't know what the pieces going to Chicago would look like, but that's an interesting situation.

[Hunter McCall]

11 hours ago, PatPfund said:

If you think Burnes wins you the World Series next year (the only year he'll be here), then it is worth it. If they don't win the World Series, they are worse the year after, because they may have infield depth, but they don't have that depth on the pitching side, and this gives up two parts of their future where they are weakest. I'd be in the latter camp.

Not that it really matters, because this team doesn't spill heavy for pitching rentals.

I don't really think it ruins their pitching depth for the future. Lopez, Paddack, Ryan, Ober, and Varland will all be back the following year. By that time you'll have Marco Raya, CJ Culpepper, and Cory Lewis will all be in the same spot Festa is right now. That's why I think the Twins could afford a deal like this one.

[Hunter McCall]

10 hours ago, bjorks said:

While Burnes would most likely be a rental, there's a lot of comps of high ceiling pitchers who don't pan out because of injury or other. Point being is while Priellipp's potential is there, but he may never be the pitcher we think he could be. The compensatory pick would most likely be in Round A, so you're trading Festa for a pick. Clearing salary, whether it's used for a Lewis extension, a splash move on someone like Hoskins, a high leverage bullpen arm, is an easy call regardless if it's a rental or not. Just because Burnes has said he wants to test FA, I'd argue the chances of resigning him are every bit as high as Festa becoming a front line starter and/or Priellipp reaching his. For a chance to get to the WS and maybe win with Lopez/Burnes as our 1-2, I'd take those chances especially when the worst case scenario is we get a 1st round talent to replace Festa if he walks. 

Absolutely. I would do this in a heartbeat.

[Hunter McCall]

3 hours ago, TL said:

It's a pretty fair trade, maybe even not enough from Twins side. if Burnes had > 1 year of control left the price would be way higher. With Priellipp being from WI maybe they would place a higher value on him as a potential home town hero.

I just think it's been 30+ years since the last WS appearance. We need another frontline starter to have a chance, and this doesn't feel like too much.

Agree 100%

[jorgenswest]

I think the one year deal is the way to go. Burnes excess value is 33.8. If you go back a few years to the point where he had three years of value his excess value would be more than three times greater. That is because his salaries escalate. The Twins would have to match about 115.1 in surplus value. That is assuming his projected production following last year. If we went back the few years he would have been coming off his best season and the projections would likely have been higher.

For one year of control, they need to trade Brooks Lee to match the value and in return get Burnes and a comp pick.

For three years of control, they would need to send Jenkins, Julien and Lee to get three years of Burnes and a single comp pick. The three actually come up a little short.

It might be better to make this kind of trade annually than to pay the high price of that third year of control.

 

[Riverbrian]

There articles are fun. 

However... Watching the Brewers tells a different story. 

So far this is how the Brewers are acting this off season. What conclusions can be drawn from their actions? 

Woodruff, Tellez, Santana, Chafin, Donaldson, Winker and Caratini now free agents.  

Canha traded to the Tigers for a prospect

Toro traded to the A's for a prospect 

Houser and Tyrone Taylor traded to the Mets for a prospect. 

Burnes and Adames rumored to be on the trade block... both hit free agency next year.  

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that they are rebuilding. If rebuilding... Polanco doesn't make sense for them. 

If you want Burnes... It will take prospects and good ones. 

[tony&rodney]

Trades are difficult to guess because as fans we don't really know how each front office views their organizations or the specific players. David Festa is added quite frequently in various deals, but he is potentially a Bryan Woo or Bryce Miller or better. Edouard Julien is another player put into many conversations as a guy to trade, but he is a potential Jeff Kent catalyst for offense. I understand that the Twins or any team takes a chance when a trade is made. My thinking is that the Twins hold the cards here. Seattle, Miami, and Milwaukee all need the Twins to listen more than the Twins need their players. I'm a little bummed that the Twins did not sign a reliable backend guy like Michael Wacha and am still hopeful that the Twins find a way to bring in Lucas Giolito on a one year deal. Giolito should be betting on himself to return to the market next season after a strong showing in 2024. The Twins are a team that would boost his stock. FA pitchers do not cost us players or prospects. 

If I had to trade for Burnes and Polanco had to be a part of the deal (I remain a huge fan of Jorge), I would send Chris Paddack and a minor league guy (maybe Cory Lewis) and add Kyle Farmer if that makes a difference. I'm not seeing the Brewers dealing with the Twins though.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Hunter McCall said:

If the Brewers would do it for just Prielipp obviously that would be better, but I doubt they would. I don't this trade blows up the farm by any means. The starting rotation at this point is all under team control beyond this year and relatively young. It's not like the Twins have a dire need for Festa in the next two seasons. I could see why you would want to hold onto the prospects, but personally I would do it.

As I said, I'd expect to get outbid with my offer.  And I'm fine with that.  One year of a stud pitcher is valuable, but we're not yet a perennial contender where getting him takes us to another level; right now we're just struggling to get back to the level Sonny Gray arguably had us.  And then in 2025 we have to figure out something new.  I don't know what Festa's potential is, but I'm averse to giving up 6 years to get 1, even if that 1 might be better.  As we saw with Mahle, acquiring talent (a lower level than Burnes obviously) comes with no guarantee.  Even Sonny Gray cost us just one good arm, in return for the potential of 2 good years which more or less panned out (2022 was a little blemished), and it remains to be seen whether that swap will turn out to be a wise exchange; the two years of control we got is exactly what has us in the position we're in now, looking for a second staff leader.

A perennial contender will do the math differently and outbid us.  I hope 2024 cements that we really are in a window of contention and not just pretension.  There is the trade deadline, if we want to acquire an expiring contract on a good arm - I'm not in Wait Until Next Year mode, I just don't want to overpay by that much on Burnes.

[saviking]

17 hours ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

Sign me up for this

I agree. I think Prielepp. I introduced myself to Prielepp at the local Pot Belly sandwich shop in Peoria just before I watched him pitch that night. He's a physical specimen but was not all that impressed with what turned out to be his only start of the season. I consider him a high risk talent. So Fiesta is the player we have to decide whether to part ways with or not. I've seen too many promising pitchers in our minor league system that have flamed out once they make the bigs or turned into relief pitchers. 

So, the question is, do we think we have the team to make a reasonable run at the World Series next year? I think we do so would make this trade. An additional late first-round pick the year after is icing on the cake.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ashbury said:

 One year of a stud pitcher is valuable, but we're not yet a perennial contender where getting him takes us to another level; right now we're just struggling to get back to the level Sonny Gray arguably had us.  And then in 2025 we have to figure out something new.  I don't know what Festa's potential is, but I'm averse to giving up 6 years to get 1, even if that 1 might be better. 

A perennial contender will do the math differently and outbid us.  I hope 2024 cements that we really are in a window of contention and not just pretension.  There is the trade deadline, if we want to acquire an expiring contract on a good arm - I'm not in Wait Until Next Year mode, I just don't want to overpay by that much on Burnes.

Appreciate the viewpoint, but I don't think the Twins will ever be a perennial contender. They need to take their shots when they become available. Maybe it is this year, maybe in the next year or two. But this may be one of those times to take a shot. It doesn't seem the Twins want Polanco for "years to come", or they wouldn't be shopping him. Festa and Priellipp may or may not become something special, who knows? But I do know Burnes is something special. I'll take his one year and a QO/draft pick to give it a shot in 2024.  But like RiverBrain said, Milwaukee is trading for prospects so this is unlikely in any event.

[PatPfund]

10 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Can you ever think that though? No team is going to have the likelihood of winning the World Series. Would it be enough to think that adding Burnes would put them among the top 8 teams in likelihood to win the World Series?

For some, maybe, but not me, because the Twins don't have a giant budget, and trading whole pitching careers for one year of one guy is the fast track back to a few years ago with no MLB pitching staff and an empty pipeline. Not saying everyone has to agree with me, though.

[PatPfund]

10 hours ago, Hunter McCall said:

I don't really think it ruins their pitching depth for the future. Lopez, Paddack, Ryan, Ober, and Varland will all be back the following year. By that time you'll have Marco Raya, CJ Culpepper, and Cory Lewis will all be in the same spot Festa is right now. That's why I think the Twins could afford a deal like this one.

This is more of a philosophy disagreement than that the trade isn't workable, but your scenario counts on everyone staying healthy, and that Raya, Culpepper and Lewis will work out and still be here, because I suspect Burnes will be gone, and a couple of the best prospects will be the following year's trade fodder trading more careers for one year of one guy. If we are trading prospects I want someone with more than one year (which also tends to cause the player to actually invest in the effort; unlike the talented but barely motivated Lance Lynn as a Twin).

[bjorks]

IF Prielipp was included in any trade and he maxed his potential. Milwaukee would have a potential heckuva top of the rotation with Misiorowski and Prielipp every bit as strong as Burnes and Woodruff for a fraction of the price. 

Chourio, Quero, Tyler Black are Top 100 guys along with Misiorowski. Sal Frelick was a top prospect as well. They have a nice core of controllable and affordable players, which for small market teams is the name of the game.

It's interesting some are hesitant to include Festa/Prielipp in this scenario, would you feel the same if Soto or Raya were substituted for one or both? Are we that "excited" about Festa because he made the Futures Game and created some buzz? Winder, Balazovic, Thorpe, Jharel Cotton, and Berrios all played and Berrios is the only impactful pitcher. 

I had a similar argument with the whole Mauer over Prior draft and I will go to my grave believing Prior would've gotten us to WS in '02. You take the guy who gives you the best chance to get to the WS today vs the guy who has the potential to do it 3 years down the road. Although...I doubt the Twins would've called up Prior that year regardless of how well he was pitching (sigh).

 

 

[Otaknam]

Nope! Not a fan of trading two top pitching prospects and Polanco for a one year rental. That only makes sense if the team is poised for a serious playoff run, need one more top of the rotation starter like Jack Morris, and I don’t think the team is there yet. The Sonny Gray trade worked out because they got two years and strong, albeit short five inning starts, from him. But you can’t keep trading your top pitching prospects for short term rentals because mid markets still have to develop pitchers, not just develop and trade them. 

[Werbellik]

The Dodgers are signing Yamamoto. Burns to the Yankees is my prediction.

[Cris E]

Burnes is going to cost a fortune in free agency and MIN is not going to pay it, so it's a one year rental plus a QO draft pick. Brewers are trying to pack the pipeline so they can keep whipping out these youngsters like the Rays or Braves, so Polanco would only be there to sell tickets for the next couple years, not the centerpiece of a deal.

Polanco and a talented kid (Festa OR Prielipp OR SWR if they like his famous resume) and a AAAA starter like Winder/Sands/Balazovic/WhoDoTheyLike to provide rotation insurance, especially now that they traded another SP earlier today. 

I mostly want to shop off the multi-year rack where Peralta or Woo or Miller or Luzardo or other big fish lurk. (Sorry about the metaphor wipeout.)  Then I'd unwrap a Julien or Lee or Erod to get a stud. This payroll tweaking should mostly be a Farmer to the Giants, Vasquez and $$$ and Walner to Rays for Randy A sort of stuff.   

 

 

[Major League Ready]

21 hours ago, Hunter McCall said:

This is where I'm at. At some point when you're trying to build a championship team you have to take some risks. I personally would do this trade even if it's only for one year.

Have you asked yourself why other teams with similar revenue NEVER trade away premium assets for a player with 1 year of control.  Actually, they do just the opposite.  They trade away this type of player most of the time in order to sustain the team beyond a given year.  The answer is that it's extremely short-term focused and makes it very difficult to sustain success.  Anyone could throw in all the chips to give a team a good chance at short-term success.  

Go to Fangraphs.  Pull up any 90 win team outside the top third in revenue. The players will be organized by WAR in the standard view.  Then, pick a level of WAR that you think is a significant player.  (I use 1.5 WAR).  Then, use BB Reference to determine how that player was acquired if you don't know.  You will find that trades for prospects or players that have made the ML level but have not yet produced 1.5 WAR are far more prevalent than trading for established players. 

The example below is the 100 win 2021 Tampa Bay Rays.  45% of the WAR produced from players producing 1.5 WAR or more were acquired by trading for prospects/unproven players.  25% came from players they drafted.  The only trade they made for a proven player was the fleecing they gave the Pirates known as Tyler Glasnow and Austin Hedges.  Glasnow produced 2.6 WAR that year. 

[Fatbat]

A one year rental doesn't work. He would have to agree to a 4-6 yr deal or no trade should happen.

[kenneth frank]

No way in he**. Giving up pitching prospects is something the Twins cannot afford.

[hitterscount]

Burnes is done in Milwaukee, he sat in on last year's arbitration hearings and was not happy in how the team treated/portrayed him. He pretty much has stated he is out, no matter what they offer him. I would do this trade in a second if there is any chance at an extension... Lopez, Burnes, Ryan, Ober gives this team a legit chance at a deep playoff run.  

[SteveLV]

The Twins are looking to trade their good player in the final year of his contract: Kepler.

I hope they don't, but that is what is being reported. That is consistent with Major League Ready's post above.

Burnes will go to a big market team that can afford to either re-sign him or sign someone else next year for big money instead.

The only way the Twins will get top pitching talent is via trade or development.  The Coles, Verlanders and Yamamatos will never play for the Twins under the current system.

[TopGunn#22]

As was just mentioned by a poster, you can probably scratch the Dodgers off the list to acquire Burnes after signing Yamamoto for 12-years and $325 million.  Yankees or Mets, maybe Philly or Boston would seem to be the eventual destination for Burnes.  He WANTS to test FA.  He WILL test FA.  In that scenario there is zero chance he would sign an extension with the Twins.  A big market team with deep pockets is in his future.

That said, what the Twins are sending to the Brewers in this deal falls far short of what the value would be to have Burnes, even if it would be for just one season.  I do this trade in a heartbeat.

The Twins are in a competitive window.  A rotation that boasts Burnes and Lopez at the top, supported by Ryan, Ober, Paddack and Varland with a lineup stacked with young hitters and bounce back seasons expected from Correa and maybe Buxton IS a World series contender.  Heck, Texas and Arizona made it to the World Series last year.  Does anybody think the Twins would stand no chance in a playoff series with Burnes and Lopez throwing games #1 & #2?? 

Prospects are lottery tickets.  Some you win with.  The greater percentage by far, you lose with.  And every year you restock your minor league talent with LOTS of guys.  Some shine, others never pan out.  I would never part with prospects easily and there are a couple I would deem untouchable (Lewis, Jenkins).  But a pitcher the caliber of Burnes is rare.  He's only available because he pitches in Milwaukee (at least for now).  If he was a Dodger or a Yankee, he wouldn't be anywhere near this kind of situation.   

[chpettit19]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Have you asked yourself why other teams with similar revenue NEVER trade away premium assets for a player with 1 year of control.  Actually, they do just the opposite.  They trade away this type of player most of the time in order to sustain the team beyond a given year.  The answer is that it's extremely short-term focused and makes it very difficult to sustain success.  Anyone could throw in all the chips to give a team a good chance at short-term success.  

Go to Fangraphs.  Pull up any 90 win team outside the top third in revenue. The players will be organized by WAR in the standard view.  Then, pick a level of WAR that you think is a significant player.  (I use 1.5 WAR).  Then, use BB Reference to determine how that player was acquired if you don't know.  You will find that trades for prospects or players that have made the ML level but have not yet produced 1.5 WAR are far more prevalent than trading for established players. 

The example below is the 100 win 2021 Tampa Bay Rays.  45% of the WAR produced from players producing 1.5 WAR or more were acquired by trading for prospects/unproven players.  25% came from players they drafted.  The only trade they made for a proven player was the fleecing they gave the Pirates known as Tyler Glasnow and Austin Hedges.  Glasnow produced 2.6 WAR that year. 

Now what could that team have done if they'd traded Luis Patino, Vidal Brujan, and Brendan McKay for a 1 year rental of someone like Kevin Gausman? Maybe they make it out of the division series. 

Constantly trading a bunch of prospects for 1 year guys is unsustainable for sure. But refusing to ever take a calculated risk on a rental is also part of why the teams you describe never win championships. There's absolutely risk in trading prospects. It's a numbers game. But the Twins are currently sitting on 4 guys in their rotation (Varland is in there as of today) who are signed or controlled for 4+ more seasons. Trading 1 or 2 of their pitching prospects shouldn't crush them. Yes, it's a risk that you trade a guy who becomes a stud and all the guys you keep flame out, but at some point if you want to take the next step you need to take a risk. If the Twins trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp tanks their future so be it. I find that basically impossible to believe, but maybe Festa and Prielipp are the next Johnson and Schilling and are going to carry a team to a title I guess. 

You can't trade a Festa and Prielipp for a rental every season, but doing it once isn't going to kill you.

[1985Fan]

I question if Burnes is even available. Why would Brewers even trade him? They’re in a weak division that is ripe for the taking, they lost their other top of the rotation pitcher, they have a good/great rotation if they keep Burnes, and they’re not going to repeat the Hader trade fiasco. They’ll probably do what the Twins did with Gray; keep him to see if they can compete for the division or playoffs. If not, they’ll trade him at the deadline or hang onto him, give him the QO that he’ll turn down, and get the CB draft pick. 
 

[Hunter McCall]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Have you asked yourself why other teams with similar revenue NEVER trade away premium assets for a player with 1 year of control.  Actually, they do just the opposite.  They trade away this type of player most of the time in order to sustain the team beyond a given year.  The answer is that it's extremely short-term focused and makes it very difficult to sustain success.  Anyone could throw in all the chips to give a team a good chance at short-term success.  

Go to Fangraphs.  Pull up any 90 win team outside the top third in revenue. The players will be organized by WAR in the standard view.  Then, pick a level of WAR that you think is a significant player.  (I use 1.5 WAR).  Then, use BB Reference to determine how that player was acquired if you don't know.  You will find that trades for prospects or players that have made the ML level but have not yet produced 1.5 WAR are far more prevalent than trading for established players. 

The example below is the 100 win 2021 Tampa Bay Rays.  45% of the WAR produced from players producing 1.5 WAR or more were acquired by trading for prospects/unproven players.  25% came from players they drafted.  The only trade they made for a proven player was the fleecing they gave the Pirates known as Tyler Glasnow and Austin Hedges.  Glasnow produced 2.6 WAR that year. 

I mean I get it. I see where you're coming from, but there are many ways to build success. While I understand the Rays have sustained some level of success through their very low budget strategy, they have been unable to put fans in the seats or win a World Series.

Ultimately, I get it and there's a lot of reasons to dislike trading for a rental player, but I personally think making this trade would make the Twins real contenders in the AL. Burnes and Lopez at the top would be really hard to beat in October and with all the money invested in guys like Correa and Buxton mixed with blossoming stars like Lewis and Julien, it feels like the time to make a deal like this at a relatively low cost.

Festa is good, but I don't think he's someone who will change the fate of the franchise if he's traded. Prielipp has insane upside but who knows if he ever reaches it. Personally, I would take a chance on one year with the stud and hope you can play your way into the ALCS or beyond. Just my opinion, but I think it's silly to try to completely replicate what other teams do mostly because the Twins' FO doesn't operate under the same principles as the Ray's at all.

[Major League Ready]

55 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Now what could that team have done if they'd traded Luis Patino, Vidal Brujan, and Brendan McKay for a 1 year rental of someone like Kevin Gausman? Maybe they make it out of the division series. 

Constantly trading a bunch of prospects for 1 year guys is unsustainable for sure. But refusing to ever take a calculated risk on a rental is also part of why the teams you describe never win championships. There's absolutely risk in trading prospects. It's a numbers game. But the Twins are currently sitting on 4 guys in their rotation (Varland is in there as of today) who are signed or controlled for 4+ more seasons. Trading 1 or 2 of their pitching prospects shouldn't crush them. Yes, it's a risk that you trade a guy who becomes a stud and all the guys who keep flame out, but at some point if you want to take the next step you need to take a risk. If the Twins trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp tanks their future so be it. I find that basically impossible to believe, but maybe Festa and Prielipp are the next Johnson and Schilling and are going to carry a team to a title I guess. 

You can't trade a Festa and Prielipp for a rental every season, but doing it once isn't going to kill you.

Building depth in a farm system enables trading of some of those assets.  I would never argue it should not be done.  What I will argue having studied how top players were acquired for literally every playoff team outside the top 10 in revenue for the last 25 years, is that trading for prospects is FAR more important than trading prospects for established players.  The strategy of building assets in this way enables the trading of SOME prospects while sustaining success.  

I have outlined how easy it is to look up any team from the past and determine how it was constructed.  I doubt anyone actually takes the time to look but anyone who does so will not argue this point because the facts are overwhelming.