Understanding What the Trade Deadline Means These Days

[Rufus]

The fact that not 1 top 100 prospect was traded at the deadline is kind of indicative that that that the whole deadline trade thing is over rated.  the sellers have the ability to hold the buyers for as pirate ransom.   I saw no players on you list that in my option would greatly improve the Twins chances of making the playoffs.  Really the Rockies front office?  then you woke up HUH?

[DocBauer]

How many articles about the deadline and ownership just this week? (Sigh) Guess I might as well toss out some of the things I've had on my mind as of late.

1] I DO believe the new playoff format has changed the trade deadline appreciably. This year, and recent past seasons, there are fewer sellers and seemingly fewer trade options. Or, at least, seemingly fewer difference makers available. And the costs to acquire them seems to be increasing.

2] I believe the sources that state the Tigers and Sox wouldn't do business with the Twins unless the Twins went nuts. As I understand it, there wasn't a single top 100 prospect moved. The Twins offered a top 100 in Keaschall and were rebuffed. If factual, the Sox are even a bigger mess than we thought.

3] I never believed the Twins were going to be able to add a SP who would make a major difference. There was only 1 or 2 available who might fit that description, and the Twins weren't going to give up 3 top 15-20 prospects for a 2 month rental.

4] All I wanted and felt was really, really needed was a decent LH pen arm. We didn't have to get a closer type. Just someone we could seriously consider for a 7th inning, or maybe 8th inning under the right circumstances, that had the ability to get a couple LH bats out. Someone who we could consider a solid 5th or 6th man in the pen. That's all. And it would still be better than what we have now. SO disappointed the FO couldn't handle just that ONE acquisition.

5] The best way to deal with the short supply and high cost come the mid year deadline is to have a good enough team with enough depth to hopefully need little to nothing at said deadline. Had ownership allowed for a somewhat higher budget, the FO might have added a quality LH pen arm in the offseason, as well as a SP option. Maybe even one of those rental arms that were just traded. Flaherty anyone? 

6] I've never stated I believe ownership should be forced to lose $ on the Twins season to season. However not only do I find it almost unfathomable that the Twins are actually losing $, but for a family worth $4B, I can't imagine it's remotely necessary for Twins profits to support the Pohlads. In my own personal opinion, while owning a sports team can provide profits seasonally, it's more of a long term investment, and also "fun", possibly a nice rub on the ego, and presumably a door opener for other financial and public openings. Therefore, there's nothing "wrong" with a team's ownership "losing" some $ in an effort to build up their investment and fan support for a longer term view.

While it's not liquid cash flow, $4B of worth means if owners "lost" $20M a season in player investment...even occasionally year to year...it would represent .005% of their worth, if my math is correct. Or put another way, 

Put another way, for every $100,000 you earned, or were worth, you would "lose" $500 of that to support an interest or hobby you cared about at the same .005%. Think about that for a moment.

I DON'T want the FO to go crazy and trade off large groups of assets on a whim. I want a deep system that maintains contention status and be smart and judicial in trades. For the most part, despite some bad moves, they've largely done that. I won't ask ownership to lose $ on a yearly basis. But while a sports team is a business, it's an investment not only for future value, but pride value, city/state/community value. And they shouldn't be afraid to spend a little more than "wanted" in order to grow the competitive nature of the team and their investment. 

None of us have ever asked the Twins to rank in the top 10 amongst ML teams on payroll. I think all we've ever reasonably asked is to be somewhere in the 10-15 range based on market size. That shouldn't be all that difficult if the team is run and marketed properly.

Then the FO can have a little more flexibility to keep the system in tact, and add in the offseason, without having to worry about major mid year trades and their inflated cost.

 

 

 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Rufus said:

The fact that not 1 top 100 prospect was traded at the deadline is kind of indicative that that that the whole deadline trade thing is over rated.  the sellers have the ability to hold the buyers for as pirate ransom.   I saw no players on you list that in my option would greatly improve the Twins chances of making the playoffs.  Really the Rockies front office?  then you woke up HUH?

Not sure where this "no top 100 prospect was traded" stuff is coming from. Depends on what list you're looking at I guess. Robby Snelling went to Miami and MLB.com has him at #44. Dylan Lesko went to Tampa and they have him at #76. I'd say the fact that very few top prospects got traded is even more frustrating since legit players got moved and teams didn't have to give up elite prospects. What's the reason not to trade your non-elite prospects? The buyers won if they're getting front-line talent and not giving up top-100 prospects.

No players? Not 1? Not Fedde? Not Flaherty? Not Scott? None of them? Nobody that got traded is significantly better than anyone on the Twins 26 man roster? Ok.

If your argument is that front offices know more so we shouldn't question them then you don't get to ignore all their bad moves that don't work out or the bad front offices. Don't bring the argument if you don't like it being used.

[old nurse]

Toronto netted a poor hitting reserve outfielder. The infield prospect is a 26 year old that is now Toronto’s 22 ranked prospect    The new third ranked prospect is viewed on fangraphs as a potential 4th starter. That is not a haul of talent