Twins Choose Savings Over Substance in Paddack Trade

[madtowntwin]

I am going to again emphasize that the Twins are a team in transition both in terms the team on the field as well as ownership...How vested are the present "Lame Duck" owners in the long-term success of the team and organization? Living in this uncomfortable grey area - How much latitude does the present GM have to wheel & deal? The Twins have previously specifically sought players "Under Contractual Control" when making moves in the past...This leads me to believe that it would take a mighty sweet deal to move such players presently on the roster in a trade. The MLB commissioner hinted that this limbo in terms of ownership for the Twins was soon to resolve...Not sure I see that same horizon. 

Additionally - Jose Berrios, Chris Paddack, and Zebby Mathews all make starts within an hour of each other today...Is there something in those tea leaves??!! Win Twins!!

And lastly,  in spite of any prospects that the Twins could possibly receive in a potential deal - Who is the team you would most like to seem them help improve? Who would be the least?? All of this will unfold in approximately 30 hours folks. 

[mickster]

23 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Explain that to us.

With Randy gone - it will allow a promotion of a prospect from AA

[mikelink45]

So much argument over a meaningless move.  The real points for me are the fact that the team decided that even with Ober struggling, Festa, Morris and Lopez on IL we were willing to get rid of a pitcher who could fill in every five days - how well?  Do we care about winning more games or are we done with it>  Next two days will tell and I do not mean as fans how do we feel, I want to know the club thoughts.

Second Tigers lost starters and needed that every 5 day arm - they got him at a very low cost.  Evidently trading within the division does not matter.  Now we can speculate on Paddack value to them the rest of the year.  Check this site for Tigers IL. They are down two of their primary starters and need arms for the rest of the year.  

What is next for the Twins.  I hope it is something more interesting.

[USAFChief]

16 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

So, to take USAFChiefs stance to the logical conclusion, we should all be disappointed if the Twins end the trade deadline without paying $100M+ to buy the top 20 prospects in baseball.

I don't think that's the logical conclusion.

I think the logical conclusion is, the Minnesota Twins baseball team would be better off, if even slightly, if trades were made to maximize return to the baseball team. 

[miller761]

When teams don't play good sound fundamental baseball they are not good teams. What do the not so good baseball teams do at the deadline? They sell off assets that are of no value to them or won't be next year. Hopefully next year we are in the exact opposite situation.

[Dman]

58 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

What do you propose is the reason Detroit took on Dobnak's deal? Why did they do that? I'm super curious what people think the logic of that is from Detroit's side. What reason does Detroit have for adding millions of dollars to their payroll for nothing in return? Just really nice people over there?

I guess I am curious why people suddenly now think Paddack was worth a 14 to 18 range prospect?  There were thoughts the Twins wouldn't even be able to give him away.  Lot's of articles with surprised writers that he went first let alone netted a decent prospect in return. 

It seems likely that the Tigers see something they like in Paddack and there was some desperation involved because they didn't like their other options for starters, otherwise why go after Paddack so early when they likely could have gotten someone better at the deadline for less? it just doesn't make sense to me that they would deal with a division rival early and not overpay in prospect capital and money.  That's my take.  I think the Twins just took the best deal and got them to pay for Dobnak as well.  Detroit knew the price and was fine with that. Overpays happen at the deadline all the time. If it wasn't an overpay tell me why the Twins had to move him early?

[big dog]

45 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

But honestly, the saving money aspect isn't the scariest part of this. Recent reports say the Pohalds have one foot out the door. They are not supposed to care about next year's payroll.

Unless they still think they're cutting checks next year. Or worse, the front office already assumes or knows the new owners are also going to have the same mindset.

All the cash saved this year does is marginally increase the value of the team to whomever buys it. That's money in the Pohlad pocketbook.

[tony&rodney]

28 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

My issue for the author of the original article (and a few others) is that the outrage level is a little out of proportion for the situation.  The Twins traded a couple of parts with limited to no value for them and got a decent looking prospect (one they may have even tried to sign earlier).  

It is also true that we don’t really know how this negotiation went. 

######

What if the conversation went like this?

Tigers:  Hey, we just lost a pitcher.  We kind of like Paddack.  Here’s a prospect that we will trade you for him.

Twins:  (Wow! Someone offered us a prospect that we kind of like for Paddock?  I wonder how far we can push them.). We picked up the phone.  We’re interested, but we think the return is too light for Paddack.  Give us a higher ranked prospect (or another throw in) and it’s a deal.

Tigers:  Sorry.  You’re in our division.  We don’t really want to ship you a better prospect and then have him come back to haunt us in the division.  

Twins: Hmmm. . . What about if you take Dobnak as well?  It gets him off our books and you get the pitcher you want.

Tigers:  Deal.

Twins:  Deal.

#####

By definition, getting more of one thing means getting less of another.  However, sometimes that is a distinction without a real difference.  

This is approximately how I see this deal. No further offers forthcoming. The Twins wanting to move Paddack. No other teams making calls. Deadline coming. Get it done. Ask for more but clearly declined so  just negotiate a new home for Dobnak. Detroit says ok. 

We have zero idea but this makes sense. Detroit pretty much has the AL Central wrapped up barring a fantastic collapse but they also want home field, so any negligible addition might help. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Because including Dobnak served no other purpose than to save ownership $1.2M. None. Zip. Zilch. Thats it. Its quite simple. 

Furthermore, doing so inarguably lowered the prospect return, even if only by a tiny bit. 

That's the totality of it. Its not a matter of opinion. There can be no reasonable disagreement with either of these two points.

If you (and others) are OK with that, fine. I mean, I dont understand, but you're certainly entitled to worry about the Pohlad's finances more than their baseball team.

I, on the other hand, prioritize the baseball team.

 

 

Interesting that you would call that point "inarguable" when all of the grading sites seem to give the Twins the better grade on the deal. I'm not sure I'm buying your premise here. It actually looks to me like the FO may a good deal getting a solid prospect for a nothing burger pitcher whos was gone in 60 games any way. Will this move the needle soon? No. Is it better than having Paddack and Dobnak for the rest of 2025 and then watching Paddack go elsewhere while Dobnak retires? Absolutely. Sounds like a deal worth doing. 

I'm not a big fan of the FO and a big critic of ownership but I have to tell you that I don't think this deal is the hill to die on. 

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

Interesting that you would call that point "inarguable" when all of the grading sites seem to give the Twins the better grade on the deal. I'm not sure I'm buying your premise here. It actually looks to me like the FO may a good deal getting a solid prospect for a nothing burger pitcher whos was gone in 60 games any way. Will this move the needle soon? No. Is it better than having Paddack and Dobnak for the rest of 2025 and then watching Paddack go elsewhere while Dobnak retires? Absolutely. Sounds like a deal worth doing. 

I'm not a big fan of the FO and a big critic of ownership but I have to tell you that I don't think this deal is the hill to die on. 

Nowhere have i said I want Paddack for the rest of the season. I am glad they traded Paddack. Trade every expiring contract. And then some.

I really dont understand how you could take otherwise from anything I've written.

[DJL44]

23 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I don't think that's the logical conclusion.

I think the logical conclusion is, the Minnesota Twins baseball team would be better off, if even slightly, if trades were made to maximize return to the baseball team. 

Dollars are a useful return to the baseball team. Dollars can be used to pay player salaries, invest in facilities, pay coaches and scouts, etc.

[DJL44]

19 minutes ago, big dog said:

All the cash saved this year does is marginally increase the value of the team to whomever buys it. That's money in the Pohlad pocketbook.

All minor league talent does is marginally increase the value of the team to whomever buys it.

[LA Vikes Fan]

Just now, USAFChief said:

Nowhere have i said I want Paddack for the rest of the season. I am glad they traded Paddack. Trade every expiring contract. And then some.

I really dont understand how you could take otherwise from anything I've written.

I must not have been clear. What I took from your post is that the Twins could have gotten a better return for Paddack had they not made Detroit take Dobnak, leading to a conclusion that ownership's primary concern is offloading payroll, not making the organization/team better in the future. I disagree with that conclusion at least based on this trade. I think the trade does make the team better in the future because I think Jimenez is actually a legitimate prospect at a difficult position to fill. As for the addition of Dobnak, I do tend to agree that Detroit took him in order to make the deal although I did read on one site that Dobnak was the "sweetener" the Twins threw in to get a better prospect. I think that guy is smoking crack, but I don't think we got a lesser player because Dobnak is part of the deal. I think we got a better than fair return for 10 – 12 starts of Chris Paddack. To me, Dobnak or no Dobnak is pretty much irrelevant. 

[USAFChief]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Dollars are a useful return to the baseball team. Dollars can be used to pay player salaries, invest in facilities, pay coaches and scouts, etc.

Im quite comfortable stating the money saved by including Dobnak does ZERO good for the Minnesota Twins baseball team.

[big dog]

11 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

All minor league talent does is marginally increase the value of the team to whomever buys it.

Not necessarily. A somewhat-better A-ball prospect helps the team's value by how much? I know how much a million dollars helps the team's value.

[Wedman13]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I mean, the national media is saying they got less back because they included dobnak.....

We can again disagree on which national media we follow :) but ESPN gives tigers a D, twins a C.  Is a C great, no, because this is such an insignificant trade.  But at least to them, the Twins win it.  Will it take us 4 years to find out? Yes.

folks (not you) riled up over a Paddock/Dobnak trade are giving me a good laugh.

[DJL44]

11 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Im quite comfortable stating the money saved by including Dobnak does ZERO good for the Minnesota Twins baseball team.

If you don’t think money is useful for assembling a professional baseball roster, then I guess we will never agree. Someone should tell the Dodgers they’re spending a ton of money for no reason.

[DJL44]

Let’s look at this another way. The $4.5M the Twins got the Tigers to eat in this trade can be sent to the Astros to get them to take Correa’s contract. Pretending that cash is useless to a baseball general manager is either hopelessly naive or unredeemably cynical.

[old nurse]

To think the Twins were going to get anything more than a lottery ticket despite multiple teams being interested is foolish. There is very little difference in somebodies low ranked prospects. That they got a complex level prospect that ends up ranked by MLB baseball, as the number 20 prospect would say that it was as good of deal as the team was going to get. 

[USAFChief]

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

If you don’t think money is useful for assembling a professional baseball roster, then I guess we will never agree. Someone should tell the Dodgers they’re spending a ton of money for no reason.

I think money is enormously useful. Too useful. Id like a hard salary cap (and floor). Id like the Twins and Dodgers to have roughly equal money to spend.

But THIS money won't do that. It will not benefit baseball operations. 

 

[USAFChief]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Let’s look at this another way. The $4.5M the Twins got the Tigers to eat in this trade can be sent to the Astros to get them to take Correa’s contract. Pretending that cash is useless to a baseball general manager is either hopelessly naive or unredeemably cynical.

If the Twins trade Correa to Houston and eat $4.7M in salary I'll change my mind and say you were right. 

If they don't, will you do the same?

(I think the Twins save roughly $4.7 total in this deal, not $4.5. Im feeling generous. Really generous, because we shouldn't be including the $2.5M Paddack salary in this deal. That's irrelevant to the discussion of including Dobnak in the trade.)

[Connor Gould]

It feels like we got a fair return of a solid low minors lottery ticket for an expiring #4/5 starter/October reliever, but we get a minor contract dump as a throw-in and people are against it just because of principles. Like there is inherent virtue in spending more money, so because we dumped $2 million it's inherently bad. That seems way too dogmatic, I'd be satisfied with the return without the Dobnak dump, it's in line with Paddack's value, and I really doubt that another $2 million dollars would've made a significant difference in prospect quality.

[arby58]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

More than 1 thing can be true at the same time.

Getting anything at all in return for Paddack is a win. That's true. Jimenez is a nice lottery ticket return in this deal. But the Tigers didn't take on Dobnak's contract for fun. The Twins paid a price for that. I'm not sure what price people think that could have been other than a lower ranked prospect. It's the only thing the Twins got in return. So, it's the only thing that could've been lowered in value. The Tigers taking on money as part of the deal (eating Dobnak's deal) means the Twins gave up some prospect capital. 

Both things can be true. The Twins got a lesser prospect in return by making the Tigers take on Dobnak to save the Pohlads a couple mil and the Twins still got a nice little return for a player who wasn't going to be part of the future anyways.

Yes, they both can be true. There are also variations on this theme that might be true - it's all conjecture. Here is how the conversation might have played out:

Tigers: Interested in Paddack, what do you want in return?

Twins: prospect A (playing in A-ball)?

Tigers: Can't go that high on our prospect list. How about prospect J, in the FCL?

Twins: In the FCL? How about prospect B?

Tigers: Nope - what else would you need besides prospect J?

Twins: You take Dobnak off our hands and you've got a deal.

Tigers: Dobnak? He's 1-7 in Triple A with an ERA north of 7 and a guaranteed contract!

Twins: That's the deal if all you'll offer is Prospect J.

Tigers: Deal.

 

 

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, Connor Gould said:

 it's in line with Paddack's value, and I really doubt that another $2 million dollars would've made a significant difference in prospect quality.

Then why do it?

[Woof Bronzer]

I've been very critical of ownership and the FO, but to me, getting a bag of new baseballs, much less an actual prospect, for Paddack is miraculous and could be Falvey's savviest move.  

[bunsen82]

3 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Then why do it?

Because you get nothing for Paddack if he walks after the season and Jimenez may have been better than anything else that had been offered.  That is most likely the answer.  Jimenez is a flyer but he has potential especially as a defensive catcher.  

[arby58]

Both sides in a trade are working with incomplete information, and you have to wonder just how many of these 'x and y teams are interested' are just feigns and bluffs. Let's say I'm the Yankees and I'm interested in a starting pitcher not named Paddock. You might feign interest in Paddock so the team you're actually talking with thinks their leverage is diminished. If you follow the rumor mill sites, you'll find teams 'interested' in far more players than they will actually be able to acquire. The only reason to do that is to reduce leverage of your actual target.

Further,  if the Twins had waited around for another offer, the existing offer might be taken off the table. My guess is the Twins threw Dobnak into the trade not at the start of the negotiations but at the end, when they couldn't get anything more out of the Tigers than the prospect they got. 

[USAFChief]

10 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

Because you get nothing for Paddack if he walks after the season and Jimenez may have been better than anything else that had been offered.  That is most likely the answer.  Jimenez is a flyer but he has potential especially as a defensive catcher.  

For the 47th time: I have not, am not, and will not ever say "keep Paddack."

I've been on the ",sell every expiring contract and then some bandwagon" for weeks. This team isn't going anywhere. It has no realistic chance of postseason success as constructed. Keeping Paddack would be malpractice. Same for Bader, Coulombe and Castro

I'm fully aware Paddack is a free agent at season's end. Im not an idiot. Please dont treat me like one, because now I'm forced to respond in kind: 

Think hard: "what purpose did including Dobnak serve? Who benefited? What would have possibly happened had they NOT included him in this deal?"

[chpettit19]

15 minutes ago, arby58 said:

Yes, they both can be true. There are also variations on this theme that might be true - it's all conjecture. Here is how the conversation might have played out:

Tigers: Interested in Paddack, what do you want in return?

Twins: prospect A (playing in A-ball)?

Tigers: Can't go that high on our prospect list. How about prospect J, in the FCL?

Twins: In the FCL? How about prospect B?

Tigers: Nope - what else would you need besides prospect J?

Twins: You take Dobnak off our hands and you've got a deal.

Tigers: Dobnak? He's 1-7 in Triple A with an ERA north of 7 and a guaranteed contract!

Twins: That's the deal if all you'll offer is Prospect J.

Tigers: Deal.

 

 

It absolutely could've gone down that way. But instead of their response being "take Dobnak off our hands" their response could've been "prospect K added to prospect J." And if they reject that then prospect L, M, N, O, P, Q, R....you get the idea. They chose money over prospect capital. There was a cost to getting Dobnak off their books. They chose to save money instead of getting player value.

You can value that however you want. If you choose to believe that the Pohlads truly are going to get this team sold before next season like they and now the commissioner both want you to believe, I don't know how you can view that decision as anything other than the Pohlads just pocketing a few million bucks. Unless you think they're about to reinvest that money in the next 28.75ish hours, of course. I'm skeptical of that.

[bunsen82]

25 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

For the 47th time: I have not, am not, and will not ever say "keep Paddack."

I've been on the ",sell every expiring contract and then some bandwagon" for weeks. This team isn't going anywhere. It has no realistic chance of postseason success as constructed. Keeping Paddack would be malpractice. Same for Bader, Coulombe and Castro

I'm fully aware Paddack is a free agent at season's end. Im not an idiot. Please dont treat me like one, because now I'm forced to respond in kind: 

Think hard: "what purpose did including Dobnak serve? Who benefited? What would have possibly happened had they NOT included him in this deal?"

Your quote -  "Then why do it?"  

If you don't do it you are keeping Paddack.  Period.  I answered your question, it wasn't me treating you as an idiot,  but the question was simple enough.   

 

Re: Your think hard questions, you are asking question we don't have all the answers too.  In either case as I have said including Dobnak cleared cash,  and cash has institutional value.   Its what gave the Twins a win in the Trade Calculator by a significant margin.  So including Dobnak benefitted the Twins organization.  As I have said this entire thread,  I am thinking Detroit was unwilling to offer anything better than Jimenez PERIOD.  The only way they were giving the Twins a better deal was by eating cash.  See I can admit I may be wrong on my assumption, but it is just as plausible if not more plausible than saying Detroit had offered a significantly better prospect but the Twins turned it down because they preferred the cash savings which you are implying.  We just don't know what was offered in negotiations or the Twins preference for prospects.