Twins Choose Savings Over Substance in Paddack Trade

[bunsen82]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

But the financial value only benefits the team, if the savings of that value is used to improve the team. They aren't going to use that financial savings to add players this year.

The money is saved in either case and could be used for players next year, or possibly in another trade they are working on.   You are making assumptions, and minimizing the financial value created.   

[farmerguychris]

A lot of comments defending the F.O. here, but I think this article is spot on.  The owners haven't cared about winning the past 2 years and surely regret the Correa signing (simple because of the cost).  When they are sending down a player a day before calling up their replacement -just to save a few thousand bucks - you think they won't send Dobnak away for free just to save a couple million?

This ownership can't sell fast enough.  I hope they do before they sell off everyone for whatever salary savings they can get.  Money is literally the only thing that matters to them at this point.

[arby58]

36 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Wow. This is just all kinds of wrong.

Dobnak was included to save $1.2M, and doing so lowered the return.

Thats pretty much indisputable.

If youre ok with lessening the baseball side to increase ownership's pocketbook side, ok. But just say so. Don't pretend this is something else.

Trading for prospects isn't a linear equation, and the rankings of prospects are all over the map. They got a decent prospect, but they are all more or less lottery tickets. Claims this 'lowered the return' in a way that is material is conjecture. 

[Mike Sixel]

40 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

Ok - the entire premise of the article is absurd - more just a way to attack Falvey and the Twins.  Trades are made to create value for a team,  whether its financial, prospects or players.  Dobnak was a dead negative asset, no different than Desclafani in the Polanco trade.  On the Value calculator the Twins have a Value of 2.2 for the Catcher prospect (who I actually like)   and detroit was near 0 with Paddack and Dobnak basically cancelling each other out.  This was an overpay, and to the best of my knowledge we have no other players we are going to dump for salary,  unless we began to talk about Correa.  So what if we got an A ball player instead of 1 in rookie ball.  The difference would have been rather miniscule for Paddack.  Paddack, Vazquez and France were all going to be pretty tough sells. 

As to Bader, Castro, Coloumbe, Jax, Duran, Ryan we have a lot more leverage and they are lot better assets.  I think most will be pleasantly surprised after the trade deadline.  

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

[nicksaviking]

Just now, bunsen82 said:

The money is saved in either case and could be used for players next year, or possibly in another trade they are working on.   You are making assumptions, and minimizing the financial value created.   

I'm minimizing the 1.2M future savings of the Dobnak deal? What kind of player improvement do you get for 1.2M next year? I don't want ANY free agent that cost 1.2M and a 10M player and a 11.2M player are the exact same player. 

This does nothing to improve the future of the team.

[arby58]

1 minute ago, farmerguychris said:

 you think they won't send Dobnak away for free just to save a couple million?

 I would have sent him away for a bag of balls - and paid for the bag of balls as well.

[bunsen82]

7 minutes 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.

 

 

I am an accountant.  Financial decisions generally are involved with any major decision.  Lets just think out the box a bit more, and the front office has told Falvey he needs to cut $20 million from this year and next years budget.  It needs to be done at some point.  Whether now or later.  He just saved nearly $5 million of cash value from this trade for the remainder of this year and next year.  It has value.  It You also are ignoring the counterpoint that Detroit may have been unwilling to provide a better prospect.  

[arby58]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm minimizing the 1.2M future savings of the Dobnak deal? What kind of player improvement do you get for 1.2M next year? I don't want ANY free agent that cost 1.2M and a 10M player and a 11.2M player are the exact same player. 

This does nothing to improve the future of the team.

I'm missing the logic - if there is no difference between a $10M and a $11.2M player, how does the argument go that a prospect is markedly better with  or without the $1.2M? I think this is all making a mountain out of a molehill.

[nicksaviking]

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.

[bunsen82]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm minimizing the 1.2M future savings of the Dobnak deal? What kind of player improvement do you get for 1.2M next year? I don't want ANY free agent that cost 1.2M and a 10M player and a 11.2M player are the exact same player. 

This does nothing to improve the future of the team.

Someone better than France  🤣

[chpettit19]

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.

[DJL44]

7 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Because including Dobnak served no other purpose than to save ownership $1.2M. None. Zip. Zilch. 

If they really want to maximize prospects returned, they should buy down the remaining salary on all the expiring contracts they sell at the deadline. They should also consider sending additional cash. They could get a great prospect bundle if they traded Willi Castro and $20M to another team. Anything less than that would just be saving ownership money, right?

[bunsen82]

Just now, arby58 said:

I'm missing the logic - if there is no difference between a $10M and a $11.2M player, how does the argument go that a prospect is markedly better with  or without the $1.2M? I think this is all making a mountain out of a molehill.

In total we saved $5 million.  Now does that get thrown into next years budget,  not likely.  My guess is revenues are down for this year so they are mitigating that by cutting some.  Even still I don't anticipate savings as a primary goal in the remainder of the trades.  Had we only received Jiminez I don't think anyone would be complaining that much.  It would have abeen a straight up fair trade.  Once Dobnak was thrown it people started to go crazy.  

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

If they really want to maximize prospects returned, they should buy down the remaining salary on all the expiring contracts they sell at the deadline. They should also consider sending additional cash. They could get a great prospect bundle if they traded Willi Castro and $20M to another team. Anything less than that would just be saving ownership money, right?

Yes?

 

[USAFChief]

10 minutes 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.

Concur. 

Well said

 

[mickster]

15 minutes 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.

 

 

Ridding ourselves of Dobnak, does open a spot for a younger prospect.   I hear many of you on here priortizing that

[bunsen82]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

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

So you were in the negotiations and know a better prospect was on the table? 

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, mickster said:

Ridding ourselves of Dobnak, does open a spot for a younger prospect.   I hear many of you on here priortizing that

Explain that to us.

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

So you were in the negotiations and know a better prospect was on the table? 

You can think what you want. I'm merely pointing out what others are saying. 

But it's hard to believe anyone thinks including a negative asset didn't decrease the return. 

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

So you were in the negotiations and know a better prospect was on the table? 

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?

[nicksaviking]

14 minutes 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.

The very thrifty Rays and Orioles just traded similarly unexciting players and ate money to do it. One got an infielder in A+ ball and the other a AA pitcher. Now, some may argue that Danny Jensen and Seranthony Dominguez are better players, but then why did those teams have to eat the money? Answer: they likely didn't have to eat it, but they did to get the better prospects.

At this point I'm just annoyed. Let's see what happens with Bader, Castro and Coulombe. I'll give them a chance to eat money on those contracts to get even better returns.

[Matthew Taylor]

Just now, 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?

Seems pretty obvious to me that it was the way to leap themselves above the Rays and Yankees in negotations (and probably other teams) and get the deal done early. The Twins had leverage, and they used that leverage to offload Dobnak's salary rather than get a better prospect (or an additional prospect).

[USAFChief]

5 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

So you were in the negotiations and know a better prospect was on the table? 

Didnt you say you're an accountant?

Would asking a buyer to payoff a second mortgage when buying your house lower what he's willing to pay you?

[bunsen82]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

You can think what you want. I'm merely pointing out what others are saying. 

But it's hard to believe anyone thinks including a negative asset didn't decrease the return. 

On a value based it increased the overall return.  I think its completely reasonable the Twins like Jiminez the best of the players in the prospect range offered, and Detroit may have been unwilling to send any player better than Jiminez to the Twins intra-division for Paddack.   No one is aware what was offered,  or whether said prospect would have been better.  My stance this is a good trade under any metric.  Diminishing it seems to be more punitive than anything else and primarily a way to go after Ownership, Management and the Twins as a whole.  

[DJL44]

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.

[ziggy]

9 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

What reason does Detroit have for adding millions of dollars to their payroll for nothing in return? Just really nice people over there?

It's the neighborly thing to do.

[bunsen82]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Didnt you say you're an accountant?

Would asking a buyer to payoff a second mortgage when buying your house lower what he's willing to pay you?

The equivalent in this case is someone wanted to buy your house,  but the offer was a trade where you moved switch houses and move into house with the exact same value,  and he paid down 100k on your loan,  or the offer was cash value for the value of your house.  My stance remains that I don't think Detroit wanted to give away anyone better than Jimenez and Money became the primary method to achieve the value the Twins wanted.  Maybe I am wrong.  Until we have other information that a different prospect was on the table you are merely creating hypotheticals.   

[Rod Carews Birthday]

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.  

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Matthew Taylor said:

Seems pretty obvious to me that it was the way to leap themselves above the Rays and Yankees in negotations (and probably other teams) and get the deal done early. The Twins had leverage, and they used that leverage to offload Dobnak's salary rather than get a better prospect (or an additional prospect).

Makes sense to me. My point being that Detroit didn't just do it because Falvey asked super nicely and the Tigers were feeling extra generous that day so they decided to throw a couple extra mil the Twins' way. There was something given in return. Teams don't just eat millions in salary for fun. The Twins had a choice to make with their leverage. They chose the money. Which is their prerogative. But I don't understand people's argument that the Twins couldn't have gotten anything better than the deal that was completed. Because the Tigers didn't take on Dobnak's deal for nothing.

[nicksaviking]

15 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Didnt you say you're an accountant?

Would asking a buyer to payoff a second mortgage when buying your house lower what he's willing to pay you?

In accountant terms, I think the comparison is the weirdo who doesn't make the IRS pay them the full amount of their refund:

 

I would like to receive the full amount of my Paddack please.