Twins Choose Savings Over Substance in Paddack Trade

[TNtwins85]

I honestly thought it would be a salary dump anyways. I was truly surprised we got as good of a prospect as we got for not only him but dobnak as well. A number 14 or whatever in the tigers system is probably the best on the table. I mean really what were you expecting???

[arby58]

8 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

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.

The Pohlads own the team, and major league sports is a business. 'Pocketing a few million bucks' can be part of making the financial picture work at any given point in time. 

Regardless of how we all feel about it, most every MLB team has a budget, and when you look at those budgets (with some year to year swings) they largely fit into about four categories:

1. Big market, big budget teams.
2. Medium market, medium budget teams
3. Seriously financially constrained teams. 

My view has been there are about 8 teams in the first cohort, 16 teams in the second, and 6 in the final group. The Twins are, nearly every year, in the middle group. As has been noted elsewhere, they have a larger payroll this year than every other team in the AL Central. Their performance of late (and things that drive revenue) has fallen off. If that means management is looking for cost cutting measures, they are no different than most any business that encounters revenue challenges.

It's always easier to play with other people's money. 

[TNtwins85]

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

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.

This move made sense. Especially when Paddack will be a FA. If you need a MLB caliber arm just to fill in every 5 days you make this move 10/10 times no matter who you’re trading with. All it signals is the twins are done trying the rest of this season. Which is what we’ve all seen the last month and a half anyways. They just don’t have the guys to compete for a playoff spot. 

[Doctor Gast]

IMO, we could have done better. I imagine that all buyers called the sellers. When HOU called, I'd offer Paddack to them. HOU has some injuries & Paddack is an upgrade over some of those they are using, you can't have enough pitching & Paddack can be an elite BP help when needed. Paddack is from TX & would fit right in. If you want to save even more money, you could have thrown in Vazquez. Vazquez has postseason experience & is very familiar with HOU.

My target would be Caezar Salazar. He's their #3 catcher behind very good catchers Diaz & Caratini. Salazar is a good defensive catcher & a good LH hitter. He has played very little. he had a good last season but has only caught 5 games this season. When given an opportunity, he could shine. He could be our backup catcher now & in the future. IMO, Salazar is Jimenez's ceiling 5 years from now if Twins can develop him. And if you love lotto tickets so much you could get a lotto ticket besides.

We have the leverage so why not take advantage of it.

[TNtwins85]

11 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

IMO, we could have done better. I imagine that all buyers called the sellers. When HOU called, I'd offer Paddack to them. HOU has some injuries & Paddack is an upgrade over some of those they are using, you can't have enough pitching & Paddack can be an elite BP help when needed. Paddack is from TX & would fit right in. If you want to save even more money, you could have thrown in Vazquez. Vazquez has postseason experience & is very familiar with HOU.

My target would be Caezar Salazar. He's their #3 catcher behind very good catchers Diaz & Caratini. Salazar is a good defensive catcher & a good LH hitter. He has played very little. he had a good last season but has only caught 5 games this season. When given an opportunity, he could shine. He could be our backup catcher now & in the future. IMO, Salazar is Jimenez's ceiling 5 years from now if Twins can develop him. And if you love lotto tickets so much you could get a lotto ticket besides.

We have the leverage so why not take advantage of it.

He’s 29 with a minor league line of .243/.341/.397. He’s hitting .203 in AAA this season.  He could do for us what he’s doing for Houston. Holding a spot at AAA only to be released. That’s the best you could come up with? We got detroits number 14 prospect for 2 months of Paddack!?!?! What else was out there? Are we being serious here? 

[IndianaTwin]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

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.

That's incomplete information.

Line 36 explains why you would not ask for the entire amount to be refunded right now. For some people, it's going to make sense to have all or a portion of the refund applied to the following year's estimated taxes.

 

Which I think is the primary gripe that some readers have with the OP -- it makes declarative statements without all the information.

The OP might be an accurate read. It might not be. But we don't have the information to say "Cutting payroll matters more than building for the future."

[Wedman13]

1 hour 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.  

💯

Classic thread.  You would think we just traded Clayton Kershaw in his prime for a bucket of balls.

[bunsen82]

2 minutes ago, Wedman13 said:

💯

Classic thread.  You would think we just traded Clayton Kershaw in his prime for a bucket of balls.

When the standard response is we could have gotten someone better in return,  and up to this point the best comp offered is a 29 year old hitting sub .200 in AAA and is likely to be released by the end of the year, you know this trade had minimal implications.  But you have some that are going to critique everything and put a negative spin on even when ever review of the trade that I can find shows the Twins winning by a significant margin.  Alas I am done with this thread,  only so much reasoning you can do.  Paddack and this thread I bid you adieu

 

[chpettit19]

16 minutes ago, arby58 said:

The Pohlads own the team, and major league sports is a business. 'Pocketing a few million bucks' can be part of making the financial picture work at any given point in time. 

Regardless of how we all feel about it, most every MLB team has a budget, and when you look at those budgets (with some year to year swings) they largely fit into about four categories:

1. Big market, big budget teams.
2. Medium market, medium budget teams
3. Seriously financially constrained teams. 

My view has been there are about 8 teams in the first cohort, 16 teams in the second, and 6 in the final group. The Twins are, nearly every year, in the middle group. As has been noted elsewhere, they have a larger payroll this year than every other team in the AL Central. Their performance of late (and things that drive revenue) has fallen off. If that means management is looking for cost cutting measures, they are no different than most any business that encounters revenue challenges.

It's always easier to play with other people's money. 

That's why I brought up that the Pohlads and the commissioner of Major League Baseball himself are doing everything they can to convince us all that the Pohlads are on the doorstep of completing a nearly $2 billion deal. The Pohlads supposedly won't own the Twins much longer anyways so they aren't responsible for making the financial picture work. If the Twins needed to trade Randy Dobnak to cut checks next week the Pohlads are in quite the predicament. But I'm pretty sure "the financial picture" at this "given point in time" is ok.

Yes, it is easier to play with other people's money. And despite what you think, it's what you're doing too, you're just on the other side of the game. My play with their money is to spend it on talent so they can improve their chances at stopping the performance fall off. Your play with their money is to put it in their pocket. 

Like I said in that other post, you can value them choosing money over talent however you want. You say in this post that part of their need for money now is that their performance is dipping. Know what helps with performance falling off? Getting more talent in your organization. I will always choose adding talent, no matter how much of a lottery ticket it's perceived to be over adding money to the owner's pocket. And I fully understand baseball is a business. My point from the beginning has been that people arguing that Dobnak was added for nothing in return is nonsense. The Twins made a choice. They chose money over prospect capital. And, again, you can value that however you want. I don't care if the billionaires lose a couple million because they were foolish enough (again) to think they hadn't alienated fans and their revenue was going down. You cost yourself talent (again). I want the Twins to win. And for that they need more talent.

I don't think a dime of this money is going back into the Twins organization in a way that increases their on field talent. Which I don't like. So, I think they did well in the trade in general, but I also dislike them choosing money over talent in even the slightest way. Because I couldn't care less about the Pohlad's bank account. And that's all this changes.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, bunsen82 said:

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.  

Go back and read through, right up until I asked "then why do it?"

Seen if you can follow along this time. See if you can figure out what I was asking.

Hint: I wasn't asking "why trade Paddack."

[Wedman13]

10 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

When the standard response is we could have gotten someone better in return,  and up to this point the best comp offered is a 29 year old hitting sub .200 in AAA and is likely to be released by the end of the year, you know this trade had minimal implications.  But you have some that are going to critique everything and put a negative spin on even when ever review of the trade that I can find shows the Twins winning by a significant margin.  Alas I am done with this thread,  only so much reasoning you can do.  Paddack and this thread I bid you adieu

 

The OP set good bait with very definitive statements based on items like 'there were reports the rays and Yankees had interest'.... and a few posters latched on, hard. Good job OP drumming up responses, I guess.  It has been humorous back and forth.

[arby58]

29 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

That's why I brought up that the Pohlads and the commissioner of Major League Baseball himself are doing everything they can to convince us all that the Pohlads are on the doorstep of completing a nearly $2 billion deal. The Pohlads supposedly won't own the Twins much longer anyways so they aren't responsible for making the financial picture work. If the Twins needed to trade Randy Dobnak to cut checks next week the Pohlads are in quite the predicament. But I'm pretty sure "the financial picture" at this "given point in time" is ok.

Yes, it is easier to play with other people's money. And despite what you think, it's what you're doing too, you're just on the other side of the game. My play with their money is to spend it on talent so they can improve their chances at stopping the performance fall off. Your play with their money is to put it in their pocket. 

Like I said in that other post, you can value them choosing money over talent however you want. You say in this post that part of their need for money now is that their performance is dipping. Know what helps with performance falling off? Getting more talent in your organization. I will always choose adding talent, no matter how much of a lottery ticket it's perceived to be over adding money to the owner's pocket. And I fully understand baseball is a business. My point from the beginning has been that people arguing that Dobnak was added for nothing in return is nonsense. The Twins made a choice. They chose money over prospect capital. And, again, you can value that however you want. I don't care if the billionaires lose a couple million because they were foolish enough (again) to think they hadn't alienated fans and their revenue was going down. You cost yourself talent (again). I want the Twins to win. And for that they need more talent.

I don't think a dime of this money is going back into the Twins organization in a way that increases their on field talent. Which I don't like. So, I think they did well in the trade in general, but I also dislike them choosing money over talent in even the slightest way. Because I couldn't care less about the Pohlad's bank account. And that's all this changes.

Actually, you want to play with their money (i.e., spend it), I am willing to let them play with their money (i.e., keep it or spend it) - they are not the same thing. The logic you hang on is that the Twins would have gotten a better 'investment' (i.e., prospect lottery ticket) if Dobnak had not been included. The problem is money hasn't been the root cause of the Twins issues the past two seasons - they have spent more than the teams finishing above them in the Central Division each year. 

Given the lottery ticket nature of prospects, what they might have gotten more of without including Dobnak appears to be more an argument about 'the principle of things' than about something tangible.  My career is in finance, so yeah, I'd be just fine with pocketing a couple million if there was little likelihood of a better ROI from haggling for another prospect.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Wow. This is just all kinds of wrong.

Dobnak was included to save $2.2M, 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.

You didn't read my comment. I am not saying that money wasn't a factor in including Dobnak in the trade. I am saying that the money was not enough to  substantially move the needle on the prospect return.

All teams make cost saving moves, don't act like Twins ownership has a patent on this doing this.

[Riverbrian]

Who knows... But I can't imagine the possibility... not even remotely consider the possibility that the Twins would spend the millions over the 5 years of the deal and then allow remaining 1.5m or whatever result in compromising the trade value of your acquisition for the future when they are so close to the finish line on the contract. I mean who knows... but that would be extending the original contract mistake into the future.  Instead of being done with the mistake in one month... you have now extended the penalty of the original contract by taking a lesser prospect in return.  

 I can't see that. I truly can't... that would be another level of incompetence. 

I have to imagine that the Twins talked to multiple teams and the Tigers offered the best deal. Doesn't matter what the prospect rankings say, doesn't matter what the ratings that are passed out for public consumption. The scouts, the analytics team, the evaluators like this 19 year old kid better than other players offered.  

I believe they chose this kid out of the other players offered from the Tigers and other teams... if there were other teams? I don't believe the kid was forced upon them so they could shed Dobnak's remaining whatever it is. 

I think it is more likely that they decided to go with Detroit and said Oh BTW... I'll go with this deal if you take Dobnak. Detroit probably said sure fine... let's just get it done so we can move on to addressing other team needs before Thursday arrives. 

But again... Who knows... I wasn't in the room either. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, arby58 said:

Actually, you want to play with their money (i.e., spend it), I am willing to let them play with their money (i.e., keep it or spend it) - they are not the same thing. The logic you hang on is that the Twins would have gotten a better 'investment' (i.e., prospect lottery ticket) if Dobnak had not been included. The problem is money hasn't been the root cause of the Twins issues the past two seasons - they have spent more than the teams finishing above them each year. 

Given the lottery ticket nature of prospects, what they might have gotten more of without including Dobnak appears to be more an argument about 'the principle of things' than about something tangible.  My career is in finance, so yeah, I'd be just fine with pocketing a couple million if there was little likelihood of a better ROI from haggling for another prospect.

Ok, fine, you're not willing to even take a stand you just want to tell other people they're wrong without making your own stance. Good for you, I guess? But I also said (multiple times even) it's their prerogative to choose the money over the prospect capital. I just said it isn't the choice I'd prefer. And I've also said multiple times it's up to others how they want to value choosing the money. You clearly like it. Cool. 

None of that changes where this entire conversation started in that it was a choice the Twins made and Dobnak wasn't just added for nothing. They picked the money over the prospect capital. I'd argue the fact that prospects are low chance lottery tickets is exactly why you get as many of them as you can. And, actually, major league teams would, too. It's a numbers game. You need to give yourself as many swings at it as possible. It's why they don't trade what so many around here call "redundant" prospects. Because there's no such thing. Because so many fail. So, no, it's not "the principle of things." Not even a little. It's about giving this team the best chance to be good. I want the Twins to win baseball games. Now and in the future. This season is lost. But the future isn't. The Twins need more talent in their system. So, passing on talent in order to hand owners who won't even be here (supposedly) next year a couple million annoys me. Because that decision doesn't help the Twins win baseball games. And that's what I care about. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

4 hours ago, bunsen82 said:

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.  

This is very true. People forget that deadline deals are as much about sending salary out the door as they are about getting prospects.

If the Twins do not trade Castro or Bader, is anyone here going to comment on ownership willing to spend money on salary to keep the team watchable over the last two months?

[BillyBallLives]

Emotion clicking in here so blast me if you want.

 

Paddack earns his first win as a Tiger.
The man delivers six strong innings with five strikeouts against the Diamondbacks.

Meanwhile, back in Minnesota… this era of Twins baseball is starting to feel like another "death valley."
You can almost hear Kirby Puckett’s voice echoing through Target Field. If the Puck was still around, I’d give anything to hear what he’d say. Kirby called the 1993 - 1998 year's "death valley" if you recall.

Meanwhile....Twins are getting pasted by Boston. 

If you’re Chris Paddack, you’ve got to be wondering if someone spiked your sunflower seeds.

[BillyBallLives]

22 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

keep the team watchable over the last two months?

But how do you keep the unwatchable watchable ?

 

[Nshore]

I like the trade.  The Twins thought so little of Paddock's future that they were willing to trade him within the division, which says something.  And they made an attempt to fill a glaring need in the organization.  All kinds of nefarious motivations can be projected onto the owners, but we really don't know what goes on behind the scenes.  On paper the trade makes perfect sense.  Extra credit for shedding Dobnak.

[Doctor Gast]

1 hour ago, TNtwins85 said:

He’s 29 with a minor league line of .243/.341/.397. He’s hitting .203 in AAA this season.  He could do for us what he’s doing for Houston. Holding a spot at AAA only to be released. That’s the best you could come up with? We got detroits number 14 prospect for 2 months of Paddack!?!?! What else was out there? Are we being serious here? 

If you actually read my text & have an understanding beyond analytics, it's clear that Salazar is a clear change of scenery player. Clemens was 29 & had several seasons with a ton of regular MLB ABs, with several teams & had very unimpressive stats. He had horrid stats this year before coming to the Twins. I would not have taken a chance on him. For players, it's tough emotionally not to get an opportunity & not get the playing time you deserve because the players ahead of you. Again, he is a very good MLB defensive catcher (for your information, catching is a prime position if not the most), he got a stint of regular playing time in the MLB last season & hit .320/.387/400. His poorer-than-usual hitting is a sign that he's ready for a change of scenery. 

[Vanimal46]

Looks like the Pohlads choose savings in several areas within the organization. Sell the god damn team! 

[KirbyDome89]

49 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

You didn't read my comment. I am not saying that money wasn't a factor in including Dobnak in the trade. I am saying that the money was not enough to  substantially move the needle on the prospect return.

All teams make cost saving moves, don't act like Twins ownership has a patent on this doing this.

The issue is that they opted to move it at all....

[Major League Ready]

5 hours 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.

I think your first sentence says it all.  It's likely more than one thing is true in this trade.  Maybe they were down to two prospects and Jimenez was the prospect they really wanted.  Yet, they were able to convince Detroit to take Dobnak in the deal.  It's quite possible they handled this masterfully.  However, for those who are inclined to look for the negative, there is a logical reason to interpret this negatively.  Given we are all uniformed, I tend to look at simplistically and ask was the return reasonable.  I certainly didn't expect anything better so I am not going to complain they saved a little money this year and next.  

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I think your first sentence says it all.  It's likely more than one thing is true in this trade.  Maybe they were down to two prospects and Jimenez was the prospect they really wanted.  Yet, they were able to convince Detroit to take Dobnak in the deal.  It's quite possible they handled this masterfully.  However, for those who are inclined to look for the negative, there is a logical reason to interpret this negatively.  Given we are all uniformed, I tend to look at simplistically and ask was the return reasonable.  I certainly didn't expect anything better so I am not going to complain they saved a little money this year and next.  

I don't care if this return is better, worse, or the same as any of our expectations for a Paddack trade. To me the simplistic view is that Detroit thought that if they traded Jimenez for Paddack straight up they were getting the better end of the deal. There's no way to argue that. Detroit took on a negative asset outside of that 2 player swap and MN didn't get anything else. It's the only logical answer. Detroit thought Jimenez for Paddack was in their favor to some degree. From there MN chose money over more talent in return.

Value that however you want. As I've now said 4, 5, 6 times? Whether we expected more doesn't matter, the Twins could've gotten more. That's indisputable. Detroit took on a negative asset in order to make the trade work so by definition the Twins did get more than just Jimenez. You can be ok with the Twins choosing the money over more talent. Whether that would've/could've/should've been a different prospect than Jimenez or another lottery ticket in addition to Jimenez. I would've preferred more talent than saving the Pohlads money on the way out the door. 1 mil for next year's payroll isn't moving the needle. DSL/Rookie ball Luis Gil for Jake Cave might.

I'm much more positive about the FO, Baldelli, and the Twins in general than the average poster. I'm not just some negative poster out to trash everything the Twins do. The Tigers took on a negative asset. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. That means Chris Paddack was worth more to them than Enrique Jimenez alone. The Twins chose to save a couple bucks that will most likely be meaningless when it comes to winning baseball games instead of taking a shot on more talent. I disagree with that. Not everyone does, and from the beginning I've said it's up to everyone to value choosing the money instead how they want. Chris Paddack was worth more than Enrique Jimenez alone whether any of us thought so before the trade or not.

[Major League Ready]

31 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't care if this return is better, worse, or the same as any of our expectations for a Paddack trade. To me the simplistic view is that Detroit thought that if they traded Jimenez for Paddack straight up they were getting the better end of the deal. There's no way to argue that. Detroit took on a negative asset outside of that 2 player swap and MN didn't get anything else. It's the only logical answer. Detroit thought Jimenez for Paddack was in their favor to some degree. From there MN chose money over more talent in return.

Value that however you want. As I've now said 4, 5, 6 times? Whether we expected more doesn't matter, the Twins could've gotten more. That's indisputable. Detroit took on a negative asset in order to make the trade work so by definition the Twins did get more than just Jimenez. You can be ok with the Twins choosing the money over more talent. Whether that would've/could've/should've been a different prospect than Jimenez or another lottery ticket in addition to Jimenez. I would've preferred more talent than saving the Pohlads money on the way out the door. 1 mil for next year's payroll isn't moving the needle. DSL/Rookie ball Luis Gil for Jake Cave might.

I'm much more positive about the FO, Baldelli, and the Twins in general than the average poster. I'm not just some negative poster out to trash everything the Twins do. The Tigers took on a negative asset. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. That means Chris Paddack was worth more to them than Enrique Jimenez alone. The Twins chose to save a couple bucks that will most likely be meaningless when it comes to winning baseball games instead of taking a shot on more talent. I disagree with that. Not everyone does, and from the beginning I've said it's up to everyone to value choosing the money instead how they want. Chris Paddack was worth more than Enrique Jimenez alone whether any of us thought so before the trade or not.

So, it's not possible that Detroit was offering Jimenez and another team was offering a prospect that the Twins thought was equal or that they liked a little less?  The Twins say "hey Detroit we like the other team's prospect but if you take Dobnak we will take your offer,  Are you saying that kind of gamesmanship does not take place in Major League trades?  The only possibility is that absolute equity is negotiated in every instance and no team is ever outmaneuvered by another team?  

[sweetmusicviola16]

I like the trade, I'm fine with getting lottery ticket Jimenez. But industry consensus is when you pass off more money onto the team you are trading with the return goes down. That's a long known fact.

[chpettit19]

37 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So, it's not possible that Detroit was offering Jimenez and another team was offering a prospect that the Twins thought was equal or that they liked a little less?  The Twins say "hey Detroit we like the other team's prospect but if you take Dobnak we will take your offer,  Are you saying that kind of gamesmanship does not take place in Major League trades?  The only possibility is that absolute equity is negotiated in every instance and no team is ever outmaneuvered by another team?  

You're not even arguing against what I'm arguing so this will be my last response to you.

Trading Dobnak at all is the choice I'm talking about. Choosing to trade him instead of choosing to demand another flyer prospect is what I'm talking about. My complaint is the Twins bringing up Dobnak at all. That is purely a money saving move. If the Tigers were willing to give more to make the deal work ("but if you take Dobnak we will take your offer") I would have preferred the Twins demand another rookie level prospect. Or DSL level prospect. Or any random lottery ticket prospect that the Tigers felt was the equivalent of taking on Dobnak.

[sweetmusicviola16]

Another fact, no savings on Dobnak's contract will ever be put back into this franchise. How that can even be suggested is beyond me. It should be an interesting day coming up.

[sweetmusicviola16]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

You're not even arguing against what I'm arguing so this will be my last response to you.

Trading Dobnak at all is the choice I'm talking about. Choosing to trade him instead of choosing to demand another flyer prospect is what I'm talking about. My complaint is the Twins bringing up Dobnak at all. That is purely a money saving move. If the Tigers were willing to give more to make the deal work ("but if you take Dobnak we will take your offer") I would have preferred the Twins demand some another rookie level prospect. Or DSL level prospect. Or any random lottery ticket prospect that the Tigers felt was the equivalent of taking on Dobnak.

This is more likely. Paddack for Jimenez and flyer prospect B would have been standard. Dobnak is the replacement of flyer prospect B. He just is and the entire baseball industry knows it. The bottom line is they left a possible future prospect on the table for a 2mil or so savings towards ownership. 

[sweetmusicviola16]

Duran is gone. No mas.