Four Trade Packages That Actually Make Sense for Joe Ryan

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Historyking88 said:

Once again you couldn’t be more wrong with your analysis and research for several reasons. First off the Twins don’t need any more position players as the top of their prospect system is filled with that. They need more pitching over anything so any deal involving Ryan should only be for pitching. Secondly the only team of these that fits this bill is the Yankees. Seattle doesn’t need anymore pitching and the other 2 teams don’t have the necessary pitching talent.

However your deal with the Yankees is flawed too. Again the Twins should only be targeting pitching prospects so they should ask for a package that includes Will Warren, Carlos Lagrange, and Henry Lalane. You get an instant starter for your rotation, a prospect that could instantly start in your bullpen, and a third piece with the upside to develop into a mid-rotation starter or top end reliever. 

I'm old enough to remember the days when the Twins didn't need position player prospects because they had Larnach, Wallner, Rodriguez, Julien, Miranda, Martin, and Lewis. Then they added Lee and REALLY didn't need position player prospects. Especially infield prospects. And then they added Keaschall and they weren't going to even be able to think about a position player prospect for another half a decade. Oh, and they added Jenkins. 

As it turns out, there's no such thing as having a system filled with any kind of prospect. Because prospects fail. A lot. The Twins need as much high-end talent as they can get until their major league roster is full of All Stars at every position. And then they should work on getting All Stars with options because there'll be injuries. 

I think the packages presented here definitely have flaws. The Mariners aren't trading the best pitching prospect in baseball for anybody that's reasonably available in a trade and definitely aren't adding another piece to him in a trade for Joe Ryan, for example. But the idea that the Twins could bring back a position player prospect in a trade for Joe is not one of the flaws.

[S Bart]

No

[Rufus]

Seattle?  I read where they are looking at trading a starter because they are over stocked.  they need offense not another starter.  Especially one that would cost them as much as Ryan.

[Rufus]

21 hours ago, DJL44 said:

St Louis has a pile of catching in the high minors and some interesting pitching prospects.

So do the Twins.  

 

[saviking]

Seattle is the only trade package of interest . 

[Brandon27]

if the twins trade ryan to the yankees i be asking for either  jasson dominguez or lombard jr or both in package with elmer rodriguez, carlos lagrange if you have add someone to go with ryan so be it 

[weinshie]

So, according to The Athletic, Lombard for the Yanks & Anderson of Seattle are pretty much untouchable. I mean, some of these offers just ain't gonna happen. 

[HeresWaldo]

19 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I mean, if we know the prospects won't turn out ahead of time, of course we aren't making the trade. I'm not sure your point?

Every decision involves risk, the question is, knowing what you know now about this year and next, and beyond, what to do. Ryan could get hurt. He could return another Ryan who pitches in Minnesota for five or more years? 

They did work out though, that's my point. For guys of their prospect caliber, both reaching the majors for more than a cup of coffee across multiple seasons is a better than 50th percentile outcome. Prospects are fun to dream on, but outside the concensus top 10 or so most of them are going to turn out this way, especially in the 75-200 range where they were. Like I said, if the Mariners want to do something insane and send us the literal best pitching prospect in baseball who is also the global #1 on at least one major list, by all means let them. But if you focus on the kinds of less fun names that would actually be attainable in a Ryan trade suddenly it starts to look a lot less appealing and another Martin/SWR type of return starts to feel like a plausible result. 

[HeresWaldo]

18 hours ago, ashbury said:

The comparison to Berrios may be apt. And, like you, I expect that Anderson is not available for any conceivable trade package (the OOTP AI certainly doesn't lead me to believe he would be). 

But, there is no rule that says we must do like we did with Berrios and receive two prospects in return.  What if the Twins were the team offering the package?  Maybe a slightly lower pitching prospect like Ryan Sloan could be attainable, if Joe Ryan were the headliner and a significant prospect was included as well?  I don't know what it would take - Ryan plus Emma Rodriguez, in return for Sloan plus a lesser piece?

We have so many outfielders seemingly coming of age at around the same time.  There isn't room in one major league outfield for all of them.  I refuse to believe we can't make use of some of them to swing a really interesting deal.  No, we can't simply trade 5 corner outfield bats for one good pitcher, but one trade at a time seems like we could upgrade our ceilings.

Like I keep cautioning myself, I have probably played too many hours of OOTP during the past 20 years.

 

That would certainly be one way to do it, and probably a way I'd be more supportive of. And to be clear I'm not trying to be a bummer here with my original comment. I just think people are vastly overrating how good the median outcome will be for the return we'd get for Ryan. Of course there's always a chance we get our next star because that's true in any trade (look no further than Cruz for Ryan) but on the whole that's probably not a likely outcome in the same way it's unlikely that Seattle wants to give us the best pitching prospect in baseball in exchange for a pitcher with lesser stuff and less team control.

Where I'm at is that Joe Ryan is a really good and desirable player, but we're probably not going to get a kings ransom for him so why not just keep the really good desirable player and try to be a good team? And if someone wants to wildly overpay and send us a potential future Cy Young candidate let them, but short of that why not just keep the All Star?

[Mike Sixel]

7 hours ago, weinshie said:

So, according to The Athletic, Lombard for the Yanks & Anderson of Seattle are pretty much untouchable. I mean, some of these offers just ain't gonna happen. 

Correct. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, HeresWaldo said:

That would certainly be one way to do it, and probably a way I'd be more supportive of. And to be clear I'm not trying to be a bummer here with my original comment. I just think people are vastly overrating how good the median outcome will be for the return we'd get for Ryan. Of course there's always a chance we get our next star because that's true in any trade (look no further than Cruz for Ryan) but on the whole that's probably not a likely outcome in the same way it's unlikely that Seattle wants to give us the best pitching prospect in baseball in exchange for a pitcher with lesser stuff and less team control.

Where I'm at is that Joe Ryan is a really good and desirable player, but we're probably not going to get a kings ransom for him so why not just keep the really good desirable player and try to be a good team? And if someone wants to wildly overpay and send us a potential future Cy Young candidate let them, but short of that why not just keep the All Star?

Because the chances of keeping that "really good desirable player" after next season is somewhere between 0 and 5%. And basic asset management tells us to get 2 different assets that they have 100% chance of keeping beyond next season. Especially because the odds of next season being dramatically better than this one are about the same as the odds the Twins keep Ryan beyond 2027.

The question isn't at all whether the 2 prospects are likely to turn out as well as Ryan, it is whether or not having those 2 prospects is better than having 1 possible comp pick. Unless you're here to make the argument that the Twins should be going all in on 2027, you need to acknowledge the realities of the chances the Twins actually keep Ryan.

For context, Dan Hayes has reported his requested deal last offseason was 7 years, 210 million. Very likely significantly above market value in years and total money. They agreed to a mutual option for next year last offseason. They've already discussed his future with the team. And he isn't signed. The Twins aren't likely to keep Joe Ryan. Most everyone here would prefer Joe being extended for another 4 years or so. But that isn't going to happen. So, the 2 prospects are pretty easily the better option, in many of our opinions.

[HeresWaldo]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Because the chances of keeping that "really good desirable player" after next season is somewhere between 0 and 5%. And basic asset management tells us to get 2 different assets that they have 100% chance of keeping beyond next season. Especially because the odds of next season being dramatically better than this one are about the same as the odds the Twins keep Ryan beyond 2027.

The question isn't at all whether the 2 prospects are likely to turn out as well as Ryan, it is whether or not having those 2 prospects is better than having 1 possible comp pick. Unless you're here to make the argument that the Twins should be going all in on 2027, you need to acknowledge the realities of the chances the Twins actually keep Ryan.

For context, Dan Hayes has reported his requested deal last offseason was 7 years, 210 million. Very likely significantly above market value in years and total money. They agreed to a mutual option for next year last offseason. They've already discussed his future with the team. And he isn't signed. The Twins aren't likely to keep Joe Ryan. Most everyone here would prefer Joe being extended for another 4 years or so. But that isn't going to happen. So, the 2 prospects are pretty easily the better option, in many of our opinions.

Certainly fair to say that's how a lot of front offices now think. My problem with that approach though is if you follow that line of thinking you'll always end up focused on the future and never be able to justify trying in the now. Any good veteran major leaguer can by definition return more years of future asset control with theoretically similar or higher ceilings, but personally that doesn't interest me as much as just having a good team. Look at the Rays. They're the model franchise and they always maximize asset value. And yet they have managed zero championships with this approach. And honestly I'm fine with that because I'm not into Rings Culture, but they're also not drawing fans to the park during the regular season because they trade away every player fans fall in love with, and I think that's a huge problem. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's okay to try building something even if it means taking on some current and future risk.

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, HeresWaldo said:

Certainly fair to say that's how a lot of front offices now think. My problem with that approach though is if you follow that line of thinking you'll always end up focused on the future and never be able to justify trying in the now. Any good veteran major leaguer can by definition return more years of future asset control with theoretically similar or higher ceilings, but personally that doesn't interest me as much as just having a good team. Look at the Rays. They're the model franchise and they always maximize asset value. And yet they have managed zero championships with this approach. And honestly I'm fine with that because I'm not into Rings Culture, but they're also not drawing fans to the park during the regular season because they trade away every player fans fall in love with, and I think that's a huge problem. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's okay to try building something even if it means taking on some current and future risk.

Not true. There are times to go all in. Tampa never goes all in, and had a very low payroll. They are great at what they do, but they never try to get over the hump. 

I think stating that a front office always does the same thing, regardless of context, just isn't true, other than Tampa. 

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, HeresWaldo said:

Certainly fair to say that's how a lot of front offices now think. My problem with that approach though is if you follow that line of thinking you'll always end up focused on the future and never be able to justify trying in the now. Any good veteran major leaguer can by definition return more years of future asset control with theoretically similar or higher ceilings, but personally that doesn't interest me as much as just having a good team. Look at the Rays. They're the model franchise and they always maximize asset value. And yet they have managed zero championships with this approach. And honestly I'm fine with that because I'm not into Rings Culture, but they're also not drawing fans to the park during the regular season because they trade away every player fans fall in love with, and I think that's a huge problem. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's okay to try building something even if it means taking on some current and future risk.

There's many lines of thinking that teams should have depending on the state of their roster. We're talking about the 2026 and 2027 Twins with relation to Joe Ryan.

I was all for adding when they were good. I didn't have any problem with the Mahle/Lopez deadline. But this team isn't that. The line of thinking is to take inventory of what your team is and what they're likely to be while Joe Ryan is under contract. Decide how realistic it is that you can even be a .500 team before he leaves for a comp pick at best and make moves based on that.

I'm not advocating always selling every veteran before they leave in free agency. I'm advocating trading veterans on a below .500 team so they can improve their chances of being a team worthy of investing in.

Extend Ryan if you can. They talked about it last offseason and couldn't. This team isn't even .500. Has been for 1 day since they were 12-12. That changes the line of thinking. There can't be a stagnant line of thinking. It must adapt to the situation. And its hard to argue the 2026 and 2027 Twins are teams worth chasing "the now" for.