Twins looking at Logan Gilbert?

[Bangkok Twins Fan]

This article just caught my eye, but not sure how realistic or valid it is. Some writer from Bleacher Reports suggests that the Twins might trade for Logan Gilbert. What do Twins fans think?

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/articles/twins-predicted-land-star-blockbuster-221525422.html

 

[bean5302]

The Twins need to be pursuing free agent arms. They have a questionable farm at this point and they have a ton of needs.

[The Great Hambino]

In a world where the Twins are one starter away from being World Series favorites and a massive teardown is looming after the season, perhaps.

In any other world, including the one we're currently living in, it's a hard pass for me.   I wouldn't want to give up Emma or Quick for one year of control of just about anyone.  Definitely not both of them

[Chembry]

5 hours ago, Bangkok Twins Fan said:

This article just caught my eye, but not sure how realistic or valid it is. Some writer from Bleacher Reports suggests that the Twins might trade for Logan Gilbert. What do Twins fans think?

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/articles/twins-predicted-land-star-blockbuster-221525422.html

 

I like Logan Gilbert.  However, he is only under team control for 1 more year, through 2027.    The authors suggest ERod, Quick, and Ben Ross as the return.  Personally, I think that is a big overpay.  Riley Quick is arguably our top pitching prospect, certainly the most upside closest to MLB.  We aren't in a position to trade our pitching prospects for a pitcher with 1 year of control, even though he is very good.  It would be a different story if we trade and then extend. 

That type of prospect return should net someone with multiple years of team control, like Bryan Woo (under team control through 2029) or Emerson Hancock (under team control through 2030).     

I do think Seattle will part with Gilbert, Kirby, Hancock or Miller, but I don't think they will part with Woo.  Keep in mind, they also brought up the top pitching prospect in the game, Kade Anderson, so they have a surplus of starters (Woo, Gilbert, Kirby, Anderson, Hancock, Miller) and they also have Ryan Sloan who is in AA.  He is also a consensus top 10 prospect. 

[MackMan]

This is one of those moves that mid-low market teams make to help supplement their farm systems. This is one that the Dodgers/Yankees/Mets/Cubs/Padres take a flyer one because those teams are just a piece or 2 away from making a big run and they can afford to lose a few prospects if it means end of season hardware. 

The Twins just don't have the capital (prospects) to afford this trade type of trade. At least without giving up their next couple of years when our prospects are to go. If I were to give up prospects for a player, it has to be a player I have more than 1 season of control left.

[Cory Engelhardt]

I mean, I'd prefer to extend Gilbert instead of Ryan. But I don't know how much faith to every put into bleacher report.

Plus how does any reporter state that adding Gilbert to Lopez and Ryan to make a big 3 when Taj Bradley was arguably as good or better than all of them in 2026? Gilbert probably had a slightly better season than Taj, but Taj was miles ahead of Ryan, especially in the 2nd half, and Lopez is coming back from injury.

[nicksaviking]

6 hours ago, Bangkok Twins Fan said:

This article just caught my eye, but not sure how realistic or valid it is. Some writer from Bleacher Reports suggests that the Twins might trade for Logan Gilbert. What do Twins fans think?

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/articles/twins-predicted-land-star-blockbuster-221525422.html

 

Skeptical the Mariners will finally trade a starter, but he would 100% be my top target.

[nicksaviking]

3 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

In a world where the Twins are one starter away from being World Series favorites and a massive teardown is looming after the season, perhaps.

In any other world, including the one we're currently living in, it's a hard pass for me.   I wouldn't want to give up Emma or Quick for one year of control of just about anyone.  Definitely not both of them

I like both yet still would trade both. History says the team getting the star player wins this trade just about every time.

With a rotation of Gilbert, Lopez, Ryan, Bradley then the Prielipp/Abel/Rojas upside (Kremer if we must), the rotation alone would make the Twins a contender. Then you'd have the giant pile of money Tom Pohlad is promising to get a middle of the order bat to pair with Buxton, Jeffers (yeah, I'm paying him since we're going for it) and the young, but now with some experience core. I'd be looking forward to 2027 more than any season since Target Field opened.

[MeleMouth]

So the article linked is one guy writing about another guy's idea for a potential deal that he dreamed up 100% out of his own mind. This doesn't even qualify as a hawt taek, much less a rumor, and definitely not news.

[Major League Ready]

Trading a good prospect for yet another SP that would become a free agent in 2027 might be the dumbest thing they could possibly do.

[MackMan]

14 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Trading a good prospect for yet another SP that would become a free agent in 2027 might be the dumbest thing they could possibly do.

I agree. It would be different if trading for Gilbert would put us over the hump to get to the World Series. But this type of trade wouldn't even be good enough to get into the playoffs with the team we'd have behind him. 

[Whammy]

On 10/6/2026 at 11:15 AM, Chembry said:

I like Logan Gilbert.  However, he is only under team control for 1 more year, through 2027.    The authors suggest ERod, Quick, and Ben Ross as the return.  Personally, I think that is a big overpay.  Riley Quick is arguably our top pitching prospect, certainly the most upside closest to MLB.  We aren't in a position to trade our pitching prospects for a pitcher with 1 year of control, even though he is very good.  It would be a different story if we trade and then extend. 

 

If Logan Gilbert is worth Erod+Quick+Ross, then I'm trading Joe Ryan yesterday. 

[Andy MacPhail]

On 10/6/2026 at 11:15 AM, Chembry said:

I like Logan Gilbert.  However, he is only under team control for 1 more year, through 2027.    The authors suggest ERod, Quick, and Ben Ross as the return.  Personally, I think that is a big overpay.  Riley Quick is arguably our top pitching prospect, certainly the most upside closest to MLB.  We aren't in a position to trade our pitching prospects for a pitcher with 1 year of control, even though he is very good.  It would be a different story if we trade and then extend. 

That type of prospect return should net someone with multiple years of team control, like Bryan Woo (under team control through 2029) or Emerson Hancock (under team control through 2030).     

I do think Seattle will part with Gilbert, Kirby, Hancock or Miller, but I don't think they will part with Woo.  Keep in mind, they also brought up the top pitching prospect in the game, Kade Anderson, so they have a surplus of starters (Woo, Gilbert, Kirby, Anderson, Hancock, Miller) and they also have Ryan Sloan who is in AA.  He is also a consensus top 10 prospect. 

It's a big overpay for 1 year of Gilbert. If they want an OFer they can have Gonzalaz back, that's a fair trade.

[Mike Sixel]

14 hours ago, Andy MacPhail said:

It's a big overpay for 1 year of Gilbert. If they want an OFer they can have Gonzalaz back, that's a fair trade.

Not even close to fair for Seattle. Imo. 

I'm intrigued by this idea, if they can sign him to an extension. If not? I'm not very interested. 

[Andy MacPhail]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Not even close to fair for Seattle. Imo. 

I'm intrigued by this idea, if they can sign him to an extension. If not? I'm not very interested. 

What! Don't you love Gonzalez? I agree with you in reality it's not even close to be fair. But if you add all of his hype, it's fair.

[Linus]

49 minutes ago, Andy MacPhail said:

What! Don't you love Gonzalez? I agree with you in reality it's not even close to be fair. But if you add all of his hype, it's fair.

Seattle suckered Falvey into taking the guy. Their first response would be “no backs”. 

[Mike Sixel]

5 hours ago, Linus said:

Seattle suckered Falvey into taking the guy. Their first response would be “no backs”. 

Meh. He traded the husk of a player for a prospect. That's what teams should do. 

[Linus]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Meh. He traded the husk of a player for a prospect. That's what teams should do. 

Disagree. Polanco had value when traded. He fell off a cliff after. 

[tony&rodney]

If you haven't seen a number of mindless trade suggestions yet, prepare yourself. People looking for clicks are already churning out a host of trade ideas. Some are crazy and others are fun. The writers know about as much as any fan does. Organizations don't randomly tell people who they are trading and what they want in return. Elly De La Cruz is in rumors, a few with Seattle. We can put together rumors too. They just get criticized and die on this site. How would folks feel about trading Brooks Lee, Kody Clemens, Victor Caratini, and either Riley Quick or Kendry Rojas for Elly De La Cruz? 

As far as Logan Gilbert, I was pushing a ridiculous offer of E. Julien and R. Lewis for Gilbert after the 2023 season. This stuff is just for laughs and giggles. Jose Ramirez is clutch. Gavin Williams and Cade Smith are total studs. The Cleveland-Chicago series was so much fun. I'm hoping Milwaukee defeats Los Angeles simply because I enjoy their type of baseball, not because I have any dislike of the Dodgers. The Dodgers play very fundamentally sound baseball and their vets like Betts, Freeman, Muncy, and Smith are so calm in the playoffs.

[Bangkok Twins Fan]

9 hours ago, Linus said:

Disagree. Polanco had value when traded. He fell off a cliff after. 

Yes, he had value and had been productive, but he already had a worrying injury history, not to mention the PED suspension. If I'm the Twins I'd make that trade again in a heartbeat. 

[Linus]

27 minutes ago, Bangkok Twins Fan said:

Yes, he had value and had been productive, but he already had a worrying injury history, not to mention the PED suspension. If I'm the Twins I'd make that trade again in a heartbeat. 

I had no problem trading Polanco (although I would have dealt Julien) they simply didn’t make the right deal. Strange that you would make the same deal when we are likely to end up with nothing. I’m guessing there were other trade packages available. 

[Bangkok Twins Fan]

20 minutes ago, Linus said:

I had no problem trading Polanco (although I would have dealt Julien) they simply didn’t make the right deal. Strange that you would make the same deal when we are likely to end up with nothing. I’m guessing there were other trade packages available. 

No doubt there were other packages on the table too. Who knows. But I'd still trade an injury-prone vet for prospects and a pitcher (okay, that guy WAS a total waste), But Gonzalez still could end up being a useful player. The jury is still out. 

[big dog]

11 hours ago, Linus said:

Disagree. Polanco had value when traded. He fell off a cliff after. 

The first year after the trade he only played 2/3 of the season and had an OPS+ of 92. He also had the lowest WAR of any season in which he played over half the games. I was not very impressed by the return in terms of actual value, but I thought it was a good deal for what we gave up.

[Linus]

48 minutes ago, big dog said:

The first year after the trade he only played 2/3 of the season and had an OPS+ of 92. He also had the lowest WAR of any season in which he played over half the games. I was not very impressed by the return in terms of actual value, but I thought it was a good deal for what we gave up.

But at the time of the trade he had value. What he did after doesn’t matter - they didn’t get good value. 

[strumdatjag]

9 minutes ago, Linus said:

But at the time of the trade he had value. What he did after doesn’t matter - they didn’t get good value. 

What happens afterwards means plenty.   Trading involves intuition.  Sometimes a team gets as much as they can before a player is about to go downhill.   The Twins in the case of Jorge Polanco did that.  Good for the Twins. 

[big dog]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

But at the time of the trade he had value. What he did after doesn’t matter - they didn’t get good value. 

I think you are greatly overestimating his value at the time of the trade, but that is your right.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, Linus said:

But at the time of the trade he had value. What he did after doesn’t matter - they didn’t get good value. 

By this logic, it doesn't matter what the return did after the trade either..... So if you look at it at the time, it's fair. 

[Linus]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

By this logic, it doesn't matter what the return did after the trade either..... So if you look at it at the time, it's fair. 

Nope. They didn’t “own” the Polanco asset any longer. They owned the trade return assets. My point is that it’s reasonable to assume there was more than one trade package to choose from. Given how poorly the return we got has been it’s likely they chose the wrong package. In business and economics the concept is called Opportunity Cost. Everyone should familiarize themselves with it as it’s useful for trade discussions. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

Nope. They didn’t “own” the Polanco asset any longer. They owned the trade return assets. My point is that it’s reasonable to assume there was more than one trade package to choose from. Given how poorly the return we got has been it’s likely they chose the wrong package. In business and economics the concept is called Opportunity Cost. Everyone should familiarize themselves with it as it’s useful for trade discussions. 

Hahaha. I have an MBA, please don't preach.

[Linus]

5 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Hahaha. I have an MBA, please don't preach.

Not my intention. Have a good rest of the weekend.