Article: Twins Trade Justin Morneau To Pirates

[Mike Sixel]

Funny, in the Carroll thread I am told cash can buy prospects, so I would think if the twins gave Pittsburg millions, they could buy some prospect.....wouldn't that make it more likely you get more for Justin, or does it only make sense for the twins to get money, but not other teams?

[PseudoSABR]

Well, the reports (and they are just that, reports, not facts) said money was an issue, but we don't know to what extent; if the Pirates are offering Presely and some pitcher AND expecting the Twins to eat the contract, well it's easy to understand why the Twins wouldn't do that. And if the Twins were expecting a better prospect if they kicked in money, it's easy to see why the Pirates didn't do that.

 

The only way the-Twins-too-cheap-to-get-a-good-prospect scenario works is if BOTH GMs try to out-cheap each other rather than trying to maximize talent. There's simply a better side to be on in the cash verse talent equation.

 

I understand that the Mets paid some of the contracts, but we don't know that lead to them getting better talent. If that's the case, well that's cheap and dumb of the Pirates in my opinion. I think it's more likely that giving up Cash would have probably accelerated the deal, rather than changing the parts involved. It's also worth noting that Byrd alone has more value than Morneau. It was also a mere 250K that changed hands. You really think 250k buys a better prospect? I don't even think 2 million buys you a better prospect.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, the reports (and they are just that, reports, not facts)

 

I'm not sure how you expect this position to be taken seriously if you deny multiple independent sources saying the same thing. It's not like there is some kind of vast media conspiracy against the Twins and no one is making it up.

 

As for the rest of this, there are reports all over that teams are making moves in very cash conscious ways. The top story on MLBTR was about Cleveland struggling to add anyone to help out at 1B due to cash constraints. We're often reminded that this is a business for the owners. Why is it so far fetched to believe that Pitt was operating under a very tight budget for adding players?

 

You're right that 250k doesn't seem like a lot to add value to a trade, but you're wrong to assert I'm saying the Twins are "too cheap". I'm saying they are "too stubborn" to offer to pay his deal. I don't know what the reason for that is - you are assuming because they are cheap, I'm saying I don't know. But it's clear that they dug their heels in, which is a common occurence for this club. They believe in a way of doing things and really struggle to budge from that. Seems to me that might have been the case here. (And again, to what degree that cost them value, I don't know)

[diehardtwinsfan]

Couple of things:

 

1) Alex Pressley does play CF and posted a .867 OPS in Indianapolis last year. Given his age, I'd hardly call him a great prospect, but what I think can be safely said is that he's likely going to be the opening day CF in MN next year, and Hicks will be in Rochester. This isn't a bad move, as there is some upside with Pressley, so he could potentially be flipped if he has a good year next year. I got to seem him play one game last year, he did quite well.

 

2) Another 40 man guy to keep an eye on is Stolmy Pimentel. That's personally who I'd like. He's out of options next season, so I could see the Pirates sending him here if they don't feel there's a spot in the rotation for him in 2014. I saw him pitch a few weeks ago. He's got some control issues, but was still hitting 95 late into the game. This might not be a bad get for Minnesota.

[ThePuck]

Couple of things:

 

1) Alex Pressley does play CF and posted a .867 OPS in Indianapolis last year. Given his age, I'd hardly call him a great prospect, but what I think can be safely said is that he's likely going to be the opening day CF in MN next year, and Hicks will be in Rochester. This isn't a bad move, as there is some upside with Pressley, so he could potentially be flipped if he has a good year next year. I got to seem him play one game last year, he did quite well.

 

2) Another 40 man guy to keep an eye on is Stolmy Pimentel. That's personally who I'd like. He's out of options next season, so I could see the Pirates sending him here if they don't feel there's a spot in the rotation for him in 2014. I saw him pitch a few weeks ago. He's got some control issues, but was still hitting 95 late into the game. This might not be a bad get for Minnesota.

 

Going into today, Pressley had a career OBP under .300. He hasn't posted an OBP over .280 the last two seasons in the majors.

 

And the PTBNL was already named...it's not Pimentel

[jorgenswest]

Going into today, Pressley had a career OBP under .300. He hasn't posted an OBP over .280 the last two seasons in the majors.

 

And the PTBNL was already named...it's not Pimentel

 

His OBP was so far under .300 that after today you can say he has a career OBP over .300.

 

Presley is still far short of 1000 plate appearances. No one knows what steps he will take with consistent playing time. It isn't unreasonable that he could be a solid fielding CF with an OBP well above .300.

[ThePuck]

His OBP was so far under .300 that after today you can say he has a career OBP over .300.

 

Presley is still far short of 1000 plate appearances. No one knows what steps he will take with consistent playing time. It isn't unreasonable that he could be a solid fielding CF with an OBP well above .300.

 

Perhaps, I can say that..can't say he's had an OBP over .280 in either of the last two seasons. If you wanna believe he comes over here and miraculously becomes a solid leadoff guy, that's certainly your prerogative. There's no evidence yet to suggest he will.

[jorgenswest]

Perhaps, I can say that..can't say he's had an OBP over .280 in either of the last two seasons. If you wanna believe he comes over here and miraculously becomes a solid leadoff guy, that's certainly your prerogative. There's no evidence yet to suggest he will.

 

I think it is a mistake to write off a player prior to 1000 plate appearances with good OBPs in the minors. His projections entering this season on fangraphs for OBP were 308, 322, 322, 330 and 343. These projections look beyond a limited number of major league at bats to project. The median team OBP from the centerfield position is .322 this year.

[Oxtung]

Well, the reports (and they are just that, reports, not facts) said money was an issue, but we don't know to what extent; if the Pirates are offering Presely and some pitcher AND expecting the Twins to eat the contract, well it's easy to understand why the Twins wouldn't do that. And if the Twins were expecting a better prospect if they kicked in money, it's easy to see why the Pirates didn't do that.

 

The only way the-Twins-too-cheap-to-get-a-good-prospect scenario works is if BOTH GMs try to out-cheap each other rather than trying to maximize talent. There's simply a better side to be on in the cash verse talent equation.

 

I understand that the Mets paid some of the contracts, but we don't know that lead to them getting better talent. If that's the case, well that's cheap and dumb of the Pirates in my opinion. I think it's more likely that giving up Cash would have probably accelerated the deal, rather than changing the parts involved. It's also worth noting that Byrd alone has more value than Morneau. It was also a mere 250K that changed hands. You really think 250k buys a better prospect? I don't even think 2 million buys you a better prospect.

 

Neither of your Morneau trade suppositions are correct. The Pirates GM said they were interested in Morneau for quite a while but the Twins asking price was way too high. The Twins decreased their asking price as the deadline approached. This is logical because Morneau's value was also decreasing every day he wore a Twins uniform.

 

The Mets trade was Byrd, Buck and cash for Herrera and Black. There isn't a question about it, the cash helped the Mets get the prospects they wanted.

 

I think the most likely scenario is that the Twins were asking for a good prospect and the for the Pirates to pick up the salary. The Pirates countered with the prospect but not the salary. When it was obvious the Twins were not going to get their way they eventually decided on lower tier prospects if the Pirates took on the salary as well. At which point the Pirates GM had to go ask the owner for more money to make this happen.

 

The idea that the Pirates wanted to pick up Morneau's full salary is strange since they already had asked the Mets to pick up part of the $1.2 million owed to Byrd and Buck. If the Pirates were that attached to their prospects why wouldn't they have paid the $250k and sent a lesser prospect to the Mets? After all $250k is considerably less than $2 million.

[PseudoSABR]

Neither of your Morneau trade suppositions are correct. The Pirates GM said they were interested in Morneau for quite a while but the Twins asking price was way too high. The Twins decreased their asking price as the deadline approached. This is logical because Morneau's value was also decreasing every day he wore a Twins uniform.

Logic is a two way street, it's just as likely that the Pirates caved given that the trade happened on the final day. We are both using inference, to different conclusions, from the same set of facts. We know that the Pirates owner expanded their budget, I will continue to contend that it would have been foolish for the Pirates to take cash and give something more of value in light of such budget flexibility. (Again the Pirates have to be stupid to ignore the budget flexibility and give in to the Twins demands. I don't buy it.)

 

The Mets trade was Byrd, Buck and cash for Herrera and Black. There isn't a question about it, the cash helped the Mets get the prospects they wanted.

We don't know that the cash had any bearing in the prospects obtained. The money is so little and the dollar-cost of the players is so little that it would be very foolish for the Pirates to cave into the demands. (Again the Pirates would have to be stupid, to sell out for 250K. I don't buy it.)

 

I think the most likely scenario is that the Twins were asking for a good prospect and the for the Pirates to pick up the salary. The Pirates countered with the prospect but not the salary. When it was obvious the Twins were not going to get their way they eventually decided on lower tier prospects if the Pirates took on the salary as well. At which point the Pirates GM had to go ask the owner for more money to make this happen.

Look, we all have our different versions of the most likely scenario. We're basing it off supposition not fact. For instance, part my thinking is, if the Twins were so worried about 2 million, why didn't they ship off Willingham for Avery and save 8 million?

 

The idea that the Pirates wanted to pick up Morneau's full salary is strange since they already had asked the Mets to pick up part of the $1.2 million owed to Byrd and Buck. If the Pirates were that attached to their prospects why wouldn't they have paid the $250k and sent a lesser prospect to the Mets? After all $250k is considerably less than $2 million.

We don't know the story about the 250k, my guess is that the amount is so paltry, that the Mets just threw it in to get the deal done early. (Again the Pirates asking for 250k and willingly giving up better prospects requires them to be stupid. I don't buy it.)

[Major League Ready]

You're just speculating. This isn't a fact. For all we know, the Pirates GM, having all the leverage, could have offered no more than the same package (Presley and Welker) AND demanded the Twins kick in for the contract. On the day of Morneau's lowest money cost, absorbing his contract perhaps became palatable to ownership and the Pirates actually gave the Twins what they wanted. We just don't really know, so it's hard to draw conclusions.

 

Money may have been an issue, but it doesn't mean that the Pirates were willing to give anything more of value. Why would the Pirates give up better prospects when they could ask their ownership to go over budget?

 

Why isn't it possible for TR to say, "Hey, we'll pay Morneau's contract, but we want a better player." And for Hunnington to respond, "No, ****ing way," knowing he could get ownership to take the contract as the deadline approached.

 

In the scenario's where the Twins pass up a better prospect requires the Pirates to be the dumb/cheap ones. I just don't buy it.

 

Here is another way to look at this persistent money argument. The first assumption is that it would have made enough of a difference that the folks who are complaining here would have been satisified with the return. That is a big stretch. The second asssumption I find even more interesting. If the dollars would have made that big a difference it assumes other teams value the money over prospects even more than the Twins. That's the net of this particular assumption/position.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Going into today, Pressley had a career OBP under .300. He hasn't posted an OBP over .280 the last two seasons in the majors.

 

And the PTBNL was already named...it's not Pimentel

 

First off, his minor league OPS last year was .867. His OBP was almost .400. Citing major league numbers here is a bit unreasonable. He's played parts of 4 seasons in the majors with limited PT and has struggled. That doesn't make him worthless. The one thing he'll get in Minnesota this season and next is a full time job to prove himself.

 

Second, I just read about the PTBNL last night, but it seems to me that the PTBNL is a part of a group that has been agreed on that the Pittsburg GM gets to decide. Unless Duke Welker is now wearing a Red Wings uniform, the PTBNL hasn't been named yet.

[Oldgoat_MN]

Given so many posters focus on SSS, are we now predicting immortality and stardom for Alex Presley?

 

(if he keeps hitting for us, the least we can do is spell his name right - I think I counted 3 ways in these pages so far)

[diehardtwinsfan]

Given so many posters focus on SSS, are we now predicting immortality and stardom for Alex Presley?

 

(if he keeps hitting for us, the least we can do is spell his name right - I think I counted 3 ways in these pages so far)

 

Who's predicting stardom? He's a marginal prospect with a potential of upside during his prime years. Given that Hicks clearly needs more time, Presley will get this year and probably all of next to show if his AAA numbers last year were fluky or real. If he fails, he's our fourth OF of the future, and compared to the 4th OF guys we trotted out in our good years, he'd be a pretty solid upgrade.

[Oxtung]

Logic is a two way street, it's just as likely that the Pirates caved given that the trade happened on the final day. We are both using inference, to different conclusions, from the same set of facts. We know that the Pirates owner expanded their budget, I will continue to contend that it would have been foolish for the Pirates to take cash and give something more of value in light of such budget flexibility. (Again the Pirates have to be stupid to ignore the budget flexibility and give in to the Twins demands. I don't buy it.)

No, I'm not working off inference here. That came directly from the Pirates GM. The Twins were asking way too much and their asking price came down at the deadline to an acceptable level to make a deal. The link is within the last few pages of this thread if you care to search it out.

 

We don't know that the cash had any bearing in the prospects obtained. The money is so little and the dollar-cost of the players is so little that it would be very foolish for the Pirates to cave into the demands. (Again the Pirates would have to be stupid, to sell out for 250K. I don't buy it.)

We don't know the story about the 250k, my guess is that the amount is so paltry, that the Mets just threw it in to get the deal done early. (Again the Pirates asking for 250k and willingly giving up better prospects requires them to be stupid. I don't buy it.)

 

I guess I don't believe that a major league baseball team would donate money to a direct competitor.

 

Look, we all have our different versions of the most likely scenario. We're basing it off supposition not fact. For instance, part my thinking is, if the Twins were so worried about 2 million, why didn't they ship off Willingham for Avery and save 8 million?

Certainly my theory is supposition. However it is based on some known facts. I have asked you several times but as yet you have not responded with any facts to support your position.

 

Willingham had another year on his contract and as such still had value to the Twins. Morneau did not.

[old nurse]

Funny, in the Carroll thread I am told cash can buy prospects, so I would think if the twins gave Pittsburg millions, they could buy some prospect.....wouldn't that make it more likely you get more for Justin, or does it only make sense for the twins to get money, but not other teams?

 

You must have misread my post. I said you can think of the money they got from Carroll as the money they pay for minor league free agents. An example of a minor league free agent was Brandon Boggs. That is what you were told in the Carroll thread. I don't really remember anybody outright buying a significant minor league prospect. Well, way back when maybe the Yankees from the KC Athletics.

[ThePuck]

First off, his minor league OPS last year was .867. His OBP was almost .400. Citing major league numbers here is a bit unreasonable. He's played parts of 4 seasons in the majors with limited PT and has struggled. That doesn't make him worthless. The one thing he'll get in Minnesota this season and next is a full time job to prove himself.

 

 

Parmellee's minor league OPS last year was over 1.000. How did he do in the majors last year and this year?

 

And when pointing our Presley's minor league numbers last year, you fail to mention he played twice as much in the majors last year than the minors. 370PAs last year in the majors. Why do you grab hold of his minor league numbers last year over his major league numbers last year when he had more than double plate appearances in the majors? Are his minor league plate appearances last year more telling of his major league abilities than his twice as many major league plate appearances last year?

[PseudoSABR]

No, I'm not working off inference here. That came directly from the Pirates GM. The Twins were asking way too much and their asking price came down at the deadline to an acceptable level to make a deal. The link is within the last few pages of this thread if you care to search it out.

The conclusions you draw from what the GM said is where inference comes in. There's a variety of inferences/conclusions we can draw from "the Twins asking price is too high." Again, we are all starting with the same facts and reading what those facts mean differently; everyone's using reason, no one argument has a strangle hold on logic.

 

 

I guess I don't believe that a major league baseball team would donate money to a direct competitor.

No, but sweetening the pot, greasing the wheels, seems to be a more likely role for the paltry sum; maybe it had something to do with Buck's poor season. I don't know why cash was exchanged, but the alternative you offer is far harder to believe: Do you really think that Hunnington would give up a better prospect for 250K? I just don't think the Pirates are as stupid/cheap as you'd have us believe.

 

 

Certainly my theory is supposition. However it is based on some known facts. I have asked you several times but as yet you have not responded with any facts to support your position.

I use the same facts as you (again drawing different conclusions).

 

The main fact that I have is that the Pirates ownership gave them a flexible budget--in light of that fact, it seems totally foolish for the Pirates to give up a better prospect to save some money (when ownership did not require them to do so).

[ashbury]

to show if his AAA numbers last year were fluky or real.

 

His AAA OPS across four seasons age 24-27 has been .837. His MLB OPS across a similar span has been .723. I think this gives us a pretty good bead on what he can do.

[Mr. Brooks]

The Twins got something back, however little, for a player that was not part of the future plans of the team, and was going to walk away for nothing in a few months.

I don't get what there is to hate about this.

Sure, we would have liked to get a better return, but how much value did you think Morneau had? He's just not a very good player, you guys are caught up way too much in the sentiment of Justin Morneau. He's not that guy anymore.

IMO, the real story of the (lack of) return that we got for him is just how far Justin has fallen, that he has less value than Drew Butera, than it is anything Terry Ryan did (or didn't do) in this deal.

[Mr. Brooks]

The conclusions you draw from what the GM said is where inference comes in. There's a variety of inferences/conclusions we can draw from "the Twins asking price is too high." Again, we are all starting with the same facts and reading what those facts mean differently; everyone's using reason, no one argument has a strangle hold on logic.

 

 

No, but sweetening the pot, greasing the wheels, seems to be a more likely role for the paltry sum; maybe it had something to do with Buck's poor season. I don't know why cash was exchanged, but the alternative you offer is far harder to believe: Do you really think that Hunnington would give up a better prospect for 250K? I just don't think the Pirates are as stupid/cheap as you'd have us believe.

 

 

I use the same facts as you (again drawing different conclusions).

 

The main fact that I have is that the Pirates ownership gave them a flexible budget--in light of that fact, it seems totally foolish for the Pirates to give up a better prospect to save some money (when ownership did not require them to do so).

 

Yep, totally agree.

Once Pirates ownership agreed to go over budget, the Twins had no shot at getting a better prospect.

Not every GM is a penny pincher like Terry. Not every GM WANTS to be cheap, even if ownership tells him he doesn't have to.

Once ownership says they will cover the salary, why on earth would any good GM want to give up anything more than he has to, to save money that ownership isn't asking him to save???

[Oxtung]

No, but sweetening the pot, greasing the wheels, seems to be a more likely role for the paltry sum; maybe it had something to do with Buck's poor season. I don't know why cash was exchanged, but the alternative you offer is far harder to believe: Do you really think that Hunnington would give up a better prospect for 250K? I just don't think the Pirates are as stupid/cheap as you'd have us believe.

How you view the Pirates is irrelevant to the facts of the trade. You can call it whatever you want but in the end the Mets had to include cash in order to receive the prospects they wanted. The Twins did not do this. I'm not sure how much more clear that can be made.

 

The main fact that I have is that the Pirates ownership gave them a flexible budget--in light of that fact, it seems totally foolish for the Pirates to give up a better prospect to save some money (when ownership did not require them to do so).

 

 

Yep, totally agree.

Once Pirates ownership agreed to go over budget, the Twins had no shot at getting a better prospect.

Not every GM is a penny pincher like Terry. Not every GM WANTS to be cheap, even if ownership tells him he doesn't have to.

Once ownership says they will cover the salary, why on earth would any good GM want to give up anything more than he has to, to save money that ownership isn't asking him to save???

 

 

You're both implying that the Pirates GM immediately went to the owner and said, "Can you cover this $2 million?" That is a big supposition that has no evidence to support it. It is just as likely that TR was unwilling to pay any of the salary and the Pirates GM said, "In order for this trade to happen we need to take on the salary, will you cover it?" In fact I think that is the far more likely scenario given Ryan's trade history (and trades in general).

 

We're clearly spinning our wheels here so I'll just recap my point of view and move on.

 

1) The Pirates accepted money for prospects just this week.

2) The Pirates owner had to dip into his own pocket to finance this trade.

3) TR has only 1 time included money in a trade.

4) TR didn't spend ~$20 million this off season that was available to him. Saving money is a priority for this FO.

 

The Pirates used their money to improve the team. The Twins did not, instead choosing to save $2 million. This trade could still work out as we don't know the PTBNL. If the Twins get a prospect with some upside it won't be a waste of a resource but I will still always wonder what if...

[PseudoSABR]

We really need to get away from the splicing each other's post thing, because it just exclusivizes the thread (I'm probably mostly at fault here).

 

This is my version of the events (filled with supposition and inference, but nothing that defies any of the facts, of which there are very few that illuminate what did happen).

 

1) Huntington goes to both the Mets and the Twins with offers of the same prospects that end up being dealt and expecting both teams to eat cash as well.

2) The Mets decide to just eat the cash as they like the prospects in the deal, so the deal gets done almost a week ago.

3) The Twins counter with an offer of better prospects if the Pirates want the Twins to eat some cash.

4) The Pirates balk, refusing to offer anything better and unwilling to take the entire contract--that is until the 31st, where Huntington approaches ownership and requests to go over budget.

5)Terry Ryan realizes that he can't get any thing better than the same subset of players the Pirates continue to offer, takes the deal, as underwhelming as it was.

 

Both scenarios fit the facts; it's really a matter of opinion as to which is more likely. Though, of course, we both prefer our own.

[Oxtung]

We really need to get away from the splicing each other's post thing, because it just exclusivizes the thread (I'm probably mostly at fault here).

 

This is my version of the events (filled with supposition and inference, but nothing that defies any of the facts, of which there are very few that illuminate what did happen). Hunting goes to both the Mets and the Twins with offers of the same prospects that will end up being dealt and expecting both teams to eat cash. The Mets decide to just eat the cash as they like the prospects in the deal, so the deal gets down almost a week ago. The Twins counter with an offer of better prospects if the Pirates want the Twins to eat some cash. The Pirates balk, refusing to offer anything better and unwilling to take the entire contract--that is until the 31st, where Huntington approaches ownership and requests to go over budget. Terry Ryan realizing that he couldn't get any thing better than the same subset of players the Pirates continued to offer, took the deal, as underwhelming as it was.

 

Both scenarios fit the facts; it's really a matter of opinion as to which is more likely. Though, of course, we both prefer our own.

 

In your scenario it is the Pirates coming down from their original offer by taking on Morneau's full salary. The problem here is that the Pirates GM said the Twins lowered their asking price, not the Pirates.

[PseudoSABR]

In your scenario it is the Pirates coming down from their original offer by taking on Morneau's full salary. The problem here is that the Pirates GM said the Twins lowered their asking price, not the Pirates.

Oh I think it's obvious that the Twins backed down from their asking price by large margins. I can't imagine the Twins asking for Presley (and whatever pitcher) at all early on; we all hope they asked for much more than that! In my mind the Twins asked for subset A (maybe cash as well), and the Pirates demanded subset B, and cash. For the deal to happen the Twins had to relent in their need for better prospects and the Pirates needed to relent their need for the Twins to pick up the contract.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Parmellee's minor league OPS last year was over 1.000. How did he do in the majors last year and this year?

 

And when pointing our Presley's minor league numbers last year, you fail to mention he played twice as much in the majors last year than the minors. 370PAs last year in the majors. Why do you grab hold of his minor league numbers last year over his major league numbers last year when he had more than double plate appearances in the majors? Are his minor league plate appearances last year more telling of his major league abilities than his twice as many major league plate appearances last year?

 

Some guys take longer to develop. This isn't rocket science. Chris Davis is a real good example of this. Dozier may very well turn out to be another one. It happens. No one is saying that Presley is the next coming of Kirby Puckett, but I think you can reasonably conclude that he's a marginal prospect with some decent upside. He will have a little over a year to prove he can hang at this level. If he does, the Twins now have another centerfielder to trade (if Hicks can get back on track). I don't see what the consternation is here.

[ThePuck]

Some guys take longer to develop. This isn't rocket science. Chris Davis is a real good example of this. Dozier may very well turn out to be another one. It happens. No one is saying that Presley is the next coming of Kirby Puckett, but I think you can reasonably conclude that he's a marginal prospect with some decent upside. He will have a little over a year to prove he can hang at this level. If he does, the Twins now have another centerfielder to trade (if Hicks can get back on track). I don't see what the consternation is here.

 

Instead of saying things like this isn't rocket science, an apparent shot to my understanding of the game, why don't you answer the questions I asked? You used stats to back up your opinion, and I questioned them. Why not just answer the questions instead of taking a shot?

[diehardtwinsfan]

Instead of saying things like this isn't rocket science, an apparent shot to my understanding of the game, why don't you answer the questions I asked? You used stats to back up your opinion, and I questioned them. Why not just answer the questions instead of taking a shot?

 

I didn't mean it to come across as inflamatory. My apologies. My point is that some guys take longer to develop than others. Just because a guy fails in his first attempts in the majors doesn't mean he will be a failure as a player. I point to the minor league numbers because they demonstrate potential. It's the same reason why I think the Twins were foolish not to run Parmelee out there every day. Some guys just take a bit longer, and on a rebuilding team they need time.

 

As I stated, I don't get your consternation here. Presley is a marginal prospect with some upside. He may amount to nothing, but he's hardly a bad get. He's also about as close to ML ready as can be. The same is with Welker (though we aren't sure if Welker is the guy or not, that's a different issue). Morneau was hardly going to net much else, and I'm fairly skeptical that picking up his salary would have dramatically improved the return. I doubt it would have netted Kingman or some of other names we discussed.

[Mike Sixel]

Presly is going to be 28 this year, right? I don't know I'd call him a prospect exactly.

[ThePuck]

Presly is going to be 28 this year, right? I don't know I'd call him a prospect exactly.

 

he already is 28