Never Happening, But...

[B Richard]

K% is getting thrown around a lot here, I see. Another stat worth mentioning is BB%-- Price walked 3.7% of hitters faced last year (league average was 7.9%). Price may have lost a tick of velocity, but he has made up for it in walking far fewer batters (2012 his BB% was 7.1%).

 

I see Price as an extremely valuable piece, albeit one that the twins should not trade for. I believe that Price would be a better candidate if our window of contention began now.

[TheLeviathan]

Teams like that need to project surplus value to compete. The goal is to try to add as many wins to your roster as possible, within your budget.

 

You're still just projecting player development. You're adding another layer to it that's irrelevant because all prospects cost the same. Ultimately all that matters is how they develop and perform. The Twins have failed to develop anyone that has performed - that's why they fell off. Not because they dismissed surplus value.

 

Where you may have a point is to your Pirates example, the Twins do need to sign free agents with more upside, I have no disagreement with you there. However, that's not the issue at root here. You want to talk about surplus value with signing free agents - fine. With prospects? It's irrelevant.

[shs_59]

I think Homer could be had

 

for Rosario, and Trevor May. + maybe a minor 3rd piece.

[Dilligaf69]

Your right.....Will never happen and I wouldn't do it cuz I think TB wants a big pkg for him. If we were one ace away then you take a chance.

[halfchest]

I think Homer could be had

 

for Rosario, and Trevor May. + maybe a minor 3rd piece.

 

Maybe, but both their value is down, May due to just mediocre performance in AA and Rosario due to his suspension. I'm not sure if they'd get it done right now or not.

 

I heard/read this somewhere. Arcia would make a lot of sense for them as he would replace Choo for them and save them money. If we could get Bailey straight up then I would do that. Obviously we need to sign an extension with Bailey which I don't know if it's possible due to strong rumors that he would like to test free agency. Would a 5/100 extension be enough to talk him out of it? Not sure, but I'd like us to explore that possibility. Gotta figure Arcia plus maybe a lower level out of the top 20 prospect could get it done.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If Bailey won't sign an extension with Cincinnati, what makes anyone think he'd sign an extension with Minnesota?

 

And if Bailey is going to require 5/$100m, go sign Garza.

 

Garza+Arcia>>>>>>>>Bailey

[cmb0252]

Seeing this is the never happening thread.... Dbacks are looking for an impact bat and we need pitching. Towers has shot down any talks about trading Bradley but today he said it would be "very, very unlike." Which means he would at least listen. Seeing we are playing make believe how about this:

 

Archie and Didi for Sano+ type of trade? Both get impact young players at positions of need. Don't get me wrong, it will never happen, but fun talk to at least talk about it.

[JP3700]

You're still just projecting player development. You're adding another layer to it that's irrelevant because all prospects cost the same. Ultimately all that matters is how they develop and perform. The Twins have failed to develop anyone that has performed - that's why they fell off. Not because they dismissed surplus value.

 

Where you may have a point is to your Pirates example, the Twins do need to sign free agents with more upside, I have no disagreement with you there. However, that's not the issue at root here. You want to talk about surplus value with signing free agents - fine. With prospects? It's irrelevant.

 

Of course it's projecting. Everything involves projecting. We are projecting David Price will continue to be an ace. The Rangers are projecting Profar to improve over a -0.4 WAR season. When you sign a free agent, you project what they will be worth over the time frame that you plan to sign him. So to say projecting player development is irrelevant, is just irresponsible. Established players bust or get hurt, just like prospects do.

 

The point is that the Twins need that surplus value that young, cost controlled players may provide.

 

Let's use that Pirates example. Let's just say they traded Cole, Marte and filler for Price last year. Those two players combined for 6.9 WAR. Price was worth 4.4 WAR. They just made themselves 2-3 games worse. Add into account that Price made more than Liriano and Martin combined. So his salary would prevent them from signing those two players. That's another 7.2 WAR. They just made themselves 10 games worse.

 

That's why it's not smart for small and mid market teams to make moves like this when they are still so low on the win curve. They are better off betting that their young, cost controlled players perform while signing high upside free agents. Then when you are higher on the win curve, you make this type of trade. The main thing is that you don't sell off those young players with years of control that helped you get higher on the win curve.

 

Within the next two years, if the Twins project to be an 85 win team, that has cost controlled pieces in place who are providing that surplus value. Then you make this type of move with a Kohl Stewart+ type trade. A free agent signing is still preferred, but those players aren't always available.

 

Here is a good read by Dave Cameron about surplus value and David Price. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-price-for-david-price/. It's a little different because he's actually using a 90+ win team. So I can actually see an argument for the trade. But, it still shows why it doesn't make sense to trade major league ready young players with 6+ years of control.

[TheLeviathan]

So to say projecting player development is irrelevant, is just irresponsible. Established players bust or get hurt, just like prospects do.

 

That's not what I'm saying. Projecting player development is what matters. You adding this part about surplus value is a distinction without a difference.

 

If you want to apply it to free agents, fine. But in terms of prospects it isn't relevant. All that's relevant is how they project and develop because the costs aren't variable.

 

As for how it dictates trading, the assumption is that these players will be league average. We see plenty of examples of good, even great, prospects never even managing that. What did Florida get out of that deal with Detroit for Miggy? There are examples on all sides of that issue, I wouldn't let it dictate my decision.

 

If I'm Ryan I let it be dictated by how to maximize my window of contention. But we are not in that window right now IMO.

[jokin]

K% is getting thrown around a lot here, I see. Another stat worth mentioning is BB%-- Price walked 3.7% of hitters faced last year (league average was 7.9%). Price may have lost a tick of velocity, but he has made up for it in walking far fewer batters (2012 his BB% was 7.1%).

 

I see Price as an extremely valuable piece, albeit one that the twins should not trade for. I believe that Price would be a better candidate if our window of contention began now.

 

Ding, ding, ding.

 

Price's K/BB ratio was 4th best on the season, but as in all of his numbers except Ks, he was crazy good after his injury, with a 6.50 K/BB ratio. Price was #1 in all of baseball in BB/9 in the second half with a 1.10, a wide margin ahead of his second place rival. For the season, even with an injury-riddled first half, he was essentially still tied in BB/9 for the #1 spot, with Cliff Lee (1.29 vs. 1.30 for Price). For that matter, his second half WAR of 2.9 was essentially identical to league leaders with 3.0 WAR numbers from Sanchez and Jiminez.

 

And, as I previously noted, Price fell victim to some bad luck with by far the worst BABIP of his career (.298).

 

Price led MLB in IP in the Second Half- the only pitcher who pitched over 100 innings in the second half (106.2), as well is in IP/GS @ 7.11 (the only pitcher averaging over 7 IP/Start) and was right there at 6.95 IP/GS for the season- just under MLBs best numbers from Lee, Kershaw and Wainwright.

 

The guy is still an inngs-eating beast, and apparently learning to become even a better pitcher, not overly-dependent on his good stuff alone.

[jokin]

That's not what I'm saying. Projecting player development is what matters. You adding this part about surplus value is a distinction without a difference.

.

 

Where's that SPEED! guy from last spring, now when we need him most, to differentiate without distincting?

[JP3700]

All that's relevant is how they project and develop because the costs aren't variable.

 

As for how it dictates trading, the assumption is that these players will be league average. We see plenty of examples of good, even great, prospects never even managing that.

 

The fact that the costs aren't variable is the important factor. It now just comes down to performance.

 

Whether they bust or pan out makes no difference. It's about the risk, reward. The risk is the league minimum salary. The reward is league average or above performance. When your other options are replacement level players, that has more value to you.

 

Let's say it takes Meyer, Gibson, Arcia and filler to acquire Price. You now have Worley, Diamond and Presley in those spots while increasing payroll to $92M. Now what do you do? You just traded for Price and filled out your roster with replacement level players.

 

What did Florida get out of that deal with Detroit for Miggy?

You're comparing an 88 win team trading for a 24 year old position player to a 66 win team trading for a 28 year old pitcher.

[jokin]

 

b. Yeah it would, but a team needs 22 more guys and you hope that some of them would be paid more than the minimum and you hope that you can carry 3-4 more good (read expensive) guys. I'd rather see them spend that $30M for 3 or 4 guys who would play 150+ games each rather than a guy who can impact only 30 some games...

 

In 2016:

The top 3 guys make ~$54M

The bottom 15 guys make ~ $10M

That leaves (adj. for inflation to a $120M payroll) ~$56M for Players # 4 through 10, averaging out to $8M/player/year in the mid-range category.

 

I'd say that's doable. Hughes is done after 2016, Nolasco comes off no later than 2017, Mauer after 2018, Price/or other Ace to be named later- after 2019 or 2020? This leaves room to begin the process of buying out the arb years for the potential budding superstars, beginning in 2018, as well as signing additonal FAs to supplement at areas of need.

[jokin]

.

 

 

You're comparing an 88 win team trading for a 24 year old position player to a 66 win team trading for a 28 year old pitcher.

 

Since you'rre quite liberal in your use of WAR, the numbers should work out in a similar fashion. And, as I noted previously, Detroit dropped to 74 wins the next year, and it took 4 years for them to make the playoffs after the acquisition of Cabrera- there's little reason to think that Price diminishes much from his current value (if at all) 4 years from now.

[TheLeviathan]

You're comparing an 88 win team trading for a 24 year old position player to a 66 win team trading for a 28 year old pitcher.

 

Which is precisely my point - it's a matter of timing. Not surplus value. By your arguments and Cameron's - the Tigers made a horrifically stupid trade that was likely to cause them a tremendous loss of surplus value.

 

Which is clearly absurd, but that's the kind of corner you back yourself into when you are using surplus value. And we could find examples that go both ways, suffice to say it's not a particularly good way to evaluate a trade. It's better to consider the timing and consider the players in question on an individual basis.

[JP3700]

Which is precisely my point - it's a matter of timing. Not surplus value. By your arguments and Cameron's - the Tigers made a horrifically stupid trade that was likely to cause them a tremendous loss of surplus value.

 

Which is clearly absurd, but that's the kind of corner you back yourself into when you are using surplus value. And we could find examples that go both ways, suffice to say it's not a particularly good way to evaluate a trade. It's better to consider the timing and consider the players in question on an individual basis.

 

Just about every post I've had, referred to timing. I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that I would advocate a trade if we were higher on the win curve.

 

I also stated that you can make an argument for Pittsburgh to make that trade when I posted the link to Cameron's article. I think it's a closer decision due to their lack of finances. It would be like the Rays trading to the NL Rays.

 

The whole premise of timing is based on surplus value. Since the Twins will be spending somewhere in the $90-110M range, they will naturally have to get a surplus value from players making below what they're worth to be an above .500 team.

 

You're not going to achieve that by playing replacement level players and you aren't going to achieve that by buying players through free agency. Your best bet is to let your major league ready prospects play and hope a core of them become league average+ players. Then you make the big splash.

 

If you agree that the timing is not right, I'm not even sure what else there is to discuss.

[TheLeviathan]

You're not going to achieve that by playing replacement level players and you aren't going to achieve that by buying players through free agency. Your best bet is to let your major league ready prospects play and hope a core of them become league average+ players. Then you make the big splash.

 

We agree here, but for different reasons. All I'm trying to explain to you is that you've added a confusing layer to this that really amounts to a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day what you need to happen is what you posted above, which really comes down to your prospects not busting out and developing to what you hope they can be.

 

So that's why I'm on board to wait a bit yet, not much longer, but a bit longer until we start to see some debuts.

[JP3700]

Since you'rre quite liberal in your use of WAR, the numbers should work out in a similar fashion. And, as I noted previously, Detroit dropped to 74 wins the next year, and it took 4 years for them to make the playoffs after the acquisition of Cabrera- there's little reason to think that Price diminishes much from his current value (if at all) 4 years from now.

 

Just because your team doesn't perform to it's projection doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. At the time, Detroit was looking to push themselves over the top.

 

The Red Sox were a 90 win team in 2011 and won 69 games in 2012. Just because they won 69 games doesn't mean they weren't putting a 90 win team on the field on opening day. This happens quite often. It happened to the Nationals this year. Just not to that extreme.

 

The difference is how often do 69 win teams win 90?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Are people actually suggesting they wouldn't trade Meyer for Price, straight up? That's how a lot of these posts are reading.

 

I'm as excited about Meyer as anyone, but don't forget he was traded straight up for Denard Span last winter. Good trade for the Twins, but it keeps Meyers value in perspective a little.

 

I'm pretty sure Tampa Bay would flat-out refuse an offer of Meyer for Price, which should be an indicator that the Twins would easily win the trade. Even if the Twins didn't extend Price and didn't compete in 2014 or 2015, they could almost certainly flip Price again for more value than Meyer alone currently has.

 

Obviously, if we re-enter the realm of reality and the offer becomes Meyer, Arcia, Rosario, etc. for Price, then the calculus becomes different. But then its less about Meyer vs Price, and more about org prospects 3-7 vs Price. That trade probably doesn't help the Twins, particularly if those prospects are anywhere close to MLB.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So you feel that the Twins will get a bargain and will be able to do much if they have $70M committed on 3 players (Mauer, Nolasco and Price) for the next 4 seasons?

 

Just curious: Mauer makes $23M per season, and Nolasco $12M. Are you projecting David Price to make $35M per season?

 

Seems a wee bit high, considering the current high is $27.5M, right? And 2014-2015 are both still arb years for Price, so he'll probably only average $15M between them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Are people actually suggesting they wouldn't trade Meyer for Price, straight up? That's how a lot of these posts are reading.

 

If I was Friedman, I would not trade David Price for Alex Meyer. I'd want more than that.

 

I bet he could get an Alex Meyer-level prospect if he keeps Price for a year and trades him next offseason. The receiving team gets David Price for a year with the possibility to extend him or, at the very least, receives a comp pick in the following draft. That's worth a 40-60 range prospect.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Brock: agreed. I meant, many posts read like they wouldn't want the TWINS to make that deal, which is kinda crazy.

[halfchest]

It really all comes down to timing. As many have said we're not getting Price for Meyer straight up that's ridiculous. do you raid the system for 3 of your top 6 prospects to get a guy for two years when your team already had holes all over? I don't think so, it's not the right timing.

 

Now, if you could work out a deal where you get a reasonable extension then yes I say you go for it. I honestly wonder if due to price being two years away from FA a team could commit say 5/100 or 6/120 starting in 2014 to him. That would be hard and honestly kind of stupid for any pitcher to turn down. He's banking on two fully healthy years with similar performance to get a mammoth 200 million contract. Or he could go for a five year 100 and know he's going to hit free agency again at 32 and if he continues his success could still demand a huge contract. Not sure if the Rays have even explored this type of deal with him but I have to think if he got a 9 figure deal wafted in front of him he wouldn't take it.

 

All this said, I dont' think the Twins are that interested due to the timing, their will be other guys on the table next year and the year after to go for. Give these young guys some time to develop before making a huge move to run for a championship.