Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Dear Twins: Don't Sell!


    Steven BUHR

    Like a lot of Twins fans, I think, I’ve been coasting a bit with my fandom. The results on the field have been disappointing.

    Ervin Santana, Miguel Sano, Byron Buxton and Jorge Polanco hadn’t even been on the field much, if at all, during most of the first half of the season.

    The expected two-team competition for the American League Central Division title quickly became no race at all, with Cleveland outpacing the pack.

    So, I fell in line with the expectation that the Minnesota front office should and would be sellers at the July non-waiver trade deadline.

    But a funny thing happens to me when I start to hear so many voices saying, “Sell!” in unison. I start looking for reasons to buy.

    Image courtesy of SD Buhr (photo of Byron Buxton)

    Twins Video

    Yeah, my portfolio took a hit Thursday when Facebook shares dropped almost 20%. But I didn’t sell. I’m holding onto my Facebook stock. In fact, I’m probably going to add to my existing position after letting the dust settle for a few days.

    I think that’s what the Twins should do, too.

    No, I don’t mean they should invest in Facebook (though it wouldn’t be the worst investment the Twins have made over the years), I mean they should hold and maybe even buy.

    When the chorus grew so loud in support of the Twins being a seller at the deadline that there was support for not only trading players with expiring contracts and/or little expectation that they’d be part of the 2019 roster, but also for sending Kyle Gibson and Ryan Pressly packing, I took a step back from the cliff.

    If so many people were that convinced it was time to not only trade spare parts, but important 2019 cogs in the machinery, I wondered if maybe it’s time to do the opposite.

    After all, a year ago, the front office gave up and started selling about this time (though it turned out they didn’t have a ton of guys that other teams were interested in buying). As we all know, the Twins overcame that lack of faith, forcing their way into the one-and-done AL Wild Card game.

    But this is not 2017, obviously.

    At the end of July a year ago, Minnesota trailed Cleveland by 6 ½ games in AL Central. This year, they trail by 7 after Thursday night’s win over Boston.

    Last year, the Royals also stood between the Twins and the top of the Division. Not so this year. If Minnesota doesn’t mount a challenge, Cleveland will stroll to the Division title.

    A year ago, not only were the Twins well off the pace being set by Cleveland, they were going the wrong direction. They had started the month of July three games above .500, tied for the second AL Wild Card spot and just two games behind the Indians in the Division race. They finished the month tied with Baltimore, 4 ½ games behind the Royals in the race for the second Wild Card and two games behind Seattle and Tampa.

    Whatever momentum they had was moving them in the wrong direction so, of course, you sell.

    But this is not 2017.

    First of all, unlike a season ago, Minnesota will not be contending for an AL Wild Card spot.

    A year ago, there was one very good AL team in Houston and a lot of mediocrity after that. This year, there are a pair of teams in the East and three in the West that are leaving pretty much everyone else, including the Twins (and Cleveland, for that matter), in the dust.

    Entering July this season, the Twins at 35-44, were nine games under .500, eight games behind Cleveland in the standings and 15 ½ games back of the second WC spot.

    That’s not ideal, I grant. They’ve gone 13-9 this month and only managed to trim one game off their deficit to the Division leaders. That being the case, nobody can be blamed for advocating that the Twins replace player surnames with “FOR SALE” on back of most players’ jerseys.

    Unlike a year ago, however, Minnesota doesn’t need to claw their way through a crowded field in the hopes of earning a single play-in game at Yankee Stadium. They’re chasing one team and, if they should catch them, the reward is at least one full postseason series.

    And, unlike a year ago, their momentum is moving them in the right direction, notwithstanding last weekend’s debacle in Kansas City.

    The Twins also will face Cleveland ten times between now and the end of August. And it’s not like Minnesota has been beaten up by the Tribe this season, either. On the contrary. The Twins have won six of the nine games the two teams have completed this year.

    Everyone seems to think this is the same Cleveland team that went to the World Series a couple years ago. It isn’t. Yes, they have three guys at the top of their batting order that are very good. You want to include Edwin Encarnacion, I’ll let you. But after that? Who are you really afraid of?

    They have some pitching, yes. But that pitching hasn’t translated into as many wins in July as the Twins have notched and the Twins just added Ervin Santana, who didn’t look too rusty in his season debut this week.

    Yes, the Minnesota front office could throw in the towel now. It appears that not a lot of fans would blame them. It has been a disappointing year, to this point.

    They could get what they can for the guys with expiring contracts. Discard Lance Lynn, Brian Dozier, Eduardo Escobar, Zach Duke, even Joe Mauer if he’s inclined to approve of a deal to a contender. Probably add Jake Odorizzi to the list if you’re not of a mind to offer him arbitration for 2019. Likewise, maybe get someone interested in Santana if you don’t think you’ll pick up his $14 million club option for 2019.

    Make way for the next round of young talent that’s stewing in Rochester and Chattanooga. Let them get their feet wet in August and September, then be ready to re-engage the battle for AL Central supremacy in 2019.

    But is this really what we’ve come to? Baseball seasons are just four months long? If you’re a few games out of the top spot in your Division at the end of July, you pack it in and, “wait ‘til next year?”

    I’m sure the folks running Cleveland’s club are hoping that’s what the Twins will do. If so, they can virtually coast through the final two months and prepare for the postseason.

    I get that trading some (or all) of those players would potentially add a few pretty decent young prospects. And if the Twins’ farm system was in dire straights without much talent in the pipeline, maybe I’d go along with a fire sale right now. But that is not the case.

    The Twins have some really good talent at every level of their minor league organization right now. Sure, you always want more because some guys with high ceilings just don’t pan out, but as much as I enjoy watching minor league baseball, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the purpose in all of this is to win at the Major League level.

    As things stand, the Twins have a rotation of Santana, Berrios, Gibson, Lynn and Odorizzi. It may not be the equal of Cleveland’s, but it ain’t bad.

    If you think Fernando Romero, Aaron Slegers or Stephen Gonsalves would perform better in the fifth spot than Odorizzi, then make that move. But do it because you think it not only will make your team better in 2019 but will also improve their chances to catch and pass Cleveland this year.

    Or, here’s a thought – if you think you could improve your rotation, maybe trade FOR a better pitcher (ideally, one with at least another year of control left after this season), rather than selling off the ones you’ve got.

    And please, just stop the talk about trading Kyle Gibson already. This is not a rebuild. If you really have given up on 2018, fine, but don’t give up on 2019, too.

    With all of the problems this organization has had finding really good starting pitching, why would you trade a guy just when it looks like he’s becoming a really good starting pitcher and still has a year of team control left?

    Just because you could get somewhat better prospects in return? They’re still prospects and you’re probably just going to hope that one of them ends up developing into a pitcher as good as Gibson.

    As a fan base, we’ve been lulled into this never-ending routine that emphasizes acquisition and development of quality minor league talent. That’s all well and good until it takes over the organization’s mentality to the extent that they let a few games’ deficit in the standings in July keep them from even bothering to try to compete through the rest of the season.

    I say let’s go for it!

    What are you afraid of? If it doesn't work out, you still have all the quality young talent waiting to fill in where needed next season and so much payroll money coming off the books that you won't be able to figure out how to spend it all.

    If you don’t take advantage of those 10 head-to-head meetings with Cleveland, there are still likely to be waiver deals to be made before the end of August. No, the returns may not be as good as they would be right now, but I’m pretty satisfied with where the Twins’ farm system sits now. I don’t need more.

    I don’t want my baseball season to keep being four months long. I want the full six months.

    I want to see if Santana, Buxton and Sano can overcome their personal setbacks and help turn the Twins into the kind of team nobody wants to have to face in September.

    I want to see if this team, that was supposed to be a contender, can get some traction and do something to make Cleveland sweat a little bit. Don’t just hand them the Division. Let’s make things interesting for them.

    That’s what competing is all about, isn’t it?

    (This article was originally posted at Knuckleballsblog.com)

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

     

    I admit, 8-12% isn't high. (8.4% Fangraphs season to date projection mode, 12.5% Fangraphs coin flip mode -- obviously if you fully buy the 1.6% figure that's a different story, but I don't even know if Fangraphs buys that fully)

     

    But what chances do you put on these four or five additional 40 FV prospects contributing meaningfully to a better Twins team down the line? I'm open to being shown otherwise, but I don't think it's going to clear 8-12% by all that much.

     

    Then doesn't that really reduce this to a matter of preference and gut feeling? 

     

    8% was only the odds of winning the division. Winning the AL Central doesn't mean you're good and it doesn't mean you're a contender. 

     

    I'd resent it if they skipped out on a chance to win the WS, not on the chance to get their teeth kicked in in the playoffs.

     

    You completely ignored what I said. You justified an earlier point by saying the reduction in odds was 25% which of course is true if we agree to the assumptions being used.

     

    I'm confused. I didn't try to justify any point by the 25% figure. I already made my point, clearly and repeatedly, before that. I leaned toward going for it, knowing everything we know including the 8% (and 1.6% and 12.5% :) ). Someone else posited that our odds might still be 5-6% after the trades, which I disagreed with. I also pointed out that a $2 pay cut is a bigger deal to someone making $8 an hour, as compared to someone making $50 an hour. You can ignore that statement if you like, as it has nothing to do with my point at all.

     

    I think the call was close. If we were a couple games closer, or a couple games further back, I think it would have been much clearer. That's kind of the definition of gray area where multiple reasonable opinions can exist. I don't necessarily fault the front office for making this call, although I am a little disappointed as a fan, that's all.

     

    Since you are still participating here, though, I am still curious if you are willing to answer the questions I asked you repeatedly upthread: "what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

    This is a primary reason why, when God created baseball, (person pronoun of your choice here) put the trade deadline so much before the point of mathematical elimination for even finge contenders....

     

    It creates communion among the followers.

     

    This was literally in the quoted section I replied too; 

     

    "I already know the odds were 8%-12%,"

    My bad! I somehow looked at the post above yours. I am getting quoted a lot right now. I'm not really that quotable though! :)

     

    Feel free to read it as "I already know the odds were ~7-8%" if you want. Obviously there is no one figure we can distill this down to, there are plenty of subjective factors too. If we had identical odds and had just lost a Francisco Liriano circa 2006, I'd probably be all about the sell too.

    What I meant, knowing everything we know.

    Edited by spycake

     

    This is a primary reason why, when God created baseball, (person pronoun of your choice here) put the trade deadline so much before the point of mathematical elimination for even finge contenders....

    It creates communion among the followers.

    I think God actually put the trade deadline on June 15th. It was prophet Peter Ueberroth who moved it to July 31. :)

     

    I'm confused. I didn't try to justify any point by the 25% figure. I already made my point, clearly and repeatedly, before that. I leaned toward going for it, knowing everything we know including the 8% (and 1.6% and 12.5% :) ). Someone else posited that our odds might still be 5-6% after the trades, which I disagreed with. I also pointed out that a $2 pay cut is a bigger deal to someone making $8 an hour, as compared to someone making $50 an hour. You can ignore that statement if you like, as it has nothing to do with my point at all.

     

    I think the call was close. If we were a couple games closer, or a couple games further back, I think it would have been much clearer. That's kind of the definition of gray area where multiple reasonable opinions can exist. I don't necessarily fault the front office for making this call, although I am a little disappointed as a fan, that's all.

     

    Since you are still participating here, though, I am still curious if you are willing to answer the questions I asked you repeatedly upthread: "what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

     I don't recall differentiating their would be contribution to a great season but any season but the odds are certainly at least 50/50 it's a better season than this one. You will have to show me where I suggested their contribution would come when we are the division favorites. I have said repeatedly that the division favorite or winning the division is not a great measure. That's not the goal by which to measure, IMO. Are we trying to build a great team or win a very weak division. If you modify the definition of success to be winning a playoff series the odds get very thin.

     

    We all know those odds are very difficult to determine/predict the future contribution of a prospect or group of prospects. It's not difficult to determine this season is very likely lost and therefore there is little risk associated with trading pending free agents. I would define this as the cost of trading those players for the purposes of this conversation. For this minimal cost we added 5 players, all with a relatively low probability of actually making it to the ML. However, if one turns into an average ML player the benefit is of value for 6 years, not 1 year. Somehow, I can't get you to grasp the value proposition of keeping these players is a combined 3 years, and two of those combined years is a year with an extremely low probability of winning a playoff series. No, we don't know things will improve and therefore these future players might also be contributing to a poor team but it's a mathematical certainty that passing on these opportunities reduces our chances of being better in the future. 

     Since Friday July 27; 

     

    Indians 17-6 (5-2 vs Twins)

    Twins 11-12 (2-5 vs Indians)

     

    You could reverse those head to head results, putting the Twins at a solid 14-9 in last 23 (much higher than their Win % was Season to Date) and they still would be trailing in the AL Central race by double digits. 

     

     

     

    Since Friday July 27; 

     

    Indians 17-6 (5-2 vs Twins)

    Twins 11-12 (2-5 vs Indians)

     

    You could reverse those head to head results, putting the Twins at a solid 14-9 in last 23 (much higher than their Win % was Season to Date) and they still would be trailing in the AL Central race by double digits. 

    This is what many of us feared would happen, I think, and why we wanted to sell.

     

    The Twins were hanging on, chasing a Cleveland team that just needed to fix its bullpen and get its head straight. They fixed the bullpen and the writing was on the wall.

     

     Since Friday July 27; 

     

    Indians 17-6 (5-2 vs Twins)

    Twins 11-12 (2-5 vs Indians)

     

    You could reverse those head to head results, putting the Twins at a solid 14-9 in last 23 (much higher than their Win % was Season to Date) and they still would be trailing in the AL Central race by double digits. 

    I'm not arguing for or against the sell, because it is what it is. But I'm not sure it's really fair to say, 'See? Selling was the right thing to do given our record since then.' We don't know what would have been with the pieces that are gone, particularly Escobar and Lynn who seems to be pitching with consistant goodness. But then, if they had stayed here, no telling how they would have performed, either. Yeah, I agree, catching Cleveland was going to be an uphill fight, made even steeper with the tweaking they did, and as I said in the first sentence, not going to argue right or wrong here, but I don't think comparing post sell records is exactly an accurate argument supporting the sell because it's a different team now than it was then.

     

    I'm not arguing for or against the sell, because it is what it is. But I'm not sure it's really fair to say, 'See? Selling was the right thing to do given our record since then.' We don't know what would have been with the pieces that are gone, particularly Escobar and Lynn who seems to be pitching with consistant goodness. But then, if they had stayed here, no telling how they would have performed, either. Yeah, I agree, catching Cleveland was going to be an uphill fight, made even steeper with the tweaking they did, and as I said in the first sentence, not going to argue right or wrong here, but I don't think comparing post sell records is exactly an accurate argument supporting the sell because it's a different team now than it was then.

     

    You are missing the point. Cleveland's record is not effected by the "sell".  Heck, you can give the Twins all 7 games (making the Twins 16-7 in last 23) vs the Tribe heads up if you want. And they STILL would be 8 games back

    Edited by alarp33

     

    You are missing the point. Cleveland's record is not effected by the "sell".  Heck, you can give the Twins all 7 games (making the Twins 16-7 in last 23) vs the Tribe heads up if you want. And they STILL would not have made up any ground in the AL Central since July 27. 

    I'm not missing any point. I get it ... catching Cleveland was going to be tough. I already said that, did I not? And I said it was going to be worse with the tweaking they did. But you can't know what would or would not have happened with certainty because the team now is different. They sold and didn't buy. You don't know what would have happened had they bought a piece or two or three if that's what decision was made instead. I just think it's a pointless argument, because right or wrong, it is what it is.

     

    I'm not missing any point. I get it ... catching Cleveland was going to be tough. I already said that, did I not? And I said it was going to be worse with the tweaking they did. But you can't know what would or would not have happened with certainty because the team now is different. They sold and didn't buy. You don't know what would have happened had they bought a piece or two or three if that's what decision was made instead. I just think it's a pointless argument, because right or wrong, it is what it is.

     

    You are only discussing the Twins... like I said, they could have SWEPT 7 games vs Cleveland and would trail the Indians by 8 games still.  

     

    You are correct, I don't know what would have happened with the Twins... but I don't need to know what would have happened with the Twins if Cleveland continues to win at this clip. Again, I gave the Twins a 7 game sweep of Cle in my hypothetical and they still would trail in the division by 8 games.

     

    Unless you are suggesting the Twins would have simply never lost again starting on July 31... what they would or would not have done simply is irrelevant if Cle wins at this clip

     

    You are only discussing the Twins... like I said, they could have SWEPT 7 games vs Cleveland and would trail the Indians by 8 games still.  

     

    You are correct, I don't know what would have happened with the Twins... but I don't need to know what would have happened with the Twins if Cleveland continues to win at this clip. Again, I gave the Twins a 7 game sweep of Cle in my hypothetical and they still would trail in the division by 8 games.

     

    Unless you are suggesting the Twins would have simply never lost again starting on July 31... what they would or would not have done simply is irrelevant if Cle wins at this clip

    Did you, or the Twins front office, know during the last week of July what Cleveland's record would be over the next three weeks?

     

    Do you know, today, what Cleveland's record will be through the end of the season?

     

     

     

    I'm not missing any point. I get it ... catching Cleveland was going to be tough. I already said that, did I not? And I said it was going to be worse with the tweaking they did. But you can't know what would or would not have happened with certainty because the team now is different. They sold and didn't buy. You don't know what would have happened had they bought a piece or two or three if that's what decision was made instead. I just think it's a pointless argument, because right or wrong, it is what it is.

     

    Cleveland is on pace to win 95 games. 

     

    On July 27 (the day they traded Escobar) the Twins were 48-54. 

     

    In order to match Cleveland's 95 wins, the Twins would have needed to finish the season 47-13. Are you suggesting that was a legitimate possibility and we don't know yet if the Sell was a good idea or bad?

     

    Did you, or the Twins front office, know during the last week of July what Cleveland's record would be over the next three weeks?

     

    Do you know, today, what Cleveland's record will be through the end of the season?

     

     

    Umm no, if I knew exacts like that I would be making a lot of money in Vegas. But I do understand probabilities and that Cle had a better roster and extremely easy schedule. 

     

    Are you suggesting the Twins FO made the wrong decision? Are you suggesting its never ok to trade players because you never know exacts of what the future holds?

    Edited by alarp33

     

    Umm no, if I knew exacts like that I would be making a lot of money in Vegas. But I do understand probabilities and that Cle had a better roster and extremely easy schedule. 

     

    Are you suggesting the Twins FO made the wrong decision? Are you suggesting its never ok to trade players because you never know exacts of what the future holds?

    I have stated repeatedly that I think it was a mistake for the Twins to sell off the 2018 season.

     

     

     

    I have stated repeatedly that I think it was a mistake for the Twins to sell off the 2018 season.

     

    Because you wanted to give Dozier / Escobar QO's? Clearly this was not a playoff team with or without the sell off.  Unless of course you think a 48-54 team had a 47-13 run in them

    Edited by alarp33

    Part of the argument for "not sell" was that we had so many head-to-head games with Cleveland.  As alarp is showing, even in the best case scenario of those head-to-head games....we are still 8 games back.  Why?  Because Cleveland fixed their one glaring hole and are winning like crazy.  There is nothing the Twins could do about that, even if they had bought more assets.  

     

    What that shows is how long the odds truly were, even in optimistic scenarios.   If you're being honest as a "don't sell!" person - at some point you have to at least acknowledge some of the facts/probabilities at play here.  Even in best case scenarios the Twins were still well under water in terms of their chances.

    Part of the argument for "not sell" was that we had so many head-to-head games with Cleveland. 

    That was a smaller point in the argument.

     

    If you're being honest as a "don't sell!" person - at some point you have to at least acknowledge some of the facts/probabilities at play here.

    Those have always been acknowledged. From the very start.



    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

×
×
  • Create New...