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

     

    And for the record, as Spycake has pointed out "all of the GMs" in situations similar to, or worse than, the current Twins HAVEN'T sold yet. Do you suppose you're overestimating your particular expertise in the area of how MLB teams operate?

    Thanks for noticing! :)

     

    There are a few ways to look at it for sure. The Rays have sold (mainly Eovaldi, also a minor move in Venters), and they had comparable "season to date" projection odds as the Twins. But, they had far worse "coin flip" odds, meaning they really had very little control over their own destiny. (I mean, every team needs luck to complete a comeback, but low "coin flip" odds suggests even more luck is necessary.)

     

    But otherwise, the teams in comparable "season to date" projection mode odds, or "coin flip" mode odds, have resisted selling so far -- Cardinals (who made some moves but didn't really sell), Pirates, Giants.

     

    The Blue Jays and Mets sold, but they had 0.1% odds by pretty much every measure. The Angels did a "soft sell" with a rental catcher, but they had at best 4.4% odds by season to date mode, and like the Rays needed a lot of luck with 1.4% coin flip odds.

     

    (See my post above if you have questions about the different projection modes.)

     

    Thanks for noticing! :)

     

    There are a few ways to look at it for sure. The Rays have sold (mainly Eovaldi, also a minor move in Venters), and they had comparable "season to date" projection odds as the Twins. But, they had far worse "coin flip" odds, meaning they really had very little control over their own destiny. (I mean, every team needs luck to complete a comeback, but low "coin flip" odds suggests even more luck is necessary.)

     

    But otherwise, the teams in comparable "season to date" projection mode odds, or "coin flip" mode odds, have resisted selling so far -- Cardinals (who made some moves but didn't really sell), Pirates, Giants.

     

    The Blue Jays and Mets sold, but they had 0.1% odds by pretty much every measure. The Angels did a "soft sell" with a rental catcher, but they had at best 4.4% odds by season to date mode, and like the Rays needed a lot of luck with 1.4% coin flip odds.

     

    (See my post above if you have questions about the different projection modes.)

    The primary difference for the Twins, as I see it, is they only need to catch one team. And they have games to play against that team.

     

    Hey now, the context of the post was postseason odds.

     

    If you want to move the discussion to pennant odds, fine, but please don't imply again that I am somehow being disingenuous in my posts.

     

    I don't care about winning the division. They can take all of their division crowns from early this century and trade them to the Royals or the White Sox for their World Series trophy. I'm not at all saying you're disingenuous, but we clearly want different things from this team. 

     

    If they keep Escobar, sure their odds of winning a division are minimal but still better than without him. However, their odds of winning the World Series goes from what, .5% to .2%? By making these unpopular moves now, it may give them a better shot in the coming years, and that's what I want, a shot at taking the big prize.

     

    And yes, I think these five (and counting) prospects have a better chance of turning into a good player, or more likely, being traded for a good player than Escobar and Pressly did of winning the division for the Twins.

     

    I believe in Kepler, still believe in Buxton, have always believed in Gibson, but the other name you are looking for is Eduardo Escobar.

    See what I mean?

     

    LaVelle mentioned in today's S-Trib that the Twins made an effort to try and extend Escobar during the season, but were unable to generate any momentum. So it's not for lack of trying.

     

    Well, Sano and Escobar is certainly better than Sano.

     

    And Pressly was a pretty important piece of the pen, so IMO, yes they sold.

     

    Where and how often, are both Sano and Escobar in the lineup going forward (if Esco was here)?

     

    Who is Molitor benching to get them both on the field at the same time?

     

    Polanco? Mauer? Morrison (we could only hope)? Dozier?

     

    I do agree with others, Sano is still down if this doesn't happen, and it is possible (likely) that for this year, Esobar is better (wow, that sucks). 

     

    I do agree on the RP trade, but I'd call that a pretty soft sell so far.....maybe they should call up May to replace him. Or pitch Mejia in relief. Or Odorizzi?

    Where and how often, are both Sano and Escobar in the lineup going forward (if Esco was here)?

     

    Who is Molitor benching to get them both on the field at the same time?

     

    Polanco? Mauer? Morrison (we could only hope)? Dozier?

     

    I do agree with others, Sano is still down if this doesn't happen, and it is possible (likely) that for this year, Esobar is better (wow, that sucks).

     

    I do agree on the RP trade, but I'd call that a pretty soft sell so far.....maybe they should call up May to replace him. Or pitch Mejia in relief. Or Odorizzi?

    Morrison is the obvious answer there. Escobar was the second most productive hitter in the lineup. I know many of us (myself included) criticize Molitor’s moves. But he’s not THAT stupid. Escobar would have played somewhere at least 6 games out of 7.

     

    Pressly too has arguably been the second most reliable bullpen arm. Teams that are trying for it this year don’t trade off key pieces.

    Edited by yarnivek1972

     

    Morrison is the obvious answer there. Escobar was the second most productive hitter in the lineup. I know many of us (myself included) criticize Molitor’s moves. But he’s not THAT stupid. Escobar would have played somewhere at least 6 games out of 7.

    Pressly too has arguably been the second most reliable bullpen arm. Teams that are trying for it this year don’t trade off key pieces.

     

    I don't know how smart Molitor is......and I hope you are right that he'd do that. given how he handles the team, I don't have as much confidence as you.

    LaVelle mentioned in today's S-Trib that the Twins made an effort to try and extend Escobar during the season, but were unable to generate any momentum. So it's not for lack of trying.

    Now the front office is telling LaVelle they tried to extend Escobar. Well, maybe. I will bet on that being pure damage control instead. Edited by Hosken Bombo Disco

     

    And yes, I think these five (and counting) prospects have a better chance of turning into a good player, or more likely, being traded for a good player than Escobar and Pressly did of winning the division for the Twins.

    But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

     

    At this point it's fence straddling if they do not go whole hog and trade Dozier, Morrison, Rodney and Lynn.

     

    Agreed.  They obviously traded two players with more to contribute than the player's you listed. So, I don't think there is any reason to believe they won't trade all of the players given a remotely reasonable return. The bad news is none of them are going to return much. The good news is it will create opportunities for players who could possibly contribute to the solution.

    Edited by Major Leauge Ready

     

    The players they got back are lotto tickets, they can keep them and see if the multitude of them produce some good players in the future, or they might use them to go get JT Realmuto in the off season. Or a starting pitcher. Or a shortstop. They're just giving themselves so many more avenues to make the team better in the next couple of years.

    I think you might be overrating how much these prospects will buy. Likely not Realmuto or anything on that level. Maybe on the level of Odorizzi, Garcia, or obviously guys like Escobar or Pressly. :)

     

    Then again, we already have a deep system of 40 FV prospects, so we could probably have made those moves if they presented themselves even without these 5 additional prospects. Gives us a little better depth to manage it, certainly, but the tangible benefit of that level of is pretty low. There are diminishing returns to stockpiling that level of prospect.

     

    Just saying that 2%, relative to 8%, is more significant than the same 2% relative to, say, 50%. I thought that was clear. No intent to be disingenuous at all, I thought I was pretty clear about my position in the rest of my post.

     

    It's only significant because they have horrible odds. It would only be a 4% reduction if they had a 50% chance of making the playoffs. Would it make more sense for them to trade Escobar and Pressly if they had a 50% chance?

    Agreed. They obviously traded two players with more to contribute than the player's you listed. So, I don't think there is any reason to believe they won't trade all of the players given a remotely reasonable return. The bad news is none of them are going to return much. The good news is it will create opportunities for players who could possibly contribute to the solution.

    Exactly. A trade requires two willing participants. Duke should be easy enough to trade. I’m not at all sure any team would want Dozier, Morrison or Rodney. Lynn maybe. A healthy starter is usually tradeable at any time.

     

    I have acknowledged the risk on numerous occasions.

    I see you are still active in thread, just curious if you any plans to address this post of mine?

     

    http://twinsdaily.com/topic/30781-article-dear-twins-dont-sell/?p=777956

     

    "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?"

     

    What is the cost benefit analysis of watching meaningful baseball games through August and September?

     

    I, too, want the Twins to win a WS. But I also want to watch meaningful regular seasons. And this season wasn't lost yet. 

     

    And for the record, as Spycake has pointed out "all of the GMs" in situations similar to, or worse than, the current Twins HAVEN'T sold yet. Do you suppose you're overestimating your particular expertise in the area of how MLB teams operate?

     

    There is no doubt you and I have very different professional backgrounds. I would be more than happy to list my credentials if you really want to compare credentials.

     

    Exactly. A trade requires two willing participants. Duke should be easy enough to trade. I’m not at all sure any team would want Dozier, Morrison or Rodney. Lynn maybe. A healthy starter is usually tradeable at any time.

     

    Dozier's history of coming on in the 2nd half might entice a team to take a chance but I don't like our odds of getting a decent prospect. Lynn would not be a shock because he too has performed in the past. Plus a couple of the contenders are still short on SP. 

     

    It's only significant because they have horrible odds. It would only be a 4% reduction if they had a 50% chance of making the playoffs. Would it make more sense for them to trade Escobar and Pressly if they had a 50% chance?

    It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial.

     

    I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

     

    But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

     

    But the odds that Escobar was going to contribute on a good team this year was already next to zero.

     

    Well until he got traded anyway.

     

    It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial.

     

    I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

     

    To be fair, you are ignoring the Fangraphs projection model because the other 2 models on Fangraphs support your narrative more. 1.6% needs to be included if you want to throw out absolutes like "I know the odds were 8-12%"

     

    But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

     

    In what world is the 2018 Twins a good team. There are only two teams outside the central division with a worse record than the Twins. Only 8 teams in all of baseball worse than the twins. The three players who are arguably most important to the team are playing horribly. Our bullpen sucks. In what universe is this a good team or a team with a chance to do anything in the playoffs. You are ,mesmerized by the chance to win a really bad division. Shouldn't the goal be to build a good team, a team that won't be a huge underdog in a playoff series.

     

    But the odds that Escobar was going to contribute on a good team this year was already next to zero.

     

    Well until he got traded anyway.

    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? 

    Edited by spycake

     

    It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial.

     

    I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

     

    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. The fact is the degradation in odds is a result of really poor odds which is why the FO made this move. Is it or is it not true that the teams odds of winning the division would not have gone down nearly as much if they were reasonably positioned to win the division? If it's true which is a mathematical fact, your point about the odds going down only serves to support management's decision to sell where you are trying to use it as a reason for supporting riding it out.

    I guess if winning a Division title is an important goal, we can’t know which side of this argument is ‘correct’ until we see where Cleveland ends up. Depending on whether...or how badly, Cleveland sputters in Aug/Sept, it could end up that the Twins would have had a realistic shot...or not.

     

    For my money, I’m glad the Twins are not behaving as though an unlikely...or even a ‘decent’...shot at a Central Division title in 2018 is a goal worthy of any act or omission of act...no matter how small that act may seem today...that doesn’t help the club’s chances to realistically compete for a pennant some day. I see this as what many fans would have hoped for with a new management team... a front office that is not going to be concerned with ‘pressure’ to follow the path of least resistance...one that is not interested in the strategy of celebrating mediocrity....or that has experienced futility for so long, that they confuse mediocrity with actual goodness. Now, IMO, they need to follow through with the theme before the deadline hits.

     

    To be fair, you are ignoring the Fangraphs projection model because the other 2 models on Fangraphs support your narrative more. 1.6% needs to be included if you want to throw out absolutes like "I know the odds were 8-12%"

    I am not trying to ignore it. I try to reference it where possible. I didn't reference any numbers at all in the post you quoted there. You can split the difference between 1.6% and 8.4% and 12.%, and I don't think it changes my point. The average of those 3 is 7.5% and it has been trending up since Polanco's return, I am more than happy to use that as the prevailing figure if you'd like.

     

    I am not trying to ignore it. I try to reference it where possible. I didn't reference any numbers at all in the post you quoted there. You can split the difference between 1.6% and 8.4% and 12.%, and I don't think it changes my point. The average of those 3 is 7.5% and it has been trending up since Polanco's return, I am more than happy to use that as the prevailing figure if you'd like.

     

    This was literally in the quoted section I replied too; 

     

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




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

×
×
  • Create New...