REPORT: Twins to Trade Eduardo Escobar to Arizona

I respect the decision to get something rather than nothing for a pending free agent. But I don't agree that there's no downside because we can still sign him next year anyway. He's not coming back.

 

If they wanted to sign him, it would have made much more sense to extend him in the off season, or even midseason, than to pay peak market rate in an auction. I

 

So I see the logic in this decision, but that doesn't mean it was not the only option. It may be the right choice now that his contineud elite performance has pushed him out of our price range. But it looks like extending him for three years at the end of last season might have been a very wise investment.

 

If he regresses to a utility infielder again, they gambled and won. If his league-leading doubles are not a mirage, it was a missed opportunity to add a real building block.

 

People say we can just swap in Nick Gordon, but if Nick Gordon turns into a league average player, he will have beaten the odds. Who has the better chance to lead the league in doubles, Nick Gordon, or a guy who's actually done it before?

 

Gordon will cost less, but that's his only superior attribute. I would not have been at all sad to see the Twins spend some money and keep them both. Even if Sano's hitting rebounds he will probably move DH or 1B. So there is room in the infield for Escobar, Polanco, and Gordon to all start.

 

Imagine having Escobar locked up for three more years. That would have some value, too. And if done a year or more ago, would have been a steal. 

 

If they had no intention of signing Escobar anyway, this trade was obviously the right thing to do. Just don't get your hopes up that he's coming back this off-season. He'll be getting starter money somewhere, unless he turns back into a pumpkin.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll continue to rake, and the Twins will sign him back anyway, at market rate for an elite starting infielder. But realistically, I think the time to resign him has passed. If they wanted him, they would have done so already, not waited to get in a bidding war.

 

Given that he was gone at the end of the year anyway, this trade was the right choice. But the decision not to resign him when he was cheaper may turn out to be a huge missed opportunity.

 

It also might not. Maybe this is a classic sell-high move. But he sure looks pretty good to me. I know I'll miss him, whether he becomes a star or not.

 

Sorry if this is coming out too negative. I am not knocking Falvey and Levine. I think they handled this very well. There was no time I was shouting at my computer for them to do something else. I didn't know Escobar would do this either. I'm just in mourning a little. I agree with all the sound arguments why this was a smart move, exept one -- that we can still sign him back this offseason. I think it's over, and I'm in mourning over that. But they need to make the tough calls, and stocking the farm is the right thing to do. I'm just sad, and fear we could really miss the little guy for years to come.

I haven't read anyone say Gordon is ready, or as good right now, that he can be plugged in.

And, there is zero reason they can't sign him in the off season, if they offer the most or near most money, if he really likes MN.......they have more money to play with next year than they can possibly spend.

As for not extending him before, I'm not sure when you'd extend a utility infielder for a number he would take. You'd have to get awfully lucky to guess he'd hit this well, imo.

That said, it is frustrating to have them sell off a player, but if Sano hits when he comes back, he won't play much this year anyway (unless they bench their DH or something).

I respect the decision to get something rather than nothing for a pending free agent. But I don't agree that there's no downside because we can still sign him next year anyway. He's not coming back.

 

If they wanted to sign him, it would have made much more sense to extend him in the off season, or even midseason, than to pay peak market rate in an auction.

What if Dozier's agent was a little aggressive in the numbers on the extension?  

What if they would still like to sign Dozier to an FA Deal?

Wouldn't signing Escobar to an extension be insulting to Dozier? 

There are reasons why clubs don't do a lot of negotiating on extensions during the season. 

Do you really think that they wouldn’t negotiate an extension with one player because of the feelings of another? I hope not.

I think the reason they don't negotiate during the season is because the agents will bump the price during every hot streak but honestly I have no idea because I've never negotiated a major league contract.

However, teams typically do not negotiate during the season and they usually say something about it being a distraction. 

Believing that someone else could be upset over another getting an extension is a lot easier to believe than players being distracted by... (insert whatever theory here)? 

I get the distraction part and agree. And yes, it can be a distraction on many levels. But that wasn’t what you said. I was questoning not negotiating an extension with one player because of the feelings of another.

During the season... that is what I meant. 

http://www.eagletribune.com/sports/local_sports/mason-dave-dombrowski-says-don-t-hold-your-breath-on/article_6308339e-69ac-5f1f-84f6-62e2095f2397.html

Dozier January 20th

https://www.mlb.com/news/brian-dozier-would-sign-extension-with-twins/c-265076680

Dozier March 5th

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22653546/brian-dozier-says-a-free-agent-fall-no-contract-talks-minnesota-twinsDozier March 5th

I know Dozier loves Escobar and they are great friends but imagine his reaction to Escobar getting an extension after a hot 1st half of 2018 in consideration of Brian Dozier's past 3 years. 

I've seen normal people completely shut down over a $20 reimbursement. 

Yeah, I get that. Again, not my question. It was the reason for it I question. If that’s the reason for not ... because of one player’s feelings ... that’s what I was questioning.

I am saying that (during the season) I believe it is quite possible that teams will not negotiate with one player because another player's feeling will get hurt.

Yes I am saying that. 

I believe that there is nuance and nothing is cut and dried but I believe it would be smart to have a general rule to not negotiate during the season and the primary reason for that rule is because somebody either the player involved or the guy in the locker room next to the player involved may end up acting like a jealous brat and I believe that it has probably happened numerous times in the sport we love before front offices just pulled the plug on it.  

I think a team saying they don’t want the distraction of negotiating midseason is bunk. It’s usually the team’s way of saying they don’t want player X back. I know it’s quite awhile ago now, but at least one of Brad Radke’s contracts was extended midseason. I seem to recall Tom Prince too. I could be thinking someone else. My point being, if the team truly wants a player, they will make what they feel is a fair offer no matter when it is. If the player chooses not to respond, that is their business.

How about Johan?

http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=2745346