Major League Ready

Yes, they are a 1st place team ranked 15th in their of their odds of winning the WS. 14 other teams have better odds so the fact they are in 1st place so let's be realistic about if they have built a team or need to continue to build. Odds of winning the WS

I was assuming they decline Bundy's option in the $75M or he gets traded at the deadline. No doubt there is ample evidence that they don't like big deals for pitchers. However, I don't see this in the absolute terms often voiced here because I don't know the rationale behind their practices. Is it the failure rate? Is it investing that high of a percentage in one player. If there avoidance is based on one of these factors, the team has never been even remotely positioned the way they will be next year in terms of young inexpensive talent which mitigates those reasons. In other words, they MIGHT be more inclined to use the available funds on one or two big ticket players because they have all the other positions covered for several years. Obviously, I am speculating but we should at least consider the possibility they will consider doing some things they would not have prior to having all this affordable talent and more on the way. I have always been very leery or 5+ year deals for SPs but I would definitely sign one of the top guys next year assuming things continue to progress with our young talent provided the cost is not absurd. Perhaps the FO sees it the same way. Good point that Kepler could also be used to clear more dollars to invest elsewhere. That might be part of the plan to add a SS next year but I think that only happens if they get a deal they really like. Although they might see plenty of OF coverage by using Kirolloff / Garlick / Celestino / Gordon as an OF platoon with Kirolloff also getting a lot of time at 1B. That might put max on the block.

Good point. If Correa opts out and the Sano option is declined, they will be under $75M I am already dreaming of Willson Contreras and Musgrove or Rodon or Taillon and a great BP arm. Contreras would be my 1st choice because I am being an optimist that Lewis will fill the hole at SS by the mid-point of the season next year. Obviously, that's far from a sure thing but I don't see any catchers in the system that are anywhere near that level of prospect.

Need a 3rd category of on the fence and need to see what happens in the next month. As of this moment, I would do some of both. I would trade for at least 1 RP and try to trade Urshela, and Archer or Bundy. Sano would get traded if possible and I would consider trading Maeda if the offer was good. I am a Polanco fan but I would trade him and put Arraez at 2nd if the offer was great.

My belief about this year's team has no relevance to how playoff teams have been constructed among teams in the bottom half of revenue. The impact of trades for prospects vs trading prospects for established players is a product of historical fact. There is no doubt free agency and trading for established players has a place in the construction of playoff teams. However, if you look at the relative roles of acquisition methods, there is no doubt that trading for prospects has a far larger role in success compared to trading for established players. What logic could possibly support that the twins have "caught lighting in a bottle this year"? How can there be thread after thread insisting we have no chance unless we add a #1 SP, we need at least a couple RPs and another bat if we have caught lightening in a bottle?

Oakland would have zero interest in any of these players. Oakland / Beane has followed a practice of trading players wit 1 to 1.5 years of control for near MLB ready or players that have some MLB experience like Kirilloff / Ryan / Duran / Ober / Celestino. Tampa and Cleveland have also been good at executing this strategy which has made them far more successful than other teams in the bottom half revenue. Urshela and one of Bundy / Archer are the most likely to be traded as I see it. If Lewis was pounding on the door, trading Correa would plausible. I don't see it unless we collapse.

Actually, if you were to review how playoff teams have been built by teams with below average revenue, you would see that trading proven players for prospects has been waaaay more influential than trading prospects for proven players in building these teams. It's very easy to do. Pick a team from the past in the bottom half or two-thirds by revenue that has won 90+ games. Look at the top contributors by WAR. I use greater than 1.5 for position players and SPs and greater than 1 for RPs. You will be shocked at how little trading for established players has contributed and how important trading for prospects has been. The only team I have found with any real influence from trades is Milwaukee. Their primary contributions from position players have been significantly influenced by trades. Their pitching is all draft or trading for prospects. Of course, their offense is very weal and their pitching extremely strong. Anyone who is actually interested in how successful teams have been built should go through this exercise.

Oakland and Cincinatti would reject those offers in a millisecond. Martin WAS a top prospect. Everyone wants to get rid of him because he is not looking good yet expect we are going to land a player that will be very coveted at the deadline. Sabota is worth nothing and Cole Sands does not move the needle much. Think Kirilloff / Ryan type to headline the deal plus Miranda. It's a real simple supply and demand formula. Those players are going to require players back that will be painful to lose. We should always ask ourselves if we would accept a trade in reverse.

This might be the most popular topic in the history of TD. I have been considering a slightly different question which is ... would adding a pitcher that contributes every 5th day significantly improve the odds of us getting to playoffs and/or contribute to playoff success.

The last thing they should do is trade away promising young position players for a #3 SP. They already have great SP depth and more on the way over the next couple years so I just don't see much value in a #3 to this team. Another top of the rotation guy is another matter especially in the playoffs.

We knew this team had several players (position & pitching) that were on the verge of contributing significantly but needed development time. Kirilloff is a good bet to be a legit top of the line-up bat and Miranda is not far behind. That came together quicker with the pitching side with Ryan / Winder / Duran and Jax all pitching well from the start. Miranda has improved significantly and my bet would be it's a matter of health with Kirilloff. Larnach is once again going through an adjustment. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a top offence for the next several years once these guys get more ABs under their belt. It won't hurt to get Lewis back either.

Thanks. Asleep at the wheel, I guess.

The last three are not very likely which of course is why they are last on the list. However, I seem them as possible under the right circumstances. For example, if Kirilloff really rakes the remainder of this season, the impact of letting go one of Polanco or Arraez could be less than the impact gained given the right trade. I guess I should have also had Miranda or Steer as one of the options but I was going for a top 10 list. I think the concepts Lavine learned in Cleveland will have some influence. If you look at their top 13 players in terms of WAR, 4 were drafted and Ramirez was an Intl signing. 8 were acquired by trading establish players for prospects and quite a few had made it to the MLB but were not yet established. Trading one of Polanco or Arraez would be consistent with that practice.

Have to agree the Brooks Robinson comparison is waaaay out there. Even among current players there are several as good or better. Matt Olson and Nolan Arenado are significantly better.

I too seriously doubt Urshela is here next year and Miranda has a very low probability of being traded. One of Miranda or Steer will be the regular 3B and one will be on the bench. Here is how I would rank the top 10 most likely not to be here next year. 1 Dylan Bundy 2 Miguel Sano 3 Carlos Correa 4 Gio Urshela 5 Chris Archer 6 Gary Sanchez 7 Kyle Garlick 8 Kenta Maeda 9 Emilio Pagen 10 Polanco or Arraez Obviously, Sanchez is a FA but I could see them resigning him and Archer has a mutual option. Bundy has a team option but my bet is he is traded at the deadline.

My wish would be one B+/A- BP arm and having Canterino explode onto the scene 6 weeks from now looking as dominant as Duran. As long as I am wishing and hoping, let's hope Maeda contributes come October as well.

Moving Kepler and putting Kirilloff in the OF could be the most productive alignment of this roster. Arraez at 1B / DH maximizes his value. Garlick would replace one of Larnach / Kirilloff against LH pitching where they become a bench bat for later in the game. The bench is Garlick / Miranda or Steer plus Celestino and Gordon. This assumes Urshela is traded or non-tendered and either Miranda or Steer is the everyday 3B.

Let's hope he can spend the 1st three weeks of September in St. Paul and the last 2 weeks of the season with the Twins. That would at least give him a shot at contributing but it's not something that should be counted on. BTW ... I hope Danchat's prediction comes true. Duran / Canterino can be a shut-down duo for the next several years.

Very good point. I would add that we can decipher the merit of the praise if we pay attention to the sources, how the information comes to our attention and the subtleties of how the information is presented. For example, it's obvious when an interviewer is kissing someone's butt with praise. The validity of the information is far different when two industry people are talking. There is also a big difference between a player praising his manager in comparison to a Fangraphs guy talking about very specific data they have compiled in regard to how Baldelli has managed the pen. There are many other examples but you get the drift. It's not that hard to sort out what is ass kissing and what's legit praise.

I agree. A front of the rotation SP will require a front of the rotation prospect going back plus Miranda. Winder and Miranda is probably the rough equivalent to SWR / Martin in the Berrios trade which is a very good comp. Trading away 6+ years of players like this to up or chances of going deep in the playoffs from very slim to slim is incredibly foolish. It's a good way to never be a team with better than a slim chance. Trade for a good RP and keep our top prospects.

That would be something if Sisk turned out to be a high-leverage RP. We deserve a reward for the JA Happ experience.

I agree with all of this but might be more inclined to send Miranda down if we were to bring up Kirilloff. They have Kirilloff/Arraez for 1B plus Sanchez if needed. Urshella/Arraez for 3B and Polanco/Arraez/Gordon for 2B. seems like Miranda would be the most expendable in this scenario. Garlick's bat against LH pitching is a real asset. Kirolloff's defense is better at 1B and I am not sure we really lose anything defensively at 1B with Arraez vs Miranda. Obviously, we lose defensively with Miranda at 3B instead of Urshela.

You have chosen to steer this away from the point which was quite clearly about the opinion others held about management not whether you had a right to question management. The point was also that you have chosen to ignore very good information because it does not support your position.

Are you suggesting we consider the measures produced by an unbiased organization who's product is analysis of these exact scenarios? Let's not get carried away. Wouldn't it be a lot more gratifying to ignore these facts if we want to believe framing does not matter? ?

Fangraphs has absolutely no authority whatsoever. They are not management or a governing body. They are subject matter experts. In the real world, rational people welcome the input / opinions of subject matter experts. The SME I referenced supported his opinion with hard data collected by his organization. I also included players and baseball people in general in my comments because the point was the outside opinions of Rocco are quite different than many of those expressed here. The fact that subject matter experts and players feel differently offers very real value to genuine debate. If we were arguing the legality of something, input from a Harvard Law professor would add genuine value.