Major League Ready

Looks like Dozier is headed to the Dodgers. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/minnesota-twins No report on the return. Let the guessing / hoping begin.

I would be happy with a modest amount of International Bonus Pool money in return. BTW ... The only player that has been traded who had any influence on our ability to compete in the future was Pressly. One year of a decent reliever. That's the net impact.The cries of future doom have no foundation. If you want to be mad about missed opportunity, be mad the previous regime took Gordon instead of Nola or Jay instead of Benintendi.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have acknowledged the risk on numerous occasions. This was a very specific comparison of measures. The other poster was comparing the odds of one of the players making it to the ML level with the odds of getting to the playoffs. My point was that those odds measured one year of benefit but if one of the prospects made it to the ML team, they would likely contribute for 6 years. Yes, they might flame out by their arbitration years or they could be a 10X all-star. If just one player contributes in a meaningful way this is a huge win. There is the possibility more than one makes it which obviously would be enormously advantageous. If we were to beat the odds and make the playoffs, the benefit would be playing a team that very likely gives us an ^$$ kicking. I am pretty sure I am taking into account all of the +/- whereas the detractors are thinking only of this season and they are also considering making the playoffs the goal. All of the analysis in terms of percentage are measured by winning the division. Granted, it's a personal perspective but I would not call losing a playoff series a win and I certainly would not give up any future assets for the benefit of losing a playoff series. This is common practice with these type of odds. Do you suppose it's all of the GMs with the benefit of an analytics department who follow this practice who don't understand cost benefit analysis or is it possible that your particular area of expertise is not cost benefit analysis.

Trading a pending free agent and a RP with one more year of control is blowing it up?

I guess I don't understand how the "coin-flip" metafore ever had any relevance. Their odds of winning the division are so low that foregoing an opportunity to add to the farm system would be negligent on the part of the F/O. A significant part of that evaluation is that if one or more of the players make it, they will contribute for 6 years or more. You still have not acknowledged this and I think that is a significant part of the disconnect. The other is the extreme weight you put on the present. I support your desire to never give up. I can't and won't support your insistence that the F/O apply extremely poor management practices because you are unwilling to give any weight to benefits that take place in the future.

Sorry ... That was from ND-Fan and I was thinking it was from you.

I have a very hard time following your logic, not just here but in general. I thought you meant odds of getting into the playoffs. No kidding they are not that far off from a coin flip on a given game. A 90 loss team has a 44.4% chance of winning any given game. There are two other points where we simply differ in opinion. You view the goal as getting into the playoffs. I view the goal as building a great team. If Cleveland folds the rest of the way and we get in as a 500 team, so what. We are still a bad team. The odds makers would give us somewhere around a 30% chance of winning a playoff series which I include when assessing our odds of success and consequent buy/sell strategies. Again, what difference does it make if we get crushed in a playoff series? That's not success in my opinion. Therefore, I am looking at the probability of success as the odds of getting into the playoffs multiplied by the odds of winning a playoff series. I think the core of our disagreement is you and the millennial fans you reference are unwilling to ,make even the smallest sacrifice to get better better in the future. Cashing in our small odds would require a bunch of players to completely turn around their performance. The departure of Escobar and Pressly does not preclude this from happening (see 2017). To address your question about the odds of the players we received contributing to the ML club, once again we evaluate that situation very differently. For starters the contribution of Escobar is this season with an extremely low odds of contending a decent RP in the same time period as well as next year where our chances of contending have to be at least a little better. The players we received in trade would contribute for 6 years if they make it to the ML club. Your focus on the immediate seems to have precluded this consideration. So, do I think the odds are higher of the players we received contributing to an actual contender, absolutely.

A coin flip is 50/50. We are not remotely a coin flip. Plus, the only reason we have a chance to make the playoffs is that we play in an extremely weak division. Is the goal to make the playoffs in a weak division or is it to construct a great team? It seems many of you are want to waste an opportunity to get better for a small chance to get into a playoff series where we would be the considerably weaker team no matter which of the opponents we draw. That is an incredibly misguided unless your goal is to stay mediocre or in our case not even mediocre.

That would be an incredible boost. If that happens Berrios / Romero / Gonsalves / Graterol & Wells could give is a great home grown rotation similar to what Cleveland fans have enjoyed of late. We are overdue for a break or two!

This one is hard to understand. It makes you think that something is in the works to move a few pieces. If not, what does the guy have to do?

I have no problem at all with how you represented Escobar's numbers, it was the way you manipulated Hosmer's track record where I have a problem. It would have made far more sense to use the previous 3 years, 4 years or 5 years. Instead, you separated his best year (the most current year and then used a 3 year period where he had two bad years with very good years before and after that period. In other words, instead of portraying the numbers as accurately as possible you elected to manipulate the numbers to look as bad as possible. The question of if Hosmer is a reasonable example is easily verified by looking at where he was rated among top free agents last year. You could also evaluate the comparison based on the contract Hosmer got and the projected contract for Escobar. Six months from now we can compare the actual contracts. They are not remotely close to comparable free agents.

Because he is much more valuable at 3B if he can play even close to average defensive with that cannon for arm. 1B is far easier to fill and we have waaaay more prospects that profile for 1B. Plus, if the reports are accurate, he is taking getting into shape seriously. He is a tremendous athlete that happens to be out of shape. How good could he be if he sheds 40 lbs. His value at 3B is worthy of further evaluation if he does in fact get in shape.

I have to admit ... I did not think there were ANY reasonable examples. However, if you manipulate the numbers, you can make a case for Hosmer. However, you chose a 3 year period which included 2 years when he was at his worst and had near zero WAR. You elected to position the numbers in a manner not reflective of recent history. For example, he had 7.8 fWAR the 3 years immediately proceeding his FA year and that included a very bad year of .2 FWAR. You could have also used the last 5 years where he averaged 2.14 WAR. He was also rated the 3rd best FA on the market my MLB Trade Rumors so manipulating of war aside, comparing Hosmer and Escobar makes little sense and the fact he received a $144M contract would suggest the league does not see them as anywhere near comparable.

We could not move him for an elite prospect. I think the probability changes when you go down a rung. I guess it depends on how you define not much.

We all love Escobar BUT IF the Twins get a good offer it would be wildly incompetent to hold on to him based on the strategy of making a qualifying offer. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they want to keep him, they will make an appropriate offer in FA. Can anyone name a player with a career WAR under 1.5/season that has received a qualifying offer? How about under 2 WAR for the previous 3 seasons? The QA for Escobar is a terrible idea that can go wrong in too many ways. Trade him and then go sign him back this winter.

I think the odds are against it but I would try to position the team in a manner that provides flexibility, does not punt 2019, and does not leverage our future. Maybe Buck and Sano come back in August and tear it up. Not likely but it would certainly think that would impact how the FO approached next year in terms of FA signing and trades. At present Gibson is the toughest for me because he has been quite good since the middle of last year and losing him would likely be detrimental to next year. The offer needs to be good. Odorizzi is replaceable. The others being discussed are all free agents and holding on to them because it MIGHT give us a slightly better chance of signing them is a naive approach assuming any of the others net a decent prospect. If Sano / Buxton improve enough to warrant an aggressive approach, great. Perhaps others breakout. It sure seems like Kepler could and perhaps should. Garver has been good offensively of late. Cave has been a very nice surprise. Polanco looked fantastic for a considerable stretch last year and I am not going to assume it was PED induced. There are a number of SP and BP candidates to step up too. Point being there is plenty of upside but the plan should remain fluid until we figure out which players are part of the solution.

That's the crux of the problem. The singular focus on next year. That's what leads to the sentiment that it won't hurt you. Supervisory or even middle management is tasked with execution. Leadership, in this case the Chief Baseball Officer and GM are responsible for the long-term health of this organization. There is not a GM in this league that would give any serious consideration to trade for Realmuto at the expected price if they were in the Twins situation. Cmon, this team is a mess without the necessity of Buxton and Sano becoming elite and you are suggesting a "final piece" type move. To be fair it's a mess with potential. The SP and BP aside, what are the odds at this point Buxton and Sano become 5+ WAR players or whatever measure you want to use that would equate to them playing at the level necessary for the Twins to contend. We should trade away our best prospect for 2 years depending on both Buxton and Sano reaching their potential. That kind of decision making gets you fired when in a leadership position.

Is your answer really pursuing less effective practices for building a contender which trading for top talent happens to be, especially given the economic necessity for mid to small revenue teams to build from their farm systems. The answer is to get better a drafting, international signings, and trading from prospects. Basically, the way Cleveland has been built. To say it has not worked, therefore let's pursue a path everyone else has realized is far less effective is an outstandingly bad idea. Any plan to get a great player sounds exciting when your window to the world does not extend beyond next year. This team has a long list of needs in 2019 and it gets longer in 2020. The solution is not a player that is only under contract for two years, especially when that player will cost the elite prospects that could finally end the term of our mediocrity. This is a play with a low probability of success at the cost of likely extending us watching bad baseball for several years. Try asking if the Twins should trade (assuming a premium) for Realmuto (RIGHT NOW) on one of the Q&As you follow. Let's see what their take is on this move. You ask these questions frequently, let's get an outside perspective.