nytwinsfan

Yeah, but if he traded Plouffe tomorrow because he got a good offer he would still not have lied, so that doesn't mean anything. He never said he would never trade Plouffe, just that his plan was to move Sano to the OF. That doesn't rule out a good offer changing his mind.

Umm, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 . . . ??? I mean, yes, Dozier and Plouffe are good players and Mauer is now mediocre, but if that is our "core" then we are not going to be winning any World Series. Sorry, but we are not. 5-7 WAR from your "core" isn't going to cut it. The "core" is Sano, Buxton, Berrios, May, Dozier (for the next 3 years), Kepler, Rosario, Park and maybe a few others like Duffey, Gibson, Escobar, etc. Then hopefully in the next couple years, add Jay, Gordon, and maybe one or two others. Let's try to win this year, sure, since a lot of those future "core" players are already or will soon be here. But let's not lessen our chances in 2017 through 2022 by having Sano hurt himself playing a position he has never played before or give up on third base unnecessarily. The value of having Sano at 3B (if the Twins think he can play there without being a huge defensive liability) will be dramatic in the coming years. It will allow us to have Park plus another big masher in the lineup, whether that masher is Arcia, Vargas, or yet-to-be determined DH free agent.

Good story, but they say that Plouffe is eligible for free agency "in" 2017, not "after" 2017. Fail.

Wow, that's a great deal for the Twins. Holy smokes. Given the potential upside, no way this deal wasn't worth it. Fantastic.

Just like for Tori Hunter, Ricky Nolasco and Brian Duensing.

I thought I heard $600 K a year, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Not going to happen. No way, no how. They wouldn't trade Arcia alone straight up for those three guys, let alone with Lucroy.

That was before they traded Newcomb and Ellis. Probably accurate to say the Angels are worst now.

He was pretty clear about the small sample size.

HR isn't a good analogy. 50 HR for three years is worth more WAR than 3 guys hitting 8.3 HR a year for six years (which is what your analogy amounts to). That is because WAR isn't wins, it is WINS ABOVE REPLACEMENT, and a replacement hitter at many positions hits almost 8.3 HR a year. So the latter is worth barely any WAR, whereas the former is probably worth a lot of WAR - possibly even more than 21. The same isn't true for WAR. WAR is WAR is WAR. It is fungible and linear in value, because even if you have someone who contributes more than 1 WAR at that position, you can usually trade that player to another team that has exactly 0 WAR at that position. Think of how many positions the Twins have received 0 (or negative) WAR from over the last 5 or 6 years. Now multiply that times 30 teams. There are always replacement players out there with significant playing time. That's the definition of a replacement level player. They can be replaced at no cost. Once you are above 0 WAR, the idea is that it costs something to get that player. Obviously it isn't perfect, because there are tons of market inefficiencies, not to mention because WAR isn't perfect. But the idea is that WAR is fungible and already takes into account opportunity cost at a market level, even if it doesn't take into account opportunity cost at a team level. But market inefficiencies aside, baseball is a market, and I generally think you should approach it as one. I'll just leave this here. It acknowledges your theoretical point (on the margins) while pointing out that in reality, there is little or no evidence for it: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/linear-dollars-per-win-again/

Yeah, with Scott Boras. Good luck signing him for under $200 million.

Interesting. I might consider a package based on Kepler, Gordon, and others. But not Berrios. I think that's the way Ryan sees it too.

Nah, WAR takes into account opportunity cost. That is the whole point of a replacement level player. So for the Twins, Burdi or Kepler might not be a big upgrade, but someone else out there has a replacement corner OF or replacement reliever so that they would trade for the full expected WAR value of Kepler or Burdi, just as someone with a replacement level starter would be willing to trade for the full expected WAR value of Fernandez or Berrios. In individual instances obviously you focus on short-term needs and excess, since finding good trade partners and negotiating takes time, but it isn't clear to me that that is relevant here.

No way. At very very tops, Fernandez provides 21 WAR over the next 3 years. You don't think Berrios and Gordon and Burdi would provide 21 WAR in total over 6.5 years each? That would mean an average of 1.08 WAR per season for those three. I think they will easily surpass that. I'd guess 10 WAR for Berrios, 7 WAR for Gordon (high floor), and 4 WAR for Burdi is a conservative estimate of their expected WAR over their first 6.5 seasons. And again, that doesn't even take into account that our years with the best chances of making the playoffs/world series are likely to be 2018-21, not 2016 and 2017. Note, Fangraphs' Steamer projections projects 4.9 WAR for Fernandez next year, which is great no doubt. But it also projects .9 WAR for Berrios in a mere 65 innings, extrapolating to close to 3 WAR for a full season. So yeah, factoring in the control and the added risk of putting all your WAR in one basket (and a basket that recently recovered form an injury) -- I wouldn't do that at all.

Yes, except that we don't know if Fernandez will remain healthy. But yes, because with Berrios we have an extra 3.5 years of control. That means Fernandez has to be more than twice as good as Berrios to make that trade worthwhile, and that also ignores that given the way that our current window is shaping up, 2019-21 may be the years with the highest chance of going all the way.

We would trade Plouffe ideally for pitching, either in the form of a good reliever or a pitching prospect. We don't need another DH or OF bat. Well, we could use a 4th OF for the first half of the season, but I don't want to trade Plouffe for just that. We don't need a 2B or SS, or middle infield prospect. We don't need a 3B or long-term OF. And with Murphy and to a lesser extent Garver and Turner, we don't need a C anymore. What does that leave? Pitching. And as the old saying goes, there is never too much pitching. Trade him for a good reliever or a pitching prospect. Heck, through in Polanco (a MLB ready 2B) and get an even better pitching prospect.

Time to make a call. Either Sano is going to be able to play third or he's not. If you keep Plouffe then Sano isn't going to get a chance to play 3B, at least not every day where he can really show you his ability. At some point you have to stop hedging and make a call. Now is likely that time. If you think you can get more value for Plouffe mid-season, then I guess you could keep him for the first few months and split Plouffe and Sano between 3B and OF, but boy, you better be convinced you'll get more value mid-season to make that worth it. If not, trade him this offseason.

Nah, they'd want Berrios plus more as part of any deal, and he has only 3 years of control, so no thanks. I'll take Berrios' 6+ years of control and perfect health history, even if his upside is a bit less.

LOL. That would be awesome.

Ok thanks, and generally I would trust you over Fangraphs or Baseball Reference or whatever, especially for someone who is still in the Dominican or Gulf League. Strange that they all have his attributes wrong. I can sort of understand that they have not updated his height by 4 inches he presumably grew, but it isn't like he switched which side he was pitching from, right? Even MiLB.com has it wrong. Very very strange. http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?player_id=649143#/career/R/pitching/2015/ALL

Yup, that's a pretty solid list. Hard to argue with that. Some people might say Buxton's poor major league performance, but nah, I don't think that much time under those conditions (never gettting to play every day for an extended period of time) means much.

Ok, I was wondering about that too. Also, the LH v. RH thing.

I know he was only 18 this year, so it is not as important as it is for a 21-yo, but what is his fastball generally at? Do you expect him to be at Elizabethton next year Seth? Only 11 BB in 47 innings for a 18-yo is particularly impressive. Will be one to watch. Seth, Fangraphs says he is a rightie. Is that right? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa877857&position=P

I totally get the Duffey thing, and I think if he had had time for a few more quality starts, he'd be on this list. I am guessing Nick left him off because even though he far exceeded expectations, and is a tantalizing dark horse for a #2 starter, his season still was mostly a small sample size. But there is no question in my mind that if Duffey continues what he started in the last third of 2015, he would deserve to be in the top 3 or 4 of this list.

A non-prospect just developed into an above-average player at the first or second-hardest position to field, where the Twins have not had an above-average multiple-season talent for 20 years, so let's (A) poo-poo it, (B] trade him when we don't even have a potential average replacement ready. Makes sense.