Article: Twins, Rockies Talk Tulowitzki

[Brock Beauchamp]

To be clear, I'm not super high on Gibson. I like him but he's not outstanding. My opposition to trading him is that it directly undermines the "win now" aspect of acquiring Tulo and I don't see how that's even debatable.

[USAFChief]

Gibson is having a better year than Radke ever did?

 

Do not concur.

[tobi0040]

 

Wow, I'm really surprised by how many here seem to prefer Gibson to a true Star SS like Tulowitzki. Gibson is the very definition of a mediocre SP. His career K/9 is less than 6, BB/K is under 2. These aren't the numbers of a guy you can't deal. He's been better this year, unless you look at his FIP, and then see it's actually higher than last year. Teams win by having better players than their opponents. A guy like Tulowitzki gives the Twins a better SS for the next 4 years, then most teams they face. Keeping Gibson does not necessarily do that that for the Pitchers. 

 

Until you see/hear what the total package to land Tulo is, it's hard to really judge, but I for one can't comprehend how a guy like Gibson is going to be the line in the sand for a player of Tulowitzki's pedigree. 

 

I don't know anyone that thinks Gibson will accumulate 40 WAR before he is 30 like Tulo did.  That is not the quesiton though.

 

It is more complicated than that.  Gibson might make $25M in the next five years which will be his prime.  Tulo will make $100M in the next five years, which is not his prime. 

A better question would be, if we had $100M to spend would you rather have Gibson AND $75M to spend or Tulo from ages 31-35/36.  Or, would you rather have Gibson and the ability to sign Sano to a sweetheart deal in the next year or two, or Tulo from 31-35/36.

 

 

 

[USAFChief]

This whole argument comes down to if you think this year is going to be the best chance for the Twins to make the playoffs/win a championship in the next 4-5 years. I don't, so I don't want to make a trade like this.

No, this argument also includes the remaining years on Tulo's contract.

 

He's not going to retire this winter.

 

It confuses me the "play for 2017, not 2015" proponents are opposed to this idea. There's an excellent chance Tulo would be the Twins best player in 2017.

[USAFChief]

I don't know anyone that thinks Gibson will accumulate 40 WAR before he is 30 like Tulo did.  That is not the quesiton though.

 

It is more complicated than that.  Gibson might make $25M in the next five years which will be his prime.  Tulo will make $100M in the next five years, which is not his prime. 

A better question would be, if we had $100M to spend would you rather have Gibson AND $75M to spend or Tulo from ages 31-35/36.  Or, would you rather have Gibson and the ability to sign Sano to a sweetheart deal in the next year or two, or Tulo from 31-35/36.

A sweetheart deal for Sano would be cheap over the next five years, and the Twins can afford both. Easily. A deal for Buxton, too, if necessary.

 

As for the question, I'd rather have Tulo and Sano over the next five years than Gibson and Sano and whatever the Twins do with the extra money.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That said, Gibson is having a better year than Radke ever did. He strikes out as many or more and has an elite GB rate.

League context -- Gibson's K/9 compared to the 2015 league rate is not as good as Radke's in the late 1990's.

 

Gibson's ERA+ now trails two full Radke seasons, and his FIP- trails NINE full Radke seasons.

[jimmer]

 

What is relevant is we are trading for a short stop that is almost 31.  He would likely be our DH in a year or two.  So now we have a DH making $20M who will be in the .800 range for OPS.  The value has plummetted quite a bit.

Plenty of shortstops have played the position well past 33.  I'm not going to assume he moves off shortstop in his early 30s.  That's a bad bet I wouldn't be willing to take.

Edited July 22, 2015 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

To be clear, I'm not super high on Gibson. I like him but he's not outstanding. My opposition to trading him is that it directly undermines the "win now" aspect of acquiring Tulo and I don't see how that's even debatable.

The Twins have 6 starters right now, all but one under contract/control for 3+ more seasons after this one, plus Berrios in AAA and the ghost of Ricky Nolasco still roaming the halls of Target Field.

 

The Twins don't appear to trust any of our internal shortstop candidates (and that mistrust appears justified, even if they haven't been ranking those options optimally).

 

Obviously it would be even better if Tulo was a catcher, but he's not, and there doesn't seem to be a comparable catching acquisition on the horizon.

[adorduan]

 

No, this argument also includes the remaining years on Tulo's contract.

He's not going to retire this winter.

It confuses me the "play for 2017, not 2015" proponents are opposed to this idea. There's an excellent chance Tulo would be the Twins best player in 2017.

So you really don't think Buxton and Sano  are going to be that good in 2017?  If Tulo is our best player in 2017, we aren't winning a championship.

[whydidnt]

 

I don't know anyone that thinks Gibson will accumulate 40 WAR before he is 30 like Tulo did.  That is not the quesiton though.

 

It is more complicated than that.  Gibson might make $25M in the next five years which will be his prime.  Tulo will make $100M in the next five years, which is not his prime. 

A better question would be, if we had $100M to spend would you rather have Gibson AND $75M to spend or Tulo from ages 31-35/36.  Or, would you rather have Gibson and the ability to sign Sano to a sweetheart deal in the next year or two, or Tulo from 31-35/36.

 

Well, based upon the last 4 years, I'm not too worried about the Twins budget. They have proven over and over again that just because they have money to spend, doesn't mean they will. I think the question is better put: Would you rather have Tulowitizki for the next 5 years or see the Twins keep Gibson and the Pohlad's receive $75M more in profit. For me, I'm going with the better player. When/if the Twins actually run into a true budget problem, I'll worry about that then.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Twins have 6 starters right now, all but one under contract/control for 3+ more seasons after this one, plus Berrios in AAA and the ghost of Ricky Nolasco still roaming the halls of Target Field.

 

The Twins don't appear to trust any of our internal shortstop candidates (and that mistrust appears justified, even if they haven't been ranking those options optimally).

 

Obviously it would be even better if Tulo was a catcher, but he's not, and there doesn't seem to be a comparable catching acquisition on the horizon.

They have six starters, yes. One of them can't pitch in the playoffs and two shouldn't pitch in the playoffs.

 

Remove Gibson and the team is down to just two adequate playoff starters.

[tobi0040]

 

Plenty of shortstops have played the position well past 33.  I'm not going to assume he moves off shortstop in his early 30s.  That's a bad bet I wouldn't be willing to take.

 

well past 33?   Does that mean they played the position well (good), past the age 33 or well past age 33, meaning like Jeter until he was like 39.

[jimmer]

 

Which team is better, Gibson and Danny Santana or May and Tulo? This year and for the next 4 years, I would go with option 2.

How would we rate the long term projectablity of May, Berrios, and Gibson? I would rank them in this order:
Berrios-Long term top of the rotation starter (Probably a no. 2)
May-Long term middle of the rotation, younger than Gibson, Higher K rate
Gibson-Long term middle of the rotation older than May, lesser K rate

They asked for Gibson, why further hurt our future by upping their request with Berrios? I DONT get that. This is a sell high on Gibson. Lets sell high for once.

I dont know why so many on this site freak out on the sell high proposals one year then complain the next few years that we didn;t sell high when we had the chance (see Pelfrey discussion one month ago...)

I agree with this post completely.

[TheLeviathan]

The only tough part is that losing him and Santana (in the playoffs) sets up a mediocre rotation.

 

 

This is a rather large tough part that sort of undermines the "win now" aspect of doing this trade....no?

[Brock Beauchamp]

So you really don't think Buxton and Sano are going to be that good in 2017? If Tulo is our best player in 2017, we aren't winning a championship.

Indeed. I don't even think Tulo is the best player on the team in 2015. Dozier gets my nod for that title.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't know what scares me more, having to give up one of the young top arms which this team so desperately needs, or being tied to another giant contract that may prohibit the extension of any or all of Sano, Buxton, Berrios or anyone that is deserving.

Can this please be put to rest, once and for all?  Sano and Buxton will not even be arbitration eligible until the current Mauer, Santana, Nolasco, Perkins, and Dozier contracts are all complete (and Plouffe will be well into FA by then too).  Well, I guess Santana has one vesting option year that might coincide with their first arb season.  Hughes also overlaps that first arb season by 1 year.  Big whoop.  And even the option year on Tulo's contract precedes any potential Buxton or Sano free agency years.

 

And all this assumes Buxton and Sano don't spend any more time in the minors.  For any prospects who have yet to appear in MLB -- Berrios, Kepler, etc. -- the timeline is even further out.

 

There is absolutely no internal financial reason the Twins couldn't support the entirety of Tulo's remaining contract.

[tobi0040]

 

A sweetheart deal for Sano would be cheap over the next five years, and the Twins can afford both. Easily. A deal for Buxton, too, if necessary.

As for the question, I'd rather have Tulo and Sano over the next five years than Gibson and Sano and whatever the Twins do with the extra money.

 

Those sweetheart deals usually give more money up front to give the player an incentive to sign.   Tulo thru 2020.  Mauer thru 2018. Ervin thru 2018 and possibly 2019. Nolasco thru 2017.  Even if we could sign Sano and Buxton.  What about a 31 year old Dozier, Berrios, May?  I just don't agree with the notion that taking on $100M for Tulo doesn't prevent something in the future.

 

Tulo means roughly 90M locked up per season for 6-7 players. 

 

 

 

[DaveW]

 

 

 

We can make a bet on who has more value the rest of their career, Gibson vs. Tulo....

How about who has more value the next 5 years, since that is how long each of them would essentially be under contract?

Also

Radke >>>>>>>>>> Gibson

[Mike Sixel]

 

They have six starters, yes. One of them can't pitch in the playoffs and two shouldn't pitch in the playoffs.

Remove Gibson and the team is down to just two adequate playoff starters.

 

No one on the trade for Tulo side thinks this is a 1 year deal....yet you keep arguing that line. You think he just SUCKS next year and the year after?

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

Is there a Colorado site that is discussing this trade.     I am guessing they would want Dozier, Gibson, Dozier and Perkins.

This rumor doesn't appear to be on Rockies fans' radar at all.

[jimmer]

 

Yeah, exactly. I thought the point of acquiring Tulo was immediate gratification and wins. If you trade your only above average starter in the process, I struggle to see where the additional wins are found.

Kyle Gibson is a 27 year old 3 WAR player making peanuts.

Troy Tulowitzki is a 30 year old 1.6 WAR player making $20m.

Yet people want to trade those two players? WTF.

Gibson is a 3 WAR player?  Which WAR are you using? Fangraphs says he climbed from 1.1 to 1.3 even after last night's disaster. Nowhere near 3. Tulo has a HISTORY of being great (5.3 WAR each of the previous 2 seasons).  He's shown he's a top quality player. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

They have six starters, yes. One of them can't pitch in the playoffs and two shouldn't pitch in the playoffs.

Remove Gibson and the team is down to just two adequate playoff starters.

So the 2003 Twins shouldn't have traded Lohse for A-Rod either, right?  Oh, the horror!  Only two adequate playoff starters!

 

The Twins have a pile of similar starters for this year's and/or future year's playoffs.  None of them are aces.  I guess if you want to argue the Twins should hand out a Scherzer contract in FA, I could get behind that, but I think that's less likely than the remote possibility we take on Tulo's remaining deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

No one on the trade for Tulo side thinks this is a 1 year deal....yet you keep arguing that line. You think he just SUCKS next year and the year after?

I thought the point was to win in 2015. Are we writing off 2015? The way I see it, the Twins have almost no shot at winning in October with a rotation led by Trevor May and a bullpen with more holes than the Edmund Fitzgerald. The bullpen can be shored up a bit but it'd need to rival KC's pen to overcome that rotation.

 

And that simply isn't going to happen.

[USAFChief]

So you really don't think Buxton and Sano  are going to be that good in 2017?  If Tulo is our best player in 2017, we aren't winning a championship.

I'd be extremely happy if both Buxton and Sano were better than Tulo in 2017.

 

I just wouldn't bet on it. I wouldn't bet on either being better, much less both.

 

BTW, if we aren't winning a championship in 2017 with Tulo as the best player, how the heck are we winning one if he's not even on the team?

[DaveW]

 

I thought the point was to win in 2015. Are we writing off 2015? The way I see it, the Twins have almost no shot at winning in October with a rotation led by Trevor May and a bullpen with more holes than the Edmund Fitzgerald. The bullpen can be shored up a bit but it'd need to rival KC's pen to overcome that rotation.

And that simply isn't going to happen.

The rotation would be led by Phil Hughes who is pitching like his 2014 season again lately, but good try to continue to mistrue the conversation around Gibson/Berrios and Tulo.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Those sweetheart deals usually give more money up front to give the player an incentive to sign.

"More money" relative to league minimum.  It's still just a couple million.  Mike Trout is making $6 mil this year, in basically his fourth full season, and he's the best all-around player in the game.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I thought the point was to win in 2015. Are we writing off 2015? The way I see it, the Twins have almost no shot at winning in October with a rotation led by Trevor May and a bullpen with more holes than the Edmund Fitzgerald.

I like Gibson, but I am pretty sure he has very little effect on our projected playoff series winning percentage over Trevor May.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The rotation would be led by Phil Hughes who is pitching like his 2014 season again lately, but good try to continue to mistrue the conversation around Gibson/Berrios and Tulo.

No, he's not. I like Phil Hughes - I like him a lot - but he's getting by on smoke and mirrors lately. His K% is a full 7.5% lower than his 2014 mark and is 3% lower than Kyle Gibson's, yet Gibson is the "mediocre starter" according to some around here.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I like Gibson, but I am pretty sure he has very little effect on our projected playoff series winning percentage over Trevor May.

Except that's not the issue. Gibson and May aren't interchangeable. Milone/Pelfrey and May are interchangeable.

[jimmer]

May had the best FIP and WAR of any starter in the rotation when he got moved to the pen and still has more WAR than any starter on the team even though he's been out of the rotation for a month.  And he's two years younger than Gibson.

Edited July 22, 2015 by jimmer