Article: Twins, Rockies Talk Tulowitzki

[USAFChief]

I think Terry Ryan, and some of the posters here tend to have "Loss Aversion Bias":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

 

This is where people prefer to avoid losses rather than attempt to make a gain. Ryan is pretty risk-adverse, and pulling the trigger on a deal for Tulowitzki was frought with potential losses. It's pretty easy to just focus on the potential downside and not consider the potential benefit. 

 

Water under the bridge at this point, but for me, if you have a chance to acquire one of the top players at his position without giving up one of your cornerstone building blocks, I'd do it every time. I prefer to look at what may be gained rather than what I'm losing. I'm weird that way, I guess.

Concur. Strongly.

 

You've stated much more clearly the point my feeble mind was trying to make about "thinking big" vs "thinking small."

[whydidnt]

 

Probably not a radical position to think people weigh costs and benefits differently.

 

Plus it's much easier to be reckless in thought when there are no consequences.

The lack of consequences isn't the point. The point is that many people tend to overvalue the potential loss and undervalue the potential gain. In other words they aren't looking at the potential end results from a fair perspective. Their judgement is clouded because they worry more about losing something than gaining something. It's not a character flaw, it's just part of the human make-up.

 

It's been scientifically proven that people do this all the time. I think how Ryan runs the Twins in general reflects this bias. 

[drjim]

 

The lack of consequences isn't the point. The point is that many people tend to overvalue the potential loss and undervalue the potential gain. In other words they aren't looking at the potential end results from a fair perspective. Their judgement is clouded because they worry more about losing something than gaining something. It's not a character flaw, it's just part of the human make-up.

 

It's been scientifically proven that people do this all the time. I think how Ryan runs the Twins in general reflects this bias. 

 

The consequences are 100% the point.

 

There is no potential loss by people on this board for calling for an aggressive move so it is basically impossible to consider loss aversion. If Ryan actually executes it and it backfires he loses his job, perhaps permanently.

 

Also explains why Toronto did it, if they don't make the playoffs the GM is likely fired, so he really has nothing to lose. If it backfires and he gets fired someone else can clean up his mess.

 

Incentives, perverse and otherwise, all around.

[whydidnt]

 

The consequences are 100% the point.

 

There is no potential loss by people on this board for calling for an aggressive move so it is basically impossible to consider loss aversion. If Ryan actually executes it and it backfires he loses his job, perhaps permanently.

 

Also explains why Toronto did it, if they don't make the playoffs the GM is likely fired, so he really has nothing to lose. If it backfires and he gets fired someone else can clean up his mess.

 

Incentives, perverse and otherwise, all around.

 

All of what you say may be true, but have nothing to do with the fact that Ryan is practicing Loss Aversion Bias by not dealing for Tulowitzki. By your reasoning, there is also nothing for those on this board to gain by making the deal, since we aren't the ones that will directly benefit (or lose) by ANY move the Twins make or don't make. Seems we've made it through almost 600 posts from people who receive no direct benefit and suffer no consequences from Ryan's moves, yet people still care enough to visit and post their opinion. 

 

AND what you say kind of proves my point. Ryan could lose his job by making this trade, so why should regardless of the potential gain? In other words he's more focused on the potential negative than the potential positive.

Edited July 29, 2015 by whydidnt

[Mike Sixel]

TR losing his job? hahahahahahahahaha

[drjim]

 

All of what you say may be true, but have nothing to do with the fact that Ryan is practicing Loss Aversion Bias by not dealing for Tulowitzki. By your reasoning, there is also nothing for those on this board to gain by making the deal, since we aren't the ones that will directly benefit (or lose) by ANY move the Twins make or don't make. Seems we've made it through almost 600 posts from people who receive no direct benefit and suffer no consequences from Ryan's moves, yet people still care enough to visit and post their opinion. 

 

AND what you say kind of proves my point. Ryan could lose his job by making this trade, so why should regardless of the potential gain? In other words he's more focused on the potential negative than the potential positive.

 

Weighing the potential negative higher than the potential positive might just be prudent and accurate. Same with any decision.

 

Just because you and other don't agree with the decision doesn't mean Terry Ryan necessarily is practicing Loss Aversion, you might just be wrong in your calculations.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Weighing the potential negative higher than the potential positive might just be prudent and accurate. Same with any decision.

 

Just because you and other don't agree with the decision doesn't mean Terry Ryan necessarily is practicing Loss Aversion, you might just be wrong in your calculations.

 

so might Terry, since, as we know, he's never gone big on a trade. He's never signed an ELITE player to a huge contract. he's never signed a Cuban FA. It's a pattern, not a one time thing.

 

[tobi0040]

 

so might Terry, since, as we know, he's never gone big on a trade. He's never signed an ELITE player to a huge contract. he's never signed a Cuban FA. It's a pattern, not a one time thing.

 

Terry has gone all in a few times on HUGE trades.

 

Mulvey for Rauch in 2009?

 

Ramon Ortiz for Matt Macri in 2007?

 

Moving the chips in the middle.  You gotta pay to play is his motto.

[nicksaviking]

 

The Royals started trading the farm when they sent Myer and Odirizzi to TB for Shields...a move they were widely criticized for here, because they weren't "ready to win." And SIX YEARS of Will Myer!

 

Yes, and the Twins aren't even to that point.  The young Royals core players Perez, Cain, Hosmer, Goron, Butler and Moustakas all had more than a few months under their belts and their bullpen wasn't half the disaster the Twins is.

[nicksaviking]

 

Will be interesting to see how he does going forward and if the Twins blew it.

 

The Twins might have blown it.  It's going to be hard to tell though as going to Toronto and hitting in that ballpark and among those sluggers is probably the next best thing to Coors Field.  Heck, it might be better than Coors Field.

 

I'll definately concede I was wrong though if his offense is passable and he can still play SS the last couple years of that contract. 

[jimmer]

 

Terry has gone all in a few times on HUGE trades.

 

Mulvey for Rauch in 2009?

 

Ramon Ortiz for Matt Macri in 2007?

 

Moving the chips in the middle.  You gotta pay to play is his motto.

I know this is sarcasm, but Terry wasn't even GM then, so we can't even count those. He DID trade Castillo while we still had an outside shot though so Casilla could be our 2B.  Basically waiving the white flag two months early.

 

But hey,must not have been the right time to actually go and get help instead of bailing.  We certainly hadn't shown we had the makings of a playoff team, what with just having won the division the year before (and the two years before that). Certainly trading away Castillo, instead of going to get help, had no effect on moral on the team when he did that.

Edited July 29, 2015 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

You'd rather the Twins fail than succeed? I don't buy this for a second.

 

They get Tulo, doesn't get them quite over the hump, hamstrings them from making other moves, then people complain that they don't do anything.

 

I ran this by a couple of my non-Twins fans but savvy baseball guys and they chuckled at the thought. Made no sense in their mind from any angle other than the purely emotional.

I see Chief already clarified, but I would add that when you artificially limit your goals (i.e. we can't compete this year anyway), then "succeeding" at those goals can indeed be worse than failing to achieve a different, higher set of goals.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

In hindsight, I wonder if Colorado might have accepted a deal for Tulo in exchange for something like Trevor May, Danny Santana, and one of our can't miss pitching prospects in A ball who are nevertheless 24 years old but still in A ball. Tulowitzki would be a nice bridge to Nick Gordon. Not to mention when he's on the field he's perhaps the very best there is at the position.

 

Not to mention, this whole rumor got started because supposedly Dozier and Tulowitzki hit it off great together at the All Star game, and the Twins openly state that chemistry is an important factor in their roster construction.

 

*sigh*

[tobi0040]

 

In hindsight, I wonder if Colorado might have accepted a deal for Tulo in exchange for something like Trevor May, Danny Santana, and one of our can't miss pitching prospects in A ball who are nevertheless 24 years old but still in A ball. Tulowitzki would be a nice bridge to Nick Gordon. Not to mention when he's on the field he's perhaps the very best there is at the position.

Not to mention, this whole rumor got started because supposedly Dozier and Tulowitzki hit it off great together at the All Star game, and the Twins openly state that chemistry is an important factor in their roster construction.

*sigh*

 

May, Santana, and Gonsalves was superior to what they got, IMO.  Gonsalves alone could be ranked where the top prospect in that deal was (#80 or so).

 

They would have asked for Polanco instead of Santana and that package too would have been much better

 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by tobi0040

[drjim]

I see Chief already clarified, but I would add that when you artificially limit your goals (i.e. we can't compete this year anyway), then "succeeding" at those goals can indeed be worse than failing to achieve a different, higher set of goals.

How did I limit goals?

[jimmer]

Tulo's debut with his new team: 3-5, 2 2Bs, 1 HR. Congrats Tulo!

[Otto von Ballpark]

How did I limit goals?

Not saying you did, just further exploring how it might be better to "fail" sometimes than to "succeed". Ultmately it would be the Twins setting the more modest goals.

[drjim]

Not saying you did, just further exploring how it might be better to "fail" sometimes than to "succeed". Ultmately it would be the Twins setting the more modest goals.

I think realistic goals is to be in the hunt for the playoffs most seasons and then to aggressively push when the opportunity presents itself.

 

They are well aligned for the first part going forward and don't think this is the year for the second part.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think realistic goals is to be in the hunt for the playoffs most seasons and then to aggressively push when the opportunity presents itself.

They are well aligned for the first part going forward and don't think this is the year for the second part.

 

I think this is a totally reasonable stance. the trades I favor(ed) are/were for guys with 2+ years of control left, not rentals.

[AlwaysinModeration]

I think the Shields-Myers trade comparison is a pretty bad comparison. Myers was a top-10 or top-5 prospect, and Shields, who is good, bad not great, only had a year and a month left.

 

Tulo is the best player at an up-the-middle position, with five years of team control.

 

People criticized that Shields trade because it was lopsided. If Terry Ryan traded Miguel Sano for 1.5 years of Jhonny Peralta, they would criticize that too.

[Otto von Ballpark]

FYI, it was an off season deal, so Shields had 2 full years of control by KC.

[USAFChief]

I think the Shields-Myers trade comparison is a pretty bad comparison. Myers was a top-10 or top-5 prospect, and Shields, who is good, bad not great, only had a year and a month left.

Tulo is the best player at an up-the-middle position, with five years of team control.

People criticized that Shields trade because it was lopsided. If Terry Ryan traded Miguel Sano for 1.5 years of Jhonny Peralta, they would criticize that too.

Was it really lopsided? Or did many people who assume top prospects are always better than established major leaguers just think it was lopsided?

[drjim]

 

Was it really lopsided? Or did many people who assume top prospects are always better than established major leaguers just think it was lopsided?

 

Clearly in hindsight it wasn't lopsided, and for many it wasn't considered lopsided at the time.

 

Part of the value was that Shields only had 2 years left, so they wouldn't be paying big money for a diminished player like people think will be the case with Tulo in a couple of years.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Was it really lopsided? Or did many people who assume top prospects are always better than established major leaguers just think it was lopsided?

Touché. Shields put up 7.4 WAR for KC in two seasons. Myers didn't do much so far (but still could post more than 7.4).

 

If the Twins trade Sano, people would flip out.

[Jham]

 

Touché. Shields put up 7.4 WAR for KC in two seasons. Myers didn't do much so far (but still could post more than 7.4).

If the Twins trade Sano, people would flip out.

 

Well did the Royals luck out that Myers didn't develop into a star, or did they perhaps not have him rated as a top 5 prospect like others?  

 

I like to think of the Delmon trade as perfect example.   He was one of the biggest prospects in the game.  But I suppose if you really looked hard at stats and actually watched him play (eye test), you'd see that he was...  unconventional.  Probably same thing with Alex Meyer.  Smart GM's can take advantage of the fact that prospect lists are typically slow to change because talent evaluators, other GM's, and forum posters alike, all hate to admit they were wrong.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well did the Royals luck out that Myers didn't develop into a star, or did they perhaps not have him rated as a top 5 prospect like others?

 

I like to think of the Delmon trade as perfect example. He was one of the biggest prospects in the game. But I suppose if you really looked hard at stats and actually watched him play (eye test), you'd see that he was... unconventional. Probably same thing with Alex Meyer. Smart GM's can take advantage of the fact that prospect lists are typically slow to change because talent evaluators, other GM's, and forum posters alike, all hate to admit they were wrong.

I agree that some prospects are overrated and with a determining eye, a GM might be able to spot those players.

 

Demon was one of those players.

 

Myers is definitely NOT one of those players. His problems are injury related, not some critical flaw in his game. Myers had a 131 OPS+ his rookie season. He had a 121 OPS+ this season before the injury. When he's on the field and healthy, he's a damned good player. The problem is he can't stay on the field and no GM has a crystal ball that clear.

 

Meyer might be one of those players but given how everyone knew he was risky going into the deal, I don't believe that's the case. Meyer was a guy you roll the dice on and hope it works out.

[Mike Sixel]

Meyers is 6 foot 9. List the players not named Randy Johnson that have been good pitchers at that height........I'll wait.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Meyers is 6 foot 9. List the players not named Randy Johnson that have been good pitchers at that height........I'll wait.

My point is that the risk in Meyer was so obvious that everybody knew the situation going into the deal.

 

Given his potential upside, maybe you still roll the dice on that player. We often criticize the Twins for taking the safe deal instead of taking a risk on bigger upside. Meyer was the opposite of a safe deal. Unfortunately, it didn't work out but that's why I don't bash the team for the trade. They gambled on big upside and it looks like they lost (though there's still small hope he turns it around).

[Mike Sixel]

 

My point is that the risk in Meyer was so obvious that everybody knew the situation going into the deal.

 

Given his potential upside, maybe you still roll the dice on that player. We often criticize the Twins for taking the safe deal instead of taking a risk on bigger upside. Meyer was the opposite of a safe deal. Unfortunately, it didn't work out but that's why I don't bash the team for the trade. They gambled on big upside and it looks like they lost (though there's still small hope he turns it around).

 

they placed a very bad bet, given what we know about tall pitchers, imo. As I said at the time, the idea is good, but needs to be judged on how good Meyer turns out. Had I known the history of tall pitchers, I would have ripped it mercilessly at the time.

[USAFChief]

I think Meyer was (still is?) worth the gamble.  But it might be fair to say for a player like Span, they should have gotten another player maybe?

 

Touché. Shields put up 7.4 WAR for KC in two seasons. Myers didn't do much so far (but still could post more than 7.4).

If the Twins trade Sano, people would flip out.

Concur.

 

Myers looks like he can hit.  KC also got more from the deal than just Shields.  TB got more than just Myers, for that matter.

 

I think the overall point though, is that "lopsided" was probably always an unfair description of that trade.