Would You Do It?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The answer is zero. The front line starters we are all salivating over (Zimmerman, Price, Cueto, Grienke) will all command long term contracts at $20+ million a year. Price and Grienke I would not be surprised if they got close to $30 million a year....

 

Meanwhile, Sonny Gray is a controlled asset for the next 5 years, and has already proven to be a sub 3 ERA guy in the AL. I know there were comments in the Cueto thread (and not directed towards you Mike) that people were nervous trusting an NL pitcher with limited success in the AL. Well, Gray can alleviate those concerns! 

Gray is only controlled the next 4 seasons.

 

I agree those frontline guys will get $20 mil AAV, for 5-7 years, but that's still within the Twins means.  Heck, 6/138 was what we declined to pay Johan Santana 8 years ago in the Metrodome -- if the bidding for a current frontline guy is anywhere around that now, we can afford to be players if we really want to land a frontline guy this offseason.

[Mike Sixel]

Gray is only controlled the next 4 seasons.

 

I agree those frontline guys will get $20 mil AAV, for 5-7 years, but that's still within the Twins means.  Heck, 6/138 was what we declined to pay Johan Santana 8 years ago in the Metrodome -- if the bidding for a current frontline guy is anywhere around that now, we can afford to be players if we really want to land a frontline guy this offseason.

I'll take the bet they don't sign an elite SP this off season. I also don't see them making this kind of trade. When Ryan next trades an elite prospect, it will be his first time.

[Vanimal46]

 

Gray is only controlled the next 4 seasons.

 

I agree those frontline guys will get $20 mil AAV, for 5-7 years, but that's still within the Twins means.  Heck, 6/138 was what we declined to pay Johan Santana 8 years ago in the Metrodome -- if the bidding for a current frontline guy is anywhere around that now, we can afford to be players if we really want to land a frontline guy this offseason.

 

Read the bold sentence again. Did you mean that the Twins offered him that contract and Johan turned it down? Or that the Twins declined to match that kind of contract? I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

The Twins organization has shown they can change their ways a little bit over the last couple of years with shelling out a more money than normal for mid level starters. But they are still proving that they will not shell out big money to obtain an ace level starter. 

[Shane Wahl]

No way. Berrios is younger, and by 2017 he will be better than Gray.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Change the names to Kyle Gibson and Trevour Plouffe for PSonny Gray and catcher Stephen Voght. If Beane called in this hypothetical world and I would do it. Moves some salary and you acquire a catcher who can replace Plouffe's offense at a position of need and you replace Gibson in the rotation with Gray. Oakland would probably needs some money thrown in or a Max Kepler type of prospect to be added to the deal.

To me that is the framework of a deal. To me that seems like fair value. Plouffe is the kind of player that Beane would than classically spin off for something better, but getting Voght even though he is older would finally help us fill our catching hole.

Beane wouldn't do that, no way. But Terry Ryan would. We'd have to throw a top 5 prospect in a minimum.

[Trevor0333]

Beane is so good at moving these players a year early over a year late that any SP he's game for moving scares me a bit.

 

Also I'm extremely high on Kepler, fair value for what you'd have to give up to get young borderline #1 but I lean no.

 

I'm stuck in the mindset that if a move is being made with top prospects it needs to be at catcher.

[notoriousgod71]

Just wait Beane out. He'll eventually get bored.

[laloesch]

 

Love the straw man part about giving them up for a song and a dance, excellent rhetoric, if poor logic.

If the "he won't be good part" is aimed at me, the odds are LONG that any prospect is as good as Sonny Gray has been for the last three years. Super long. So, yes, I think it is more than 60% likely Berrios is not that good the next three years. Doesn't mean he won't be, but the odds are he won't be one of the 10-20 best SP the next three years.

 

I don't understand your point.  Of course a rookie prospect is not going to be instantly on par with Sonny Gray.  He's had 2.5 seasons at the major league level to get started.    

 

And where do you get this 60% number from?  That statement along with "he won't be one of the 10-20 best SP the next three years, " is just assine.  How do you know?  And are you saying that Sonny Gray is a top 10-20 best starting pitcher in MLB?  

 

Berrios has excelled at every level he's been called up to in a very short period of time.  Whose to say that if he does gets called up next April or early May that he won't have a good rookie season.  In a year or two he could close the perceived skill gap on Sonny very quickly.  

 

Don't get me wrong, Gray is good but there's a lot of very good starters in MLB that will be available soon.   Why give up Berrios and Kepler for a guy that's not been around very long, has a dropping k/9 rate, whose looked quite tired down the stretch in only his third full season and really hasn't put up ace like numbers across the board just yet.  I would be careful how quickly we elevate this kid to "ace status."  Give him a year or two more before trading away the crown jewel of the farm system.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Read the bold sentence again. Did you mean that the Twins offered him that contract and Johan turned it down? Or that the Twins declined to match that kind of contract? I'm leaning towards the latter.

I meant the latter, I thought that was clear?  You don't decline to pay someone an amount by offering to pay them that amount...

 

And I only meant it in terms of salary inflation.  If you are in the market for a frontline starter, and you can get one today for the same price as one 8 years ago, it's probably not a bad deal.  (Given that you are correctly identifying which guys are the frontline starters, of course, not forcing Zito-like deals.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And where do you get this 60% number from?  That sounds more like a straw man argument than my post along with your "he won't be one of the 10-20 best SP the next three years."  How do you know?  Berrios has excelled at every level he has been called up to in a very short period of time.  

Prospects just aren't that predictable, especially pitchers, and especially with zero MLB experience.

 

Even at Berrios' level, 60% of such prospects falling short of Gray's MLB production to date seems reasonable, if anything a tad on the low side.  They are still valuable assets, but if the future success of such prospects was any more certain than that, they would be insanely valuable assets, and you'd see a radically different market around them.

 

That said, I like Berrios, our current SP group, and the FA SP market enough that I'd pass on this proposed deal too.

[laloesch]

 

Prospects just aren't that predictable, especially pitchers, and especially with zero MLB experience.

 

Even at Berrios' level, 60% of such prospects falling short of Gray's MLB production to date seems reasonable, if anything a tad on the low side.  They are still valuable assets, but if the future success of such prospects was any more certain than that, they would be insanely valuable assets, and you'd see a radically different market around them.

 

That said, I like Berrios, our current SP group, and the FA SP market enough that I'd pass on this proposed deal too.

 

Prospects are a crapshoot everyone knows that.  The argument is whether or not the Twins trade one of their best starting pitching prospects to come along in years AND Kepler (who may be overvalued) for a pitcher that only has 2.5 years of major league experience and whose stats have teetered on the edge of good, possibly more.  It's a gamble. Personally, I'd have to see a bit more before biting into a deal like that.  There are too many good pitchers coming available this offseason and the Twins already have a glut of starting pitchers with big contracts that they can't easily rid themselves of.    

 

The 60% number is a fake number.  It's not a stat, it's the straw man argument being made here.   

[laloesch]

 

Check his splits before you go making assumptions. His numbers are even better on the road.

 

 

Depends on which season were talking about here.  In 2015 he was better at home, but in 2014 he was much better on the road.  Coincidence?

[Willihammer]

Yeah I would try like hell to hang onto Berrios. I really think we are due for a pitching prospect to pan out and I get a tingly feeling that he could be The One.

[Mike Sixel]

What percent of pitching prospects, even elite ones, become top SP in the majors. You are correct, 60% does seem like it should be more like 90% likely they don't. My bad.

 

Ignore the exact number.....what is MORE likely, a guy that has been really good for 2.5 years being really good, or someone that has never pitched in the majors being really good?

[laloesch]

 

What percent of pitching prospects, even elite ones, become top SP in the majors. You are correct, 60% does seem like it should be more like 90% likely they don't. My bad.

Ignore the exact number.....what is MORE likely, a guy that has been really good for 2.5 years being really good, or someone that has never pitched in the majors being really good?

 

"Really good?"  Depends on what you mean by "really good."  Does that mean Ace or good/ decent starter? 

 

Certainly the Twins have a need for the former (ace), but the later....well we have several of those already and more on the way.  Again, as I was saying earlier in this thread, posters need to settle down and be careful how quickly they hype up this kid (Sonny Gray), before running out and selling Berrios(probably our best SP prospect to come along in a decade), for a pitcher with only 2.5 years of major league experience.  It would be one thing if Sonny had won 18- 20+ games the past two years, but 14 wins and 10 losses (2014) and 14 wins 7 losses (2015), 7.3 k/9, with a 2.73 era is good but not ace good....yet 

[Mike Sixel]

I don't judge pitchers on a team stat, the pitchers job is to prevent runs. Gray has been very good at that.

[zenser]

Should we be calling David Forst instead of Billy Beane?

[nytwinsfan]

 

I don't judge pitchers on a team stat, the pitchers job is to prevent runs. Gray has been very good at that.

 

I think you mean by this that you judge pitchers by ERA rather than Wins.  If so, I would suggest to you that ERA is a team stat as well, since it includes the effect of good (or bad) defense, not to mention ballpark and luck.  You would be better off using FIP or SIERA.  Under both of those Gray has been a very good pitcher (somewhere between a #2 or #3 starter), but not remotely an Ace.

[dxpavelka]

Remember two weeks ago--when Jake Arrieta had NOT gotten rocked in 2 of 3 post season starts and looked like the best pitcher on the planet?  Things change fast-and could for Gray as well.  I'd stick with the kid we've been waiting for.

 

[kab21]

 

I think you mean by this that you judge pitchers by ERA rather than Wins.  If so, I would suggest to you that ERA is a team stat as well, since it includes the effect of good (or bad) defense, not to mention ballpark and luck.  You would be better off using FIP or SIERA.  Under both of those Gray has been a very good pitcher (somewhere between a #2 or #3 starter), but not remotely an Ace.

Gray was 26th in FIP this year and 29th in xFIP as a 25 yr old.  I think your definitions of #2/3 starters are a bit off.  And he did this before reaching his prime.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Gray was 26th in FIP this year and 29th in xFIP as a 25 yr old.  I think your definitions of #2/3 starters are a bit off.  And he did this before reaching his prime.

 

Over his last 3 years (Gray's entire career) he was 32nd in FIP and 34th in xFIP and SIERA. Also, 32nd in WAR.  Definitions of an "Ace" vary, but they all or almost all agree that there are fewer than 20-25 of them.

 

So actually, your definition is the one that is off:

 

See Keith Law (15-20):  http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49119/mlb-insider-keith-law

"I define "ace" or "number one starter" as "top 15-20 in the game."

 

See Kiley McDaniel: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

"Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s.

 

See John Sickels: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters

"For me, a Number One starter is a guy who anchors your rotation, will be in line for the All-Star game most seasons. . . There aren't a lot of these guys active at any one time, certainly not enough for every team to have one."

 

And this makes sense if you look at WAR totals. Last year, according to Fangraphs, there were only 13 pitchers that were worth 5 WAR or more. Basically, Aces. Then, there were another 19 worth 3 to 5 WAR. So 32 pitchers worth 3 WAR or more last year.  Are you comfortable saying a pitcher worth 8.4 WAR, or on average 2.8 WAR per year over the last three years was a number 2 starter? Borderline, maybe. But not a clear #2. And certainly, without a doubt, NOT an ace.

[dgwills]

I wouldn't do it. A ground ball pitcher like gray does not have a lot of room for error. He certainly has been good, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the wheels come off. I'm also not all that confident in our future outfield, so I would be trading any outfield prospects  at this time. If three of them work out I'd be very happy.

 

[scottz]

I really like Sonny Gray, but I don't think I could do this deal. Kepler plus someone else, OK, but I'd much rather have a rotation with Gray-Berrios in it rather than just Gray. Everyone here knows Berrios has been very good at every level. Everyone here knows he appears to be driven and self-motivated. I want that guy on my team when he hits the major leagues. If it would require Kepler and a pitching prospect, I'd let the A's pick one of Stewart, Thorpe, or Gonsalves, simply because of where they are in the system (i.e., not as close to MLB).

[Mike Sixel]

I really like Sonny Gray, but I don't think I could do this deal. Kepler plus someone else, OK, but I'd much rather have a rotation with Gray-Berrios in it rather than just Gray. Everyone here knows Berrios has been very good at every level. Everyone here knows he appears to be driven and self-motivated. I want that guy on my team when he hits the major leagues. If it would require Kepler and a pitching prospect, I'd let the A's pick one of Stewart, Thorpe, or Gonsalves, simply because of where they are in the system (i.e., not as close to MLB).

Why would the A's do that, though? The beauty of this offer, imo, is that both teams might actually do it.

[scottz]

 

Why would the A's do that, though? The beauty of this offer, imo, is that both teams might actually do it.

 

I agree that the offer as is, is feasible (and that my offer is way less plausible as stated previously.). I guess I'm just saying that I don't want to part with Berrios. I'd rather give up a lesser pitching prospect (and even add in another lesser prospect) to go along with Kepler than trade Berrios and Kepler.

 

Do you think Kepler + Stewart/Thorpe/Gonsalves + add another lesser prospect would be in the same realm of offer that both teams might actually do it?

[Mike Sixel]

It is hard to say. I have had an irrational man crush on Kepler since the beginning, so for me.....

 

Kepler+the next best SP+any minor leaguer they want in the 7+ range, I'd do if I was Oakland (since they won't sign Gray, and they won't be winning next year). But, I am not sure MLB agrees with me on Kepler or not.

[kab21]

 

Over his last 3 years (Gray's entire career) he was 32nd in FIP and 34th in xFIP and SIERA. Also, 32nd in WAR.  Definitions of an "Ace" vary, but they all or almost all agree that there are fewer than 20-25 of them.

 

So actually, your definition is the one that is off:

 

See Keith Law (15-20):  http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49119/mlb-insider-keith-law

"I define "ace" or "number one starter" as "top 15-20 in the game."

 

See Kiley McDaniel: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

"Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s.

 

See John Sickels: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters

"For me, a Number One starter is a guy who anchors your rotation, will be in line for the All-Star game most seasons. . . There aren't a lot of these guys active at any one time, certainly not enough for every team to have one."

 

And this makes sense if you look at WAR totals. Last year, according to Fangraphs, there were only 13 pitchers that were worth 5 WAR or more. Basically, Aces. Then, there were another 19 worth 3 to 5 WAR. So 32 pitchers worth 3 WAR or more last year.  Are you comfortable saying a pitcher worth 8.4 WAR, or on average 2.8 WAR per year over the last three years was a number 2 starter? Borderline, maybe. But not a clear #2. And certainly, without a doubt, NOT an ace.

Did I call him an ace?  I called him an ace-lite (definitely outside of the 10+ no doubt elite pitchers) which is like a good #2 and yes he is a clear #2.  At age 25.  This needs to be repeated.  He has pitched like one of the 30 best pitchers and he is still 25.

 

Your math is also a little iffy.  He hasn't pitched 3 seasons.  He pitched 64 innings his first season and has been worth 3.1 and 3.8 WAR in his full seasons.  That fits squarely into your definition of #2 (3-5 WAR). 

 

It is okay to disagree with trading Berrios but your definitions of top pitchers would rule out acquiring nearly any pitcher unless they cost >200M.  The Twins need to find a way to get 1-2 pitchers that are better than Gibson, Hughes, Santana, Duffey or May.  These guys are good #3/4's and finally the Twins have enough depth that they can be a playoff contender but it is hard to advance when you are matching up Gibson vs Kershaw, Arrieta or Price.  Berrios might be great (I like him A LOT) but great pitching prospects still fail A LOT. 

[Vanimal46]

 

Over his last 3 years (Gray's entire career) he was 32nd in FIP and 34th in xFIP and SIERA. Also, 32nd in WAR.  Definitions of an "Ace" vary, but they all or almost all agree that there are fewer than 20-25 of them.

 

So actually, your definition is the one that is off:

 

See Keith Law (15-20):  http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49119/mlb-insider-keith-law

"I define "ace" or "number one starter" as "top 15-20 in the game."

 

See Kiley McDaniel: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

"Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s.

 

See John Sickels: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters

"For me, a Number One starter is a guy who anchors your rotation, will be in line for the All-Star game most seasons. . . There aren't a lot of these guys active at any one time, certainly not enough for every team to have one."

 

And this makes sense if you look at WAR totals. Last year, according to Fangraphs, there were only 13 pitchers that were worth 5 WAR or more. Basically, Aces. Then, there were another 19 worth 3 to 5 WAR. So 32 pitchers worth 3 WAR or more last year.  Are you comfortable saying a pitcher worth 8.4 WAR, or on average 2.8 WAR per year over the last three years was a number 2 starter? Borderline, maybe. But not a clear #2. And certainly, without a doubt, NOT an ace.

 

So fangraphs has his WAR as 3.8, and baseball reference has his WAR at 5.8. Not sure which is more accurate... Regardless I will stick with Fangraphs for the debate. Gray finished ranked #21 in WAR for all SP this season. Seeing some of the names surrounding his ranking, I would agree that he's not in the elite ace category. However, for the Twins, if they were to acquire him he would be immediately penciled in as the #1 pitcher in our rotation. And that's really what we're looking for at the end of the day right? An upgrade for our current staff? 

 

Trading away Berrios would be a tough pill to swallow right away, but I have my doubts that he would be close to the top 20 in WAR in 2016, maybe even 2017 too. If the Twins want to take the next step and be a 90+ win ballclub, it's going to take moves like this to improve right now. Otherwise there may be a step back in 2016 before there's a giant step forward for the organization. 

[nytwinsfan]

 

Your math is also a little iffy.  He hasn't pitched 3 seasons.  He pitched 64 innings his first season and has been worth 3.1 and 3.8 WAR in his full seasons.  That fits squarely into your definition of #2 (3-5 WAR). 

 

Ok, that's fair. Good point. Still not an Ace, and not clearly a #2 either. I'll grant that he is probably in the #2 range then.

 

So fangraphs has his WAR as 3.8, and baseball reference has his WAR at 5.8. Not sure which is more accurate... Regardless I will stick with Fangraphs for the debate. Gray finished ranked #21 in WAR for all SP this season. Seeing some of the names surrounding his ranking, I would agree that he's not in the elite ace category. However, for the Twins, if they were to acquire him he would be immediately penciled in as the #1 pitcher in our rotation. And that's really what we're looking for at the end of the day right? An upgrade for our current staff? 

 

Trading away Berrios would be a tough pill to swallow right away, but I have my doubts that he would be close to the top 20 in WAR in 2016, maybe even 2017 too. If the Twins want to take the next step and be a 90+ win ballclub, it's going to take moves like this to improve right now. Otherwise there may be a step back in 2016 before there's a giant step forward for the organization. 

I get your point, but playoff baseball is such a crapshoot. There is too much chance involved over such a small sample size. If you want to maximize the number of World Series championships your team wins, I think you basically want to maximize the number of years you are in the playoffs.  I think Berrios and Kepler for 6.75 years each is much more likely to do that than 4 years of Gray.  I think Berrios has a good chance (probably close to 50%) of being a #2 starter or more. Combined with his upside, the value of Kepler, and added service time available for both, I just think it is a no brainer. Berrios for Gray straight up would be a tougher call, but I'd still probably go with Berrios. But in that case I would admit it isn't clear cut.

[kab21]

I guess I would be more concerned about year 1 and 2 than year 5-7. 

 

A pitcher like Gray is a dream trade scenario since he is in arb/min (and underpriced) for the next 4 years.  Berrios looks awesome but a 50% chance of being a #2 still leaves a lot of downside. 

 

Of course Berrios isn't going to be traded and it will be awesome to read the comments in a few years about how people were trying to trade Berrios for anything and how stupid that would have been.