A team should be very cautious about trading the brightest prospects. They are too hard to find and replace.

 

Teams deal from positions of strength, but too often they are only an injury or a bad year from someone to suddenly have a weakness.

Nick Gordon for Iglesias straight up seems fair. I'd make that trade.

id do that deal too. I doubt cincy will

It would take Gordon plus a good pitcher I would think.

Craig Kimbrel is great, but it’s generally considered that Dave Dombrowski overpaid for him. Iglesias is not as good as Kimbrel, but the compensation being discussed seems at least equivalent to what San Diego got from the Red Sox for Kimbrel. That doesn’t make sense. Also, the Twins should ask themselves whether Romero could become Iglesias in the near future.

 

 Also, the Twins should ask themselves whether Romero could become Iglesias in the near future.

That's a really good point.

I could see the Twins trading for him if it is one quality position prospect with couple of low a to rookie league pitching prospects thrown in for hime or like some have been saying trading away dollars on international signing for some other prospect that cin would covet. But if we start talking several of top prospects than i think were way over paying should look else where for help.

Interesting idea on Iglesias. I know some want better starting pitching, but I think more and more teams are taking a different approach just because shutdown starting pitching is so tough to come by. KC kind of showed the blueprint two years ago and I think the Yankees are also taking this approach...they look to their starting pitching for 5-6 innings and just don't want to get blown up. After that, they bring in shutdown reliever after shutdown reliever and effectively shorten the game for the other team (basically, they have 5-6 innings to score). They win innings 6-8. I really think you are going to see more and more teams take this approach.

.

 

I've been interested in, and a supporter of, unconventional approaches to managing a pitching staff.

 

For example, with a mountain of data out there demonstrating that pitchers generally get worse the second and third time through the order, why do managers allow pitchers to throw to the same batter twice?

 

"Bullpen games" all the time make a lot of sense to me. There are obviously exceptions like Kershaw and Kluber that you may be able to statistically justify running out there multiple times. But, outside of that, it seems to me that you'll get more outs (higher out to batters faced ratio) by using pitchers more often with fewer innings in a "start,". But, maybe my logic is all wrong.

No way do I send anything to help the Yankees unless top pitching prospects are involved.

I concur. But, they have what we want: young pitching. And we have what they might need: international singing money. I agree this would be a “ hold your nose” deal, but the Great Satan does have some nice pieces.

 

Craig Kimbrel is great, but it’s generally considered that Dave Dombrowski overpaid for him. Iglesias is not as good as Kimbrel, but the compensation being discussed seems at least equivalent to what San Diego got from the Red Sox for Kimbrel. That doesn’t make sense. Also, the Twins should ask themselves whether Romero could become Iglesias in the near future.

They gave up a defensive CF blocked by an All Star, a potentially good SS, a mediocre 2b and a lotery ticket.  Maybe in a few years it will look bad, depends on how long Kimbrell plays for the Sox and if they get a ring.

 

 

I one thing the Twins have that the Yankees want is (are) international signing dollars for the Great Otani Sweepstakes. I could see $1 or $1.5 million moving. Of course this would mean trading to The Great Satan.

 Adama, Sheffield and Acevado for the pool money. Maybe make them throw in Guzman.

 

Nick Gordon for Iglesias straight up seems fair. I'd make that trade.

Agreed, but I think they'd probably want something at least a bit more.

They gave up a defensive CF blocked by an All Star, a potentially good SS, a mediocre 2b and a lotery ticket.  Maybe in a few years it will look bad, depends on how long Kimbrell plays for the Sox and if they get a ring.

Ok, but that’s the point - even with the outcomes you mention, it was considered an overpay and the discussions about Iglesias, a lesser pitcher, have the Twins paying more.

.

 

I've been interested in, and a supporter of, unconventional approaches to managing a pitching staff.

 

For example, with a mountain of data out there demonstrating that pitchers generally get worse the second and third time through the order, why do managers allow pitchers to throw to the same batter twice?

 

"Bullpen games" all the time make a lot of sense to me. There are obviously exceptions like Kershaw and Kluber that you may be able to statistically justify running out there multiple times. But, outside of that, it seems to me that you'll get more outs (higher out to batters faced ratio) by using pitchers more often with fewer innings in a "start,". But, maybe my logic is all wrong.

This is a great approach for the post season, but I don't think it would be sustainable over a 162 game schedule.

 

Ok, but that’s the point - even with the outcomes you mention, it was considered an overpay and the discussions about Iglesias, a lesser pitcher, have the Twins paying more.

Compared to the Chapman and Miller trades it was not an overpay.  Maybe the Giles trade because people were slow to accept that Appel was a raisin. You are right that Raisel is no Kimbrel, or Miller or Chapman.  The trade to look at is Davis for Soler. The unfortunate part for the Twins is that the Reds are likely to think that the return should be like the former, not the later.  Over valuing you player is not new, see Brad Hand still being a Padre.  Just Gordon would be an underpay, a couple of low ranked prospects thrown in would be the norm. Graterol has too high of ceiling but is also so far away that I doubt that he wold be considered. A third piece would be of the low minors, but not as high of a ceiling

 

 

 

That's a really good point.

Why not have both?

Compared to the Chapman and Miller trades it was not an overpay.  Maybe the Giles trade because people were slow to accept that Appel was a raisin. You are right that Raisel is no Kimbrel, or Miller or Chapman.  The trade to look at is Davis for Soler. The unfortunate part for the Twins is that the Reds are likely to think that the return should be like the former, not the later.  Over valuing you player is not new, see Brad Hand still being a Padre.  Just Gordon would be an underpay, a couple of low ranked prospects thrown in would be the norm. Graterol has too high of ceiling but is also so far away that I doubt that he wold be considered. A third piece would be of the low minors, but not as high of a ceiling

Good points, but mid-season trades for the final piece are often more expensive.