Article: The Time to Trade Kyle Gibson Is Now

[Mr. Brooks]

Addison Reed came to Minnesota cause its closer to his wifes family. Being 500 miles or less most of the time is better than 2000 right?

It's possible, I suppose.

If I had to guess, I'd think that's not a high priority for most players, even if it was for Reed.

[Monkeypaws]

a. I agree with maximizing value.

 

b. I also agree that one should trade from surplus not weakness; this is not surplus.

 

c. I agree that rewarding success with trades for prospects = more losing years.

 

As the core we were supposed to rebuild around flails away, hard to argue with a. 

 

However, I'd rather be done with the recently acquired, the Lynns and Morrisons, rather than Gibson.

 

Falvine's strategy was good, but the nucleus of "budding stars" let the whole team down. Dump the whole bunch of FAs acquired from last off-season and try again next year. Gibson has some long-term value. Lynn, Morrison, Duke, even Reed, they could probably be replaced internally, even though the pitchers have be at least not a wholesale disaster.

 

I am among those who believe that Gibson has arrived, and wouldn't trade him before any of the aforementioned, and certainly not for futures. If Buxton and Sano turn it around, right back where they started from with a clean slate and bunches of money to spend next year.

[Doomtints]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We can't trade everyone. We already have 6 or more tradeable pieces. How much less will he be worth 1 year from now. Keep him and look towards 2019. Not dump everyone and look towards 2021.

 

If we trade everyone people suggest we'd be dumping 7 or 8 guys, getting 12 + prospects back in return and then having to release guys in the minors we might still like.

 

Or the team could address some of those concerns in the types of talents they target.  Trading Gibson for Sheffield (just as an example) basically changes nothing other than swapping the two players on the 40 man.  

 

The team has held on to talents far too many times, only to see them crumble into a valueless commodity we're all able to wash our hands of later.  And Gibson may be the most valuable chip we bring to the table.  You don't have to deal him, but you sure as hell better shop him.

[wabene]

I see Gibby as a late bloomer. He doesn't have a ton of mileage on that bionic arm. Got that frame. This isn't a guy like Meyer who always is arm weary. He's hitting 94 with the 4 seamer now with an easy motion. With this new approach I think he goes on a good run to fully establish the former 1st round pick.

[howeda7]

 

Or the team could address some of those concerns in the types of talents they target.  Trading Gibson for Sheffield (just as an example) basically changes nothing other than swapping the two players on the 40 man.  

 

The team has held on to talents far too many times, only to see them crumble into a valueless commodity we're all able to wash our hands of later.  And Gibson may be the most valuable chip we bring to the table.  You don't have to deal him, but you sure as hell better shop him.

Sure. If someone calls and offers you a top 10 prospect from their system, fine. But that's unlikely.  Far more important to shop the 6-7 guys who aren't under team control for next year or have options we won't pick up.

[Doomtints]

 

I see Gibby as a late bloomer. He doesn't have a ton of mileage on that bionic arm. Got that frame. This isn't a guy like Meyer who always is arm weary. He's hitting 94 with the 4 seamer now with an easy motion. With this new approach I think he goes on a good run to fully establish the former 1st round pick.

 

Yes. Historically, the Twins Way has been to get young guys and older guys, but fully miss that time in the middle when the player is actually above average.

 

Many Twins fans follow that ideal too, not sure why.

 

I can fully buy into it that Gibson is a late bloomer. It happens. He doesn't look that different on the mound, he's just pacing himself so he doesn't run out of gas in the 4th or 5th!

 

If the Twins have a teamful of Gibsons, yes, by all means, trade the guy. But:

 

- all but one of the starters are worse than him

- all but two of the starters won't be around much longer

- many of the starters are older than he is

- he is a bargain at his salary.

 

There's just no good reason to trade him.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure. If someone calls and offers you a top 10 prospect from their system, fine. But that's unlikely.  Far more important to shop the 6-7 guys who aren't under team control for next year or have options we won't pick up.

 

You're talking about shopping all the guys that are unlikely to get any attention or interest at all.  If you want to hand them away, that's fine, but it seems odd to me to assert how important and valuable Gibson is to 2019 and also assert he's worthless on the trade market.

 

Likely to be the case that one of those two opinions is false.  Gibson has been good (and his analytics are solid) and has control.  He'll be a valuable chip.  Lynn and LoMo?  You'll be lucky if people answer the phone.

[Rigby]

 

The idea of "trading high" sounds plausible, and people jump on that band wagon so as to appear smart and savvy. But if you keep trading off your good players, just because they now have better value, pretty soon you are Calvin Griffith.  

 

He had a 1965 team that should have won several world series titles, but he sold them off, one at a time. It is the same mentality... and it has nothing to do with winning.   

 

 

Nah, Griffith started trading his stars after the advent of free agency in the 1970's. Several things conspired to derail the 1965 team in the following years. Age was starting to claim Battey, Allison and Pascual. Performance decline from Grant, Hall and Versalles. Injuries to Harmon in 1968 and Chance in 1969 (and later to Oliva, Kaat and Boswell) impacted the team as well. That being said, they were so close in 1967, 1969 and 1970. Without a couple of these issues and Baltimore's staff a bit less dominant, things may have been turned out differently.

[Jham]

A short but true story about Kyle Gibson (&Dozier). In 2016 my son who has some special needs and I were at the Big A to watch the Twins and Angels. We were near the field on the first base side and my son was hoping to get a ball or autograph. He and I were kitted out in Twins gear. He was not able to get near the field due to 3 rows of eager Angels fans and given his challenges is not very assertive. Kyle Gibson is the starting pitcher that night and he is walking with Kurt Suzuki in from the bullpen. He hears all of the kids yelling and looks over in that direction. He then turns from his path with Suzuki and approaches the seats. He has one ball and 50 kids are yelling for it. He gets them to quiet down and waves his arms like Moses parting the sea and the kids split apart. He points up to my son and tells him the ball is for him and tosses it over. Dozier then strolls by and calls my son over to sign the ball. This happens right before the National Anthem and the start of the game. I have watched hundreds of baseball games and have never seen MLB players interact with a fan near game time. My son still refers to that day as the best day of his life. Those guys will always be our heroes.

This is an awesome story. Thanks for sharing. There are a lot of reasons to love baseball and cheer for the Twins even when titles and pennants aren't within reach.

[h2oface]

Times have sure changed.

 

Nah, Griffith started trading his stars after the advent of free agency in the 1970's. Several things conspired to derail the 1965 team in the following years. Age was starting to claim Battey, Allison and Pascual. Performance decline from Grant, Hall and Versalles. Injuries to Harmon in 1968 and Chance in 1969 (and later to Oliva, Kaat and Boswell) impacted the team as well. That being said, they were so close in 1967, 1969 and 1970. Without a couple of these issues and Baltimore's staff a bit less dominant, things may have been turned out differently.

 

From what I am reading on this thread...... most would have traded that whole team as they aged. Now how smart would that have been. Personally, it was one of my favorite times, because the team stayed together. That, and I was a teenager from 65-70, and loved baseball.

Edited July 4, 2018 by h2oface

[Mike Sixel]

The idea of "trading high" sounds plausible, and people jump on that band wagon so as to appear smart and savvy. But if you keep trading off your good players, just because they now have better value, pretty soon you are Calvin Griffith.

 

He had a 1965 team that should have won several world series titles, but he sold them off, one at a time. It is the same mentality... and it has nothing to do with winning.

 

The way to win a title is to identify your solid and dependable core players who are winners and have heart, guys like Kirby, Rex, Bruno and Rat, then surround them with guys who are solid role players, guys like Gladden and Gagne, Lombo, and Chili.

 

The idea that all players are basically fungible and that we need to focus on metrics is illusory. Statistical analysis has its place, but it is only a part of a total analysis. The idea of trading a good player for a shiny new pebble shows a complete lack of understanding of what makes a winning team in the first place. You want a bunch of guys who like playing the game and like playing together as a team. You need chemistry. Every championship team has it. And you don't develop chemistry by thinking of your players as a pile of stats.

 

The revolving door is what losers do in trying to imitate winners. But that is NOT what the winners do. They build a solid foundation of core players who have guts and desire, and add players who fit that mold.

They build that solid core by trading players for more players. Like Houston did.

 

Absolutely trade him, unless you are signing Machado and trading for a catcher. So, yes, trade him.

[Rosterman]

Wasn't it before the 2017 season that members here were crying loudly that the Twins should not offer arbitration to Kyle Gibson, basically non-tender the guy?

 

He's 30 going on 31. Next season he could cost %8 million easily. The Twins, this season, have a bargain. Next year, well, we wouldn't know until he would pitch.

 

Here's the rub. He could help out a team contending this season. That team could also have a chance of him replicating his recent success.

 

The Twins don't necessarily need to pay $8-9 million for that gamble, considering the overall track record, the abundance of starters IF THEY ARE in a rebuilding mode, or even if they aren't, they would have more than enough money to spend on a 3-5 year BIG contract and or a couple of medium-sized offers.

 

Better yet, the question you need to ask...would you resign KYLE GIBSON today for a 2-3 year extension and for how much. $35 million? An option year? Or would you rather say, sorry, no.

 

Is he another Kevin Tapani? Is he another Brad Radke? No, he's Kyle Gibson, and he does have material worth in the playing field. As does Eddie Rosario, another player that we all often speak ill of in regards to hitting discipline or outfield play.

 

In the case of Gibson, you hang on and hope he starts 2019 well. But he would be a free agent at series end and get us the same as...well, name it. If he does bad, you might get a waiver claim in August and can choose to rid yourself of the remaining salary if you can't get a prospect, very minor, in return. We have another of those possibilities this season.

 

Next year we have Odorizzi and Pineda both in the rotation. Both will be potential free agents at the end of the season. Okay, we want to add a third, more expensive name to that list?

 

We have Romero and Berrios anchoring the staff. We have the usual band of suspects currently on the 40-man and names like Stewart and Gonsalves not. Plus maybe a dark horse candidate who will end the season with the Lookouts giving a run as a replacement for any parting players.

 

Trevor May is also out there in the mix.

 

And the ability to spend money on free agent rotation arms (NOT bullpen arms, hopefully).

 

Sometimes, you strike when a player is running a bit high (be it Hicks, Revere, Span, Carlos Gomez...all those centerfielders...but, STILL, what did they really bring us in return,.

 

Or we do the DDelmon Young thing, don't sell. And look at what happens.

 

Of course so many factors go into a trade. 

 

If we get something of value, depth from another team that can afford to give us a corner infielder prospect, a down-the-line rotation arm, maybe a catcher blocked (shades of Wilson Ramos). You do it.

 

We were all applauding the chance of just cutting him loose awhile back. Basically NOT disappointed when he was sent to the minors and perfectly content if he was another Joe Mays or nick Blackburn WITHOUT the big contract, so to speak.

 

The Twins of 2017 had a decent year with a good palce in the central divsiion as well as making the Wild Card. It was more of a fluke, so to speak. And the front office strayed from rebuiling to build on some possible momentum for that finish by spending to a record payroll, hoping to fill the seats at least for the beginning of the season, as well as building the season ticket base, which is what the other half of the front office desires. You can't sell a bottom rung rebuilding team.

 

We saw some changes in the front office,  a good revamp of the minor league training gang, and working to put together a field staff with Manager of the Year Paul Molitor...who would've cried FOUL if the MOY was fired?

 

But back to Gibson, TRADE. You should be able to dangle, starting right now, and possibly pull a good return sooner rather than waiting until the last day of the deadline.

 

Most of the other Twin tradeable assets will be put on waivers in August and if someone will take them, you pretty much SHOULD let them go to save money (which the front office likes) and also allow you to fully play the future.

 

[Kelly Vance]

No way I trade the Gibber.

 

 

[Kelly Vance]

 

I was never a Gibson believer until two off seasons ago when I thought the new front office would fix his poor sinker/high contact approach. It took longer than it should have to fix but it looks like he's finally there.

But he's waaaaay too old to extend and this team's a complete mess. If you can trade one and a half years of control of Gibson for top end prospects I do it. I don't think this team goes anywhere under Molitor and I doubt he gets canned after this year with two more years in his contract.

Shut up..... but you are right

[Kelly Vance]

 

Nah, Griffith started trading his stars after the advent of free agency in the 1970's. Several things conspired to derail the 1965 team in the following years. Age was starting to claim Battey, Allison and Pascual. Performance decline from Grant, Hall and Versalles. Injuries to Harmon in 1968 and Chance in 1969 (and later to Oliva, Kaat and Boswell) impacted the team as well. That being said, they were so close in 1967, 1969 and 1970. Without a couple of these issues and Baltimore's staff a bit less dominant, things may have been turned out differently.

Water under the bridge, but they had the means to compete deep in 66, 67, and less so in 68. Killer got hurt mid season. The 69 Birds were unbelievable. My point was, don't treat the team like a bunch of cattle. (I know, herd of cattle is the proper categorization) 

[Kelly Vance]

So keep the Gibber.

I'm going to the fridge, anybody wanna beer?

[Major League Ready]

 

 

 

Prospects are fools gold more often than not

 

There are 4 incredibly elite teams right now in the AL. They were all built primarily around prospects. Obviously, the Yankees and Redsox used their considerable revenue advantage to add even more established talent. I would add that if you look at the rebuild of mid or small market teams there is generally a component of selling off top talent for prospects. KC traded Greinke for Cain and Escobar. Houston traded every player they had with any tenure. Their entire payroll got down to around $30M. Oakland amassed the best record over the past 25 years of any team outside the top 10 in revenue and better than some top 10 teams by trading very good players for prospects. Same is true in Basketball even though they have a salary cap. 

 

Front offices are evolving. They are hiring staff with the education and experience to use hard data and build operating models. The new FO is not going to follow sentiment. In the case of mid and small market teams they understand the financial realities that many fans simply will not accept. The FA market last year was witness to their understanding of building through prospects and the handful of incredibly good teams dominating MLB is glaring proof of the need to build around prospects.

 

If the Twins or any other mid market team do a great job acquiring and developing prospects, they will have enough payroll to add (not keep) proven talent. They can't afford a JCS or to build an entire SP staff like Boston but they can add significant talent.  You keep the talent once you are in a window of contention. To continue to look at this team as a contender is "fool's gold".

Edited July 4, 2018 by Major Leauge Ready

[Riverbrian]

We could use some offense for 2019.

 

It will be a challenge to fill all the open spots via Free Agency.

 

Gonna have to acquire some decent talent via trade. 

[Jham]

There are 4 incredibly elite teams right now in the AL. They were all built primarily around prospects. Obviously, the Yankees and Redsox used their considerable revenue advantage to add even more established talent. I would add that if you look at the rebuild of mid or small market teams there is generally a component of selling off top talent for prospects. KC traded Greinke for Cain and Escobar. Houston traded every player they had with any tenure. Their entire payroll got down to around $30M. Oakland amassed the best record over the past 25 years of any team outside the top 10 in revenue and better than some top 10 teams by trading very good players for prospects. Same is true in Basketball even though they have a salary cap.

 

Front offices are evolving. They are hiring staff with the education and experience to use hard data and build operating models. The new FO is not going to follow sentiment. In the case of mid and small market teams they understand the financial realities that many fans simply will not accept. The FA market last year was witness to their understanding of building through prospects and the handful of incredibly good teams dominating MLB is glaring proof of the need to build around prospects.

 

If the Twins or any other mid market team do a great job acquiring and developing prospects, they will have enough payroll to add (not keep) proven talent. They can't afford a JCS or to build an entire SP staff like Boston but they can add significant talent. You keep the talent once you are in a window of contention. To continue to look at this team as a contender is "fool's gold".

Who exactly are we talking about that was traded and netted a major contributor? The Indians are the only team you referenced who was remotely built though trade. And that is because they had a CC, Cliff Lee, and Jake Westbrook (ditto Zack Greinke) to trade (returning Brantley, Carrasco and Kluber). That's a long wait for return on investment. Shin Soo Choo returned Shaw and Trevor Bauer which is really the only players I could come up with. The As have been irrelevant for a decade. And all other 4 teams you referenced have this in common: lots of hits on high draft picks and international FA signings plus a willingness to take risks by signing big free agents and trading away prospects.

 

Yankees don't get Gleyber Torres from the Cubs without first signing Aroldis Chapman.

 

What players are you referring to as examples of rebuilding through fire sale? Bad teams just usually don't have much to sell.

[Rosterman]

 

We could use some offense for 2019.

 

It will be a challenge to fill all the open spots via Free Agency.

 

Gonna have to acquire some decent talent via trade. 

All we really have is prospects to trade for established players, which won't be a game changer this season, sadly. So keep the prospects and trade the guys who won't be here in 2019, and possibly those who won't be here in 2929 (Gibson, Odorizzi).

[Kelly Vance]

 

There are 4 incredibly elite teams right now in the AL. They were all built primarily around prospects. Obviously, the Yankees and Redsox used their considerable revenue advantage to add even more established talent. I would add that if you look at the rebuild of mid or small market teams there is generally a component of selling off top talent for prospects. KC traded Greinke for Cain and Escobar. Houston traded every player they had with any tenure. Their entire payroll got down to around $30M. Oakland amassed the best record over the past 25 years of any team outside the top 10 in revenue and better than some top 10 teams by trading very good players for prospects. Same is true in Basketball even though they have a salary cap. 

 

Front offices are evolving. They are hiring staff with the education and experience to use hard data and build operating models. The new FO is not going to follow sentiment. In the case of mid and small market teams they understand the financial realities that many fans simply will not accept. The FA market last year was witness to their understanding of building through prospects and the handful of incredibly good teams dominating MLB is glaring proof of the need to build around prospects.

 

If the Twins or any other mid market team do a great job acquiring and developing prospects, they will have enough payroll to add (not keep) proven talent. They can't afford a JCS or to build an entire SP staff like Boston but they can add significant talent.  You keep the talent once you are in a window of contention. To continue to look at this team as a contender is "fool's gold".

80 percent of prospects never make it to the Show. 

[Kelly Vance]

 

You're talking about shopping all the guys that are unlikely to get any attention or interest at all.  If you want to hand them away, that's fine, but it seems odd to me to assert how important and valuable Gibson is to 2019 and also assert he's worthless on the trade market.

 

Likely to be the case that one of those two opinions is false.  Gibson has been good (and his analytics are solid) and has control.  He'll be a valuable chip.  Lynn and LoMo?  You'll be lucky if people answer the phone.

No, that is not what he is saying. He he is talking about shopping guys who other teams may be willing to take on as a player down the stretch because they are in contention. Of course there will be a smaller return for rent a players.  He is also saying that Gibby figures into the Twins long term plans and is worth more than a mid level prospect. 

[Mike Sixel]

80 percent of prospects never make it to the Show.

I'd hope we trust the front office not to trade for guys ranked around 500th....

 

How do people think this team competes, if it won't trade impending free agents? This team is not a serious contender next year. Imo

[Kelly Vance]

I don't think this team is that far away from contending.  Injuries hurt us a lot this year. But on the positive side, we have a better starting pitching staff (note that BP is excepted) and a young core of players that should improve and soon.

 

Mauer will not be traded. He will resign a modest contract for another year or two and will retire a Twin.

Dozier will explore the free agent world and be disappointed at the market. He may resign if they give him a decent offer after that. But the Twins may replace him with Gordon. 

Polanco, welcome back.  

Sano has the rest of the year to remember how to hit and will be brought back up in September.

The outfield is set.

EE should be extended, and may like that, if this years team doesn't make him want to play elsewhere.  He gets a QO. 

 

We need a stud catcher. Castro is a question mark. Garver is not the answer. 

 

We get to forecast Berrios, Romero, Gibson, Odorizzi as 1-4 and and one of Pineda, Santana, Gonsalves, Mejia or May as #5. But Santana may be done. 

 

Lynn will be gone and is likely being shopped already. Same with Rodney and Reed. 

 

I think next year we really really need to strengthen the BP. Molly loves Pressley but a guy that throws 97 should miss more bats. Rogers still has promise and we keep at least 2 leftys. I think May makes the club as a 7th inning guy and maybe a closer. Hildy is staying. He gives us a different look and has done well. I don't think Duke or Magill stay. 

 

IMHO the core of the team is decent. Buck is doing well in his rehab stint. Sano has become a project. He was out of shape and lost what he had in trying to hit everything 500 feet. Maybe he will take the coaching, maybe not.  If he does, he should come back strong like in 2017

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

No, that is not what he is saying. He he is talking about shopping guys who other teams may be willing to take on as a player down the stretch because they are in contention. Of course there will be a smaller return for rent a players.  He is also saying that Gibby figures into the Twins long term plans and is worth more than a mid level prospect. 

 

Gibson is in his 30s already.  Extending him past next year is pretty much doomed to fail before the ink dries.  It was much like the Dozier logic...sure, you can try and bet that Gibson or Dozier will be the exception to the rule on the aging curve but it's not wise. You're far more likely to have it backfire in your face.

 

I get that you're convinced we can just maintain the status quo and be "fine".  No offense, but that kind of thinking is really, really flawed.  If this was a business and you were advocating this thinking for your company I'd want to sell all your stock and warn your employees to jump ship.  It's just not forward, value-driven thinking.

 

And the Twins have been burned by that exact mentality for too long in my fandom.  I'm done with it.  I hope the guys in the FO go the other direction.

Edited July 4, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[by jiminy]

I read this article with great interest. Trading Gibson was not even on my radar. You're right that the pros and cons should be objectively weighed.

 

Where I disagree, though, is that our pitching staff in 2019 would be fine without him. Every single pitcher after Berrios has a LOT of question marks.

 

I also disagree that saving maybe $10 million should be a factor. The team already has a below-average payroll and most of the current contracts are set to expire. That money would not come close to matching Gibson's production on the free agent market.

 

I'm just not ready to throw in the towel on 2019. And that's what such a trade would mean, IMO.  If you have given up on Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Rosario, and Polanco ever being the core of a contender, sure, trade everybody. But I haven't.

 

In which case, If this latest version of Gibson keeps it up for the next year and a half, they should not only keep but extend him. If he's good enough to pitch for a contender, why shouldn't that contender  be us? Same applies to Escobar.

 

If Buxton and Sano flop convincingly and irreversibly, and the foundation has obviously crumbled, then sure, trade anyone and anything for a reboot. But if they regain their previous peaks, they'll need all the pitching they can get.

 

If a young, almost ready prospect with playoff quality upside was dangled in exchange, sure, of course I'd trade him. I just don't think the prospects he'd bring would be elite enough to improve the team in the near term.

 

We've been waiting a long time for the playoff window to open, and when it does, there is plenty of revenue to pay for the players needed to fill out the roster. But I still see Gibby as playing on the next Twins playoff team, and I'd want to see equivalent talent in return.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I read this article with great interest. Trading Gibson was not even on my radar. You're right that the pros and cons should be objectively weighed.

 

Where I disagree, though, is that our pitching staff in 2019 would be fine without him. Every single pitcher after Berrios has a LOT of question marks.

 

I also disagree that saving maybe $10 million should be a factor. The team already has a below-average payroll and most of the current contracts are set to expire. That money would not come close to matching Gibson's production on the free agent market.

 

I'm just not ready to throw in the towel on 2019. And that's what such a trade would mean, IMO.  If you have given up on Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Rosario, and Polanco ever being the core of a contender, sure, trade everybody. But I haven't.

 

In which case, If this latest version of Gibson keeps it up for the next year and a half, they should not only keep but extend him. If he's good enough to pitch for a contender, why shouldn't that contender  be us? Same applies to Escobar.

 

If Buxton and Sano flop convincingly and irreversibly, and the foundation has obviously crumbled, then sure, trade anyone and anything for a reboot. But if they regain their previous peaks, they'll need all the pitching they can get.

 

If a young, almost ready prospect with playoff quality upside was dangled in exchange, sure, of course I'd trade him. I just don't think the prospects he'd bring would be elite enough to improve the team in the near term.

 

We've been waiting a long time for the playoff window to open, and when it does, there is plenty of revenue to pay for the players needed to fill out the roster. But I still see Gibby as playing on the next Twins playoff team, and I'd want to see equivalent talent in return.

 

The Twins are likely to finish with around 90 losses, do you really think they are a contender next year? Without Dozier and Mauer?

 

I don't. 

[ChrisKnutson]

How can Gibby be so overrated by Twins fans as a member of this rotation, yet be so underrated as a trade piece? Blows my mind, because honestly, I think the Yankees would deal for Gibby if it only meant losing Justus Sheffield.

 

Same goes for Escobar and Pressly, because it seems that the Redsox would desperately like to have another option to set up for Kimbrel and the Phillies do have a need for a SS/3rd that won’t cost them as much as Machado would.

 

In one for one deals the Twins could end up landing MLB ready talent like Justus Sheffield (NYY), Sixto Sanchez (PHI), and 2nd/3rd Michael Chavis (BOS).

[TheLeviathan]

Duke and Rodney will have value too.  I think the team could net a really interesting haul for Gibson, Escobar, Duke, Rodney, and Pressley.  If someone gives more than I expect for LoMo, Lynn, or Dozier than you should do that too.  

 

Standing pat will lead us to nothing but regret.  None of these players are 22 or even 26, they're all well down the aging curve.