This greatly undervalues Gibson. He's healthy, and made an adjustment that worked last year. He would net at least one top 75 player and a high variance flyer. That first player would be in the Twins top three prospects.
 

 

I agree, but I wouldn't be surprised if other teams tried to place his value using his spotty history.

 

If so, I'd hang on to him and look to move him in the offseason after a full year of proving his worth (fingers crossed) or hang on to him if they are ready for a managerial overhaul in 2019 and another stab at contention.

Agreeing here with SadMinny.

I could see dumping anyone else but Rosario and Hildenberger.

Too bad they have nothing to offer for Realmuto.

 

Too bad they have nothing to offer for Realmuto.

They have players to offer. 4 prospects on top 100 lists. Lewis being the gem of the organization.

 

The question remains is it smart to give up the assets necessary to make the trade? Not sure if I can answer that anymore given how badly this season has gone.

Is it possible for a team to have this many expendables, and expect them to be any more successful than what we are doing right now?

I've always thought Mauer would be a fantastic fit for Fenway Park. He hasn't been the same hitter since those fly balls that landed in the first row in LF at the Dome became outs at Target Field. Those balls would be over or off the wall at Fenway.  Would he waive his no-trade clause for a chance at a World Series with the Red Sox?

I’m sure he’d love a chance to win his first playoff series. He can always return next year,

I’m sure he’d love a chance to win his first playoff series. He can always return next year,

If he cared about that, he would have asked for a trade years ago.

 

Without knowing him personally, it sure seems like all he wants to do is play for his home state's team, and be close to his family.

Keep Gibson. Otherwise, could someone name the 2019 opening day rotation?

 

And as I’ve asked before, aside from the Yankees maybe wanting Gibson, does anyone have any suggestions on potential counter parties?

 

Also, by sheer numbers, there will be a lot more selling teams than buyers

 

Keep Gibson. Otherwise, could someone name the 2019 opening day rotation? And as I’ve asked before, aside from the Yankees maybe wanting Gibson, does anyone have any suggestions on potential counter parties? Also, by sheer numbers, there will be a lot more selling teams than buyers

 

the Brewers, the Cubs, the Angels (not likely now), Seattle (not sure they have the players), Atlanta, Philly.....so, ya, the list of playoff teams that could use him is long, actually.

 

And, that doesn't count anyone that thinks they are a playoff team next year.

 

How do people propose getting better if they won't trade guys under control next year? And by better, I mean MUCH better, over the long haul.

By my estimation, the five AL playoff teams are pretty much decided. The sixth team is the A’s who are 8 games out.

In the NL, by contrast, there are maybe 10 teams still in it. So, look for the ten AL out of contention teams selling to the 10 in contention NL teams.

 

Any proposed trades?

So ... controversial point here:

 

There are some advantages to the American system of trading players rather than buying and selling for cash as is the norm in world football. (Principally, it limits the ability of a rich owner to acquire players without giving any up.) But there are serious disadvantages.

 

Monetary economists argue that the advantage of money transactions over barter is the elimination of a "double coincidence of wants." Under barter (as in MLB), we not only have to find a seller with something we want, but he must want something we have. Only a few teams are interested in a 2B and they may not have the ideal trade pieces that the Twins would want for Dozier, for example.

 

One way in which this impacts the Twins currently is the inability to use multiple small sales to finance one big purchase. For example, suppose that we were able to sell 4 players (Dozier, Lynn, Duke, and Rodney, for example) for $5m each. We could then use that money to fund a $20m purchase (Realmuto?). The numbers are made up, but you probably get the idea.

 

Under the current system, no one wants to pick up 4 useful but not stellar players that we could offer (especially a team like Miami). So although we may have sufficient assets to obtain a star, the transaction technology prevents us from doing so. This means that (as per my earlier post) we are left with trading away each of our "little" pieces for other little pieces like non-elite prospects.

 

All of the proposed moves discussed in the article seem to me unlikely to make the Twins better in 2019 and beyond. We are shuffling off little pieces we don't need for someone else's little pieces they don't need. Under a monetary system, we could sell multiple resources that have higher value to others than to us and pool the proceeds to buy a difference-maker.

 

I agree, but I wouldn't be surprised if other teams tried to place his value using his spotty history.

 

If so, I'd hang on to him and look to move him in the offseason after a full year of proving his worth (fingers crossed) or hang on to him if they are ready for a managerial overhaul in 2019 and another stab at contention.

 

Man, there is a lot of risk with that.  Dozier is a poster boy for this cautionary tale.

 

I think this overvalues Dozier and probably undervalues Lynn a bit. I figured those two would get similar returns, and I don't see Dozier bring in several mid-level prospects. Someone might send a decent prospect our way on a flier that he gets hot, but they aren't sending a bunch... now if he suddenly starts hitting, that would be different.

 

I think Levi mentioned trading Pressley as he has only a year of control left. He might net a decent prospect.

 

Yeah, Die Hard, but pitchers are really critical down the stretch when arms get tired. Not so much pitchers that periodically struggle with command  

 

Are we as fans really ready to see Gordon? He has a worse OPS in AAA then guys we want cut in the majors?

IMO he is a guy us fans are going to love to hate if he isn't really good.

 

Yeah, Gordon was not brought up when Polanco was suspended. That must mean he is not ready. My question is, will he be ready if Dozier is traded?

 

I've always thought Mauer would be a fantastic fit for Fenway Park. He hasn't been the same hitter since those fly balls that landed in the first row in LF at the Dome became outs at Target Field. Those balls would be over or off the wall at Fenway.  Would he waive his no-trade clause for a chance at a World Series with the Red Sox?

 

I remember Joaquin Andujar saying when he played his first game at Fenway. "This is like a slow pitch softball field"

 

Man, there is a lot of risk with that.  Dozier is a poster boy for this cautionary tale.

 

In my view this team needs to be taking more high-reward type risks. I mean if Gibson can bring back a pretty dang good haul now I'm fine with a July deal, but if we're talking about a Stephen Gonsalves type return, eh, I don't think your risking much by waiting. 90% of the board was fine passing on Jose De Leon when Dozier was peaking as well. 

 

But again, I'm only trading Gibson assuming this team isn't going to be a legit contending next year. My first preference is they make the changes needed to do so.

If he cared about that, he would have asked for a trade years ago.

Without knowing him personally, it sure seems like all he wants to do is play for his home state's team, and be close to his family.

But, in past years, he would have to stay with the new team for the length of his contract or get traded back. This is the first time he knows he CAN come back as a FA

So ... controversial point here:

 

There are some advantages to the American system of trading players rather than buying and selling for cash as is the norm in world football. (Principally, it limits the ability of a rich owner to acquire players without giving any up.) But there are serious disadvantages.

 

Monetary economists argue that the advantage of money transactions over barter is the elimination of a "double coincidence of wants." Under barter (as in MLB), we not only have to find a seller with something we want, but he must want something we have. Only a few teams are interested in a 2B and they may not have the ideal trade pieces that the Twins would want for Dozier, for example.

 

One way in which this impacts the Twins currently is the inability to use multiple small sales to finance one big purchase. For example, suppose that we were able to sell 4 players (Dozier, Lynn, Duke, and Rodney, for example) for $5m each. We could then use that money to fund a $20m purchase (Realmuto?). The numbers are made up, but you probably get the idea.

 

Under the current system, no one wants to pick up 4 useful but not stellar players that we could offer (especially a team like Miami). So although we may have sufficient assets to obtain a star, the transaction technology prevents us from doing so. This means that (as per my earlier post) we are left with trading away each of our "little" pieces for other little pieces like non-elite prospects.

 

All of the proposed moves discussed in the article seem to me unlikely to make the Twins better in 2019 and beyond. We are shuffling off little pieces we don't need for someone else's little pieces they don't need. Under a monetary system, we could sell multiple resources that have higher value to others than to us and pool the proceeds to buy a difference-maker.

I take your point, but would you really trust the Pohlad’s to turn around and use the accumulated monies? Perhaps a better baseball historian than I can recall Charlie Findlay’s great sell off.

 

And, I believe one can trade a player for cash.

 

I take your point, but would you really trust the Pohlad’s to turn around and use the accumulated monies? Perhaps a better baseball historian than I can recall Charlie Findlay’s great sell off.

And, I believe one can trade a player for cash.

 

Not straight up, but you can sort of do this, like the Twins just did with Hughes. They sold him and a draft pick for money, basically......The Marlins (depending on how you feel about the prospects they got back) did that with Stanton also.

 

So, you could trade existing contracts and minor league players, for minor league players. That essentially frees up money to be spent (or pocketed). That said, the league will likely nix deals that go too far that way.

Unless the Twins get a better offer for Dozier than is likely, I suspect the best course would be to keep him. If Dozier has a huge second half like in previous years, he might get back to a point where the qualifying offer makes sense which is probably the best possible outcome at this point. 

 

As for the rest of the trade options, I'd keep Odorizzi, Gibson, and Escobar (with the intent of extending a qualifying offer). I'd look to trade Lynn, Rodney, Morrison (more likely to be waived), and Duke.

Nobody on the current active 25 man should be left off of this list, aside from Berrios.

 

Some I'd pull the trigger in faster than others. Dozier, Morrison, Lynn, Rodney, Duke, and Reed I'd take just about anything for.

 

Guys like Gibson and Escobar I'd need to get a nice return.

 

I'm still hoping Dozier, Morrison, and Lynn go a bit of a streak over the next couple weeks to entice some palatable offers. Reed could potentially fetch a nice piece. Santana could be a waiver guy in August if e comes back.

 

They could potentially turn in a pretty nice haul. They won't be getting any top 50 prospects, but they could add some nice peices to the system.

Edited July 6, 20188 yr by Darius

 

In my view this team needs to be taking more high-reward type risks. I mean if Gibson can bring back a pretty dang good haul now I'm fine with a July deal, but if we're talking about a Stephen Gonsalves type return, eh, I don't think your risking much by waiting. 90% of the board was fine passing on Jose De Leon when Dozier was peaking as well. 

 

But again, I'm only trading Gibson assuming this team isn't going to be a legit contending next year. My first preference is they make the changes needed to do so.

 

We rarely know what is actually out there.  Sometimes taking an offer that is less than what you hoped is still better than getting nothing.

 

Unless the Twins get a better offer for Dozier than is likely, I suspect the best course would be to keep him. If Dozier has a huge second half like in previous years, he might get back to a point where the qualifying offer makes sense which is probably the best possible outcome at this point. 

 

As for the rest of the trade options, I'd keep Odorizzi, Gibson, and Escobar (with the intent of extending a qualifying offer). I'd look to trade Lynn, Rodney, Morrison (more likely to be waived), and Duke.

 

I have zero interest in taking the chance he accepts the QO....zero.

I have zero interest in taking the chance he accepts the QO....zero.

Even if it means getting a lesser than that prospect in return for him now? I thinl the chances of Dozier accepting it are slim to none. He has a better chance convincing other teams that 2018 was an abberation due to being on a bad team than he does coming back, risk having another subpar year or getting hurt and being a FA another year older.

 

Falvey and Levine are all about analytics and numbers, supposedly. I think the numbers say roll the dice that he won't accept.

We are tossing around QO for Escobar and Dozier, I don't think 17M would be required for either player in order to keep them on a short term basis.

 

Moustakas and others are a good example of that IMO.

Even if it means getting a lesser than that prospect in return for him now? I thinl the chances of Dozier accepting it are slim to none. He has a better chance convincing other teams that 2018 was an abberation due to being on a bad team than he does coming back, risk having another subpar year or getting hurt and being a FA another year older.

 

Falvey and Levine are all about analytics and numbers, supposedly. I think the numbers say roll the dice that he won't accept.

Correct. I have no interest in him accepting, and I think he does not likely than not.

Correct. I have no interest in him accepting, and I think he does not likely than not.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I legitimately don't understand this statement.

We rarely know what is actually out there. Sometimes taking an offer that is less than what you hoped is still better than getting nothing.

We all get how this works, trades are an unpredictable endeavor. However, this team should be moving at least a half dozen players this summer most of which will bring back returns ranges from "OK, I can live with that" to "Not another Cash Considerations or a PTBNL!!!". Gibson's the only one with potential to increase his value to something substantial.

 

Unless they do nothing they should be flooded with more organizational filler than they can handle. They wouldn't be risking much to roll the dice that Gibson doesn't blow out his arm in the next three months.

We are tossing around QO for Escobar and Dozier, I don't think 17M would be required for either player in order to keep them on a short term basis.

 

Moustakas and others are a good example of that IMO.

After last offseason it's certainly possible agents adjust their method and advise players to accept the QO.

 

I don't really disagree with you (though don't really agree either ), but the benefit is that you free up a spot for a younger player to come up and play nearly every day and get his feet wet for next season.  I think that experience is very valuable to a player.

What players have ever benefited from the late season call up and who is the equivalent  player now in Rochester

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I legitimately don't understand this statement.

 there is an extra not in there.....which should be a "more"....sigh. 

 

I think he accepts the QO, and I'd hate to pay him 17MM next year.