Article: GM For A Deadline, Part Two

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Before returning to action after the All-Star Break, we took a look at potential landing spots for the two biggest trade chips/rentals that the Twins have to offer contenders.

 

Since then, the Twins got swept at Kansas City before getting back on the right track on Monday at Toronto. Dozier has one hit since his walk-off grand slam and a whole bunch of strikeouts. Escobar has gotten a couple hits and looks, hopefully, like he is starting to hit his way out of the slump he previously found himself in.

 

There was also the Ken Rosenthal report that the Brewers had asked the Twins about acquiring both players. This article isn't about Dozier and Escobar... but I'll give you a little dessert after the main course.As teams look at the market, it becomes a balance of “what have you done for me lately?” and “who is this player typically?” When the answer to both of those questtions is very good, you’re getting a lot in return. Negotiations become slightly more difficult when the answers don’t match up… especially when the player is on the wrong side of 30.

 

Today, we’re going to look at a few other players who, for one reason or another, stretch those questions a little bit further than Dozier, a top second basemen who is having a down year, and Escobar, a versatile defender with a solid bat.

 

Kyle Gibson is having a great year. He’s got an additional year of control, his slider is nearly unhittable and when he’s not producing outs by strikeouts, he’s getting them on ground balls. He’s a great example of a player who, if he continues pitching the way he has since the second half of last year, could really help the Twins get back into contention in 2019. The Twins, though, appear poised to head into spring training with more viable rotation options than any other year in recent memory.

 

In short, maybe it’s worthwhile to shop Kyle Gibson. Though there isn’t an urgent need to move him - there are worse things than plugging him into an experienced rotation next year - it’s worth taking a look around to see who might be interested.

 

For me, there is one team that sticks out: the Colorado Rockies. The Rockies are in the midst of a NL West battle that may last until the final days of the season and have gotten productive seasons out of four of their five rotation members. Their fifth member, Chad Bettis, is currently on the DL with a blister. In his place, Colorado has been starting Antonio Senzatela, who himself just returned on Sunday from his own blister issues. I’m not going to pretend I know a lot about their rotation, but it seems like blister issues are typically a recurring problem.

 

Enter Gibson, who has made 27 or more starts in each season since returning to health after Tommy John surgery. Colorado, where no free agent pitcher ever wants to go, should be motivated to add a groundball pitcher with another year of team control, even if they don’t stay in contention to win the division.

 

The targeted headliner in a return package from the Rockies should be 23-year-old AAA infield Ryan McMahon. McMahon played almost exclusively at third base until shifting over to first base. The Rockies have all-world Nolan Arenado to man the hot corner for the foreseeable future, so McMahon was moved to help accelerate getting him into the lineup. He's also played quite a bit of second base. McMahon is a good hitter, has a good understanding of the strike zone, hits for power and also can steal some bases.

 

Now here’s where the problem starts. If you’d paid close attention to Gibson over his last calendar year, you think he’s turned the page and is now a mid-rotation starter and his trade value should match that. “Yeah, but…” would be how every other team in baseball responds to that. I would think McMahon isn’t enough. I’d want someone in addition who is closer to MLB ready. The Rockies might think McMahon alone is too much. To move Gibson, though, the offer would need to overwhelm.

 

Fernando Rodney is another example of a player who might not get the value his performance has dictated. Understandably, too, as he’s 41 years old. If not for his age and the rapid decline that will set in at some point - though there is nothing in his peripherals that suggest that decline is going to happen soon - Rodney has value, under contract for $4.25 million next year.

 

The Braves, having recently lost their closer, seems like an excellent match. Would the Twins have interest in 19-year-old RHP Freddy Tarnok, a third-round pick last year who is new to pitching and having success in low-A ball? The Braves didn’t seem to have too much interest in Jeurys Famillia before the Mets dealt him to Oakland. One of the reason had to do with not wanting to deal from the top of their stash of prospects. Tarnok doesn’t fit into that group, but his potential certainly does. I don’t think any return for Rodney is going to include much. Is it worth it to deal away a controlled, affordable, mostly reliable closer for what amounts to a lottery ticket? It might be easy to say no to that from the Twins perspective. At the same time, the Braves might ask if it is worth trading a high-ceiling lottery ticket for a guy who is over twice the lottery ticket’s age. They might pass on that as well.

 

Lance Lynn and Ervin Santana have both done enough (or not enough) to stay safe through the July deadline. Logan Morrison is having such a disastrous season, it’d be hard to merit any return.

 

 

So I guess that leaves Joe Mauer. I’d accommodate Mauer if he wants to chase a championship. Regardless, I’d consider it more than likely that Mauer is back in a Twins uniform next year.

 

But that might be a conversation for a different day.

 

***

BONUS BITS: Typically trading multiple pieces to the same team will reduce the return. Dealing Escobar and Dozier to the Brewers in the same trade might enable them to ask for one of their top prospects, like Corbin Burnes, Freddy Peralta or Corey Ray. (I still don't think the Brewers have any desire to move any of those three.) The other thing that adds intrigue to this situation is that the Brewers just lost a starting pitcher for the rest of the season.

 

How much might Milwaukee give up to secure a pitcher like Gibson? Might they be interested in Lance Lynn? There are a number of questions that can only be answered in time. But I certainly wouldn't rule out a creative deal that packages multiple players together. Likely? No. Possible? Sure.

 

Click here to view the article

[ChrisKnutson]

Maybe we should also consider dealing Hildenberger and Pressly (along with Gibson) if we really want to get a worthwhile return.

 

It’s time to cash in while we can, because rentals aren’t worth anything anymore (unless you’re Manny Machado).

[curt1965]

I would hate to trade Gibson, but the Twins do not have a viable 3rd base option in their organization, other than Escobar (Sano is not an option).

Is Escobar is traded, do you think McMahon is the long term solution at 3rd, Jeremy?

[beckmt]

 

I would hate to trade Gibson, but the Twins do not have a viable 3rd base option in their organization, other than Escobar (Sano is not an option).
Is Escobar is traded, do you think McMahon is the long term solution at 3rd, Jeremy?

Escobar can walk away at the end of the year.  Do not know the odds on resigning him, but would like to get something for him (and the other rentals).

[slash129]

Trading Gibson and Odorizzi (not mentioned in this article, but often otherwise) leaves the Twins with a 2019 rotation of ...

 

Berrios

Romero

Pineda

Mejia

Littell

 

With depth of ...

 

Slegers

Gonsalves

May

Thorpe (possibly knocking)

 

To me that's Berrios and lots of inexperience and question marks. It doesn't appear to be a contention rotation, even with the "depth".

[alarp33]

 

Trading Gibson and Odorizzi (not mentioned in this article, but often otherwise) leaves the Twins with a 2019 rotation of ...

Berrios
Romero
Pineda
Mejia
Littell

With depth of ...

Slegers
Gonsalves
May
Thorpe (possibly knocking)

To me that's Berrios and lots of inexperience and question marks. It doesn't appear to be a contention rotation, even with the "depth".

 

They will have the 2019 off-season as well. They don't have to finalize their 2019 rotation this July

[Riverbrian]

If you feel you have a chance in 2019. You don't trade Gibson. You try to acquire more guys like Gibson or better. 

 

If you don't feel you have a chance in 2019... Then trade him but you end up jumping from window to window until you find the window that opens just right. 

 

I think the Twins have a chance in 2019. 

[Dman]

I think the Twins can afford to trade Odo or Gibby but not both.  I would see what they can get for both and decide which one to trade.  I would hate to lose Gibson but if some team overpaid I would totally trade him.  I think he can be replaced if needed but I wouldn't let him go easily because the rotation for next year looks much better with Gibson penciled in.

 

I don't see anyone really being interested in Rodney but who knows.  I doubt that what they could get for him would be worth trading him.  I bet they keep him.

 

I can actually see a few teams wanting to grab Lynn not because he is great but he can get the job done and he would come cheap.

 

Santana, who knows.  If he pitches well maybe some team(s) will be interested.  But again the return looks low because of the risk involved.  Maybe August will be a better time to try and trade Santana of he has value then.

[SF Twins Fan]

I feel like the Twins would have to be blown away to trade Gibson. On a contending team he's a solid 3/4 in a rotation and he's already locked in for one more season. The only way I trade him is for a pitcher who is already at AA or higher, is pitching well and has a high floor / good ceiling. 

[slash129]

 

They will have the 2019 off-season as well. They don't have to finalize their 2019 rotation this July

 

So then get rid of Gibson and Odorizzi (both under control and likely quite affordable) to bring in FA's that will start around the 12 mill that Lynn got for marginal back end performance and cost around $20 mill and up for multiple years if you actually want a good player (e.g. Corbin) ... Seems counter-productive

 

Sure, you'll have another question mark lotto piece in the system, but I doubt that will cover the difference.

[slash129]

 

If you feel you have a chance in 2019. You don't trade Gibson. You try to acquire more guys like Gibson or better. 

 

If you don't feel you have a chance in 2019... Then trade him but you end up jumping from window to window until you find the window that opens just right. 

 

I think the Twins have a chance in 2019. 

 

And the window after 2019 starts to lineup with the White Sox' window, a team in a much larger market that will spend to supplement.  Fortunately, KC looks to be down for awhile longer and Detroit gets to start each season with $30-70 mill locked up in bad contracts through 2023.  Cleveland will continue to be strong due to lots of team friendly contracts on marquis players.

[lukeduke1980]

Which contending teams might Gibson or Odorizzi help?  I would imagine most contenders already have decent rotations, so teams might be looking to upgrade their #5 and less likely to meet what the Twins would be asking for.  

[alarp33]

 

So then get rid of Gibson and Odorizzi (both under control and likely quite affordable) to bring in FA's that will start around the 12 mill that Lynn got for marginal back end performance and cost around $20 mill and up for multiple years if you actually want a good player (e.g. Corbin) ... Seems counter-productive

 

Sure, you'll have another question mark lotto piece in the system, but I doubt that will cover the difference.

 

1) I never suggested they get rid of Gibson and Odorizzi, and I'm not sure anyone did. It's unlikely they trade either in the next week, and extremely unlikely they trade both. 

2) There is a trade market in the off-season as well as free agency. The options are not "pay $12 million for marginal back end performance" or "$20 million + multiple years for a good player"

Edited July 24, 2018 by alarp33

[Doctor Wu]

The Brewers now need another starting pitcher after Suter just got injured and will  need TJ surgery. I'd like to keep Gibson, but would gladly offer them Lynn or Santana for some low level prospect. Or package the pitcher with Dozier and aim higher?

[slash129]

 

1) I never suggested they get rid of Gibson and Odorizzi, and I'm not sure anyone did. It's unlikely they trade either in the next week, and extremely unlikely they trade both. 

2) There is a trade market in the off-season as well as free agency. The options are not "pay $12 million for marginal back end performance" or "$20 million + multiple years for a good player"

 

I guess I did read too much into your response and assumed the Gibson/Odorizzi departure as a qualifier, since that was my qualifier to that rotation list.  

[birddog]

Free agency seems to be more often than not a swing and a miss. Twins should have plenty of budget money next year, so in the offseason work some trades with teams looking to save money and unload their established players. If Buxton and Sano--Buckno--show no signs of life, we retool for '20 or '21 (man that sounds scary), but if they can show some signs of being the players we had prayed for we are just a few players short of being a contending team. If that is the case give up some prospects and get us accomplished players to help.

 

[jorgenswest]

Would it be wise to trade Gibson and then go back in the market this winter and hope to trade for someone like Gibson? The possible net gain is not worth the risk that a trade partner can’t be found.

 

They should trade Gibson if they don’t believe he will sustain this performance. They should trade Gibson if they feel they have 5 better starters for the 2019 rotation. Otherwise they should keep him.

[alarp33]

 

Would it be wise to trade Gibson and then go back in the market this winter and hope to trade for someone like Gibson? The possible net gain is not worth the risk that a trade partner can’t be found.

They should trade Gibson if they don’t believe he will sustain this performance. 

 

This seems contradictory? If they trade Gibson because they don't believe he'll sustain this performance, I'm guessing they'd aim higher than "someone like Gibson". 

 

Also, you don't know what the net gain is, because you don't know what return they would get for him, or who their potential off-season targets will be (and what they'd cost). 

 

I certainly could see a scenario where they could get a nice piece for Gibson but replace him in the rotation easily enough

Edited July 24, 2018 by alarp33

[Brandon]

As a gm Im looking at trading Lynn, Odorizzi, Santana, Duke and Rodney on pitching and either trading or extending Dozier and Escobar. Though likely dealing Dozier.

 

You listen on everyone but I want to set my team up for a potential run in 2019. So Gibson and anyone in long term plans is sitting still.

[Brandon]

Also i may use this as an opportunity to build up my international signing bonus pool for next year if I can or this one too. The prospects are gonna suck as its a buyers market but getting a large pool of cash together we may be able to sign a top international prospect next June or before time runs out on this signing period but before the next international signing period begins next July.

[Brandon]

That pool of international cash would come as a piece from all trades. 100,000 here, 250,000 there, 350,000 and even 500,000 or more. But if we get a little bit from 5-7 trades we should be able to get 1 - 2 million ans sign a good prospect next June.

[Mike Sixel]

Also i may use this as an opportunity to build up my international signing bonus pool for next year if I can or this one too. The prospects are gonna suck as its a buyers market but getting a large pool of cash together we may be able to sign a top international prospect next June or before time runs out on this signing period but before the next international signing period begins next July.

Can't trade for next year's money. But you can for this year's. I don't know who is left.

 

KLAW recently answered my question about Gibson by saying he thought they could compete next year, so he would hold him. I would deal him for the right package. As for his worth? He's projected to be better than any brewer starter the rest of the year.

 

I'd easily deal Lynn, odorrizi, Rodney, Duke, Santana.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Mike Sixel

[jorgenswest]

This seems contradictory? If they trade Gibson because they don't believe he'll sustain this performance, I'm guessing they'd aim higher than "someone like Gibson". 

 

Also, you don't know what the net gain is, because you don't know what return they would get for him, or who their potential off-season targets will be (and what they'd cost). 

 

I certainly could see a scenario where they could get a nice piece for Gibson but replace him in the rotation easily enough

I will try again. Two scenarios..

 

1) They believe Gibson will sustain his performance. In this case they will need to replace that performance for 2019 in trade or free agency. We disagree on how easy it will be to replace a good performing starting pitcher in the winter. I see a risk in entering 2019 without making the winter trade or free agent signing that replaces Gibson. They have control of Gibson. They can’t control the rest. I hope you are correct and finding good starting pitching can be done easily enough.

 

2) They don’t believe Gibson will sustain his performance. By all means sell high. If they think he will return to his previous level then he can easily be replaced.

 

I am keeping him if I think he will pitch similarly next year. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[alarp33]

 

I will try again. Two scenarios..

1) They believe Gibson will sustain his performance. In this case they will need to replace that performance for 2019 in trade or free agency. We disagree on how easy it will be to replace a good performing starting pitcher in the winter. I see a risk in entering 2019 without making the winter trade or free agent signing that replaces Gibson. They have control of Gibson. They can’t control the rest. I hope you are correct and finding good starting pitching can be done easily enough.

2) They don’t believe Gibson will sustain his performance. By all means sell high. If they think he will return to his previous level then he can easily be replaced.

I am keeping him if I think he will pitch similarly next year. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

I understand what you are saying now. How you phrased it in your previous post is what confused me. 

 

I wouldn't trade Gibson if I was convinced he was going to sustain solid production.  I'm in the camp where I'm still not totally convinced

Edited July 24, 2018 by alarp33

[Brandon]

Can't trade for next year's money. But you can for this year's. I don't know who is left.

 

KLAW recently answered my question about Gibson by saying he thought they could compete next year, so he would hold him. I would deal him for the right package. As for his worth? He's projected to be better than any brewer starter the rest of the year.

 

I'd easily deal Lynn, odorrizi, Rodney, Duke, Santana.

I was just thinking if one of the top 30 prospects on next years international prospect list is 16 in say June, we could sign him in this years bonus if he will agree to what we have left available. If we have say 1.5 million available we might be able to sign one of next years top 30 with this years money if we trade for 250,000 int bonus pool here, 350,000 int bonus pool there ( in addition to the prospects of course).....and if we do that on all our trades...we have 6 or 7 potential players available in trade. Why not see what we can sign next june with that? And then have next years money for july 2nd too. Edited July 24, 2018 by Brandon

[Mike Sixel]

 

I was just thinking if one of the top 30 prospects on next years international prospect list is 16 in say June, we could sign him in this years bonus if he will agree to what we have left available. If we have say 1.5 million available we might be able to sign one of next years top 30 with this years money if we trade for 250,000 here, 350,000 there.....and if we do that on all our trades...we have 6 or 7 potential players available in trade. Why not see what we can sign next june with that? And then have next years money for july 2nd too.

 

got it. makes sense, if there are any of those left that are good/great prospects.

 

I know people don't think the rankings mean much for these young guys, but they actually appear to be as good a predictor as draft picks......more expensive guys have a higher likelihood of being good.

[ChrisKnutson]

I like Gibson, but I’m still not completely sold. I mean, what if this is just a career year for him?

 

The Yankees have the biggest need for a starter, and one of the better systems, sooo I’d say (realistically) sell high on Gibby for Domingo German and Dillion Tate.

[bird]

 

If you feel you have a chance in 2019. You don't trade Gibson. You try to acquire more guys like Gibson or better. 

 

If you don't feel you have a chance in 2019... Then trade him but you end up jumping from window to window until you find the window that opens just right. 

 

I think the Twins have a chance in 2019. 

 

Yeah, you don't trade away a guy giving you fairly consistent #3 starter performance when you lack a surplus of those guys. Aside from Berrios, who else can you reasonably count on to give you better than back-half performance? Trade from THAT surplus, especially the ones who have almost zero chance of improvement. Which means you look to move Lynn and Odor Easy and plug in the MLB ready prospects. And then hope a couple among Romero, Pineda, May, and Mejia et al give you better than #4 starter performance. With Littel, Slegers, Gonsalves et al we have plenty of guys ready to give us back-end performance in line with what we're getting now from Lynn and Odor Easy.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Yeah, you don't trade away a guy giving you fairly consistent #3 starter performance when you lack a surplus of those guys. Aside from Berrios, who else can you reasonably count on to give you better than back-half performance? Trade from THAT surplus, especially the ones who have almost zero chance of improvement. Which means you look to move Lynn and Odor Easy and plug in the MLB ready prospects. And then hope a couple among Romero, Pineda, May, and Mejia et al give you better than #4 starter performance. With Littel, Slegers, Gonsalves et al we have plenty of guys ready to give us back-end performance in line with what we're getting now from Lynn and Odor Easy.

 

I tend to agree with you on Gibby, with the caveat that I'd move him if the front office thinks this is a mirage. I don't for the record, and think he replicate this season in 2019...

 

That said, I think you're being a bit hard on him calling him a 3. He's been a well above average starting pitcher this season. Perhaps you don't view a 3 as an average pitcher, but I think that's a bit unfair to Gibby.

[caninatl04]

 

Which contending teams might Gibson or Odorizzi help?  I would imagine most contenders already have decent rotations, so teams might be looking to upgrade their #5 and less likely to meet what the Twins would be asking for.  

There are 10 contending teams in the NL. A #4 starter would help, by my count, 6 of them