Article: Dear Twins: Don't Sell!

[howieramone2]

 

4 of the 5 prospects we acquired were rated by Fangraphs preseason at 40 FV, and the other was not rated. We already had 30 prospects rated at 40 FV or better, before the latest draft.

 

Fangraphs had this to say before the season: "The Twins have a deep system with promising players at all levels, featuring a variety of profiles and pedigrees. They’re positioned well, with a competitive, mostly young big-league team and a farm system that has at least one solid contributor emerging each year to fill holes."

 

How much did that really change with these 2 trades?

Why would we want it to change? A deep system just got deeper. Last article I read had our farm system rated at #6. Could well be, we move up. I particularly liked we picked up 2 young starting pitching prospects. At some point in time, pitching becomes a numbers game. You can never have too many.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And for the record, as Spycake has pointed out "all of the GMs" in situations similar to, or worse than, the current Twins HAVEN'T sold yet. Do you suppose you're overestimating your particular expertise in the area of how MLB teams operate?

Thanks for noticing!

 

There are a few ways to look at it for sure. The Rays have sold (mainly Eovaldi, also a minor move in Venters), and they had comparable "season to date" projection odds as the Twins. But, they had far worse "coin flip" odds, meaning they really had very little control over their own destiny. (I mean, every team needs luck to complete a comeback, but low "coin flip" odds suggests even more luck is necessary.)

 

But otherwise, the teams in comparable "season to date" projection mode odds, or "coin flip" mode odds, have resisted selling so far -- Cardinals (who made some moves but didn't really sell), Pirates, Giants.

 

The Blue Jays and Mets sold, but they had 0.1% odds by pretty much every measure. The Angels did a "soft sell" with a rental catcher, but they had at best 4.4% odds by season to date mode, and like the Rays needed a lot of luck with 1.4% coin flip odds.

 

(See my post above if you have questions about the different projection modes.)

[USAFChief]

 

Thanks for noticing!

 

There are a few ways to look at it for sure. The Rays have sold (mainly Eovaldi, also a minor move in Venters), and they had comparable "season to date" projection odds as the Twins. But, they had far worse "coin flip" odds, meaning they really had very little control over their own destiny. (I mean, every team needs luck to complete a comeback, but low "coin flip" odds suggests even more luck is necessary.)

 

But otherwise, the teams in comparable "season to date" projection mode odds, or "coin flip" mode odds, have resisted selling so far -- Cardinals (who made some moves but didn't really sell), Pirates, Giants.

 

The Blue Jays and Mets sold, but they had 0.1% odds by pretty much every measure. The Angels did a "soft sell" with a rental catcher, but they had at best 4.4% odds by season to date mode, and like the Rays needed a lot of luck with 1.4% coin flip odds.

 

(See my post above if you have questions about the different projection modes.)

The primary difference for the Twins, as I see it, is they only need to catch one team. And they have games to play against that team.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The primary difference for the Twins, as I see it, is they only need to catch one team. And they have games to play against that team.

 

Agreed, big delta there.

 

I'm still not convinced they sold this year, it's all about Sano now (well, in re the Escobar trade).

[USAFChief]

 

Agreed, big delta there.

 

I'm still not convinced they sold this year, it's all about Sano now (well, in re the Escobar trade).

Well, Sano and Escobar is certainly better than Sano.

 

And Pressly was a pretty important piece of the pen, so IMO, yes they sold.

[nicksaviking]

 

Hey now, the context of the post was postseason odds.

 

If you want to move the discussion to pennant odds, fine, but please don't imply again that I am somehow being disingenuous in my posts.

 

I don't care about winning the division. They can take all of their division crowns from early this century and trade them to the Royals or the White Sox for their World Series trophy. I'm not at all saying you're disingenuous, but we clearly want different things from this team. 

 

If they keep Escobar, sure their odds of winning a division are minimal but still better than without him. However, their odds of winning the World Series goes from what, .5% to .2%? By making these unpopular moves now, it may give them a better shot in the coming years, and that's what I want, a shot at taking the big prize.

 

And yes, I think these five (and counting) prospects have a better chance of turning into a good player, or more likely, being traded for a good player than Escobar and Pressly did of winning the division for the Twins.

[Monkeypaws]

 

I believe in Kepler, still believe in Buxton, have always believed in Gibson, but the other name you are looking for is Eduardo Escobar.

See what I mean?

 

LaVelle mentioned in today's S-Trib that the Twins made an effort to try and extend Escobar during the season, but were unable to generate any momentum. So it's not for lack of trying.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, Sano and Escobar is certainly better than Sano.

 

And Pressly was a pretty important piece of the pen, so IMO, yes they sold.

 

Where and how often, are both Sano and Escobar in the lineup going forward (if Esco was here)?

 

Who is Molitor benching to get them both on the field at the same time?

 

Polanco? Mauer? Morrison (we could only hope)? Dozier?

 

I do agree with others, Sano is still down if this doesn't happen, and it is possible (likely) that for this year, Esobar is better (wow, that sucks). 

 

I do agree on the RP trade, but I'd call that a pretty soft sell so far.....maybe they should call up May to replace him. Or pitch Mejia in relief. Or Odorizzi?

[yarnivek1972]

Where and how often, are both Sano and Escobar in the lineup going forward (if Esco was here)?

 

Who is Molitor benching to get them both on the field at the same time?

 

Polanco? Mauer? Morrison (we could only hope)? Dozier?

 

I do agree with others, Sano is still down if this doesn't happen, and it is possible (likely) that for this year, Esobar is better (wow, that sucks).

 

I do agree on the RP trade, but I'd call that a pretty soft sell so far.....maybe they should call up May to replace him. Or pitch Mejia in relief. Or Odorizzi?

Morrison is the obvious answer there. Escobar was the second most productive hitter in the lineup. I know many of us (myself included) criticize Molitor’s moves. But he’s not THAT stupid. Escobar would have played somewhere at least 6 games out of 7.

 

Pressly too has arguably been the second most reliable bullpen arm. Teams that are trying for it this year don’t trade off key pieces.

Edited July 30, 2018 by yarnivek1972

[Mike Sixel]

 

Morrison is the obvious answer there. Escobar was the second most productive hitter in the lineup. I know many of us (myself included) criticize Molitor’s moves. But he’s not THAT stupid. Escobar would have played somewhere at least 6 games out of 7.

Pressly too has arguably been the second most reliable bullpen arm. Teams that are trying for it this year don’t trade off key pieces.

 

I don't know how smart Molitor is......and I hope you are right that he'd do that. given how he handles the team, I don't have as much confidence as you.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

LaVelle mentioned in today's S-Trib that the Twins made an effort to try and extend Escobar during the season, but were unable to generate any momentum. So it's not for lack of trying.

Now the front office is telling LaVelle they tried to extend Escobar. Well, maybe. I will bet on that being pure damage control instead. Edited July 30, 2018 by Hosken Bombo Disco

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And yes, I think these five (and counting) prospects have a better chance of turning into a good player, or more likely, being traded for a good player than Escobar and Pressly did of winning the division for the Twins.

But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

[Major League Ready]

 

At this point it's fence straddling if they do not go whole hog and trade Dozier, Morrison, Rodney and Lynn.

 

Agreed.  They obviously traded two players with more to contribute than the player's you listed. So, I don't think there is any reason to believe they won't trade all of the players given a remotely reasonable return. The bad news is none of them are going to return much. The good news is it will create opportunities for players who could possibly contribute to the solution.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Major Leauge Ready

[yarnivek1972]

Now the front office is telling LaVelle they tried to extend Escobar. Well, maybe. I will bet on that being pure damage control instead.

Because it would be difficult for LEN to ask Escobar to confirm or deny? Does Escobar have any reason to lie?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The players they got back are lotto tickets, they can keep them and see if the multitude of them produce some good players in the future, or they might use them to go get JT Realmuto in the off season. Or a starting pitcher. Or a shortstop. They're just giving themselves so many more avenues to make the team better in the next couple of years.

I think you might be overrating how much these prospects will buy. Likely not Realmuto or anything on that level. Maybe on the level of Odorizzi, Garcia, or obviously guys like Escobar or Pressly.

 

Then again, we already have a deep system of 40 FV prospects, so we could probably have made those moves if they presented themselves even without these 5 additional prospects. Gives us a little better depth to manage it, certainly, but the tangible benefit of that level of is pretty low. There are diminishing returns to stockpiling that level of prospect.

[Major League Ready]

 

Just saying that 2%, relative to 8%, is more significant than the same 2% relative to, say, 50%. I thought that was clear. No intent to be disingenuous at all, I thought I was pretty clear about my position in the rest of my post.

 

It's only significant because they have horrible odds. It would only be a 4% reduction if they had a 50% chance of making the playoffs. Would it make more sense for them to trade Escobar and Pressly if they had a 50% chance?

[yarnivek1972]

Agreed. They obviously traded two players with more to contribute than the player's you listed. So, I don't think there is any reason to believe they won't trade all of the players given a remotely reasonable return. The bad news is none of them are going to return much. The good news is it will create opportunities for players who could possibly contribute to the solution.

Exactly. A trade requires two willing participants. Duke should be easy enough to trade. I’m not at all sure any team would want Dozier, Morrison or Rodney. Lynn maybe. A healthy starter is usually tradeable at any time.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I have acknowledged the risk on numerous occasions.

I see you are still active in thread, just curious if you any plans to address this post of mine?

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/30781-article-dear-twins-dont-sell/?p=777956

 

"what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

[Major League Ready]

 

What is the cost benefit analysis of watching meaningful baseball games through August and September?

 

I, too, want the Twins to win a WS. But I also want to watch meaningful regular seasons. And this season wasn't lost yet. 

 

And for the record, as Spycake has pointed out "all of the GMs" in situations similar to, or worse than, the current Twins HAVEN'T sold yet. Do you suppose you're overestimating your particular expertise in the area of how MLB teams operate?

 

There is no doubt you and I have very different professional backgrounds. I would be more than happy to list my credentials if you really want to compare credentials.

[Major League Ready]

 

Exactly. A trade requires two willing participants. Duke should be easy enough to trade. I’m not at all sure any team would want Dozier, Morrison or Rodney. Lynn maybe. A healthy starter is usually tradeable at any time.

 

Dozier's history of coming on in the 2nd half might entice a team to take a chance but I don't like our odds of getting a decent prospect. Lynn would not be a shock because he too has performed in the past. Plus a couple of the contenders are still short on SP. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's only significant because they have horrible odds. It would only be a 4% reduction if they had a 50% chance of making the playoffs. Would it make more sense for them to trade Escobar and Pressly if they had a 50% chance?

It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial.

 

I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

[nicksaviking]

 

But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

 

But the odds that Escobar was going to contribute on a good team this year was already next to zero.

 

Well until he got traded anyway.

[alarp33]

 

It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial.

 

I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

 

To be fair, you are ignoring the Fangraphs projection model because the other 2 models on Fangraphs support your narrative more. 1.6% needs to be included if you want to throw out absolutes like "I know the odds were 8-12%"

[Major League Ready]

 

But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

 

In what world is the 2018 Twins a good team. There are only two teams outside the central division with a worse record than the Twins. Only 8 teams in all of baseball worse than the twins. The three players who are arguably most important to the team are playing horribly. Our bullpen sucks. In what universe is this a good team or a team with a chance to do anything in the playoffs. You are ,mesmerized by the chance to win a really bad division. Shouldn't the goal be to build a good team, a team that won't be a huge underdog in a playoff series.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

But the odds that Escobar was going to contribute on a good team this year was already next to zero.

 

Well until he got traded anyway.

I admit, 8-12% isn't high. (8.4% Fangraphs season to date projection mode, 12.5% Fangraphs coin flip mode -- obviously if you fully buy the 1.6% figure that's a different story, but I don't even know if Fangraphs buys that fully)

 

But what chances do you put on these four or five additional 40 FV prospects contributing meaningfully to a better Twins team down the line? I'm open to being shown otherwise, but I don't think it's going to clear 8-12% by all that much.

 

Then doesn't that really reduce this to a matter of preference and gut feeling? 

Edited July 30, 2018 by spycake

[jimmer]

I'm glad they sold, hope they continue.

[Major League Ready]

 

It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial.

 

I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

 

You completely ignored what I said. You justified an earlier point by saying the reduction in odds was 25% which of course is true if we agree to the assumptions being used. The fact is the degradation in odds is a result of really poor odds which is why the FO made this move. Is it or is it not true that the teams odds of winning the division would not have gone down nearly as much if they were reasonably positioned to win the division? If it's true which is a mathematical fact, your point about the odds going down only serves to support management's decision to sell where you are trying to use it as a reason for supporting riding it out.

[jkcarew]

I guess if winning a Division title is an important goal, we can’t know which side of this argument is ‘correct’ until we see where Cleveland ends up. Depending on whether...or how badly, Cleveland sputters in Aug/Sept, it could end up that the Twins would have had a realistic shot...or not.

 

For my money, I’m glad the Twins are not behaving as though an unlikely...or even a ‘decent’...shot at a Central Division title in 2018 is a goal worthy of any act or omission of act...no matter how small that act may seem today...that doesn’t help the club’s chances to realistically compete for a pennant some day. I see this as what many fans would have hoped for with a new management team... a front office that is not going to be concerned with ‘pressure’ to follow the path of least resistance...one that is not interested in the strategy of celebrating mediocrity....or that has experienced futility for so long, that they confuse mediocrity with actual goodness. Now, IMO, they need to follow through with the theme before the deadline hits.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

To be fair, you are ignoring the Fangraphs projection model because the other 2 models on Fangraphs support your narrative more. 1.6% needs to be included if you want to throw out absolutes like "I know the odds were 8-12%"

I am not trying to ignore it. I try to reference it where possible. I didn't reference any numbers at all in the post you quoted there. You can split the difference between 1.6% and 8.4% and 12.%, and I don't think it changes my point. The average of those 3 is 7.5% and it has been trending up since Polanco's return, I am more than happy to use that as the prevailing figure if you'd like.

[alarp33]

 

I am not trying to ignore it. I try to reference it where possible. I didn't reference any numbers at all in the post you quoted there. You can split the difference between 1.6% and 8.4% and 12.%, and I don't think it changes my point. The average of those 3 is 7.5% and it has been trending up since Polanco's return, I am more than happy to use that as the prevailing figure if you'd like.

 

This was literally in the quoted section I replied too; 

 

"I already know the odds were 8%-12%,"