Article: The Potential Return of a Kyle Gibson Trade

[yarnivek1972]

I agree. I don't think the FO wants to punt on 2019 either. The Twins had some tough luck this year in severe regression for Sano, Buxton, losing Polanco etc. and they still almost fought back to get in it. If they keep the starters, and get improvements from the pen this team can compete with Cleveland next year.

 

That being said if they got a Chris Sale type offer for Gibson then take it. We can still compete next year without him as well.

How?

 

With four ifs and maybes in the rotation? How’s that working out with three this year?

[nicksaviking]

***Moderator Note***

 

I've hid a couple of off topic posts that were getting personal. Winning or losing, the trade deadline always brings out strong emotions but let's try to keep them from boiling over.

[Dman]

 

How?

With four ifs and maybes in the rotation? How’s that working out with three this year?

 

I don't think we have to worry as it is highly, highly unlikely they trade Gibson.  In fact I would be shocked in two ways.  One that a team actually ponied up the prospects to make the deal and two that the FO actually moved him.

[TheLeviathan]

I think it's odd (but unsurprising) that people think Gibson is too valuable to let go of, but that no one else in baseball will value him that way.

 

Maybe they don't....but then maybe there is good reason for that too.

[mazeville]

Yeah the scenario you're painting here suggests to me that you don't trade Gibson.

 

The Twins want to contend next year. Fabulous. If they do, they need starters, and Gibson under contract for next year and is doing well. I love the trades the Twins have made and am on board with trading free agents. But Gibson should only be traded if the offer is amazing. 

 

For instance, any trade with the Brewers HAS to start with Keston Hiura, or perhaps Burns + Ray. If you say, "no way the Brewers do that," then I say no thank you and walk away. 

 

The Twins don't have to trade Gibson. That's the best position to be in. 

[Battle ur tail off]

 

I think the only way I trade Gibson is for a top 100 guy and one or two more in the team's top 20... and I have to add that someone in that haul needs to be near ML ready at a position we need such as C. 

 

Levine has every right to make it clear that we will need to be blown away. Trading Gibson is a punt on 2019, and I don't think that's a good idea. 

 

This is a good post and I'd aim even higher. I'd want a guy in that top 30 or so range. There needs to be a stud coming back if you trade Gibson. Even if you get less in the amount of players back, getting someone you can be pretty sure will make an impact would be a must for me if I was making that kind of trade.

[Mike Sixel]

Certainly need a top 30 type, and another in the top 100, and then another high upside guy. Need A LOT to trade Gibson at this point.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Certainly need a top 30 type, and another in the top 100, and then another high upside guy. Need A LOT to trade Gibson at this point.

 

I will be surprised if Gibson could get 2 top 100 guys. Given his history, I'd be surprised if he got 1, which is why I doubt he gets traded... but yes, I'd definitely set the ask very high for him. 

 

I think Chris Archer's get will be telling. Archer has a much better track record, but is not having nearly the season Kyle is having this year (or really the last couple years have been as good as 2018 Kyle, though to be fair, the unbalanced schedule does him no favors). 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I will be surprised if Gibson could get 2 top 100 guys. Given his history, I'd be surprised if he got 1, which is why I doubt he gets traded... but yes, I'd definitely set the ask very high for him. 

 

I think Chris Archer's get will be telling. Archer has a much better track record, but is not having nearly the season Kyle is having this year (or really the last couple years have been as good as 2018 Kyle, though to be fair, the unbalanced schedule does him no favors). 

 

Not one top 100 guy? I, hmmm, I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

I'd be shocked if he returned less than 2, or one high one and two more guys near the top 100. Shocked.

[Vanimal46]

I will be surprised if Gibson could get 2 top 100 guys. Given his history, I'd be surprised if he got 1, which is why I doubt he gets traded... but yes, I'd definitely set the ask very high for him.

 

I think Chris Archer's get will be telling. Archer has a much better track record, but is not having nearly the season Kyle is having this year (or really the last couple years have been as good as 2018 Kyle, though to be fair, the unbalanced schedule does him no favors).

Archer's value IMO has always been higher because of his ridiculously low contract. I don't really see the comparison between Gibson and Archer as pitchers.

[mazeville]

 

I think it's odd (but unsurprising) that people think Gibson is too valuable to let go of, but that no one else in baseball will value him that way.

 

Maybe they don't....but then maybe there is good reason for that too.

 

It's not "too valuable to let go of." It's "too valuable to let go for the price this article seems to believe he is worth."

 

Those are two very different things.

 

Kyle Gibson IS a valuable pitcher. Just about all of his numbers have improved over last year and he is striking out two more batters per nine innings than he did the year before. And his improvement began in the second half of last year when he was as big a part of the Twins' run to the playoffs as any other member of the team.

 

If the Twins hope to contend next year, he'd be a good piece to have on the staff. So you don't give him up for anything. You certainly don't give him up for the pieces suggested in the post above. 

 

 

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Not one top 100 guy? I, hmmm, I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

I'd be shocked if he returned less than 2, or one high one and two more guys near the top 100. Shocked.

 

I want you to be right here. I doubt another GM ponies that kind of capital up, especially given Kyle's track record. I've been pretty clear that I don't think he will be traded, so we will never know the asking price.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Archer's value IMO has always been higher because of his ridiculously low contract. I don't really see the comparison between Gibson and Archer as pitchers.

 

I keep forgetting about his option years. Those are pretty cheap given his caliber of play. 

 

I'm just pointing out that Gibson is pitching better than Archer this year. And Gibson's 2018 is better than Archer's 2017 and 2016 (sadly, Gibson sucked during that time, which is why I don't think a GM meets an asking price worth moving him).

[Vanimal46]

I keep forgetting about his option years. Those are pretty cheap given his caliber of play.

 

I'm just pointing out that Gibson is pitching better than Archer this year. And Gibson's 2018 is better than Archer's 2017 and 2016 (sadly, Gibson sucked during that time, which is why I don't think a GM meets an asking price worth moving him).

Gotcha. Yeah I agree Gibson has been much better this year than Archer. Archer IMO has always been valued higher than his production because teams have the potential to get ace-like production for the price of a utility infielder. It's never really come to fruition for him though.

[Dman]

 

Not one top 100 guy? I, hmmm, I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

I'd be shocked if he returned less than 2, or one high one and two more guys near the top 100. Shocked.

 

Yep i totally agree.  It would take two top 100 guys and the right kind of guys (i.e. at least one being a pitcher).  Also probably a couple of lottery tickets thrown in.  It would be a stiff price to pay and that is why those kinds of deals don't get done very often.  The team taking the short term gain with Kyle has to be in go for it now mode to move those kinds of prospects for a year and a half of control.

[alarp33]

Not one top 100 guy? I, hmmm, I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

I'd be shocked if he returned less than 2, or one high one and two more guys near the top 100. Shocked.

Sonny Gray was 27, had a higher peak, an extra year of control... and didn’t return a top 100, let alone the 2+ you are asking for. Is he the perfect comp? No, but I don’t know how the Twins would get much more than that.

It’s ok to demand a haul, and not trade him if you don’t get it. But let’s stay in reality

[Mike Sixel]

They aren't trading him for less than what I'm typing, imo......so that's the price. I don't think they deal part of next year (a key part) for less than that. I could be wrong.....but I could be right. I doubt we won't find out in the next 24 hours....

[alarp33]

They aren't trading him for less than what I'm typing, imo......so that's the price. I don't think they deal part of next year (a key part) for less than that. I could be wrong.....but I could be right. I doubt we won't find out in the next 24 hours....

That’s fine, I’m just pointing out let’s just call him untouchable then, because he is not bringing back a haul like that. No chance

[howieramone2]

No one's untouchable, but I wouldn't trade him. Berrios, Pineda, Gibson, Romero, and ???, along with the boys in band being back, that's good enough to get us back in the hunt.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sonny Gray was 27, had a higher peak, an extra year of control... and didn’t return a top 100, let alone the 2+ you are asking for.

FWIW, Fowler was ranked on BA's midseason top 100 just before the trade, and maybe MLB.com's too? And then on the following offseason BA and BP top 100 lists.

 

Not that it changes your point. A top 30 for Gibson would be nuts, likewise two top 100s.

[alarp33]

FWIW, Fowler was ranked on BA's midseason top 100 just before the trade, and maybe MLB.com's too? And then on the following offseason BA and BP top 100 lists.

 

Not that it changes your point. A top 30 for Gibson would be nuts, likewise two top 100s.

Yeah I should have put in the qualifier that I didn’t research much, just wasn’t on the one list I checked. At best he was a borderline top 100 guy

[tvagle]

Would you trade Gibson to SF for C Joey Bart #36 mlb.com prospect?