Article: Minnesota Twins 2018 Trade Deadline Report Card

[Vanimal46]

Yep even if the prospects don't turn out then the result is the same as keeping Dozier for two months.

 

I guess I don't understand why so many people are down on Raley. His numbers aren't all that different from Rookers. Rooker has a ton more doubles but that is about the only difference. They both have 800 OPS's. Raley is ranked 19 on MLB's site for our system so he is a top 30 prospect. Defensively it looks like he can handle both Corners and even play center field in a pinch so he is an athletic and versatile player.

 

Maybe the Twins wanted Rooker insurance and got Raley who knows. I am just happy they got something.

Other people on Fangraphs don't believe in Raley and say he struggles recognizing/hitting breaking balls.

 

He is ranked #64 out of 65 on Fangraphs' recent article "Ranking the Prospects Traded at the Deadline"

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/ranking-the-prospects-traded-at-the-deadline-2/

[Tom Froemming]

 

Geez, and here I was thinking De La Trinidad was one of my five favorites from this group! 

 

Those guys who walk as much as they strikeout always seem to get shot at the big leagues. His draft positoin sure isn't going to help him in the eyes of evaluators though.

Hey, he can still be a favorite. Some of my favorite guys in the Twins system are players who aren't even in my own personal top 50 prospects list. That's the fun part of following the system really closely, you get a bunch more guys to root for. 

 

There's a lot to like about this guy still. First off: Ernie. Not sure I even have to go on. While he was taken with the 562nd overall pick, he did get a $100,000 signing bonus from Arizona. It's not very common college guys outside of the top 10 rounds get that kind of money, so Arizona must have seen something they really liked and it's possible other teams liked him, but weren't confident they could get him to sign for less. He was a junior, so he could have elected to go back to school.

[alarp33]

 

Other people on Fangraphs don't believe in Raley and say he struggles recognizing/hitting breaking balls.

He is ranked #64 out of 65 on Fangraphs' recent article "Ranking the Prospects Traded at the Deadline"

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/ranking-the-prospects-traded-at-the-deadline-2/

 

Right, this is my point. You have read one scout who doesn't like Raley and have concluded he will never play a role in this organization. The Twins have lots of scouts, some of whom may think he has a chance

[Vanimal46]

(even if they don't turn out, who cares?)

As a general rule of thumb we should cheer for the Twins to get the better part of a trade. So I care. And this trade looks like a clear loss right now.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Vanimal46

[Dantes929]

 

But the way Dozier played down the stretch the Twins lost all leverage.  The Brewers, Red Sox, Diamondbacks, Phillies, Indians, Rockies, Mariners, all could have had him and they either didn't offer anything for him or went with players they apparently thought were better.

 

The Dodgers got a deal no doubt about it and they have a good plan for how to maximize Doziers strengths but what were we gonna do with another two months of Dozier?  They obviously didn't want to do the QO or they would have kept him.  They took what they could get.  Makes sense to me.

Well, its your 2nd paragraph that is my entire focus.   If the Dodgers got a deal, no doubt then we got fleeced.     If I have a golf club that I no longer need or use but someone else needs it to complete their set and is way better than the club they have, do I sell it to him for next to nothing because I have no use for it or do I try to get the most for it because I know the buyer really wants it.    To maximize my return I would be willing to walk away without a deal because if I do  I have really lost nothing.    Its the other guy that has lost a big opportunity.      Its not about what Dozier's value is to the Twins.   Its all about Dozier's value to the Dodgers.    When all the other teams passed on Dozier because they had better alternatives it left the Dodgers who did not have a good alternative.    Forsythe has been terrible and Dozier was a clear upgrade.    It should have hurt them a little and helped us more even if he is a rental because the Dodgers are in a close pennant race and they went from glaring weakness to at worse competency and at best an explosive hitter.   Dozier could literally be the difference in making the playoffs and having a shot at the WS.     That should be worth something more than what we got. imo.

[Dman]

 

Other people on Fangraphs don't believe in Raley and say he struggles recognizing/hitting breaking balls.

He is ranked #64 out of 65 on Fangraphs' recent article "Ranking the Prospects Traded at the Deadline"

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/ranking-the-prospects-traded-at-the-deadline-2/

 

Yeah that is a pretty horrible grade for him.  35 ouch!!  His performance doesn't match their scouting unfortunately.  I guess AAA will tell the tale.  Will see lot's more junk\breaking balls there.  I typically trust fangraphs more than other sites but they aren't always right either.

[nicksaviking]

 

As a general rule of thumb we should cheer for the Twins to get the better part of a trade. So I care. And this trade looks like a clear loss right now.

 

While I'd like the Twins to 'win' trades, I don't think it's necessary. In it's true sense, a trade isn't a competition, it's an exchange of goods. The Twins no longer needed Dozier but they could use some more prospects.

 

I can say that I'd rather have the two prospects the Twins got for Dozier who don't need to be added to the 40-man than the two 26-year-olds Boston gave up for Kinsler who did require 40-man spots.

[alarp33]

 

As a general rule of thumb we should cheer for the Twins to get the better part of a trade. So I care. And this trade looks like a clear loss right now.

 

They gave up 2 months of Dozier in a lost season. What did the Twins lose exactly? I mean if Forsythe is worse, like many expect, and the Twins get the 7th pick in the draft instead of the 11th.. you are calling that a clear loss? 

 

Why exactly does it look like a clear loss right now? Because Fangraphs doesn't like Raley?

[USAFChief]

 

As a general rule of thumb we should cheer for the Twins to get the better part of a trade. So I care. And this trade looks like a clear loss right now.

He was worth more in the Twins lineup over the last two months, even at a remote chance of catching Cleveland, than the org filler they received in return.

 

 

[Dman]

 

Well, its your 2nd paragraph that is my entire focus.   If the Dodgers got a deal, no doubt then we got fleeced.     If I have a golf club that I no longer need or use but someone else needs it to complete their set and is way better than the club they have, do I sell it to him for next to nothing because I have no use for it or do I try to get the most for it because I know the buyer really wants it.    To maximize my return I would be willing to walk away without a deal because if I do  I have really lost nothing.    Its the other guy that has lost a big opportunity.      Its not about what Dozier's value is to the Twins.   Its all about Dozier's value to the Dodgers.    When all the other teams passed on Dozier because they had better alternatives it left the Dodgers who did not have a good alternative.    Forsythe has been terrible and Dozier was a clear upgrade.    It should have hurt them a little and helped us more even if he is a rental because the Dodgers are in a close pennant race and they went from glaring weakness to at worse competency and at best an explosive hitter.   Dozier could literally be the difference in making the playoffs and having a shot at the WS.     That should be worth something more than what we got. imo.

 

That is nice in theory but no deal hurts us too.  Now I have a club I can't really use and nothing in return.  I still lose.  Now I don't even have a chance to get a better club I can use the next 6 years.  I'd rather have a chance then no chance or nothing. 

 

Maybe if they held out the Dodgers would have caved or maybe like the other clubs they just move on and grab something else.  They didn't need Dozier THAT bad.  They already walked away once why not do it again.

[Dman]

 

That is nice in theory but no deal hurts us too.  Now I have a club I can't really use and nothing in return.  I still lose.  Now I don't even have a chance to get a better club I can use the next 6 years.  I'd rather have a chance then no chance or nothing. 

 

Maybe if they held out the Dodgers would have caved or maybe like the other clubs they just move on and grab something else.  They didn't need Dozier THAT bad.  They already walked away once why not do it again.

 

I just don't think the Twins had much leverage.  They have been look for a deal for Dozier the last two years and hadn't found the value they believed he warranted.  Why would they get it now when in an even weaker position.

 

[yarnivek1972]

Right, this is my point. You have read one scout who doesn't like Raley and have concluded he will never play a role in this organization. The Twins have lots of scouts, some of whom may think he has a chance

Most of whom were hired by the Ryan regime.

[alarp33]

 

Most of whom were hired by the Ryan regime.

 

What's your point? I thought Ryan was a terrible GM, but the Twins have historically done well on these types of trades.

[Vanimal46]

Yeah that is a pretty horrible grade for him. 35 ouch!! His performance doesn't match their scouting unfortunately. I guess AAA will tell the tale. Will see lot's more junk\breaking balls there. I typically trust fangraphs more than other sites but they aren't always right either.

Certainly. No outlet or scout is right all the time. From the limited reading I've done on this guy, there are outcomes ranging from everyday OF with 20 HR potential to a stiff 1B with limited MLB upside. He'll probably be somewhere in the middle. So where does he fit in here?

 

I don't see him moving ahead of Granite, Wade, Cave, etc. as a 4th OF.

 

I don't see him moving ahead of Sano, Mauer, Rooker, Morrison, or Austin as a 1B/DH.

 

I've been wrong before and will continue to be wrong. This just doesn't look good.

[alarp33]

 

Certainly. No outlet or scout is right all the time. From the limited reading I've done on this guy, there are outcomes ranging from everyday OF with 20 HR potential to a stiff 1B with limited MLB upside. He'll probably be somewhere in the middle. So where does he fit in here?

I don't see him moving ahead of Granite, Wade, Cave, etc. as a 4th OF.

I don't see him moving ahead of Sano, Mauer, Rooker, Morrison, or Austin as a 1B/DH.

I've been wrong before and will continue to be wrong. This just doesn't look good.

 

So you've seen reports that call him a potential every day OFer, but have concluded getting rid of Dozier for 2 months in a lost season was "a clear loss". I don't understand the reasoning here

[Vanimal46]

While I'd like the Twins to 'win' trades, I don't think it's necessary. In it's true sense, a trade isn't a competition, it's an exchange of goods. The Twins no longer needed Dozier but they could use some more prospects.

 

I can say that I'd rather have the two prospects the Twins got for Dozier who don't need to be added to the 40-man than the two 26-year-olds Boston gave up for Kinsler who did require 40-man spots.

Fair. I don't think the Twins needed the 2 prospects from LA regardless. I could live with the swap of Dozier for Forsythe if the prospects were worth it. These 2 don't sound like they are. IMO of course.

[Ben Noble]

 

He was worth more in the Twins lineup over the last two months

 

While he was worth more in the Twins lineup over the last two months, I wonder if he was worth more out of the Twins clubhouse over the last two months.

 

Conjecture, of course...but I really do wonder if that dude's 'tude played into the trade.

[Vanimal46]

So you've seen reports that call him a potential every day OFer, but have concluded getting rid of Dozier for 2 months in a lost season was "a clear loss". I don't understand the reasoning here

If you read the rest of my post you will see I question where this person fits into the organization.

 

We're not going to agree on this so I'm moving on.

[Doomtints]

"Giving up" veterans for run-of-the-mill prospects always seems like a huge loss. But we are forgetting some things:

 

- Dozier was one of those run-of-the-mill prospects, most of you were beating the "he's going to regress" drum for 2-3 years before you bought into the idea that he could play baseball well

- He is a lame duck. He was off the team anyway come the end of the season.

- He might just come back to the Twins next year. It's possible the Twins got prospects + get Dozier back. No one else seems particularly interested in him, and the Twins would be happy to pay him market value and possibly a little more.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Doomtints

[alarp33]

 

If you read the rest of my post you will see I question where this person fits into the organization.

We're not going to agree on this so I'm moving on.

 

You listed Mauer and Morrison, free agents. Zach Granite, a guy with a .527 OPS in AAA... but admitted Raley could be an every day player 

 

We aren't going to agree, and I'm totally able to admit I have no idea how this trade will look in the long run. My issue is with saying something like this is a "Clear loss". I don't understand that in the least. What would Dozier have brought to this team in Aug/Sept?  If Raley contributes greatly for 2 weeks in a winning season in his entire MLB career it's a clear win. 

 

I don't even get how you could "lose" a trade like this, knowing Dozier is a free agent in 2 months 

Edited August 2, 2018 by alarp33

[Dman]

 

Certainly. No outlet or scout is right all the time. From the limited reading I've done on this guy, there are outcomes ranging from everyday OF with 20 HR potential to a stiff 1B with limited MLB upside. He'll probably be somewhere in the middle. So where does he fit in here?

I don't see him moving ahead of Granite, Wade, Cave, etc. as a 4th OF.

I don't see him moving ahead of Sano, Mauer, Rooker, Morrison, or Austin as a 1B/DH.

I've been wrong before and will continue to be wrong. This just doesn't look good.

 

Yeah, I agree with you.  I am not sure I see a future spot for him.  Rooker is better and there really is no place for him in the outfield unless his hit tool becomes really, really good.  I guess you hope he picks up future value and you include him in a trade for pitching?  Not sure where he fits but a bit redundant right now.  I think technically I like Wiel better than Raley.  Weil has a really good eye at the plate and is just missing home run power but I like his chances better because his K rate is so much better.

 

I am not even sure how they fit those three guys at AA.  Maybe they move someone to AAA.  It is a good question. He doesn't fit real well IMO.

[Jacksson]

Not EVERY trade is made projecting the player traded for as being a future major leaguer. Keep in mind that there is a full slate of minor league teams that need to be staffed with players to keep the local fans interested enough to support a minor league team. Most professional baseball players never sniff the Majors.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Yep even if the prospects don't turn out then the result is the same as keeping Dozier for two months. 

 

I guess I don't understand why so many people are down on Raley.  His numbers aren't all that different from Rookers.  Rooker has a ton more doubles but that is about the only difference.  They both have 800 OPS's.  Raley is ranked 19 on MLB's site for our system so he is a top 30 prospect. Defensively it looks like he can handle both Corners and even play center field in a pinch so he is an athletic and versatile player.

 

Maybe the Twins wanted Rooker insurance and got Raley who knows.  I am just happy they got something.

Minor league park factors/league hitting environments is a kind of murky subject, but it seems like it's generally accepted that the Texas League, where Raley was, is a good place to hit.

 

Rooker has an .865 OPS and has homered every 22 PAs in a league where the averages are .710 and 47.2, respectively. Raley had an .822 OPS and went deep every 25.6 PAs in a league where the averages were .743 and 42.4. Still, you're absolutely right, their overall numbers aren't all that different from each other. 

 

One big difference is Rooker has been getting better, and has a .939 OPS over the last 90 days, while Raley has cooled off, posting an .801 OPS over the last 90 days. In that same time frame, Rooker has a 15.7 K-BB% (26.2-10.5) while Raley is at 18.9 (23.8-4.9). Was the Texas League starting to figure out Raley?

 

Another huge difference is their batted-ball profile. Rooker's GB:FB ratio is 0.79 and Raley's is 1.44. This very well could have been a reason the Twins targeted Raley, however, as maybe they think a slight adjustment in his swing could help unleash even more power.

 

Defensively, I think Raley is as likely to play center field as Rooker is, though it's much more likely Raley will be a serviceable corner outfielder. 

[yarnivek1972]

What's your point? I thought Ryan was a terrible GM, but the Twins have historically done well on these types of trades.

“Done well” by what measure?

 

It certainly hasn’t helped them win playoff games. Not in the last 15 years anyway.

[alarp33]

 

“Done well” by what measure?

It certainly hasn’t helped them win playoff games. Not in the last 15 years anyway.

 

I'm confused by what your argument or point is. Are you saying the only way for a team to win a playoff game is by nailing minor deadline deals where they are trading expiring contracts? The Liriano trade wasn't a win because Escobar didn't carry the team to a WS title?

[diehardtwinsfan]

So I guess the question I ask of Tom... some of your grades are pretty low. What were your expectations there? Should they have, for instance, simply kept Dozier?

 

The way I see it is that if they are giving up on 2018, which I think they did (and should have done), then it's their job to ship out pretty much everyone on a 1 year deal for value. I don't think, for instance, that Dozier was going to get much more value than that. 

 

I think the grading is really kind of all or nothing here, with the exception of Pressly, who by trading him you put 2019 at risk (unless the FO thinks he's smoke and mirrors)... Everyone else pretty much needed to go.

[yarnivek1972]

The point of everything the organization does should be with the goal of winning a championship. To that end, it means acquiring the right players at the right time to help do that. The prospects the Twins have acquired over the last 15 years haven’t helped win anything. So, again, by what measure have the Twins “done well” with these kinds of trades?

[Mike Sixel]

 

The point of everything the organization does should be with the goal of winning a championship. To that end, it means acquiring the right players at the right time to help do that. The prospects the Twins have acquired over the last 15 years haven’t helped win anything. So, again, by what measure have the Twins “done well” with these kinds of trades?

 

Maybe it's not that these trades have been bad, but that lots of other things have been. IMO, your argument reads like "how good is Mike Trout, the Angels have never won anything". That might not be your intent, but that's how it reads.

 

They could be the world's best team at making successful small trades, but if they don't draft well, and sign the right free agents, and make the right big trades....they might not win much.

[yarnivek1972]

Maybe it's not that these trades have been bad, but that lots of other things have been. IMO, your argument reads like "how good is Mike Trout, the Angels have never won anything". That might not be your intent, but that's how it reads.

 

They could be the world's best team at making successful small trades, but if they don't draft well, and sign the right free agents, and make the right big trades....they might not win much.

Oh, there are certainly other problems. Many of them stemming from people hired by the Ryan regime. My ultimate point is why trust the judgement of those people? Replace them with people who have some track record of success or who are at least on the same page with the people on top.

[Rosterman]

Overall, you can do nothing but be impressed.

 

Dozier, may be worth more, but he has issues which is why the Twins weren't able to trade him for anything of substance in the past, and he actually went to a team that DIDN'T need to start him for the rest of the season, as either the Twins were asking too much to begin with, or there were others players more suitable for even a short term rental out there (and there were and they went to other teams).

 

Pressly is a loss. He has been badly overworked this season and may just mellow out in the contending bullpen of the Astros. Always felt he had closer potential (like Jesse Crain) and that the Twins were fools to rid themselves of the player. But they got a nice return for someone who they grabbed in a Rule 5 draft.

 

The Twins got a bench bat for next season who can play first, DH or work in the outfield, probably better than Grossman/ They got a pitcher who will bebattling Aaron Slegers for a spot on the 40-man come the off-season and who should get a looksee come September to see if he can handle long elief.

 

They got waaaay too many outfielders, young outfieledrs. But we have to begin to question what the Twins will do with Kepler, what is the longterm spot on the team of Buxton, and CAN the Twins deal Rosario after maybe getting him on a team friendly extension. All deecisions that need to be made more towards the end of next season. But by 2021, expect the Twins outfield to look very different.

 

What they didn't get...viable middle infield help, although they have that in the minors. Also, no catcher, but they MIGHT have two coming up towards 2020/2021. 

 

Now the question is what kind of movement do we see in the minors, how many free agents (including minor league free agents) do the Twins go after in 2019.

 

But the system looks pretty darn good, especially with rotation arms.