Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Non-Twins Off-season news, tidbits and transactions

ashbury

By ashbury
in Other Baseball

Recommended Posts

nicksaviking All-Star

nicksaviking

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

 

Fair points-and you're right, their offense does deserve some of the blame as well...

 

I guess my overall point is that they should either "really go for it" and sign 2 or 3 nice FA and keep Trout the whole time, or trade him while his value is at its apex.  

 

Harvey and Cahill are not those type of signings. 

 

It seems to me even with Trout the Angles have been trying to get big talent to help him, it just hasn't worked. I would be inclined to move Trout and start over since they're not going anywhere now, but I would wait another year and see if the new manager turns things around. That organization just seems really stale. Might not be fair to Scioscia, but you got to change things up more regularly then the Angels have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 743
  • Created
  • Last Reply
TheLeviathan All-Star

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

 

Upon further review, not nearly as payroll clearing as I thought. Kemp and Bailey are basically a wash money wise. The Dodgers will still be around $180 million in payroll.

 

Clearing OF spots?  Adding prospects to help make a trade?

 

If Cron is our 1B, I'd like to place a call about Winker.  I'd prefer he be a better defensive player, but I prefer him as a DH to having Cron and Austin on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danchat St Paul Saints

Danchat

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

On paper, this looks like a bad deal for the Dodgers... they're sending 3 useful players to the Reds for salary relief and two prospects? I get they want to slash their payroll to try and land Harper/Machado, but still... and now that I've looked up the prospects, it's even worse because they're 19 and 20 years old and don't have very impressive stats/prospect levels from what I can tell.  :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbminn First Round Pick

dbminn

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

On paper, this looks like a bad deal for the Dodgers... they're sending 3 useful players to the Reds for salary relief and two prospects? I get they want to slash their payroll to try and land Harper/Machado, but still... and now that I've looked up the prospects, it's even worse because they're 19 and 20 years old and don't have very impressive stats/prospect levels from what I can tell.  :confused:

 

It would hurt a lot of teams to lose Puig and Wood. Not the Dodgers. They have players to take their place. Wood wasn't projected to make their rotation. Their OF is now Verdugo/Pederson/Bellinger/Taylor/Hernandez. Crazy amount of talent and as much money as they need to spend between now and ST. The prospects the Dodgers got are the equivalent of Baddoo and Jorge Alcala. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SomeGuy Draft Eligible

SomeGuy

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Kemp was pretty bad in the 2nd half last year. Plus if you add up his WAR over the last 4 seasons you get 0.5. Also a very bad fielding outfielder. They aren't losing much there, he was not worth his contract and about to be a FA anyway. They got pitching depth to replace Wood. Puig is the big loss in my mind.

 

If they miss out on Harper there is still a very good outfielder in AJ Pollock. Either one would outweigh the Puig loss I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beckmt GCL Twins

beckmt

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

They are so well run. Trade for depth, then sign a free agent to replace what you traded. It's like buying another player. More teams should do this. Trade Kepler for a very good prospect, sign an outfielder. Boom. You bought a prospect.

Assuming the outfielder you sign is close to what Kepler produces (which I believe is over 2 WAR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
old nurse GCL Twins

old nurse

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

They are so well run. Trade for depth, then sign a free agent to replace what you traded. It's like buying another player. More teams should do this. Trade Kepler for a very good prospect, sign an outfielder. Boom. You bought a prospect.

What kind of prospect does trading Kepler get? Other than Harper about the only outfielder that might be better than Kepler would be Pollock. He is projected at 4/60. Being the generous organization they are Kepler as a might see 20 million over the next 4 years.  For 40 million your team buys a prospect. For 40 million you could buy anyone's 2 or 3 ranked prospect. They are not going to trade Kepler for that prospect. Money down the drain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bird College Ball

bird

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

They are so well run. Trade for depth, then sign a free agent to replace what you traded. It's like buying another player. More teams should do this. Trade Kepler for a very good prospect, sign an outfielder. Boom. You bought a prospect.

 

 

Yeah, I like this idea in theory, especially when the replacement is a clear and somewhat certain upgrade, and especially when your starting point is one of adequate surplus.

 

Executing it is harder than one thinks. Let's start with the reasonable premise that the Twins play in the "next tier", and take Harper off the table. So then, who would you, as GM, sign for 2019 that is a true and certain upgrade over Kepler?

 

Remember, this transaction HAS to upgrade the team for 2019. No more "always the future" stuff, you've been adamant about that yourself. That B prospect you got for Kepler? Not a sure thing at all, you've been adamant about that too, justifiably.

 

So, is it McCutchen in 2019, with his 118 OPS+, his 2.7 WAR, his decline phase, and his $17M price tag and 3-year anchor to replace Kepler with his 96 OPS+, his 2.8 WAR entering his peak years, his $600k price tag and uncertain but possibly better future?

 

If not, make a case for Brantley perhaps? He's certainly better, and only $11.4M more expensive in 2019 than Kepler. Who else? Pollack? 

 

It has to be a clear and certain upgrade, mind you. Jimmy Pohlad said extra cost is not a concern and it's your call. Your job..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Sixel Cooperstown

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

It was an example, not a literal proposal.....but sure, if I could trade Kepler for top 75 prospect (not sure I can), and then sign McCutchen, I'd do that. I'd also consider Pollack, sure. 

 

How are the Twins worse off under that scenario? They are 40MM below the median MLB salary, the money isn't an issue. Kepler is controlled for about the same amount of time as those two would be, and you get a prospect (assuming you trust the FO to ID the right prospect). 

 

Or, you keep Kepler and pocket the money? Because if you want me to provide a specific example, I'd like to know what you plan to do with the 40-50MM they have to spend this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howieramone2 First Round Pick

howieramone2

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

I guess the Angels are also on board with these 1 year deals. They already have a handful of decent starters, so they’ve got some depth to work with now.

Every team is on board with 1 year deals. It's just a couple guys here on the fan board that don't get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howieramone2 First Round Pick

howieramone2

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

They are so well run. Trade for depth, then sign a free agent to replace what you traded. It's like buying another player. More teams should do this. Trade Kepler for a very good prospect, sign an outfielder. Boom. You bought a prospect.

We already have one of the top rated farm systems and no doubt will be very active at the trade deadline again. We need to make win now moves, not play games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim Hahn College Ball

Jim Hahn

Provisional Member
Posted
Posted

It was an example, not a literal proposal.....but sure, if I could trade Kepler for top 75 prospect (not sure I can), and then sign McCutchen, I'd do that. I'd also consider Pollack, sure. 

 

How are the Twins worse off under that scenario? They are 40MM below the median MLB salary, the money isn't an issue. Kepler is controlled for about the same amount of time as those two would be, and you get a prospect (assuming you trust the FO to ID the right prospect). 

 

Or, you keep Kepler and pocket the money? Because if you want me to provide a specific example, I'd like to know what you plan to do with the 40-50MM they have to spend this year.

 

I am not so sure I would do this deal. There seem to some assumptions inherit in this. We really don't know how much money they have to spend. With Kepler just entering his prime years, and McCutcheon already in his 30's, it is not that clear that McCutcheon will be the better player. It might be more cost efficient to keep Kepler and spend the money on pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Sixel Cooperstown

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

I am not so sure I would do this deal. There seem to some assumptions inherit in this. We really don't know how much money they have to spend. With Kepler just entering his prime years, and McCutcheon already in his 30's, it is not that clear that McCutcheon will be the better player. It might be more cost efficient to keep Kepler and spend the money on pitching.

They are forty million under last year, maybe fifty. How many relief pitchers do you think they will sign? But I agree, they should sign some. And yes, there is risk, just as there is risk in doing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bird College Ball

bird

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

It was an example, not a literal proposal.....but sure, if I could trade Kepler for top 75 prospect (not sure I can), and then sign McCutchen, I'd do that. I'd also consider Pollack, sure. 

 

How are the Twins worse off under that scenario? They are 40MM below the median MLB salary, the money isn't an issue. Kepler is controlled for about the same amount of time as those two would be, and you get a prospect (assuming you trust the FO to ID the right prospect). 

 

Or, you keep Kepler and pocket the money? Because if you want me to provide a specific example, I'd like to know what you plan to do with the 40-50MM they have to spend this year. 

 

First of all, I keep Kepler. I don't want to have my backup plans be Cave, and then some combo of Granite/Wade/Reed if two OF's fail me. I would've bid for a RH hitting OF/1B/DH if I found a starting caliber guy in FA. I have been suggesting RH McCutchen, and I would've cut that check knowing it was a stupid decision financially IF I thought I could trade away Austin and plug him in at 1B/RF/DH against lefties. He'd platoon between 1B/RF/DH with Kepler/Cron/Cave, and I'd have passed on Cruz. When Kirilloff is ready, and if Kepler is superior to McCutchen, I eat a massive portion of the remainder of that $50M+ I shelled out for him and try to get a high-ceiling low minors prospect or two for him, probably at the 2020 trade deadline. I try to sign two RP's in the Allen/Ottavio tier. That's it. I've got us on the hook for another $40M roughly, for each of the next three years barring trades, Yeah, for three stinkin' players. But I had to fill the holes my system isn't ready to fill. I'm really hoping I don't have to repeat this FA spree, and like having high velo guys like Romero/Alcala/Duran coming up the system as alternatives to trades and FA, but at least I have some decent numbers of promising prospects that I don't absolutely need.

 

With McCutchen off the table, I do hope they sign Cruz instead. If they don't sign another lineup piece, I'll be critical unless some combo of current players surprises me and blows up for us. 

 

They really needed a RH OF to take some AB's from Kepler. I'm not all that well-versed on what any of the FA options were or are. No one was obvious to me. Not a big fan of DH only guys generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beckmt GCL Twins

beckmt

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

Forget the trade Kepler angle...why the hell weren't we adding Santana?  I think he'd fit real well with what we need.

 

Around .300 OBP and about a 35% strikeout rate.  Interesting, but a big gamble for giving up things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheLeviathan All-Star

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

 

Around .300 OBP and about a 35% strikeout rate.  Interesting, but a big gamble for giving up things. 

 

Also big right-handed power and plays a good OF.   I'd much rather have him in the DH/OF mix than our current Cron/Austin mix.

 

And he's young, so those numbers could improve.  The skills and the upside are there and it's not like Ben Gamel is anything special.  Hell, they basically gave up Austin and Sam Clay to get him.

 

That's a good trade, even if it flops.  You give up almost nothing for something spicy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beckmt GCL Twins

beckmt

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

Also big right-handed power and plays a good OF.   I'd much rather have him in the DH/OF mix than our current Cron/Austin mix.

 

And he's young, so those numbers could improve.  The skills and the upside are there and it's not like Ben Gamel is anything special.  Hell, they basically gave up Austin and Sam Clay to get him.

 

That's a good trade, even if it flops.  You give up almost nothing for something spicy.

And you are also assuming that DiPoto is an idiot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

Become a Caretaker
×
×
  • Create New...