Article: Rundown: The Next Eovaldi, Cleveland Trade Rumors and More

[markos]

 

I think Twins fans to some degree are stuck in this mentality that we need starting pitching. Two things on that topic ...

 

1) That's not a team weakness right now. Berrios, Gibson and Odorizzi were all top 25 WAR for AL pitchers. Add Pineda and a bunch of good options for the fifth spot and you've got a playoff-caliber rotation. This team needs to score more runs and get a better performance from its bullpen.

 

2) Take a look at the 2018 Milwaukee Brewers rotation. Their best starter last year was roughly as good as Odorizzi. They still went 96-67 and were a game away from the World Series.

 

There's no such thing as too much pitching, and the rotation does thin out after next season with Gibby, Odo and Pineda all set to become free agents, but I still wouldn't do anything drastic such as trade away Lewis to upgrade the rotation. 

What the Brewers showed is that an above-average rotation isn't necessary if you have a reliever (or two) that just plain stop giving up runs. The A's this past season, and the Royals and Orioles teams of recent years, have also followed this pattern. But that just shifts the focus from finding top-end starters to finding a reliever or relievers with essentially 1.00 ERAs.

[ChrisKnutson]

What the Brewers showed is that an above-average rotation isn't necessary if you have a reliever (or two) that just plain stop giving up runs. The A's this past season, and the Royals and Orioles teams of recent years, have also followed this pattern. But that just shifts the focus from finding top-end starters to finding a reliever or relievers with essentially 1.00 ERAs.

Hence the reason why we should be in on FA relievers like Kelly, Miller, Herrera, Ottavino, Kimbrel, and Allen this year, and Jansen and Vizcaino next.

[Guest]

 

I think Twins fans to some degree are stuck in this mentality that we need starting pitching. Two things on that topic ...

 

1) That's not a team weakness right now. Berrios, Gibson and Odorizzi were all top 25 WAR for AL pitchers. Add Pineda and a bunch of good options for the fifth spot and you've got a playoff-caliber rotation. This team needs to score more runs and get a better performance from its bullpen.

 

2) Take a look at the 2018 Milwaukee Brewers rotation. Their best starter last year was roughly as good as Odorizzi. They still went 96-67 and were a game away from the World Series.

 

There's no such thing as too much pitching, and the rotation does thin out after next season with Gibby, Odo and Pineda all set to become free agents, but I still wouldn't do anything drastic such as trade away Lewis to upgrade the rotation. 

Tom, if anything, I think some people are stuck in the mentality that if you have 2-3 pretty good starting pitchers, then starting pitching is not a weakness.

 

It may not be the Twins' BIGGEST weakness, but it quite possibly is the one that could best be addressed via big deals from outside sources (trades or FA).

 

For better or worse, the lineup is likely to be improved (or not) based on what Buxton and Sano do. There are internal options and/or mid-range external options for middle infield and 1B. 

 

There are good relievers available, but I don't think you pay huge prices (in money or prospects) for relievers.

 

Which brings us back to the rotation. 

 

There's no doubt that the rotation is looking stronger than it did a year ago. But I think it's becoming more and more clear that DEPTH is critical. It's not enough to have 2-3 good starters and a couple of guys that can hold their own. 

 

It looks to me that teams that are going to be serious contenders for any stretch of time will have rotations that are 8 men deep. Naturally, that means that about half of that number will need to be young and home grown, with MiLB options remaining, that can be yo-yo'd between Rochester and Minnesota as needed.

 

Nobody this side of Seth Stohs is a bigger fan of Twins' prospects than I am. That said, if 3 years of Thor are available, everyone in the Twins system - big leagues or minor leaguers - are on the table. No, you don't make a Hershel Walker kind of lopsided deal, but even the best minor leaguers are still question marks.

 

Don't believe me? Ask how many would trade Buxton and Sano in a deal for Thor right now. How many would have made that deal for a similar top pitcher 4 years ago?

 

No, I don't think the Twins FO will make this kind of move this season (if ever). They finally are putting together their own development/coaching staff and probably believe those coaches can make serious improvements with their current internal options (or at least want to take a year to find out).

 

It's just unfortunate that the uncertainty over Buxton & Sano is resulting in this being an offseason of moderation, rather than the aggressiveness that it should have been, given the payroll flexibility.

[Squirrel]

Tom, if anything, I think some people are stuck in the mentality that if you have 2-3 pretty good starting pitchers, then starting pitching is not a weakness.

 

It may not be the Twins' BIGGEST weakness, but it quite possibly is the one that could best be addressed via big deals from outside sources (trades or FA).

 

For better or worse, the lineup is likely to be improved (or not) based on what Buxton and Sano do. There are internal options and/or mid-range external options for middle infield and 1B.

 

There are good relievers available, but I don't think you pay huge prices (in money or prospects) for relievers.

 

Which brings us back to the rotation.

 

There's no doubt that the rotation is looking stronger than it did a year ago. But I think it's becoming more and more clear that DEPTH is critical. It's not enough to have 2-3 good starters and a couple of guys that can hold their own.

 

It looks to me that teams that are going to be serious contenders for any stretch of time will have rotations that are 8 men deep. Naturally, that means that about half of that number will need to be young and home grown, with MiLB options remaining, that can be yo-yo'd between Rochester and Minnesota as needed.

 

Nobody this side of Seth Stohs is a bigger fan of Twins' prospects than I am. That said, if 3 years of Thor are available, everyone in the Twins system - big leagues or minor leaguers - are on the table. No, you don't make a Hershel Walker kind of lopsided deal, but even the best minor leaguers are still question marks.

 

Don't believe me? Ask how many would trade Buxton and Sano in a deal for Thor right now. How many would have made that deal for a similar top pitcher 4 years ago?

 

No, I don't think the Twins FO will make this kind of move this season (if ever). They finally are putting together their own development/coaching staff and probably believe those coaches can make serious improvements with their current internal options (or at least want to take a year to find out).

 

It's just unfortunate that the uncertainty over Buxton & Sano is resulting in this being an offseason of moderation, rather than the aggressiveness that it should have been, given the payroll flexibility.

I think they should still be aggressive even with the ifs that are Sano and Buxton. When will be the next time they will have this flexibility in payroll? I say take the bet that Sano and Buxton will come through and add big. Add like they are expecting them to. If they don’t come through we will be better off because we added something. If we don’t add and they don’t come through, we will be lucky to even match our wins of this last season. But if they do come through and we haven’t added, that will be another wasted season. There is no way to know either way, so take the leap of faith.

[ashbury]

Just because the Twins are no longer ranked 30th in MLB in pitching doesn't mean it's good.

22nd in the majors means around middle of the pack in the AL. Because of the DH, mostly.

 

Always distrust MLB-wide rankings. Always.

[Mr. Brooks]

22nd in the majors means around middle of the pack in the AL. Because of the DH, mostly.

 

Always distrust MLB-wide rankings. Always.

Middle of the pack is not good.

[ashbury]

Middle of the pack is not good.

Perhaps not. But Tom stated, "That's not a team weakness right now," and I was responding to a response to that.

[Mr. Brooks]

Perhaps not. But Tom stated, "That's not a team weakness right now," and I was responding to a response to that.

Middle of the pack is a team weakness if I'm GM.

[Major League Ready]

 

you'd rather have 6 years of an unknown commodity, than 3 of one of the best pitchers on the planet?

 

And, others won't sign SP to long term deals, where, exactly, do people expect to find great pitchers? 

 

Cleveland put together an entire staff without doing either. St. Louis did it when they were on top. The Mets did it and so have many others. Having said this, I think Syndergaard is exactly the kind of guy you trade for because he is elite and in his prime. He is that final piece that changes the power rankings among contenders. The problem is we are not among the contenders, not even close unless, and he won't get us close. The scenario that gets us close goes like this.

 

Two guys that have never sustained elite play will do so now. Why? Because we have no chance if they don't.

 

Then, we magically put together a BP representative of a winner. How? Buy elite RPs. What is the track record of these elite RPs. Looking at history and the FAs available, one would have to conclude that is highly speculative. Not to mention, the only way any of them come here is if we pay an even more obscene amount than the market price is right now.

 

Then, we will have to assume we get the Rosario of the 1st half not the Rosario that have a wRC+ of 64 for the second half.

 

Then, we will need Garver to carry the load a catcher.

 

Then, we need to come up with a 2B

 

Then, we need them all to stay healthy, especially the guy we bet the future on.

 

Then, if all those things come through we have a team on par with Cleveland and Seattle last year. Great, we can come up just short or get waxed in the first round if this scenario with a 5% chance of coming to fruition works out. You are asking Falvey to sign his termination papers.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Major League Ready

[terrydactyls]

With the names of players not being tendered now coming out, there are a number of low-cost options for the bullpen now available. If I were the FO, I would move quickly to sign three guys for a total of $10M-$15M a year and possibly a 1B/DH and a 2B for the same total amount. (these numbers are based off the projected arbitration amounts I've seen.) That would leave the Twins with enough payroll space to sign a couple of second tier starting pitchers. And they still have all their prospects. Damn I'm good.

[Moosa105]

I would LOVE if the Twins were to pick up SP Shelby Miller who was non-tendered. I see him as the next Eovaldi. He's only 28. And remember, the Dbacks gave up the 1st overall pick for him and then some to get him from the Braves, so he has the potential to be great. I think Wes Johnson would do a great job with him, velocity wise.

[Guest]

I just wanted to add that seeing things like how the Twins should be, "trying to find the next Nathan Eovaldi" makes me shake my head.

 

If you invest in the stock market at all and do any online research, you magically find yourself on the same email distribution lists that I do and that means you get regular emails about how someone has identified, "the next Amazon," "the next Netflix," or the "next" something similar.

 

Guess what. NOBODY knows who the next Amazon will be or we'd all be making 2000% on our investments. 

 

Similarly, nobody knows who the next Eovaldi is going to be... or even WHEN someone will come on and perform like he did.

 

But people still throw their money away on fad stocks that MIGHT have the next greatest tech breakthrough or a cancer cure. And teams like the Twins will keep trying to pay pennies for a guy who will turn around and perform like a $25,000,000 ace for a couple of years.

 

People who chase those stocks will never become billionaires... and billionaires who use that approach to chase pitching aces will never win World Series.

[ChrisKnutson]

I just wanted to add that seeing things like how the Twins should be, "trying to find the next Nathan Eovaldi" makes me shake my head.

 

If you invest in the stock market at all and do any online research, you magically find yourself on the same email distribution lists that I do and that means you get regular emails about how someone has identified, "the next Amazon," "the next Netflix," or the "next" something similar.

 

Guess what. NOBODY knows who the next Amazon will be or we'd all be making 2000% on our investments.

 

Similarly, nobody knows who the next Eovaldi is going to be... or even WHEN someone will come on and perform like he did.

 

But people still throw their money away on fad stocks that MIGHT have the next greatest tech breakthrough or a cancer cure. And teams like the Twins will keep trying to pay pennies for a guy who will turn around and perform like a $25,000,000 ace for a couple of years.

 

People who chase those stocks will never become billionaires... and billionaires who use that approach to chase pitching aces will never win World Series.

Now I get you don’t like the idea of finding “the next Eovaldi,” but have a good feeling about Shelby Miller, yeah he’s been hampered by injuries (like Eovaldi), but his stuff almost as good. And now that he’s been non-tendered, perhaps the Twins can swoop in a sign him to a 1yr/$4.5M deal with incentives. Could be a steal, but if not, we can always move him to the bullpen or cut just him loose.

 

Then again, we could always trade for a proven (and underrated) SP like Julio Teheran, Wouldn’t even have to give up much since Teheran is slated to earn $11.17M next year ($1M in 2020, if team option exercised).

[DocBauer]

What the Brewers showed is that an above-average rotation isn't necessary if you have a reliever (or two) that just plain stop giving up runs. The A's this past season, and the Royals and Orioles teams of recent years, have also followed this pattern. But that just shifts the focus from finding top-end starters to finding a reliever or relievers with essentially 1.00 ERAs.

I agree, even though the 1.00 ERA is hyperbole.

 

But you are on mark.

 

In any sport, you have a team game and compilation of production to win. Same in baseball, no matter how individual a performance. You can have the best SP or position player in the land, but you can't win with just that. You need a complete team. And this goes back to what a lot of us are on our soapboxes for; the best and most complete team you can put together.

 

I have no problem with the Twins making a major move to add a stud #1 SP with current players or a 2-4 top 20 prospect inclusion. I guess it all depends what you have, and where you are at. But is that 1 SP going to get you over the top? Again, it depends what you have and where you are at.

 

We need some lineup questions answered. But there are a lot of ways to build a quality team. And as pointed out building a quality bullpen is one of those ways. There are SO MANY arms floating out there right now that you don't exactly have to break the bank. You can sign a couple to "big" deals and still bring in fliers, to augment what you have available, to build a quality pen. Berrios, Gibson, Odorizzi, Pineda, and others available, openers or not, there is something to work with here. And more coming up...soon.

 

Work on the lineup, and depth and flexibility. Hope for the best from Sano and Buxton but create depth and options. (And there ARE options!). But build the damn bullpen!

[darin617]

 

you'd rather have 6 years of an unknown commodity, than 3 of one of the best pitchers on the planet?

 

And, others won't sign SP to long term deals, where, exactly, do people expect to find great pitchers? 

 

 

you'd rather have 6 years of an unknown commodity, than 3 of one of the best pitchers on the planet?

 

And, others won't sign SP to long term deals, where, exactly, do people expect to find great pitchers? 

Just think of the deals the Twins could have done if they traded Buxton when he was #1 prospect in the game. Now look what we have, an injury prone outfielder that spends more time on DL than playing.

 

Same could be said about Gordon. One of the Twins top prospects and top 25-40 in the game and now where would you place him?

 

Prospects should be used to acquire proven talent if you are a contending team. A prospect has maybe a 10-15% chance to succeed.

[laloesch]

 

Assuming the Mets want to shed payroll and get ML talent, or close to ML talent back, I'm just tossing this out there:

Kepler, Gordon, Romero and 1 of Gonsalves, Thorpe or Graterol. (Graterol is RH and further away, but has an even higher ceiling).

Kepler starts in CF/RF and still has a ton of upside. Gordon could be ready mid year. Romero is ready now for some role. And they get their choice of another good young arm.

 

i CRINGE at the thought of dealing Thorpe.  He's probably the next best pitcher down on the farm besides Graterol and he's a season at most away from the majors.  He will be much better than Kohl Stewart IMO.  

[Vanimal46]

i CRINGE at the thought of dealing Thorpe. He's probably the next best pitcher down on the farm besides Graterol and he's a season at most away from the majors. He will be much better than Kohl Stewart IMO.

If you cringe that means the offer is getting closer to fair value. It's gotta hurt to acquire a player like Thor.

[DocBauer]

Tom, if anything, I think some people are stuck in the mentality that if you have 2-3 pretty good starting pitchers, then starting pitching is not a weakness.

 

It may not be the Twins' BIGGEST weakness, but it quite possibly is the one that could best be addressed via big deals from outside sources (trades or FA).

 

For better or worse, the lineup is likely to be improved (or not) based on what Buxton and Sano do. There are internal options and/or mid-range external options for middle infield and 1B. 

 

There are good relievers available, but I don't think you pay huge prices (in money or prospects) for relievers.

 

Which brings us back to the rotation. 

 

There's no doubt that the rotation is looking stronger than it did a year ago. But I think it's becoming more and more clear that DEPTH is critical. It's not enough to have 2-3 good starters and a couple of guys that can hold their own. 

 

It looks to me that teams that are going to be serious contenders for any stretch of time will have rotations that are 8 men deep. Naturally, that means that about half of that number will need to be young and home grown, with MiLB options remaining, that can be yo-yo'd between Rochester and Minnesota as needed.

 

Nobody this side of Seth Stohs is a bigger fan of Twins' prospects than I am. That said, if 3 years of Thor are available, everyone in the Twins system - big leagues or minor leaguers - are on the table. No, you don't make a Hershel Walker kind of lopsided deal, but even the best minor leaguers are still question marks.

 

Don't believe me? Ask how many would trade Buxton and Sano in a deal for Thor right now. How many would have made that deal for a similar top pitcher 4 years ago?

 

No, I don't think the Twins FO will make this kind of move this season (if ever). They finally are putting together their own development/coaching staff and probably believe those coaches can make serious improvements with their current internal options (or at least want to take a year to find out).

 

It's just unfortunate that the uncertainty over Buxton & Sano is resulting in this being an offseason of moderation, rather than the aggressiveness that it should have been, given the payroll flexibility.

AD, I liked your post but haven't commented until now, a couple days later, and reflecting and re-reading.

 

I am leaving Thor out of this comment, as im concentrating on the depth issue. FWIW, Im actually in on Thor minus Lewis, Khirilloff, Berrios and probably Gibson. Berrios should be obvious, but so should Gibson. Removing a quality SP to add a better one helps, but not sure it really does the job at the end of the day.

 

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I actually feel pretty good about the rotation heading in to 2019. At least, better than I've felt in years. I have been a fan and believer in Berrios for years and feel he's only going to get better. I defended Gibson and his first couple of years, but was ready to give up until his turn around the second half of 2017. He is is a legitimate #3 who sometimes pitches like a #2. (Extension please). I was hopeful but disappointed in Odorizzi until the season was done I spent time looking at his numbers and ML rankings and realized he was, frankly better than I have him credit for. (I still want him as my 4 or 5 starter, however). There is no question Pineda is an unknown at this point. And it's so disappointing he didn't get to shake the rust off at the ML level to close out the '18 season. And he is no stud, to be sure. But his career numbers are more than solid. The arm is healthy. I don't think its misguided at all to think he could be solid next season.

 

Like you, I am also high on a lot of the Twins prospects. I think Stewart and Littell were pushed, but I was happy to see the aggressiveness. I have always believed, and stated, that I felt Gonsalves would struggle when given his first opportunity. He's long, has a quality change, decent low 90's FB, a couple budding breaking pitches, control, and the "pitchability" equation shown at every level. Yes, his control came and went in 2018. And that is no reason to dismiss him. He just doesn't have any truly dominating pitch to equal "early return" optimism, which is why I felt he would struggle initially.

 

Like it or not, and I've finally come around to the merits, the idea of an opener makes sense. At least when breaking in a young SP. Sorry, I forget who and what post, but someone recently posted the numbers for both Gonsalves and Stewart when they were the primary vs the starter. And the numbers were flabergasting. Now, we're those numbers simply because there was an opener vs personal growth? Difficult to say. Some have opinioned for a time that breaking an arm in the pen was a good option. Maybe having on opener is an even better option.

 

Despite the cascade of everything that went wrong in 2018, and the list is depressingly long, the thing that sticks out to me is almost setting a record for most 1 run losses in a season. How much of that is on the starting staff would be impossible to quantify. I'd equate it to the pen, and the offense, poor season's and injury regardless. Despite such a disappointing season, winning half of those games gives our beloved Twins a better than .500 record.

 

The 4 we have penciled in, a better bullpen, I feel pretty good about the rotation...designated starter or not...with Romero, Gonsalves, Stewart, Littell and Thorpe getting close. I think there is depth and optimism.

 

Again, not saying no to a big move like Thor. I'd love it, if it doesn't cost Lewis and Khirilloff or decimate the ML roster, but I'd do feel there is potential and depth here.

[DocBauer]

If you cringe that means the offer is getting closer to fair value. It's gotta hurt to acquire a player like Thor.

Agreed.

 

Were I the Mets, I'd begin with Thorpe and Kepler and go from there. I might take Romero over Thorpe, but there are valid arguments both ways. I'd probably ask for Gordon as well. Despite angst many TD posters have, he's a very talented young man just waiting for a breakthrough. 3 guys ML ready or close. I'd need another top 20 prospect to seal the deal. Depends on how close to ML ready you feel you need.

 

But that's kind of the rub if you're the Twins, right? You/We/They all know we are on a damned precipice. Sano, Buxton, Kepler and I'll include Polanco have so much damn talent you are just waiting for all the tease to go away and see the fruition of all that talent! (Not discounting Rosario or the improving Garver). Those guys with some smart lineup additions and a better pen, and suddenly you want to make sure you hold on to Romero and Thorpe!

 

The b**ch is, what path do you take?

[Major League Ready]

 

I think they should still be aggressive even with the ifs that are Sano and Buxton. When will be the next time they will have this flexibility in payroll? I say take the bet that Sano and Buxton will come through and add big. Add like they are expecting them to. If they don’t come through we will be better off because we added something. If we don’t add and they don’t come through, we will be lucky to even match our wins of this last season. But if they do come through and we haven’t added, that will be another wasted season. There is no way to know either way, so take the leap of faith.

 

Taking a leap of faith is a fun notion for fans but don't be disappointed when it does not happen. Pretend for a moment you are accountable for the results. In that position you and the 10 people who liked this can appreciate that any business school in the country would reject this position with extreme prejudice. We are taught in business programs and later in leadership positions to never take a leap of faith, at least not when the cost or even potential costs are high. 

[Han Joelo]

 

Taking a leap of faith is a fun notion for fans but don't be disappointed when it does not happen. Pretend for a moment you are accountable for the results. In that position you and the 10 people who liked this can appreciate that any business school in the country would reject this position with extreme prejudice. We are taught in business programs and later in leadership positions to never take a leap of faith, at least not when the cost or even potential costs are high. 

Make it 11.  Woohoo!  I took something to eleven.  Anyway, what if you change 'leap of faith" to "calculated risk?"  How about then?  Depending on your definition of success, a business predicated upon attempting to be the 1 in 30 that can truly be considered a success each year seems like a bad business to be in in the first place.

[Squirrel]

Taking a leap of faith is a fun notion for fans but don't be disappointed when it does not happen. Pretend for a moment you are accountable for the results. In that position you and the 10 people who liked this can appreciate that any business school in the country would reject this position with extreme prejudice. We are taught in business programs and later in leadership positions to never take a leap of faith, at least not when the cost or even potential costs are high.

 

First of all, you are once again injecting your same old post, as you do whenever someone suggests aggressiveness, that they need a lesson in business without relating it to anything in this thread let alone anything with the Twins. You’ve been told to stop doing that. If you have something specific to add about the Twins or this thread, great. But don’t take it down the path of generalities of ‘You don’t know how businesses works.’ Because it’s my post, I’m not going to hide yours or assess a point, but if it had been anyone else’s, I would have.

 

Secondly, I haven’t really laid out a plan, but this team has a lot of flexibility to go big. I’m not talking about a $200million payroll here, but they could spend equal to what they did last year and it would still be aggressive because they have that much flexibility. It’s disappointing for me to hear they didn’t even try for Thor, that they won’t be in on Machado (even though I know he probably wouldn’t have signed here anyway), and that they picked up Cron (ugh) as that shows me once again they have no serious plans to compete and I think they are missing an opportunity. Further, Pohlad seems to be laying out the excuse that it’s Sano’s and Buxton’s fault. Great way to say you don’t believe in them to put anyone really good around them and just go with average or less than average. Good way to lose your biggest source of revenue ... the fans ... and that can’t be smart, either. And good way to set in motion the possibility of two great players walking at the first opportunity. Maybe we’ll be happy with that, but there is still a very reasonable chance we won’t. But, the off season isn’t over, so I’ll give them leeway to see what we have in March, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

Third, you don’t need to manage manage my disappointment by trying to dash my hopes. I’m an older adult and know how hope and disappointment work. However, I do happen to think that ‘hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.’

 

Calculated risk ... great way to put it. Thanks, Han Joelo.

[Major League Ready]

 

Just think of the deals the Twins could have done if they traded Buxton when he was #1 prospect in the game. Now look what we have, an injury prone outfielder that spends more time on DL than playing.

 

Same could be said about Gordon. One of the Twins top prospects and top 25-40 in the game and now where would you place him?

 

Prospects should be used to acquire proven talent if you are a contending team. A prospect has maybe a 10-15% chance to succeed.

 

I don’t think we can make this type of blank statement. For starters, “in contention” is a relative term and a team’s willingness to part with prospects (defined as top prospects) depends on their relative position in terms of contention. Obviously, the Red Sox, Yankees, Astros, Athletics, Dodgers, Braves, Nationals, Brewers and Cubs are in a window of contention. Several other teams are relative close but teams like the mariners are opting to tear down. Chicago tore down with a more proven roster than the Twins have now and they had a legit ace with 3 years of control

You also have to consider the revenue of any given team. The lower the revenue the more necessary it is to retain low cost talent. Will, Tampa, a 90 win team, be willing to trade away top prospects? Very doubtful. When have they EVER? They never do purely from a business requirement prospective. Oakland and Tampa have generally traded away established talent, even top talent (Price) because of their need for low cost talent.

 

Even the highest revenue teams have been very reluctant to trade top prospects. Theo Epstein was unwilling to trade Bellinger / Buehler / Urias etc. and he has been quite consistent in his unwillingness to trade top prospects even though they are clearly in contention. How about the Yankees? Were they willing to deal Sanchez when they had an established veteran? Were they willing to deal Severino? No, The Yankees have not been inclined to give up elite prospects. They have actually benefited more from trading for prospects than trading away prospects. Stanton did not cost elite prospects because of the salary attached to Stanton. Sheffield is an exception and the circumstances are extreme. They have assembled a 100 win team but need SP if they are going to have a chance to win their division and compete deep into the playoffs.

Boston is the one team that has ponied up top prospects but of course they were able to do this because they were stacked with young talent and also able to spend $200M+ in payroll. They are also in a position to sustain a team that is among the most dominant in MLB history. That is a mile away from the Twins situation.

 

Three points come to mind when looking at the trends around the league.

1) Even very rich teams that are clearly in contention are very reluctant to give up top talent. History is very clear in this matter.

2) 2) Below average revenue teams are even less inclined and teams that are not probable contenders also are much less inclined to trade top prospects.

3) The Twin’s scenario is not remotely in a similar scenario to the teams that have traded top prospects. Those teams are top contenders and we are a relative long shot. Low cost players are more important to a team with the twin’s revenue and we are a long way from comparable in terms of being an established contender.

[bird]

 

Just think of the deals the Twins could have done if they traded Buxton when he was #1 prospect in the game. Now look what we have, an injury prone outfielder that spends more time on DL than playing.

 

Same could be said about Gordon. One of the Twins top prospects and top 25-40 in the game and now where would you place him?

 

Prospects should be used to acquire proven talent if you are a contending team. A prospect has maybe a 10-15% chance to succeed.

 

 

Your final statement is a generalization that is not factual and that doesn't hold water. The statistical probabilities of success for an elite prospect are higher by multiples.

 

You use two examples that perhaps support your case. Why leave out examples that don't? Do you think the theoretical trade value for Benintendi, Machado, Syndegaard, or Harper would have exceeded the value they delivered?

 

That said, I was all for having them dangle Gordon out there, because he is a surplus asset IMO.

 

Every potential deal has to be weighed on its merits. But it's important to recognize that when these evaluators project the value of a player into the future, they know their software and video doesn't make a calculation that's worth a whole lot. The decision is a bet.

 

The reason Lewis is untouchable is because evaluators are betting he's a Barry Larkin type guy.

[Major League Ready]

 

Make it 11.  Woohoo!  I took something to eleven.  Anyway, what if you change 'leap of faith" to "calculated risk?"  How about then?  Depending on your definition of success, a business predicated upon attempting to be the 1 in 30 that can truly be considered a success each year seems like a bad business to be in in the first place.

 

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

 

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success. 

[Vanimal46]

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

 

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success.

Let's start with contending in the AL Central. If Cleveland continues to sell off MLB assets to shave payroll, it may take 85-90 wins to win the division. Even with several key players under performing the Twins won 78 games. With status quo, and Buxton/Sano playing better than last year, they are probably projected to be an 82-85 win team. The hill is not that steep to climb into contention.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I have absolutely no problem with the team taking a calculated risk. By this I mean making the trades and spending the money in free agency in order to put together a true contender. However, I have seen nothing resembling a calculation of the odds of any plan resulting in contention. Legit contention would take at least a 95 win team given the current balance of power in the American League.

 

There is no doubt that every single plan presented here would make the team better but contending would require several improbable things to come to together of which the cumulative odds are very low. The point being we cant say its a calculated risk without calculating the odds of success. 

 

Moves made to add long term MLB talent this year help for next year, and the year after, if not longer. Never adding MLB talent on long term deals is why the team isn't in a better position this year than last off season, because they added almost no one at all that would be here in 2019....unless you love the cheap but efficient Odo, Reed, and Pineda deals (they'll all be gone after this year, opening 3 more holes). Never adding long term MLB deals in trade or FA is a self fulfilling prophecy for not having any talent on the roster. And then, hey, ,they aren't close, so they shouldn't add talent!

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don’t think we can make this type of blank statement. For starters, “in contention” is a relative term and a team’s willingness to part with prospects (defined as top prospects) depends on their relative position in terms of contention. Obviously, the Red Sox, Yankees, Astros, Athletics, Dodgers, Braves, Nationals, Brewers and Cubs are in a window of contention. Several other teams are relative close but teams like the mariners are opting to tear down. Chicago tore down with a more proven roster than the Twins have now and they had a legit ace with 3 years of control

You also have to consider the revenue of any given team. The lower the revenue the more necessary it is to retain low cost talent. Will, Tampa, a 90 win team, be willing to trade away top prospects? Very doubtful. When have they EVER? They never do purely from a business requirement prospective. Oakland and Tampa have generally traded away established talent, even top talent (Price) because of their need for low cost talent.

 

Even the highest revenue teams have been very reluctant to trade top prospects. Theo Epstein was unwilling to trade Bellinger / Buehler / Urias etc. and he has been quite consistent in his unwillingness to trade top prospects even though they are clearly in contention. How about the Yankees? Were they willing to deal Sanchez when they had an established veteran? Were they willing to deal Severino? No, The Yankees have not been inclined to give up elite prospects. They have actually benefited more from trading for prospects than trading away prospects. Stanton did not cost elite prospects because of the salary attached to Stanton. Sheffield is an exception and the circumstances are extreme. They have assembled a 100 win team but need SP if they are going to have a chance to win their division and compete deep into the playoffs.

Boston is the one team that has ponied up top prospects but of course they were able to do this because they were stacked with young talent and also able to spend $200M+ in payroll. They are also in a position to sustain a team that is among the most dominant in MLB history. That is a mile away from the Twins situation.

 

Three points come to mind when looking at the trends around the league.

1) Even very rich teams that are clearly in contention are very reluctant to give up top talent. History is very clear in this matter.

2) 2) Below average revenue teams are even less inclined and teams that are not probable contenders also are much less inclined to trade top prospects.

3) The Twin’s scenario is not remotely in a similar scenario to the teams that have traded top prospects. Those teams are top contenders and we are a relative long shot. Low cost players are more important to a team with the twin’s revenue and we are a long way from comparable in terms of being an established contender.

 

And Tampa has no championships to show, and no fans. They barely make the playoffs. Given their competition, why not run the team the way they do and win 82-90 games and miss the playoffs, but make more money? Maybe if they, I don't know, traded for or signed big time players, they'd make the playoffs and win some post season games. It is their right to want to make more money, it is the fan's right to want them to try to win more. You know, the customers. 

[Squirrel]

 

And Tampa has no championships to show, and no fans. They barely make the playoffs. Given their competition, why not run the team the way they do and win 82-90 games and miss the playoffs, but make more money? Maybe if they, I don't know, traded for or signed big time players, they'd make the playoffs and win some post season games. It is their right to want to make more money, it is the fan's right to want them to try to win more. You know, the customers. 

I know fans who used to go to a lot of games completely skip the season last year. Why? Because why go? And I'm there, too. At this point I'm not even excited to go to ST ... even when I'm already going to be in Fort Myers anyway. Why bother? To me that doesn't seem to be a way to run a business ... run off a big chunk of your revenue source.

[Major League Ready]

 

And Tampa has no championships to show, and no fans. They barely make the playoffs. Given their competition, why not run the team the way they do and win 82-90 games and miss the playoffs, but make more money? Maybe if they, I don't know, traded for or signed big time players, they'd make the playoffs and win some post season games. It is their right to want to make more money, it is the fan's right to want them to try to win more. You know, the customers. 

 

You did not even remotely address the three points made. Are those points true or untrue? Are you really of the opinion revenue level does not matter in a teams willingness to part with top prospects? Is what I wrote about the Dodgers and Yankees inaccurate? Is the Twins competitive position even close to that of the teams that have traded top prospects in the past few years? Is Seattle not tearing down an 89 win team?

 

Lots of questions for you to address directly and you elect to respond with an answer that completely neglects all of them.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Major League Ready