Article: Twins Won't Rule Out Trading For Lance Lynn

[howeda7]

#s aside, wasn't it pretty widely reported that he was a jerk and a problem in the clubhouse? Why would you bring that back?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Lynn has been one of the best, if not the best pitcher in the American League this season, bro. If being interested in him is stupid, I guess that's a trait I'm looking for in a front office. 

 

I understand that Lynn didn't endear himself to the fan base last year, but is it possible the main reason for his struggles was signing in mid-March? After all, he was a good pitcher before 2018 and is now looking really good again. There's a much larger sample of him being good than there is of him being bad.

 

Also, he's only owed less than $20MM the next two seasons, that could be a massive bargain.

In fairness a large portion of that "good," sample size came before his TJ surgery. We were debating whether to extend Kyle Gibson in the midst of his run at this time last year too. It isn't a perfect comp, Lynn has the better performance track record but Gibson certainly wins when it comes durability. 

 

If Lynn was a FA in the offseason it'd be a different story. This team needs pitchers, especially starters for next season. Personally I'd rather see the Twins go after a higher tier/more reliable arm than buy high on Lynn with the hopes he turns into a bargain. 

[bluechipper]

No thanks. I hated watching that guy pitch.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I wonder how much of that was scapegoating, though. It was a disappointing season for the whole team in 2018, and it would be pretty natural to lay that at the feet of newcomers/short-timers.

 

That said, I have no idea if he's a good trade target for us now.

It all may have been. We don't know. What we do know is the FO specifically said they wanted to avoid 1 year contracts because of the problems they caused... not sure if that was Lynn, Morrison, or what... but that is something they said...

 

and you're right, it may be scapegoating. 

[AceWrigley]

We want a pitcher not a belly itcher.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Go online (if you aren’t online already) and watch some of his post game interviews with the Cardinals.... eventually you might conclude: “no thanks.” He’s doing well in Texas. He doesn’t seem like a guy who would want to be disturbed and uprooted from a good situation he’s got going.

[nicksaviking]

 

#s aside, wasn't it pretty widely reported that he was a jerk and a problem in the clubhouse? Why would you bring that back?

 

I don't think it was widely reported, but I think it was generally assumed and his demeanor when on camera never construed to the fans that he wanted to be here, and it wasn't like he didn't know that being at the ballpark meant he could always be on camera.

 

So, no damning evidence, but enough circumstantial evidence for me to pass.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Nope. Don't like that.

[darin617]

Very reasonable contract! He has been a K machine this season.

 

Yes, we got burned on him because he never had a Spring Training. After we were his "Spring Training" and dealt him he improved.

 

I would rather have 2 years $20M Lynn than whatever Kyle Gibson ends up getting.

[terrydactyls]

Aim higher! That is a recurring theme in this thread.

 

A. MadBaum is off the market (Giants not selling).

B. Stroman is headed to San Diego (according to MLB.com because the Padres have the #1 farm system and can outbid the Twins).

C. Syndaguard is going to the Yankees (again based on an article at MLB.com).

 

So if A, B, and C are true, then for whom should they aim?

[old nurse]

 

Aim higher! That is a recurring theme in this thread. A. MadBaum is off the market (Giants not selling). B. Stroman is headed to San Diego (according to MLB.com because the Padres have the #1 farm system and can outbid the Twins). C. Syndaguard is going to the Yankees (again based on an article at MLB.com). So if A, B, and C are true, then for whom should they aim?

b and c not true  https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-rumors-latest-trades-and-signings

[notoriousgod71]

It all may have been. We don't know. What we do know is the FO specifically said they wanted to avoid 1 year contracts because of the problems they caused... not sure if that was Lynn, Morrison, or what... but that is something they said...

 

and you're right, it may be scapegoating.

They followed those comments up by signing everyone to a one year contract.

[Mr. Brooks]

b and c not true https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-rumors-latest-trades-and-signings

The Mets and Padres, both 7 games under .500 are considering BUYING?

That would make for a bizarre trade deadline.

[old nurse]

 

The Mets and Padres, both 7 games under .500 are considering BUYING?
That would make for a bizarre trade deadline.

The Mets get a building block and a pitcher for next year, The Padres get an ace for longer.  Unusualbut not bizarre. A team has to take advantage of a situation.

[Mr. Brooks]

The Mets get a building block and a pitcher for next year, The Padres get an ace for longer. Unusualbut not bizarre. A team has to take advantage of a situation.

I could get behind that as an opportunistic strategy if you find yourself 7 games under in a year that happens to be a buyer's market.

This year looks like it has the makings of a seller's market, so that would be a bizarre strategy, IMO.

[old nurse]

 

I could get behind that as an opportunistic strategy if you find yourself 7 games under in a year that happens to be a buyer's market.
This year looks like it has the makings of a seller's market, so that would be a bizarre strategy, IMO.

14 teams would have to go on an amazing winning streak to be in it. The Dodgers do not appear to be buyers. Boston does not appear to want to spend. Arizona is on the fringe. It is neither a buyers or seller market. For a team like San Diego that thinks they have the pieces to contend next year getting a player that will help you contend is a good decision. If another team likes your prospects better than you do the team is ahead.

[Doubles]

If this is a more a statement about the Twins wanting to check under every stone, I'm on board.  If they're serious about re-acquiring him, please kill me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The Mets and Padres, both 7 games under .500 are considering BUYING?
That would make for a bizarre trade deadline.

Both teams went for it in the offseason and refuse to back down from that idea for some unknown reason.

 

Pack it in, boys. Trade off what expiring assets you have this year and try again next year. Paying prospect capital to essentially waste half a season of a player just seems... well, stupid, frankly.

[USAFChief]

Both teams went for it in the offseason and refuse to back down from that idea for some unknown reason.

 

Pack it in, boys. Trade off what expiring assets you have this year and try again next year. Paying prospect capital to essentially waste half a season of a player just seems... well, stupid, frankly.

The Padres would have control of Syndergaard for 2 more seasons. Get an arm like that while you can.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Padres would have control of Syndergaard for 2 more seasons. Get an arm like that while you can.

I get almost everyone being in on Syndergaard but aren’t the Padres also in on Stroman and others? That makes less sense.

[USAFChief]

I get almost everyone being in on Syndergaard but aren’t the Padres also in on Stroman and others? That makes less sense.

why?

 

If they can make their 2020 and or later teams better, why sit out the deadline?

 

They can do both...trade off expiring contracts, and acquire controllable assets.

 

And to repeat...arms like Syndergaard aren't a available every day.

[Brock Beauchamp]

why?

 

If they can make their 2020 and or later teams better, why sit out the deadline?

 

They can do both...trade off expiring contracts, and acquire controllable assets.

 

And to repeat...arms like Syndergaard aren't a available every day.

Because you’re paying a premium for Stroman and throwing a full 33% of his control in the trash the moment you acquire him.

 

And it’s not as if a good, not great, pitcher like Stroman can’t be found in the offseason.

 

And I literally just said I get why most teams are in on Syndergaard so I don’t understand why you felt the need to repeat it again.

 

But 2.5 years of control is considerably different than 1.5 years, especially when .5 of that control will be essentially wasted.

[Darius]

The Mets and Padres, both 7 games under .500 are considering BUYING?

That would make for a bizarre trade deadline.

I don’t know if they are necessarily going for it this year, but 2020. If you can get a quality controllable asset, why not?

 

I wish the Twins would be that aggressive sometimes. Even when we have World Series aspiriations, supplementing the roster beyond the minor leagues in like pulling teeth. We’re just always kicking the can down the road talking about some year in the future that never actually comes.

 

Not only that, but if you can buy low on a guy as a reclamation project, and flip him in the offseason or next season, its like trading prospects for better prospects. That’s a pretty ingenious way of sourcing assets for a future run, IMO.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Darius

[Darius]

The chances Lance Lynn ends up here, if possible, would be less than zero. It’s absolute zero.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don’t know if they are necessarily going for it this year, but 2020. If you can get a quality controllable asset, why not?

 

I wish the Twins would be that aggressive sometimes. Even when we have World Series aspiriations, supplementing the roster beyond the minor leagues in like pulling teeth. We’re just always kicking the can down the road talking about some year in the future that never actually comes.

Because as Brock said, you're paying a premium for the 1/3 season control that remains this year.

 

There are also controllable assets available in the offseason, and you don't have to pay for extra team control that is wasted on a non competitive 1/3 of a season.

[Darius]

Because you’re paying a premium for Stroman and throwing a full 33% of his control in the trash the moment you acquire him.

 

And it’s not as if a good, not great, pitcher like Stroman can’t be found in the offseason.

 

And I literally just said I get why most teams are in on Syndergaard so I don’t understand why you felt the need to repeat it again.

 

But 2.5 years of control is considerably different than 1.5 years, especially when .5 of that control will be essentially wasted.

It’s not illegal to extend a guy after trading for him. You’re not necessarily locked into trading him on his current deal.

 

Example: Trade for Stroman, sign him for three years, he has a great second half and first half next year, and his value is through the roof (relative to what you traded for).

 

Not likely, but FOs are thinking outside the box these days. If you have confidence in your evaluation infrastructure, you can take advantage of things like that. Worst case, you have Stroman for three years.

 

The Astros could do that Presley. They got him low. They extended him. If they traded him now (if having a down year, hypothetically), they would get a haul. If they’re competing (reality) they found a lights out reliever.

 

Only Twins fans are scared to pay a player.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Darius

[Mr. Brooks]

It’s not illegal to extend a guy after trading for him. You’re not necessarily locked into trading him on his current deal.

 

Example: Trade for Stroman, sign him for three years, he has a great second half and first half next year, and his value is through the roof (relative to what you traded for).

 

Not likely, but FOs are thinking outside the box these days. If you have confidence in your evaluation infrastructure, you can take advantage of things like that. Worst case, you have Stroman for three years.

 

The Astros could do that Presley. They got him low. They extended him. If they traded him now (if having a down year, hypothetically), they would get a haul. If they’re competing (reality) they found a lights out reliever.

 

Only Twins fans are scared to pay a player.

Some guys aren't open to extensions.

And even if they are, that is completely separate from the timing of the trade. Why not trade for a player in the offseason, rather than at the deadline, and then extend him?

You still get the same end result, but without paying the prospect premium for the 1/3rd of season that you aren't contending.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Mr. Brooks

[Doomtints]

I can see it now.

 

Twins fans barrage Lynn.

 

Lynn gets traded to a different team.

 

Lynn beats the Twins in the playoffs.

 

This year and next year.

 

This quote says it all: "I hope the Twins aim higher, in spite of his success."

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Aim higher! That is a recurring theme in this thread. A. MadBaum is off the market (Giants not selling). B. Stroman is headed to San Diego (according to MLB.com because the Padres have the #1 farm system and can outbid the Twins). C. Syndaguard is going to the Yankees (again based on an article at MLB.com). So if A, B, and C are true, then for whom should they aim?

Lance Lynn has the second highest WAR of all starting MLB pitchers this season... only one higher is Scherzer. 

 

His K rate is up and BB rate is down... everything else is within career norms...  

 

I can understand history being a blocker here... but this is about as high as you can aim right now. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Because you’re paying a premium for Stroman and throwing a full 33% of his control in the trash the moment you acquire him.

 

And it’s not as if a good, not great, pitcher like Stroman can’t be found in the offseason.

 

I think it might be a little harder to find them in the offseason than you are giving credit for. Depending on the FA market, sometimes there are very few such pitchers, with a lot of suitors, and they can command $50+ mil or even $100+ mil long term contracts. In that sense, getting a single prime year of such a pitcher might be worth the prospect premium. Especially if you like the specific pitcher -- if the Yankees, Astros, etc. trade for him now, you simply can't acquire that pitcher for 2020 no matter what.

 

Obviously depends on the premium. I guess we have some evidence now with Stroman going to the Mets...