The Rays got their man at the deadline. Arggggh!

[Vanimal46]

I can't say this anymore clearly. Again, that is not what I responding to. This is the exact comment I responded to. It mentions nowhere age, cost, years, etc.

 

"There wasn't a reliever available in free agency last winter close to Pressly's caliber."

If there were relievers close to Pressly's caliber, who were they? How are they doing this year? Was it worth paying them $5-7 million more than Pressly's contract this year?

[Dman]

 

In terms of cost/commitment/age/stuff/potential, I think it may not be far off. I'm not sure what FA RP contract I would have preferred to Pressly last winter.

 

Especially when you consider the context, that the Twins needed more than just one such reliever in FA -- just replacing Pressly with another Pressly would probably be inadequate, as I think we probably needed to add one or more of that caliber of reliever even before trading Pressly.

 

It depends on which Pressly I am getting.  Am I getting the Twins version of Pressly or the Astros?  That is the question that was being asked. Hindsight is great what if you change the scenario.  What if Pressly goes to the Astros and regresses.  Would it have been a good idea to keep him then?  What if he pitches to his Trevor May numbers before his 2018 season would it have made sense to keep him?  Would there be no one better on the market in FA because that was what the FO had to decide when they made that trade. 

 

Even if he did sustain the 2018 he had with Twins we couldn't find anyone out there that could compete with those numbers?  That seems laughable to me.  Trevor May already has essentially replaced those numbers and we think of him as 6th or 7th inning guy.  Granted May doesn't match his K numbers but Pressly was getting hit hard when he was with the Twins and his WHIP and ERA show that.  He literally was not the same pitcher while with the Twins.

 

Yeah if you knew for certain Pressly was going to be an All-Star caliber reliever they never would have made that trade and yeah there wasn't anyone of that caliber on the market this year but that is hindsight talking not a certainty when the trade happened.

[alarp33]

 

If there were relievers close to Pressly's caliber, who were they? How are they doing this year? Was it worth paying them $5-7 million more than Pressly's contract this year?

 

Again,you didn't say anything about cost. Nothing. You said there was no one near his caliber. Here are a handful of relievers who were available who were better than/ similar to Pressly as a Twin. I'm sure there were more

 

Ottavino, Robertson, Familia, Soria, 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I can't say this anymore clearly. Again, that is not what I responding to. This is the exact comment I responded to. It mentions nowhere age, cost, years, etc.

 

"There wasn't a reliever available in free agency last winter close to Pressly's caliber."

That's a very specific and limited reading of that quote, and perhaps not what the author intended.

 

Why couldn't "caliber" refer to the full shape of a player's potential and value, rather than just his strict overall on-field performance? Was Fernando Rodney the same "caliber" as Pressly last offseason? If he was, is that a useful definition of "caliber" for this discussion?

[Vanimal46]

Again,you didn't say anything about cost. Nothing. You said there was no one near his caliber. Here are a handful of relievers who were available who were better than/ similar to Pressly as a Twin. I'm sure there were more

 

Ottavino, Robertson, Familia, Soria,

1 out of 4 are doing well. The other 3 are disasters. Yay.

[Vanimal46]

Also, if that was truly the strategy... To trade Pressly and find someone of his caliber in free agency, why weren't the Twins linked to any rumors about those players?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Again,you didn't say anything about cost. Nothing. You said there was no one near his caliber. Here are a handful of relievers who were available who were better than/ similar to Pressly as a Twin. I'm sure there were more

 

Ottavino, Robertson, Familia, Soria,

Google says synonyms of caliber include quality and worth. I don't think the term was invoked to exclude age/contract/potential from player evaluation.

 

In any case, let's drop it, it is a pointless exercise in semantics at this point.

[alarp33]

 

1 out of 4 are doing well. The other 3 are disasters. Yay.

 

Huh? Again, not the discussion we were having at all. Who is to say Pressly would be doing well if he stayed in MN. You said no one of Pressly's caliber was available last winter, I provided a handful that were. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yeah if you knew for certain Pressly was going to be an All-Star caliber reliever they never would have made that trade and yeah there wasn't anyone of that caliber on the market this year but that is hindsight talking not a certainty when the trade happened.

 

Pressly wasn't an all-star yet, but he was performing well at the time of the trade, with peripherals that suggested even more -- arguably our best reliever of the season as of July 27, 2018. Nothing is ever guaranteed about the future, of course, but he was clearly a player with a high level of utility for the Twins in 2019 -- a level that would be difficult to replace on the FA market (or by trade, or internally). It doesn't take any hindsight about his Astros performance to make that case, and indeed many posters made that case at the time of the trade.

[Dman]

 

Pressly wasn't an all-star yet, but he was performing well at the time of the trade, with peripherals that suggested even more -- arguably our best reliever of the season as of July 27, 2018. Nothing is ever guaranteed about the future, of course, but he was clearly a player with a high level of utility for the Twins in 2019 -- a level that would be difficult to replace on the FA market (or by trade, or internally). It doesn't take any hindsight about his Astros performance to make that case, and indeed many posters made that case at the time of the trade.

 

He was definitely trending up.  Fangraphs really liked his spin rate and his K rate was a good sign he could miss bats.  He wasn't bad but as his other numbers indicated there was risk there and that is why he wasn't able to secure a top 100 player in return.  

 

You are correct many, many posters felt it was a bad idea to trade him I believe I was in the minority on the trade front.  I could see both sides at the time but to be honest I didn't see that this team would truly be playoff worthy this year so I felt the trade was a good move.  They would get 6 years of control of Alcala who has the potential to be a dominant reliever and Celestino who was a bit of a lottery ticket but had nice all around tools so possibly a starting center fielder for one year of Pressly.  At the time I thought it was worth it.  Knowing what I know now not so much as even the Minnesota version of Pressly would have really helped this year.

[USAFChief]

It depends on which Pressly I am getting. Am I getting the Twins version of Pressly or the Astros? That is the question that was being asked. Hindsight is great what if you change the scenario. What if Pressly goes to the Astros and regresses. Would it have been a good idea to keep him then? What if he pitches to his Trevor May numbers before his 2018 season would it have made sense to keep him? Would there be no one better on the market in FA because that was what the FO had to decide when they made that trade.

 

Even if he did sustain the 2018 he had with Twins we couldn't find anyone out there that could compete with those numbers? That seems laughable to me. Trevor May already has essentially replaced those numbers and we think of him as 6th or 7th inning guy. Granted May doesn't match his K numbers but Pressly was getting hit hard when he was with the Twins and his WHIP and ERA show that. He literally was not the same pitcher while with the Twins.

 

Yeah if you knew for certain Pressly was going to be an All-Star caliber reliever they never would have made that trade and yeah there wasn't anyone of that caliber on the market this year but that is hindsight talking not a certainty when the trade happened.

its not hindsight.

 

There were many posters upset with the trade at the time it happened.

 

As for "the trade was great, it's not replacing him that's the mistake," that's a lot easier to say than do, not to mention what they REALLY should have done is kept Pressly AND added similar talent over the winter.

 

The Pressly trade was a clear mistake.

[drivlikejehu]

Though complicated by potential playoff counter-factuals, the Twins could still easily "win" the Pressly trade, an outcome that would seem astonishing given the comments about it (which range from understandable mistake to a fire-able offense).

 

Alcala is routinely trashed, through no fault of his own (i.e., it's because of the negativity towards the trade itself). But his xFIP in AA was 3.71, mostly in a starting capacity that was never his intended role (he projected as a reliever at the time of the trade). There's a solid chance he contributes to the Twins bullpen for multiple seasons.

 

Gilberto Celestino, the main piece from a prospect standpoint, has been on fire in the 2nd half (.343/.416/.522), including an increased power display and excellent plate discipline. His slow start has kept him under the radar to some extent, but he's only 20 and is showing 5-tool potential. 

 

The Twins would have been wrong to just give Pressly away, but that's far from being the case at this point. 

 

It also strikes me that the Twins are criticized here for Pressly's improvement after leaving, yet with zero mention of the fact that the club fired their pitching coach at the end of the year and made an innovative replacement hire.

 

The fact that some people were actually against the Pressly deal differentiates it somewhat from the Anderson situation, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the reality that the ultimate accounting in undetermined.

[yarnivek1972]

There wasn't a reliever available in free agency last winter close to Pressly's caliber.

And that’s why you don’t trade one for lotto tickets.

 

The point (for me anyway) in continuing to bring up the Pressly trade is FO eval. A lot of people are willing to say “the FO knows more than we (fans) do. I’m willing to trust their judgement.” If they can screw the pooch this badly, they can wrong about other decisions too and we (fans again) are certainly right in questioning their judgement.

 

When you don’t have good relievers, you shouldn’t be trading them away. Not for prospects outside a team’s top 20. Quality MLB relievers are becoming a more scarce commodity than starters.

[Riverbrian]

 

Everyone is smart in hindsight. I'd love to see links to all the posts decrying the Twins' trade of Anderson, when it actually happened.

 

I can only speak for myself. You are not going to hear me decrying the trade of Anderson (or any minor league player) when it actually happened because I didn't know who Anderson was and I don't know who any of them are until they reach the majors. I'm going to stay consistent this way so I can avoid being hypocritical when I look at things in hindsight. I am resigned to letting the front office make the moves they see fit. 

 

Bottom Line: The Scouts, The Data... whatever the process... They missed on a guy who is striking out 2 batters an inning and they put Matt Belisle and Olver Drake on the roster instead. During a season that should have been used to get ready for next season.

 

Giving work to Anderson instead of Belisle or Drake could have provided some information, MLB data, visual information for the scouts that would have stopped the 2nd mistake they made later.

 

The 2nd mistake was choosing DeJong (for example) over Anderson for the 40 man before the rule 5. All of this could have been avoided by just handing him the ball during a season that should have been used to get ready for next season. 

 

They had two chances to stop this from happening and someone got in the way and determined that he wouldn't even be given the opportunity. He got the opportunity elsewhere and it is now clear that he should have gotten opportunity here. 

 

They had him ... they didn't know what they had and he didn't get a chance to show them. This is a lack of foresight that has been revealed in hindsight and it is totally fair for anyone to wonder why out loud. 

 

Nick Anderson would have been a tremendous help to our bullpen this year. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Well, there were quite a few posters who wanted to see Anderson get an audition last year instead of Belisle. And probably more who, had they known we were changing pitching coaches and Anderson was likely to be claimed in Rule 5 (hence the trade), would have liked to see Anderson get some kind of opportunity in 2019 too, perhaps at the expense of Granite, De Jong, Curtiss, or eventually Torreyes on the 40-man roster.

 

Deprived of that knowledge and opportunity, obviously Anderson being left of the 40-man roster and subsequently traded was a pretty minor move at the time (most here didn't comment on it at all).

 

Anderson was close enough to a MLB opportunity, and a likely enough Rule 5 pick, that I think it's fair to question it now without too much hindsight. A guy like Dereck Rodriguez was a much bigger hindsight case.

 

Well Said

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It also strikes me that the Twins are criticized here for Pressly's improvement after leaving, yet with zero mention of the fact that the club fired their pitching coach at the end of the year and made an innovative replacement hire.

I've mentioned it before, and in fact mentioned it earlier on this thread (although in the context of Anderson). If the front office was planning to change pitching coaches, I would think that would be an argument toward keeping Pressly too. Wouldn't you want your new pitching coach to work with your best guys? And wouldn't you not want to move a pitcher in part due to the faults of the previous coach?

 

 

The fact that some people were actually against the Pressly deal differentiates it somewhat from the Anderson situation, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the reality that the ultimate accounting in undetermined.

No argument there from me, the Twins could still win the trade -- although in my opinion, Alcala and Celestino still have quite a bit of work to do to make that happen. By the time Celestino or Alcala is ready to meaningfully contribute at the MLB level, we'll likely have had a few seasons worth of time and transactions to address those spots otherwise since the trade. We had much less time/options to address the 2019 bullpen without Pressly in the fold. (We've done all right with the pen in 2019, but in the modern game, more bullpen confidence is always appreciated.)

 

I think that's part of why it's such a rare trade -- a hopeful contender dealing a cheap and useful present-day asset for relatively fungible longer-range assets (Alcala and Celestino both being 40 FV prospects at the time of the deal, although hopefully they can eventually distinguish themselves more than that).

[alarp33]

 

The Pressly trade was a clear mistake.

 

Clear mistake to everyone but those paid to analyze this stuff? You are mis-remembering the reaction here as well. Some had questions about selling in general, very very few had issues with this particular trade. Hindsight

 

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/astros-acquire-ryan-pressly-twins-gets-plenty-of-upside/

 

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2018/7/28/17625254/twins-trade-ryan-pressly-to-astros-for-prospects-jorge-alcala-gilberto-celestino

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/7/29/17625880/ryan-pressly-astros-twins-reliever-trade-sinker-slider-spin-rate-release-point

[yarnivek1972]

Clear mistake to everyone but those paid to analyze this stuff? You are mis-remembering the reaction here as well. Some had questions about selling in general, very very few had issues with this particular trade. Hindsight

 

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/astros-acquire-ryan-pressly-twins-gets-plenty-of-upside/

 

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2018/7/28/17625254/twins-trade-ryan-pressly-to-astros-for-prospects-jorge-alcala-gilberto-celestino

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/7/29/17625880/ryan-pressly-astros-twins-reliever-trade-sinker-slider-spin-rate-release-point

I think you are mis-remembering. Chief was adamantly opposed as was I to that particular deal. Primarily because of the extra control traded. There were others. I would say it was about 40% opposition at the time. But yes, there was a lot more griping about selling in general. I was not opposed to selling btw.

[USAFChief]

 

I think you are mis-remembering. Chief was adamantly opposed as was I to that particular deal. Primarily because of the extra control traded. There were others. I would say it was about 40% opposition at the time. But yes, there was a lot more griping about selling in general. I was not opposed to selling btw.

There was a lot of opposition to the trade at the time, and nothing has changed my mind.

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

Though complicated by potential playoff counter-factuals, the Twins could still easily "win" the Pressly trade, an outcome that would seem astonishing given the comments about it (which range from understandable mistake to a fire-able offense).

 

Alcala is routinely trashed, through no fault of his own (i.e., it's because of the negativity towards the trade itself). But his xFIP in AA was 3.71, mostly in a starting capacity that was never his intended role (he projected as a reliever at the time of the trade). There's a solid chance he contributes to the Twins bullpen for multiple seasons.

 

Gilberto Celestino, the main piece from a prospect standpoint, has been on fire in the 2nd half (.343/.416/.522), including an increased power display and excellent plate discipline. His slow start has kept him under the radar to some extent, but he's only 20 and is showing 5-tool potential. 

 

The Twins would have been wrong to just give Pressly away, but that's far from being the case at this point. 

 

It also strikes me that the Twins are criticized here for Pressly's improvement after leaving, yet with zero mention of the fact that the club fired their pitching coach at the end of the year and made an innovative replacement hire.

 

The fact that some people were actually against the Pressly deal differentiates it somewhat from the Anderson situation, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the reality that the ultimate accounting in undetermined.

I think you judge a transaction by the information known at the time.

 

If either Alcala or Celestino contribute at some point in the future, that does nothing to change the dynamics of what it did to the Twins in 2018 and 2019.

 

And for the record, neither Alcala or Celestino, as prospects, were worth Pressly. 

[Dman]

 

Clear mistake to everyone but those paid to analyze this stuff? You are mis-remembering the reaction here as well. Some had questions about selling in general, very very few had issues with this particular trade. Hindsight

 

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/astros-acquire-ryan-pressly-twins-gets-plenty-of-upside/

 

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2018/7/28/17625254/twins-trade-ryan-pressly-to-astros-for-prospects-jorge-alcala-gilberto-celestino

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/7/29/17625880/ryan-pressly-astros-twins-reliever-trade-sinker-slider-spin-rate-release-point

 

Maybe I  am mis-remembering but I thought there was a minority that didn't really want to trade anyone and give up on the season and then another group on top of that that didn't really want to trade Pressly.  Maybe there were more reluctant traders than I thought?

[Vanimal46]

And that’s why you don’t trade one for lotto tickets.

 

The point (for me anyway) in continuing to bring up the Pressly trade is FO eval. A lot of people are willing to say “the FO knows more than we (fans) do. I’m willing to trust their judgement.” If they can screw the pooch this badly, they can wrong about other decisions too and we (fans again) are certainly right in questioning their judgement.

 

When you don’t have good relievers, you shouldn’t be trading them away. Not for prospects outside a team’s top 20. Quality MLB relievers are becoming a more scarce commodity than starters.

Yep. Birdwatcher posts to not trade unless you have a surplus of talent to replace the player you're trading. I subscribe to that logic. There wasn't a ready replacement after the trade. Hell, 13 months later we're in the same boat.

[USAFChief]

Maybe I am mis-remembering but I thought there was a minority that didn't really want to trade anyone and give up on the season and then another group on top of that that didn't really want to trade Pressly. Maybe there were more reluctant traders than I thought?

that's pretty accurate.

[Dman]

 

I've mentioned it before, and in fact mentioned it earlier on this thread (although in the context of Anderson). If the front office was planning to change pitching coaches, I would think that would be an argument toward keeping Pressly too. Wouldn't you want your new pitching coach to work with your best guys? And wouldn't you not want to move a pitcher in part due to the faults of the previous coach?

 

 

No argument there from me, the Twins could still win the trade -- although in my opinion, Alcala and Celestino still have quite a bit of work to do to make that happen. By the time Celestino or Alcala is ready to meaningfully contribute at the MLB level, we'll likely have had a few seasons worth of time and transactions to address those spots otherwise since the trade. We had much less time/options to address the 2019 bullpen without Pressly in the fold. (We've done all right with the pen in 2019, but in the modern game, more bullpen confidence is always appreciated.)

 

I think that's part of why it's such a rare trade -- a hopeful contender dealing a cheap and useful present-day asset for relatively fungible longer-range assets (Alcala and Celestino both being 40 FV prospects at the time of the deal, although hopefully they can eventually distinguish themselves more than that).

 

This is pretty much how I feel about the trade in the present moment with hindsight.  At the time though I really felt they did the right thing by trading him.  Given everything that has happened it would have helped quite a bit to have Pressly in the pen even without Houston beefing him up.  It will take too long for the assets we got to really help us anytime soon we could still win the trade and lose the war.

 

[Vanimal46]

Celestino was promoted to high A today. One of the pieces in the Pressly trade. In 3 short years maybe we'll see him get a cup of coffee with the Twins!

[Mr. Brooks]

Celestino was promoted to high A today. One of the pieces in the Pressly trade. In 3 short years maybe we'll see him get a cup of coffee with the Twins!

Or maybe he'll be an all star caliber outfielder for 6 years.

 

There are many possible outcomes.

[Vanimal46]

Or maybe he'll be an all star caliber outfielder for 6 years.

 

There are many possible outcomes.

That's his floor for sure... Ceiling is a cross between Mike Trout, Babe Ruth, and Pedro Martinez. 2 way player!

[ashbury]

 

Or maybe he'll be an all star caliber outfielder for 6 years.

There are many possible outcomes.

 

That's his floor for sure... Ceiling is a cross between Mike Trout, Babe Ruth, and Pedro Martinez. 2 way player!

"Maybe" becomes "that's his floor"? Please don't play those rhetorical games on one another. Disagree with what's actually said.

[Dman]

 

its not hindsight.

There were many posters upset with the trade at the time it happened.

As for "the trade was great, it's not replacing him that's the mistake," that's a lot easier to say than do, not to mention what they REALLY should have done is kept Pressly AND added similar talent over the winter.

The Pressly trade was a clear mistake.

 

I know you never wavered in not wanting to trade Pressly and given the way things have worked out I believe you have already won that argument.  There is no question we could have used him this year and that he would have made the pen stronger.

 

But I still contend the FO could have brought in similar talent over the winter.  I looked and Spy and Van are correct that a lot of the better names didn't work out that well this year but for all we knew back then Pressly could have been one of those relievers that regressed as well.  It is hard to know how things will play out in the future all you have are the stats, data points and recent performance to guide you in making those decisions.  

 

The FO took a risk that the young guys they had would develop into solid relievers at the MLB level. That did not happen as  Meija,  Romero and De Jong failed miserably.  Vasquez and Moya did not step up.  Hildenberger significantly regressed.  The guy they brought in "Parker" didn't get the job done and the band-aid players (except Harper) they tried weren't long term solutions either.  A lot had to go wrong and did go wrong to get to the problem pen we have today.  Seems hard to predict all those failures with so few success's.

 

Granted they dipped into their starters to get some help.  Littel has been pretty darn good out of the pen and Smeltzer and Thorpe have done well in starting and long relief roles.  So things have been stabilized to a degree but that's a lot of arms to go through and still not have what I would consider a strong pen. I don't think just having Pressly would have fixed all those problems but he likely would have helped.

 

I have to disagree with you that the Pressly trade was a "clear" mistake especially given the way things stood at that time.  Trading him gave us a chance to create long term assets and an ability to replace his production in the off-season.  There was a clear chance we could have had our cake and eat it too.  To me that is not a clear mistake but a risk worth taking.  Unfortunately it didn't work out that well for us this time but I liked the gamble at the time.

[DocBauer]

I mentioned in a previous post that sooner or later, we need to let the Pressly trade GO because truth is, it's water under the bridge. Of course, this thread has derailed a bit toward Pressly, so I feel compelled to make a couple additional comments.

 

1) BOTH sides of the aisle are correct when debating the worth of Pressly at the time of the trade. He HAD been inconsistent and there was no guarantee when or if he would find himself and be this good. But be WAS pitching well and showing improvement when traded. I was against the trade because I felt he would continue to get better and the pen needed arms. To say Houston magically transformed him is not entirely correct as he was showing improvement with the Twins before the trade. There is a very good chance be would be just as good with the Twins Now, and with the new staff, as he is with Houston currently.

 

But folks, while it stinks, the reality is he is gone.

 

2) POTENTIALLY, there were indeed FA arms available this past off season who could have replaced him. To say there weren't is also not accurate. Again, POTENTIAL replacements. Hindsight/reflection rather clearly shows the FO was right to ignore those options. Unfortunately, the FO plan for Mejia and Romero turned out equally poor as those FA options.

 

AS TO THE ACTUAL CRUX OF THIS OP:

 

(And I'm going to echo Brian on this)

 

The Anderson trade, to quote an earlier comment, was a mere "blip" on the radar at the time. Nothing more. Nobody expected something like this to happen. And I can't and won't hold the FO accountable for something neither they, nor anyone else, saw coming this year from Anderson despite the gift of hindsight. EVERY TEAM trades or releases guys who suddenly blossom given a different opportunity. Our beloved Twins have benefited in the past from such scenarios. Even today, we seem to wonder what the Dodgers were thinking in regard to Smeltzer.

 

No, moving on from Anderson isn't the issue at all. The problem/issue is what they DIDN'T do before trading him. This season the FO has done a tremendous job, IMO, of utilizing Littell, Poppen, Smeltzer and others for help and auditions for the future. Littell in particular looks like a keeper. A couple of the other kids look like they have a real chance. This, after they ran a few other guys out there to see if something would click, and then moved on when it didn't.

 

But what they DIDN'T do was the same thing last season in a lost cause. Maybe they didn't believe in Anderson, for whatever reason. Again, who did? Maybe they just deferred too much to Molitor and a like for Belisle. I don't have the answer. But as much as I love this FO and just about every single change and move they have made, to NOT give Anderson a run last season just to see was an error, made all the mkre strange and confusing based on their aggressiveness THIS season.

 

And this where I further echo some of Brian's commentary, if you have a hole/weakness, and someone is doing well, then give them a chance. That's it. Let them show you what they can or can't do. Maybe Anderson would have looked bad and would be gone anyway. But at least the opportunity would have been presented.