Who's a more valuable trade asset, Buxton or Kepler?

[Darius]

I think teams would prefer Buxton. I know I would if I were a GM.

 

Buxton impacts the game like nobody else in the world right now. He makes every single defensive position player better with his range. He makes pitchers better. When he’s getting on base out of the 9 hole, he makes the top of the order better (he gives pitchers fits when on base). We all saw the impact on the W-L ledger this year when Buxton was on the field.

 

Kepler is a very nice player. But, he plays a less than premium position. He seems to have injury problems in his own right (he disappeared for two months down the stretch, and was a walking corpse in the playoffs). It can be argued that much of his offensive success was in part due to the ball (It’s safe to say he’ll never reach that homer in total again). He doesn’t get on base at a particularly high rate. He doesn’t hit for a particularly high average. He isn’t a world-beating vase runner. He doesn’t really have an elite skill. You take away this year’s power surge, is he really that spectacular of a player? This is coming from a massive Max Kepler fan. Nothing wrong with being good, not great, in his role.

 

I don’t think the contract situation means anything to a team with a real budget. All they really did was buy out a few arbitration years. They’re both going to get paid huge at some point. No team looking to trade for a premier player such as that is going to let that sway a decision. The Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City royals aren’t the ones we’ll be dealing with here.

 

Think of the players like stocks. Max Kepler’s value is at an all time high. There won’t be a day henceforth that his value is higher. Buxton’s has crept up a little since bottoming out last year, but is still probably significantly undervalued. It doesn’t take a financial genius to ascertain the buy low/sell high concept.

 

Honestly, I don’t see any GM worth his salt aggressively pursuing Max Kepler right now.

[John Bonnes]

 

Can someone explain why the twins should trade important pieces off the MLB roster now that they’re firmly in contention? What other contending team has done this? I know it’s the off-season and we need stuff to talk about, but I legitimately don’t understand the reasoning behind all these replace/move/trade so and so threads.

 

First, a gentle chastisement: in general, if people want to talk about a potentially relevant Twins topic at Twins Daily, your choices are to participate or not to participate, which is perfectly valid. But saying "this is a terrible topic" or "people shouldn't be talking about this" is essentially trolling and can get moderators' ire. And for good reason. It's the kind of thing that discourages exploring topic and expressing opinions in a forum. 

 

I assume what you're really saying here is "why the hell would we want to trade either one of them" and the answer to that is "I agree, but...". I really don't want to. But I also don't think either one is completely off the table for the right offer. We've seen the Mets ask about a centerfielder. A lot of the National League teams were asking for major-league ready or young players over which they can have team control for a number of years. Calling those teams about pitching, which is a lot more dire need than an outfielder for this team. 

[Darius]

First, a gentle chastisement: in general, if people want to talk about a potentially relevant Twins topic at Twins Daily, your choices are to participate or not to participate, which is perfectly valid. But saying "this is a terrible topic" or "people shouldn't be talking about this" is essentially trolling and can get moderators' ire. And for good reason. It's the kind of thing that discourages exploring topic and expressing opinions in a forum.

 

I assume what you're really saying here is "why the hell would we want to trade either one of them" and the answer to that is "I agree, but...". I really don't want to. But I also don't think either one is completely off the table for the right offer. We've seen the Mets ask about a centerfielder. A lot of the National League teams were asking for major-league ready or young players over which they can have team control for a number of years. Calling those teams about pitching, which is a lot more dire need than an outfielder for this team.

The word trolling gets thrown very loosely around here (I know first hand).

 

Why does it always go there? If I’m a huge Sano or Buxton fan, maybe I could construe excessive discussion about trading them trolling, because I don’t agree with the particular topic or response. Or, maybe that response wasn’t worded in a way that I agreed with (or wasn’t being being interpreted as intended).

 

Dissenting opinions aren’t always “trolling.” There are plenty of relevant topics that get shot down as “trolling” around here (heaven forbid anyone discuss the Twins spending habits - a genuine concern for many). I, myself, have received messages from moderators telling me I can’t discuss certain topics in a certain way because it’s unappetizing to some. What’s the difference here besides the person introducing/responding to the topic? So, frankly, I find the sentiment expressed that Twins Daily is just a place to freely and openly chat a little disingenuous. Many topics don’t receive the same “choose not to participate” treatment, and are just as “potentially relevant.”

 

These forums can be a great place. But, it seems more and more that things get termed “trolling” and people get banned for offering opinions that go against the status quo. Why is that fun? We come here to debate. Who wants to play Madden on rookie level and win 200-0?

 

I get that we don’t need to go off the rails and start insulting people (which many get away with on here, if it’s directed at the appropriate person with the “unappetizing” opinions). But, really? Every time someone disagrees in a way that hurts someone’s feelings we have drag their names through the forum as a troll? There is absolutely nothing in that comment that was any way out of line. I believe the line “this is a terrible topic” we’re words inserted into the quoted commentor’s mouth (isn’t that a form of trolling?). You even added a little extra curse word flair (“who the hell would do that” was not in the comment, again), just to paint a comment you didn’t like in a certain color.

 

Disagreeing isn’t always insulting or trolling. Over-censoring is how these sites die (see the Minnesota SB Nation forums with about 10 people left in an echo chamber).

[prouster]

The thread asks if a team came asking for a major-league OF (that could play center), who would return more in terms on an impact pitcher...not a 'marginal upgrade' in starting pitching.

 

If your point is that 'good' teams usually trade prospects, not major-league talent, I agree. If your argument is that it's dumb to trade major league talent when you are in a position to contend, I say not necessarily. If you have two outfielders that are 'really' good, but you think you have two more that can be just as good or better (or in the case of Buxton, good, and way more durable), why would you limit opportunities by not at least listening to teams that might be interested in one of the major-league pieces?

 

(FWIW...off the top of my head, the Cardinals traded Garry Templeton coming off a division championship, Boston traded Nomar Garciappara for help at other positions literally while they were trying to win their first world series in 90 years. The Dodgers traded Puig because they had a ton of outfield depth...and they didn't want to sign him...but arguably, could have used him in this post-season. Nevertheless, I concede that it's usually prospects, even that prospects would be 'less risky'. But there are instances of it working out the other way, as well.)

It’s a marginal upgrade because a five win pitcher nets one game when he replaces a four win center fielder (and that’s assuming that the replacement outfielder will put up identical production, which is not a realistic expectation). The former is a somewhat arbitrary number, but it’s a fair definition of “impact” pitcher. When evaluating a trade, you can’t ignore what you’ve given up.

[prouster]

First, a gentle chastisement: in general, if people want to talk about a potentially relevant Twins topic at Twins Daily, your choices are to participate or not to participate, which is perfectly valid. But saying "this is a terrible topic" or "people shouldn't be talking about this" is essentially trolling and can get moderators' ire. And for good reason. It's the kind of thing that discourages exploring topic and expressing opinions in a forum.

 

I assume what you're really saying here is "why the hell would we want to trade either one of them" and the answer to that is "I agree, but...". I really don't want to. But I also don't think either one is completely off the table for the right offer. We've seen the Mets ask about a centerfielder. A lot of the National League teams were asking for major-league ready or young players over which they can have team control for a number of years. Calling those teams about pitching, which is a lot more dire need than an outfielder for this team.

That’s reading hostility into my post that simply doesn’t exist.

[Squirrel]

At the deadline, it was reported that the Mets asked for Byron Buxton (plus more players) for Noah Syndergaard. With the Twins are least calling teams about trading for high impact starters, I wonder who we think is the more valuable asset for a team looking for a centerfielder: Byron Buxton or Max Kepler? I'd like the community's analysis on two things:

 

1) Which do you think is more valuable to other teams? (Especially to teams looking for a centerfielder.)

2) Which would you want to hang onto?

 

 

MODERATOR WARNING:

This is the question and the thread topic. Let’s please keep it to this.

[denarded]

 

What is Byron Buxton really?  We can go all day on how fast he is and how his glove cures cancer, but he is nothing more than a question mark for me coming into next season.  He has played in 115 major league games over the last two seasons and in 361 major league at bats he has 10-50-.235.  He has never had an OBP over .314.

 

it doesn't seem like he will learn that running into walls  In fact, he has acted somewhat defiant about it.  As if that is one of the most essential things that makes up his identity.  I can't say for sure what he is going to be going forward, but I wouldn't bet a penny on him getting at least 400 at bats next year.  He has made it to 300 at bats once.  He has played over 100 games once.

 

These are facts.  We can talk him up and hype him up from here to eternity, but it isn't going to change what has happened and will happen.  If history teaches us anything he will need to tweak his game to be able to stay on the field.

 

Well Said 

 

[In My La Z boy]

 

I mean, this ignores the reality that minus a bases-loaded single + error against Hader, the Nats were 4 outs away from losing in the wild-card game.  Ace(s) increase odds of getting to the postseason, and increase the margin for error when you get there, but they are nowhere near a guarantee for success.  It just so happens that this year two teams with "super-rotations" also have 20 other good players each as well.

Little harsh here? I am neither "ignoring the reality" or "Guaranteeing success" - I am responding to the posed question - and am suggesting we be open to moving Buxton because ACE starting pitcher's are obviously crucial to making a WS run - hence Nats v Stros example. And guess who also had 20 other good players? - We did. 

[FLYBOY1979]

Just signed up, been following this site for awhile. Great site for Twins fans.

Tough question, since they are so different. Buxton is asked to cover 50%,

or more of the outfield. His offense isn't quite as good as we would like, but

batting him 9th is a good spot.

Kepler doesn't cover as much of the outfield as FAST as Buxton, but is a good

guy in center. As we saw this year, Kepler is better at the plate. Hopefully that

will continue.

I think we keep the Right Fielder, and the Center Fielder, and trade the Left

Fielder.

Maybe the Twins consider playing Buxton when Cleveland comes to town.

Then sit him against Kansas City.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

It’s a marginal upgrade because a five win pitcher nets one game when he replaces a four win center fielder (and that’s assuming that the replacement outfielder will put up identical production, which is not a realistic expectation). The former is a somewhat arbitrary number, but it’s a fair definition of “impact” pitcher. When evaluating a trade, you can’t ignore what you’ve given up.

 

Except that's not what we're actually talking about here.  It's not about the difference between Kepler/Buxton and starting pitcher X, it's about the difference between Kepler/Buxton PLUS starting pitcher Y and starting pitcher X PLUS Wade/Cave.

 

That being said, with Berrios, Ododrizzi, and Pineda as a good start on a rotation, and still tens of millions left to sign someone, I don't want to weaken outfield defense and the offense to upgrade from Smeltzer/Dobnak/Graterol to someone like Syndergaard.  If I'm letting Buxton/Kepler go, I need someone who starts game 1 over Berrios without a doubt.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Little harsh here? I am neither "ignoring the reality" or "Guaranteeing success" - I am responding to the posed question - and am suggesting we be open to moving Buxton because ACE starting pitcher's are obviously crucial to making a WS run - hence Nats v Stros example. And guess who also had 20 other good players? - We did. 

 

The Dodgers had the 11th and 12th best starters by WAR this year, and did not make it past the divisional round.  The Rangers had number 3 and 19, and finished 15 games out of the playoffs.  Your original post said it's no mystery why it's Astros-Nats, then discussed only the rotations.  This suggests that you think the only reason it's those two teams is because of their awesome starting pitching.  My point is that awesome starting pitching is definitely not enough.  We could trade Kepler and Garver for Scherzer, and Sano and Arraez for Verlander, then sign Cole, and I don't think we make the World Series next year; elite teams are balanced.

 

This year, of the 10 teams that made the playoffs, the lowest ranked by WAR on offense were the Cardinals at 14.  Of those 10 teams, the lowest ranked by WAR on pitching was the Braves at 18, with the Brewers at 17.  In fact, both the Astros AND the Nationals got more WAR from their offenses (in Houston's case, massively more) than their pitching.  You can't slug your way to a title with bad pitching, but you can't pitch your way to a title with bad hitting either.

[In My La Z boy]

 

The Dodgers had the 11th and 12th best starters by WAR this year, and did not make it past the divisional round.  The Rangers had number 3 and 19, and finished 15 games out of the playoffs.  Your original post said it's no mystery why it's Astros-Nats, then discussed only the rotations.  This suggests that you think the only reason it's those two teams is because of their awesome starting pitching.  My point is that awesome starting pitching is definitely not enough.  We could trade Kepler and Garver for Scherzer, and Sano and Arraez for Verlander, then sign Cole, and I don't think we make the World Series next year; elite teams are balanced.

 

This year, of the 10 teams that made the playoffs, the lowest ranked by WAR on offense were the Cardinals at 14.  Of those 10 teams, the lowest ranked by WAR on pitching was the Braves at 18, with the Brewers at 17.  In fact, both the Astros AND the Nationals got more WAR from their offenses (in Houston's case, massively more) than their pitching.  You can't slug your way to a title with bad pitching, but you can't pitch your way to a title with bad hitting either.

Agreed entirely. I am always talking Twins and your last sentence is my point - IF we had 2 starters like the Nats/Stros - we just may have won it all this year. We proved "you can't slug your way to a title with bad pitching" - I am not, and never would suggest we trade away our chance to slug in order to acquire pitching. I am an old man and understand the need for both. My opinion, 2019 was the best offense we are ever going to see - and it didn't get it done. 2 stud starters was the missing ingredient. 

[prouster]

Except that's not what we're actually talking about here. It's not about the difference between Kepler/Buxton and starting pitcher X, it's about the difference between Kepler/Buxton PLUS starting pitcher Y and starting pitcher X PLUS Wade/Cave.

 

That being said, with Berrios, Ododrizzi, and Pineda as a good start on a rotation, and still tens of millions left to sign someone, I don't want to weaken outfield defense and the offense to upgrade from Smeltzer/Dobnak/Graterol to someone like Syndergaard. If I'm letting Buxton/Kepler go, I need someone who starts game 1 over Berrios without a doubt.

My point is very simple: they should not consider trading either Buxton or Kepler, because I believe losing either one would basically cancel out any upgrades they’d make in their rotation. It makes no sense to me to fill one hole on the MLB roster with the dirt from another when the team is in contention. Cave and Wade are great to have as backups, not as starters.

 

To upgrade their pitching, I believe they should both work the free agent market and trade from a deep farm system. That would allow them to upgrade their rotation while retaining talent and depth on the position player side.

[Thrylos]

I'd ask this question a bit differently:  Whose departure will hurt the Twins less?   The answer is obviously Buxton, since they won the division practically without him and the issue in the postseason was pitching and not hitting/defense.   Kepler proved that he can man centerfield adequately and keep the position warm until Royce Lewis is ready to play there.  So Buxton's 50-60 games a year is much more replaceable for the Twins.

 

If the Mets want Buxton for Syndergaard, it is a no-brainer and should had happen already.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

My point is very simple: they should not consider trading either Buxton or Kepler, because I believe losing either one would basically cancel out any upgrades they’d make in their rotation. It makes no sense to me to fill one hole on the MLB roster with the dirt from another when the team is in contention. Cave and Wade are great to have as backups, not as starters.

To upgrade their pitching, I believe they should both work the free agent market and trade from a deep farm system. That would allow them to upgrade their rotation while retaining talent and depth on the position player side.

 

Except if pitching is a hole that needs 10 cubic feet of dirt to fill, and you have 20 cubic feet of dirt in outfield depth, it makes all the sense in the world to make that trade.  Assuming the Twins QO Odorizzi and Pineda, you're left with two spots left in your rotation.  Let's assume even in this scenario they sign one of the top SP on the market (let's say they go for Zach Wheeler).  The question then is whether or not trading for a 5th starter provides more value over Smeltzer/Dobnak/Graterol than Buxton/Kepler over Wade/Cave/Kiriloff/Larnach.  I have a high opinion of both Buxton and Kepler--if they both stay mostly healthy, they combine for 9-10 WAR, so I'm looking for a legit top-10 pitcher in return, using my minor league system to balance the trade.  I don' see that happening, because I don't think there are any top 10 pitchers available on the trade market.

[prouster]

Except if pitching is a hole that needs 10 cubic feet of dirt to fill, and you have 20 cubic feet of dirt in outfield depth, it makes all the sense in the world to make that trade. Assuming the Twins QO Odorizzi and Pineda, you're left with two spots left in your rotation. Let's assume even in this scenario they sign one of the top SP on the market (let's say they go for Zach Wheeler). The question then is whether or not trading for a 5th starter provides more value over Smeltzer/Dobnak/Graterol than Buxton/Kepler over Wade/Cave/Kiriloff/Larnach. I have a high opinion of both Buxton and Kepler--if they both stay mostly healthy, they combine for 9-10 WAR, so I'm looking for a legit top-10 pitcher in return, using my minor league system to balance the trade. I don' see that happening, because I don't think there are any top 10 pitchers available on the trade market.

I guess I’m more risk averse. I don’t think they should bet on minor leaguers when they don’t have to.

[Tomj14]

 

 My point is that awesome starting pitching is definitely not enough.  We could trade Kepler and Garver for Scherzer, and Sano and Arraez for Verlander, then sign Cole, and I don't think we make the World Series next year; elite teams are balanced.

I would love to try to that formula, can we get the Twins to make those trades and sign Cole.

I would back it 100%.

 

Back to the topic, I believe Buxton has more value, his upside is a top 10 player in all of baseball if he consistently hits like he has in his hot streaks, plays defense like he does and most importantly stays healthy.

I kind of think Kepler would return something less than Yelich and he returned some top prospects but no major league guys and Kepler isn't as good as Yelich was when he was traded.

[ewen21]

 

I'd ask this question a bit differently:  Whose departure will hurt the Twins less?   The answer is obviously Buxton, since they won the division practically without him and the issue in the postseason was pitching and not hitting/defense.   Kepler proved that he can man centerfield adequately and keep the position warm until Royce Lewis is ready to play there.  So Buxton's 50-60 games a year is much more replaceable for the Twins.

 

If the Mets want Buxton for Syndergaard, it is a no-brainer and should had happen already.

I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of the content here, but hitting was a HUGE factor in why we lost.  if you are going to score 7 runs in three games don't expect to win--even if you have Verlander and Cole.

 

 

That being said, there is no way in the world we should have waved the Mets off if they were asking for Buxton straight up for Syndergaard.  Buxton is a guy with a .292 career OBP and yet he is untouchable?  He can't even stay on the field and we have to have him?

 

 

I don't get it.

[ewen21]

 

 

 

Back to the topic, I believe Buxton has more value, his upside is a top 10 player in all of baseball if he consistently hits like he has in his hot streaks, plays defense like he does and most importantly stays healthy.

 

 

And if the queen had two balls on her she would be king.

 

 

We are STILL talking about potential after five years?  I think at this point we know what Buxton is.  He is a fast guy who makes some great catches every so often and he ends up hurting himself.  He is not a very good hitter.  One can make the argument he is well below average offensively.  He has a below .300 career OPB and .706 career OPS.

 

I don't care how good of a glove he has there is no way a player like that is a top 10 players. I seriously think we need to re-evaluate Buxton here.  This is the only place in the baseball world that thinks he is an untouchable.  I guarantee it

[Tomj14]

 

And if the queen had two balls on her she would be king.

 

 

We are STILL talking about potential after five years?  I think at this point we know what Buxton is.  He is a fast guy who makes some great catches every so often and he ends up hurting himself.  He is not a very good hitter.  One can make the argument he is well below average offensively.  He has a below .300 career OPB and .706 career OPS.

 

I don't care how good of a glove he has there is no way a player like that is a top 10 players. I seriously think we need to re-evaluate Buxton here.  This is the only place in the baseball world that thinks he is an untouchable.  I guarantee it

Hard to argue against injuries, he did have a 5.1 WAR in 2017 (Which was tied for 10th in the American league at age 23) in 140 games, was well on his way to that this year (3.1) . And when teams came asking for players the rumors weren't for Kepler (4 WAR this year) they were for Buxton.

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of the content here, but hitting was a HUGE factor in why we lost.  if you are going to score 7 runs in three games don't expect to win--even if you have Verlander and Cole.

 

 

That being said, there is no way in the world we should have waved the Mets off if they were asking for Buxton straight up for Syndergaard.  Buxton is a guy with a .292 career OBP and yet he is untouchable?  He can't even stay on the field and we have to have him?

 

 

I don't get it.

 

I don't get it either under the assumption the Mets offer Syndergaard straight up for Buxton. When something makes no sense, start by examining the assumptions. What are the odds the rumor is exactly accurate?

 

[Number3]

"......I am an old man and understand the need for both. My opinion, 2019 was the best offense we are ever going to see - and it didn't get it done. 2 stud starters was the missing ingredient....."

 

The slugging plus decent pitching got them 101 wins. I assume not getting it done was losing to the Yankees again in the playoffs? (Wild guess) In those playoffs Twins scored 4, 2 and 1 run respectively. They could have had 2 Cy Young winners with the same result except for a crippled payroll.