Analyzing José Berríos' Trade Value

[DocBauer]

11 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

You hit the nail on the head, Doc. Notice how there isn’t a follow up how to replace Berrios in the rotation next year. Talk about short term thinking, just because the Twins haven’t been good in 2021.

 

Finding someone via trade who could surpass 3 WAR Berrios would possibly require a better set of prospects than the return we get for Berrios. Attempting to replace that in free agency will result in more money and a player closer to 40 years old than 30. 
 

 

Yep. It feels like either "panic" thinking that 2021 is lost so might as well start a re-build, or, "we just don't like Berrios or believe in him".

And that's not a shot at anyone. Just my interpretation on the subject.

Again, we're walking a tightrope. You don't want to develop a quality arm...who still has potential...and then lose him for nothing but a draft pick. I get that. But I've always believed you keep what you have, when it's good unless the numbers just don't make sense. And we just don't know enough yet about those numbers.

Also, we often debate about "going all in". Is it really so hard to see a few changes and tweaks to this team in the next off-season and see them as legitimate contenders in 2022? If so, then isn't keeping Berrios for another season, even if you risk losing him, part of "going for it"?

Just tossing that out there. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

5 hours ago, Matthew Lenz said:

Watching Berrios inefficiently pitch less than six innings through most starts gives me more of a headache  than making sure I get value out of Berrios if he is going to walk anyway does.

It’s been giving me a headache too, but by your line of thinking, I humbly suggest that with every subpar Berrios start, the good teams circle in even closer for the kill...

[Vanimal46]

47 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

Yep. It feels like either "panic" thinking that 2021 is lost so might as well start a re-build, or, "we just don't like Berrios or believe in him".

And that's not a shot at anyone. Just my interpretation on the subject.

Again, we're walking a tightrope. You don't want to develop a quality arm...who still has potential...and then lose him for nothing but a draft pick. I get that. But I've always believed you keep what you have, when it's good unless the numbers just don't make sense. And we just don't know enough yet about those numbers.

Also, we often debate about "going all in". Is it really so hard to see a few changes and tweaks to this team in the next off-season and see them as legitimate contenders in 2022? If so, then isn't keeping Berrios for another season, even if you risk losing him, part of "going for it"?

Just tossing that out there. 

I’m old enough to remember when Berrios was praised as a prospect for his work ethic. I don’t have inside knowledge on his life, but I’m pretty sure that’s a lifelong trait in a person. We’ve seen flashes of him being great, pitching flawless games. It wouldn’t surprise me if another tweak in his approach unlocks his full potential as a great pitcher. 
 

If we turn things around and contend next year, we would ironically look for someone like Berrios. A rental pitcher who adds solid depth to push a team over the hump in the playoffs. 

[Reptevia]

“I would offer Berrios 5/$110 this offseason.”. For a #3?   Never going to happen. 3 years $45M tops. 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

This is what we are talking about here.

1. The Twins trade Berrios now, because he will eventually be a free agent*, gets 2 or 3 prospects.  
2. Another team gets him and is thrilled about getting a year of his production at his salary.
3. That team then trades him before he becomes a free agent, gets 2 or 3 prospects.  These prospects will be at least as good as the prospects they gave the Twins.  

The smart team is the second team in this transaction.  This is not a smart move by the Twins.  Berrios currently does not have an expensive contract, so he's not going to the high-power teams who can afford him.  His most likely landing spot would be a smart team who would in turn flip him again.  Berrios's value is not going down.  Fringe competitors, which is a group the Twins are part of, will take Berrios any day of the week.

Stop the madness before it starts. 

*This is never a good reason to trade someone.  Every player will eventually be a free agent.  Break the Terry Ryan cycle.

It sounds like you are suggesting Berrios would have higher trade value next year as a 1/2 year rental as compared to this year  with a year and a half of control.  Care to elaborate or provide examples?  Sounds to me like you are talking yourself into what you want to believe because the premise of him bringing back more as a rental makes absolutely no sense.  

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, DocBauer said:

The biggest problem with this whole idea is two fold:

1] We really have no clue what Berrios is hoping for/expecting OR what the Twins have offered thus far. I mean, is he looking for $18-20M per? With his track record and being only 27yo with upside remaining, he's worth that.  Does he want $25M+ and 7-10 -years? Then you're talking crazy numbers.

2] Do the Twins want to compete in 2022? If the answer is yes...and not blow things up...thdn you need a quality pitcher like Berrios and any "who cares who fills his spot" thinking is short sighted and dangerous. The Twins system has more than a few really good looking SP options on their way. And several of them could/shoukd see second half promotions this year. There is a really good chance a few them could be ready to audition late this season. But I can't see a contending club in 2022 just saying "oh, we think at least one of them will come through and shine and we'll be just fine". 

And I don't buy the arguement either of "we won't pay thjs guy, so we'll trade him and just sign someone else". Huh?

I know we're walking an uncomfortable and narrow line of 1yr of control left and will he or won't he re-sign, but without more idea of the numbers involved...and speculation of demands isn't a fair arguement...i feel any trade discussion is premature at best.

All true Doc but we do a lot of speculation here that is far more unfounded than believing a player is looking for a giant payday.  Every off season we see reports of players looking for 50% more than they end up signing for.  Free agency is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow so it's a very small leap to conclude Berrios believes he is worth "ace" money.  It's also not a big leap to assume they have tried to extend him.  If the FO believed the amount he is asking for was in the best interest of the team, they would have signed him. 

The question is basically the return vs his value in 2022.  Most here feel we are going to be a contender next year.  Based on what?  This core supplemented by very good FA signings in 2019 was not even a true contender when they all pretty much had career years.  The same extreme optimism resonated here for a few years before they finally got good in 2019.  Every year the sentiment was trade away our prospects because we had the core to contend.  This team is just not that good and the only way it's going to be a contender is if the SP prospects provide contending pitching.  I don't believe that's going to happen in 2022.

IF and it's a big IF, the players coming back make sense, I take that capital that hopefully does for us what trading Sale did for Chicago.  Of course, there are other examples of teams using this kind of trade to retool in a relatively short period of time.  Then, if we can establish a couple prospects in the rotation, take the money from Happ, Pineda, and Berrios and g get a quality free Agent SP that will be part of the solution beyond 2022.  If you believe this horrible team is a going to be a true contender next year than it makes more sense to hold onto Berrios.  I just don't believe we are a true contender.  Of course, that opinion could change if Duran and Balzovic burst on the seen in a big way and a number of position players bounce back but that seems like a real long-shot.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

Thanks for doing the research, Matthew.

Another factor is going to be supply. One team to watch is the Giants -- they are currently in the race but are widely predicted to fall back at some point, and they have 4-5 pending FA SP who are doing pretty well, including arguably the best in Gausman. If the Nationals fall back, Scherzer would be an elite SP target too.

I'm sure Berrios would have suitors too, but teams looking to go all-in and give up top prospects may have other, better targets.

 

 

[Matthew Lenz]

11 hours ago, DocBauer said:

Yep. It feels like either "panic" thinking that 2021 is lost so might as well start a re-build, or, "we just don't like Berrios or believe in him".

And that's not a shot at anyone. Just my interpretation on the subject.

Again, we're walking a tightrope. You don't want to develop a quality arm...who still has potential...and then lose him for nothing but a draft pick. I get that. But I've always believed you keep what you have, when it's good unless the numbers just don't make sense. And we just don't know enough yet about those numbers.

Also, we often debate about "going all in". Is it really so hard to see a few changes and tweaks to this team in the next off-season and see them as legitimate contenders in 2022? If so, then isn't keeping Berrios for another season, even if you risk losing him, part of "going for it"?

Just tossing that out there. 

Matthew Taylor's article was definitely of the tune that 2021 is lost and he doesn't see us as a contender in 2022 with how this team is playing and is structured, and he even drew comparisons to the 2011 Twins team. For me, I just don't believe in Berrios and haven't since the 2nd half of 2019 when he had a stellar first half and it looked like he had taken that next step, but then reverted back to the pitcher he was before and has been since in the 2nd half. 

In regards to your other post, I admit that I am thinking Berrios wants to be paid like a frontend guy despite their not being any proof of that, but I base that off of his deleted tweet from 2019 and this 2018 article when he switched representation. I'm not blaming Berrios for wanting to get paid...that'd be asinine, but I am saying that I don't want to pay him anything more than mayyyybe $15MM AAV over 2-3 years.  If he agrees to that then great, but I don't know why he wouldn't test the market at this point.

Who replaces him in 2022 if we think the Twins are contenders? There are about a dozen pending free agents for 2022 that I'd rather have over the same timeframe.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, spycake said:

Thanks for doing the research, Matthew.

Another factor is going to be supply. One team to watch is the Giants -- they are currently in the race but are widely predicted to fall back at some point, and they have 4-5 pending FA SP who are doing pretty well, including arguably the best in Gausman. If the Nationals fall back, Scherzer would be an elite SP target too.

I'm sure Berrios would have suitors too, but teams looking to go all-in and give up top prospects may have other, better targets.

 

 

Good point with Sherzer and Gausman.   It would definitely cut into the market for Berrios If they are both available,  Gausman is also an example of how you replace Berrios.  He was very affordable when signed. 

[Dodecahedron]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

It sounds like you are suggesting Berrios would have higher trade value next year as a 1/2 year rental as compared to this year  with a year and a half of control.  Care to elaborate or provide examples?  Sounds to me like you are talking yourself into what you want to believe because the premise of him bringing back more as a rental makes absolutely no sense.  

I crossed out the unnecessary part so that I could respond respectfully.

Teams who buy at the trade deadline are buying for a playoff push for that year.  Teams looking to build for multiple years make deals during the offseason.

There is a 50% chance that any team who trades for Berrios today trades him again before he hits free agency.  I am being very generous with this percentage.

You are speaking in the theoretical, I'm speaking as a businessman.  Any team who acquires Berrios will be facing the exact same dilemma the Twins are facing today:  He will be a free agent.  Unless they want to sign him, they will trade him.  And next year, there will be other teams having their own playoff pushes because their windows are closing.  This market will be there every year.

Any team who picks up Berrios this year and flips him next year is going to be the team who wins the trade, no question about it.  The best way for the Twins to win this trade is to not do it.

[Major League Ready]

13 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

I crossed out the unnecessary part so that I could respond respectfully.

Teams who buy at the trade deadline are buying for a playoff push for that year.  Teams looking to build for multiple years make deals during the offseason.

There is a 50% chance that any team who trades for Berrios today trades him again before he hits free agency.  I am being very generous with this percentage.

You are speaking in the theoretical, I'm speaking as a businessman.  Any team who acquires Berrios will be facing the exact same dilemma the Twins are facing today:  He will be a free agent.  Unless they want to sign him, they will trade him.  And next year, there will be other teams having their own playoff pushes because their windows are closing.  This market will be there every year.

Any team who picks up Berrios this year and flips him next year is going to be the team who wins the trade, no question about it.  The best way for the Twins to win this trade is to not do it.

You are asking us to believe 1 1/2 years of Berrios is worth less than a half year.  Please send that question in to any of the national writers who hosts chats.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  This topic is often discussed on various BB talk shows.  It is common knowledge that extra years of control translate to additional trade value.  Teams have become far less willing to pay big for rentals.  We will just have to agree to disagree.

One last thought ... If another teams does not see value in an extra year of Berrios, why should we?  You are suggesting we can get by without him but another team won't see value in having him next year as well as for a playoff run this year..  

[Dodecahedron]

34 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

One last thought ... If another teams does not see value in an extra year of Berrios, why should we?  You are suggesting we can get by without him but another team won't see value in having him next year as well as for a playoff run this year..  

That's not at all what I'm saying.  The "extra year of Berrios" means two things, not one thing, as you believe.

1. He gets to pitch for the team for a longer period of time, if they want him to.  But remember, the goal would be, unequivocally, for him to help them make the playoffs this year.  

2. The team gets to trade him before he hits free agency.  This is great, too, especially if they traded for him in the first place.

The team could trade him at the end of the season, or the team could trade him at next year's trade deadline.  But make no bones about it, he is very likely to be traded again.

Get it now?  Berrios's "extra value to trade this year" is because the acquiring team can trade him again, and thus the second team can come out ahead.  With Berrios's production just below that of ace, he will always get a good return on the market.

This is a bad idea, and hopefully the Twins are not entertaining it.  Let the fans and the bloggers think about it all they want.  The universe has tons of space with which to fill up chatter, after all, and there are worse options of things to talk about.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

That's not at all what I'm saying.  The "extra year of Berrios" means two things, not one thing, as you believe.

1. He gets to pitch for the team for a longer period of time, if they want him to.  But remember, the goal would be, unequivocally, for him to help them make the playoffs this year.  

2. The team gets to trade him before he hits free agency.  This is great, too, especially if they traded for him in the first place.

The team could trade him at the end of the season, or the team could trade him at next year's trade deadline.  But make no bones about it, he is very likely to be traded again.

Get it now?  Berrios's "extra value to trade this year" is because the acquiring team can trade him again, and thus the second team can come out ahead.  With Berrios's production just below that of ace, he will always get a good return on the market.

This is a bad idea, and hopefully the Twins are not entertaining it.  Let the fans and the bloggers think about it all they want.  The universe has tons of space with which to fill up chatter, after all, and there are worse options of things to talk about.

It’s exactly what you are saying regardless of your refusal to acknowledge some very simple logic.  If the conditions you state are correct, another team would get a good return for him next year.  Let’s call those prospects Smith and Jones.  Therefore, two months next year returns Smith and Jones.  However, based on your position, no team would give more for Smith and Jones for an extra year of control.  Therefore, the rights to Berrios are worth nothing this year but next year 2 months of Berrios are worth Smith and Jones.  Do you get it now?

Arguing that and extra year of control is worth nothing is blatant head in the sand logic.  Everyone knows an extra year of control has value but here you are telling me I am stupid because I just don’t get it. 

[chpettit19]

3 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

That's not at all what I'm saying.  The "extra year of Berrios" means two things, not one thing, as you believe.

1. He gets to pitch for the team for a longer period of time, if they want him to.  But remember, the goal would be, unequivocally, for him to help them make the playoffs this year.  

2. The team gets to trade him before he hits free agency.  This is great, too, especially if they traded for him in the first place.

The team could trade him at the end of the season, or the team could trade him at next year's trade deadline.  But make no bones about it, he is very likely to be traded again.

Get it now?  Berrios's "extra value to trade this year" is because the acquiring team can trade him again, and thus the second team can come out ahead.  With Berrios's production just below that of ace, he will always get a good return on the market.

This is a bad idea, and hopefully the Twins are not entertaining it.  Let the fans and the bloggers think about it all they want.  The universe has tons of space with which to fill up chatter, after all, and there are worse options of things to talk about.

I think the problem with your logic is that a team trading for Berrios this year would be looking to trade him next year. Would San Diego be looking to trade Clevinger this year if he were healthy? They traded for him at the deadline last year, and according to your logic they did that simply for last year's playoff push and would turn around and trade him this year. That isn't how it works. There's certainly a chance whoever traded for him this year would have a down year next year and turn around and trade him again, but the idea that a team would trade for him this year with no desire to have him for their playoff push next year makes no sense.

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I think the problem with your logic is that a team trading for Berrios this year would be looking to trade him next year. Would San Diego be looking to trade Clevinger this year if he were healthy? They traded for him at the deadline last year, and according to your logic they did that simply for last year's playoff push and would turn around and trade him this year. That isn't how it works. There's certainly a chance whoever traded for him this year would have a down year next year and turn around and trade him again, but the idea that a team would trade for him this year with no desire to have him for their playoff push next year makes no sense.

While I agree a team would likely want to keep Berios, It does not matter whether they keep him or not in terms of the validity of Dodechedron’s argument.  He/she has stipulated that Berrios has significant value as a rental next year.  Let’s call that value X. 

He/she has also suggested that the Twins would get no more for Berrios this year than the team trading for him would get the following year.  In other words, they would expect to recoup their entire investment next year.  This position suggests a team is willing to pay nothing for Berrios this year but he has significant value next year.  If I am only willing to pay you the price I can get for something when I resell it a year later, I am essentially willing to pay you nothing for the use of that something for a year.

If Berrios is worth X as a 2 month rental, why wouldn’t someone be willing to pay 2X for this year and next especially when they hold the option to recoup X if they are not in contention?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think most acquiring teams would want to keep the player through 2022, although a few frugal/fringe ones could change course — think Milwaukee trading Greinke, or the A’s dealing Samardzija.

But I think in both of those cases, the second trade return was considered less than the first, although Addison Russell eventually turned into a bust and the A’s got more value out of Semien/Bassitt.

[Major League Ready]

9 hours ago, spycake said:

I think most acquiring teams would want to keep the player through 2022, although a few frugal/fringe ones could change course — think Milwaukee trading Greinke, or the A’s dealing Samardzija.

But I think in both of those cases, the second trade return was considered less than the first, although Addison Russell eventually turned into a bust and the A’s got more value out of Semien/Bassitt.

Samardzija, Semien and Oakland in general are good examples of successful asset management.  How have they managed to field such good teams while being at such a revenue disadvantage?  Among their top current starters, Bassit was acquired by trading an established SP (Samardzija).  Manea was traded for a rental veteran position player (Zobrist)  Cole Irvin was purchased for cash.

Their top 2 RPs are free agents at a combined cost of $6.55M and Burch was purchased for cash.  Among their top position players, Laureano (16th round pick) was acquired by trading a relative low level prospect.  Canha was acquired for a Milb pitcher that never made it to the MLN level.  Olsen and Murphy we picked 47th and 83rd by Oakland in the draft.  Kind of sounds like the Twins strategy.  Brown was a 19th round pick.

Point being Oakland has a better record over the past 20 years than many teams with far more purchasing power because they find value.  They have also been willing to trade away established players to sustain success.  Tampa has done the same thing.  It would be great if we could employ some of these tactics with the same success.  The plus side for us is we also have the benefit of a revenue advantage over Tampa and Oakland that provides additional opportunities.  We can afford Josh Donaldson type deal along with other supporting free agents like Pineada / Haap / Ramos / Schoop / Cron, etc.  The better job we do finding these values, the more budget available for FAs and extending players.
 

[chpettit19]

16 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

While I agree a team would likely want to keep Berios, It does not matter whether they keep him or not in terms of the validity of Dodechedron’s argument.  He/she has stipulated that Berrios has significant value as a rental next year.  Let’s call that value X. 

He/she has also suggested that the Twins would get no more for Berrios this year than the team trading for him would get the following year.  In other words, they would expect to recoup their entire investment next year.  This position suggests a team is willing to pay nothing for Berrios this year but he has significant value next year.  If I am only willing to pay you the price I can get for something when I resell it a year later, I am essentially willing to pay you nothing for the use of that something for a year.

If Berrios is worth X as a 2 month rental, why wouldn’t someone be willing to pay 2X for this year and next especially when they hold the option to recoup X if they are not in contention?

Dodechedron's argument seems to be that they believe Berrios is basically a 2 month rental this year as well. That's why they think he'd be worth the same this deadline as next deadline. And that's why their logic is flawed. He's not a 2 month rental (whether the team acquiring him plans to only keep him for this year or not) this year, but Dodechedron is arguing that he is because the acquiring team would just look to trade him again next year.

Bottom line is that whether the acquiring team would plan to keep him until he hits free agency or trade him again next year he is worth more this year (as you're saying) than next year. The extra year of team control makes him more valuable because you can have him for 2 playoff pushes or 1 playoff push and recoup some of your trade expense by moving him again. But if the team acquiring him this year got a better package (at the time of the trade, not final products as there are too many variables there) for him next year it'd be a complete failure by the Twins FO in asset management.