Buyers or Sellers: Lessons Learned From the 2017 Trade Deadline

[Major League Ready]

43 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

I agree with this entirely. I’ve said on other posts that the most important decision is to decide whether or not you can re-sign Berrios and Buxton for something that makes sense. Having said that, I would be willing to do a slight overpay for both because I think they are the two most critical pieces on the roster if we want to be contenders in the next 2 to 4 years. I think the alternative if you can’t re-sign those two is to go with the tear down and rebuild route. I think what I outlined still makes sense if you go for the tear down and rebuild except that you probably trade Rogers since he should bring a good return and will be older by the time you’re ready to contend again. Same goes double for Nelson Cruz. I think the rest of it works regardless of whether this is a reload or a rebuild.

With all of that said, I don’t think this month is the time you have to make that decision unless you find out for sure that re-signing those two is just not going to be an option. I think the better time to make the trade is in the off-season anyway because I think we will get a better return and that gives us time to actually try to negotiate the deal. I do agree though, that before the start of next season you need to have a firm decision  made on resigning Berrios, Buxton and Rodgers.

I am sincerely interested to hear your perspective on why the return would be better in the off-season.  Obviously, there are more suitors.  However, if we were in contention this year and expected to be in contention next year, would you find more value in having Berrios or someone like him for this year’s playoff run as well as the entirety of next season or just next season?  While I appreciate the value in demand, I think personnel decisions have become much more sophisticated in terms of value proposition.  In other words, demand will not drive price much beyond the perceived value proposition.  Obviously, demand pushes price to a degree but I think the best POTENTIAL return is this deadline while fully acknowledging the right deal might not exist with a limited number of interested teams.

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

You're right about that although it does save the remainder if their salary for the season (except for Shoemaker). Hopefully that will help ownership commit the dollars necessary to keep Berrios, Buxton and Rogers for the next 3 years. To ge clear, my approach would be to trade these guys, use the Donaldson/Kepler money to sign Berrios (20-23m) and part of Buxton (the remaining 7-10m). We then promote internally rather than use FA to fill out next year, and use the FA/last year money we spent for this year (roughly $36 between Simmons, Pineda, Happ, Colome, and Robles) for the rest of Buxton (10-13m), and Rogers (8/9m). That should leave 14-17m for a mid-rotation FA starting pitcher and keep payroll flat. Increase payroll by 12m and we can keep Cruz, which I would like to do to stabilize the lineup. 

Internally, Gordon, Arraez, Polanco, and Miranda cover the middle infield and 3B, Larnach, Buxton, Kiriloff, Refsnyder, and a now minor leaguer (Celestino or de la Trinidad) the OF, Sano/Garver 1B, Jeffers/Garver/Rotvedt C. Hamilton/Cano/Moran/Vasquez/Stashak/Thorpe/Smeltzer fill out the bullpen behind the 4 we keep. The rotation still is an issue with Berrios, Maeda, 14-18m FA, followed by some combination of Dobnak, Ober, Jax, Duran, Winder, Sands, Smeltzer and Thorpe. Frankly, I think thats a better team than the current one for the same price, and one thats more fun to watch. And that assumes the trades don’t get us a MLB ready prospect. 

My view is that engaging in a significant sell off of veteran talent by August 1 does not have to mean a complete rebuild next year. If we follow this kind of a blueprint, we can still field the competitive team next year with a good future beyond next year. The rest of this year will be pretty painful to watch But at least we can use the latter half of the season as development time to give us a running start toward 2022 and 2023.

I am confused, when the front office signed Donaldson they knew it was him or Berrios and they decided to sign Donaldson anyway, but since 2021 went south they are going to reverse course and take mid tier prospects for the money the dumped into Donaldson and sign Berrios? If that is the case they need to be fired right now.

Second that team you listed would be IMO would be absolutely terrible, you are talking about relying on Laranch (2nd year player), Buxton, Kirilloff(2nd year player), Refsnyder (who will be 31 and has had one good week in his whole career), two minor leagues with little to no experience in the Outfield, not even sure who you think will be back ups for injuries, which will happen.

An Infield with all playing out of position (We thought defense is/was bad this year), and one of them has 48 major league at bats, the other has 2 games in AAA. Sano is what he is, but could even be more exposed with the lack of experience with the rest of this lineup, Hoping Garver continues to hit, then turning over the catcher position to two second year players and hoping Jeffers continues to grow and the other we know can't hit.

Following Berrios and Maeda, you are turning over the whole pitching staff to basically rookies and/or guys that have proven they are not consistent major league pitchers, which again not sure who you plan of pitching when those guys get demoted or hurt.

Two more things, why would Berrios and Buxton sign before free agency with this plan, and second good luck attracting fans with this team.

IMO they need to trade the obvious guys (Simmons, Pineda, Happ, Colome, and Robles) for whatever they get, then they need to take assets like Lewis, Duran, Cavacto, Rooker, Celestino, Sands, Ober and/or others and try to get some young controllable starters or a older pitchers under a decent contract, promote some young guys to see if they can pitch in relief next year. Then in the offseason figure out a better backup plan for the fielders and what they need for pitching.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

One thing to remember tearing it down is no guarantee of future success.  Everyone remembers the times it works and forgets about the times that it results in losing for a decade. 

No they don't. 

Also, the other side of the coin.... People sometimes think not trading off good players means success. Which clearly is not always true. 

Not one person is guaranteeing success. What some are saying is there isn't enough here to succeed next year either, and positing ways forward. Some think the team can sign two great players, some don't think those players will stay here. Hence the disagreement.

[Major League Ready]

16 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

No they don't. 

Also, the other side of the coin.... People sometimes think not trading off good players means success. Which clearly is not always true. 

Not one person is guaranteeing success. What some are saying is there isn't enough here to succeed next year either, and positing ways forward. Some think the team can sign two great players, some don't think those players will stay here. Hence the disagreement.

Well said!  I don't have any great insight into IF they can sign them.  I also don't know if they can get the kind of return that makes it worth trading them.  What I do know is that if I can't reach an extension agreement AND the trade return is good .... I am taking the return.  I am not taking a chance we end up with a comp pick and even that is in question.  There are other ways to spend the money where whoever we sign with those dollars + the prospects we get = a better team than keeping Berrios / Buxton.  For example, Taijuan Walker who I wanted instead of Happ is getting $23M over the next 3 years and he is having a better year than Berrios.  The incremental $15M could be invested in one of the top SS free agents.

 

[LA VIkes Fan]

29 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

No they don't. 

Also, the other side of the coin.... People sometimes think not trading off good players means success. Which clearly is not always true. 

Not one person is guaranteeing success. What some are saying is there isn't enough here to succeed next year either, and positing ways forward. Some think the team can sign two great players, some don't think those players will stay here. Hence the disagreement.

Extremely well said. My proposal is no guarantee of success, particularly in the short term. What I think is that 3 things have become pretty clear. First, the team as presently constructed is not good enough to contend. This year isn't just because of injuries, off years, etc., it's because we aren't good enough talent wise. Second, we have some talent in the pipeline to help but we don't know enough about what we have on the pitching side to understand our medium or long term needs. Third, re-signing Berrios, Buxton and/or Rogers is a big key to deciding if we need a shorter term re-load or a longer term tear down and rebuild.    

My view is that this year is essentially a throw away and should be used to evaluate prospects. We're doing a good job with that for Larnach, Kiriloff, Gordon, Ober; need to add 4-5 more starting and relief pitchers to that list, plus Miranda. The upside is that trading vets allows us to do that and opens up the possibility of financial flexibility to sign our own and other FAs in the offseason to fill holes. The downside is that if you think this year's team is bad now, wait until the vets are gone. It's going to be worse and might be a lot worse. I think it's worth that short term pain for the potential medium and long term gain. I don't see that it really matters if we win 60-70 games or 70-80 games this year.  Both are non-competitive. What I really don't want to see is us fielding a veteran non-competitive team and THEN deciding to start over with younger players on the way up ( or at least that's the hope). All we've then done is waste time because that locks us into a non-competitive team in 2022 and maybe even 2023. A few wins this year isn't worth that. 

We have a chance to turn this year's lemon into lemonade by using this season to develop guys. The lemonade may not taste good this year (probably won't), but there's a better chance it will be palatable in 2022, 2023 and beyond if we use this as a developmental year and try really hard to sign the 3 internal free agents who can actually make a real difference on the field ( in Buxton's case, when's he actually there).  That's where I start. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

50 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Taijuan Walker who I wanted instead of Happ is getting $23M over the next 3 years

FYI, not that it changes your larger point, but Taijuan Walker is actually on a 2 year, $20 mil contract.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

FYI, not that it changes your larger point, but Taijuan Walker is actually on a 2 year, $20 mil contract.

I think we both have it wrong.  Baseball Reference says 2 years / $17M with a $6M player option the 3rd year.  Of course, the larger point is these kinds of deals do more for building a contender than signing Berrios for $23M/year or whatever it ends up being.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

12 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I think we both have it wrong.  Baseball Reference says 2 years / $17M with a $6M player option the 3rd year.

It's a 2/17 deal, with a $3 mil buyout on a 3rd year $6 mil player option (not team option). So he's guaranteed, and likely getting, 2/20.

It would be 3/23 (plus some 2022 innings escalators) if he picked up the player option after 2022, but he won't do that unless he expects less than 1 year ~$3 mil on the open market (and he'd have to be pretty bad and/or injured in 2022 to expect less than that!).

[dxpavelka]

4 years removed from being sellers in 2017 and not a single player acquired is currently making a big league contribution.  Sold in 2018 and the only player acquired currently making a big league contribution has a NEGATIVE WAR.

[Major League Ready]

On 7/1/2021 at 11:11 PM, dxpavelka said:

4 years removed from being sellers in 2017 and not a single player acquired is currently making a big league contribution.  Sold in 2018 and the only player acquired currently making a big league contribution has a NEGATIVE WAR.

You are not exactly framing this in an unbiased manner.  They did not trade anyone in 2017 that was going to bring a return with much probability of sticking.  Can you look at any of those players and say you thought they were really good prospects.  The interesting thing about that year is they went from buyers to sellers.  The did give away a player (Ynoa) who I would not mind having back.

The 2018 group has not produced yet but we did not have a Milb season last year and there are quite a few decent prospects that came from trading rentals and one good BP arm.

[Nine of twelve]

I didn't take the time to read through all the posts so I apologize if what I have to say has already been said.

The use of the 2017 season as a benchmark is a major flaw in any analysis. That season was an outlier, significantly so, for the American League. Cleveland and Houston were head and shoulders above everyone else. Boston and New York were solid. Detroit and Chicago were crummy.  The remaining nine teams finished with 75-85 wins. The Twins were just slightly less mediocre than the other eight, qualifying for the postseason with 85 wins, the fewest by a postseason qualifier in either league since the inception of the ten-team postseason. That is almost certainly not going to be the case in 2021. This year's team is currently 13th in the AL, meaning our team has to pass eight other teams including one that is currently 12 games over .500.

I don't think there's any question that the Twins should sell. However, I think they should be careful whom they sell. Veterans with short-term contracts should be heavily marketed to other teams. Younger potential core players (e.g. Berrios) should be traded only if the other team is willing to overpay. That said, no player is untouchable if the trade improves the organization.

[dxpavelka]

On 7/3/2021 at 11:37 AM, Major League Ready said:

You are not exactly framing this in an unbiased manner.  They did not trade anyone in 2017 that was going to bring a return with much probability of sticking.  Can you look at any of those players and say you thought they were really good prospects.  The interesting thing about that year is they went from buyers to sellers.  The did give away a player (Ynoa) who I would not mind having back.

The 2018 group has not produced yet but we did not have a Milb season last year and there are quite a few decent prospects that came from trading rentals and one good BP arm.

Um.  Brandon Kintzler was an All-Star that year.

[Major League Ready]

7 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Um.  Brandon Kintzler was an All-Star that year.

Pretty much irrelevant.  I said "They did not trade anyone in 2017 that was going to bring a return with much probability of sticking.  Can you look at any of those players and say you thought they were really good prospects."  Well, was Tyler Watson a prospect with a high probability of sticking?  You ignored the point because you want to complain where there is not much to complain about.  

I suspect they value the International money they got but that too is not the point.  Kintzler had a 5.4 SO/9 and the return for him was modest.  So, let's try again.  Can you look at any of those players and say you thought they were really good prospects?  It would be refreshing if you actually answer the question I posed.

If they trade Cruz or Pineda or Rodgers for a prospect of the same status, then complain.  In this case you did not even stop to think about the prospects that did not turn into MLB players.  Seems like you latched on to something you felt made a point.  A point which it would appear you did not come to objectively.

[jorgenswest]

The challenge is to identify prospects in other organizations that are not seen as top prospects but develop beyond expectations,

Cleveland’s trade for Kluber is an example. It is also an example of patience. They traded for him in 2010 at 24. He was up for a cup of coffee in 2011 and struggled mightily in twelve 2012 starts. By 2013 he was a league average pitcher and 2014 dominant. From the outside I don’t know if it was dumb luck or their scout’s ability to identify talent or their development but his development was not foreseen in the press at the time of the trade.

They also traded for Carlos Carrasco at the deadline in 2009. He was the number 68 ranked prospect heading into the season and was struggling in the minors that season with a 5.73 ERA at the time of the trade.  Between 2009-2013 he struggled in 40 starts (as well as 8 in relief) as he bounced back and forth to the minors and dealt with injuries. He was a valuable piece of the rotation by the end of 2014.

The Bauer trade was in 2012. He was one of the best pitching prospects in baseball. It was 2016 before he was a very good pitcher in the majors. It took Cliff Lee to get him who was seen as the best pitcher available at the deadline.

Identifying and developing pitching is going to take patience. It is also a path for a small to mid market team towards a sustained competitive window. Can we wait 5 years for this season’s trades to pay off? Can we invest innings into young pitching that will struggle early on? 

I don’t think the Twins have an alternative towards that contending window. I think they can hope to be competitive but not really contend by patching by continually hoping to squeeze on more year out of a veteran pitcher.

Does it mean that the close starts now? No. They have Duran, Canterino, Winder, Alcala, Ober and Balazovic. They will need time in the majors to struggle but I think all can be ready to start that struggle by next year. It is easy to dismiss Dobnak and Thorpe based on their performance but it is not unusual to have significant struggles early in a pitching career. It requires a staff that recognizes the talent beneath the struggle and then invest innings.

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

The challenge is to identify prospects in other organizations that are not seen as top prospects but develop beyond expectations,

Cleveland’s trade for Kluber is an example. It is also an example of patience. They traded for him in 2010 at 24. He was up for a cup of coffee in 2011 and struggled mightily in twelve 2012 starts. By 2013 he was a league average pitcher and 2014 dominant. From the outside I don’t know if it was dumb luck or their scout’s ability to identify talent or their development but his development was not foreseen in the press at the time of the trade.

They also traded for Carlos Carrasco at the deadline in 2009. He was the number 68 ranked prospect heading into the season and was struggling in the minors that season with a 5.73 ERA at the time of the trade.  Between 2009-2013 he struggled in 40 starts (as well as 8 in relief) as he bounced back and forth to the minors and dealt with injuries. He was a valuable piece of the rotation by the end of 2014.

The Bauer trade was in 2012. He was one of the best pitching prospects in baseball. It was 2016 before he was a very good pitcher in the majors. It took Cliff Lee to get him who was seen as the best pitcher available at the deadline.

Identifying and developing pitching is going to take patience. It is also a path for a small to mid market team towards a sustained competitive window. Can we wait 5 years for this season’s trades to pay off? Can we invest innings into young pitching that will struggle early on? 

I don’t think the Twins have an alternative towards that contending window. I think they can hope to be competitive but not really contend by patching by continually hoping to squeeze on more year out of a veteran pitcher.

Does it mean that the close starts now? No. They have Duran, Canterino, Winder, Alcala, Ober and Balazovic. They will need time in the majors to struggle but I think all can be ready to start that struggle by next year. It is easy to dismiss Dobnak and Thorpe based on their performance but it is not unusual to have significant struggles early in a pitching career. It requires a staff that recognizes the talent beneath the struggle and then invest innings.

 

 

 

Dobnak and Thorpe don't have stuff.....it isn't their struggles, it is their stuff. They are likely great AAAA pitchers. It is possible they are more, but neither has the stuff of a good MLB pitcher. I'm hoping Winder and whomever else is healthy gets 8-10 starts in the majors this year, so they are more likely to be ready next year.

[dxpavelka]

On 7/5/2021 at 7:13 AM, Major League Ready said:

Pretty much irrelevant.  I said "They did not trade anyone in 2017 that was going to bring a return with much probability of sticking.  Can you look at any of those players and say you thought they were really good prospects."  Well, was Tyler Watson a prospect with a high probability of sticking?  You ignored the point because you want to complain where there is not much to complain about.  

I suspect they value the International money they got but that too is not the point.  Kintzler had a 5.4 SO/9 and the return for him was modest.  So, let's try again.  Can you look at any of those players and say you thought they were really good prospects?  It would be refreshing if you actually answer the question I posed.

If they trade Cruz or Pineda or Rodgers for a prospect of the same status, then complain.  In this case you did not even stop to think about the prospects that did not turn into MLB players.  Seems like you latched on to something you felt made a point.  A point which it would appear you did not come to objectively.

If they haven't turned into MLB players in 4 years they're pretty much useless.