Twins Time to Cash in On Ryan Pressly Trade

[Major League Ready]

 

While Alcala is no Josh Hader, my hope is that Alcala is able to take on that type of role and gives us 80IP/year.  I would take a reasonable level of effectiveness in such a role for 4 years over having Pressley in 2019 in a heartbeat.  If Celestino can be a decent 4th OFer for 6 years that's just a bonus.

I also think we are going to see a lot of non traditional roles.  What if Alcala becomes a 3-4  inning guy and gives us 100-120 IP/year?  Perhaps he transitions to that role and then a traditional SP role.  I could be wrong but I think this will be a major trend through MLB in the next few years.

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Who is to say Alcala won't become dominant?  He has the raw stuff and he was dominant the end of last season.  For that matter it's not out of the question that he be transitioned back to starting.  There is also a good chance we are going to see a lot of hybrid (2-4 inning) guys going forward across the league.

It's funny we don't recognize Pressley had one more year of control.  It's convenient to assume we would have unlocked his potential and we can't assume assume he would have stayed had the Twins been able to unlock his potential.  It's funny we lose sight of the fact Oakland and Tampa have had enormous success making trades like this one.  There are countless other examples as well.  It's funny people don't recognize we won 100 games the year after he left and we are also ignoring his presence was not going to change that our offence did not show up in that playoff series.

While Pressley was great, his absence made little impact for the year and two months we lost him.  Before weu talk about bell-curves and analytics we should validate assumptions because the assumptions he would have done the same thing here and then signed an extension is not a valid assumption.

Who's to say Pressly can't become Mariano Rivera? I doubt you view that as a valid argument, but it's essentially the one you're making. Alcala hasn't started games since AA 3 years ago, and it went poorly, so we can probably close the book on him converting back to a SP and being effective in the majors. He was great for 20ish innings to close last season, which is encouraging, but the 40 or so innings prior to that were disappointing to say the least. Maybe he truly turned a corner or maybe it's recency bias and a pitching starved fanbase holding out hope. 

You're correct, there's no guarantee this version of Pressly is what the Twins would've/could've retained. I don't necessarily see that as a checkmark in the "pro," category when assessing the trade. We can't expect the Twins to help Pressly take that next step but development towards domination from Alcala is on the table? While TB and Oakland have found success with similar moves, MN hasn't. The offensive performance against NY in three games that postseason is a strawman when judging the Pressly trade. 

[TwinsDr2021]

31 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

While Alcala is no Josh Hader, my hope is that Alcala is able to take on that type of role and gives us 80IP/year.  I would take a reasonable level of effectiveness in such a role for 4 years over having Pressley in 2019 in a heartbeat.  If Celestino can be a decent 4th OFer for 6 years that's just a bonus.

I also think we are going to see a lot of non traditional roles.  What if Alcala becomes a 3-4  inning guy and gives us 100-120 IP/year?  Perhaps he transitions to that role and then a traditional SP role.  I could be wrong but I think this will be a major trend through MLB in the next few years.

If Alcala becomes the guy you hope he becomes and the Twins are winning at a high level, then the Twins overwhelming win this trade and the FO looks like geniuses. Now I believe there is zero chance he becomes a 100-120 inning pitcher, there is probably a decent chance he becomes a 50 - 80 inning solid or better relief pitcher.

(I also don't believe the players union is going to allow pitchers in their prime to be long relief pitchers and giving up millions of dollars until they fail as starters)

[Major League Ready]

47 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Who's to say Pressly can't become Mariano Rivera? I doubt you view that as a valid argument, but it's essentially the one you're making. Alcala hasn't started games since AA 3 years ago, and it went poorly, so we can probably close the book on him converting back to a SP and being effective in the majors. He was great for 20ish innings to close last season, which is encouraging, but the 40 or so innings prior to that were disappointing to say the least. Maybe he truly turned a corner or maybe it's recency bias and a pitching starved fanbase holding out hope. 

You're correct, there's no guarantee this version of Pressly is what the Twins would've/could've retained. I don't necessarily see that as a checkmark in the "pro," category when assessing the trade. We can't expect the Twins to help Pressly take that next step but development towards domination from Alcala is on the table? While TB and Oakland have found success with similar moves, MN hasn't. The offensive performance against NY in three games that postseason is a strawman when judging the Pressly trade. 

Pressley amassed less than 2 WAR in his 1st 5 seasons.  Wade Davis / Glenn Perkins were failed starter.  There are many many examples of RPs that became dominant after  modest results their 1st 2-3 years.  The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense.  

Why is the Twins lack of offensive performance relevant to the value of keeping Pressly for 2019.  They won a 100 games so that was hardly a problem.  The argument would have to be he would have made a difference in a playoff series where they got blown out in every game.  To suggest Pressly would have made the difference is absurd.  Some try to make a caser they could have possibly had home field advantage.  They got blown out at home too.  So, if his presence would not have a meaningful difference in the post season or the regular season, what's the point?

You are also arguing that Oakland and Tampa's have had success with these types of trades but this trade can't be successful because MN has not executed these types of trades in the past.  You do realize that makes absolutely no sense.

[old nurse]

3 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

isn't it an assumption they wouldn't have signed him? Maybe they trade him at the deadline for even better prospects the next year,  Isn't everything an assumption at this point, other than what has happened? What we know is that the Houston has been in 2 of the last three world series and they resigned Pressly (see stats in my previous post) and the two prospects they Twins got haven't done anything (minus 20 good innings in a lost season with zero pressure). At this point the Twins lost this trade and it isn't even close, but the Twins have control over the prospects for a few more years and there is time for the Twins not to look horrible and even look great on this trade. But for the first three plus years the have came out on the losing end.

The Twins signed several players to extensions. It is a safer assumption that Presley did not want to sign than he would want to. Considering the contracts they handed out to the likes of Colome and Reed among other relievers, the FO doesn’t appear to have a problem with paying wages.

Whatever for the states of developing players. Shortsightedness is what it is.

[TwinsDr2021]

12 minutes ago, old nurse said:

The Twins signed several players to extensions. It is a safer assumption that Presley did not want to sign than he would want to. Considering the contracts they handed out to the likes of Colome and Reed among other relievers, the FO doesn’t appear to have a problem with paying wages.

Whatever for the states of developing players. Shortsightedness is what it is.

How is that a safer assumption? the Twins would have been coming off a 100 win season and he would have been the stud relief pitcher.

and I assume you meant stats in your last sentence, and that makes zero sense,

You don't win trades with hope and promise, you win them with results, and as of now the Twins have gotten little to none in the return of results, now I have said it over and over, the Twins still have a good chance of winning this trade, but as of today they haven't.

[old nurse]

4 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

How is that a safer assumption? the Twins would have been coming off a 100 win season and he would have been the stud relief pitcher.

I really don’t know how to explain it to you any better than that. There is demonstrable evidence that they signed players to extensions. They signed relievers to very generous contracts that really were not as good as Presley. That should be enough to give some insight, but  

[KirbyDome89]

55 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Pressley amassed less than 2 WAR in his 1st 5 seasons.  Wade Davis / Glenn Perkins were failed starter.  There are many many examples of RPs that became dominant after  modest results their 1st 2-3 years.  The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense.  

Why is the Twins lack of offensive performance relevant to the value of keeping Pressly for 2019.  They won a 100 games so that was hardly a problem.  The argument would have to be he would have made a difference in a playoff series where they got blown out in every game.  To suggest Pressly would have made the difference is absurd.  Some try to make a caser they could have possibly had home field advantage.  They got blown out at home too.  So, if his presence would not have a meaningful difference in the post season or the regular season, what's the point?

You are also arguing that Oakland and Tampa's have had success with these types of trades but this trade can't be successful because MN has not executed these types of trades in the past.  You do realize that makes absolutely no sense.

The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense.

Precisely my point, and rather applicable to the Perkins/Alcala comp no? Saying something can happen regardless of how likely it is to occur isn't really an argument. 

Because those are 3 games out of the 165 that they played? Do you not believe Pressly on the Twins has an impact for both MN and Houston that season?

Chanting "be the Rays," ad nauseam isn't a strategy. If it was as simple as making similar moves every team would do it. Can the trade work out? Sure, but what TB and Oak would do have no bearing on that.

[cHawk]

13 hours ago, h2oface said:

We could have used him in 2019. He could have been the difference in playoff victories. 3 1/2 seasons later (or just 3 if you could 2020 as a half season), Alcala and Celestino, at this time, still, are hope and dreams, and not even close to the value Pressly has provided in that same time, or even just in the 2019 season, all in the Show, and not the minors. Not even close. Still a losing trade. Trading winning now in a 100+ win season of 2019 for the maybe of the future on perhaps mediocre teams? Big lose.

I don’t think that this is a rational assessment. The Twins were outscored 23-7 in 3 games. (average 7.7-2.3) This isn’t the NFL or NHL or NBA where one player can change the game. Pressly is one arm that pitches 2-3 innings of the series. 2-3 innings would not have changed the outcome.

[Brandon]

6 hours ago, USAFChief said:

How he was acquired is not relevant. Albert Pujols was a 13th round draft pick...a lottery ticket. Would you have traded peak Albert Pujols for Alcala and Celestino and considered it "quite a bit of value for a 13th round pick?"

My point was to illustrate how a rule five draft lotto pick was 5 years of a good reliever getting better then 2 solid prospects with one of them already delivering to a small degree with 4 more years of control.  Its pretty obvious that Pressley was headed back to Texas in FA unless we extended him at a cost deemed to high to pay.  I am sure if the Twins made a good extension offer of the 3 year 30 million variety he would have signed.  But more than likely we only had 1 more year of control.  so we are comparing that 1 year of Pressley to 6 years of both Alcala and Celestino.  Evaluating this is a no brainer to me.  It turned out to be a good trade no matter how mad I was at the time.   

[old nurse]

7 hours ago, USAFChief said:

How he was acquired is not relevant. Albert Pujols was a 13th round draft pick...a lottery ticket. Would you have traded peak Albert Pujols for Alcala and Celestino and considered it "quite a bit of value for a 13th round pick?"

Pulhos is no Pressley, His pitches could nowhere near match what Pressley’s could do, The comp is strange

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, old nurse said:

I really don’t know how to explain it to you any better than that. There is demonstrable evidence that they signed players to extensions. They signed relievers to very generous contracts that really were not as good as Presley. That should be enough to give some insight, but  

I'm confused...your argument is that because the Twins handed out contracts, and extensions, to lesser relievers, they wouldn't have given a contract to Pressly?

 

That seems...counterintuitive. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense.

Precisely my point, and rather applicable to the Perkins/Alcala comp no? Saying something can happen regardless of how likely it is to occur isn't really an argument. 

Because those are 3 games out of the 165 that they played? Do you not believe Pressly on the Twins has an impact for both MN and Houston that season?

Chanting "be the Rays," ad nauseam isn't a strategy. If it was as simple as making similar moves every team would do it. Can the trade work out? Sure, but what TB and Oak would do have no bearing on that.

I am not a professional baseball talent evaluator.  Alcala appears to have the raw stuff to be a dominant RP to me.  If you are a professional evaluator of MLB talent then perhaps my argument is weak.  If you want to compare credentials on providing strategy consultation to organization generating 9 or 10 figures in revenue, I can hold my own there and I don't need your counsel on what is or is not a strategic.

Your desire to ignore how Tampa/Oakland have built contenders ad nauseam does not diminish the relative merit of the strategies.  The practices that have been successful for small and mid market teams are abundantly clear if you actually take the time to study their construction instead of assuming a position and defending it without actual proof of concept.  

[tarheeltwinsfan]

16 hours ago, h2oface said:

Berrios was going to test the marketplace, too. But didn't. He signed a more than fair value extension. So did Pressly. Go figure. 

Is it possible that Pressly and Berrios wanted out of Minnesota? Naw. Couldn't be that. Could it? I don't believe it. 

[peterb18]

On 1/19/2022 at 9:05 AM, DJL44 said:

I see Ramon Laureano as a good comp for Celestino. He could be an average MLB centerfielder.

I don’t expect much from Celestino. Mainly a triple A player….IMO. Just from what I’ve seen. 

[old nurse]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I'm confused...your argument is that because the Twins handed out contracts, and extensions, to lesser relievers, they wouldn't have given a contract to Pressly?

 

That seems...counterintuitive. 

You should be confused as you posted Pressley was like Pulhols. Perhaps had you read the complete exchange you wouldn’t be confused. Try some Donepezil. That should help you with your confusion.

[TwinsDr2021]

14 hours ago, old nurse said:

I really don’t know how to explain it to you any better than that. There is demonstrable evidence that they signed players to extensions. They signed relievers to very generous contracts that really were not as good as Presley. That should be enough to give some insight, but  

So are you saying they would or wouldn't have signed Pressly? I am confused, sorry.

[TwinsDr2021]

14 hours ago, Brandon said:

My point was to illustrate how a rule five draft lotto pick was 5 years of a good reliever getting better then 2 solid prospects with one of them already delivering to a small degree with 4 more years of control.  Its pretty obvious that Pressley was headed back to Texas in FA unless we extended him at a cost deemed to high to pay.  I am sure if the Twins made a good extension offer of the 3 year 30 million variety he would have signed.  But more than likely we only had 1 more year of control.  so we are comparing that 1 year of Pressley to 6 years of both Alcala and Celestino.  Evaluating this is a no brainer to me.  It turned out to be a good trade no matter how mad I was at the time.   

I am confused on how at this point and time you can say it is a no brainer good trade?

The Twins have literally gotten next to nothing in the majors and the Houston got a two time all star. It sure looks like the Twins will start getting some real contribution from the trade this year and hopefully years beyond, but that hasn't happened.

Can you believe it was a good trade and still say at this point the Twins lost the trade, absolutely. I thought at the time it was a the right move, I still think it was probably the right move but at this point I can also say the Twins have absolutely lost this trade. Until hope and promise turn out, that is all it is hope and promise.

[Major League Ready]

58 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am confused on how at this point and time you can say it is a no brainer good trade?

The Twins have literally gotten next to nothing in the majors and the Houston got a two time all star. It sure looks like the Twins will start getting some real contribution from the trade this year and hopefully years beyond, but that hasn't happened.

Can you believe it was a good trade and still say at this point the Twins lost the trade, absolutely. I thought at the time it was a the right move, I still think it was probably the right move but at this point I can also say the Twins have absolutely lost this trade. Until hope and promise turn out, that is all it is hope and promise.

Actually, none of this makes sense.  Returns can’t be measured until the end of the payout period which is 4 years from now for Alcala and 6 or 7 years for Celestino.  The fact that it has not paid out up to this point has little relevance.  That’s how it works when you trade for future assets.  They pay out in a different (later) time frame.  If I buy stock in a start-up that does not payout for 5 years and that stock becomes Amazon, is it a bad invest in year 4?

Oakland and Tampa developed practices based on the principles of asset management a long time ago because it was a necessity for them.  A lot of the other teams have learned or are learning these principles as well which is why we have seen a greater reluctance to give up top prospects over the past 5-10 years.

Evaluating this trade today would be the product of a forecast.  We have a reasonable idea of what to expect so it’s reasonable to forecast the result.  However, player expectations vary fairly widely.  My forecast (expectation) of Alcala is that he be at least a reliable back of the BP arm and potentially a dominant closer at best.  Therefore, I see it as 4 years of an 8th inning guy for specifically Pressly in 2019 is still a very good trade.  If Alcala reaches the ceiling I believe he possess, it’s a great trade for the Twins and it worked out for Houston too.  If Celestino is a 4th OFer, that a decent bonus.  It takes a 26 man roster in today’s MLB so it does not makes sense IMO to marginalize the value of a good role player.
 

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Evaluating this trade today would be the product of a forecast. 

 

This makes no sense, if Alcala was actually good in 2020 and really good in 2021, with the expectation of being at the top of the rotation in 2202, or Celestino came up last year and played above replacement level, you couldn't take what has actually happened into account? and you could only use forecasting on the next 4 years of the trade? That is complete BS, you and everybody else (including me) would be saying how great of trade this was Twins, and what a great job this FO did with that asset, but instead you and others want to run cover for the poor lowly twins because they haven't gotten a darn thing out of the asset yet.

And your stock analogy also makes no sense, if you sold Microsoft stock while is was going up to buy a start up, and it took 5 years to return, yes year 4 would be bad. You could have held onto Microsoft longer and waited to sell and invest in the future amazon at a later date, you OC would be high doing it your way and your ROI would be lower.

[Major League Ready]

29 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

This makes no sense, if Alcala was actually good in 2020 and really good in 2021, with the expectation of being at the top of the rotation in 2202, or Celestino came up last year and played above replacement level, you couldn't take what has actually happened into account? and you could only use forecasting on the next 4 years of the trade? That is complete BS, you and everybody else (including me) would be saying how great of trade this was Twins, and what a great job this FO did with that asset, but instead you and others want to run cover for the poor lowly twins because they haven't gotten a darn thing out of the asset yet.

And your stock analogy also makes no sense, if you sold Microsoft stock while is was going up to buy a start up, and it took 5 years to return, yes year 4 would be bad. You could have held onto Microsoft longer and waited to sell and invest in the future amazon at a later date, you OC would be high doing it your way and your ROI would be lower.

By your logic, two years after the Padres traded for Tatis (mid 2018) that was a bad trade because he was still a year away from any contribution at the MLB level..  Pressly / Berrios and countless other players don't produce much early in their careers.  You are correct in that Alcala has not produced much yet.  Therefore, the value of the trade is a matter of what will he produces over the next 4 years.  That's why it's a forecasted value.  We can discuss the actual outcome in 4 years.  Right now we are projecting a value based on an opinion of how he will perform.

If we compare two investments.  One returns 500 dollars in year 1 and nothing thereafter.  The other returns nothing in years 1-4 and then 300, 400, 400, and 500.  Are we correct to call investment number 2 inferior in year 4?  We might assume it's inferior based on a bad forecast but it's obviously the better investment. 

[TwinsDr2021]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

By your logic, two years after the Padres traded for Tatis (mid 2018) that was a bad trade because he was still a year away from any contribution at the MLB level..  Pressly / Berrios and countless other players don't produce much early in their careers.  You are correct in that Alcala has not produced much yet.  Therefore, the value of the trade is a matter of what will he produces over the next 4 years.  That's why it's a forecasted value.  We can discuss the actual outcome in 4 years.  Right now we are projecting a value based on an opinion of how he will perform.

If we compare two investments.  One returns 500 dollars in year 1 and nothing thereafter.  The other returns nothing in years 1-4 and then 300, 400, 400, and 500.  Are we correct to call investment number 2 inferior in year 4?  We might assume it's inferior based on a bad forecast but it's obviously the better investment. 

Well either I don't write well or you just refuse to understand.

Where have I said it was a bad trade? I have said repeatedly at this point they have lost the trade, and I believe at some point the trade will look good, but it hasn't yet.

And to continue down the investment path is pointless.

Your comparison with Shields and Tatis makes less sense than anything else you have said. The Padres traded away an overpaid and not all that good starter, who went on to produces .1 WAR for the Sox over three years (-.1.9,  .3, 1.7) so basically getting any return for a negative WAR pitcher that was paid over 30 million by the Sox is a win for the Padres. At the same time Shields was terrible Tatis moved up into the top 10 overall prospect rankings, but even if Tatis never turned out to be anything the Padres won this trade.

But the Twins didn't trade away a terrible overpaid starting pitcher, they traded away a really good cheap relief pitcher that would go onto two all star games (at least) and help his team to two of the last three world series and signed a pretty good extension for both the player and team.

In year 4 the Padres got 4.2 WAR from Tatis and like I said the Sox ended up with .1 WAR, so maybe you are making the Twins even look worse by such a comparison.

[Brandon]

6 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am confused on how at this point and time you can say it is a no brainer good trade?

The Twins have literally gotten next to nothing in the majors and the Houston got a two time all star. It sure looks like the Twins will start getting some real contribution from the trade this year and hopefully years beyond, but that hasn't happened.

Can you believe it was a good trade and still say at this point the Twins lost the trade, absolutely. I thought at the time it was a the right move, I still think it was probably the right move but at this point I can also say the Twins have absolutely lost this trade. Until hope and promise turn out, that is all it is hope and promise.

When you say that Houston got a 2-time all-star you misrepresent what the Twins had.  They had 1 and a third seasons with Pressley.  and they traded that 1 1/3 seasons for Alcala which he has 2 seasons already out of our pen with 4 more years of control.  That alone is a no brainer.  but wait there is more.... by acting when they did, they also received Celestino as a prospect at no additional cost.  

The extension is a separate transaction.  You can't give Houston the extension because it did not exist at the time of the trade.  

[TwinsDr2021]

34 minutes ago, Brandon said:

When you say that Houston got a 2-time all-star you misrepresent what the Twins had.  They had 1 and a third seasons with Pressley.  and they traded that 1 1/3 seasons for Alcala which he has 2 seasons already out of our pen with 4 more years of control.  That alone is a no brainer.  but wait there is more.... by acting when they did, they also received Celestino as a prospect at no additional cost.  

The extension is a separate transaction.  You can't give Houston the extension because it did not exist at the time of the trade.  

hmm, Ok, we are going to pretend the Twins didn't trade a future two time all star pitcher (so far). and we are going to pretend Alcala in 2020 was so good the Twins put him position exactly once to save or hold a game and he blew it? or in 2021 he failed to hold or save 25% of his opportunities. But he was in the pen for two years. don't mind that he was replacement level at best, the Twins picked up Juan Minaya (just one example) off the scrap heap and he out performed Alcala last year as just one example. (On top of the 40 man rosters spots these two players have taken up)

You can make all the assumptions you want, I will take what has actually happened and compare at this moment. If you want to argue that Twins couldn't have afforded the extension he signed or that he hasn't lived up to the extension, feel free, I mean it would be foolish but at least it would be an discussion on something that has actually happened. If you want to argue there is no way the Twins would have gotten Pressly to pitch as well as he has, well than that might explain Alcala issues so far.

Trading veterans for prospects is always based on hope and promise, and almost always it takes a few years for the trade to pan out (unless you are trading a terrible player for prospects then the trade can work out well right away and even better in the future) and as of 1/21/22 the Twins have gotten little to nothing out of the trade, doesn't mean that this was a bad trade yet or the wrong move at the time, it just means if the Twins want to have it turn out for them they are going to have to start seeing some good results at the major league level.

[Brandon]

54 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

hmm, Ok, we are going to pretend the Twins didn't trade a future two time all star pitcher (so far). and we are going to pretend Alcala in 2020 was so good the Twins put him position exactly once to save or hold a game and he blew it? or in 2021 he failed to hold or save 25% of his opportunities. But he was in the pen for two years. don't mind that he was replacement level at best, the Twins picked up Juan Minaya (just one example) off the scrap heap and he out performed Alcala last year as just one example. (On top of the 40 man rosters spots these two players have taken up)

You can make all the assumptions you want, I will take what has actually happened and compare at this moment. If you want to argue that Twins couldn't have afforded the extension he signed or that he hasn't lived up to the extension, feel free, I mean it would be foolish but at least it would be an discussion on something that has actually happened. If you want to argue there is no way the Twins would have gotten Pressly to pitch as well as he has, well than that might explain Alcala issues so far.

Trading veterans for prospects is always based on hope and promise, and almost always it takes a few years for the trade to pan out (unless you are trading a terrible player for prospects then the trade can work out well right away and even better in the future) and as of 1/21/22 the Twins have gotten little to nothing out of the trade, doesn't mean that this was a bad trade yet or the wrong move at the time, it just means if the Twins want to have it turn out for them they are going to have to start seeing some good results at the major league level.

I didn't say the Twins couldn't afford an extension.  I also didn't discount the fact that Pressley is a 2-time all-star either.  but I am judging the trade for what it is.  at the time it was 1 1/3 year of Pressley for Alcala and Celstino.  If you think judging additional contracts and transactions to judge the one before it, Go ahead.  The rest of us know how to judge a transaction based off of the transaction.  and that what happens after it is a separate transaction.  

[TwinsDr2021]

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

I didn't say the Twins couldn't afford an extension.  I also didn't discount the fact that Pressley is a 2-time all-star either.  but I am judging the trade for what it is.  at the time it was 1 1/3 year of Pressley for Alcala and Celstino.  If you think judging additional contracts and transactions to judge the one before it, Go ahead.  The rest of us know how to judge a transaction based off of the transaction.  and that what happens after it is a separate transaction.  

So you are saying the Astros got just over a year an half of an allstar for 3 years of two minor league performances? That is makes the Twins look worse as of today.

[old nurse]

He was mot going to resign here. So they traded him. Sorry I did not write a book of short simple sentances

[wabene]

On 1/19/2022 at 8:30 PM, Jham said:

Craziness. The only chance we had to win this trade was lost when Alcala became a reliever. Effective relievers are a dime a dozen.  End of story.

 

 

If effective relievers are a dime a dozen, then we didn't lose anything either, correct?

[wabene]

People see the big star on Pressley's hat now and it clouds their vision as to who he actually was when he was with the Twins. Things are looking up his first 3 years, he was progressing, except in his 4th year in 2016 he regressed somewhat. Then he had a 4.70era and 1.5 hr/9 in 2017. What I remember was he would be blowing guys away with his fastball, then he would toss a curveball up there for some reason and watch it fly over the fence. He was frustrating, remember? He has a bounce back start to 2018 and they trade him with 1+years of control left. I think they call that selling high. Yes those 1+years after the trade he was awesome. Would be have done the same with the Twins? Unanswerable. Anything he did after that is not relevant.

Let's recap. The Twins spent peanuts on a rule 5, got 4+ years of an above average reliever, flipped him at peak value for 2 prospects that it is highly probable will play many years in the bigs. 

[jorgenswest]

Pressly would have been very valuable to the 2019 team. It goes beyond just his performance.they don’t need to sign Blake Parker endure his poor pitching. Maybe they don’t need to trade for Sergio Romo and certainly Sam Dyson.

Prelander Berroa is still in the organization. So is Kei-Wei Teng. Take a look at their strikeout numbers last year. Would Lewis Diaz fit as a DH/1B possibility right now? Maybe. They did get Valimont in the Diaz trade. He might help.

We don’t need to argue whether or not the Twins would have extended Pressly. His skills were essential to the 2019 team. They needed to spend assets to fill that hole. In trying to replace him they spent salary on three veteran relievers in Parker and partials for Romo and Dyson. They also spent prospect capital in Berroa, Teng, Diaz and Davis while adding Valimont.

Alcala has a better chance to make an impact in the major leagues than Berroa and Teng. It isn’t that much better. It just comes with a lower floor. Would the Giants trade Berroa and Teng for Alcala? Maybe. BTV says it is a fair trade proposal. Would the Marlins trade Diaz for Celestino? Most likely. They get a minor overpay in return.

The Twins could have had the 2019 performance of Pressly and kept prospects that approach the value they acquired in Alcala and Celestino.

Cash in? I hope so. Short changed? Absolutely.