Twins Time to Cash in On Ryan Pressly Trade

[Jham]

4 hours ago, wabene said:

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

Seriously? All star firemen/closers who hold up in world series pressure are super rare and very valuable.

[KirbyDome89]

On 1/20/2022 at 6:47 PM, Major League Ready said:

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.  

I'm not denying in any way that they've had success. I'm saying that emulating that success goes beyond surface level transactions, i.e. "making similar moves." Defending the Pressly trade as "something TB would do," is only relevant if TB is the team moving him. We know the Twins aren't on par operationally. That much has been clear the last 5+ seasons. 

[KirbyDome89]

4 hours ago, wabene said:

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. 

So we're giving the team credit for either not understanding what they had, or being unable to unlock what Pressly had? He has been markedly better (when healthy) the last 3+ seasons, how is that selling high? His performance post Twins is absolutely relevant because it's ultimately how this move will be judged. Do you view the Santana trade as a roaring success? He was a Rule V selection as well. 

[USAFChief]

8 hours ago, old nurse said:

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

You can say this as many times as you wish, in whatever length sentences you wish, and it'll still be speculation, without a shred of evidence. 

[Brandon]

11 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

You can say this as many times as you wish, in whatever length sentences you wish, and it'll still be speculation, without a shred of evidence. 

The evidence is that he was traded.

or the front office didn't think he was worth the price of an extension.

either way he was traded.

[wabene]

5 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

So we're giving the team credit for either not understanding what they had, or being unable to unlock what Pressly had? He has been markedly better (when healthy) the last 3+ seasons, how is that selling high? His performance post Twins is absolutely relevant because it's ultimately how this move will be judged. Do you view the Santana trade as a roaring success? He was a Rule V selection as well. 

It was selling high based on his time with the Twins and their control over him. Absolutely. If you have a pending free agent that you don't plan to sign long term, if he is playing well at the deadline the year before his walk year, yes that is the high point to sell.

The Santana trade? Based on your logic and the post Twins career he had you might want another example. I did not like the return at the time, but Gomez for a rule 5 pick? That's not bad.

[wabene]

7 hours ago, Jham said:

Seriously? All star firemen/closers who hold up in world series pressure are super rare and very valuable.

Good thing the Twins didn't trade a heralded closer. They traded an above average reliever for good young prospects while he had value. What he became later allows you to look back on the trade with hindsight. Ok I find that kind of information valuable as a tool for learning and experience. Using hindsight to re-grade every decision and chastise the decision maker every time an asset they spend turns into a good player is not my cuppa. Now, of course if the front office is unsuccessful they probably have many instances that look bad in hindsight and maybe someone else needs a chance to direct the team. Alcala and Celestino can still make this a good trade in spite of Pressley's success. 

[Jham]

5 hours ago, wabene said:

Good thing the Twins didn't trade a heralded closer. They traded an above average reliever for good young prospects while he had value. What he became later allows you to look back on the trade with hindsight. Ok I find that kind of information valuable as a tool for learning and experience. Using hindsight to re-grade every decision and chastise the decision maker every time an asset they spend turns into a good player is not my cuppa. Now, of course if the front office is unsuccessful they probably have many instances that look bad in hindsight and maybe someone else needs a chance to direct the team. Alcala and Celestino can still make this a good trade in spite of Pressley's success. 

But... the whole premise of the discussion is hind sight. The question: "Looking back, who won the trade?" Presley was our best reliever when traded and his curve was treated as one of the most effective pitches in baseball. The Astros just let him throw it. The articles on the development of that pitch are in the archives for this sight.

Given what Presley has actually accomplished, it will take much more for the organization to "win" the trade than break even WAR. 

Also, for the people who believed in Presley when he was traded, it doesn't feel like hind sight. 

I also never said anything about needing new management. In my mind, they made a big mistake trading Presley. But that was just 1 move. 

 

[old nurse]

15 hours ago, USAFChief said:

You can say this as many times as you wish, in whatever length sentences you wish, and it'll still be speculation, without a shred of evidence. 

Just as you can say without a shred of evidence he would have signed here with an extension and altered his pitch mix here and pitched as effectively here as he has in Houston. Your logic, your way of being dismissive

[KirbyDome89]

17 hours ago, wabene said:

It was selling high based on his time with the Twins and their control over him. Absolutely. If you have a pending free agent that you don't plan to sign long term, if he is playing well at the deadline the year before his walk year, yes that is the high point to sell.

The Santana trade? Based on your logic and the post Twins career he had you might want another example. I did not like the return at the time, but Gomez for a rule 5 pick? That's not bad.

Just a refresher; Addison Reed and Trevor Hildenberger were at or near the top of IPs for that bullpen in '18. The Twins moved one of their best relievers, a position of obvious need, and that player went on to be decidedly better with his new team almost immediately. In no world is that selling high. Sure, 1.5 years of control is worth more than .5 years, but if the team had no intention to bring him back as you suggest, that was a gross misevaluation of what they had. You can't "sell high," if you're severely undervaluing what you're moving. 

I'm using your logic here, i.e. Santana was a Rule V pick so moving him, even for minimal value, is the correct move as long as whatever they get in return trumps the incredibly low bar they cleared to acquire him. They could've moved him at any point and as long as whatever they received in return was more valuable than a mere Rule V pick, that would've been "selling high." FWIW Santana posted more WAR during his first season in NY than the Twins received from all four prospects combined during their entire MN tenure. 

[TwinsDr2021]

On 1/23/2022 at 5:21 AM, old nurse said:

Just as you can say without a shred of evidence he would have signed here with an extension and altered his pitch mix here and pitched as effectively here as he has in Houston. Your logic, your way of being dismissive

So if Pressly pitches close to the way he does in Houston, The Twins win 100 hundred plus games and offer him 20.4 million over 3 years (contract the Astros gave him) he says no? (because Houston or Texas might come calling?) , or are you saying the Twins wouldn't have offered him that? Both say more about the Twins and their organization than it does about Pressly.

[old nurse]

On 1/22/2022 at 7:29 PM, wabene said:

Good thing the Twins didn't trade a heralded closer. They traded an above average reliever for good young prospects while he had value. What he became later allows you to look back on the trade with hindsight. Ok I find that kind of information valuable as a tool for learning and experience. Using hindsight to re-grade every decision and chastise the decision maker every time an asset they spend turns into a good player is not my cuppa. Now, of course if the front office is unsuccessful they probably have many instances that look bad in hindsight and maybe someone else needs a chance to direct the team. Alcala and Celestino can still make this a good trade in spite of Pressley's success. 

In hindsight people ignore the fact that the team had one year of control left with Pressly. Anything beyond that year is pure unprovable speculation as to what would have happened, In hindsight it ended up that it did not matter once the playoffs hit because the offense went belly up in the series who was in the back of the bullpen. Who one the trade? 2 players who have not yet shown they are busts versus one year of a reliever that would not made a difference in a playoff series. That is the choice in hindsight. In hindsight a very meaningless argument that gets played over and over again

[Jham]

47 minutes ago, old nurse said:

In hindsight people ignore the fact that the team had one year of control left with Pressly. Anything beyond that year is pure unprovable speculation as to what would have happened, In hindsight it ended up that it did not matter once the playoffs hit because the offense went belly up in the series who was in the back of the bullpen. Who one the trade? 2 players who have not yet shown they are busts versus one year of a reliever that would not made a difference in a playoff series. That is the choice in hindsight. In hindsight a very meaningless argument that gets played over and over again

Wait, suggesting that Presley might have signed the same contract we know he did sign with Houston is pure speculation? There's at least some evidence that he would sign a contract like that. Since he did.

I think there's more proof of that than that a playoff series would have played out in the exact same fashion even if the team would have had Presley and perhaps home field advantage, had a different opponent, or been more well-rested. Maybe it would have, but there's no way the organization traded him because they assumed they were going to get swept anyway. 

[old nurse]

On 1/23/2022 at 1:24 PM, KirbyDome89 said:

Just a refresher; Addison Reed and Trevor Hildenberger were at or near the top of IPs for that bullpen in '18. The Twins moved one of their best relievers, a position of obvious need, and that player went on to be decidedly better with his new team almost immediately. In no world is that selling high. Sure, 1.5 years of control is worth more than .5 years, but if the team had no intention to bring him back as you suggest, that was a gross misevaluation of what they had. You can't "sell high," if you're severely undervaluing what you're moving. 

I'm using your logic here, i.e. Santana was a Rule V pick so moving him, even for minimal value, is the correct move as long as whatever they get in return trumps the incredibly low bar they cleared to acquire him. They could've moved him at any point and as long as whatever they received in return was more valuable than a mere Rule V pick, that would've been "selling high." FWIW Santana posted more WAR during his first season in NY than the Twins received from all four prospects combined during their entire MN tenure. 

I have never said the team had no intention of bringing him back. I laid out the case earlier of what could have get down. The retort was that I had no proof of that. My assumption, short version, they tried to extend him and couldn’t so they traded him. Yup, Pressly went on to be better. Changed his pitch mix. There was a quote from Pressly that is telling. He said that there was no difference in what they were telling him to do in Minnesota than Houston. The pitch mix changed. He did what Houston asked. Believe what you want.  In the end the evaluation is first question  would Pressly the next year did what the Twins asked to be better in a walk year?  Probably. Second question Would have the return been any different if they had waited? 2 high ceiling players in the low minors is still the likely return. There is a better return when the FO of a front office really doesn’t know what they have. See Ynoa and Gil  Third question. Is Celestino and or Alcala better than nothing, which is what you get when your free agent walks  Celestino did not hit, Alcala was better than a lot of what was brought in

You bring Santana into this. I never said a word about Santana. Brandon was the one who posted about returns for a rule V pick A different front office, really a different position than a reliever. If you were using my logic, you failed miserably because I look at the cases individually. I could care less that Pressly was a rule v pick. He was a decent relief pitcher.  There is a reason Smith did not last as a GM. This front office had Berrios. Time will tell if they botched it as bad as Smith did.  If I recall correctly, outside of Pelfry, who the Mets would not include in the deal, the players were the top ranked players in the Mets system. So far this FO has the good sense not to trade with a team with a bad farm system

[old nurse]

4 hours ago, Jham said:

Wait, suggesting that Presley might have signed the same contract we know he did sign with Houston is pure speculation? There's at least some evidence that he would sign a contract like that. Since he did.

I think there's more proof of that than that a playoff series would have played out in the exact same fashion even if the team would have had Presley and perhaps home field advantage, had a different opponent, or been more well-rested. Maybe it would have, but there's no way the organization traded him because they assumed they were going to get swept anyway. 

Baseless assumption that he would ever sign here.  He did sign a contract with Houston. Given a chance to play with his home state team in a city his wife is from it should not be a shock he would sign there. People make the assumption it is all about money. Wheeler signed with an east coast team because that is where he wanted to play. You cannot assume just because he played here he wanted to

[jorgenswest]

We don’t need to argue about whether he would have signed beyond the one year. The Twins were desperate for relief pitching that one year.

They were so desperate that they signed Blake Parker. They were so desperate that they traded for Sam Dyson. 

The pitchers they gave up (Berroa and Teng) in the Dyson deal have the same trade value as Alcala does today. BTV sees it is a fair deal.

It was a bad deal even assuming he left in free agency. Debating whether or not he would have signed simply distracts from the bottom line. It was a bad deal.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

We don’t need to argue about whether he would have signed beyond the one year. The Twins were desperate for relief pitching that one year.

They were so desperate that they signed Blake Parker. They were so desperate that they traded for Sam Dyson. 

The pitchers they gave up (Berroa and Teng) in the Dyson deal have the same trade value as Alcala does today. BTV sees it is a fair deal.

It was a bad deal even assuming he left in free agency. Debating whether or not he would have signed simply distracts from the bottom line. It was a bad deal.

They were so desperate that they won 101 games that year.  Placing this much weight on the immediate term is a sure fire way to insure failure in the long-term.  The net gain of having Pressly in 2019 most likely would have been they win 102 or103 instead 101.  His presence would have meant nothing in the post season given how that turned out.  Trading 4 years of Alcala and 6 of Celestino for an extra game or two in 2019 would be horrendous asset management.

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, old nurse said:

Baseless assumption that he would ever sign here.  He did sign a contract with Houston. Given a chance to play with his home state team in a city his wife is from it should not be a shock he would sign there. People make the assumption it is all about money. Wheeler signed with an east coast team because that is where he wanted to play. You cannot assume just because he played here he wanted to

It has happened often to varying degrees.  Charlie Morton signed with the Rays and then Atlanta to be near home.  Madison Bumgarner wanted to have a horse ranch and so on.  It was reported that Bumgarner had higher offers and I would guess Morton could have dome better elsewhere too.  Maybe they just knew his preference was not Minnesota and determined he was unlikely to sign an extension.  For all we know, they approached him with an extension before trading him.

[Jham]

On 1/24/2022 at 5:41 PM, old nurse said:

Baseless assumption that he would ever sign here.  He did sign a contract with Houston. Given a chance to play with his home state team in a city his wife is from it should not be a shock he would sign there. People make the assumption it is all about money. Wheeler signed with an east coast team because that is where he wanted to play. You cannot assume just because he played here he wanted to

It's not baseless just because you disagree. He has ties to Texas. Fair enough. He also had significant ties to the Twins organization. The money was easily in budget. Those are reasonable bases for an opinion as well. 

No one knows whether we would have been able to extend him. I would have liked the chance. 

[Danchat]

On 1/23/2022 at 1:30 AM, Jham said:

Presley was our best reliever when traded and his curve was treated as one of the most effective pitches in baseball.

Just gonna nitpick here, but he was clearly the #2 to Rogers, who amidst an elite season.

I have no idea if they offered him an extension or not, but to me it seems like Falvine assumed they'd be able to start plugging in prospects and journeymen into the bullpen and getting great results without spending much on them... when in reality it would have been better to lock in Pressly and figure out how to better utilize his curveball. 

On 1/24/2022 at 7:33 PM, jorgenswest said:

They were so desperate that they traded for Sam Dyson. 

Do you say that as if Dyson was an awful reliever? I think everyone here thought they needed to do more for the bullpen (which may be your point but I can't tell), but Dyson was having a very good year for the Giants (and was similarly solid in 2018), but just so happened to start developing a shoulder issue right as he started pitching here. Bad luck, but I actually liked the thought process behind that trade and I wish they'd be more willing to trade fliers like Berroa/Teng for established relievers like Dyson.

[old nurse]

6 hours ago, Jham said:

It's not baseless just because you disagree. He has ties to Texas. Fair enough. He also had significant ties to the Twins organization. The money was easily in budget. Those are reasonable bases for an opinion as well. 

No one knows whether we would have been able to extend him. I would have liked the chance. 

Then it is more than fair to say that an organization that had extended several players already talked to Pressley about an extending and was rebuffed,  No one knows but yet they are perfectly willing to skewer the front office for not getting him signed.

[Jham]

18 hours ago, old nurse said:

Then it is more than fair to say that an organization that had extended several players already talked to Pressley about an extending and was rebuffed,  No one knows but yet they are perfectly willing to skewer the front office for not getting him signed.

Not sure what your point is or why you're so defensive. No one is being skewered. So far Houston won the trade hands down. If Alcala would have stuck as a starter we probably win. Trades are gambles. Not a perfect science. 

The FO has made some great moves and a few questionable ones. This one to me was a head scratcher due to the fact that they made such a big deal about valuing additional time vs half-season rentals.

I'm a big fan of doing some rebuilding at the deadline so you have less to do over the winter. But hey, they tried something unconventional and it hasn't quite worked out. I hope they still try. 

[old nurse]

9 hours ago, Jham said:

Not sure what your point is or why you're so defensive. No one is being skewered. So far Houston won the trade hands down. If Alcala would have stuck as a starter we probably win. Trades are gambles. Not a perfect science. 

The FO has made some great moves and a few questionable ones. This one to me was a head scratcher due to the fact that they made such a big deal about valuing additional time vs half-season rentals.

I'm a big fan of doing some rebuilding at the deadline so you have less to do over the winter. But hey, they tried something unconventional and it hasn't quite worked out. I hope they still try. 

Alcala is at this point of his career about the same pitcher Pressly was at the 85 innings of mlb experience. Celestino was the 6,7 or 8 player put out in CF. Really fair to judge a trade as a lose situation. Nobody can even prove there would have been a different outcome to the season he was traded or the next one.  The team has a bullpen piece and outfield potential versus nothing. The tie that Pressly had was the non choice to play for the Twins, renewed contracts and not really great contracts

[Major League Ready]

On 1/27/2022 at 4:52 AM, old nurse said:

Then it is more than fair to say that an organization that had extended several players already talked to Pressley about an extending and was rebuffed,  No one knows but yet they are perfectly willing to skewer the front office for not getting him signed.

If we are going to make a case on pure assumption like we would have extended Pressly, it would be equally fair to say the money that would have gone to Pressly would have resulted in not signing Cruz who produced 4.3 WAR compared to Pressly's 1.6 WAR.  I am not saying either form of speculation is sold critical thinking but they are on the same plane.