The Twins Shouldn't Trade for an Ace

[Major League Ready]

25 minutes ago, adorduan said:

well, one of the problems if you don't acquire any established pitchers is that you are basically wasting one of Buxtons prime years.

The Padres has a .633 win percentage in 2020.  Granted it was a short season.  They traded for 3 well established players and turned in a .488 win percentage.  Musgrove was the best of the bunch and he has 1 year remaining.  Blake Snell was once again a 2 WAR SP just like ever season outside his one outstanding season.  Darvish was horrible the 2nd half last year.  He could bounce back but he might be a liability.  Point being they might just waste multiple seasons with the strategy they followed.

Meanwhile, the rays got 2/3 of Snell's war back in a good role player (Mejia) and Patino is already in the majors.  We will have to see if he reaches his potential, but he may have a higher career WAR or average WAR as compared to Snell.  They also saved $29M over the next two years which could be used elsewhere.  When Snell is gone in two years, the Rays will still have 3 years of control with Patino and two years with Mejia. 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

 FA's and trades are not sure things. They make fans feel better, but they're just as much an educated guess as prospects.

Again, this is simply not even close to true. 

You can list all the isolated examples you wish, but you're cherry picking, and even then you're overstating the case of even those few examples. The 2021 Rays, for example, didn't rely solely on their prospects. Among their top starters were Micheal Wacha, Rich Hill, and Tyler Glasnow. None of those are/were products of the Tampa system.

More importantly, you're focusing on the few prospects who eventually get there, while ignoring the approximately 1.6 kajillion prospects who never make any impact.

Prospects occasionally work out and become productive big leagures. Once in a great while, they become impact players.

But to suggest prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers as players who ALREADY ARE productive big leaguers isn't a rational look at reality.

I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023, at least not in isolation. The FO has put this team too far in the hole. But I'd wager large amounts of money Montas is a better MLB pitcher over these next 2 years  than any two Twins minor league pitchers you care to name. Deal?

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Again, this is simply not even close to true. 

You can list all the isolated examples you wish, but you're in ignoring the approximately 1.6 million prospects who never came close to making an impact in the big leagues.

 

Prospects occasionally work out and become productive big leagures. Once in a great while, they become impact players.

But to suggest prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers as players who ALREADY ARE productive big leaguers isn't a rational look at reality.

I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023, at least not in isolation. The FO has put this team too far in the hole. But I'd wager large amounts of money Montas is a better MLB pitcher over these next 2 years  than any two Twins minor league pitchers you care to name. Deal?

1.6 million prospects aren't expected to make an impact in the big leagues. I'm not suggesting prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers the way you're suggesting I am. You're blatantly ignoring what I'm actually saying to twist it to your narrative.

I won't pick out 2 minor league pitchers to compete against Montas for the next 2 years because that's not the point I'm making. Again, you're blatantly ignoring what I'm actually saying. I'll take the top 12 Twins prospect arms for the next 2 years (plus the minimum 4 after that that they're still controlled) over Montas for the next 2. Deal? I bet my 12 produce more WAR in a Twins uniform than Montas does in the next 2 years for whatever team(s) he's on.

Montas won't be enough to swing the Twins fortunes in 2022 or 2023. That's where I started with things. I then responded to the idea that he, or someone like him, is a sure thing and the only way the Twins could be seen as trying to win is by trading multiple prospects, plus Arraez, for a "known commodity" like Montas as if he's guaranteed to produce like he did in his career year of 2021. I've pointed out a number of examples that that idea is completely false and just makes fans feel better while stockpiling the prospects is the better option at this point precisely because of the reason you give in your post ("I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023"). 

So I'll take Balazovic, SWR, Duran, Ryan, Petty, Canterino, Enlow, Winder, Sands, Vallimont, Hajjar, and Strotman over the first 6 years of their major league careers vs Montas for the next 2 in total WAR. Deal? I'll even let you pick which site's WAR we use. You name whatever large amount of money you want and I'll take that bet.

[USAFChief]

14 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

1.6 million prospects aren't expected to make an impact in the big leagues. I'm not suggesting prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers the way you're suggesting I am. You're blatantly ignoring what I'm actually saying to twist it to your narrative.

I won't pick out 2 minor league pitchers to compete against Montas for the next 2 years because that's not the point I'm making. Again, you're blatantly ignoring what I'm actually saying. I'll take the top 12 Twins prospect arms for the next 2 years (plus the minimum 4 after that that they're still controlled) over Montas for the next 2. Deal? I bet my 12 produce more WAR in a Twins uniform than Montas does in the next 2 years for whatever team(s) he's on.

Montas won't be enough to swing the Twins fortunes in 2022 or 2023. That's where I started with things. I then responded to the idea that he, or someone like him, is a sure thing and the only way the Twins could be seen as trying to win is by trading multiple prospects, plus Arraez, for a "known commodity" like Montas as if he's guaranteed to produce like he did in his career year of 2021. I've pointed out a number of examples that that idea is completely false and just makes fans feel better while stockpiling the prospects is the better option at this point precisely because of the reason you give in your post ("I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023"). 

So I'll take Balazovic, SWR, Duran, Ryan, Petty, Canterino, Enlow, Winder, Sands, Vallimont, Hajjar, and Strotman over the first 6 years of their major league careers vs Montas for the next 2 in total WAR. Deal? I'll even let you pick which site's WAR we use. You name whatever large amount of money you want and I'll take that bet.

First, I'm not "blatantly ignoring" anything. I quoted your exact words. Which, by the way, you seem to be backing off of now.

Second, the entire Twins farm system vs Freddie Montas isn't the fair comparison. You wouldn't need to trade "12 pitchers" to get Montas. Pick 2. Any 2. Then let's bet.

Lastly, I'll back out after this...I'm not even advocating a trade, unless it's part of an actual plan to put a competitive staff on the mound.  I simply reject two ideas: that the FO has demonstrated any sort of plan to put such a staff together, and that "known commodities" are no better than prospects. 

 

I think both of those things are undeniably false. 

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

First, I'm not "blatantly ignoring" anything. I quoted your exact words. Which, by the way, you seem to be backing off of now.

Second, the entire Twins farm system vs Freddie Montas isn't the fair comparison. You wouldn't need to trade "12 pitchers" to get Montas. Pick 2. Any 2. Then let's bet.

Lastly, I'll back out after this...I'm not even advocating a trade, unless it's part of an actual plan to put a competitive staff on the mound.  I simply reject two ideas: that the FO has demonstrated any sort of plan to put such a staff together, and that "known commodities" are no better than prospects. 

 

I think both of those things are undeniably false. 

I'm not backing off anything. You picked out one sentence from a much longer post then proceeded to ignore all context and misrepresent what I've been saying.

It is the comparison I've been making. You're the one who's been misrepresenting what I've been saying. So I'll stick with what I've been saying since the very beginning and I'll take the entire Twins farm system over Frankie Montas for 2 years. My point is that he isn't good enough to drastically change the Twins outlook for 2022 or 2023 (which you seem to agree with) so you don't risk trading the 1 or 2 arms that turn into good big leaguers (if you only think 1 or 2 will).

And I'll stick with my statement that the Twins have a plan to put a competitive staff together, it just doesn't look like what you (apparently) and many other fans want it to. And "known commodities" simply have more/different data to make an educated guess on. I've already listed at least a dozen (probably, I'm not going to go back and count) "known commodities" over the last 2 to 3 seasons that have been no better than prospects. Some of which have become far worse than the average prospect debut while making significantly more.

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

He is not arguing semantics at all.  You are both arguing for a given strategy.  Chpettit19 as provided numerous examples that support a given strategy.  You are insisting your strategy is better while providing no validation.  The best form of validation is pretty straight forward.  Look at playoff or 90 win teams with below average revenue for any season, preferably multiple seasons.  How have the various means of acquisition contributed to those teams.  I have posted these facts on multiple occasions.  Acquisition of established top of the rotation pitching through free agency or trading for prospects is almost nonexistent.  Trading established players for prospects has had a far greater impact.  Players that were drafted or acquired as prospects far outnumber these other two methods combined.

You have put a lot of effort into repeating this argument over and over.  It would be great if you put a little of that energy into a meaningful / unbiased assessment of the relative effectiveness of acquisition methods.  It's not hard to do with fangraphs.  Take the 90 win teams with below average revenue from any season.  List all of the players by WAR above whatever threshold you elect to use.  I used 1.5 WAR.  If you do this, there is absolutely no question of the value of building from within.

The reason is pretty simple.  1 WAR in free agency cost $8M+.  When you have half the revenue of top teams, by definition you must be more effective per dollar spent.  The notion that trades for established pitching is a good bet is absurd if you actually look at the history of these trades.  I listed numerous trades where established pitching was traded for prospects that had major roles in building playoff teams.  Chpettit19 listed very recent trades for pitching that did not produce much. 

Show us validation.  Show us your insistence there is no plan can be backed up by facts that validate your position.  That would be what is known as a valid argument.  

No, listing a couple starters having a down year in SD doesn't invalidate my talking points anymore so than me rattling off successful FA signings/trade acquisitions proves I'm correct. I could easily ask you to list examples of teams that started with a rotation equivalent to Bundy + prospects, refused to spend in FA or acquire talent via trades, and was competing within 2 years, but that's an exercise in futility, particularly with you.   

Oh, you mean the number of teams willing to pay via FA or trade to acquire top end talent is small? You literally cannot acquire something another team doesn't have, i.e. you can't trade for a player until that individual has been drafted by/signed to another team, so of course the "total impact," of the collective is greater. You're not actually arguing anything by pointing that out. 

Mike just posted an interesting FG article about managing prospect expectations and they touch on the team building aspect at the end. Check it out. 

[Riverbrian]

Frankie Montas does not fit my personal (totally subjective) definition of an ace. He is 28 years old and has been traded 3 times. Has only eclipsed 100 innings in the majors once (last year). He also has multiple seasons in the majors and minors with metrics that most would consider poor. 

He has shown some flashes... I'd love to have him but... Ace? Not in my book. 

Unless you include players who play for Reno. 

My personal (totally subjective) list of Aces has 8 names on it and that's all. 

Ohtani

Cole

Burnes

Woodruff

Scherzer

Buehler

DeGrom

Bieber

5 of these 8 were drafted and developed. The other 3 were free agents that the Twins had no chance of signing and will have no chance of signing those types in the future.

If you want an ace... Grow your own. Grow a couple while you are at it... like Milwaukee did. 

 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Again, this is simply not even close to true. 

You can list all the isolated examples you wish, but you're cherry picking, and even then you're overstating the case of even those few examples. The 2021 Rays, for example, didn't rely solely on their prospects. Among their top starters were Micheal Wacha, Rich Hill, and Tyler Glasnow. None of those are/were products of the Tampa system.

More importantly, you're focusing on the few prospects who eventually get there, while ignoring the approximately 1.6 kajillion prospects who never make any impact.

Prospects occasionally work out and become productive big leagures. Once in a great while, they become impact players.

But to suggest prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers as players who ALREADY ARE productive big leaguers isn't a rational look at reality.

I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023, at least not in isolation. The FO has put this team too far in the hole. But I'd wager large amounts of money Montas is a better MLB pitcher over these next 2 years  than any two Twins minor league pitchers you care to name. Deal?

Rasmussen was acquired midseason, and Collin McHugh made a handful of starts for them as well. When you break it down nearly 50% of the Rays' starts last season were made by pitchers that spent no time in their minor league system.

This whole thing went off the rails when the risk of signing a high value FA was equated to running out a rotation of Bundy + prospects. There's no coming back from that. 

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

On 2/27/2022 at 4:16 PM, roger said:

What a fantastic discussion.  But are we missing something.  Could the FO be planning on piggy-backing 8 starters with two pitching 3-4 innings each every fourth game?  If they are, they might sign someone or do a lessor Odorizzi type trade.  Or maybe they believe they have those 8 arms with a couple more likely ready by June?

Good idea, but does the current roster size support this model?

[Major League Ready]

7 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Again, this is simply not even close to true. 

You can list all the isolated examples you wish, but you're cherry picking, and even then you're overstating the case of even those few examples. The 2021 Rays, for example, didn't rely solely on their prospects. Among their top starters were Micheal Wacha, Rich Hill, and Tyler Glasnow. None of those are/were products of the Tampa system.

More importantly, you're focusing on the few prospects who eventually get there, while ignoring the approximately 1.6 kajillion prospects who never make any impact.

Prospects occasionally work out and become productive big leagures. Once in a great while, they become impact players.

But to suggest prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers as players who ALREADY ARE productive big leaguers isn't a rational look at reality.

I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023, at least not in isolation. The FO has put this team too far in the hole. But I'd wager large amounts of money Montas is a better MLB pitcher over these next 2 years  than any two Twins minor league pitchers you care to name. Deal?

If the context is acquisition strategies .... Glasnow was acquired for a SP (Archer) that by far the more established pitcher.  Michael Wacha has not broke 1 WAR since 2017.  41 y/o Rich Hill had not broke 1 WAR since 2018.  I really don't understand your point.  Are these really the type of acquisitions you believe will produce a contender.  Before you answer, we would all jump on a steal like Glasnow but that is a very rare case.  

I applaud the assessment method here where you are looking at the acquisition practice of playoff teams.  It's a lot more telling if you take 2-3 years of these teams.  If you do this the relative effectiveness of the various acquisition methods is very evident.  Anyone who really wants to know could assemble the information relatively easily.  

[KirbyDome89]

17 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

If the context is acquisition strategies .... Glasnow was acquired for a SP (Archer) that by far the more established pitcher.  Michael Wacha has not broke 1 WAR since 2017.  41 y/o Rich Hill had not broke 1 WAR since 2018.  I really don't understand your point.  Are these really the type of acquisitions you believe will produce a contender.  Before you answer, we would all jump on a steal like Glasnow but that is a very rare case.  

I applaud the assessment method here where you are looking at the acquisition practice of playoff teams.  It's a lot more telling if you take 2-3 years of these teams.  If you do this the relative effectiveness of the various acquisition methods is very evident.  Anyone who really wants to know could assemble the information relatively easily.  

This entire thread is a debate about whether or not the Twins should be spending in FA and/or trades to improve the rotation. The Rays were brought up as an example of why the Twins should cling to every arm they have, and when it was pointed out that TBs rotation relied rather heavily on FA signings and trade acquisitions you shifted the goalposts. Love it. 

WAR for Wacha and Hill isn't relevant to the point that was made; it's a purposeful distraction. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

This entire thread is a debate about whether or not the Twins should be spending in FA and/or trades to improve the rotation. The Rays were brought up as an example of why the Twins should cling to every arm they have, and when it was pointed out that TBs rotation relied rather heavily on FA signings and trade acquisitions you shifted the goalposts. Love it. 

WAR for Wacha and Hill isn't relevant to the point that was made; it's a purposeful distraction. 

You simply don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the point.  The most salient point of this discussion is acquisition methodology.  What practices / strategies have produced playoff teams.  If a SP produces 1 WAR it has no relevance how that player was acquired.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I don't have any problem letting these near-ready pitchers show us what they have.  I don't think you HAVE to trade for an ace, nor do I think you shouldn't trade for one because of protecting young, controllable assets.  I tend to think a smart combination of both strategies is the real path forward and consistently successful franchises show that.  (The Cardinals are a rough approximation of the Twins and use both strategies quite effectively)

Absent other options to help the rotation I'm not interested in Montas right now.  I'd prefer we had taken short term, high upside FA swings but I think it's completely possible this team could invest innings in young guys this year and watch them grow into something formidable in the near future. I'm not sure we'd get enough out of Montas in trade or in two years contributions to warrant a move now.  Another ace?  Sure, I'd always listen.

Baseball's youth movement also means teams can rise up quickly if they can bring up the right young guys and turn a franchise around.  No reason these young arms can't do that.  And when they do?  Absolutely consider trading prospects for more help.  

[KirbyDome89]

16 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I guess I don't have any problem letting these near-ready pitchers show us what they have.  I don't think you HAVE to trade for an ace, nor do I think you shouldn't trade for one because of protecting young, controllable assets.  I tend to think a smart combination of both strategies is the real path forward and consistently successful franchises show that.  (The Cardinals are a rough approximation of the Twins and use both strategies quite effectively)

This tends to be lost anytime the topic comes up. The mere mention of trading for a single player ruffles feathers to such a degree that any such transaction becomes "selling the farm," "mortgaging the future," or is characterized as a stupid baseball decision, despite the fact that even the best rotations in the game rely on help outside of the organization. 

I'm not tied to Montas either, and I've said as much, but if the FO truly believes that a few members of this prospect group will lift the team back to WS contention, then I see a ton of value, both presently and in the future, in acquiring a stable rotation piece around which to integrate the upcoming arms. Obviously you'd want that stability for more than just 2 years. 

[KirbyDome89]

52 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You simply don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the point.  The most salient point of this discussion is acquisition methodology.  What practices / strategies have produced playoff teams.  If a SP produces 1 WAR it has no relevance how that player was acquired.

Oh but I did. Remember that part about the collective always being greater than any slice you wish to cut from it? Again, that's not even an actual counter-argument. It's also why I didn't take the bait on going down the WAR rabbit hole.