Five Relievers the Twins Might Grab at the Trade Deadline

[Peter Labuza]

When it comes to the looming trade deadline, most Twins mostly have their eyes on a number of high level starting pitchers. Of course, the Twins will be contending with a number of other teams for those players and haven't necessarily outbid in the past. As strong as the farm system is, the Twins have been less keen to trade core pieces in the past, while teams like the Dodgers and the Rays can easily depart with a literal starting ace pitcher in the hope of October glory (call it a bad trade that the Twins scored on, but the Rays are still playoff contenders and are hardly crying over the loss).

 

Anyone watching this team meanwhile can see a different problem: a shaky bullpen in need of backup. The Twins currently have a high win percentage but a notably high FIP, which we have already seen act as a recipe for disaster (especially against playoff contending teams).

The Twins might be in a better position to snatch a high-caliber arm to slot in every other day—if not two of them—to fill in some of their more questionable pieces. I’ve decided to highlight five arms from teams likely to be sellers at the deadline that the Twins might pursue.

David Robertson (Chicago Cubs)
K/9: 12.4, BB/9: 4.7

Like Joe Smith, David Robertson is a veteran pitcher at 37 with his fifth major league ball club, filling in a small role for the depleted Cubs as they enter what can only be described as their Pirates phase. After Tommy John, Robertson played a critical role on the 2021 Olympics squad, before signing with the Rays where he demonstrated a strong strikeout rate and low walk rate in his twelve appearances and four postseason appearances. Now with the Cubs, Robertson looks even better, quickly working his way to the closer role, where hitters are going .150 against him with a single home run in 23 innings of work. Unlike the younger pitchers like Duran who just throw for heat, Robertson is all about that spin. His cutter is now mixed into both a slider and a curveball, the latter two which have produced two hits total. Robertson basically is moving his ball all over the plate and players cannot get a barrel on it.

The Cubs are eager for some prospects to rebuild the greatness of 2016 and following the model of quick signings they can flip for a high caliber prospect. Robertson’s surprising bargain contract is one the Twins should be immediately eying, either to play a late inning against the heart of the order. 

Anthony Bass (MIA)
K/9: 8.3, BB/9: 2.1

Kim Ng’s Marlins are yet to become a playoff contending team, but she’s slowly building a set of arms that are just waiting to see the Phillies or Mets do the things that have made those fan bases literally a health hazard and sneak into the NL East top spot. But until then, they will need to flip some players and hope the owners actually allow for some serious spending. I tracked Anthony Bass while listening to some spring training games and the booth seems quite enthused. After struggling in 2021, Bass has become an eighth inning set up man with one of the hardest to hit pitches in the game. Hitters are barely making contact with his slider, which has produced a 38% whiffs. 

His sinker can be a problem, when pitchers are making solid contact. Miami hasn’t had too many competitive games, but Bass seems like a more reliable swing and miss guy to throw into the pen to come out maybe for the third time through the order. Plus, Bass has a $3 million club option for 2023, and it might be the right time to bring his arm into the Twins.

Michael Fulmer (DET)
K/9: 9.4, BB/9: 4.1

It’s not usual that the competition deals a player to their division rivals, but I don’t think the Detroit Tigers will be too picky about who gets one of their bright stars of their bullpen. Two seasons ago, the former Rookie of the Year was getting lit up for an ERA just under 9.00. Now he’s sitting at 2.35 over 23 innings with a slider that batters are barely touching and a fastball that’s touching 100 while becoming a bit of a mentor for the young arms out in Detroit. The walk rate is a problem—Fulmer is great with getting into the zone but hitters are rarely chasing anything out—and he hasn’t performed well in high leverage situations, so Fulmer might slide in for a mid-inning appearance against the bottom of a few line ups as the Twins make it through the dog days of summer. Given the necessity of the divorce from the Tiger, this might just be the cheapest trade the Twins can do and one they can easily depart if it doesn't work out.

Daniel Bard (COL)
K/9: 11.6, BB/9: 4.1

Daniel Bard plays at Coors Field, but he’s also kept players to a BABIP  under 200 in the hitter friendly park (on the road, it’s .130). Bard’s basically abandoned his fastball by throwing a 98mph sinker alongside a much slower slider that hitters can’t tell the difference. Bard at once seemed done with the majors, but the success of that sinker with its incredible change up movement has been a secret sauce in his comeback in Colorado. 

Sporting a WHIP under 1.00 and almost as many strikeouts as the Rockies’ starters, opponents are averaging a paltry .141. He’s turning numerous ground balls, which is a perfect concoction when you had a defensive line of Carlos Correa and Gio Urshela to work with. Now we just need to get the Rockies to actually pick up their phones this year.

Tanner Rainey (WSN)
K/9: 11.1, BB/9: 3.4

On paper, Tanner Rainey might not look like the kind of player you trade for, but relief trades are about experimentation. Rainey mostly depends on a fastball that tops around 97 and a slider that hitters are missing half the time he throws it. Rainey essentially abandoned his change up from last year, focusing on increasing the spin on his fastball. He strikes players out about the same level as Griffin Jax with just a dent of a higher walk rate. Rainer has saved seven games in his 20 innings of work, and he hasn’t been as sharp in June, but he might be a critical piece for the bullpen in need of revival.

Any other relievers you’ve been eyeing this season? Sound off in the comments.

 

View full article

[Doctor Gast]

Thanks Peter, great article. You give us a great selection of RPs to look at, any one of those would be a good choice. IMO we could use a RP or 2 right now,  Cubs could be the most willing to trade so Robertson is a good choice. It's hard to say about MIA & CO, they never know what they want to do. They'd like to compete but they can't commit to it and yet they are hesitant to retool. I'd definitely like to get a proven closer and if our problem persists w/ injuries a long relief would be very nice for us to compete.

[Trov]

Although I agree we can get a much better bullpen, I find FIP, by itself, to be a terrible metric to measure a bullpen.  Wins probability added is a much better metric if you are looking at a single stat.  If you look even further, baseball reference has a "clutch" pitching stat, which takes the context of the leverage situation and how often they have done well in those situations.  Which as a team we rank 4th at 1.9.  I could not see how to break that down by just bullpen, but I would assume most of the "clutch" pitching comes from the pen.  What that looks at is how do you when the game is close. 

Personally, if we are up or down large amounts and gives up a solo shot, that hurts a FIP a ton, but had no impact really on the game.  However, when Smith comes in and get a 1 pitch inning ending double play with bases loaded in 1 run or tied game, we get no FIP change, but had a great outcome on the game.  

FIP can be an important stat in context with other stats, but with pen guys it tells very little story.  I mean if you pitch the 9th inning of a 3 run game, you get 2 outs on balls in play, then give up a solo HR, and get the third with ball in play, the FIP goes off the chart, but you get the win and had no impact on the game.  The revers is true as well.  You come into a game down 5 strike out the side your FIP looks much better, but then in a different game you come in up 1 give up hard hit back to back doubles and then a single, giving up the lead, your FIP is the same.  

FIP needs context of when you are getting the strike outs, giving up walks, or HR.  Without having the context if you use that one number to judge anyone you are missing a huge picture. 

[PatPfund]

If we don't add a very good starting pitcher (not somebody to compete for the #4 or #5 spots), we don't need relievers. It doesn't matter who is in your 'pen if you start a game down by 5 runs, because you sent a marginal starter to the mound.

I ripped the Capps trade in another thread, not because of how Capps pitched in the playoffs, but because he never got a chance to come into a close game. Also, because the Twins the Twins, who were chasing a starter, missed out on that and ended up trading their top prospect for a pitcher who was signed as a waived free agent, had a hot half season, then reverted to the norm and was quickly out of baseball.

That is my biggest fear, that we get so used to thinking of our top prospects as disposable that we slip from good deal mode to "trade them for whatever we can get." Nobody on this list is worth a Miranda or Steer or Larnach. And if they can't get a starter first, they shouldn't make a deal at all.

The biggest step needed to improve the bullpen is to decide to move on from Duffey, Thielbar, and likely Joe Smith (the early season days of batters being baffled by funky slow stuff is gone; as much for Smith as it likely is for Dylan Bundy). Get your head in that space, and you have some likely fixes in-house (Moran or Sisk could pitch better than Thielbar right now, and a new starter would push a better arm into the 'pen than Duffey).

[terrydactyls]

Relief is the smarter route to take.  Especially with the Dodgers, Braves,and others looking for starters (my source for that is the two former general managers on MLB radio on Sirius XM).

[darwin22]

Offered these 6 RP's up in a different thread on TD. IMO, each has a higher upside than those previously mentioned.

LH- RP's

1.  Joe Mantiply- AZ

2.  Steven Okert- MIA

3.  AJ Puk-OAK

4.  Brock Burke- TX

RH-RP's

1.  David Bednar-PIT

2.  Jorge Lopez- BAL

The common thread that all 6 of these have is that they all currently pitch for teams with basically ZERO chance of making the playoffs this season and beyond.

After seeing Thielbar's 6th inning implosion today----adding at least 1 LHRP is imperative.  Either Bednar or Lopez would immediately strengthen our pen in late innings especially considering the likelihood that Alcala will not pitch this season.

 

 

[peterukavina]

I would be pleased with any of those guys, depending on the cost of course.  This is a sleeper pick, but Reyes Moronta has closer stuff can could be available.

 

[nicksaviking]

The front office has seemed to make a subtle bullpen change the last couple of years, as it seems they have prioritized command. While Pagan and Thielbar have struggled with free passes this year, they haven’t in the past.

Just my guess, but several of these high walk arms may not interest the club too much.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, peterukavina said:

I would be pleased with any of those guys, depending on the cost of course.  This is a sleeper pick, but Reyes Moronta has closer stuff can could be available.

I noticed the news of his demotion and wondered the same thing, but man, his minor league record doesn't suggest much potential there, to me.  How often have teams benefited from sifting through the Dodgers' discard pile?

[TwinsDr2021]

14 hours ago, PatPfund said:

That is my biggest fear, that we get so used to thinking of our top prospects as disposable that we slip from good deal mode to "trade them for whatever we can get." Nobody on this list is worth a Miranda or Steer or Larnach. And if they can't get a starter first, they shouldn't make a deal at all.

Nobody on this list is going to cost Miranda, Steer or Laranch. But my guess is that were it kind of starts for Montas.

Old relief pitchers or relief pitchers that only have control to the end of the year don't cost that much, they will cost more getting them before the deadline, but that cost comes with having them pitch longer for you.

[twinfan]

Lopez or Bard would help but would cost the most. I don't worry about Thielbar having 1 bad outing. He's fine. Duffy has to be better which he could. Others have to get and stay healthy. Robertson could have been had in Spring training but we passed. I'd rather see us get a starter - but NOT Montas who IMHO is over-rated and clubs will pay too much for him. If the Cubs are willing to trade Hendricks, I'd check him out though he's older. Fullmer would be good if the Tigers want to deal. Maybe move Archer to the bullpen when Ober and another starter get well. Archer can't go more than 3 inning anymore. But it's nice to see us in first place- even if the Sox and others aren't doing well.

[Whitey333]

Worrying about losing prospects in a possible trade could be part of what holds the franchise back.  All the "great" prospects that are mentioned are just that: prospects.  Most don't plan out.  If you are willing to talk trade with another team to improve your team you have to be prepared to trade prospects for what you want.  If not then why bother talking trade at all?  Current Twins team has many holes and deficiencies to make playoffs this year IMO

[Major League Ready]

20 minutes ago, Whitey333 said:

Worrying about losing prospects in a possible trade could be part of what holds the franchise back.  All the "great" prospects that are mentioned are just that: prospects.  Most don't plan out.  If you are willing to talk trade with another team to improve your team you have to be prepared to trade prospects for what you want.  If not then why bother talking trade at all?  Current Twins team has many holes and deficiencies to make playoffs this year IMO

Actually, if you were to review how playoff teams have been built by teams with below average revenue, you would see that trading proven players for prospects has been waaaay more influential than trading prospects for proven players in building these teams. 

It's very easy to do.  Pick a team from the past in the bottom half or two-thirds by revenue that has won 90+ games.  Look at the top contributors by WAR.  I use greater than 1.5 for position players and SPs and greater than 1 for RPs.  You will be shocked at how little trading for established players has contributed and how important trading for prospects has been.  The only team I have found with any real influence from trades is Milwaukee.  Their primary contributions from position players have been significantly influenced by trades.  Their pitching is all draft or trading for prospects.  Of course, their offense is very weal and their pitching extremely strong.

Anyone who is actually interested in how successful teams have been built should go through this exercise.  

[TwinsDr2021]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Actually, if you were to review how playoff teams have been built by teams with below average revenue, you would see that trading proven players for prospects has been waaaay more influential than trading prospects for proven players in building these teams.

If your belief is similar to Whitey333 that they can't make the playoffs this year, then you are 100% correct, you trade established players for more prospect to continue building the pipeline. But you believe that the Twins have caught a little lighting in a bottle this year, then you can trade a few prospects to fill needs and try to make a run. If it works great, if not you haven't sacrificed the near future for this year.

Which IMO means you don't trade Miranda, Lewis, Ryan, Ober, Winder and probably SWR. But for the right guy(s) with multiple years of control Balazovic, Martin, Canterino, Steer, Wallner, Sands, Enlow, Sabato, Varland (just a few examples) could be used (1 or maybe two at the most) to fill some holes for the right player(s).

That IMO is how to build a team a little bit of everything. FA(Correa), Prospects trade (Gray), Sign your own guy (Buxton), Trade players almost out of control (Berrios, Rogers), Make a move to fill holes if everything seemingly is falling into place. (Trade a few decent prospects, with the expectation that will be replenished by trading vets later.

[Major League Ready]

28 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

If your belief is similar to Whitey333 that they can't make the playoffs this year, then you are 100% correct, you trade established players for more prospect to continue building the pipeline. But you believe that the Twins have caught a little lighting in a bottle this year, then you can trade a few prospects to fill needs and try to make a run. If it works great, if not you haven't sacrificed the near future for this year.

Which IMO means you don't trade Miranda, Lewis, Ryan, Ober, Winder and probably SWR. But for the right guy(s) with multiple years of control Balazovic, Martin, Canterino, Steer, Wallner, Sands, Enlow, Sabato, Varland (just a few examples) could be used (1 or maybe two at the most) to fill some holes for the right player(s).

That IMO is how to build a team a little bit of everything. FA(Correa), Prospects trade (Gray), Sign your own guy (Buxton), Trade players almost out of control (Berrios, Rogers), Make a move to fill holes if everything seemingly is falling into place. (Trade a few decent prospects, with the expectation that will be replenished by trading vets later.

My belief about this year's team has no relevance to how playoff teams have been constructed among teams in the bottom half of revenue.  The impact of trades for prospects vs trading prospects for established players is a product of historical fact.  There is no doubt free agency and trading for established players has a place in the construction of playoff teams.  However, if you look at the relative roles of acquisition methods, there is no doubt that trading for prospects has a far larger role in success compared to trading for established players.

What logic could possibly support that the twins have "caught lighting in a bottle this year"?  How can there be thread after thread insisting we have no chance unless we add a #1 SP, we need at least a couple RPs and another bat if we have caught lightening in a bottle? 

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

What logic could possibly support that the twins have "caught lighting in a bottle this year"?  How can there be thread after thread insisting we have no chance unless we add a #1 SP, we need at least a couple RPs and another bat if we have caught lightening in a bottle? 

Well they are in first place on June 20th, little to nobody thought that was possible, thus my lightening in a bottle comment.

Don't care what others say about no chance without a number 1, the Twins have pretty much proven they aren't going to pitch a number 1 pitcher like a number 1 pitcher has pitched in the past, and yes I have said I agreed with you over and over about not mortgaging the future for 1 guy without controllable years. (if the player has multiple years of control, IMO that really isn't mortgaging the future, that is part of building a future.)

I gave my opinion. hence IMO. Also IMO you can't always be building a team at some point you have to say the team is built (while continuing to build for the future) and take a chance on trading for help. Sure people could say this isn't the team wait until Larnach, AK, Miranda, Winder, and other get better, but what if they don't, then they are building for years down the road and I don't believe the Twins have enough goodwill with the fans to keep kicking the can down the road. Maybe you and others disagree but with my SSS, I don't think they have.

[Major League Ready]

5 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Well they are in first place on June 20th, little to nobody thought that was possible, thus my lightening in a bottle comment.

Don't care what others say about no chance without a number 1, the Twins have pretty much proven they aren't going to pitch a number 1 pitcher like a number 1 pitcher has pitched in the past, and yes I have said I agreed with you over and over about not mortgaging the future for 1 guy without controllable years. (if the player has multiple years of control, IMO that really isn't mortgaging the future, that is part of building a future.)

I gave my opinion. hence IMO. Also IMO you can't always be building a team at some point you have to say the team is built (while continuing to build for the future) and take a chance on trading for help. Sure people could say this isn't the team wait until Larnach, AK, Miranda, Winder, and other get better, but what if they don't, then they are building for years down the road and I don't believe the Twins have enough goodwill with the fans to keep kicking the can down the road. Maybe you and others disagree but with my SSS, I don't think they have.

Yes, they are a 1st place team ranked 15th in their of their odds of winning the WS.  14 other teams have better odds so the fact they are in 1st place so let's be realistic about if they have built a team or need to continue to build.

Odds of winning the WS

[Riverbrian]

48 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Yes, they are a 1st place team ranked 15th in their of their odds of winning the WS.  14 other teams have better odds so the fact they are in 1st place so let's be realistic about if they have built a team or need to continue to build.

Odds of winning the WS

+4000 -- Braves had the same odds in 2021 on July 13 that the Twins have in 2022 on June 20.

 

This was from an article last year on July 13, 2021 ?

 

Atlanta Braves: +1000 to +4000

An already disappointing first half for the Braves got much worse over the weekend when star outfielder Ronald Acuna Jr. tore his ACL. It’s an injury that will sideline him for the rest of the season. At 44-45, the Braves are only four games behind the Mets (and a half-game back of the Phillies) in the NL East, but it’s hard to envision the Braves going on any sort of run without their best player in the lineup on a nightly basis.

 

[HrbieFan]

On 6/19/2022 at 3:50 PM, PatPfund said:

If we don't add a very good starting pitcher (not somebody to compete for the #4 or #5 spots), we don't need relievers. It doesn't matter who is in your 'pen if you start a game down by 5 runs, because you sent a marginal starter to the mound.

I ripped the Capps trade in another thread, not because of how Capps pitched in the playoffs, but because he never got a chance to come into a close game. Also, because the Twins the Twins, who were chasing a starter, missed out on that and ended up trading their top prospect for a pitcher who was signed as a waived free agent, had a hot half season, then reverted to the norm and was quickly out of baseball.

That is my biggest fear, that we get so used to thinking of our top prospects as disposable that we slip from good deal mode to "trade them for whatever we can get." Nobody on this list is worth a Miranda or Steer or Larnach. And if they can't get a starter first, they shouldn't make a deal at all.

The biggest step needed to improve the bullpen is to decide to move on from Duffey, Thielbar, and likely Joe Smith (the early season days of batters being baffled by funky slow stuff is gone; as much for Smith as it likely is for Dylan Bundy). Get your head in that space, and you have some likely fixes in-house (Moran or Sisk could pitch better than Thielbar right now, and a new starter would push a better arm into the 'pen than Duffey).

Can I buy you a couple of drinks to calm you down? Our rotation has been fine against the big boys. You want Cole who we biatch slapped all over the mound as your ace? 

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

+4000 -- Braves had the same odds in 2021 on July 13 that the Twins have in 2022 on June 20.

 

This was from an article last year on July 13, 2021 ?

 

Atlanta Braves: +1000 to +4000

An already disappointing first half for the Braves got much worse over the weekend when star outfielder Ronald Acuna Jr. tore his ACL. It’s an injury that will sideline him for the rest of the season. At 44-45, the Braves are only four games behind the Mets (and a half-game back of the Phillies) in the NL East, but it’s hard to envision the Braves going on any sort of run without their best player in the lineup on a nightly basis.

 

That logic is fine for a fan.  It would get any person in a leadership position followed.  However, ignoring 400:1 odds because it has happened in the past would assure termination of the authority to make such decisions is terminated.  The statement that perpetuated this was " Worrying about losing prospects in a possible trade could be part of what holds the franchise back."  The Braves invested virtually nothing so using the Braves as an example is misguided.   They went out and got a couple guys who were playing terrible and they played like MVPs.  Those calling "go for it" would be very disappointed with level of investment.  We would all love to invest nothing in players that perform like superstars, and have the rest of the team play phenomenally better after the deadline.  

[TwinsDr2021]

11 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Yes, they are a 1st place team ranked 15th in their of their odds of winning the WS.  14 other teams have better odds so the fact they are in 1st place so let's be realistic about if they have built a team or need to continue to build.

Odds of winning the WS

So ignore the fact that have performed well enough to be in 1 place, and go with the odds. Brilliant!

I don't care if the Twins win the world series this year, I want them to try to make the team better, make the playoffs and not fold like a cheap suit.

[Major League Ready]

1 minute ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

So ignore the fact that have performed well enough to be in 1 place, and go with the odds. Brilliant!

I don't care if the Twins win the world series this year, I want them to try to make the team better, make the playoffs and not fold like a cheap suit.

So, we should ignore the odds determined by oddsmakers because they are in 1st place?  The Oddsmakers have given 7 teams that are not in first place better odds.  Please enlighten us as to knowledge you posses that the people who make their living determining these odds fail to understand.  

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

So, we should ignore the odds determined by oddsmakers because they are in 1st place?  The Oddsmakers have given 7 teams that are not in first place better odds.  Please enlighten us as to knowledge you posses that the people who make their living determining these odds fail to understand.  

You veered way off topic, but I will play along. Do the Twins players know the odds have them with no shot and if so why even keep up the charade of playing?

Or maybe the front office might see this and say our odds might go up if we could fill some holes, I mean their odds went up with the Gray trade and the Correa signing.

[Major League Ready]

41 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

You veered way off topic, but I will play along. Do the Twins players know the odds have them with no shot and if so why even keep up the charade of playing?

Or maybe the front office might see this and say our odds might go up if we could fill some holes, I mean their odds went up with the Gray trade and the Correa signing.

For the same reason mathematically eliminated teams don't forfeit every game.  I mean really, your answer is that if a team does not have a reasonable chance of winning the WQS they should not bother playing?  By your logic every team should be trading for proven players.  There wouldn't be any sellers if that logic made sense and had the Twins followed that logic they would not have acquired Ryan / Duran / Celestino or Alcala. 

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

That logic is fine for a fan.  It would get any person in a leadership position followed.  However, ignoring 400:1 odds because it has happened in the past would assure termination of the authority to make such decisions is terminated.  The statement that perpetuated this was " Worrying about losing prospects in a possible trade could be part of what holds the franchise back."  The Braves invested virtually nothing so using the Braves as an example is misguided.   They went out and got a couple guys who were playing terrible and they played like MVPs.  Those calling "go for it" would be very disappointed with level of investment.  We would all love to invest nothing in players that perform like superstars, and have the rest of the team play phenomenally better after the deadline.  

I'm aware of how the conversation started and I'm actually on your side with one exception. ?

I'm simply cautioning against mid-summer odds as a basis for trade deadline decisions. I don't ever want my front office looking at a contending team and thinking they know better because that is the type of thinking that will get you terminated.  The front office needs to be thinking. "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader". . 

I don't agree with Whitey at all (not even close) that we should just spend our prospect capital to acquire whatever we need because the prospects rarely pan out anyway. That type of thinking will just put your team in a death cycle of a recurring state of starting over. The farm has to produce or the Twins have no chance at sustained competitiveness. We've been there before and for quite some time... I don't want ever want to go back there again.   

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Front offices have to walk this line between the short term and long term constantly. 

With all of that nuance to consider. Contenders buy at the deadline. Rental relievers that can help a contending team won't cost us Martin and Lewis. Josh Bell or Trey Mancini won't cost us Martin and Lewis. Buyers Buy and Sellers Sell. Doing neither is just standing still. 

I'm just letting you know... that I'll put down $100 bucks. ? 

 

On 6/20/2022 at 9:27 AM, Major League Ready said:

Anyone who is actually interested in how successful teams have been built should go through this exercise

I have. My wife would rather I'd spend less time doing this exercise and more time fixing the screen door. ?

[TwinsDr2021]

30 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

For the same reason mathematically eliminated teams don't forfeit every game.  I mean really, your answer is that if a team does not have a reasonable chance of winning the WQS they should not bother playing?  By your logic every team should be trading for proven players.  There wouldn't be any sellers if that logic made sense and had the Twins followed that logic they would not have acquired Ryan / Duran / Celestino or Alcala. 

You are reading what you want to hear, I am not saying at all what you are pretending I am saying so you feel smarter.

I said the Twins are in first place and thus should try to fill holes without trading away their top prospects, that is their duty to the fans, their duty isn't to blow up the future for this year. Sure the odds might not be great to win the world series but they can still improve this team to up the odds, just like they did with Gray and Correa. I have also said trading away top prospects for what others assume is a number 1 pitcher (Montas) isn't the solution for multiple reasons, the cost is high and the Twins don't ride number 1 type pitchers like teams have done in the past (In the playoffs and regular season)

Maybe I misread what Whitey333 wrote (Current Twins team has many holes and deficiencies to make playoffs this year IMO), I thought he was writing that that teams that are close shouldn't worry about trading prospects because they normally don't work out anyway but this year isn't the year to do it because this team can't make the playoffs anyway.

[Major League Ready]

5 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm aware of how the conversation started and I'm actually on your side with one exception. ?

I'm simply cautioning against mid-summer odds as a basis for trade deadline decisions. I don't ever want my front office looking at a contending team and thinking they know better because that is the type of thinking that will get you terminated.  The front office needs to be thinking. "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader". . 

I don't agree with Whitey at all (not even close) that we should just spend our prospect capital to acquire whatever we need because the prospects rarely pan out anyway. That type of thinking will just put your team in a death cycle of a recurring state of starting over. The farm has to produce or the Twins have no chance at sustained competitiveness. We've been there before and for quite some time... I don't want ever want to go back there again.   

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Front offices have to walk this line between the short term and long term constantly. 

With all of that nuance to consider. Contenders buy at the deadline. Rental relievers that can help a contending team won't cost us Martin and Lewis. Josh Bell or Trey Mancini won't cost us Martin and Lewis. Buyers Buy and Sellers Sell. Doing neither is just standing still. 

I'm just letting you know... that I'll put down $100 bucks. ? 

 

I have. My wife would rather I'd spend less time doing this exercise and more time fixing the screen door. ?

I agree with you that this discussion is a little early and there are many variables that won't be known until the deadline.  I have made several posts to that position.  With this in mind, it's just fine to blindly insist the FO "go for it".   That position is repeated over and over here year after year.  Every year is a go for it year.  However, for the people responsible for the future as well as the present state of the team, ignoring hard facts/evidence and making decisions that defy such information get terminated and deservedly so.