Article: Trade Talk: Detroit Tigers

[Seth Stohs]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=2087-Trade-Talk-Detroit-Tigers

[SurroundedByTigers]

If the Twins send Perkins to the Tigers, then the Twins are essentially giving the Tigers the World Series. The Twins have to demand something like Castellanos and another prospect up front, hopefully a starting pitcher, and a player to be named later. The player to be named would depend upon how far the Tigers advance in the playoffs, so the farther the Tigers go, the better the prospect the Twins would receive. Castellanos absolutely has to be part of the deal, because he can play 3B, OF and 1B as needed.

[Top Gun]

If the Twins would have sign a ace free agent they would be up with clev now and won't be worried about this.

[Top Gun]

Just think where we would be if we signed Sanchez and Hunter, we would be ahead of them. Ryan is to blame.

[MichiganTwins]

We might be .500 with Sanchez and Hunter. Also, why would the Twins have signed an OF? we already have too many to try to get them playing time.

[Boom Boom]

We might be .500 with Sanchez and Hunter. Also, why would the Twins have signed an OF? we already have too many to try to get them playing time.

 

Huh? The Twins only have two outfielders on the roster right now.

[Seth Stohs]

Sanchez got 5 years and $85 million from the Tigers. How much more would the Twins have had to offer him for him to come to Target Field? And, sadly, I don't think one solid #2/3 starter was going to make up a 14-15 game difference.

[gunnarthor]

I'd love for the Twins to get Castellanos. And I think he's the high end type of guy they should be looking for. Not sure if it gets done since it's a steep price and Tigers aren't in any danger of playing the play in game. But hopefully it happens.

 

Let's hope a bunch of teams' bullpens start imploding after the break.

[MichiganTwins]

Huh? The Twins only have two outfielders on the roster right now.

 

I agree at the moment we have only two. But we have two OFers on the DL. Arcia and Parmalee just got sent down. I am sorry if I was not clear, but I meant this season in general, we have had too many OFers for some of them to get consistent playing time.

[MichiganTwins]

I'd love for the Twins to get Castellanos. And I think he's the high end type of guy they should be looking for. Not sure if it gets done since it's a steep price and Tigers aren't in any danger of playing the play in game. But hopefully it happens.

 

Let's hope a bunch of teams' bullpens start imploding after the break.

 

Tigers are only up a game and a half. And the race for the two wild card spots is not a guarantee either. (if they would lose the division)

[ThePuck]

Hard to believe we only have two OF right now of the active roster. Of course there's always catcher/DH Doumit and 3B Plouffe we can put out there.

[Willihammer]

Sanchez got 5 years and $85 million from the Tigers. How much more would the Twins have had to offer him for him to come to Target Field? And, sadly, I don't think one solid #2/3 starter was going to make up a 14-15 game difference.

No, but in years 2-5 of that contract, that value added could have been a critical difference. Doubly critical by denying that value to a division rival.

[ThePuck]

No, but in years 2-5 of that contract, that value added could have been a critical difference. Doubly critical by denying that value to a division rival.

 

And that pitcher, like all players, is a tradeable asset, like all quality players are. No rule says you need to keep him all five years. You could flip him two, three years down the road for a quality prospect or two or whatever. Not signing a player like him gives you no options. No quality pitching in any years nor the ability to trade him for more prospects down the road. By signing him, the only thing you lose for sure is money for awhile which is not a problem right now anyway, or in the foreseeable future.

[Brock Beauchamp]

No, but in years 2-5 of that contract, that value added could have been a critical difference. Doubly critical by denying that value to a division rival.

 

While I don't disagree with the idea of picking up a guy and thwarting a division rival (mostly I disagree with some here on the timing of such a move), you're assuming that Sanchez will continue to be a value. There's a good chance he will spend years 3-5 of that contract as an albatross. In that case, who "won"?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

While I don't disagree with the idea of picking up a guy and thwarting a division rival (mostly I disagree with some here on the timing of such a move), you're assuming that Sanchez will continue to be a value. There's a good chance he will spend years 3-5 of that contract as an albatross. In that case, who "won"?

Good points. It's silly to spend money on free agency, when your whole plan is to blow the team up, and there's still time for Sanchez to stink up Detroit...

[Willihammer]

While I don't disagree with the idea of picking up a guy and thwarting a division rival (mostly I disagree with some here on the timing of such a move), you're assuming that Sanchez will continue to be a value. There's a good chance he will spend years 3-5 of that contract as an albatross. In that case, who "won"?

The Twins. 2 years of Anibal is better than 2 years of whatever sub-replacement scrub he'd be keeping off the roster, yeah?

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Twins. 2 years of Anibal is better than 2 years of whatever sub-replacement scrub he'd be keeping off the roster, yeah?

 

Not if the team is going to miss the playoffs either way, which they would this season. Anibal doesn't change that.

 

Now mind you, I am not advocating the "they're not going to win anyway so don't pick up anyone good" argument, I'm just making an observation.

[ThePuck]

The Twins. 2 years of Anibal is better than 2 years of whatever sub-replacement scrub he'd be keeping off the roster, yeah?

 

And that pitcher, like all players, is a tradeable asset, like all quality players are. No rule says you need to keep him all five years. You could flip him two, three years down the road for a quality prospect or two or whatever. Not signing a player like him gives you no options. No quality pitching in any years nor the ability to trade him for more prospects down the road. By signing him, the only thing you lose for sure is money for awhile which is not a problem right now anyway, or in the foreseeable future.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And that pitcher, like all players, is a tradeable asset, like all quality players are. No rule says you need to keep him all five years. You could flip him two, three years down the road for a quality prospect or two or whatever. Not signing a player like him gives you no options. No quality pitching in any years nor the ability to trade him for more prospects down the road. By signing him, the only thing you lose for sure is money for awhile which is not a problem right now anyway, or in the foreseeable future.

 

Which is a fine argument but the "sign 'em and trade 'em" argument is great in theory and incredibly difficult to execute in reality, particularly in multi-year contracts.

 

When do you trade Anibal? After year one? Two? Three? And what happens if he gets injured the year you "planned" to trade him?

 

It's a tightrope walk and not one a team should aggressively pursue when $100m is on the line. For the Feldmans, Pelfreys, and Bakers of the world, sure. It's a one year deal. Risk is incredibly low, almost zero. But a five year deal? That's dancing with the devil.

 

You sign a guy you want with the idea that he will help your team when you need it. Trying to extrapolate 100 different situations from there is just going to lead to option paralysis and bad decisions.

[ThePuck]

The Twins. 2 years of Anibal is better than 2 years of whatever sub-replacement scrub he'd be keeping off the roster, yeah?

 

So we can say let's save money at a time when money is plenty available for the forseeable future, which does the fan no good, but the owner plenty good. Or spend it on a player who likely helps now, likely helps later and could also help later by being a valuable trade chip to get more pieces. Downside, we lost money that didn't hurt us to spend in any way and that wouldn't have been put into payroll somewhere down the road if we hadn't spent it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

So we can say let's save money at a time when money is plenty available for the forseeable future, which does the fan no good, but the owner plenty good. Or spend it on a player who likely helps now, likely helps later and could also help later by being a valuable trade chip to get more pieces. Downside, we lost money that didn't hurt us to spend in any way and that wouldn't have been put into payroll somewhere down the road if we hadn't spent it.

 

It hurts if Anibal spends 2015 on a Jamaican beach while earning $16m that could be going to a pitcher to help an 88 win team make the playoffs.

 

Let's not pretend that there is no risk in signing a guy right now. There is a risk. There is always a risk when you drop $100m on a single player. Whether you want to take that risk should be the argument.

[Willihammer]

Not if the team is going to miss the playoffs either way, which they would this season. Anibal doesn't change that.

 

We could go round and round, but I'll just state that I'm not necessarily convinced that would have been the case. If the Twins had gotten 15 starts out of Anibal instead of, say, Pelfrey, then maybe Perkins makes 4 or 5 more appearances, with a lead. Maybe the bullpen doesn't show signs of getting gassed two weeks before the all-star break, and the Twins go into "buy mode" instead of "trade mode," etc etc.

[ThePuck]

It hurts if Anibal spends 2015 on a Jamaican beach while earning $16m that could be going to a pitcher to help an 88 win team make the playoffs.

 

Let's not pretend that there is no risk in signing a guy right now. There is a risk. There is always a risk when you drop $100m on a single player. Whether you want to take that risk should be the argument.

 

Look towards 2015, consider payroll being shed in the next year or two, what the makeup of our team will consist of, and tell us where are all of our monetary obligations are going to be. Then tell us where his 16M is going to stop us from being able to sign players? That's even before the new TV contract 25M coming in.

 

If his 16M wouldn't have hurt us THIS year, how will it hurt after the payrolls of Blackburn, Pelfrey, Carroll, Morneau, Doumit, Willingham and the like are off payroll and replaced by pre-arbitration players.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Look towards 2015, consider payroll being shed in the next year or two, what the makeup of our team will consist of, and tell us where are all of our monetary obligations are going to be. Then tell us where his 16M is going to stop us from being able to sign players? That's even before the new TV contract 25M coming in.

 

If his 16M wouldn't have hurt us THIS year, how will it hurt after the payrolls of Blackburn, Pelfrey, Carroll, Morneau, Doumit, Willingham and the like are off payroll and replaced by pre-arbitration players.

 

Payroll certainly shouldn't be a concern in 2015 but many of those departing free agents will have to be replaced and not all of them will come from the farm system.

 

The point is that there is a risk in signing a big contract free agent. Is that risk debilitating? Probably not in this case, but it does open up holes that can't be filled should something disastrous go wrong with the pitcher. A team can get around a Barry Zito contract but it's not easy to do and it means you need to hit on almost every other move you make to overcome that wasted money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We could go round and round, but I'll just state that I'm not necessarily convinced that would have been the case. If the Twins had gotten 15 starts out of Anibal instead of, say, Pelfrey, then maybe Perkins makes 4 or 5 more appearances, with a lead. Maybe the bullpen doesn't show signs of getting gassed two weeks before the all-star break, and the Twins go into "buy mode" instead of "trade mode," etc etc.

 

You could replace Mike Pelfrey with Sandy Koufax and it's not going to result in 13.5 games over a half season (the Twins current deficit in the standings). Adding Koufax to the rotation means you still have three bad starters on the team for a good chunk of this half season. That is simply too many holes to fill.

[ThePuck]

Payroll certainly shouldn't be a concern in 2015 but many of those departing free agents will have to be replaced and not all of them will come from the farm system.

 

The point is that there is a risk in signing a big contract free agent. Is that risk debilitating? Probably not in this case, but it does open up holes that can't be filled should something disastrous go wrong with the pitcher. A team can get around a Barry Zito contract but it's not easy to do and it means you need to hit on almost every other move you make to overcome that wasted money.

 

Of that list of players I listed, who do you think won't be replaced by someone in the farm system? Our backup catcher, our utility IF, our 1B, our LF or one or both of the two pitchers (one that isn't even pitching for us right now, so he doesn't really need replacing). Or even the third pitcher I forgot to mention who will also be off payroll in 2015.

 

There is always financial risk when signing ANY quality player for ANY long period of time during ANY time in a team's development. That's comes with the job. Right now is the time when we can MOST afford to take the risk, when payroll is low and going much lower in the next two years while we get an additional 25M coming in as well.

[Willihammer]

13.5 games over a half season

 

Where does this number come from? The Twins are 12 games out.

 

Take Anibal away from the Tigers, and you cut into their win total immediately. Maybe 2-3 games, but it could be more, or less.

 

Take Pelfrey out of the rotation and replace him with Anibal, and you improve the Twins record by what, 3-5 games? More depending on how much of the the July collapse you blame on the bullpen possibly getting gassed.

 

Maybe they trade for Phil Hughes. Or Nolasco. Who knows?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Where does this number come from? The Twins are 12 games out.

 

I looked at the wrong page.

 

No matter how much impact Anibal has, 12 games is too much for one player. Replacing Joe Mauer with Drew Butera and giving Joe to the Tigers will not result in 12 games in half a season.

 

This is why the WAR stat exists. It's incredibly difficult for a player to have a WAR of 10 over one season, much less a WAR of 18 (extrapolating the 55% of this season into 100%).

[ThePuck]

I looked at the wrong page.

 

No matter how much impact Anibal has, 12 games is too much for one player. Replacing Joe Mauer with Drew Butera and giving Joe to the Tigers will not result in 12 games in half a season.

 

This is why the WAR stat exists. It's incredibly difficult for a player to have a WAR of 10 over one season, much less a WAR of 18 (extrapolating the 55% of this season into 100%).

 

So you have no issue with the WAR stat, a stat some people say is so arbitrary there isn't even a consensus into how it's calculated. I like the WAR stat, myself, but talk about a stat that seriously takes into account advanced metrics being right on the ball.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Back on topic, speakly purely hypothetically, would folks here accept Castellanos and Rondon in exchange for Perkins?