Buyer Beware: Avoiding a Chris Archer Trade

I can absolutely guarantee that the odds of future playoff appearances are higher with Lewis, Kirilloff, Balazovic, Larnach, etc. still in the system. I don't see how that could even be questioned. 

 

Everything is probabilistic. That's something most fans struggle with, on this site included. In this case, you are overestimating the impact of trade pick-ups and underestimating the importance of prospects. It's a math error, nothing more or less.

 

The impact on WS odds of acquiring a good reliever are much, much lower than you think. That's why you're willing to pay a high price. 

But, I don't think strait math does it justice, does it? If you never know when you'll have the next chance...if that next chance is never guaranteed...it can still make sense to goose the current odds even marginally, because you're goosing 'high' odds. In this argument, I don't care about theoretical future chances of a pennant going from 10% to 18% as much as I care about this years odds going from 33 to 38.

It's a game, so it comes down to philosophy. But, to the extent that some will look at it as strait math...the math would need to assume not only how much an acquired player(s) increase odds in a vacuum...but also how much the odds decrease if no moves are made (as other contenders will certainly not remain static...that will be the case this year, and in every other year the Twins might be in a position to compete).

I don't argue the math, but think there is a point where it is 'worth' it, despite the math. (Not to mention that some prospect trades solve future roster log-jambs.)

 

I know you were big on trading Lewis + for Realmuto, good thing the GM has a level of patience and is looking at broader picture

Per Baseball Reference Realmuto WAR 2.5, Garver 3.0, Castro .6, Astudillo -.1

My math says Realmuto and Garver better than Garver, Castro and Turtle

But, I don't think strait math does it justice, does it? If you never know when you'll have the next chance...if that next chance is never guaranteed...it can still make sense to goose the current odds even marginally, because you're goosing 'high' odds. In this argument, I don't care about theoretical future chances of a pennant going from 10% to 18% as much as I care about this years odds going from 33 to 38.

 

It's a game, so it comes down to philosophy. But, to the extent that some will look at it as strait math...the math would need to assume not only how much an acquired player(s) increase odds in a vacuum...but also how much the odds decrease if no moves are made (as other contenders will certainly not remain static...that will be the case this year, and in every other year the Twins might be in a position to compete).

 

I don't argue the math, but think there is a point where it is 'worth' it, despite the math. (Not to mention that some prospect trades solve future roster log-jambs.)

Your post is not really contradicting mine. Using numbers is a must in order to quantify the trade-offs that are inherent to every decision. The numbers don't make the decision by themselves.

If you run the numbers and say - this trade increases my WS odds by 10% this year but lowers them by a cumulative 15% over the next 5 years . . . I totally understand going for the trade. There's a reasonable basis for it.

Saying "make all the trades!!!", including trades that would generate a 1% increase this year and 50% cumulative decrease in future years, that's a different story. And some posters are advocating for those types of moves.

Can't tell if this is a troll? Teams only play 1 catcher each game. 

Rotation?, One at DH?, maybe they don't sign Cruz and spend the money elsewhere like bullpen?

But I get it, hope is more important than trying to get results. I just disagree with that.

Rotation?, One at DH?, maybe they don't sign Cruz and spend the money elsewhere like bullpen?

 

But I get it, hope is more important than trying to get results. I just disagree with that.

Yeah, the Twins front office prefers losing to winning, they are paid under the table by the other orgs.

Yeah there's a good chance he is in AAA (or traded), Castro is your backup and Lewis is playing in Miami's farm system and the Twins with what-we-know-now are in no better shape at the current moment.

Or since this front office loves position flexibility they keep Garver because he has played OF and 1B and Castro hasn't, but of course we will never know.

So now the team is in a better spot had they traded for a Catcher who isn't playing as well as the one they currently have and not signed Cruz? 

 

Sorry I brought up the Realmuto name, I thought by now people would be ok admitting its a good thing the Twins avoided that

Maybe, maybe not, so far it has worked out pretty well that they didn't trade for him.

Yes Garver when he has played has been better than JT, but JT has played in 94 really well and Mitch only 52 great. which has forced Castro and the Turtle into all the other games.

but we are going to have to agree to disagree which isn't a bad thing.

None of that has played out yet, and it's tough to argue the Twins would be worse off with Realmuto.

 

There were people crowing about avoiding Verlander, too.

 

Can you point me to your post where you predicted, at the time Realmuto was traded, that Garver would have better offensive stats in late July, 2019? Otherwise, crowing about it now is sort of...hindsight-ish, no?

 

Or if we're going to do this, what was your opinion of the Pressly trade, at the time?

lol, you mean like all the proposed trades where you predicted the stats of the players involved?

if you advocate for every single possible trade, well sure, occasionally you'll be "right," just like a broken clock.

Garver has an OPS+ 80 points higher than Realmuto, and an OPS .300 points higher. The Twins would be worse off, I feel pretty confident saying that. 

83 starts at catcher compared to 46 doesn't count for anything?

If you advocate for avoiding every single possible trade, well sure, occasionaly you'll be "right," just like a broken clock.

Except no one here does that. It's a split between people who favor making sensible trades vs. those who think you can trade away your minor league system with no repercussions. 

Actual MLB teams behave cautiously when trading away prospects. Mega deals are rare. The simple reality is that prospects have significant value . . . whether or not you want to accept it, the numbers prove it out and all 30 MLB clubs agree.

Trade for Escobar or Pressly type of players please. Pressly is an all star this year. Escobar has .292 avg .900 OPS, he has hit 22 homers and driven in 79 runs so far. Talk about production and clutchness.

The Twins sure would be a better team if they just resigned both of these guys instead of trading for mediocre (yup, mediocre) prospects that aren't even close to helping. We had the help right here, and Pressly even had another year, didn't he? Prospects, schmaspects. I want MLB players. Last years bonehead trades of real MLB players should be screaming at the FO. Now we are just looking for suckers like our FO was to get the same type of player we already had. 

Hasn't Houston traded about a 10 of their higher end prospects the last few years?

Verlander, Cole, Pressley, Liriano, McCann

Higher end prospects for Pressly? Not in my book, or how they rate in our farm, or how they have performed. Mediocre.