Minnesota’s Return for Berrios Continues to Look Better

On 7/1/2022 at 7:47 AM, Whitey333 said:

Yes these two could turn out well.  Keep in mind that those who think they may blossom in the next 12-18 months, they could just as easily fail in that timeframe.  As good as these prospects are purported to be Toronto gave up on them.  A prospect is just a suspect until he proves otherwise.

Toronto didn't give up on them they traded them. Not the same thing. Teams make trades that hurt all the time. Do you think the Twins wanted to say goodbye to Rogers? 

2 hours ago, prouster said:

This is factually incorrect. Pro scouts and MLB front offices use age+level as a factor in their decision making all the time, whether it’s the draft, trades, or roster management. It’s not the only factor obviously, and it’s not as simple as “this guy is only 18 and is playing against 21 year olds, therefore he’s impressive.” If a prospect is younger than the competition and he’s performing well, then that means he has advanced skills and is therefore a real prospect. It’s also a factor because younger guys are more projectable. Especially at the lower levels, they usually aren’t done maturing. So if someone is hitting homers as a lanky 19 year old in A ball, it’s easy to imagine him mashing in the Majors. 

As far as guys in their early 20s in the high minors, that’s actually a sign that their organization views them highly. It’s also a sign that they are legit, because most guys their age are still in college. 21 year old pitcher in AAA vs 21 year old in the SEC? I know who I think has a better shot at impacting the MLB team. There’s a reason why people lose their minds when someone like Juan Soto cracks the big league roster. The filler guys in the high minors are never in their early 20s. That just doesn’t happen. 
 

Here’s an article that lays out some of this stuff. It’s kinda old at this point, but still interesting and informative. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/for-prospects-age-can-be-more-than-just-a-number/

Why did you link an article which supports my position if my position is "factually incorrect?" Did you not read the article or did you just not read my post? Besides that, even I'll concede my viewpoint is my opinion and now law, just like the article you linked talks about age being hotly debated in it's very opening so your comment about the importance of age being factually settled is "factually incorrect." My position is age doesn't matter nearly as much as experience. The article's position is also experience matters, not age.

4 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Why did you link an article which supports my position if my position is "factually incorrect?" Did you not read the article or did you just not read my post? Besides that, even I'll concede my viewpoint is my opinion and now law, just like the article you linked talks about age being hotly debated in it's very opening so your comment about the importance of age being factually settled is "factually incorrect." My position is age doesn't matter nearly as much as experience. The article's position is also experience matters, not age.

Seems to me your argument is essentially that the age+level is irrelevant to how teams operate, which is not the case whatsoever. The linked article, as I mentioned, argues that age by itself doesn’t mean much, but that a younger player performing well at a higher MiLB level means more than an older one doing the same. So does a prospect being 18 mean anything? No, not in itself. But if that player is holding his own at AA hall, then that’s a pretty big deal. You distinctly said this is something people make up on fan boards, when MLB teams routinely factor it into their decision making. 
 

So you’re factually wrong. 

6 hours ago, wabene said:

Except it was widely believed that Toronto had rushed both players. SWR was 20 at AA. Martin went straight from college to AA. 

Then wouldn't the prudent thing to have done been to start them at Cedar Rapids after the trade?

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

Then wouldn't the prudent thing to have done been to start them at Cedar Rapids after the trade?

 

Not sure a demotion is a good way to start a new relationship, plus they were probably ready for AA by then. 

5 hours ago, wabene said:

Not sure a demotion is a good way to start a new relationship, plus they were probably ready for AA by then. 

AND if they were an improvement on our best starter at least one of them would be ready for a PROmotion by now...

On 7/1/2022 at 1:50 PM, bean5302 said:

I cannot disagree with this more strongly. Experience is experience and Woods-Richardson has been in the world of professional baseball experience and development for 5 years now. If players haven't figured out their pitches, control and consistency in 5 years at the highest levels of coaching, there's only so much more you can expect.

Also, when you look at the real prospects, they're always young for their level. Royce Lewis is technically younger than Martin and less than a year and a half older than Woods-Richardson for example. TwinsDaily and other Twins sites routinely use the "young for their level" to explain away poor performances at the high minors. That works when players are in their teens or they have minimal professional experience. It doesn't work anymore once players have years of pro development and are in their 20s at the high minors. Being the average age for a player in a league is not good because most true prospects move through the minors quickly. There are tons of non-prospects who are roster filler type guys at the AA and AAA levels, and those players raise the average age. A good example is the St. Paul Saints. The mean average age for the Saints batters is 27 this year so does that mean Ernie Yake is young for his level and can still develop into a stud? The age at which players essentially become non-prospects has long been 25, even though that would be "young" for AAA.

So you are equating age to experience, and not age? Because again, the fact that he is younger than his competition is just a fact.  You cannot argue that.  You are arguing that his age has nothing to do with it, which is different than saying he is not young. 

Now that being said, I get what you are saying that people with certain years of experience should be put at different levels of prospect lists, and I do not disagree, however, you seem to ignore that bodies develop more as you get older, and there are times, that guys develop as they age even after years of experience. 

Look at Jose Miranda, he did not have his breakout year in minors until age 23, even though he was drafted at age 18.  Following your argument he should have been called a bust and given up on because he had 5 years in the minors and only at AA.  Guess we should have cut him.  It is like something just clicked from age 22 to 23 and he broke out.  

I in no way am saying anybody who is young for their league is open for a breakout, but guys were top prospects for a reason, sometimes it just takes time, sometimes they are flops.  The prospects you seem to be pointing to are potential HOF guys, who are in a league of their own.  

Look at Corey Kluber, a guy that was never even a prospect really, it was not until he was 28 at the majors that he became a Cy young level pitcher.  28 to 32 he either won or got Cy Young votes, guess Cleveland should have sent him packing well before that because he was not going to be good. 

On 7/1/2022 at 4:57 AM, MGM4706 said:

Could not disagree more! No team has gone deep in playoffs for 20 years.without an Ace and strong #2. Taking Pitchers from from the scrap heap and pitching them 4-5 innings when you have a crappy pen is a recipe for failure!! Wes Johnson left for a reason. He sees the writing on the wall. The Twins pitching philosophy doesn't work!!

I agree in general but I would not agree it has not been done.  The Royals won the WS after Shields was gone and they did not have an Ace.  Their top 4 SPs had a total of 7.7 WAR.  Perhaps the more pertinent issue is that Berrios is definitely not an ace and even considering him a "strong" #2. is a little generous.

14 hours ago, prouster said:

Seems to me your argument is essentially that the age+level is irrelevant to how teams operate, which is not the case whatsoever. The linked article, as I mentioned, argues that age by itself doesn’t mean much, but that a younger player performing well at a higher MiLB level means more than an older one doing the same. So does a prospect being 18 mean anything? No, not in itself. But if that player is holding his own at AA hall, then that’s a pretty big deal. You distinctly said this is something people make up on fan boards, when MLB teams routinely factor it into their decision making. 
 

So you’re factually wrong. 

5 hours ago, Trov said:

So you are equating age to experience, and not age? Because again, the fact that he is younger than his competition is just a fact.  You cannot argue that.  You are arguing that his age has nothing to do with it, which is different than saying he is not young. 

Now that being said, I get what you are saying that people with certain years of experience should be put at different levels of prospect lists, and I do not disagree, however, you seem to ignore that bodies develop more as you get older, and there are times, that guys develop as they age even after years of experience. 

Look at Jose Miranda, he did not have his breakout year in minors until age 23, even though he was drafted at age 18.  Following your argument he should have been called a bust and given up on because he had 5 years in the minors and only at AA.  Guess we should have cut him.  It is like something just clicked from age 22 to 23 and he broke out.  

I in no way am saying anybody who is young for their league is open for a breakout, but guys were top prospects for a reason, sometimes it just takes time, sometimes they are flops.  The prospects you seem to be pointing to are potential HOF guys, who are in a league of their own.  

Look at Corey Kluber, a guy that was never even a prospect really, it was not until he was 28 at the majors that he became a Cy young level pitcher.  28 to 32 he either won or got Cy Young votes, guess Cleveland should have sent him packing well before that because he was not going to be good. 

Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend, especially since the linked article supported my position...

I do not necessarily care if the players at the high minors are younger than than competition they play against because it doesn't matter nearly as much as the level of experience the players have.

Woods-Richardson was drafted at 17. He has 5 years of MiLB experience with the best coaches, trainers, equipment, sports medicine and analytics in the world. He's not a fresh off the high school diamond newbie. He's a 5 year professional baseball veteran who has played against elite talent to identify holes in his game and make adjustments. The 23 year old guy who's 2 years older than Woods-Richardson being pitched to has 1 year of experience out of college ball. It's obvious Woods-Richardson would have a massive advantage here. That's why Woods-Richardson's age isn't all that important to me.

Talent is largely done being honed after 5 years. It's either there... or it's not. Top pitching talent usually takes 2-3 years out of college or 3-4 years out of high school to get through the minors, and rarely does it take 2 years more than that. Despite usually being 2-4 years younger, high school guys usually only take 1 year longer to reach the majors than college guys. Age does not matter nearly as much once players get into their 20s.

That's my opinion, and my opinion was honed through many hours of investigating the subject. Then again, you researched to... like finding that article which agreed with me.

On 6/30/2022 at 2:47 PM, ashbury said:

I'm about as big a "process" guy as anyone else at the site. but I wouldn't take it that far.  Results at the end of the day are what will determine the front office's future - at some point if the results are bad you would have to question the process itself.

We are a year or three from knowing the answers on this trade, but eventually it will be how you judge it, along with a myriad of other decisions the FO makes.

We may win the trade merely by not giving Berrios the extension.   We could ultimately get no production out of Martin or SWR and still win.   Ultimately that is what it is potentially looking like right now before we even get to how the prospects perform.  I think Martin is just going through a rough patch/injury and fully expect the bat to start producing.  Even with that the OBP is still holding up well.   

SWR has had a few clunkers but overall his stuff still plays and he has made very good progress this year.  I think give him another year in the Twins Org and we will see a massive jump next year.   

On 7/5/2022 at 7:01 AM, dxpavelka said:

AND if they were an improvement on our best starter at least one of them would be ready for a PROmotion by now...

SWR has 106 IP at AA and he is 21 yrs / 9 months old so it's not at all alarming he has not been promoted to AAA.  Let's also be cognizant of the fact that Berrios is performing very poorly.  He has an ERA of 5.72 and negative WAR.  It's hard for me to understand why people are still wining about losing Berrios when he has been very poor.  Let's bitch if he is great going forward but it makes little sense to complain about losing him at the moment.

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

SWR has 106 IP at AA and he is 21 yrs / 9 months old so it's not at all alarming he has not been promoted to AAA.  Let's also be cognizant of the fact that is performing very poorly.  He has an ERA of 5.72 and negative WAR.  It's hard for me toi understand why people are still wining about losing Berrios when he has been very poor.  Let's bitch if he is great going forward but it makes little sense to complain about losing him at the moment.

He's a veteran pitcher who has shown in the past and most likely will show again in the future what he's made of.  We need pitching and he's a pitcher who can be very good.  Makes plenty of sense to complain about not having him. 

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

He's a veteran pitcher who has shown in the past and most likely will show again in the future what he's made of.  We need pitching and he's a pitcher who can be very good.  Makes plenty of sense to complain about not having him. 

We will have to agree to disagree.  I think it makes absolutely no sense to bitch about not having a guy who has performed poorly.  Patrick Corbin was a well-established, top of the rotation SP.  Now he sucks.  Blake Snell won the Cy Yound award and he has been medioce for 3 years while in his prime.  There are many similar scenarios.  If Berrios turns it around .... Great, then complain about not having him but as of this moment, it defies any logic to suggest we would have missed his poor play.

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

He's a veteran pitcher who has shown in the past and most likely will show again in the future what he's made of.  We need pitching and he's a pitcher who can be very good.  Makes plenty of sense to complain about not having him. 

Here's the statline for 2 pitchers in 2022.

Pitcher A--7.2 k/9, 2.4 bb/9, 5.72 ERA, 6.23 xERA, 5.17 FIP, 4.40 xFIP, -0.1 WAR, 11.8% barrel rate, 8.5% swinging strike rate

Pitcher B--6.8 k/9, 1.8 bb/9, 4.50 ERA, 3.87 xERA, 4.29 FIP, 4.31 xFIP, 0.7 WAR, 9.6% barrel rate, 10.3% swinging strike rate

Other than the k/9 (which is so close it's the equivalent of 1 strikeout every 22.5 innings, or 4-5 starts), pitcher B is clearly superior.

Pitcher A is Berrios, making an average of $18M for the next 7 years.  Pitcher B is Bundy, making $5M for just this year, unless the Twins want him for $5M next year too.  It's pretty clear the Twins are better off with Bundy (as of now) than the Jays are with Berrios.

33 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

We will have to agree to disagree.  I think it makes absolutely no sense to bitch about not having a guy who has performed poorly.  Patrick Corbin was a well-established, top of the rotation SP.  Now he sucks.  Blake Snell won the Cy Yound award and he has been medioce for 3 years while in his prime.  There are many similar scenarios.  If Berrios turns it around .... Great, then complain about not having him but as of this moment, it defies any logic to suggest we would have missed his poor play.

Everyone thinks we need to go out and get a pitcher.  The chances of getting one better than Berrios are minimal.

24 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Here's the statline for 2 pitchers in 2022.

Pitcher A--7.2 k/9, 2.4 bb/9, 5.72 ERA, 6.23 xERA, 5.17 FIP, 4.40 xFIP, -0.1 WAR, 11.8% barrel rate, 8.5% swinging strike rate

Pitcher B--6.8 k/9, 1.8 bb/9, 4.50 ERA, 3.87 xERA, 4.29 FIP, 4.31 xFIP, 0.7 WAR, 9.6% barrel rate, 10.3% swinging strike rate

Other than the k/9 (which is so close it's the equivalent of 1 strikeout every 22.5 innings, or 4-5 starts), pitcher B is clearly superior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitcher A is Berrios, making an average of $18M for the next 7 years.  Pitcher B is Bundy, making $5M for just this year, unless the Twins want him for $5M next year too.  It's pretty clear the Twins are better off with Bundy (as of now) than the Jays are with Berrios.

One of these pitcher's team is 6-8 in games he starts and the other is 11-5.  I'll take the guy whose team is 11-5 in games he starts and let you figure out which is which.

2 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Everyone thinks we need to go out and get a pitcher.  The chances of getting one better than Berrios are minimal.

You are living in the past.  At present, Berrios sucks!  

32 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You are living in the past.  At present, Berrios sucks!  

Not at all interested in the past or the present.  Championships will be won in the future. 

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

We will have to agree to disagree.  I think it makes absolutely no sense to bitch about not having a guy who has performed poorly.  Patrick Corbin was a well-established, top of the rotation SP.  Now he sucks.  Blake Snell won the Cy Yound award and he has been medioce for 3 years while in his prime.  There are many similar scenarios.  If Berrios turns it around .... Great, then complain about not having him but as of this moment, it defies any logic to suggest we would have missed his poor play.

There would be endless complaining here if we didn't trade Berrios and he was pitching like this for us - especially if we knew that we'd get 2 top 100 prospects for him (I think SWR was borderline, but you get my point). Let's not forget that the trade was only for control of 2021-2022 for him, so once this year is over, that's all they got for Berrios. They'll have gotten 12 good starts in 2021 from him and then a sub-replacement level 2022 from him.

11 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Here's the statline for 2 pitchers in 2022.

Pitcher A--7.2 k/9, 2.4 bb/9, 5.72 ERA, 6.23 xERA, 5.17 FIP, 4.40 xFIP, -0.1 WAR, 11.8% barrel rate, 8.5% swinging strike rate

Pitcher B--6.8 k/9, 1.8 bb/9, 4.50 ERA, 3.87 xERA, 4.29 FIP, 4.31 xFIP, 0.7 WAR, 9.6% barrel rate, 10.3% swinging strike rate

Other than the k/9 (which is so close it's the equivalent of 1 strikeout every 22.5 innings, or 4-5 starts), pitcher B is clearly superior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitcher A is Berrios, making an average of $18M for the next 7 years.  Pitcher B is Bundy, making $5M for just this year, unless the Twins want him for $5M next year too.  It's pretty clear the Twins are better off with Bundy (as of now) than the Jays are with Berrios.

Yikes. That's an interesting context.

10 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

One of these pitcher's team is 6-8 in games he starts and the other is 11-5.  I'll take the guy whose team is 11-5 in games he starts and let you figure out which is which.

Starting pitching apparently doesn't matter, then? Or has Berrios been god-like in 11 games and horrible in 5 games? I don't think either of those narratives is entirely true (especially the first one but also the second one).

11 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

One of these pitcher's team is 6-8 in games he starts and the other is 11-5.  I'll take the guy whose team is 11-5 in games he starts and let you figure out which is which.

By that logic we certainly don't want Frankie Mantas who has 3 wins and 9 losses.   

9 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Not at all interested in the past or the present.  Championships will be won in the future. 

In the context of future preference, there are a few scenarios to consider.  We could have rode Berrios through this year and let him go at the end of the year.  Alternatively, we could trade similar players and have Castillo or Montas through next year.  So, not only would we get a pitcher who is performing vastly better, we would have that SP for next year.  We also could have traded him for one of the rentals who are performing much better than Berrios.  That would cost less in prospect capital than what we got for Berrios.

We also could have given him 7 years.  I would much rather that investment plus any additional $$ required and invest in Rodon / Taillon or Musgrove.  All three look waaaaay better than Berrios given the current state of performance for all four players.  Absolutely no way another team would give him the deal Toronto made at the end of this season unless he is superb the remainder of the year.

I would take any of these options over Berrios in a heartbeat.

14 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

One of these pitcher's team is 6-8 in games he starts and the other is 11-5.  I'll take the guy whose team is 11-5 in games he starts and let you figure out which is which.

The Yankees are 28-16 (103 win pace) when Kyle Higashioka appears in the game.  Should the Twins give up whatever it takes to get him?

15 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

One of these pitcher's team is 6-8 in games he starts and the other is 11-5.  I'll take the guy whose team is 11-5 in games he starts and let you figure out which is which.

Because the starting pitcher controls how many runs are scored for him, and how the pen does. Game 1 Berrios pitched .1 innings gave up 4 runs, and his team won 10-8.  He had nothing to do with the win, other than he was taken out before he gave up even more runs. His second game he left after 5 when he blew a 3 run lead to leave tied, so again he got pulled before he could give up more runs and his team took the lead late.  Games 3,4,5 I would say he pitched well and helped his team get the win. Game 6 and 7 he lost, giving up more runs than innings pitched. Game 8 he pitched well earned a win. Game 9 he had quality start.  Game 10 they won, but he gave up 6 runs in 2.1 innings, so gain he did little to help that.  Game 11 and 12 he pitched well earned the wins. Game 13 was a quality start 3 runs in 7 innings. Then 2 losses where he was bad more runs than innings pitched. His last 2 games he was okay, 2 runs in 5 and 1 in 6. 

Bundy his first 3 games he pitched very well 1 run in 15 total innings.  Then he had 2 poor starts his fault for losses. Then went 3 innings 0 runs, not his fault for loss.  Then he went 5 gave up 1 run, left with lead, not his fault pen blew it and offense did not score more, he left in line for win.  Then next game he was not good, but left tied.  He did not help get a win or loss.  Then 2 bad starts, one he left losing, other pen helped blow it, but he pitched bad.  Last 3 starts were good, he won one giving up 1 in 8.  Then he lost giving up 1 run in 6 losing game 1 nothing, not his fault team got shut out. He gave up 3, 2 earned and left tied.  Last game he pitched gave up 1 in five team won.  

Overall Berrios get 6.2 runs scored in games he pitches.  Bundy get 4.9 runs scored for him when he pitches.  Neither have been lights out.  Both have put up good games, and some clunkers.  The difference is Bundy has lost all his clunckers, and some close games, where Berrios team has bailed him out of a couple of clunkers and scored enough in the close games. 

If you switched them on the teams, I bet the records would flop as well.  It is not like Berrios always kept them in the games, or that Bundy has not.  Bundy could have a few more wins if pen held lead, or team scored a few more runs, and Berrios would have a few more losses if his team did not score huge amounts of runs in a few of his clunkers. 

10 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

By that logic we certainly don't want Frankie Mantas who has 3 wins and 9 losses.   

The fact that we don't yet have him might indicate just that.....

10 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

In the context of future preference, there are a few scenarios to consider.  We could have rode Berrios through this year and let him go at the end of the year.  Alternatively, we could trade similar players and have Castillo or Montas through next year.  So, not only would we get a pitcher who is performing vastly better, we would have that SP for next year.  We also could have traded him for one of the rentals who are performing much better than Berrios.  That would cost less in prospect capital than what we got for Berrios.

We also could have given him 7 years.  I would much rather that investment plus any additional $$ required and invest in Rodon / Taillon or Musgrove.  All three look waaaaay better than Berrios given the current state of performance for all four players.  Absolutely no way another team would give him the deal Toronto made at the end of this season unless he is superb the remainder of the year.

I would take any of these options over Berrios in a heartbeat.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  Didn't.

7 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The Yankees are 28-16 (103 win pace) when Kyle Higashioka appears in the game.  Should the Twins give up whatever it takes to get him?

I'm assuming you've seen us play.  That should answer you question.

6 hours ago, Trov said:

Because the starting pitcher controls how many runs are scored for him, and how the pen does. Game 1 Berrios pitched .1 innings gave up 4 runs, and his team won 10-8.  He had nothing to do with the win, other than he was taken out before he gave up even more runs. His second game he left after 5 when he blew a 3 run lead to leave tied, so again he got pulled before he could give up more runs and his team took the lead late.  Games 3,4,5 I would say he pitched well and helped his team get the win. Game 6 and 7 he lost, giving up more runs than innings pitched. Game 8 he pitched well earned a win. Game 9 he had quality start.  Game 10 they won, but he gave up 6 runs in 2.1 innings, so gain he did little to help that.  Game 11 and 12 he pitched well earned the wins. Game 13 was a quality start 3 runs in 7 innings. Then 2 losses where he was bad more runs than innings pitched. His last 2 games he was okay, 2 runs in 5 and 1 in 6. 

Bundy his first 3 games he pitched very well 1 run in 15 total innings.  Then he had 2 poor starts his fault for losses. Then went 3 innings 0 runs, not his fault for loss.  Then he went 5 gave up 1 run, left with lead, not his fault pen blew it and offense did not score more, he left in line for win.  Then next game he was not good, but left tied.  He did not help get a win or loss.  Then 2 bad starts, one he left losing, other pen helped blow it, but he pitched bad.  Last 3 starts were good, he won one giving up 1 in 8.  Then he lost giving up 1 run in 6 losing game 1 nothing, not his fault team got shut out. He gave up 3, 2 earned and left tied.  Last game he pitched gave up 1 in five team won.  

Overall Berrios get 6.2 runs scored in games he pitches.  Bundy get 4.9 runs scored for him when he pitches.  Neither have been lights out.  Both have put up good games, and some clunkers.  The difference is Bundy has lost all his clunckers, and some close games, where Berrios team has bailed him out of a couple of clunkers and scored enough in the close games. 

If you switched them on the teams, I bet the records would flop as well.  It is not like Berrios always kept them in the games, or that Bundy has not.  Bundy could have a few more wins if pen held lead, or team scored a few more runs, and Berrios would have a few more losses if his team did not score huge amounts of runs in a few of his clunkers. 

What you seem to be saying is that Berrios' team wins more games because they are a better team.  Hard to be the better team when you best players are playing for the other guys. Bottom line is that as this point in time we have gotten NOTHING in return for Berrios.  Can't call that a win.  In the  future.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  That's probably why they'll continue to play the games.

On 6/30/2022 at 2:08 PM, Ted Schwerzler said:

It's not a declaration either way, but the Twins got a TON of value at the time, and that's where you assess a trade for prospects.

Disagree. You assess any and every trade by comparing the total outlay and the total return. And we don't know the total outlay or total return until the players involved retire, are released, or leave in free agency. Or are traded, in which case the outlay and return in those trades have to be factored in.