MLB Trade Deadline: Will This Market Work Against the Twins' Agenda?

Yes, the Twins are in a great spot. I agree that teams will be careful with their prized youngsters, especially the pitchers. Aside from the players not really expected to return next season who can be traded for low level prospects, the Twins should absolutely demand a ransom if they listen on Berrios/Buxton/Rogers. Keep these guys for 2022. My guess is that there are several teams trying to lift Donaldson away for low level prospects with the Twins paying a substantial portion of his contract. JD is a risky player but the Twins should hold tight. Our team doesn't need any more AAA players. Don't sell just to sell.

I agree with you Tom.  I think most teams will go with rentals and try to keep costs down.  Some of the higher revenue teams may not be impacted as much so might be able to still work a deal but it feels like the market might be suppressed this year more than most.

We will see maybe I am reading things wrong as well but uncertainty generally leads people to make more cautious decisions.  With things so unsettled giving up young controllable players seems like a bad play IMO.

To Brocks point yes we have Cost controlled cheap players that could be traded but the Twins would want to keep them for those same reasons.  The Twins will only trade Berrios if the return is right as they might need him next year to keep their jobs.  Buxton's value is too low to trade him. They could trade Arraez but why when he has 4 years of control left? They could trade Polanco but again he is on a good contract and the return would have to be huge to be worth trading him. Kepler could be traded but he is the best defensive corner outfielder we have right now and I am not sure what value he has on the market with his low average and OPS.  Might have to sell low there to make a deal if they even want to do that.

Honestly other than moving Cruz and maybe Pineda if he starts pitching better I don't see that the Twins will have much other teams want.  Robles maybe but I don't think the return will be great. Simmons bat is just horrible won't get much value there.  I am starting to think this deadline might be more quiet for the Twins than I originally had hoped.

Since the  1960's MLB has doubled the # of franchises and also increased the # of pitchers on MLB roster, from 10 to 13/14 now. Add 14 new teams, 3-4 pitchers per team, and 42-56 additional pitchers needed comparatively speaking to historical standards. Not that 1960 was the Golden Era of MLB, but just to get a sense of the changes in MLB pitching usage indicates that pitching quality is spread thin across MLB, and any one staff is a good as the weakest link in a 13-14 person chain. We have classic case of demand (for quality, and depth at all levels of the organization) exceeding supply, and the skewed economics that result. Most teams compete for mediocre talent in hopes of finding one season of performance that exceeds payroll commitments. But when performance and/or years of service reach a level of having to make long term salary commitments, the calculus changes. Pitching depth has to be protected now more than any time in the past. So, I agree with Tom, good luck finding that diamond in the rough in someone else's MiLB system. Economics drove trading Pressly, and that hurt this teams ability to compete at high level in the last 3 years. The Jake Cave trade is showing signs of working in the other direction-would we rather have Cave or Luis Gil knocking at the door? Why would teams take the risk of trading pitching except for possibly high level, proven, controllable MLB talent? I fear for the Twins and Berrios. The Twins need him more than he needs the Twins, and we all know how well the Twins do when they have to compete at a high level for in-demand free agents. I hope they sign him, but expect they wont, and I anticipate we will continue to see a cycling of mediocre pitching talent for years to come (unless a new CBA miraculously changes the underlying economics).

31 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Berrios is likely the most in demand player on the market this season. His extra year of control at a very cheap-for-his-production rate makes him incredibly valuable on the trade block. With every team needing more arms I'd argue it puts the Twins in an even better place than usual (for him specifically). What team would rather have a AAA pitcher for this season than Berrios? I don't see anyone giving up multiple high end AAA, or AA, arms for him, but I'd certainly think any contender would be happy to part with one AAA, or AA, arm for him. How good that arm is would determine the rest of the package. Maybe you can get another high level bat, or maybe its a handful of lower level, "lottery ticket" type guys. But, when it comes to Berrios specifically, I think his value is just as high as any other year.

The rest of the Twins' pieces are a different story and they're probably looking to bring back a bunch of low level fliers for them. But that's still the move to make in a lost season. Why not take on half a dozen toolsy, but raw, low A guys for players that won't be with the team next year anyways? Just adds to the chance of having another wave of prospects in 5 years. The Rays seem to do pretty well with constantly stocking their system with great athletes and arms by never losing a ML player for nothing.

While I don't disagree with you when you have statements from the Mets in MLB Trade Rumors that the Twins asking price for Berrios is "Sky High"  I am not sure that bodes well for moving him.  The Mets have been willing to deal in the past most notably for Stroman.  So while I agree Berrios is in demand and could be traded I get the feeling the Twins might want more than teams are willing to pay in this particular market at this particular time.  Also the team that signs him if they give up a big haul has to be able to extend him as well.  As Tom noted not many teams are going to be able to do that and if the Met's can't handle the ask there are even fewer teams that will be able to get a deal done.  Personally I think the odds are lower than I thought for Berrios to get moved.

All very reasonable Tom.  The one area where I might disagree is that keeping Berrios in 2022 is the best way for them to keep their jobs.  If they keep Berrios for 2022, they will have to ask for a considerable increase in payroll and/or trade away a significant portion of our prospects if we are to build an actual contender.  (not challenge to win the division but contend for a deep run).

Picture a meeting where this is discussed because these various scenarios have been fully vetted at this point.  If not, they are incompetent and the Pohlad’s are asleep at the wheel.  I would bet on the former.

1. If you spend on the significant assets, you won’t have any money left to resign Berrios or Buxton unless you get someone to take Donaldson’s full contract.  (good luck with that)  For example, one of the top SS and the level SP we need would be in excess of $50M probably closer $55M.  Of course, the needs don’t stop there.  In other words, it’s an all-in for 2022 approach with a mountain of question marks.  Presenting such a plan is the best way to lose your GM/PBO job.
2. If you move forward with a plan to sign them with a plan to sign them once they hit free agency, you can’t sign the FAs you would need in 2022 because they will require multi-year commitments.  The 2023 payroll can’t possibly support resigning Berrios/Buxton/Rodgers. 
3. They will not lose their jobs If they present the Pohlad’s with a plan to compete in 2023 under the following assumptions.
   1. They can get a good return for Berrios/Rodgers and maybe Buxton.  All-in for 2022 would require foregoing this influx of talent.  This is a core assumption.  The entire plan would need reconsideration if the return is not available.
   2. Their best opportunity to build a contender is to take the next year and a half to audition and establish pitchers at the ML level.
   3. Move Donaldson for whatever is the best offer.  Pay his entire 2021 salary is necessary but get his 2023 salary off the books.  Insert Miranda or another prospect by sometime early next year and give them all of 2022 to get established.  That way the position can be addressed in the off-season if necessary.
   4. Taking this path SHOULD return assets that can make a major contribution by 2023-24 for several years.
   5. With Donaldson / Sano of the books, we would have payroll flexibility in 2023 unlike anything we have had in many years.

I don’t believe Berrios will be moved at the deadline unless there is a significant overpay by some team. I think he will be traded this winter and then only if he rejects whatever best and final offer the Twins put out for him. I don’t think  LaVelle Neal necessarily has  “inside information“, but his column in the Strib says Berrios is looking for five years, $100 to $125 million. Frankly, in today’s MLB he is worth that and the Twins should pay it. That may mean the team trades Donaldson to free up payroll space. I’m all for trading Donaldson even if the return is mediocre IF the money is  immediately used to sign Berrios.

The rest of the expiring contracts crowd is not particularly inspiring and probably won’t generate much more than lower level prospects with the possible exception of Nelson Cruz. Even there, his market is limited because he can’t play in the field so there may  not be much there either. Still, I would trade those guys for prospects for two reasons. First, prospects are better than no return at year end. More importantly though, it would free up playing time for the younger guys particularly on the pitching side. The rest of the season should be about evaluating talent so we can fill holes in the off-season for next year. Frankly, winning and losing is secondary.

17 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

All very reasonable Tom.  The one area where I might disagree is that keeping Berrios in 2022 is the best way for them to keep their jobs.  If they keep Berrios for 2022, they will have to ask for a considerable increase in payroll and/or trade away a significant portion of our prospects if we are to build an actual contender.  (not challenge to win the division but contend for a deep run).

 

Picture a meeting where this is discussed because these various scenarios have been fully vetted at this point.  If not, they are incompetent and the Pohlad’s are asleep at the wheel.  I would bet on the former.

1. If you spend on the significant assets, you won’t have any money left to resign Berrios or Buxton unless you get someone to take Donaldson’s full contract.  (good luck with that)  For example, one of the top SS and the level SP we need would be in excess of $50M probably closer $55M.  Of course, the needs don’t stop there.  In other words, it’s an all-in for 2022 approach with a mountain of question marks.  Presenting such a plan is the best way to lose your GM/PBO job.
2. If you move forward with a plan to sign them with a plan to sign them once they hit free agency, you can’t sign the FAs you would need in 2022 because they will require multi-year commitments.  The 2023 payroll can’t possibly support resigning Berrios/Buxton/Rodgers. 
3. They will not lose their jobs If they present the Pohlad’s with a plan to compete in 2023 under the following assumptions.
   1. They can get a good return for Berrios/Rodgers and maybe Buxton.  All-in for 2022 would require foregoing this influx of talent.  This is a core assumption.  The entire plan would need reconsideration if the return is not available.
   2. Their best opportunity to build a contender is to take the next year and a half to audition and establish pitchers at the ML level.
   3. Move Donaldson for whatever is the best offer.  Pay his entire 2021 salary is necessary but get his 2023 salary off the books.  Insert Miranda or another prospect by sometime early next year and give them all of 2022 to get established.  That way the position can be addressed in the off-season if necessary.
   4. Taking this path SHOULD return assets that can make a major contribution by 2023-24 for several years.
   5. With Donaldson / Sano of the books, we would have payroll flexibility in 2023 unlike anything we have had in many years.

I don't disagree with you about trading especially if the return is good.  I just don't think they are going to do it.  Call me crazy but I still think the FO thinks their young high Minors pitching is going to come through for them next year and they are going to build a bridge to try and make that happen.  If Maeda bounces back and you Keep Berrios you have a decent top of the rotation.  If Ober stabilizes the back end then they have three pitchers going into next year.  Maybe Winder works his way to MLB this year as well and becomes a possibility and they still have Duran, Balazovich, Sands and Canterino in the wings.  Not to mention Dobnak, Jax and Smeltzer who could be 5th starter depth.  They would just need two FA pitchers and they would be on their way to transitioning to a younger staff.  Granted they still might not be good enough in 2022 but should be better.  I think the FO believes in what they have built and trading Berrios is too risky for them but we will see.   Also Berrios appears to be a pitcher not affected by sticky stuff so I hope they do find a way to extend him.

8 minutes ago, Dman said:

I don't disagree with you about trading especially if the return is good.  I just don't think they are going to do it.  Call me crazy but I still think the FO thinks their young high Minors pitching is going to come through for them next year and they are going to build a bridge to try and make that happen.  If Maeda bounces back and you Keep Berrios you have a decent top of the rotation.  If Ober stabilizes the back end then they have three pitchers going into next year.  Maybe Winder works his way to MLB this year as well and becomes a possibility and they still have Duran, Balazovich, Sands and Canterino in the wings.  Not to mention Dobnak, Jax and Smeltzer who could be 5th starter depth.  They would just need two FA pitchers and they would be on their way to transitioning to a younger staff.  Granted they still might not be good enough in 2022 but should be better.  I think the FO believes in what they have built and trading Berrios is too risky for them but we will see.   Also Berrios appears to be a pitcher not affected by sticky stuff so I hope they do find a way to extend him.

You read my mind.  After, I listed what are basically assumptions, I was going to add the FO could take another direction if they assume they can establish two MLB pitchers this year.  That's what I was thinking at the start of this year before we had so many injuries.  At this point, I was thinking in terms of the preserving their jobs as well as the path most likely to result in success.  Pitchers often take time to become effective at the ML level so that's a relatively high risk plan. 

If they pass on a good return and don't have a great 2022, that's when Falvey and Levine's job would be in question if I were the Pohlads.  If Berrios simply prefers to be elsewhere you are left with nothing.  Yes, you could massively overpay and "get him at any cost" but that's bad management and leads to lost jobs.  Keep in mind, the keep them plan makes no sense unless you trade away key future assets and/or are willing to increase payroll to the point it hurts because this team needs help.  So, you have to present a plan to increase spending after two horrible years financially and risk the future.  The other plan has financial relief for 2022 and not have what would be significant exposure in 2023.

In addition, they would have lot assets that COULD have impacted our success for several years.  You can spend the money you would have spent on Berrios elsewhere.  Perhaps even more effectively and you have passed up adding significant assets even if you use them to trade for a SP.  I think they do it of the return is good which does not mean blown away.  However, that's just my opinion.  We are going to see in a few weeks although we will never really know what they were offered.

It's logical to assume the Twins will only be able to acquire futures for the likes of Cruz, Pineda, or Happ. However, any trade package for someone like Jose Berrios needs to cross a certain bar. Namely, the Twins have every right to expect a package containing a replacement pitching prospect who is near MLB ready. If Berrios suitors fail to cross that bar, then he should absolutely not be moved. 

I don't think targeting the lower level prospects is a bad thing for the Twins situation.  It will certainly help with the 40-man crunch and ability to protect a guy like Palacios or Enlow.  The return for Berrios, Buxton or Rogers should include a higher level prospect, but lottery tickets for the rest aren't bad hauls.

The Trade Deadline reality is that a team is going to TRADE for SOMEONE who will help them get to the post-season, period. Otherwise, it just becomes a salary dump, and baseball eliminated the ability to pull players back during the August waiver-wire blues. Now, when a player is put on waivers, they are gone, gone, gone.

Can SImmons improve any team with his defense. Same with Donaldson. The bats may not seem worth the investment, unless a team figures (for Donaldson) that he will rebound in a spectacvular fashion and become a tradechip.

Or injury means you have a need. But can you find better than what the Twins have to offer.

Pineda, if he can pitch well his next two outings, may be a gem for the Twins. Robles also needs to shine.

The evils of trading for Berrios is that the team DOES need to be in a position to offer a contract to resign the guy, or they are renting the player, albeit for this AND next season. A pitcher of the caliber of the current Berrios will always entice a contender down to the wire. The only advantage the Twins have trading in the off-season is that a team can get a better idea of what it may take to sign Jose. But the Twins may be desperate and it may be Johan Santana 2.0.

Rogers is valuable. Might be able to get a return like the Twins did from the Astros. Duran and Celestino were a good vibe. Maybe both will work out and make us forget that we traded a Rule 5 pickup.

I'm not sure Happ would fit in anywhere. Especially on a contending club.

So, again, the hard reality is that teams don't want players someone wants to throwout there. They want players that will actually help them. And the Twins, sadly, have a few players that they can just outright say "goodbye" to and other teams MAY be happy to pick them up for a pro-rated part of their salary, after they become free agents, rather than pick up ALL the remaining salary. But I sadly see Happ, Simmons, Colombe going the way of Shoemaker, without pitching for the Saints (which works for Shoemaker at the moment...he ahs housing in town, needs a team to showcase himself...so why not.)

The asking price for Berrios should be sky high. It should take an overpay. The same is true for Rogers and Buxton.

Someone touched on this earlier, the key to Berrios is if he wants to stay a Twin. If not, Twins will never be able to sign him and they need to get as much for him as possible before he just walks away in free agency. 

Berrios is worth a "sky high" return. In any case, if the Twins are actually serious about competing in the future, Berrios would be a really, really good player to lock down. Of course, we don't know if Berrios is interested in staying here. If it's true and Berrios is seeking a 5 year 100MM-125MM contract as eluded to above, he's worth it. If the Twins aren't willing to pay it (I suspect they're not), then they really should trade him and take what they can get.

2022's free agent pitching class looks like it has some very serious short term talent like Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw and Greinke. I'm not sure how much Verlander would command, but if the Twins front office maintains its extreme aversion to long term pitching commitments, Verlander wouldn't be too expensive and will likely be seeking a 1-2 year contract. Greinke would probably a bit more since he's not coming off TJ, but he's certainly command less in an equal health situation.

Obviously, Kershaw is going nowhere, but it felt like a disservice not to include him. Also, can I just say how fantastic it is I can't imagine Kershaw finishing his career as anything but a life long Dodgers player? The Mauers and Kershaws of the game are so rare these days. It definitely seems cool to me.

$20 to $25 million is doable though the upper end is a little dicer.  If Berrios wants ace money, he will not get it here > $ 30 a year.  Once this is determined or whether Berrios will even sign here, the path forward will be clear

I think there will always be a robust market for someone like Berríos. This year especially, with teams like the Yankees, Mets, Braves and others facing pressure to win/turn it around, there may be more desperation on the market. 

Three of the reasons the Twins did as well as they did in 2019 are gone; trade away what is left means another , or close to 100 loss season with next year being no better and the future amounting to pit-in-sky fantasy baseball pipe dream.

Can the Twins owners deal with the money lost due no one in the stands, or better yet, will they?

1 hour ago, RpR said:

Three of the reasons the Twins did as well as they did in 2019 are gone; trade away what is left means another , or close to 100 loss season with next year being no better and the future amounting to pit-in-sky fantasy baseball pipe dream.

Can the Twins owners deal with the money lost due no one in the stands, or better yet, will they?

Just curious what are the three reasons the twins went from 100 wins to the 100 losses you are projecting?  

I understand the comments about how bad the Twins could be if we trade away the vets. The real question though is what are the choices here? I think you have to start with the idea that the team as presently constructed is simply not good enough to contend for a division title, and a ways from being able to contend for a World Series title. If we assume that the goal is to get into contention hopefully sooner rather than later, what do we need to do?

I think the best and quickest path really has three elements that will negatively impact this year and maybe next year. First, we need to provide playing opportunities for the next wave of talent to see what we actually have. That means trading Pineda, Simmons, maybe Cruz, and Robles, and trading or going the DFA route with Happ, Colome, and maybe the 34 year old Theilbar. Sano and Kepler should also be available in the right deal but we shouldn't just give them away because it's possible they will rebound. We need to provide playing opportunities on an every day or close to everyday basis for Larnach and Kiriloff, and at least part time opportunities for Gordon, Jeffers, Miranda, and maybe Celestino. On the pitching side, Ober needs to stay in the rotation, and I would like to see Winder and Barnes get at least 10 starts in August and September. I would also like to see Andrew Vasquez, Ian Hamilton, and Yennier Cano getting regular work out of the Twins bullpen starting on August 1, not to be sent back down at the first sign of trouble. .

Second, we need to re-sign the unsigned part of the core of the next few years' team - Berrios, Buxton and Rogers. That may mean we have to trade Donaldson or not keep Cruz around in order to have the financial flexibility to pay the roughly $40 to $50 million a year those three are going to command on the market. I would love to do both, sign those three and retain Cruz and Donaldson, but I think that's going to be difficult for ownership to swallow. To me, signing those three is the key to being able to contend over the next 2 to 4 years. Without them, we probably need to go to a complete tear down and rebuild.

Third, we have to find at least one free agent starting pitcher over the winter that can slot in no farther down the number three in a contending rotation, or a similar guy that we can get by trading prospects other than those listed above. That's probably a $15 to $20 million a year guy.  I don't have any names to throw out there because I don't know who's going to be available this winter, but I'm thinking a pitcher with a profile similar to Lance Lynn or Dallas Kuechel as compared to a Trevor Bauer or Marcus Stroman. 

I think if we do those three things we have a chance at having a contending team in 2022 and a very good chance of a contending team in 2023. I think this also means that the 2021 team is going to be pretty bad and may only win 65 to 75 games. I can get behind that though, if there is a real plan to retool the team and make us competitive in the next year or two. I think one bad year is a small price to pay given where we are now. What I can't stomach is the idea of keeping these mediocre veterans around so that we win 75 or 80 games instead of 65 or 70 games in 2021 because all that's going to do is set the necessary retooling back another year.

3 hours ago, beckmt said:

$20 to $25 million is doable though the upper end is a little dicer.  If Berrios wants ace money, he will not get it here > $ 30 a year.  Once this is determined or whether Berrios will even sign here, the path forward will be clear

When I see numbers like 5 for $125 million, that's basically what Zach Wheeler got. Berrios is NOT as good as Zach Wheeler, not even close. I agree $20 million per year is doable, but no more. I would only go that high because the Twins are in such a poor negotiating position. They have no one else.

48 minutes ago, LewFordLives said:

When I see numbers like 5 for $125 million, that's basically what Zach Wheeler got. Berrios is NOT as good as Zach Wheeler, not even close. I agree $20 million per year is doable, but no more. I would only go that high because the Twins are in such a poor negotiating position. They have no one else.

I feel most of the posters here would not expect Berrios to sign for 5/100, so you had better trade him, if that is your take.  Hopefully the FO knows the answer and is not guessing.  Berrios is better than you think, and Twins have a horrible record at developing top pitching.  You would then need 3 - 4 out of the top end of pitching class to fill the spots.  Nice hope, but to me that is dreaming.

7 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

You read my mind.  After, I listed what are basically assumptions, I was going to add the FO could take another direction if they assume they can establish two MLB pitchers this year.  That's what I was thinking at the start of this year before we had so many injuries.  At this point, I was thinking in terms of the preserving their jobs as well as the path most likely to result in success.  Pitchers often take time to become effective at the ML level so that's a relatively high risk plan. 

If they pass on a good return and don't have a great 2022, that's when Falvey and Levine's job would be in question if I were the Pohlads.  If Berrios simply prefers to be elsewhere you are left with nothing.  Yes, you could massively overpay and "get him at any cost" but that's bad management and leads to lost jobs.  Keep in mind, the keep them plan makes no sense unless you trade away key future assets and/or are willing to increase payroll to the point it hurts because this team needs help.  So, you have to present a plan to increase spending after two horrible years financially and risk the future.  The other plan has financial relief for 2022 and not have what would be significant exposure in 2023.

In addition, they would have lot assets that COULD have impacted our success for several years.  You can spend the money you would have spent on Berrios elsewhere.  Perhaps even more effectively and you have passed up adding significant assets even if you use them to trade for a SP.  I think they do it of the return is good which does not mean blown away.  However, that's just my opinion.  We are going to see in a few weeks although we will never really know what they were offered.

I agree with your analysis and the factual evidence is compelling as well.  For me though the calculus can change given the player. Berrios has been a durable pitcher and he has pitched under a 4.00 ERA pretty much every season.  He might not be an ace but you might be replacing him with an older injury prone pitcher that won't even give you back his level of production and you would likely have to pay top dollar to get a pitcher close to Berrios level and you might have to go three or four years.  It seems less risky to just pay that money or a little more for the younger more durable player Berrios and tack on a few more years to that deal.

I get that if you Extend him and as of now that is no certainty either that you lose out on any prospects and that has to be calculated in.  If the Twins received a Top 100 player and another close to ready player with maybe a lottery ticket thrown in plus spending the 20M per year on an older starting pitching free agent they could come out ahead, but that is a dangerous plan for 2022 because after all of that you still likely need one more FA starter and there is no guarantee the prospects work out (i.e. Alex Meyer, Vance Worley).  So there is risk both ways IMO.

If there is no extending him then their hands might be tied.  He would give them help in 2022 but the draft comp pick would take too long to help the current core of players so that strategy is even more risky IMO. 

I do think that if he is willing to do 5\100 to 5\120 extension the Twins should do it.  He can bridge the gap to the half dozen high quality young arms the Twins currently have in the upper levels and if the Twins do find a pitching pipeline then they could always trade Berrios later into his contract as well.

To your point there may just be too many pitching holes to plan on getting much of anything out of the 2022 season.  In that case again your trade scenario makes more sense as long as they get pitching back.  I guess we will know more in the next three weeks.  Thanks for the fun thought exercise!