The Top 20 Minnesota Twins Assets of 2019: Part 1 (16-20)

Would you agree, that in spite of what Cron or Cave would fetch in a trade, they are more valuable to the Twins this season than Gordon is likely to be?

Jay made a great post on the first page, I'd suggest Nick take it under consideration as this series continues.

Mlb.com has him 4th, one spot behind Graterol, who they have ranked #70.

I'll wager that he makes at least one top 100 list this spring, and is mentioned as just missing on at least one more.

So going back to the scenario Nick posed...no one in their right mind would refuse Gordon for Cave or Cron. You'd make that swap in a heartbeat and sign Adam Jones. Or some other 4th outfielder. Or deal for Santana.

And you'd come out way ahead. If the FO refused a Gordon-esque prospect for Cron or CaveI'd want them immediately fired.

Jay made a great post on the first page, I'd suggest Nick take it under consideration as this series continues.

It would make for a less interesting place if everyone operated under the same definitions.

I do hope that Nick can extract from these various comments a way to further refine his description of how he values assets. I have asked similar of Seth when he provides his prospect rankings. Prospect A is ranked higher than Prospect B because he is... uh, more... um...what?

One way to arrive at a sharp definition is to imagine a team liquidating its assets by auction. The highest bidder would scoop up Player B for $5M, Player A would fetch $20M, etc. While we amateurs would be purely guessing at these values, even a GM would be unwilling to sign his name to his estimates - no one can know for sure. But at least it would be something pretty well defined, and would allow for a ranked list. But... since teams don't liquidate, and haven't done so for more than a century, would this neat and tidy definition correspond to any kind of actual reality? I have my doubts.

Also, highest bid for each player, would not necessarily correspond to any given bidder's rankings of all the players. There are some paradoxes contained even in thought experiments (which here boil down to game theory), to say nothing of real-world complexities.

It's hard. I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing Nick too earnestly. JMO.

But Javier would have significant trade value if he were healthy, despite not being able to contribute currently. The equation seem to be current value to the Twins PLUS value in a trade. I think Nick is implying that Javier's value as a tradeable asset is greater than Cron's current value to the Twins. And Gordon's value as a tradeable asset and currently does not eclipse Cron's current value to the Twins.

 

What Gordon could fetch in a trade is absolutely better than Cron. That should not be a disputed claim. Unless you think Gordon is worth less than it took to acquire Cron.

Do you think Gordon's value is beneath nothing?

It would make for a less interesting place if everyone operated under the same definitions.

 

I do hope that Nick can extract from these various comments a way to further refine his description of how he values assets. I have asked similar of Seth when he provides his prospect rankings. Prospect A is ranked higher than Prospect B because he is...

 

It's hard. I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing this too diligently.

Though I'd have an easier time not pressing if the responses stopped becoming more vexing each time.

We went from a loose, easy enough explanation to trying to argue in a hypothetical whether you'd take Gordon (a fringe topp 100 prospect) or a dude who just got waived. And it was implied that the waiver claim is the right answer. Now my brain hurts trying to wrap around that.

You are horseshoeing the metric as trade value only or current value to the Twins only; it's a combination of the two. You're being a bit obtuse, my friend.

 

Please go read Nick's hypothetical again and save your obtuse accusations.

I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing this too diligently.

Now my brain hurts trying to wrap around that.

I see we are on the same page in this.

...You're being a bit obtuse, my friend.  

...and save your obtuse accusations.

Mod note: Agreed, characterizing another poster rarely ends well.

When you talk about what a "Gorden-esque prospect" would net in a trade, in some vacuum, you're completely missing the point of this exercise. That's all very theoretical. I'm dealing with the facts at hand, which are these

 

Holy monkey balls Nick. You introduced a theoretical in post 56. Could you go back and read that again? Maybe, just maybe, you can see how that wasn’t a productive way to illustrate your point.

I’ll let it drop here, but it’s really unfair to Frame your stance as cold hard facts and mine as hypothetical after you laid out that scenario. And it’s that scenario that lead to this point.

I had/have accepted that. Then a hypothetical was posed that made the matter more confusing. Subsequent explanations to me and Brooks have only furthered confusion. That hypothetical, and the dubious logic behind it, are to blame.

But I'm done with it, Ashbury is right, clarity here is a futile endeavor beyond what has been said.