This Twins Front Office Doesn’t Have An Inspiring Trade Deadline Track Record

Will agree with the above comment, hurt my eyes reading this, Tom.

Most of the loss comes from trading Pressley and Lynn.  Just don't understand how Lynn could be so good since leaving Target Field after being worthless while here?

And on the flip side, so much of what they received still isn't ready to provide value.  Duran, Celestino, Alcala, De La Trinidad all could return enough value to offset the difference.  Will they?  Who knows, probably not.

But what your report does point out is that when trading guys maybe they should try to get something back that can contribute value a hell of a lot sooner than three, four years in the future.  Heck these trades were three and four years ago and we are still waiting for the return.  Gonna have to be different this month if they want to compete in 2022 and fill any seats with paying customers, or even 2023.  

I’m not sure this is the best method to answer the question of Falvine’s deadline track record. Of course the players traded away will accumulate more WAR when you’re swapping major leaguers for minor leaguers—players accumulating WAR for players not yet accumulating WAR. At this point I think all we can do is evaluate the process and wait on the final results. 

To me it is kind of Minnesota Meh.  When the Twins had good players to trade it seems like they got decent returns.  Most lottery tickets are not going to work out so no real surprises there.

Trades are tricky things to evaluate though.  One team is usually trading for a short term burst in talent while the other is willing to wait long term for young unproven talent to work out.  The team trading for short term always leaves themselves open to losing big time in a trade.  As they are likely only getting a proven player for a short period of time and the other team is getting prospects that if they make it can accumulate 6 years of WAR.  I guess my point is the team trading for short term talent the year they really need it is willing to lose the future value of the trade because they need help now.  They don't care if it looks like they got fleeced in the future because they were playing to win now.  

With that in mind you can evaluate how trades worked out for both teams but you have to keep in mind the team trading for MLB talent was always willing to lose the trade.  They had to give up enough future value to make it worthwhile for the other team to trade.  

The Twins still have a fair bit of future value left on the table and Duran alone could tip the scales or he could be injured and never make it such is the nature of risk in baseball.  Still he is rated the Twins 3rd best prospect so hard to fault the FO for making a bad trade even if he never makes it, he had front of the rotation potential but risk is risk.  Sometimes things work out sometimes they don't.

While I wouldn't say this FO has fleeced anyone I don't think they have been fleeced either.

I have issues with the evaluation of straight war comparisons to determine how a team did in trade.  Yes, you can use it to say how the players performed, but to decide if a trade was good or bad needs much more than just WAR.  

Specifically, context should be looked at.  If you are trading away a player on end of deal like Lynn on a losing team, who cares what the WAR was from them, because you were not winning with them.  Also, unless you know of what may have been turned down it may have been the best trade available.  Maybe at the time no trades would have been good and you could have kept them to just walk as a FA.  I say at least try the trade. 

Also, as you mentioned if you are dealing from depth you need to compare the player dealt to the players kept.  For example, we trade away a corner OF.  We have several that rank above them and perform to all-star level, even if the one traded away performs at a high level if the players kept perform better, then even if the player brought back has lower WAR we still may have made a good deal. 

Once again, I know I will be a minority of one here, but I don't care even a little bit about any of the analytics that computers spit out saying who did what and who the computer says got the better end of the deal.  When we trade Cruz, which I believe we will, it won't matter to me what grade the prospects we get back have from the computer; I will care about the presence in the clubhouse and the dugout that is now gone.  If it were to turn out the Donaldson was a distraction in the same areas, with his antics, I wouldn't care how many home runs he hit in losing battles.  And so on.  

I care about how a team comes together and plays together, and if the FO trades away key pieces of that team, regardless of the record, the team is not the same.  Especially when the team sees the return from said trades; players that will never see the roster until current players are long gone.  A friend and teammate for a minor league player they will probably never meet.  One of the reasons I have harped my entire life on getting current talent for current talent.  In todays game, where social media helps players stay in touch and get to know each other, players acquired in trades fit in much faster than ever before and help reduce the sting of losing teammates.  Calling up AAA guys just isn't the same a lot of the time.

Use trades to fill holes, not fill your farm teams; that is what the draft is for.  If you can't get return for outgo, walk away.

Agreed that this is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

To compare numbers that may be a bit more relatable, on Baseballtradevalues.com,

Escobar is currently worth $4million, Duran is worth $11.2m, Maciel is worth $4.9m, and De la Trinidad is not ranked.

I know these numbers aren't that accurate, and Escobar's value today isn't as high as it was in 2018, but I still think the Twins got GREAT value on this trade.

Lots of good points above.  Whenever you trade a mlb player at the deadline because the team is out of contention, you "could" get a middling mlb or AAA ballplayer back, or a prospect with upside.  It's a gamble, but the upside prospect is probably worth the risk when they pan out, rather than a known quantity with limited ability to help the big league club.  Plus, (again as pointed out) it takes some time for these long-shot, low-level, crap-shoot prospects to realize their ultimate value - whether zero or something substantial.

And could you please (for those of us who don't know the prospects by face or uniform number), add a parenthetical with the name of the person pictured whenever you use a photo?  Thanks.

49 minutes ago, SteelDodo said:

Agreed that this is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

To compare numbers that may be a bit more relatable, on Baseballtradevalues.com,

Escobar is currently worth $4million, Duran is worth $11.2m, Maciel is worth $4.9m, and De la Trinidad is not ranked.

I know these numbers aren't that accurate, and Escobar's value today isn't as high as it was in 2018, but I still think the Twins got GREAT value on this trade.

My guess is that for better or worse, this is probably closer to how most front offices think these days. 

2 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

...It would also be interesting to see what the conversation around trading Sano was in 2018...

The Twins tried to trade Sano as a headliner for Chris Archer. The Rays said no way. Sano had many off field issues, he was missing a lot of time due to injuries, there were concerns about his conditioning and his bat was bad in 2018. I strongly suspect the league didn't value Sano as highly as Twins fans.

I'd simply argue the Twins have never been a team to make a splash at the trade deadline. Actually, I don't think MLB fans generally see a lot of big moves in any given year despite all the speculation.

The difficult situation right now is the Twins don't have much of an identity after this year and other division rivals are clearly already better teams with bigger budgets. The current front office has, once again, squandered opportunities to "put the boot on the throat" when they were obvious favories.

Here’s what I posted on Twitter yesterday and it’s relevant to the FO decision making.

Very interesting comments.  I will put my 2 cents worth in.  Twins tend to trade expiring contracts for prospects that MAY be helpful 3 or 4   years down the line, analytical b.s. not withstanding.  We need better players obviously.  But we also need better coaches and manager that can put the computer down and manage.  

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

this article lacks a lot of context and using WAR to determine results here isn't a useful exercise in my opinion.

You said a lot in this one sentence.  It's hard to "lose" in a trade when trading a rental in a lost season. (context)  If you trade away a good player with multiple years of control, you need to get something back.  If you trade average players that are rentals, you are going to get low probability players.  Mike, is right, I recall the ridicule when Ynoa was traded for anyone who had a problem with them trading a way such a player.   Now we are going to ridicule the FO because of such trades when the players are just about to reach the ML level. 

What's worse is that these trades have significant potential to work out very much in our favor so drawing a conclusion at this point is self-indulgent.  And, using WAR to evaluate trading away a current asset looks like a very bias way of trying to assert something that is yet to be determined.  It would not be offensive if it was not used to criticize and assert incompetence.  It's bad form to provide obviously flawed analysis while criticizing others.  

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

He was a solid get out of the DR that year for sure. Ranked in the 20th or so area for international signings that year. Not bad at all. But there's a ton of arms in the low levels that throw as hard as him. He was a lottery ticket and nothing more. It turned out well and kudos should be given to Atlanta for getting him to the bigs and having him perform well this year. No doubt about it. But it wasn't a bad trade at the time for the Twins. It made sense to give up a rookie ball pitcher lottery ticket for a Major leaguer. It's basically always a smart move to do that. I think we'd agree on that.

And, I know you probably won't be a big fan of these numbers in general, but I'd pump my brakes on Ynoa. He's got a great WHIP and ERA this year for sure. Not taking anything away from him. But when he gets hit he gets smashed. 12th percentile for Avg Exit Velocity. 5th percentile for Hard Hit%. 24th for xERA. 20th for xBA. 14th for xSlg. 12th for Barrel%. Now he's getting results and I'm certainly not predicting he falls apart or taking anything away from what he's done this year, but he's walking a real tight rope with the way he gives up loud contact. For reference Jorge Alcala is 76th, 52nd, 34th, 46th, 15th, and 20th in those same categories. Obviously a difference between starter and reliever, but Ynoa's no certain thing even right now.

My point on this article is there's a lot of context missing in Tom's breakdown. Trading expiring deal veterans on bad teams typically don't lead to big time returns. Sometimes you crush one like Tatis Jr for James Shields. Sometimes you get a Ynoa for Garcia deal. But those are few and far between. It's why people are proponents of trading prospects for proven major league talent. There is nothing from these previous deals that I would say lends itself to any sort of indicator on how this FO could do with trading someone like Berrios. You could draw upon the Pressly deal when considering a Rogers deal, but that's about the only comparison you can make and this article lacks a lot of context and using WAR to determine results here isn't a useful exercise in my opinion.

But I would take production over the analytical numbers you posted.  

6 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

For sure. I even said that in the post. Not taking away anything from what he's doing and not predicting a collapse. But those numbers are certainly a red flag. At the end of the day his job is to stop the other team from scoring. He's doing that well now. But there's some pretty big signs that it may not be sustainable. I wish the kid nothing but the best and that trade is certainly not a gold star moment for the FO. And I'm well aware that a large segment of the baseball fan population aren't fans of statcast data, advanced stats, analytics, what-have-you, but its available data that gives a look into how he's performing that people can do with what they will. I omitted his 74th percentile K%, 81st BB%, 71st Whiff%, and 78th Chase Rate that explain why he's able to survive giving up hard contact. The job of front offices and scouts and coaches is to determine if he can maintain those good rates and/or improve the bad ones. 

I'd certainly rather have Ynoa in a Twins uniform right now than having traded him for 1 Garcia start, but that's hindsight and I wasn't overly upset with the trade at the time.

Well said, I enjoy reading your input for sure.