Twins, Rockies Talk Tulowitzki

OF COURSE we can't put that on Ryan.OF course not.

Because contracts were just as huge back then making everyone we could have traded for to put us over the top very expensive...

Chief, I'm going out on a limb and say, with very few exceptions, that the ones praising it supports an aggressive approach for our team too and the ones who panned it support Ryan's approach?

That's a fair point. I hope you're right.

Actually, what I really hope is the Twins get to a point where we can find out if you're right.

I'll believe it when I see it.  Like the Lock Ness monster and Sasquatch. :-)

And going for it doesn't require getting a guy with a huge contract.

Agree, but it often means trading legit prospects for rentals. I don't think the Twins should do that this year.

I would be in favor, right now today, of trading legit prospects for guys with multiple years of control and significantly less risk/money than someone like Tulo. I'm skeptical that trade is out there at the deadline.

it doesn't have to, in any way, be about just trading for rentals.  He didn't do it for players that would help us for that season and future ones either when it was during a time you are saying would be right to go for it..Or do we never do it, period, lest goodness forbid, losing a unproven prospect sets us back 4 years (like what happened to KC when they lost top prospect Myers) and we're seen as 'losing a trade'.

And when we are doing really well, it won't be time because we would be winning without said player who would put us over the top.him.  An argument can and is often made to NEVER be aggressive (because Ryan isn't aggressive) because we are too far away or we are already supposedly set where we don't need the guy.  

We have no one for shorstop in the next 4 years.  We are, miraculously, still in the hunt.  We are supposedly going to be competitive from 2016 on.  Be a nice time to have the best shortstop in baseball and a proven leader when that happens. Especially since it's always such a huge hole. Player like that won't be available next year.  

I guess my opinion won't change much regardless the results...that'd be hindsight. you can only act on the best info you have at the time.

Unless we learn there's some chronic injury that is inevitably going to debilitate him, of course. And its likely the Twins knew of it. Then I would have to change my opinion.

Exactly.  Just like the Span/Meyer trade.  Liked the thinking behind it/ Wasn't thrilled about the player targeted, but still liked the idea behind the move itself. Didn't work out, but that's about the execution, not the thought process behind it.

Tulo is a great player.  Toronto won't regret this trade. I can't believe we couldn't do better than that with some of the ideas rolling around here. Neither Sano or Bryant would have been needed.

BTW, Jeff Sullivan (who writes for Fangraphs, ESPN, etc) says if Reyes hadn't been included, the Rockies would have had to throw money in to cover some of Tulo's contract to get the prospects they got and that was the main reason why he was included.  It's a way for them to eat some contract and still get a player (who will likely be moved right away or during the offseason.).

I get confused sometimes about the idea that the only time to trade for a proven quality player, when you have a strong farm system, is when you are in playoff contention.  Just because the Royals didn't make the playoffs the very first season they traded for Shields and Davis doesn't mean it was the wrong time to do it.  They won 14 more games the first season.  They were in the playoff hunt most of the season. There is value in that, from a team perspective and a fan interest perspective, to get back over .500 for the first time in a decade.

And when I argued for the trade, I didn't expect the Royals to throw Davis back in the rotation, but rather leave him in the pen where he excelled for TB.  That decision alone MIGHT have cost them a playoff spot. Maybe.

Still, winning an additional 14 games, there's value in that, and doesn't prove it was that it was the wrong time to make the trade.  Just like I don't think a team has to be a playoff contender to trade for the best shortstop in baseball who will also be around when we're told the team will be contenders.

I think Terry Ryan, and some of the posters here tend to have "Loss Aversion Bias":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

This is where people prefer to avoid losses rather than attempt to make a gain. Ryan is pretty risk-adverse, and pulling the trigger on a deal for Tulowitzki was frought with potential losses. It's pretty easy to just focus on the potential downside and not consider the potential benefit. 

Water under the bridge at this point, but for me, if you have a chance to acquire one of the top players at his position without giving up one of your cornerstone building blocks, I'd do it every time. I prefer to look at what may be gained rather than what I'm losing. I'm weird that way, I guess.

There's value in competing but the fan interest angle doesn't fly with me. KC drew the same number of fans in 2013 as 2012.

 

Fans come to see playoff teams or something resembling a playoff team, yes... But they don't come in droves to see a team finish six games out of the playoff picture just because that team was no longer awful.

 

There are many reasons to be in favor of KC's approach but that isn't one of them.

except we've seen time and time again that the team doesn't see the effects until the next season.  As fans are buying season tickets and thinking all offseason, 'hey we won 86 games last year, we may really be serious contenders next year.'

and there is fan interest past attendance too.

And, BTW, perhaps if they don't trade for Shields and Davis, they don't win 14 more games in 2013 and they are still sitting there waiting for 'the right time' to improve their ballclub.