Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • The Twins Face a Deceivingly Complicated Decision at the Trade Deadline


    Nick Nelson

    This front office has an interesting history with the trade deadline – starting with their controversial first go at it in 2017 when they flip-flopped from buyers to sellers in about a week's time, stirring up some angst in the home clubhouse.

    The 2022 trade deadline has a chance to be this regime's most pivotal and pressure-packed yet. How much are the Twins willing to push – and sacrifice – in order to supplement a flawed, fading first-place team?

    Twins Video

    Not so long ago, it appeared as though the Twins might be able to get by with a couple of bullpen pickups at the trade deadline. Not that doing so was going to make them World Series favorites or anything, but when the offense was clicking and supported by a consistently solid rotation? The front office might have believed – or at least publicly advanced – that a few relief upgrades would sufficiently help them secure the division and present a credible postseason threat.

    Much has changed in a few weeks' time.

    With the rotation nosediving into the break, and their lineup now missing a key piece in Ryan Jeffers, the Twins have seen their list of needs grow as the deadline approaches. At this point, to position themselves as true contenders, it feels like they need to add a frontline starter for sure, and they could really use a catcher. Meanwhile those pesky bullpen needs have not gone away. Far from it.

    That makes for a hefty shopping list. To fulfill all of these needs at high-demand positions in a seller's market will be very costly. Facing this harsh reality, the front office is going to have to ask itself: 

    Is it worth it?

    Acquiring the kind of impact talent needed to put this team in a strong position will mean making painful sacrifices. If they really want to push, the Twins will need to part with a quantity of high-caliber prospect talent and maybe even established young players like José Miranda, Trevor Larnach, or Alex Kirilloff. 

    There's also a strong case to be made that big, splashy deadline moves aren't as impactful as many perceive – not to mention the frequency of costly backfires. (Imagine if the Twins traded Byron Buxton for Noah Syndergaard at the 2019 deadline.) Atlanta's 2021 exemplifies how a more conservative, low-wattage approach to addressing various needs can work. 

    Of course, such thinking won't do much to satiate fans who are hungry for decisive and definitive action. And maybe that's the right attitude. Even if Derek Falvey and Thad Levine always seemed to be setting their gaze more on 2023 and beyond with the latest offseason strategy, they can't take for granted where they're at right now.

    They can't take for granted they'll have Buxton and Luis Arraez both healthy and playing at an All-Star level next year. They can't take for granted they'll have anything approximating the force that is Carlos Correa on their roster. 

    They can't take for granted they'll be in first place at the break, with a chance to act as a buyer and aspiring champ, because we saw just last year how the best laid plans can go awry.

    Logical as they are, this front office understands that once you get to the playoffs, anything can happen. (Yes, even for the Twins.) They know that these opportunities don't present themselves every year. And they didn't throw $35 million at Correa for no reason. 

    All of which leads me to believe the Twins will assuredly be active at the trade deadline. They are going to make multiple moves. As to how bold and audacious those additions will be? That's the big question, and we'll find out soon enough. 

    With the deadline now less than two weeks away, we'll be covering every rumor worth sharing here at Twins Daily. And starting today, we're rolling out special trade deadline preview content for those who contribute to the caretaker fund at any tier. Each of the next six weekdays we'll be sending out "Division Dossiers" with breakdowns of buyers and sellers, as well as trade targets who might appeal to the Twins from each team. This is the top-secret intel you need to be ready for anything during Deadline SZN.

    Check out a preview snippet below, and if you haven't already, sign up as a caretaker now to get the full dossier plus five more in the week ahead.

    TDprimerpreview.JPG

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

    I want them to buy, but I don't think being in 1st place makes them a contender. 

     

    Sure it does.

    Being in first place makes you a contender by definition.

    Only subjective extenuation can move a first place team to non-contender status and it can only take place in someone's head. 

    In order to do that in your head, you have to completely ignore that the team is factually in first place. ?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

    I don't necessarily distinguish the pipeline to be all Twins developed alone. Part of the pipeline for me also includes what other prospects from other teams we acquire, no matter how close to MLB ready they are, and continue with their development. These 'outside' pitchers are still feeding the pipeline, imo. I get what you're saying with Ryan, though, but, if the Twins had done better last year, and injuries to both Maeda and Dobnak hadn't been a part of that, along with the trade of Berríos (which wouldn't have happened if we had done better), doubtful Ryan would have gotten as much exposure last year as he did. So, in that regard, I do still consider him part of the pipeline.

    My argument is that bringing in a guy who almost immediately joins your big league staff isn't a sustainable "pipeline" model. They're 2 very different things to me. The pipeline we all talk about is being able to take non-MLB ready players, typically at AA or below, and turn them into MLB ready players. That's the sustainable model we all want. Trading Hall of Fame DHs for already MLB ready pitchers is not a pipeline model, and not what Cleveland, the Rays, the Dodgers, or whoever people want to point to as enviable pitching situations do. So the FO deserves credit for acquiring Ryan, but if their plan is to continually trade rental bats at the deadline for MLB ready arms I think they're in trouble.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

    Sure it does.

    Being in first place makes you a contender by definition.

    Only subjective extenuation can move a first place team to non-contender status and it can only take place in someone's head. 

    In order to do that in your head, you have to completely ignore that the team is factually in first place. ?

    I don't care about contending for the division though. I only care about winning the World Series. And this club lost the benefit of that 'chip-chair-and-a-chance' perspective a decade ago. From my view, they're only a contender when they roll into the playoffs as one of the top favorites. 

    I don't think that's been the case for this franchise since the '06 team.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, 071063 said:

    To me, this is extremely flawed logic.  I don't believe the Twins front office thought they would compete for a divisional title this year and they have a plan in place to compete next year or the year after.  In my eyes, you stick to the plan you have in place.  You do NOT sacrifice the future on a year when your division stinks and you happen to be in first place at the AS break.  Stick to the plan.

    I would actually advocate the other way.  I feel the Twins should think about being sellers.  We don't have a of pieces that are saleable, except Correa.  If some team feels they are a SS away from a championship and want to mortgage their future for CC, I say go for it! Reaps the rewards!  Sell off pieces that won't be back anyway or won't be there we we are ready to compete, i.e. Archer, Bundy, Sanchez, Smith, possibly Urshela, etc.  You absolutely hold onto Arraez, Larnach, Kiriloff, Ryan, and all of the young players you have developed.

    I know my opinion will not be popular.  But I don't just want to make the playoffs one year, get obliterated but the Yankees or Astros in the first round and then start all over.  Have a plan, build the system and execute the plan!

    I'm as capable of flawed logic as the next guy but thinking that ANY front office (not just the Twins) is going to be able to explain to ownership, the press, fans and the CLUBHOUSE that despite being in first place at the All-Star Break, we don't believe this team is good enough and therefore selling. That is flawed logic that exceeds by leaps and bounds my "extremely flawed logic" ?

    As a front office it is flawed logic to stick to a plan and not allow for necessary adjustments based on ever changing information. It is flawed logic by any front office to assume that any plan is immune to injuries, extended slumps or take into any consideration that the other teams have front offices as well. 

    Buyers Buy

    Seller Sell

    First place makes you a buyer. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

    I don't care about contending for the division though. I only care about winning the World Series. And this club lost the benefit of that 'chip-chair-and-a-chance' perspective a decade ago. From my view, they're only a contender when they roll into the playoffs as one of the top favorites. 

    I don't think that's been the case for this franchise since the '06 team.

    How often does the favorite win the World Series? 

    Do teams have the same set of conditions (IE The Same Rosters) from one year to the next? Is there performance variance from year to year, week to week, game to game with the players that make up every roster? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

    Okay, I'll imagine the Twins won the World Series in 2019 with Noah Syndergaard, but lost Byron Buxton in the process. I'll take that. every. single. time.

    Well that wouldn't have happened because:

    1: Syndergaard was terrible down the stretch (6.69 ERA in his last 7 starts) likely because his elbow wasn't quite right (had TJ surgery at the beginning of 2020).

    2: One pitcher wasn't going to be the difference between getting decisively swept in the ALDS and winning the World Series.

    Like, we don't have to hypothesize here, we have actual evidence. If the Twins had made that trade they'd now be without Buxton and without Syndergaard, and with nothing of substance to show for it. Maybe they win a single game in the first round of the playoffs. You'd take that?

    This is my struggle with these "go all-in at the deadline" conversations. There's such a tendency to fantasize about some grand exaggerated impact, while completely downplaying the repeatedly proven risks and downsides.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

    So Ryan, who was a rookie didn't count? This idea that they don't have a pipeline is ridiculous. Ryan, ober, smeltzer, winder, and a couple rookie RPs isn't enough to add in one year? I like chief, but expecting more than that is ridiculous. 

    On topic, there is no guarantee next year is this good, how many years should they put off adding players while in first? They likely won't have CC, and Buxton had played way more games than previous years. 

    Exactly how do the naysayers think this team is better next, and NY, Tor, Houston, et. al. are worse?

    I agree with paragraphs 2 and 3.

    As for the pipeline, you have one semi-established starter (Ryan, who I'll give you although he wasn't part of any pipeline discussion over the winter), one sure thing reliever (Duran), and one useful pen piece (Jax).

    Smeltzer doesn't belong in this conversation. Ober...maybe. 

    But here we are in the middle of a contending year and we can't even find an intriguing reliever in said "pipeline."

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    very interesting discussion for sure. There have always been two schools: one says if you are winning, try to win. The other says always look to the future--even if the future never arrives and never be satisfied.

    In pro sports, winning is always more important and more fun than losing. Making post season is always more exciting for fans than saying, well we have a 5 year plan (that might never work). People buy tickets NOW, to watch the team NOW. So if you have a shot, you take it. Gretzky always said 100% of the shots you never take aren't goals. You don't miss out on getting to the dance just because the other participants are better. There can only be one world series winner...that means everyone else didn't win, but they competed.

    I am and have been leery for years about these '5 year plans'.. which to me often mean an excuse in case they don't work.

    Bird in the hand. It may only be a sparrow, but would Twins fans trade places with the Nationals, or Royals, or A's? How much fun were the games after the ASG last year for Twins fans? They were meaningless.

    I absolutely hate what has happened to pitching in baseball. suddenly before our eyes, the starting pitcher has become obsolete. For over a century this was never a problem, Why now can a starter not go more than 4 innings. Why are pitchers removed from games where they are pitching no-hitters? That folks...NEVER happened in years past. So what we have is a gassed, worn out bullpen, along with starters who just can't do their jobs. Twins need pitching, ANY kind of pitching. They need someone who can shut the game down in the 9th. (they have no one) They need starters who know when handed the ball that they will be out there 6 or 7 innings, minimally.

    Whatever they can do in the next couple weeks to keep the team competitive will be good. No point in saying 'wait till next year' when this  year is still on the table, right?

    In my short wish list I would like to see Sano traded (or released...there is no room for him); I want Correa and Buxton to play like superstars again. (they haven't) I'd like to Arraez win the batting title. I'd like to see Polo and Kepler have better 2nd halves. And I want the Twins to compete with Cleveland and Chicago right to the end.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    What great controllable pitcher is realistically traded?

    There are some options I'd accept as 'controllable' that will be around in 2023. That's not optimal, but acceptable to me assuming I can stomach the cost. And I feel like I can stomach a pretty decent cost at this point.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

    How often does the favorite win the World Series? 

    Do teams have the same set of conditions (IE The Same Rosters) from one year to the next? Is there performance variance from year to year, week to week, game to game with the players that make up every roster? 

    Seems to me Atlanta was the first team that wouldn't have been considered one of the top four or so teams to win it all in about two decades.

    I think the only condition would be not going into your first round match up as the underdog. Every. Single. Year. They will be the underdog this year regardless of which AL East team they are matched up with.

    Though I suppose it will be easier to name the actual contenders now that we have two first round byes in each league. When the Twins snag a free pass into the second round, they're probably a contender. And considering the division they're in, that shouldn't be a tough ask for an actual contender.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

    it is really just semantics, the FO should get all the credit in the world for getting Ryan (very shrewd trade one could argue having to give Strotman a 40 man spot diminishes it but still) , but does somebody that pitched all of 9 innings in the Twins minor league constitute being part of a minor league pipeline?

    Compared to the guys you mentioned who all ended up pitching over 100 minor league innings for Cleveland.

    I think since the cost of acquisition was low in a rental DH and he wasn’t listed as a top 100 prospect I think they should get credit. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

    I would make trades before the deadline. I'm not at all suggesting they shouldn't. I'm suggesting they don't have the ammunition to pull off the kinds of deals people want without taking away from the current players on the roster and thus not really improving the team overall. Trading Miranda plus prospects for Castillo doesn't get them closer to NY and Houston this year or next year. But Steer and Wallner aren't enough to get Castillo. That's what I'm saying as far as making trades to improve this year's team goes.

    I agree the window is currently part way open. I don't think they can make significant moves to open it dramatically more in the next 2 weeks. I do think they can do that over the offseason because a team built largely off players in pre-arb seasons is very easy to supplement with just dollars. And they'll have a lot of dollars to spend to supplement. Now if you don't think a top 5 of Buxton, Arraez, Polanco, Miranda, and Kirilloff is a good base to build from you'd disagree with me, and that's fine. If you don't think Larnach, Kepler, Jeffers, Celestino, and Gordon are worthy of roster spots on a playoff team you'd disagree with me. But I think if you have those 10 guys you're in a good starting spot. I think if you have 6 of those guys on pre-arb deals while the other 4 are making less than they'd get on the open market (Kepler could be debated) you're in a great spot.

    I think a rotation built around Maeda, Gray, Ryan, Ober, and Winder is in a great starting spot. Especially because the first 2 are under market contracts and the other 3 are pre-arb. You can buy a front end starter with the extra money there. I think Duran, Jax, and Alcala are 3 good pen arms and you can buy 2 more really good ones and 3 more decent ones with the savings from all 3 being pre-arb or arb.

    I see a SS, a catcher, a #1 starter, and 5 pen arms that need to be added to this team moving forward. I think a catcher, a #1 starter, and 2 pen arms need to be added to this team for this year. I don't think they have the prospects to add those pieces this year, but I think they're capable of adding the pieces for next year and beyond. I would be willing to trade prospects to improve the team this year and expect them to bring in some relievers. I just don't think they have what it takes to get a Castillo type or a catcher upgrade even though they should be calling teams about those spots.

    You paint a beautiful picture, and I wish it were a reality, but there are just too many pieces that have to fit together perfectly to have that picture come to fruition next year and beyond.  In the meantime, we have where we are at, which is on the cusp of a division title, but getting our hat handed to us in the playoffs.  Way too many of the above mentioned pieces have to fall into place in the future to make me want to wait another year/more years down the line when we have the opportunity to do something now.

    You make SS a priority going forward.  What if we convinced the one we have to stick around, because we followed up the bold move with him with another bold move (or two? or three?)?  And, just for the sake of discussion, where does that #1 starter come from?  We haven't gotten a FA to come here, so do we trade for one?  If so, why not now?  If buying the additional parts were the answer, I guess I think we would have already provided that answer.  We got Gray and Paddock in trades.  Also Maeda.  We get the Bundy's and Archers (and see previous years) in FA.  Time to trade quality for quality.  Between trades for prospects in the past, and multiple years of drafts (like this past week) we should have produced enough chips to play a hand it is time to play.  We have been saying "next year", or building for the future half my lifetime.  We are close enough with this core to go for it now.  What is the worst that can happen?  More injuries?  Can there be any more?  We fall short again?  As if we haven't done that enough times?  

    No one can prove a negative, and so no one can say what would happen for sure in a scenario that doesn't happen, but how will we know if we don't try?  We do know what happens when we don't (see the last.........oh, I don't know, how many years).   I don't know, I would just like to TRY.   Just ONCE, I would like to be the Mets!!

    You guys are the best, here, and I love the debate.  Check back later.  :)  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    19 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

    I mean the real point was that the pitching pipeline shouldn't be trusted to produce since it's failed to do so so far. But I could argue Duran, Jax, Winder, and Ober are all pipeline success stories. If you guys want to draw an arbitrary line of when the guy debuted to discount a success story in the conversation about "the pipeline" being able to produce in the future that's cool with me.

    Great that it's cool with you but these arbitrary lines are used to support a precast preference.  It's pretty simple.  Are they producing pitching or not?  Does it matter if Jax spent half a season as a failed starter?  Does that somehow nullify the fact he will likely be a solid contributor for the next several years.  Sounds like a load of crap to me.  Does it matter if Ryan started 6 games last year.   We should ignore Winder because he is basically going through the same process we went through with Berrios?    The fact is with the last from the last all-start break to this one, we have established Ryan, Duran, Jax, and Winder looks very promising as well.  Smeltzer, Megill and Moran are basically in process.  We shall see about them.  That's pretty darn good production from the farm system in 1 year's time.

    It also makes no sense to discount the addition of pitching acquired by trades in a debate about buying / selling or standing pat.  Duran and Ryan were acquired by trading expiring contracts (rentals) and now they represent an enormous part of our team for the next several years.  The fact is that trading for prospects has been extremely important to developing playoff teams, especially among those teams in the bottom 1/2 of revenue.  Take a look at rosters of Cleveland / Oakland and Tampa who have been by far the most successful teams in the bottom half of revenue.  Players acquired as prospects represent 40-50 of their War.  Players acquired as established players is around 5%.  I actually have this data but I am not going to take the time to put it all together. 

    Anyone who would like to look at the facts and draw a conclusion can easily pull up the info on Fangraphs and baseball reference.  I use Fangraphs to look at a given team in a given year.  Fangraphs list position players and pitchers by WAR.  You can easily see if that team drafted them.  If not, use BB Reference to track how they were acquired.  If they were a prospect is somewhat objective.  My standard is that position players and starting pitchers have never produced 1.5 WAR in a season or 1 WAR for RPs.  If you spend a little time on this exercise, it will become blatantly obvious that acquiring prospects has been waaaaay more influential to building playoff team than using them to trade for established players.  I think most people would find it very enlightening if done objectively.  Start by taking a look a Cleveland's current team.  Among their top players, Owen Miller / Ahmed Rosario / Andres Gimenez / Myles Straw / Josh Naylor / Cal Quantrill / Emmanuel Clause / and Konnoe Pilkington were acquired by trading established players for prospects.  Then, take a look at the Ray's teams in years where they won 90+.
     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    51 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

    Seems to me Atlanta was the first team that wouldn't have been considered one of the top four or so teams to win it all in about two decades.

    I think the only condition would be not going into your first round match up as the underdog. Every. Single. Year. They will be the underdog this year regardless of which AL East team they are matched up with.

    Though I suppose it will be easier to name the actual contenders now that we have two first round byes in each league. When the Twins snag a free pass into the second round, they're probably a contender. And considering the division their in, that shouldn't be a tough ask for an actual contender.

    2019 Nationals reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2014 Giants reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2014 Royals reached the playoffs via wildcard (Woulda won it if wasn't for the other wild card team) 

    2011 Cardinals reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2004 Red Sox reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2003 Marlins reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2002 Angels reached the playoffs via wildcard

    If All things were equal... 6 division winners and 2 wildcard teams (Not including the 1 game playoff that includes an extra wild card team to determine who the wild card representative is) The Wildcard team has a 25% chance of winning the world series based on two teams being wild card out of 8 participants.

    The Wild Card has produced 6 world series winners over 20 years for a 30% success ratio. 

    I love ya... But I have no idea what you are talking about when you use the word "Favorites".  

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 minutes ago, Mark G said:

    You paint a beautiful picture, and I wish it were a reality, but there are just too many pieces that have to fit together perfectly to have that picture come to fruition next year and beyond.  In the meantime, we have where we are at, which is on the cusp of a division title, but getting our hat handed to us in the playoffs.  Way too many of the above mentioned pieces have to fall into place in the future to make me want to wait another year/more years down the line when we have the opportunity to do something now.

    You make SS a priority going forward.  What if we convinced the one we have to stick around, because we followed up the bold move with him with another bold move (or two? or three?)?  And, just for the sake of discussion, where does that #1 starter come from?  We haven't gotten a FA to come here, so do we trade for one?  If so, why not now?  If buying the additional parts were the answer, I guess I think we would have already provided that answer.  We got Gray and Paddock in trades.  Also Maeda.  We get the Bundy's and Archers (and see previous years) in FA.  Time to trade quality for quality.  Between trades for prospects in the past, and multiple years of drafts (like this past week) we should have produced enough chips to play a hand it is time to play.  We have been saying "next year", or building for the future half my lifetime.  We are close enough with this core to go for it now.  What is the worst that can happen?  More injuries?  Can there be any more?  We fall short again?  As if we haven't done that enough times?  

    No one can prove a negative, and so no one can say what would happen for sure in a scenario that doesn't happen, but how will we know if we don't try?  We do know what happens when we don't (see the last.........oh, I don't know, how many years).   I don't know, I would just like to TRY.   Just ONCE, I would like to be the Mets!!

    You guys are the best, here, and I love the debate.  Check back later.  :)  

    What moves do you think they can make between now and Aug 2 that makes them contenders this year? Again, I want them to make trades in the next 2 weeks. I am openly stating I think they need to make trades before the deadline to improve. I'm not arguing that point. My point is they don't have the pieces to make the high impact trades people want. Unless they're taking away from the players currently on the major league roster which then just moves the hole and doesn't make the team better overall. Bringing in Castillo but shipping Miranda out doesn't make them contenders. I'm saying they don't have good enough prospects to outbid teams for the big guns people want. What they can get is expiring contract relievers, and I think they should, and will, make those moves. I'm not saying "shouldn't" I'm saying "can't." I'm saying they don't have the ability to make big moves at the deadline whether they want to or not.

    Keeping the SS they have now is one of the options moving forward, and I hope they find a 7 year deal to keep him here. That could be part of the 60M I mentioned. They'd still have 30M left to spend after that. I'm not at all, in any of my comments, saying they should do nothing. They need to bring in more relievers, and I think they will. They're not trading Lewis, just like the Padres wouldn't trade Abrams last year and the Yankees have refused to trade Volpe. Outside of Lewis they don't have anyone in their system that is bringing back anyone who'd be seen as a "go for it" move. Outside of bringing in relievers, my stance is they simply can't do what people are asking them to do. They don't have the top end prospects to get it done. I don't think Steer and Wallner are bringing back Castillo or Montas types.

    They've graduated the bulk of the current wave of prospects and seen the rest of them falter and thus lose trade value so the system doesn't have much at the top. The highest ceiling prospects the Twins have are all in A ball or below. Those types of fliers don't get the kind of return that AA and AAA high ceiling prospects do. The Twins are at the point in their cycle that their best path to improving the roster is through spending to surround the young core with veterans. I'm not saying they ignore this season to play for the future by choice, I'm saying they likely have to do it by necessity. 

    The Mets have built through offseason trades and big spending on FAs. They're not a great example for the type of moves you're asking for. They did trade for Baez last year by giving up a prospect in the range I'm saying the Twins don't have (worse than Lewis, better than Steer/Wallner). But otherwise I don't see the connection here unless you're holding out hope the Pohlads suddenly start spending like Cohen. I wouldn't suggest holding your breath on that one.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    27 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

    Great that it's cool with you but these arbitrary lines are used to support a precast preference.  It's pretty simple.  Are they producing pitching or not?  Does it matter if Jax spent half a season as a failed starter?  Does that somehow nullify the fact he will likely be a solid contributor for the next several years.  Sounds like a load of crap to me.  Does it matter if Ryan started 6 games last year.   We should ignore Winder because he is basically going through the same process we went through with Berrios?    The fact is with the last from the last all-start break to this one, we have established Ryan, Duran, Jax, and Winder looks very promising as well.  Smeltzer, Megill and Moran are basically in process.  We shall see about them.  That's pretty darn good production from the farm system in 1 year's time.

    It also makes no sense to discount the addition of pitching acquired by trades in a debate about buying / selling or standing pat.  Duran and Ryan were acquired by trading expiring contracts (rentals) and now they represent an enormous part of our team for the next several years.  The fact is that trading for prospects has been extremely important to developing playoff teams, especially among those teams in the bottom 1/2 of revenue.  Take a look at rosters of Cleveland / Oakland and Tampa who have been by far the most successful teams in the bottom half of revenue.  Players acquired as prospects represent 40-50 of their War.  Players acquired as established players is around 5%.  I actually have this data but I am not going to take the time to put it all together. 

    Anyone who would like to look at the facts and draw a conclusion can easily pull up the info on Fangraphs and baseball reference.  I use Fangraphs to look at a given team in a given year.  Fangraphs list position players and pitchers by WAR.  You can easily see if that team drafted them.  If not, use BB Reference to track how they were acquired.  If they were a prospect is somewhat objective.  My standard is that position players and starting pitchers have never produced 1.5 WAR in a season or 1 WAR for RPs.  If you spend a little time on this exercise, it will become blatantly obvious that acquiring prospects has been waaaaay more influential to building playoff team than using them to trade for established players.  I think most people would find it very enlightening if done objectively.  Start by taking a look a Cleveland's current team.  Among their top players, Owen Miller / Steven Kwan / Ahmed Rosario / Andres Gimenez / Myles Straw / Josh Naylor / Cal Quantrill / Emmanuel Clause / and Konnoe Pilkington were acquired by trading established players for prospects.  Then, take a look at the Ray's teams in years where they won 90+.
     

    Yeah, you're combining different debates here. Nobody has said trades aren't important. In fact what a couple of us have said is that the FO deserves credit for bringing Ryan in through trade. We followed that up by saying we don't count him as part of the development pipeline since they didn't develop him. The FO should use every avenue to improve the team and system, but Ryan is not a result of their development pipeline because he was acquired as an MLB ready prospect. Duran was developed by the Twins after being acquired in trade so he should be seen as proof they can develop pitching. I'm not really sure what you're agreeing with and disagreeing with because you've combined different lines of discussion into one.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    So Ryan, who was a rookie didn't count? This idea that they don't have a pipeline is ridiculous. Ryan, ober, smeltzer, winder, and a couple rookie RPs isn't enough to add in one year? I like chief, but expecting more than that is ridiculous. 

    How far are we stretching the definition of pipeline? Smeltzer? Ryan spending a couple weeks in St. Paul? Failed starters turned relievers? 

    It's been Ryan with a dash of Winder and a guest appearance from Ober (33 IP in 4 months because he's hurt...again) as far as young starting contributions go. All the higher end farm arms have been some combination of poor/injured. Yeah, I expected more when the FO decided to hinge this season on said pipeline. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

    2019 Nationals reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2014 Giants reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2014 Royals reached the playoffs via wildcard (Woulda won it if wasn't for the other wild card team) 

    2011 Cardinals reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2004 Red Sox reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2003 Marlins reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2002 Angels reached the playoffs via wildcard

    If All things were equal... 6 division winners and 2 wildcard teams (Not including the 1 game playoff that includes an extra wild card team to determine who the wild card representative is) The Wildcard team has a 25% chance of winning the world series based on two teams being wild card out of 8 participants.

    The Wild Card has produced 6 world series winners over 20 years for a 30% success ratio. 

    I love ya... But I have no idea what you are talking about when you use the word "Favorites".  

     

    The Angels are the only team on that list that wasn't a well regarded playoff team. I mean if someone wants to go back and find the World Series odds for those teams at the start of the playoffs vs the recent playoff Twins teams, I'm open to eating my words. I'd think the '06 team was the only one on the level of the rest of those.

    But it's immaterial to me. I don't care how other teams do it, I only know, with two decades of track record to prove me right, that the Minnesota Twins are playoff losers when they go in as an underdog. I hope they upgrade the team at the deadline, I really do, but why anyone would think the Twins could pull off an upset World Series win without the aid of a time machine back to the days of Kirby Puckett is crazy to me. They need to build a GREAT team, not one that can win the lousy AL Central and then just cross their fingers and hope for the best.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

    2019 Nationals reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2014 Giants reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2014 Royals reached the playoffs via wildcard (Woulda won it if wasn't for the other wild card team) 

    2011 Cardinals reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2004 Red Sox reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2003 Marlins reached the playoffs via wildcard

    2002 Angels reached the playoffs via wildcard

    If All things were equal... 6 division winners and 2 wildcard teams (Not including the 1 game playoff that includes an extra wild card team to determine who the wild card representative is) The Wildcard team has a 25% chance of winning the world series based on two teams being wild card out of 8 participants.

    The Wild Card has produced 6 world series winners over 20 years for a 30% success ratio. 

    I love ya... But I have no idea what you are talking about when you use the word "Favorites".  

     

    What those teams had that the Twins don't?  Pitching depth.  While they were wild cards, all you have to do is look at the performance of the staffs.  When was the last time the Twins had a staff that was remotely close to any of those teams you listed.  2006?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A big issue here is the 40 man and who we should move to supplement the current roster and prevent losing another Tyler Wells to the rule five next year.

    If somebody would do a huge deep dive into that for me, that would be great. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think if the Twins traded for Montas AND Castillo, they still would not be favored to reach the series. I think that would be correct. This team is simply too flawed this year. Might want to think about being sellers. Would probably still win the division. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

    Well that wouldn't have happened because:

    1: Syndergaard was terrible down the stretch (6.69 ERA in his last 7 starts) likely because his elbow wasn't quite right (had TJ surgery at the beginning of 2020).

    2: One pitcher wasn't going to be the difference between getting decisively swept in the ALDS and winning the World Series.

    Like, we don't have to hypothesize here, we have actual evidence. If the Twins had made that trade they'd now be without Buxton and without Syndergaard, and with nothing of substance to show for it. Maybe they win a single game in the first round of the playoffs. You'd take that?

    This is my struggle with these "go all-in at the deadline" conversations. There's such a tendency to fantasize about some grand exaggerated impact, while completely downplaying the repeatedly proven risks and downsides.  

    Syndergaard had a 3.32 FIP in the second half and a 3.70 FIP in September. His final game was 7.0 innings, 9 Ks, 5 H, 2 BBs against Atlanta who won the NL East with 97 wins that year. Syndergaard's fastball averaged 97.5mph that game. He was not hurt. He injured himself in Spring Training 2020.

    Game 1 - 10/4 Syndergaard pitches instead of Berrios 
    Game 2 - 10/5 Berrios pitches instead of Dobnak
    Game 3 - 10/7 Odorizzi pitches
    Game 4 - 10/8 Dobnak pitches if needed
    Game 5 - 10/10 Syndergaard pitches if needed, or he's ready for Game 1 vs. the next opponent.

    1 pitcher has been the difference many times. If you don't believe a true ace makes a difference in the playoffs... well, we have utterly no common ground and there's nothing to even discuss.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

    Syndergaard had a 3.32 FIP in the second half and a 3.70 FIP in September. His final game was 7.0 innings, 9 Ks, 5 H, 2 BBs against Atlanta who won the NL East with 97 wins that year. Syndergaard's fastball averaged 97.5mph that game. He was not hurt. He injured himself in Spring Training 2020.

    Game 1 - 10/4 Syndergaard pitches instead of Berrios 
    Game 2 - 10/5 Berrios pitches instead of Dobnak
    Game 3 - 10/7 Odorizzi pitches
    Game 4 - 10/8 Dobnak pitches if needed
    Game 5 - 10/10 Syndergaard pitches if needed, or he's ready for Game 1 vs. the next opponent.

    1 pitcher has been the difference many times. If you don't believe a true ace makes a difference in the playoffs... well, we have utterly no common ground and there's nothing to even discuss.

    The Twins scored 2 runs in the second game and 1 run in the third. No amount of pitching was going to carry them through that series against a great Yankees lineup. Ditto the next year against Houston.

    It's a fanciful scenario you've concocted though, I'll give you that!

    Having a true ace makes a difference in the playoffs. It's just not everything. Frankly a star two-way player like Buxton is quite a bit more important -- thus the irony of your OP. And Syndergaard wasn't pitching like a "true ace" at that point anyway.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

     

    Buyers Buy

    Seller Sell

    First place makes you a buyer. 

    OK, fine. But keep in mind that really, the Twins are in about 7th place when you look at the AL as a whole. And if you add in the the NL that puts us in about 14th place out of 30 teams. Now what was it you were saying?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

    OK, fine. But keep in mind that really, the Twins are in about 7th place when you look at the AL as a whole. And if you add in the the NL that puts us in about 14th place out of 30 teams. Now what was it you were saying?

    That would be a lot more relevant were it 1967.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, USAFChief said:

    I don't buy for a second there's some reason to believe better opportunities are sure to be there in the future. Even if YOU do, so what? Why would you prefer a possibility over a reality (this year)?

    Because this year's reality, frankly, sucks. We have a highly flawed team that is nigh-on impossible to de-flaw. Because we have at least three juggernaut teams to contend with if we even make the postseason. Because the possibilities of the next few years, while not "sure to be there", are still significantly more likely to produce a World Champion than this year's reality. Because trading away the future of the franchise for maybe a couple more postseason wins this year should be a fireable offense.

    So we'll just have to agree to disagree about me being right and you being wrong.???

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

    OK, fine. But keep in mind that really, the Twins are in about 7th place when you look at the AL as a whole. And if you add in the the NL that puts us in about 14th place out of 30 teams. Now what was it you were saying?

    What?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

    That would be a lot more relevant were it 1967.

    Do not concur. If this were 1967 there would be no superpower teams like this year's Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, and Astros. Squeaking into the postseason then meant only having to win 4 games to become champion. This team can not, IMHO, be repaired to the point where getting 13 postseason wins against this year's postseason competition is even remotely likely.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    30 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

    OK, fine. But keep in mind that really, the Twins are in about 7th place when you look at the AL as a whole. And if you add in the the NL that puts us in about 14th place out of 30 teams. Now what was it you were saying?

     

    17 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

    What?

    If I were to make a current power ranking that's about where I'd put this team.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...