Top Twins Trade Chips

[John Bonnes]

The thread in our forums on trading for Chris Archer got me to thinking: just who are the Twins biggest trade chips right now? I'm not asking who they're most willing to trade, but how would other teams (generically) rank the Twins trading assets? It's a combination of performance, team control and contract. I have given this all of 5 minutes of thought, but here's my first draft...

 

1 Byron Buxton
2 Jose Berrios
3 Royce Lewis
4 Miguel Sano
5 Eddie Rosario
6 Max Kepler
7 Jorge Polanco
8 Nick Gordon
9 Stephen Gonsalves
10 Fernando Romero
11 Tyler Jay
11 Alex Kiriloff
12 Adalberto Mejia 
13 Zach Granite
14 Trevor Hildenberger
15 Brent Rooker
16 Mitch Garver

 

I'd love to see other's lists. And I think it's a good start for discussions about trade packages. For instance, if you want to acquire Archer, who would probably be at about the same level as Buxton, it's hard to take a package seriously where the highest ranking name is Gordon, who is #8.

[ashbury]

I could quibble with Rooker too low and Rosario a little too high, but this ranking doesn't seem outlandish. As trade bait, pretty much everyone below #10 amounts to a sweetener, and I don't want to trade many of the names at #10 and above, so this is a little disheartening.

 

You left Dozier and ESan and other established veterans off the list? Maybe the Rays don't want them for Archer, but as trade value they still rank somewhere, at least in principle.

[Thrylos]

Sano, Gibson, May, Escobar, and E. Santana need to be in the list and are more realistic than several of the above names; the first 4 should be untradable.

[gman]

I think 1&2 have to be Dozier and Santana. Other teams shouldn't expect the Twins to trade certain players not if they really want to trade.

[Winston Smith]

Until Kepler can hit LH pitching I think he should be down around 10, move the others up.

[ashbury]

The 2017 June draft was well-regarded, I thought. In addition to Lewis and Rooker, Enlow and Leach seem like they might move the needle - maybe moreso than Granite for instance, but I'm not super high on him so I dunno. Who else in that draft might offer a little traction in trade talks?

 

Baddoo in the 2016 draft seems like he ought to be on this list somewhere. Rortvedt maybe?

 

2015, Lamonte Wade?

 

Non-draft signings like Wander Javier?

 

What about the two guys we got in the exchange for International money after we whiffed in Japan?

 

If only someone somewhere kept a ranked list of Twins prospects....

 

If the Rays are in full rebuild mode, simply loading far-off prospect after far-off prospect might eventually get their attention, moreso than the typical deal where you have to offer a real high-end prospect to get them to answer their phone. What if we said Nick Gordon, one of Enlow/Leach, Wade, and any FIVE guys in the 2017 draft of their choosing not named above?

[IndianaTwin]

 

I could quibble with Rooker too low and Rosario a little too high, but this ranking doesn't seem outlandish. As trade bait, pretty much everyone below #10 amounts to a sweetener, and I don't want to trade many of the names at #10 and above, so this is a little disheartening.

 

You left Dozier and ESan and other established veterans off the list? Maybe the Rays don't want them for Archer, but as trade value they still rank somewhere, at least in principle.

Agreed on Dozier and other vets needing to be on the list.

 

A lot of it is going to depend on context, of course. The Marlins might not have any interest in Dozier or ESan, but a contender may well have more interest in one of them over a guy who's several years away. As a way of looking at that, put the shoe on another food and ask, "Would the Twins trade away Dozier for a Kiriloff-level player?" Some on TD might want to do that, but I wouldn't.  

[amjgt]

I agree with many of names people have talked about adding... Santana, Dozier, Enlow, and Baddoo. At a certain point you need to add Castro, who is a reasonably priced league average catcher.

 

Also, I think Jay is way too high

[Brandon]

I think it would be better to bracket the players off based off of Positions.  because in reality if we trade a bunch of prospects they are likely going to be 3 to 5 pitchers and IF maybe an OF or reliever....plus it will be easier to try to match up with the needs of the other organization too.  

 

Starting pitching

 

Relievers

 

OFs

 

IFs

 

 

[Deduno Abides]

If Sano and Jay are that high, it would be great to test their markets immediately.

[Deduno Abides]

The 2017 June draft was well-regarded, I thought. In addition to Lewis and Rooker, Enlow and Leach seem like they might move the needle - maybe moreso than Granite for instance, but I'm not super high on him so I dunno. Who else in that draft might offer a little traction in trade talks?

 

Baddoo in the 2016 draft seems like he ought to be on this list somewhere. Rortvedt maybe?

 

2015, Lamonte Wade?

 

Non-draft signings like Wander Javier?

 

What about the two guys we got in the exchange for International money after we whiffed in Japan?

 

If only someone somewhere kept a ranked list of prospects for the Twins...

 

If the Rays are in full rebuild mode, simply loading far-off prospect after far-off prospect might eventually get their attention, moreso than the typical deal where you have to offer a real high-end prospect to get them to answer their phone. What if we said Nick Gordon, one of Enlow/Leach, Wade, and any FIVE guys in the 2017 draft of their choosing not named above?

You should check the Rays’ minor league system. A lot of those guys you mentioned will not get their attention. If they had Gordon, he’d probably be their third ranked SS. They have several good pitchers. Just loading up additional throw-ins won’t make a difference. Of course, if you’re going to start with Gordon, Lewis, Rooker and Enlow, that might work for the Rays, but I can’t imagine the Twins doing it just to compete for WC1 in 2018.

[sftwinsfan]

Pretty reasonable list for the most part, I'd have Dozier in the top 10 (even one year of Dozier should at least be worth a fringy top 100 prospect).  I'd probably drop Jay a bit, probably remove Granite-I only see him as a 4th OF type.  Add Santana up there someplace.  Probably Sano in front of Lewis.

 

Rooker may have established a bit of value with success at A+.  Enlow would probably not be much beyond a lotto ticket for a team at this point.  The two guys acquired for international money wouldn't have much value, maybe a throw-in 4th piece or possibly a Jaime Garcia type-trade.  

 

For Archer, I just think the price would be too high for the Twins.  They have depth in their system but are really lacking in the top-end prospects with ceiling that usually are needed for these type of trades.  Maybe their choice of Rosario/Kepler + Gordon + choice of Gonsalves/Romero may be what it would take.  

[DocBauer]

While I appreciate the original sentiment, some of those guys would be untouchable in the reality of a trade actually being made, regardless of their proposed "value". And I agree with Ashbury's sentiment that i dont want to trade any of tbe first 10.

 

The context of any trade has to be considered. If Tampa was indeed a trade target, for instance, are they in full rebuild mode? If so, then 5 high end prospects for them to develop and have long term control over would be in order. That would include names like Gordon, Jay, Gonsalves, Romero, Thorpe, Javier, Khiriloff, etc, etc.

[Platoon]

My curiosity is why did you leave Dozier off the list? Was it intentional?

[Tom Froemming]

I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure this out and now my head hurts. Here's my top 15, accompanied by a giant I dunno shrug ...

 

1) Buxton

2) Berrios

3) Sano

4) Lewis

5) Kepler

6) Rosario

7) Romero

8) Gordon

9) Gonsalves

10) Javier

11) Rooker

12) Dozier

13) Ervin

14) Castro

15) Mejia

 

I feel real good about the top 4, but that's about it.

[Han Joelo]

Graterol.

[Twinfan & Dad]

1 Buxton

2 Berrios

3 Santana

4 Sano

5 Lewis

6 Dozier

7 Rosario

8 Gordon

9 Polanco

10 Kepler

 

11 Gonsalves

12 Romero

13 Jay

14 Rooker

15 Mejia

[rghrbek]

Like many, I would have Dozier and Santana on this list.  If it's truly a list of our most tradable assets.  They are proven known commodities.  Not that I think they should trade them.  Or would be involved in a deal for Archer.

 

I also, under no circumstances right now would have Lewis that high (at least above Sano)

[theBOMisthebomb]

Dozier needs to be somewhere on the list. Although I do not want to see him traded, he might have some value at midseason as a hired gun for a contender.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't want to speak for John, but I assume the list is trade chips as buyers, it doesn't include trade chips as sellers. Hence, no Dozier or Santana.

[Physics Guy]

I think this is a fair ranking of tradeable assets to the Rays.  I'm OK with leaving the vets off because they won't be part of any trade for Archer.  I would say Sano should be higher than Lewis.  He has proven much more than Lewis and is only dinged because of health issues in my mind. 

 

The only players I wouldn't move for Archer are the top four.  Any others are fair game in my opinion.

[John Bonnes]

I guess I was sort of subconsciously limiting myself to players the Rays would likely target. But yes, Dozier & Santana and probably Castro would all be players that MLB teams would covet.  Plus, adding them makes an even 20. Here is a new list, with them included and a few other guys moved around.

 

1 Byron Buxton
2 Jose Berrios
3 Royce Lewis
4 Miguel Sano
5 Eddie Rosario
6 Jorge Polanco
7 Max Kepler
8 Ervin Santana
9 Brian Dozier
10 Stephen Gonsalves
11 Fernando Romero
12 Nick Gordon
13 Jason Castro
14 Tyler Jay
15 Adalberto Mejia 
16 Alex Kiriloff
17 Zach Granite
18 Trevor Hildenberger
19 Brent Rooker
20 Mitch Garver

[Craig Arko]

Sounds like things may be warming up on a Sano-Archer deal. Any reality here?

[Mr. Brooks]

Sounds like things may be warming up on a Sano-Archer deal. Any reality here?

Where are you seeing that?

[Craig Arko]

 

Where are you seeing that?

 

https://www.twinkietown.com/2017/12/27/16820990/miguel-sano-might-be-trade-bait-chris-archer-2018-minnesota-twins-third-base-hot-stove

[Mr. Brooks]

https://www.twinkietown.com/2017/12/27/16820990/miguel-sano-might-be-trade-bait-chris-archer-2018-minnesota-twins-third-base-hot-stove

I'm not sure I consider anything from Doogie to be more than pure speculation.

[Doomtints]

 

I'm not sure I consider anything from Doogie to be more than pure speculation.

 

Warne makes it clear that he is just tossing ideas around, but if the Rays plan on being thrifty the next few years, Sano could fill some seats for pennies on the dollar. They won't be able to replace Archer at his cost though.

But yeah, this is purely hypothetical. We don't know if the Twins want Archer, we don't know if the Rays want Sano, and we don't know any scenario in between.

[Craig Arko]

 

Warne makes it clear that he is just tossing ideas around, but if the Rays plan on being thrifty the next few years, Sano could fill some seats for pennies on the dollar. They won't be able to replace Archer at his cost though.

But yeah, this is purely hypothetical.

The obvious motivation for vetting it here.

[TheLeviathan]

None of these lists include Brian Duensing.

[Mr. Brooks]

Warne makes it clear that he is just tossing ideas around, but if the Rays plan on being thrifty the next few years, Sano could fill some seats for pennies on the dollar. They won't be able to replace Archer at his cost though.

 

But yeah, this is purely hypothetical. We don't know if the Twins want Archer, we don't know if the Rays want Sano, and we don't know any scenario in between.

With Archers cheap contract, it's entirely possible that Sano would cost them more than Archer.

 

In other words, they already have a guy for pennies on the dollar. Why trade him for a guy who could make more?