Article: Servin' Up Ervin

[Nick Nelson]

The trade deadline landscape can vary greatly from year to year. One thing, however, is universally true: impact starting pitching is always in demand.

 

The Twins happen to possess one of the hottest starters in baseball. Can they leverage Ervin Santana as an arms race develops among contenders? Should they?Granted, it came at home against an Athletics team that ranks last in the AL in OPS, but Santana's 100-pitch shutout on Wednesday was a thing of beauty. He allowed only two hits with no walks, and struck out eight.

 

It was a tantalizing reminder of what Santana is capable of at his best. He's been in fine form since mid-June, with a 2.41 ERA in his previous three outings. His latest stretch is a throwback to his final run last year, when he closed out his first season in Minnesota by going 5-1 with a 1.62 ERA in his final seven starts.

 

But of course, that hot streak was preceded by a very cold one, and the same is true now. Santana is a talented pitcher capable of greatness, but he has a tendency to go in the tank for weeks at a time. That's always been his MO. General managers across the league know it.

 

Whoever acquires him would be on the hook for $27 million in his age 34 and 35 seasons. Possibly $14 million in 2019, too, if he stays healthy. That's a lot of money, right?

 

Well, it looks like the best long-term pitching contract the Twins have right now, which isn't saying much when the rest of the field is Ricky Nolasco, Phil Hughes and Glen Perkins. If $13 million is the going rate for an average pitcher – and that seems to be the case, as the Twins gave Santana his contract with a career ERA+ of 99 – then he's a fair value salary-wise.

 

Of course, it's a little different when you're looking at the front and back ends of the contract. Santana's a guy with a lot of mileage on his arm, and a half-season drug ban on his recent record. These factors are going to play against any kind of significant return. I would surmise that unless they pick up a big chunk of the tab (unlikely since they're probably going to have to bite the bullet on Nolasco at some point), the best the Twins are going to do is a couple of mid-level prospects. Maybe.

 

Is it worth making a move at that point? That's a good question for debate, I think. On the one hand, Santana stands as the only remotely stable veteran force in the rotation going forward. On the other hand, the Twins have the worst record in baseball and shouldn't be too concerned with retaining an expensive mid-rotation starter.

 

Terry Ryan and the front office are wisely taking an open-minded approach to the deadline. As ESPN's Jayson Stark puts it, they're "Telling everyone, 'If you've got any ideas, throw them out there.' "

 

What's your idea? What should it take to pry Santana loose?

 

Click here to view the article

[mumoo13]

I think a couple of mid-level prospects should be enough if we don't have to pay a lot of the salary. Although he has been our best starter, he won't be part of the next playoff team and trading him will open up a spot for someone who might. But we should be patient until the deadline to try to get as much as we can.

[beckmt]

With Boston, Texas, SF, LAD, Toronto, Detroit, NYY and other contending clubs out there, this should be a sellers market.  The Tampa Bay starters will go first, but Twins should have offers if not multiple offers for Santana, Nolasco, and Gibson.  Only Gibson rates to be here and effective in 2018-2019.  Take the best offer and sell.  Expect the Twins to get a couple of mid-level prospects for Santana, maybe a better lower level prospect and an org filler type.  Nolasco should bring more of a lottery ticket type(even if the Twins pick up part of the contract, and I suspect they might have to). If you can move Santana's contract, picking up $5 million of next years Nolasco salary is not a big deal as payroll should be down due to large number of youngsters on the team.  Sell high on the assets you have(this includes position players) that will not be in the plans after 2018.

[nytwinsfan]

My gut feeling is that Ryan won't trade Santana unless someone really overpays. Just not his style to give up a 4.05 ERA starter and trust the young guys. Hope I'm wrong.

[mazeville]

I think the Twins need to chip in some salary in the deal and buy better prospects in the deal.

 

There's no point in trading a Santana unless you're going to get a good return, because the Twins are going to need starters next year and, as you noted, that's the going rate for said starters.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'd trade Nolasco and Milone for nothing or just DFA them for the young guys... not quite as sure about Santana to be honest.  I think I'd want a decent prospect for him.  In this area, I think Ryan would be right to not give him up.  Santana can pitch like #2 for long stretches.  Of course on the other hand his elbow is a TJS surgery waiting to happen given that he's one of the few that successfully rehabbed that one. 

[Linus]

I would not trade him unless you got a really good pitching prospect in return. The Twins can be decent next year and simply don't have enough starters or potential starters. If we trade him we will scouring the bargain bin next year for starters.

[HitInAPinch]

Santana's slow starts are pretty easy to explain:  He's from the Dominican Republic.  Early season in Minnesota and anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line is gonna be cold.  As the temps warm up, so does Santana.

 

Too early to even think of trading Ervin.  One really good start may cause reminiscing of last years 5-1 finish, but that was last year.  I'd have to see 2-3 more starts similar to this last one before I'd gauge the market.

 

Subtracting Santana while still having Nolasco and Hughes on the roster seems like a pretty bad idea to me.  Granted, Hughes is coming off surgery, but making a decision on those 2 seems like a higher priority to me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Twins have a glut of mid-level prospects coming through the system (and will add more next June).

 

If that's all they can get for Santana, they should keep him.

 

If they can't get at least a top 75-100 guy relatively close to the majors, I don't really see the point in trading Ervin. He's not the problem in the Twins rotation; once Nolasco and Milone are cleared out of town, there's plenty of space for the youngsters in the rotation.

[tobi0040]

I would hold onto him until a few deals are made and a few teams start freaking out when their rivals make moves. If we can extract a top 50-75 propect, sure.

 

I am ecstatic that we have Jay, Gonsalves, Jorge, and Stewart all in AA. But they aren't all going to be up here and pitching well next April. Someone is going to flame out, someone is going to get hurt, another may make it a year later than we all thought, etc. So I am hesitant to move Ervin just to move him.

Edited July 8, 2016 by tobi0040

[Dman]

 

The Twins have a glut of mid-level prospects coming through the system (and will add more next June).

 

If that's all they can get for Santana, they should keep him.

 

If they can't get at least a top 75-100 guy relatively close to the majors, I don't really see the point in trading Ervin. He's not the problem in the Twins rotation; once Nolasco and Milone are cleared out of town, there's plenty of space for the youngsters in the rotation.

 

I totally agree with this.  It needs to be a top 100 prospect to pry him loose.  I know that seems like an over pay but the team that does it also has a chance to trade him later and get something in return.  As Brock stated I don't see any reason to trade him just to trade him and we are going to have trouble protecting our prospects the way things stand right now not sure we need more mid level prospects.  Also we need pitching if we want to compete next year so he is valuable to us as well.  If you can get someone to overpay then go for it.

[tobi0040]

Said another way, we are likely going back to the free agent market next offseason if we trade Ervin. How does his 2-27 compare with what guys will sign for? Seems like a reasonable commitment to me and with all the young talent coming up another 3-4 year deal is not ideal.

[markos]

 

I totally agree with this.  It needs to be a top 100 prospect to pry him loose.  I know that seems like an over pay but the team that does it also has a chance to trade him later and get something in return.  As Brock stated I don't see any reason to trade him just to trade him and we are going to have trouble protecting our prospects the way things stand right now not sure we need more mid level prospects.  Also we need pitching if we want to compete next year so he is valuable to us as well.  If you can get someone to overpay then go for it.

I think it depends a lot on one's outlook for the next couple of seasons. If one doesn't think that the Twins will be contenders next year, I think there is a very good argument that the current combination Santana's performance/health, few pitchers on the market and a crappy upcoming FA class may be the best opportunity for maximizing his value. It may only be some mid-level prospects, but frankly a team can never have too many. There is real risk that he may get injured or further deteriorate in performance, which may completely destroy his trade value in the future. As it's often said: it is better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late.

 

I can definitely see arguments on both the sides of this debate.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Santana's slow starts are pretty easy to explain:  He's from the Dominican Republic.  Early season in Minnesota and anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line is gonna be cold.  As the temps warm up, so does Santana.

Uh, his slow start last year in Minnesota was in July.  And his worst month by ERA this year so far is June. I'd guess weather has very little to do with explaining these performances, it's probably just the standard variation inherent in all player performances -- a 4.00 ERA pitcher will have some months at 5.00, some months at 3.00, etc.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Twins should have offers if not multiple offers for Santana, Nolasco, and Gibson.

Uh, I highly doubt the Twins will have offers, let alone multiple offers, for Nolasco.  Unless by "offers" you include "we'll take him off your hands for the league minimum salary if you pay the rest" (aka "we'll take a flier on him after you release him").

[REPETE]

Keep him.  As already stated, it'll cost the same to bring in another #3.  He's a good clubhouse guy, and can help the young kids coming up.  You need some veterans on a young team, and he's as good as any we'll get.  

 

Dump Nolasco for anything.  Now there's room for one guy.  Dump Milone for anything, now we got two spots.  I doubt that's going to block anyone in the minors.  

[HitInAPinch]

 

Uh, his slow start last year in Minnesota was in July.  And his worst month by ERA this year so far is June. I'd guess weather has very little to do with explaining these performances, it's probably just the standard variation inherent in all player performances -- a 4.00 ERA pitcher will have some months at 5.00, some months at 3.00, etc.

Uh, Santana was just coming off an 80 game suspension last year.  I believe he had a couple MiLB starts as a tune up.  I also think his last 7 starts of last year were more euphoria than just 'getting warmed up'     

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'd trade Nolasco and Milone for nothing or just DFA them for the young guys... not quite as sure about Santana to be honest.

I think that is key.  If the Twins are finally ready to cut bait on Nolasco (and to a lesser degree Milone), they don't need to clear Santana's spot.  Keeping him as the rotation vet for 2/28 after this season is fine, assuming only a modest/marginal prospect could come back in trade.

 

However, if the Twins refuse to move on from Nolasco, there are worse ways to clear a rotation spot than finding a taker for the remaining guarantee on Santana's deal.

 

I really wish Berrios was starting in place of Nolasco or Milone this weekend, but bare minimum, tonight should be Berrios's last AAA start.  The Twins need to make room for him.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Uh, Santana was just coming off an 80 game suspension last year.  I believe he had a couple MiLB starts as a tune up.  I also think his last 7 starts of last year were more euphoria than just 'getting warmed up'   

Was the weather thing just a joke then?  Sorry if I missed it, that happens if it is too subtle and there's no emoticon

[jorgenswest]

If the Twins are reasonably certain he can continue to perform as a number 4 starter over the next two years, they need to keep him.

 

If they look at a large group of similarly aged and performing pitchers, I think that they will find that far less than 1/2 of those pitchers can continue as a number 4 as the progress into their age 34 and 35 seasons. The Twins would need to see something special in Santana that would suggest that he will decline at a slower rate than typical and avoid injury more common with older pitchers.

[Circus Boy]

Hope he stays. A delight when he's dealing. Has potential to run the table the rest of his starts second half.

[drivlikejehu]

My initial thinking was that interest in Santana would be modest, but in actually looking at the rotations of contenders . . . there is a substantial amount of need at the back end of those rotations, particularly if they want some coverage in the event of injury to an existing starter. 

 

I don't think teams will want to offer a top prospect, but I'd be happy with several mid-level prospects, particularly guys in the lower minors with good upside. 

[Willihammer]

I love Santana but it sure looks like its shaping up to be a seller's market.

[Halsey Hall]

No way would I trade Santana. An offer would just have to be totally lopsided in our favor to consider. And his contract is fair.

 

Many have overly optimistic views of our young arms, but how many will even make the majors, and is there even one that will be as good as Santana. The minors are just a step above the St Paul Saints, granted Kintzler pitched for the Saints and is having success at the major league level, but not many make it. Hamburger is back pitching for the Saints. 

 

The Twins will need a veteran arm to lead the younger guys for the next 2 years and Santana is that guy. There will be 2 or 3 rotation guys gone by next spring and hopefully a rotation that will give up a chance for a much better record. Keep Santana to lead that rotation.

[goulik]

If Santana is worth a couple midrange prospects, wouldn't Santana and a couple mid range prospects be worth a top prospect?

Sweeten the pot.

Massage the deal(s).

[olivia11]

What would you guys think of this potential trade? 

 

Ervin Santana to the Rangers for RHP Luis Ortiz.

 

20 year old RHP in AA.  Top 100 prospect (#63 overall) and Rangers #4 prospect.   He's had a few injury problems but profiles as a #2.   Rangers need starting pitching help at least in the short term. 

 

I'd think that if you could get a guy who profiles as a 1 or 2, you'd have to go for it.   And, part of the benefit in trading Santana is the spot it opens up in the rotation to ensure that Berrios, Duffey, May have a spot.  I'd be totally happy with a 2017 of Berrios, Duffey, May, Gibson, and either Nolasco/Hughes.  Moving towards playoffs in 2018 with a rotation of Berrios, Duffey, May, Gibson, and whoever emerges first of Gonsalves, Stewart, Jorge, Jay. 

[old nurse]

Don't be swayed by the term top 100 prospect. History is littered with failed top 100 prospects.  Matt Gamel, Tomas Neal  Nick Hagadone types excite you?  Nick Blackburn, Phil Humber, Guerra? Near ready top 100 prospects that fizzled. Santana is what he is. A couple of high ceiling young top 100 prospects one could get excited about.  More cup of coffee players, not so much.

[toosweet64]

I don't think that clubs will be willing to give up a top prospect and then let a guy go to free agency in the case of guys like Rich Hill, Jeremy Hellickson, or Drew Pomeranz. Thus, Erv might look better as he is team controlled for 2 more years at a relatively low salary for a big market club. He would fit nicely on an NL club like the Dodgers who have seemingly unlimited money and good prospects in their system. I'd asked for a #60-80 range prospect and chip in around 8-9 million to get it done. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Don't be swayed by the term top 100 prospect. History is littered with failed top 100 prospects.  Matt Gamel, Tomas Neal  Nick Hagadone types excite you?  Nick Blackburn, Phil Humber, Guerra? Near ready top 100 prospects that fizzled. Santana is what he is. A couple of high ceiling young top 100 prospects one could get excited about.  More cup of coffee players, not so much.

 

So, never make a trade, or just in this instance don't make a trade? 

 

Signing FAs is filled with busts too. Counting on guys in their mid-30s to be good is filled with bad outcomes too.

 

I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

 

As for the topic in general.......I agree a veteran SP is probably important from a mentoring standpoint. I have no idea if Santana is good at that or not. I don't agree that they should be worried about keeping him to remain in competition. He'll be in in his mid-30s. He's good, but not great (when he's good). You can sign a flyer type to take his place if needed. 

 

I probably would not deal him....unless they insist on keeping Nolasco or Milone, in which case I'd deal him to make room and move onto the future.

 

When looking at the equation....people keep asking if his replacement would be as good, without adding in any benefit that might come form whom they acquire. 

[TheLeviathan]

Target a catcher, but I'm with Willihammer - this could be a seller's market, be active.  Nothing has to be forced, but all options on the table.