Article: Servin' Up Ervin

[beckmt]

 

After reading this posting and writing my response I went to ESPN to check out events and found Boston had just traded for a 36 year old reliever who has an ERA a run higher than last year and then I read about the Mets and Snydergard going down and Harvey taking surgery and then about the Orioles having to replace an awful Jiminez.  Of course the Dodgers have almost no rotation and this story can be played out in other places as well.  The conclusion is - TR start moving or get a lieutenant who can talk trades and step in before more prospects are wasted through the desperation that these competing teams feel - right now.

Most clubs are looking internally at this time.  The next week or two is when things start to move, first with clubs that are 4-6 games back in the wild card race.  Tampa Bay starters will be addressed first and then clubs will move on to secondary targets.  Should be plenty of pitchers needed, so Twins will have a chance to move some.  Many of the contending clubs have 1-2 holes in their rotations.  Twins also need to see what they have that is close.  So if they move 2 starters(even 3), we should be able to see what pitchers on the 40 man roster can be dropped at the end of the year.

[jorgenswest]

The supply...

 

Ervin Santana

Rich Hill

Julio Teheran

Drew Pomeranz

Matt Moore

Jeremy Hellckson

Jon Niese

Matt Shoemaker

Sonny Gray

Andrew Cashner

Jorge de la Rosa

Tyron Ross (if returns and shows healthy)

 

If the demand isn't greater than the supply, only the most desirable of these options will get a return of top prospects. I don't see Santana among the most desirable. If the Twins asking price is too high, teams will look elsewhere. Right now the Rangers are looking to Kyle Lohse. It would help if the Twins can get them to look elsewhere.

[TheLeviathan]

Maybe I missed this upthread, apologies if so, but where do you think Blake Swihart's stock is at in Boston?  They need pitching and perhaps they've soured on him enough?

 

I know he needs work on his defensive game, but might be an interesting target.

[howieramone2]

 

I just don't know about next year, which is why I'd strongly consider hedging the Dozier and Santana bets until next July (but, again, if the offer is generous you take it...).

 

People watched the first half Twins stumble and bumble their way to one of the worst records in baseball. It was awful.

 

Well, there's still half a season left to be played.

 

What happens if the Twins play a second half with a healthy Sano, an emergent Kepler, and a steadily improving Buxton? What if Berrios comes up in two weeks and posts league average numbers? What if the season closes out with a .500 record in the second half?

 

At that point, do we still consider the 2017 Twins a failure before the offseason begins? I don't believe I'm ready to make that call.

 

But, again, any and all offers should be heard. If the offer is good, Ryan should take it. I'm skeptical the 2017 team will be able to contend but I also think it's foolish to write off their contention in July of 2016.

Bingo!

[old nurse]

 

Maybe I missed this upthread, apologies if so, but where do you think Blake Swihart's stock is at in Boston?  They need pitching and perhaps they've soured on him enough?

 

I know he needs work on his defensive game, but might be an interesting target.

Didn't you complain about too many DH types on the construction of the roster?  Actually Santana and one of those numerous prospects for Swihart might be a win/win situation.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What happens if the Twins play a second half with a healthy Sano, an emergent Kepler, and a steadily improving Buxton? What if Berrios comes up in two weeks and posts league average numbers? What if the season closes out with a .500 record in the second half?

 

This should really change nothing.  Those players playing well shouldn't impact our decisions on other guys.  If some of these assets - Dozier, Santana, Abad, whomever - are peaking in value now, trade them.  Don't give them away, but take value where you can get it.  

 

The fact that the core is playing well sets us up eventually, but we're still talking about a team with a lot of holes that would stand to benefit from 2017 being a year guys continue to audition and establish themselves.  

 

The kind of thinking you posted is exactly what lead to the first half disaster this year.  You're losing the forest for the trees.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This should really change nothing. Those players playing well shouldn't impact our decisions on other guys. If some of these assets - Dozier, Santana, Abad, whomever - are peaking in value now, trade them. Don't give them away, but take value where you can get it.

 

The fact that the core is playing well sets us up eventually, but we're still talking about a team with a lot of holes that would stand to benefit from 2017 being a year guys continue to audition and establish themselves.

 

The kind of thinking you posted is exactly what lead to the first half disaster this year. You're losing the forest for the trees.

I'm not losing the forest for the trees, I'm simply not declaring 2017 a write-off in July of 2016.

 

I'm all for trading guys if the return fits the Twins' needs... What I'm NOT for is trading guys just to trade guys (either trough nominal return on value or low minors prospects who won't help until 2020).

 

And with that said, I'm still for trading everyone I can over 25, I'm just not going to give away Santana or Dozier. The deal has to be right, that's all.

 

Because it's likely both players have similar value this offseason and by that time, you have more information how to proceed.

 

It feels a bit convenient that you edited the last paragraph out of that post:

 

"But, again, any and all offers should be heard. If the offer is good, Ryan should take it. I'm skeptical the 2017 team will be able to contend but I also think it's foolish to write off their contention in July of 2016."

[Major League Ready]

You both have good points.  It always comes down to what is the return, right. I also don't know that I want to risk the decline that is probable with Santana.  I think I take a decent offer and run.  Different deal with Dozier... It needs to be a very good return.  Sanchez, for example, would be a good starting point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You both have good points.  It always comes down to what is the return, right. I also don't know that I want to risk the decline that is probable with Santana.  I think I take a decent offer and run.  Different deal with Dozier... It needs to be a very good return.  Sanchez, for example, would be a good starting point.

Agreed on both counts. Santana is worth less than Dozier. He's older and it's not that hard to spend $10m to take a flyer on a vet starter this offseason.

 

It puts the Twins in an awkward situation:

 

1. Santana is more expendable than Dozer because he's older and not as valuable

 

2. Dozier is more expendable than Santana because Jorge Polanco is waiting

 

While the Twins can trade both of them, I think that's a tall order for ANY deadline. It's hard enough to move one guy with 2+ years on his contract... Moving two of them would be remarkable.

 

Which brings us back to the offseason. Which player has more value in the offseason? It's probably Dozier but given how craptastic the free agent pitching market looks this offseason, Santana might not be far behind.

[stringer bell]

 

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.

I agree that Santana is the best of the free agent veterans and that the Twins should have a veteran in the rotation, but Hughes and Nolasco are both under contract next year and even if Hughes can't pitch right away (or ever) there's still Ricky. If they can get something for Erv without paying his entire salary, it is probably best for the player and the team.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not losing the forest for the trees, I'm simply not declaring 2017 a write-off in July of 2016.

I'm all for trading guys if the return fits the Twins' needs... What I'm NOT for is trading guys just to trade guys (either trough nominal return on value or low minors prospects who won't help until 2020).

And with that said, I'm still for trading everyone I can over 25, I'm just not going to give away Santana or Dozier. The deal has to be right, that's all.

Because it's likely both players have similar value this offseason and by that time, you have more information how to proceed.

It feels a bit convenient that you edited the last paragraph out of that post:

"But, again, any and all offers should be heard. If the offer is good, Ryan should take it. I'm skeptical the 2017 team will be able to contend but I also think it's foolish to write off their contention in July of 2016."

 

Yes, I wrote off your disclaimer because I took the central point you were making "don't write off 2017 contention" and addressed that and not some bogus small print, cover-your-butt junk at the end.

 

Is anyone arguing we give them away like some sort of gift basket?  If not, then let's get rid of that.  Strawman defeated, moving on.

 

Trading them in the offseason, versus July 31st, doesn't seem any more or less "writing off 2017".  They are basically the same act.  The only differences I can see are 1) Opening up playing time the rest of 2016 and 2) possible trade market differences, but that, at best, is speculative.

 

If the Twins went .500 the rest of the way they'd match the 2012 Red Sox who went on to have the most historic one year turn around in baseball history in 2013.  (69-93 to 97-63) Meaning, you are deciding not to "write off" 2017 for the odds of something happening that is the statistical outlier (by FAR) in MLB history.  

 

Yes, we need to write off any serious thoughts of contention in 2017 and right the roster around the kids.  We need to make sure they have all the playing time they need to establish themselves and build around that with pieces that will be here for 3-4 years from now or only temporarily as trade fodder.  

 

So, no, don't "give away" Santana or Dozier but if you get a competitive offer - take it.  Look forward clearly and not with delusion about the shape this roster is in.  Some better play in the second half doesn't fix everything, 2017 is still going to be about getting things in the right direction.  Not being turned there and ready to go.

Edited July 9, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Major League Ready]

How about Ortiz & Sadzeck for Santana with the Twins picking up $2M of the remainder of 2016, $3M in 2017 and $4M in 2018?  Over optimistic?

Edited July 9, 2016 by Major Leauge Ready

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes, I wrote off your disclaimer because I took the central point you were making "don't write off 2017 contention" and addressed that and not some bogus small print, cover-your-butt junk at the end.

 

Is anyone arguing we give them away like some sort of gift basket? If not, then let's get rid of that. Strawman defeated, moving on.

 

Trading them in the offseason, versus July 31st, doesn't seem any more or less "writing off 2017". They are basically the same act. The only differences I can see are 1) Opening up playing time the rest of 2016 and 2) possible trade market differences, but that, at best, is speculative.

 

If the Twins went .500 the rest of the way they'd match the 2012 Red Sox who went on to have the most historic one year turn around in baseball history in 2013. (69-93 to 97-63) Meaning, you are deciding not to "write off" 2017 for the odds of something happening that is the statistical outlier (by FAR) in MLB history.

 

Yes, we need to write off any serious thoughts of contention in 2017 and right the roster around the kids. We need to make sure they have all the playing time they need to establish themselves and build around that with pieces that will be here for 3-4 years from now or only temporarily as trade fodder.

 

So, no, don't "give away" Santana or Dozier but if you get a competitive offer - take it. Look forward clearly and not with delusion about the shape this roster is in. Some better play in the second half doesn't fix everything, 2017 is still going to be about getting things in the right direction. Not being turned there and ready to go.

Cover my ass junk? For ****'s sake, Levi. You just can't argue civilly, can you? I'm not even going to bother.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Cover my ass junk? For ****'s sake, Levi. You just can't argue civilly, can you? I'm not even going to bother.

 

Sorry, but if you're going to call me out for cutting off part of your post, I'm going to call that part of your post what it is.  That isn't uncivil, you tried to paint my response unfairly.

 

I took your central theme and argued that, some irrelevant disclaimer doesn't matter to me and shouldn't matter in your response. 

[DocBauer]

Not going to attempt to put words in Brock's mouth, but I don't believe he is actually saying the Twins will contend in 2017. I think he is simply saying not to write offor the season before it begins because things can happen. Am I correct?

 

Loook, I'm not saying I expect the Twins to contend in 2017 either. There are just too many IF'S that have to take place. But, the team is actually playing better. And what if the young OF, and Sano keep developing and are even better next season? What if Gibson is healthy and keeps improving, same with Berrios and Duffey and hopefully May? Add someone at C, add a reliable arm to the pen, and a .500-ish finish the second half of this season could provide optomism for 2017 to be a .500 or better club.

 

Last year, neither the Twins or Astros were supposed to compete, so things do happen.

 

That being said, I'm not opposed to moving Santana or Dozier. And I think we universally all agree the return has to be worthwhile. Otherwise, wait until teams recalibrate their roster's in the offseason, or wait until next July. The simple question that has to be asked, IMO, is "are we better with what we can acquire? Or are we better off keeping these two guys for the time being so as to not create more immediate holes?"

[Kwak]

Trade Santana--yes, but for players who might amount to more than something! Ryan was quoted as being amenable to "including money" for a better player. Great! I would seek two at Class A instead of one at AA who is higher on the prospect list. There are many positions that  can be classified as need. Many posters are "tickled pink" with Sano moved to 3B--but is he a long-term solution at 3B? Or, is this a short-term proposition? Catcher is still a bleeding ulcer on this franchise, and the prognostication is bleak. There are many candidates for 1B/DH (especially after Mauer's contract expires) so there isn't much need there.

 

As for the 2017 season? We saw what happened when most outcomes are above projections last year--and it still wasn't enough. A .500 finish to 2016 shouldn't sway decisions--unless mediocrity is your goal. As configured the Twins are still a 70-something win team without "Murphy's Law" or "Luck". the skill level of the team must be improved until the Twins are at least an 83 win team given "normal luck" of outcomes. Trade Santana if two or more reasonable prospects can be obtained--and forget about being a .500 team next season. Seek to build a .600 team instead even if some more patience is required.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I didn't call you out. Go back and read your posts. If you can't see how you were antagonizing the situation right off the bat with the forest for the trees comment, whatever.

 

People can disagree and argue without implying the other is stupid, short-sighted, or somehow deficient in their thinking and if they just saw it your way, the heavens would open to them and light would bathe them in Knowledge and Truth.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not going to attempt to put words in Brock's mouth, but I don't believe he is actually saying the Twins will contend in 2017. I think he is simply saying not to write offor the season before it begins because things can happen. Am I correct?

 

Here's what doesn't make sense: if you're just going to advocate dealing them in November anyway, the argument "don't write off 2017" doesn't really make sense.  If you don't intend to retain them, then the only argument is about trade value not what you expect the season next year to bring.  So, yeah, no one is arguing give them away.  We all agree to get value, but our plans for 2017 are pretty irrelevant if that's the argument.

 

And yes, things could go crazy and go right, but is that how you'd recommend we operate running the team for sustained success?  Reaching for low-odds statistical anomalies as a basis for action?  

 

This season woke us up to some serious issues with the 25 and 40 man roster.  We're further away than we thought and that's ok.  It happens. But it's going to take time for that to get cleaned up.  We also have young players we need to ease into the big leagues without expecting them to be MVPs or all-stars.  We need next year for them to establish themselves without any other pressure than to refine their game.  That isn't "writing off" the season, but we have to keep perspective.

[DocBauer]

I've heard various arguements that the Twins should look for a SS in any trades. I wonder if this should be so. With Gordon a top prospect, Vielma an intriguing one and Escobar and Nunez holding down the fort for now (each with solid to better than average bats), plus maybe Polanco, I think I'd direct my attentions elsewhere.

 

Despite Garver looking good at AA and Murphy still a possibility that shouldn't be given up on so soon, I'd probably look at catching help as my top priority. With top pitching arms at AA, at least a year away, if Santana is gone it creates a need for a ML ready or near ready arm. And I have to wonder if there is a Joe Nathan-like arm out there just waiting for an opportunity who could help solidify the bullpen?

 

I think these are the areas I'd be looking at.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The only issue I have with not trading Dozier is that Polanco is out of options next year and he's a prime candidate to be Arcia'd.  I don't know if he will ever be as good as BD, but what I can say is that the potential is there for him to be an above average 2B both offensively and defensively.  If Dozier can net a really nice prospect while allowing you to play Polanco, I think you do it.  I do agree though that he shouldn't be traded for nothing.  Same goes with Santana.  I'd rather trade Nolasco/Milone for nothing (or just DFA them both if there are no takers) then part with Santana for a meager return.. Now again, if someone wants to pay something nice, then by all means, let's do it. 

[TheLeviathan]

Guess it depends if the Twins see Polanco as a SS.  It's hard to say with how Nunez has played this year and with Dozier coming back to life.

 

They need to decide on Polanco, trade him, or make a spot for him.  Ideally soon.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not going to attempt to put words in Brock's mouth, but I don't believe he is actually saying the Twins will contend in 2017. I think he is simply saying not to write offor the season before it begins because things can happen. Am I correct?

To clarify my point, I'd put everyone over 25 on the table at the deadline (maybe not Gibson but given his current value, it's probably irrelevant).

 

I would do everything in my power to trade, return be damned: Suzuki, Plouffe, Milone, Nolasco (LOL)

 

I would take any reasonable offer for: Abad, Nunez

 

I would take offers on but only trade the following if the return brought back a prospect that can contribute within 18 months: Dozier, Santana

 

Depending on how the Twins close out 2016, I may be more or less open to trading Dozier or Santana this offseason (also, a lot depends on Polanco).

 

I don't expect the Twins to compete in 2017. I also won't rule it out this July. That means any valuable piece I send to another team this deadline needs to return a prospect that can help as soon as 2017 and no later than 2018.

 

Dozier and Santana can contribute to the opening of the Twins' next window of competitiveness. I'm not giving either away unless the return is another player that can contribute to that window. I'm not interested in 2020. I care about 2018, maybe even 2017 a little bit.

[SheboyganBrats]

Assuming this is the "seller's market" for starting pitching that it appears to be, I'd trade Santana now.  If someone offers a good return, I wouldn't hesitate, hoping that the market is still there in the offseason or next July.  The market is there now.  I'd also hope to unload Nolasco, though I wouldn't expect any return.  If we think we'd need to bolster the starting pitching for next season, I'd take a run at Cashner on a one year deal in the offseason, but I'd definitely bring up Berrios and return May to the rotation.  Just my two cents.

[TheLeviathan]

We all agree - don't move Dozier and Santana for anything less than good value.  The problem is why you make that decision.

 

Max Kepler looking like a stud should have absolutely no bearing on your trade talks about Santana.  If you're shopping him, you're doing it to add value to the team in a trade.  Ditto Dozier.  Whether the Twins go .500 or .300 or .700 the rest of the way shouldn't impact the vision going forward.  These guys are good players with the potential to contribute value to this team in a trade.  They shouldn't be dealt unless the return matches that.

 

Just letting your W/L record dictate your decisions is a large part of what I think happened last offseason.  We have to keep perspective.

[sploorp]

If there is one thing every team has no shortage of, it's mid-level prospects.  Why would any team want even more?

 

Trading Santana without (or even before) trading Milone and Nolasto seems like a dumb idea to me.  Those guys I would definitely trade for lesser prospects and cheer the front office if they went down.

 

If Santana stays hot, a team in win now mode desperate for pitching, will give up a top prospect or two.

[Halsey Hall]

 

I agree that Santana is the best of the free agent veterans and that the Twins should have a veteran in the rotation, but Hughes and Nolasco are both under contract next year and even if Hughes can't pitch right away (or ever) there's still Ricky. If they can get something for Erv without paying his entire salary, it is probably best for the player and the team.

I'm taking for granted Nolasco is gone, and Hughes not in the roatation.

[LaBombo]

You boys better break it up before Chief steps in...

 

http://66.media.tumblr.com/868ef7da06716652d5facfbb5b7c57bc/tumblr_n2ac4xeGeC1rujq2eo1_1280.jpg

Edited July 9, 2016 by LaBombo

[old nurse]

 

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. 

Did not say do not make a trade.  The near major league ready prospect hunkering down at the bottom of some preseason list may not have the upside of a lower level prospect.  At this point I would rather see a prospect with great potential than a prospect with a higher flow but not much higher than that ceiling.   I would rather see the Twins pick up multiple prospects that gain their way up the list.  Milton and Ortiz were not ranked prospects when obtained.

[ashbury]

 

You boys better break it up before Chief steps in...

 

http://66.media.tumblr.com/868ef7da06716652d5facfbb5b7c57bc/tumblr_n2ac4xeGeC1rujq2eo1_1280.jpg

Where'd you find the baby picture of Chief?

[DocBauer]

We'received all agreed, you don't trade Santana or Dozier unless the return is a good one. Maybe even unexpectedly good, the market will tell us I guess. Will the market be better now? Or the offseason after teams begin to re-examine and re-build their rosters? Or next July at the next trade deadline?

 

I think the most important question is what's best for the Twins going forward. No doubt to continuing the rebuild and making room for the prospects. To me, this clearly means parting ways with Nolasco, Milone and Ploufe and probably Suzuki as well. I'm not so sure that should include Nunez or Abad, neither of them would be expensive to keep another year or two, and the team may be better with them than without them. And nkw, and to at least begin 2017, I'm not sure keeping g either of them actually blocks anyone at this point. But keeping them, or moving them, is an interesting debate and one where I can see both sides.

 

But the real debate here is Santana, and now seems to include Dozier as well. And so I ask again, what's best for the Twins? Of course adding good young players to your organization is always a good thing. It's the life blood of your entire organization. Not only in terms of new, rising talent but also providing trade options. But is keeping each of them maybe better for the team for the immediate future?

 

It's not unreasonable to see Gibson, Berrios, Duffey and May as 4 of the 5 SP options for 2017. But who fills the 5th spot? Dean appears to be a fringe player (though I like his approach) while Wheeler is a complete unknown at the moment and Meyer is a mystery (though we'd all like to see that mystery solved) Our top pitching prospects are a good season away. Keeping Santana, for now, provides a solid, useful veteran presence in the rotation. We're I a betting man, I'd wager he's got at least one more solid year left in him, and is more of a cost-controlled and known factor that what next year's crop of FA options would provide. More or less the same for Dozier, for now, until we know better what we have in Polanco.

 

Again, not saying don't move them if the offer (s) are good ones. But in regard to 2017 and various comments about not giving up on a season that's not even here for some time yet, I ask again, what is best for the Twins? And I'm not so sure the immediate future isn't better with them than without them.