Article: Servin' Up Ervin

[Vanimal46]

Preller was the butt of all jokes about bad GMs the last couple of years, but he's taken 2 assets and flipped them for decent returns within the last year. A strategy that our FO has yet to capitalize on.... 

[alarp33]

 

Since 2014, Pomeranz has an ERA+ of 137 striking out more than a batter per inning. He is 27 and under team control through 2018. That kind of pitcher will get a good return in any market. It has no meaning for 2016 other than to set the bar for guys like Teheran.

 

Ervin obviously doesn't have the value Pomeranz had, but.... He had never thrown more than 100 innings in a season before this year, looking solely at his ERA+ and K/9 in his last 180 innings (26 starts, 44 Relief appearances)) is an extreme cherry pick.

[jorgenswest]

Ervin obviously doesn't have the value Pomeranz had, but.... He had never thrown more than 100 innings in a season before this year, looking solely at his ERA+ and K/9 in his last 180 innings (26 starts, 44 Relief appearances)) is an extreme cherry pick.

Three seasons is typical for projecting forward. Far better than a half season stats. I think I also used three seasons in other posts looking at Suzuki and Santana. Was I also cherry picking there? What would you suggest in general to avoid cherry picking? I know that selecting samples differently case by case would be cherry picking.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Boston clearly had the better chance since their GM almost assuredly called the Padres instead of waiting for the Padres to call them :-)

If you have a shot at Pomeranz, why would you be interested in Santana?

 

Let's not pretend even for a moment the two pitchers are comparable.

 

If anything, we should be happy Boston went ahead and pulled the trigger on this deal early so Pomeranz is off the market.

[alarp33]

 

Three seasons is typical for projecting forward. Far better than a half season stats. I think I also used three seasons in other posts looking at Suzuki and Santana. Was I also cherry picking there? What would you suggest in general to avoid cherry picking? I know that selecting samples differently case by case would be cherry picking.

 

It's cherry picking because the main reason people are skeptical of this trade and calling it an overpay, sellers market, etc. has nothing to do with Pomeranz's ERA+ or K/9.  It has everything to do with the fact that he has never thrown over 100 innings until 2016. 

 

Yes, you used 3 seasons of data. 3 seasons where he made 36 starts.  

 

His ERA+ and K/9 since the start of 2014 include a whopping 200 Starter innings spread over 3 seasons, and 57 relief innings.  

 

Just to use one small example to make my point clearer.  It appears without pulling up the splits Corey Kluber has a similar ERA+ and K/9 as Drew Pomeranz since the start of 2014.  

 

Would you say its fair to Kluber if I made the argument "Pomeranz has been as good if not better of pitcher than Kluber since 2014, look at the ERA+ and K/9"?  Probably not, because you'd point out Kluber has started more than twice as many games, pitched more than twice as many innings and has compiled almost 10 more Wins Above Replacement than Pomeranz.  

Edited July 15, 2016 by alarp33

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If anything, we should be happy Boston went ahead and pulled the trigger on this deal early so Pomeranz is off the market.

Yeah, although it's probably a sign that other teams will approach the market similarly.  As much as Ervin isn't bad, and Pomeranz has a limited track record, teams are probably looking to gamble on upside right now, even if they don't just want a pure 2 month rental.

 

From the MLBTR piece, I note that Pomeranz was in a pretty big group of "controllable arms", while Ervin is relegated to the "big contracts" group.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/trade-market-for-starting-pitchers-4.html

 

It's unlikely that anyone will feel compelled to overpay to get Ervin Santana on his remaining contract.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, although it's probably a sign that other teams will approach the market similarly.  As much as Ervin isn't bad, and Pomeranz has a limited track record, teams are probably looking to gamble on upside right now, even if they don't just want a pure 2 month rental.

 

From the MLBTR piece, I note that Pomeranz was in a pretty big group of "controllable arms", while Ervin is relegated to the "big contracts" group.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/trade-market-for-starting-pitchers-4.html

 

It's unlikely that anyone will feel compelled to overpay to get Ervin Santana on his remaining contract.

I'm not looking for an overpay, just a fair offer.

 

And the fewer upside arms that are left on the market, I think the closer that offer comes to reality.

[jorgenswest]

It's cherry picking because the main reason people are skeptical of this trade and calling it an overpay, sellers market, etc. has nothing to do with Pomeranz's ERA+ or K/9.  It has everything to do with the fact that he has never thrown over 100 innings until 2016. 

 

Yes, you used 3 seasons of data. 3 seasons where he made 36 starts.  

 

His ERA+ and K/9 since the start of 2014 include a whopping 200 Starter innings spread over 3 seasons, and 57 relief innings.  

 

Just to use one small example to make my point clearer.  It appears without pulling up the splits Corey Kluber has a similar ERA+ and K/9 as Drew Pomeranz since the start of 2014.  

 

Would you say its fair to Kluber if I made the argument "Pomeranz has been as good if not better of pitcher than Kluber since 2014, look at the ERA+ and K/9"?  Probably not, because you'd point out Kluber has started more than twice as many games, pitched more than twice as many innings and has compiled almost 10 more Wins Above Replacement than Pomeranz.

 

Isn't the definition of cherry picking selectively picking a sample based on the case? I still have no idea what sample should have been chosen to avoid cherry picking. Of course the confidence interval shrinks when comparing Kluber against Pomeranz. Pomeranz would be more likely to underperform and out perform a projection. There is more risk that Pomeranz has not pitched 200 innings. On the other hand, he also has less wear on his arm.

 

You made the statement extreme cherry picking when using three seasons. What do you suggest should be used so that I am not selecting a sample case by case?

 

I guess the Red Sox must have been picking the same cherries when offering one of the best prospects in baseball for a guy that has made only 36 starts over three seasons.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm not looking for an overpay, just a fair offer.

Of course, those are subjective terms.

 

What's a fair offer, to you?  Sorry if I missed it upthread.

 

In my opinion, the posters debating about a certain type/level of top 100 prospect were pretty much looking for an overpay.

[alarp33]

 

Isn't the definition of cherry picking selectively picking a sample based on the case? I still have no idea what sample should have been chosen to avoid cherry picking. Of course the confidence interval shrinks when comparing Kluber against Pomeranz. Pomeranz would be more likely to underperform and out perform a projection. There is more risk that Pomeranz has not pitched 200 innings. On the other hand, he also has less wear on his arm.

You made the statement extreme cherry picking when using three seasons. What do you suggest should be used so that I am not selecting a sample case by case?

I guess the Red Sox must have been picking the same cherries when offering one of the best prospects in baseball for a guy that has made only 36 starts over three seasons.

 

It wasn't about the sample size of 3 seasons, it was about the Stats used to reach the conclusion. Those stats, ERA+ and K/9 don't differentiate between the numbers of innings pitched, or whether they came in relief or the rotation.  I'm not really arguing whether the Red Sox should have made the deal or not, or whether Pomeranz can be good or not.  I was really just quibbling over the stats used to conclude he's an elite pitcher, worthy of being traded for a top 15 prospect in all of baseball.  

 

I think the Red Sox overpaid, but thats neither here nor there.  I think its unlikely Pomeranz helps their starting rotation come September and October due to the obvious risk factors based on his IP, but his 2017 + 2018 seasons are certainly valuable

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Of course, those are subjective terms.

 

What's a fair offer, to you?  Sorry if I missed it upthread.

 

In my opinion, the posters debating about a certain type/level of top 100 prospect were pretty much looking for an overpay.

Personally, I'm in no rush to trade Santana but were someone to offer a 75-100 prospect, I'd probably pull the trigger. If that team required me to pay, say, $4m of Santana's contract in 2017 and 2018, that seems reasonable.

 

Asking for anything higher than the bottom quartile of top 100 prospects is living in a dream world, in my opinion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Personally, I'm in no rush to trade Santana but were someone to offer a 75-100 prospect, I'd probably pull the trigger. If that team required me to pay, say, $4m of Santana's contract in 2017 and 2018, that seems reasonable.

Thanks.  I'd probably take that too, but it feels like it might still be an overpay for the buyer.  If a team has a bottom quartile top 100 prospect and $26 million to spare (Ervin's remaining guarantee minus $8 mil), it seems like they could make a stronger push in 2016 (which should be their priority right now), and still have the resources to address any remaining SP needs for 2017-2018.

Edited July 15, 2016 by spycake

[Mike Sixel]

 

Thanks.  I'd probably take that too, but it feels like it might still be an overpay for the buyer.  If a team has a bottom quartile top 100 prospect and $26 million to spare (Ervin's remaining guarantee minus $8 mil), it seems like they could make a stronger push in 2016, and still have the resources to address any remaining SP needs for 2017-2018.

 

two thoughts/questions:

 

I'm not sure there is a FA SP next year as good as Santana*

Are you saying they can get a better SP than Santana for the number 80ish prospect?

 

*I have not checked, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[jimmer]

 

If you have a shot at Pomeranz, why would you be interested in Santana?

 

Let's not pretend even for a moment the two pitchers are comparable.

 

If anything, we should be happy Boston went ahead and pulled the trigger on this deal early so Pomeranz is off the market.

My quote had zero to do with who we would have made available.  I'm saying Boston is almost assuredly the ones who called Padres, which gives them the advantage as opposed to TR waiting by the phone waiting for a call from the Padres.

[Linus]

Would you do this trade: santana, nick Gordon and kohl Stewart for jurickson profar?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

two thoughts/questions:

 

I'm not sure there is a FA SP next year as good as Santana*

Are you saying they can get a better SP than Santana for the number 80ish prospect?

 

*I have not checked, but it wouldn't surprise me.

1. FA isn't the only avenue to acquire a SP for 2017-2018.  (Although even in a weak market, they could probably find an interesting one year flier in FA and reassess at the deadline again next year, and an internal option might be close enough by then too.  Heck, Santana himself might still be attainable at next year's deadline again.)

 

2. Not necessarily a better SP straight up for the 80ish prospect, but if you have that prospect and $26 mil to spend, you can probably figure out a better solution that gets you more upside for the 2016 pennant race, without precluding having enough SP for 2017-2018.  Maybe the number 80ish prospect could anchor a package for Hill?  Maybe you can keep your 80ish prospect, but give up a better one straight up for more upside, like the Red Sox did for Pomeranz?  Most teams with $26 mil to spare probably have more cash available than that too, and can afford to get creative like the Rangers did for Hamels last year.

 

There's are reasons that guys like Santana and his contract don't get moved much, if at all, in July.  I think two of the biggest are teams want more upside than that for the stretch run, and teams willing to absorb most of the contract probably aren't too worried about filling the back end of their rotation the next couple years.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Would you do this trade: santana, nick Gordon and kohl Stewart for jurickson profar?

 

probably not......I'd do the first two for sure, meaning your proposal might be fair.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Would you do this trade: santana, nick Gordon and kohl Stewart for jurickson profar?

No way.  I'm not that sold on Profar, and we're not that desperate for salary relief on Santana.  That would be giving up 3 assets for 1.

 

Also, Profar collected service time for his lost 2014-2015 seasons.  He's already arb eligible and is scheduled to hit free agency after 2019.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Thanks.  I'd probably take that too, but it feels like it might still be an overpay for the buyer.  If a team has a bottom quartile top 100 prospect and $26 million to spare (Ervin's remaining guarantee minus $8 mil), it seems like they could make a stronger push in 2016 (which should be their priority right now), and still have the resources to address any remaining SP needs for 2017-2018.

I agree it might be a bit of an overpay but it's in the ballpark... And because I'm in no rush to trade Ervin, that's about what I'd ask.

 

Given Santana's steady(ish) performance and injury history, he's a reasonable gamble to hold on to for at least one more season. If he keeps performing, his value will only go up as his contract winds down.

[Major League Ready]

 

My quote had zero to do with who we would have made available.  I'm saying Boston is almost assuredly the ones who called Padres, which gives them the advantage as opposed to TR waiting by the phone waiting for a call from the Padres.

What information are you using to come to the conclusion on who is calling whom?  Do you have some inside knowledge or are you drawing conclusion from bits and pieces of trade rumors?

[old nurse]

 

two thoughts/questions:

 

I'm not sure there is a FA SP next year as good as Santana*

Are you saying they can get a better SP than Santana for the number 80ish prospect?

 

*I have not checked, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The 2008 56th best by B.A. would be a worse prospect. A 22 year old Drew Pomeranz was  the 61 in 2011 and moved up. The riskier the prospect, the better it is when it works out.

[Rosterman]

Santana. He is probably worth the most right now, today, for any team looking for pitching...and his consistency will work in his favor for another team absorbing his contract. If you decided to hang on for some team to overpay, they will (1) go elsewhere (2) don't call. In the Twins favor, it gives them payroll relief (not that unspent payroll carries from season to season). His value might not necessarily increase as you pitch for a losing team. Yes, there are few off-season free agents, which makes him even more attractable to a team that will score 4+ runs in a game adding him to the rotation if they are prepping to lose someone themselves. That we replace him in the rotation with, say, Berrios. Well, who is to say that Berrios WON'T knock off 4-5 quality starts before season's end that will make him that much more valuable as we enter next season.

 

Milone passed thru waivers. The Twins can dangle him out there again and hope someone bites and grabs his contract and will give us a lowend prospect in return.

 

Otherwise, look to August where any player claimed on waivers can be given to the team as salary relief. Be it Milone or Nolasco or Plouffe...the Twins should do this and move forward. Don't wait for some off-season miracle.

 

I would also dangle Escobar and keep Nunez at this point. I would go with Sano at third and , if need be, have Nunez as the regular shortstop or backup at third. What we do with Danny Santana (infioeld or outfield) is what we keep for the rest of the year, plus advance up Polanco.

 

We bring up Wheeler as a starter and see if he can give us better-than-Milone numbers. Who knows, he might be a sleeper. I would also strongly consider making the fifth spot (in place of Nolasco departing) as a rotating spot to have an early look at Stewart, Gonsalves, a look at Baxendale and any other starting pitcher you expect to add to the 40-man roster this offseason and who has a good chance of contributing to the team at some point in 2017. 

 

It doesn't look like May will be stretched. We can always consider Dean the guy in reserve. We can hope Meyer gets some starts and also some major league starts come September. I would seriously consider, given the Twins placement in the standings come September 1, to go with a six-man rotation and give GREAT looks to future starters as well as bring up ANY relief pitcher you have room for on the 40-man who will also be added to the 40-man (Zack Jones, for one). 

 

I honestly don't think keeping Nolasco and Santana dn their salaries into 2017 will make the Twins a better or more competitive team. I would go for the salary relief (although, again, the savings won't carry over, sadly) and see what we have in youth. If you can make a mental note in your books and pay out above your quota for $$$ in 2018...I would take those Nolasco and Santana savings and get a top-flight starter.

 

And then, throw into the mix, the NEED for a new front office and field staff. That is job #1 at this point, too. Get someone who will rebuild with what we have in prospects and go forth from there.