Article: Santana Shines Among Sad Starter Group

[Tom Froemming]

 

According to this, Hughes will be ready by Spring Training:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/06/phil-hughes-shoulder-surgery-twins.html

I haven't seen a more recent update.

He also had a compression fracture on his left leg prior to that. 

This what the Twins are saying, but take a look at the history of guys who've had TOS. It's not pretty. I hope he can come back, but if I was in the Twins front office there's no way I'd be banking on it.

[jimmer]

Gisbon may have been a solid starter last year (mostly for one month), but there were signs he was trending down (like his ERA of 5.22 in the 2nd half).  It's why I kept saying towards the end of last season and early offseason that we should trade him while he was still looking decent because this year we were likely to see him perform quite a bit worse. 

 

Admittedly, I didn't expect him to be THIS bad (yet he is somehow still our second best starter in a rotation that was so talented it didn't have room for May)

Edited August 31, 2016 by jimmer

[Thrylos]

Santana is half a UCL or another drug suspension away from having zero value for the Twins in 2017.  They got to sell high.  I'd love to see what a combination of Santana, Dozier, Buxton, Walker, Stewart, Gordon + ? can bring in a couple different trades.  Can they bring back (let's say) an Alex Reyes and a Michael Kopech?  Maybe.  Maybe more.  I'd take that.

 

Winning teams are build around great starting pitching these days.  Santana is not great and the Twins need at least 2 potentially great starting pitchers to go some place, and they better aim that high, instead of bringing in second and third tier players, if they want to win.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Thrylos

[Deduno Abides]

Sure, I'd trade Santana. . . if I could get what Atlanta got for Shelby Miller or what Detroit got for Cespedes.

 

No, I wouldn't trade Santana for Adalberto Mejia or Pat Light, and probably not for both of them together.

 

Somewhere between those two is the dividing line between trading and not trading.

[Nick Nelson]

 

I get that people want to say things like "don't give up on next year!", but sometimes that's just being a realist.  Charlie Brown shouldn't continue to live his life believing he's going to some day kick field goals in the NFL.  At some point he should just accept who he is and quit living the lie.  Retaining Santana is living a lie about next year.   Same with Dozier.  I don't give them away, but I actively seek ways to move them for value.  Anything else is just too detached from reality for my liking.

With respect, I think advocating for a blowout rebuild is the unrealistic view. You might think it's the best approach (and you might be right) but it's not going to happen. There is zero reason to think that ownership or the head execs have any desire to take this route. I can almost guarantee you that when they're interviewing candidates, they're not asking "How can you get this team contending in three years?" but rather "How are you going to get this thing back on track fast?"

 

There are business realities at play here, and as I wrote, they likely played in to the decision to give TR the ax. They simply cannot afford to openly forfeit competitiveness next year. They're too far into this era of hideous play. They're too invested in young core players that have already entered the fold. They're losing too many fans and too much money as it is. 

 

Therefore, I write most of my content from that slant. What can the Twins do to position themselves well for the future without blatantly punting 2017? I'm not seeing a Santana trade scenario that accomplishes both.

[Mike Sixel]

 

With respect, I think advocating for a blowout rebuild is the unrealistic view. You might think it's the best approach (and you might be right) but it's not going to happen. There is zero reason to think that ownership or the head execs have any desire to take this route. I can almost guarantee you that when they're interviewing candidates, they're not asking "How can you get this team contending in three years?" but rather "How are you going to get this thing back on track fast?"

 

There are business realities at play here, and as I wrote, they likely played in to the decision to give TR the ax. They simply cannot afford to openly forfeit competitiveness next year. They're too far into this era of hideous play. They're too invested in young core players that have already entered the fold. They're losing too many fans and too much money as it is. 

 

Therefore, I write most of my content from that slant. What can the Twins do to position themselves well for the future without blatantly punting 2017? I'm not seeing a Santana trade scenario that accomplishes both.

 

if that is their plan.....I'd rather bet on Bridgewater leading the vikings to a SB win this year, than the Twins being in the playoffs next year.

[TheLeviathan]

 

With respect, I think advocating for a blowout rebuild is the unrealistic view. You might think it's the best approach (and you might be right) but it's not going to happen. There is zero reason to think that ownership or the head execs have any desire to take this route. I can almost guarantee you that when they're interviewing candidates, they're not asking "How can you get this team contending in three years?" but rather "How are you going to get this thing back on track fast?"

 

There are business realities at play here, and as I wrote, they likely played in to the decision to give TR the ax. They simply cannot afford to openly forfeit competitiveness next year. They're too far into this era of hideous play. They're too invested in young core players that have already entered the fold. They're losing too many fans and too much money as it is. 

 

Therefore, I write most of my content from that slant. What can the Twins do to position themselves well for the future without blatantly punting 2017? I'm not seeing a Santana trade scenario that accomplishes both.

 

Is trading Santana and Dozier a blowout rebuild?  I guess I sort of take exception to that portrayal.  I think it's just a natural part of a rebuild.  We're selling high on two players with limited ability to help this team in even two years much less 4 or 5 when they are likely at peak value.  

 

And really, those are the only two players I'm actively shopping this offseason.  No one else really has the value worthy of moving them.  

 

Also, by the logic you have here Nick, wouldn't the real answer to our problems be to put these players on the block: Buxton, Sano, Berrios, and Polanco?  We might fetch 2-3 good MLB players to surround Dozier and Santan if we did.  Wouldn't that be the fast track?  

 

I'd offer this up: are Twins fans jaded and losing interest?  Yes, but at the same time we are almost guaranteed to have a totally new front office.  You know what that buys?  Time.  Time to do things right.  Sports fans get that new regimes need time to clean out the old mistakes.  So we have time to do this right and the right thing to do is deal Santana for more help.  

[jimmer]

 

Is trading Santana and Dozier a blowout rebuild?  I guess I sort of take exception to that portrayal.  I think it's just a natural part of a rebuild.  We're selling high on two players with limited ability to help this team in even two years much less 4 or 5 when they are likely at peak value.  

 

And really, those are the only two players I'm actively shopping this offseason.  No one else really has the value worthy of moving them.  

 

Also, by the logic you have here Nick, wouldn't the real answer to our problems be to put these players on the block: Buxton, Sano, Berrios, and Polanco?  We might fetch 2-3 good MLB players to surround Dozier and Santan if we did.  Wouldn't that be the fast track?  

 

I'd offer this up: are Twins fans jaded and losing interest?  Yes, but at the same time we are almost guaranteed to have a totally new front office.  You know what that buys?  Time.  Time to do things right.  Sports fans get that new regimes need time to clean out the old mistakes.  So we have time to do this right and the right thing to do is deal Santana for more help.  

Exactly.

 

I'm trying to figure out how it'd be bad to trade Dozier and Santana because it'd be seen as giving up on next season (as if having them is preventing us from losing 100 games this year anyway), but then doing things like trading prospects for established quality players, which might hasten our return to contention, would also be bad.  It's not like option three, go crazy in FA, is going to be the route taken.

Edited August 31, 2016 by jimmer

[Jham]

Exactly.

 

I'm trying to figure out how it'd be bad to trade Dozier and Santana because it'd be seen as giving up on next season (as if having them is preventing us from losing 100 games this year anyway), but the doing things like trading prospects for established quality players, which might hasten our return to contention, would also be bad. It's not like option three, go crazy in FA, is going to be the route taken.

Yeah, but I've been on the consider trading Sano or Buxton side of thinking before, and it's so unpopular that i understand why someone would rather not go there. I think you guys hit the nail square. Trade for immediate pitching, or trade for future pitching. I've said we should consider both options and take the largest return. See where we sit then, and adjust our timeline accordingly. My sneaking suspicion is that sano brings back the most franchise changing return... if nothing we offer brings back a haul, I'm not sure what we can do. Ride out another season and cross fingers on gonsalves i guess.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Is trading Santana and Dozier a blowout rebuild?  

In the eyes of the public, yes. I'm quite sure that trading both of them would be viewed that way. 

As you know I'm very supportive of trading Dozier for pitching. I just don't see how you deal Santana for any pitching that's going to help in the near future and in that case I don't see how you justify it. In the abstract Santana is certainly a tradeable asset but in a practical sense I just don't agree that it is, as you say, the right thing. 

Is it really that tough for you to envision a decent starting rotation next year that includes some combination of Santana, Gibson, May, Berrios, Santiago, Duffey, and whatever they get back for Dozier?

[Mike Sixel]

 

In the eyes of the public, yes. I'm quite sure that trading both of them would be viewed that way. 

As you know I'm very supportive of trading Dozier for pitching. I just don't see how you deal Santana for any pitching that's going to help in the near future and in that case I don't see how you justify it. In the abstract Santana is certainly a tradeable asset but in a practical sense I just don't agree that it is, as you say, the right thing. 

Is it really that tough for you to envision a decent starting rotation next year that includes some combination of Santana, Gibson, May, Berrios, Santiago, Duffey, and whatever they get back for Dozier?

 

Right now? yes, yes it is. If decent means top 15, yes. Don't forget, they also need RPs badly. 

 

If I squint, and assume it all goes well (when it hasn't any year but last, in the last 5), then I can see it.....but that's not the same as expecting it.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[laloesch]

 

I don't deny it is defeatist.  Part of my pessimism about this year was the fact that people are underselling the lumps young players sometimes have to take to show their best in the big leagues.  Too many of you were predicting MVP campaigns and all that jazz for guys that still clearly had work to do.  I think this year we saw a lot of the offensive players take their lumps, but we are nowhere close to seeing the pitching staff do the same.  Meaning, we aren't that much further along for letting our guys adjust.  

 

We'll have the husk of Phil Hughes, the decidedly bleh Gibson, and a bunch of guys still trying to prove they are starters.  I don't think, even optimistically, that we can field a good enough staff to contend next year.

 

But what I would like to do is invest a lot of innings in Mejia, May, Berrios, and whomever we get for Santana and Dozier.  Not to mention the young bullpen arms.

 

Then, ideally, 2018 is a time we can start to actually hope.  But retaining Santana does nothing to improve us, while dealing him may gave us more bullets in the chamber to improve over the long haul.

 

I get that people want to say things like "don't give up on next year!", but sometimes that's just being a realist.  Charlie Brown shouldn't continue to live his life believing he's going to some day kick field goals in the NFL.  At some point he should just accept who he is and quit living the lie.  Retaining Santana is living a lie about next year.   Same with Dozier.  I don't give them away, but I actively seek ways to move them for value.  Anything else is just too detached from reality for my liking.

 

I would reiterate what you said about Gibson.  Bleh.  Sure 2015 was a good year for him, but unlike last year's slow start he never got out of this funk.  He's doesn't have impressive stuff, decision making or killer instinct.  I wouldn't be in a hurry to get rid of him due to lack of talent on the current staff, but if someone offered the right chips for him in a trade deal I'd listen.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In the eyes of the public, yes. I'm quite sure that trading both of them would be viewed that way. 

As you know I'm very supportive of trading Dozier for pitching. I just don't see how you deal Santana for any pitching that's going to help in the near future and in that case I don't see how you justify it. In the abstract Santana is certainly a tradeable asset but in a practical sense I just don't agree that it is, as you say, the right thing. 

Is it really that tough for you to envision a decent starting rotation next year that includes some combination of Santana, Gibson, May, Berrios, Santiago, Duffey, and whatever they get back for Dozier?

 

I can envision that being the case, but that doesn't make it prudent or likely.  I also don't think trading Santana and Dozier qualifies as a total rebuild.  Hell, if that were the case I think Dozier is the key to that argument, I'm not sure Santana really moves the needle all that much.

 

And look, I get where you're coming from and I'm not willing to hand Ervin away, but if I can move him for good value (just like Dozier) - then I do it.  I don't worry about public perception as a new GM because I can justify everything I do as being my vision for rebuilding the club.  

 

And we can't know what his value is if we aren't actively shopping him.  At the end of the day I won't kick up a fuss if Dozier and Santana are retained because of underwhelming offers, but you better shop the bejesus out of them before you come to that conclusion.  (Guys like Suzuki or Willingham or Abad are different - I'll take a slightly used bag of peanuts for guys like that)

[Nick Nelson]

 

Sure, I'd trade Santana. . . if I could get what Atlanta got for Shelby Miller or what Detroit got for Cespedes. No, I wouldn't trade Santana for Adalberto Mejia or Pat Light, and probably not for both of them together. Somewhere between those two is the dividing line between trading and not trading.

Atlanta traded Miller (a VASTLY superior trade asset than Santana) to a pitching-needy team for a package headlined by a top position player prospect. Detroit traded Cespedes, a hitter, to an offense-needy team that was deep in pitching (this is the approach I've suggested with Dozier).

 

The examples sort of highlight the hold-ups I have with a potential Santana deal. Where is the precedent for clubs trading impact young pitching in exchange for a good-not-great veteran starting pitcher? 

When the Twins traded Johan Santana, the best pitching prospect they got back was a teenager. And he didn't pan out. That case is very much worth keeping in mind as we mull this idea over. 

(By the way, how differently does the 2008 season, where many expected the Twins not to be competitive, turn out if the Twins keep Santana?)

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm not against trading him, but it had better be for an impressive haul.  I think he has value in the rotation as he's basically pitching as a #2 this year.  I'd like to see next years rotation of:

 

Santana

May

Berrios

Gibson

Duffey

 

Let's these guys work it out.  Gonsalves will likely be forcing something at some point next year anyways.

[Doomtints]

Trading Dozier can make sense, as it helps clear up a potential logjam as Polanco can step in.  They can trade from a position of strength/depth and use that to plug another hole.

 

Tradnig Santana makes less sense.  It would make the team worse, it would serve nothing but to move a hole somewhere else.  Moving someone like Santana was the sort of thing that got the Twins into this mess.  

[Mike Sixel]

sometimes you need to take a step down, to move in a new direction, which is better than the path you are on.....

 

People do understand that, right? 

[jimmer]

 

Is it really that tough for you to envision a decent starting rotation next year that includes some combination of Santana, Gibson, May, Berrios, Santiago, Duffey, and whatever they get back for Dozier?

Some thought the rotation would be really good this year because of 2015.  Used the same kind of argument.

 

Anyway, to answer the question, for me, that's a yes. It really is tough to envision a combo of those pitchers being a decent rotation.

 

-May is very likely going to stay a reliever.  Even if that changes, it's going to take time to get him ready for the rotation again.

-Berrios doesn't look close, not sure he'll be really ready next year.

-Santiago? No.

-Gibson? No.

-Duffey? No.

-Santana? Yes

 

And without know what Dozier would get back, that part is incomplete.

 

That's a very shaky list of  options to roll with.  There's a whole lot of no's in there and the look back to rotation 2015 as a hope it might be good in 2017 is flawed. The same rotation that was decent for part of 2015 was almost the same rotation that was horrible in 2014.

 

So while keeping the one pitcher we should be able to reasonably count on can seem appealing, when looking at the talent on this team and remembering we're likely going to lose 100 games this year even with him on the roster (and performing well), might as well trade him and hope to get younger guys in that will help in the future.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by jimmer

[sthpstm]

Keeping Santana seems like a very TR move - let's keep him and hope 4 other starters exceed any past results and reach their absolute ceilings and the offense maintains or improves slightly we can be a .500 team competing for a wild card spot.

I hope the Pohlad's didn't fire TR just to appease fans and just hire someone who will keep the same philosophy. 

We are going to lose 100 games this year and have been dreadful for most of the past 6 years. We need to rebuild a SP rotation for 2018/2019 that can hopefully coincide with our top hitting prospects developing. Since prospects miss all the time, we need to fill that pipeline with 2-3 more SP's in the AA/AAA range.

[Deduno Abides]

With respect, I think advocating for a blowout rebuild is the unrealistic view. You might think it's the best approach (and you might be right) but it's not going to happen. There is zero reason to think that ownership or the head execs have any desire to take this route. I can almost guarantee you that when they're interviewing candidates, they're not asking "How can you get this team contending in three years?" but rather "How are you going to get this thing back on track fast?"

 

There are business realities at play here, and as I wrote, they likely played in to the decision to give TR the ax. They simply cannot afford to openly forfeit competitiveness next year. They're too far into this era of hideous play. They're too invested in young core players that have already entered the fold. They're losing too many fans and too much money as it is. 

 

Therefore, I write most of my content from that slant. What can the Twins do to position themselves well for the future without blatantly punting 2017? I'm not seeing a Santana trade scenario that accomplishes both.

You might be right, but that would be making the mistake of planning your future based on sunk costs. Whether or not they've stunk for one or six years should not change their planning for the seventh year, which should be planned based on what is best for this year and next year. Hopefully they're asking candidates to tell them what they think is the current problem and how best to solve it, instead of telling the candidates what the team thinks is the problem and limiting the scope of the possible solutions.

 

By the way, the Yankees seem to think they can trade their veterans and improve promptly. The Tigers traded veterans just last year and are having a pretty good year. The thesis that trading veterans automatically means a bad year isn't always correct.

[Deduno Abides]

Atlanta traded Miller (a VASTLY superior trade asset than Santana) to a pitching-needy team for a package headlined by a top position player prospect. Detroit traded Cespedes, a hitter, to an offense-needy team that was deep in pitching (this is the approach I've suggested with Dozier).

 

The examples sort of highlight the hold-ups I have with a potential Santana deal. Where is the precedent for clubs trading impact young pitching in exchange for a good-not-great veteran starting pitcher?

When the Twins traded Johan Santana, the best pitching prospect they got back was a teenager. And he didn't pan out. That case is very much worth keeping in mind as we mull this idea over.

(By the way, how differently does the 2008 season, where many expected the Twins not to be competitive, turn out if the Twins keep Santana?)

Good question about precedent. Answer probably starts by looking further at Padres trades this summer.

 

Johan Santana trade was a self-fleecing from the start. Have to assume front office is more competent (or it's all probably moot anyway). Twins did better with Viola trade, for example.

 

Edit: going back to Viola era. Is Santana much different from Doyle Alexander, who netted John Smoltz?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Deduno Abides

[ashbury]

Edit: going back to Viola era. Is Santana much different from Doyle Alexander, who netted John Smoltz?

It's possible Smoltz is the reason these trades don't occur anymore and you have to go back to it to find one.

[Vanimal46]

I'm on board with trading both Dozier and Santana this off-season. There's not much of a difference from my point of view having 1 solid pitcher and 4 question marks and 5 question marks. All of those question marks are more than likely going to keep the team from competing in the near future anyway. I'd much rather get out from the last 2 years on Erv's contract and try this rebuild/non-rebuild again. 

[Deduno Abides]

It's possible Smoltz is the reason these trades don't occur anymore and you have to go back to it to find one.

Perhaps, but it's more likely the limitations of my memory and recall. Good young pitchers are traded all the time. Just last year Kevin Jepsen- Kevin Jepsen! - was traded for a young pitcher who made the Futures Game this year. I assume Santana could bring more than Jepsen.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm on board with trading both Dozier and Santana this off-season. There's not much of a difference from my point of view having 1 solid pitcher and 4 question marks and 5 question marks. All of those question marks are more than likely going to keep the team from competing in the near future anyway. I'd much rather get out from the last 2 years on Erv's contract and try this rebuild/non-rebuild again. 

 

Bingo.  And let's not pretend Ervin doesn't eventually start wandering down the question mark path himself as he ages.

 

I'm not scared of people thinking this is a deeper rebuild.  And even if I was afraid of public perception, I wouldn't let it guide my actions.  How do you lose nearly 100 games and not say "Hey, there's still a lot to fix here!".  Anyone who thinks we are just a few good breaks from being back to hoping for 85 wins is missing the deeper issues here.  Any fan that can't understand that isn't someone I would feel beholden to either.  

 

In the long run for fans, management, and the team you need to get the deeper issues fixed.  That takes time.  Spin it any way you want for PR, but at the end of the day we want to be a good team again.  Not just appease a grumbling fan base temporarily by pointing out how our shiny bandaid (Santana) is keeping the damage from the iceberg at bay.

[howieramone2]

 

Yeah, but I've been on the consider trading Sano or Buxton side of thinking before, and it's so unpopular that i understand why someone would rather not go there. I think you guys hit the nail square. Trade for immediate pitching, or trade for future pitching. I've said we should consider both options and take the largest return. See where we sit then, and adjust our timeline accordingly. My sneaking suspicion is that sano brings back the most franchise changing return... if nothing we offer brings back a haul, I'm not sure what we can do. Ride out another season and cross fingers on gonsalves i guess.

I agree, deal Sano with sweeteners and we can get back in the hunt. We played the Gonsalves game with Meyer in 2014 and with Berrios in 2015. Trade Gonsalves along with Sano. 

 

We don't near a tear down, nor do we need to push contention endlessly into the future. We were in the hunt all last season, and feature or will feature 4 future All-Stars in Kepler, Polanco, Buxton and Sano. We have money, vets to trade, and the most valuable commodity in all of baseball, which is young starting pitching. The right GM can get this done this off-season.

Edited August 31, 2016 by howieramone2

[Halsey Hall]

Keep Santana.  Next years starting rotation:  Santana

                                                                       Someone not here now

                                                                         "

                                                                         "

                                                                         "

                                                                         "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vanimal46]

 

Bingo.  And let's not pretend Ervin doesn't eventually start wandering down the question mark path himself as he ages.

 

I'm not scared of people thinking this is a deeper rebuild.  And even if I was afraid of public perception, I wouldn't let it guide my actions.  How do you lose nearly 100 games and not say "Hey, there's still a lot to fix here!".  Anyone who thinks we are just a few good breaks from being back to hoping for 85 wins is missing the deeper issues here.  Any fan that can't understand that isn't someone I would feel beholden to either.  

 

In the long run for fans, management, and the team you need to get the deeper issues fixed.  That takes time.  Spin it any way you want for PR, but at the end of the day we want to be a good team again.  Not just appease a grumbling fan base temporarily by pointing out how our shiny bandaid (Santana) is keeping the damage from the iceberg at bay.

No doubt. Erv's had his share of clunker 5+ ERA seasons too. All it takes is replacement level production the first 3 months in 2017 from being stuck with him for his age 35 season. We got 18 months of good Ervin. I'm not sold we're going to witness another 2 good years from him. 

[Jham]

 

No doubt. Erv's had his share of clunker 5+ ERA seasons too. All it takes is replacement level production the first 3 months in 2017 from being stuck with him for his age 35 season. We got 18 months of good Ervin. I'm not sold we're going to witness another 2 good years from him. 

Well I'm not convinced we're going to get 2 good years from Gibson, Duffey, May, or Mejia.  I'll take Santana's next 2 seasons over any of theirs.  And if I'm wrong...  is that really such a bad thing?  

If our socks are blowed off by an offer, cool.  If not, this year has proven one thing: getting younger does not necessarily mean getting better; better now, better ever.  

Speaking of...  Important question.  who has the better 2017-2021 Miguel Sano or Brian Dozier?  Who will make more money over those 5 years?  IE if you could only keep 1...

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Jham

[TheLeviathan]

You're right that going younger doesn't mean getting better.  In fact, like i argued earlier, often it means getting worse before you get better....but Ervin isn't going to be good forever.  Hell, just in May and June he was 2-6 with an ERA around 5.  And we've seen Dozier go from Babe Ruth to Babe the Pig like some kind of Jeckyl and Hyde routine.

 

This is the time to shop these guys.  Or, and mark my words, at some point in the next two years we'll look back on this as a lost opportunity.  We'll have accomplished nothing more as a team with them and we'll wonder what else we could have gotten for them when the time was right.  How many times have we done that lately?