Article: Real Or Pretender?

[Mike Sixel]

Five pitchers 35 or older have started and pitched more than 70 innings this year. Two have a positive WAR.

 

Six 34 year olds have, of those, 5 are pitching well.

 

We think how many of those 6 will still be good in 3 years?

[old nurse]

 

 

If they don't acquire someone, it comes from the minors, just like if they trade him.....

 

My point was, if the FO is going to sit around and see what happens, they are no different than the previous regime, not committing to a rebuild, not going in to win. 

 

BTW, ESAN is 35, how long do people believe he can keep this up?

They do not make trades just to make trades.  Their stated pattern is to gain long term assets for trades.   If there is any crazy deal done it will be near the deadline.  Cheer for Santiago and  Santiago to keep doing well. Crazy deals where a team gets back a great growth asset usually involves pitching. 

As far as making additions, they did as every other team did and brought in some veterans to see if they had anything left. Of the mid tier and lower free agent pitch/minor league signings not many have a real stand out season. I think there were about a dozen that I could find or posted as a retort. None of them Twins    The success rate was less than 10%.  I can understand why they did not bring in much for the position players as so many are in the make stage.

[old nurse]

 

 

Five pitchers 35 or older have started and pitched more than 70 innings this year. Two have a positive WAR.

 

Six 34 year olds have, of those, 5 are pitching well.

 

We think how many of those 6 will still be good in 3 years?

36 and older is not 34-35 and you know that. There are usually 3-4 pitchers that are 34-35. Usually not the injury prone. There is no reason that Santana could not be one of them. If he breaks down, then not. I would not be signng him to a long term contract, either. Year at a time with performance options.

[Mike Sixel]

 

36 and older is not 34-35 and you know that. There are usually 3-4 pitchers that are 34-35. Usually not the injury prone. There is no reason that Santana could not be one of them. If he breaks down, then not. I would not be signng him to a long term contract, either. Year at a time with performance options.

 

I was responding to the post that said he'd still be good in 3 years. 

[drjim]

I was responding to the post that said he'd still be good in 3 years.

The issue would be health. If he avoids injury it doesn't seem like his velo would lose so much that he would no longer be effective.

 

He's probably good next year and then there is an option, all.at a reasonable rate. Seems like the kind of asset you would want to keep if you plan on being competitive (which they should).

 

I'm not confident there is a sure thing pitching acquisition you get for Erv right now anyways. The theoretical trade is nice to dream but might smash into reality when the actual offers are on the table.

[drjim]

Free agency, trade, minor leagues. It would take some creativity for sure.

One free agent and one trade from of/mi surplus might get you there.

 

Taking a hole, digging a bigger hole, and then hoping it fills in higher than before seems risky.

[Vanimal46]

 

Honest question. If they aren't willing to move guys like Santana then where are the Twins finding pitching? They won't be big spenders in FA and the minor league system isn't exactly stocked with upside arms. What players have the necessary combination of value and expendability to bring back mid rotation or better starting pitching? 

 

Hopefully Ervin's July looks more like his April/May than his June, and the Twins can sell at or over market value. 

 

Gordon would be who I dangle as a feature piece. Fill in the rest with other prospects. 

[akmanak]

Just one more decent starter and you are playing .650 ball. You need to just roll the dice. It worked with Shannon Stewart. Hell give it a shot.

[wsnydes]

 

Honest question. If they aren't willing to move guys like Santana then where are the Twins finding pitching? They won't be big spenders in FA and the minor league system isn't exactly stocked with upside arms. What players have the necessary combination of value and expendability to bring back mid rotation or better starting pitching? 

 

Hopefully Ervin's July looks more like his April/May than his June, and the Twins can sell at or over market value. 

This is what I'm getting hung up on.  His numbers have been getting worse every month.  He obviously wasn't going to continue his April numbers throughout the season, but he is getting progressively worse.  Still solid, still reliable but how much longer will that hold?  I think that's the difference in the two opinions.  One thinks he'll be fine, the other doesn't.  I'm in the "doesn't" camp myself.  I think they're a pretender with Santana pitching well, so if he continues to slide well...

[yarnivek1972]

You think he's going to be a good MLB pitcher when he's 37 and 38? do you know how short that list is?

Bartolo Colon is 44. CC Sabathia is almost 37. Colon was good through last year. Sabathia has been up and down the last 6 years, but he's done fine the last couple. That's two who are active now. Ervin is in WAY better condition than either of those two.

[wsnydes]

 

Bartolo Colon is 44. CC Sabathia is almost 37. Colon was good through last year. Sabathia has been up and down the last 6 years, but he's done fine the last couple. That's two who are active now. Ervin is in WAY better condition than either of those two.

They're exceptions though, that isn't the norm.  He never said that it was impossible.  He said that the odds were against it - which is true.

[yarnivek1972]

They're exceptions though, that isn't the norm. He never said that it was impossible. He said that the odds were against it - which is true.

And, as I ssid, Ervin is in better condition than both of those guys. He also, like they have, reinvented himself a couple years ago. Do I think Ervin can be an all star the next two years? No. Better than average starter? Yes. There's really nothing that suggests an iminent rapid decline.

 

And more to the point, I think he's probably better the next two years than anyone the Twins might be able to trade for or sign as a FA.

Edited June 30, 2017 by yarnivek1972

[Linus]

I keep Erv because they should be competitive next year and there is no way we can build an acceptable rotation for next year without him. I'm fine with trading other assets where we have a surplus.

[wsnydes]

 

And, as I ssid, Ervin is in better condition than both of those guys. He also, like they have, reinvented himself a couple years ago. Do I think Ervin can be an all star the next two years? No. Better than average starter? Yes. There's really nothing that suggests an iminent rapid decline.

And more to the point, I think he's probably better the next two years than anyone the Twins might be able to trade for or sign as a FA.

Better than who they could acquire for Santana?  I'd agree with that, but when you have to fill 3/5 of a rotation I'll take a controllable player with upside instead.  I agree completely that he's better than any free agent they'd likely get.  I'd be looking for other trades to help fill that void too.  Trading only Santana makes little sense.  It's simply one step in a multi-step process.  This team has many holes that need filled.  As I said, they've got 3/5 of a rotation to fill and most of a bullpen.  There are no guarantees whether you keep him or trade him.  However, since he should easily be the most valuable asset to a real contending team at the deadline, IMO, it makes more sense to deal him.  

 

I don't feel that the future is now.  I feel that the future is next year.  Sacrificing long term gains because they unexpectedly find themselves relevant in a putrid division is what I'm afraid of.

Edited June 30, 2017 by wsnydes

[drjim]

 

Better than who they could acquire for Santana?  I'd agree with that, but when you have to fill 3/5 of a rotation I'll take a controllable player with upside instead.  I agree completely that he's better than any free agent they'd likely get.  I'd be looking for other trades to help fill that void too.  Trading only Santana makes little sense.  It's simply one step in a multi-step process.  This team has many holes that need filled.  As I said, they've got 3/5 of a rotation to fill and most of a bullpen.  There are no guarantees whether you keep him or trade him.  However, since he should easily be the most valuable asset to a real contending team at the deadline, IMO, it makes more sense to deal him.  

 

I don't feel that the future is now.  I feel that the future is next year.  Sacrificing long term gains because they unexpectedly find themselves relevant in a putrid division is what I'm afraid of.

 

You can get a cheaper and controlled player in exchange for Santana, but for that trade off you have to sacrifice performance. Or you can get a prospect, probably a solid one, but you would then sacrifice a significant amount of risk certainty and some time horizon.

 

Not sure I would want to give up any of those three from the Twins rotation at this moment. Could change if the Twins really fall off.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You can get a cheaper and controlled player in exchange for Santana, but for that trade off you have to sacrifice performance. Or you can get a prospect, probably a solid one, but you would then sacrifice a significant amount of risk certainty and some time horizon.

 

Not sure I would want to give up any of those three from the Twins rotation at this moment. Could change if the Twins really fall off.

 

And I think that's a fair stance. We just start with a different premise on how real they are this year, imo, hence we end up at a different spot for the deadline. We also have a very different view of his likely aging curve.

[drjim]

 

And I think that's a fair stance. We just start with a different premise on how real they are this year, imo, hence we end up at a different spot for the deadline. We also have a very different view of his likely aging curve.

 

But it's next year too. And the reality of who they would actually get back in a trade. I don't know if those advocating for a trade have a good sense of what he brings back.

[Mike Sixel]

 

But it's next year too. And the reality of who they would actually get back in a trade. I don't know if those advocating for a trade have a good sense of what he brings back.

 

I don't really know. If he brings back a AA pitcher the Twins think can be a 3/4 for 5 years, I do that trade. Others wouldn't, and I'm cool with that.

[drjim]

 

I don't really know. If he brings back a AA pitcher the Twins think can be a 3/4 for 5 years, I do that trade. Others wouldn't, and I'm cool with that.

 

Interesting. You would trade Santana right now for another teams Gonsalves, for instance. That would be a tough one. That will end any hope for this year and probably next year too.

[wsnydes]

 

You can get a cheaper and controlled player in exchange for Santana, but for that trade off you have to sacrifice performance. Or you can get a prospect, probably a solid one, but you would then sacrifice a significant amount of risk certainty and some time horizon.

 

Not sure I would want to give up any of those three from the Twins rotation at this moment. Could change if the Twins really fall off.

I get that, and I'm willing to accept that.  Like I mentioned earlier, trading only Santana doesn't make any sense.  There needs to be supplemental moves to continue to bolster the pitching whether it be at the deadline or in the offseason, via trade or FA.

 

Like Mike said, yours is a fair stance and I feel solid logic.  I just don't agree with the approach.

 

[wsnydes]

 

Interesting. You would trade Santana right now for another teams Gonsalves, for instance. That would be a tough one. That will end any hope for this year and probably next year too.

I think you're looking at this singularly, as if this would be the only thing they do.  If that's what ends up happening, then I agree with you.  If they do trade Santana though, I think the FO realizes that they still have work to do.  There isn't a lot of depth in the system, that needs to be brought in somewhere along the line.  That won't happen via FA and drafting it is a long, risky process.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Interesting. You would trade Santana right now for another teams Gonsalves, for instance. That would be a tough one. That will end any hope for this year and probably next year too.

 

I'd rather have 2 Gonsavles' in 2019, 20, 21, 22, than 1, yes, assuming the Twins think Gonalves is a legit SP, yes. And yes, that hurts this year. 

[drjim]

 

I think you're looking at this singularly, as if this would be the only thing they do.  If that's what ends up happening, then I agree with you.  If they do trade Santana though, I think the FO realizes that they still have work to do.  There isn't a lot of depth in the system, that needs to be brought in somewhere along the line.  That won't happen via FA and drafting it is a long, risky process.

 

The other option is keeping Santana and doing other things as well. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

The other option is keeping Santana and doing other things as well. 

 

I am not totally averse to that option, btw. I just don't see any evidence it will happen so far. I would hate to give up Gordon for a meh pitcher, which is my fear of who is actually available for more than this year.

[wsnydes]

 

The other option is keeping Santana and doing other things as well. 

Yes, that is an option.  It would take dealing the depth you currently have to do it and then you don't have much, if anything, to acquire that last piece that you need to be a legitimate title team.

 

Dealing Santana preserves the depth you currently have plus gives you another piece(s).  Does it hurt in the short term?  Probably.  I'm not all that concerned about this year though. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

They couldn't deal Dozier from depth, that means, pretty much, you are dealing minor league players (from depth?) for major league players (minor league players aren't dealt for other minor league players).

[ahart10]

One in the hand is worth two in the bush, keep Santana. It scares me to think what the rotation would look like without him.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Interesting. You would trade Santana right now for another teams Gonsalves, for instance. That would be a tough one. That will end any hope for this year and probably next year too.

Right. It's helpful to put real names to hypothetical trade scenarios.

 

Maybe Falvey has some names from other organizations up his sleeve, but in general, don't expect a team trading for major league pitching to send back major league pitching in return. 

[drjim]

Right. It's helpful to put real names to hypothetical trade scenarios.

 

Maybe Falvey has some names from other organizations up his sleeve, but in general, don't expect a team trading for major league pitching to send back major league pitching in return.

At least not #3 caliber mlb pitching, might get a backend guy. You'd give up talent for control/salary.

[Vanimal46]

It's been a fun read the last couple of pages with discussions on both sides of the fence. I've been leaning more toward contending now and next year by trading prospects for established pitching.... Frankly I'm tired of moving the goalposts for contention!