Article: Ervin Santana: To Trade Or Not To Trade?

[Tomj14]

 

There are prospects that are high upside and "major league ready" that still may not be much help to a team fighting for the playoffs. In the Twins system, think about a guy like Romero. He is obviously high-upside and pretty close to the majors. But at this point there are still real questions about his durabily and he is probably on an innings limit this year due to past injuries. Lots of teams have prospects in the upper minors that they are currently planning on shutting down at the end of the minor league season. Think about what the Twins did with Berrios in 2015. With the Astros as an example, I can see how they might be reluctant to count on either Paulino (just 100 innings last year) or Martes (just 125) to provide innings for them in September and October, and how they might entertain the idea of trading one of them for Santana.

I here what you are saying, but if the Twins were 32 -22 instead of 29-25, would you trade Romero or Gonsalves for Santana? In all reality would you trade Turley or Jorge?

[Steve Lein]

I'm with some others. This conversation is moot until the Twins are out of contention. The Houston series was thought of as a harbinger of doom for many, but that was probably just one team being significantly better than the other.

 

Just because that Astros team is the cream of the AL crop right now, doesn't mean you give up on the AL Central or Wild Card race.

 

This will be much clearer when the deadline approaches, and the standings say more about who is a contender and who is a pretender. The American League doesn't have a single team more than six games out of the Wild Card (nobody is truly "out of it" yet). The National League has nine teams more than six games out of the WC berth.

[Tomj14]

 

You answered your own question.  They don't have 3 good starters with Santana and they have zero shut down arms in the bullpen.  

 

In order to improve the pitching on this team, they're going to have to make trades.  They're not going to spend money to acquire it and they don't have a full rotations worth of rotation prospects in the minors that are close or at all.    

At this point we have two starters I would trust Santana and Berrios, so we are short one. I am good with Duffey, Rogers, Kintzler and maybe Chargois/Hildenberger or any of the stud pitchers we have in AA could be those arms in the bullpen?

 

Baseball offers no guarantees so I think you have to take advantage when things are going your way, next year of the year after we could be hit by injuries then what? are we shutting down trading away people for the next opportunity?

[Ebby Calvin Laloosh]

Does anyone know what other SP are rumored to be on the block? I think the return for Erv depends heavily on that market, obviously. Sounds like a buyers market to me, which doesn't bode well for moving Santana. 

 

It's Dozier all over again...How many times did I read "Only trade him if the offer blows us away... His value has never been higher." Same goes for the Erv.

[laloesch]

This is a difficult question.  We are on the edge of contention, but still have obvious woes in the starting rotation and bullpen.  Truth is Santana at 34 is likely peaking and it will only be downhill from here.  Plus he's  under contract through 2018 with a club option year in 2019?  To me if the right deal came along i would trade him but only if it's the right deal.   

[Vanimal46]

 

Does anyone know what other SP are rumored to be on the block? I think the return for Erv depends heavily on that market, obviously. Sounds like a buyers market to me, which doesn't bode well for moving Santana. 

 

It's Dozier all over again...How many times did I read "Only trade him if the offer blows us away... His value has never been higher." Same goes for the Erv.

 

It depends on what teams decide to be sellers, frankly. This is all speculation, but that hasn't stopped us before!  

Jose Quintana 

Yu Darvish (rental) 

Gerritt Cole 

Jason Vargas

pick your poison of Rays pitchers (Archer, Ordorozzi)

Sonny Gray 

If the Giants sell... Shark, Moore, Cain 

 

[youngtwinsfan]

I used to be in the sell Erv no matter what boat, but now that has changed. If they get an offer that blows them away great take it, but if not keep him even if he doesn't keep the all-star pace he is putting up now, and falls back to his career norms he is still an asset to the rotation. As long as they don't become buyers at the deadline and sell part of the future I am happy with whatever happens. 

[bird]

 

Any team who would trade for him would be competing this year. Barring injury, competitors will already have a 1 and a 2.

 

This doesn't mean a competitor would not target Santana as an arm who could help them, it means that teams won't be thinking of it the way you are.

Instead of overthinking it this way, look at recent history. Have pitchers with a history like Santana's been traded at the deadline? Yes. Did the other team get some juicy prospects in return for these trades? Yes. Does this mean any of this can or should happen? No.

 

 

But I don't believe GM's underthink it in the way you're doing.

 

The FO is going to set a value for Santana. A buyer will have to agree to that strike price. And the same goes for the return side of the equation. Every GM in the business will establish a discount in their minds for prospects based on time to the majors and the other risk factors. To put it simply, you're looking for a buyer who overvalues what you have to sell and will give you a bigger discount on what he has to offer in return. I'm saying don't trade him if those things aren't in the cards. I believe this is how the FO is looking at it, and I doubt a trade opportunity will arise.

[gunnarthor]

I don't see how trading Santana will help us. We need pitching for this year, 2018 and 2019. Santana gives us that. If we trade him, we need even more pitching for those years. So, arguably, we'd want pitching back. But if a team has young pitching to spare, then they wouldn't need Santana. I don't think trading Santana is going to get us top pitching back. Trading one of Dozier/Polanco/Gordon might. 

[wsnydes]

 

At this point we have two starters I would trust Santana and Berrios, so we are short one. I am good with Duffey, Rogers, Kintzler and maybe Chargois/Hildenberger or any of the stud pitchers we have in AA could be those arms in the bullpen?

 

Baseball offers no guarantees so I think you have to take advantage when things are going your way, next year of the year after we could be hit by injuries then what? are we shutting down trading away people for the next opportunity?

I think Berrios can be that guy, but its far from certain at this point.  You have one rotation proven commodity, that's it.  I wouldn't consider any of the bullpen names you listed to be shutdown.  A few of them are solid, but none are shutdown.

 

I agree that there are no guarantees, but there's a point of maximizing your potential that needs to be weighed here.  If trading Santana affords you greater possibility of seriously competing down the road and you get a deal to your liking, I don't know why you wouldn't take it.  This is why many wanted Dozier traded last offseason.

[Cory Engelhardt]

 

I don't see how trading Santana will help us. We need pitching for this year, 2018 and 2019. Santana gives us that. If we trade him, we need even more pitching for those years. So, arguably, we'd want pitching back. But if a team has young pitching to spare, then they wouldn't need Santana. I don't think trading Santana is going to get us top pitching back. Trading one of Dozier/Polanco/Gordon might. 

 

Just to play devil's advocate; do you think there are cubs fans who are still bemoaning trading Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel for Addison Russell and others?

 

I agree that the Twins shouldn't trade him just to trade him. But if you can make your team better in the long run, you almost have to trade veterans for prospects, right?

[Vanimal46]

 

Just to play devil's advocate; do you think there are cubs fans who are still bemoaning trading Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel for Addison Russell and others?

 

I agree that the Twins shouldn't trade him just to trade him. But if you can make your team better in the long run, you almost have to trade veterans for prospects, right?

 

The problem with that example is the Cubs have an extra $100 MM to replace the pitchers they traded away. My timing could be off, but didn't they dive in the FA pool that winter to sign Lester, Lackey, and resign Hammel?

[diehardtwinsfan]

This question, to me at least, goes back to whether this is a contender vs. a pretender.  I'm in the second camp at the moment, but with Mejia and Berrios making good strides, it's not hard to envision this offense with a front three of Santana, Berrios, and Mejia.  If they can fix one more starter and get a couple young arms going in the pen, they can compete in the playoffs..

 

I'm not sure I'd deal Santana right now for that reason. I'd evaluate again in a month. If the wheels fall of, deal him.  If those other pieces don't come together, I'd probably deal as well, with many of the caveats here in that near ML ready starting pitching is likely what is coming back.  There's not much of that in the high minors other than Gonsalves and Romero (and possibly Wright in another week).  They need more...

[ahart10]

Ervin is our version of James shields when the royals were on their way up. They didn't win a championship with him but were able to get out of the cellar.

[gunnarthor]

 

Just to play devil's advocate; do you think there are cubs fans who are still bemoaning trading Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel for Addison Russell and others?

 

If the Twins were offered Rodgers and Tapia from Col, than go for it. But it's not quite the same comparison. The Cubs were able to spend a bunch on FA pitchers like Lackey, Lester and Hammel. The Twins won't be able to buy themselves out of their pitching concerns. So if we lose Santana and don't get pitching back, we're in a real hole.

[PDX Twin]

I have a bit more confidence in the front office after the Dozier saga last winter. That, too, was an obvious trade-the-veteran-for-kids situation for a building club, but they resisted when they didn't get a return that they thought was good. (Of course, none of us can really know for sure what offers were turned down.) Based on that sample of one, I doubt that the Twins will trade Santana without getting a satisfactory package in exchange.

[Willihammer]

Trade or keep, tough call. But man, my enthusiasm for this season has really taken a hit with all these pitching meltdowns.

[Doomtints]

 

But I don't believe GM's underthink it in the way you're doing.

 

The FO is going to set a value for Santana. A buyer will have to agree to that strike price. And the same goes for the return side of the equation. Every GM in the business will establish a discount in their minds for prospects based on time to the majors and the other risk factors. To put it simply, you're looking for a buyer who overvalues what you have to sell and will give you a bigger discount on what he has to offer in return. I'm saying don't trade him if those things aren't in the cards. I believe this is how the FO is looking at it, and I doubt a trade opportunity will arise.

"Underthinking" would be asking questions like "Is he a #1? Is he a #2?"

GMs know they have five starting pitching slots they can upgrade, not 2. If a team feels like they are one "plus" starter away from a championship they will be open to this trade, and Santana might be one of the few "plus" guys available.

Of course we are assuming that the Twins would trade him. If they trade him off, the gains they made by getting Berrios ready will be for naught -- they will be back down to 1 competent starting pitcher. They can still keep Santana for another year to give them time to add more arms.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Doomtints

[Cory Engelhardt]

 

If the Twins were offered Rodgers and Tapia from Col, than go for it. But it's not quite the same comparison. The Cubs were able to spend a bunch on FA pitchers like Lackey, Lester and Hammel. The Twins won't be able to buy themselves out of their pitching concerns. So if we lose Santana and don't get pitching back, we're in a real hole.

 

I agree, more I was just saying that good teams over the long haul are able to trade good veterans for long term pieces for their club. I'd also prefer to get pitching back for Ervin because the Twins are so void of pitching right now, more it was just a comparison.

I don't see the Rockies trading Rodgers though, but maybe Houston or Texas or the Yankees or the Cubs can put together a solid package of prospects.

[bluechipper]

 

Would another team really trade a pitcher that is basically ready to start in the majors this year for Santana unless that pitcher has no real upside?

Would you trade Santana for Mejia while we are still in playoff contention?

Obviously you listen to everybody that has interest, but I can't see getting the prospects people are taking about. IMO

I think you're undervaluing Santana. A top 50 prospect plus another high upside prospect is more like the return Santana would get. A guy like Mejia, who was a 100-150ish type prospect isn't close.

[bluechipper]

 

It depends on what teams decide to be sellers, frankly. This is all speculation, but that hasn't stopped us before!  

Jose Quintana 

Yu Darvish (rental) 

Gerritt Cole 

Jason Vargas

pick your poison of Rays pitchers (Archer, Ordorozzi)

Sonny Gray 

If the Giants sell... Shark, Moore, Cain 

Unless you want to give up the farm for Gerrit Cole or Chris Archer, Santana is likely the best pitcher on the market, factoring in that it's just a few months of Darvish.

[Intramural Legend]

 

Do you trade an overachieving 34 year old SP with 1.5 years left on his deal if you're offered a near-ready prospect package?

I'd try to find a word shorter than "yes" for the purposes or brevity, scared they might change their mind before I got the full 3 letter out.

Obviously, you can't give him away. But I'd imagine someone would make a decent offer.

 

I believe the word you are looking for is si.  

[markos]

 

If the Twins were offered Rodgers and Tapia from Col, than go for it. But it's not quite the same comparison. The Cubs were able to spend a bunch on FA pitchers like Lackey, Lester and Hammel. The Twins won't be able to buy themselves out of their pitching concerns. So if we lose Santana and don't get pitching back, we're in a real hole.

A lot depends on what you think of Santana going forward. If they keep him and his results start to match his peripherals, then the Twins are in an even worse hole. His K% is almost a career low, his BB% and HR/FB rates are at near career highs, and he is going to be 35 next year. I don't have a lot of confidence that his BABIP magic will continue. It certainly seems possible, perhaps even probable, that the Twins can take the (up to) $41M he is owed over the next three years and use that money on an equivalently good free agent pitcher. I don't think it is at all crazy to think that FA pitcher + prospect(s) > Santana for 2018-2019 for the equivalent amount of money.

[MangLitch]

 

Why can't they make a deep run? I understand they are short a starting pitcher and probably 3 relief pitchers. Besides Rosario there isn't a hitter doing worse than expected and you could say most are right on or above expected.

To make a deep run it only takes getting to the playoffs and having 3 good starters and a few shut down arms in the bullpen and a few breaks.

Why give up this year when we have been very healthy and take a chance on a year in the future that never guarantees health?

 

Do we have 3 good starters? Any shut down arms in the Pen? I would argue hitter are doing better than expected and thus are at risk for mean reversion. This is not a title team, its as simple as looking at their record versus top teams compared to bottom. We feast on the lowly teams and get feasted on by the real teams. Perfect definition of average, common, best of the lousiest, lousiest of the best

[yarnivek1972]

If the Twins keep playing well through June, why sell anybody? This would be a TR move.

4-7 in last 11 games. The Twins aren't playing well already.

[Rosterman]

It's a tough call, because if you are winning, who is replacing him (Gonsalves?). If you aren't winning, if you fall behind one or two teams in the division, even if the division is tight, you should still contemplate. Yes, you COULD still win the division and get to the post-season, but it is doubtful that the Wild Card will happen from the central division.

 

Unless you wish to build your team around Santana.

 

Going back to last season, he has put together spectacular numbers. And if you were going to purchase a free agent pitcher next season, can you find better at a better price.

 

And what do you do with the pieces received and how ready are they to contribute and in what manner. Unless a team is pitching rich, you aren't going to get a cusp prospect...more likely a potential #3 pitcher whose fighting for a job with 2-3 other prospects of similar talent on a team. Plus, you could get a mid-level offensive prospect (which position). And probably CASH, which Pohlad seem to like.

[KirbyDome89]

I don't understand why the Twins need to be "blown away," to pull the trigger on a deal. I wouldn't hesitate to move a 34 year old pitcher who is having by far the best half season of his career. 

 

The Twins aren't going to go out and sign a big FA pitcher. Their minor league system isn't going to turn out a ton of help unless an inordinate number of their prospects all hit their ceilings. The first overall pick obviously is a boost but they'll need more than that. If the only time the Twins are willing to make a move is when another team is grossly overpaying then good luck putting together a rotation that actually competes for a WS.    

 

They NEED starting pitching. They can't keep sitting on these veteran players and watching them regress. If this is the best we'll see of Santana (very likely that it is) then get everything you can for him and move on. 

 

**If the best offer they get is well below fair market value then walk. I shouldn't have to say that but I figured I would save somebody the time lost wandering down that tangent.  

[MangLitch]

 

It's a tough call, because if you are winning, who is replacing him (Gonsalves?). If you aren't winning, if you fall behind one or two teams in the division, even if the division is tight, you should still contemplate. Yes, you COULD still win the division and get to the post-season, but it is doubtful that the Wild Card will happen from the central division.

 

Unless you wish to build your team around Santana.

 

Going back to last season, he has put together spectacular numbers. And if you were going to purchase a free agent pitcher next season, can you find better at a better price.

 

And what do you do with the pieces received and how ready are they to contribute and in what manner. Unless a team is pitching rich, you aren't going to get a cusp prospect...more likely a potential #3 pitcher whose fighting for a job with 2-3 other prospects of similar talent on a team. Plus, you could get a mid-level offensive prospect (which position). And probably CASH, which Pohlad seem to like.

 

In a perfect world, you would be able to leverage that cheapness of the contract with the years and talent. Find a suitor that has a NOW window for 2-4 years and pluck a HighA/AA prospect in the top 50 plus a piece or two more.

 

This would likely be the best value creation possible and they have a darn nice #3 or #4 for a deep playoff run for a couple years. I think a team would value that highly enough to give up a high upside prospect that still has enough to prove. 

 

I think this would fit our timeline as well. Berrios looks like he can be a 1/2 of the future. Gonsalves and Romero are TBD but would like to think 2-4 is a range for them. #1 pick will hopefully factor in this conversation in 2-3 years. Anything we get from this would hopefully be ready to join the roto when this team is "HOPEFULLY" hitting full stride. 

 

If I am a contending team and I have the option to role Santana out as a #3/4 for a late season/playoff run... Im fairly happy with that and willing to sacrifice a high upside arm for a couple runs at a CHIP

[Doomtints]

 

4-7 in last 11 games. The Twins aren't playing well already.

 

The Twins went 3-7 early in the year. 

The 2016 Cubs went 1-9 at one point, and 2-6 in another.

 

The 1992 Twins had stretches of 2-7 (twice), 3-7, 3-6....

 

I'm hoping you follow baseball enough to know that you can't make panic moves due to a small stretch of games.

[nicksaviking]

Personally I'm in favor of improving for the future, and that includes trading the aging and over-achieving Santana. For those that aren't willing to part with Santana now because the team is currently above .500, are you then in favor of trading off major prospects to make major upgrades to the rotation and the bullpen?

 

Because I think there is little debate that this team has no shot at doing anything meaningful without multiple big-time pitching improvements.

 

Standing pat and doing nothing or next to nothing was how this organization used to deal with this situation; I am 100% NOT OK with that. Either do something to improve for the future, or do something to improve now, don't sit on your hands and pray something beyond your control occurs to bail you out. Wishful thinking and winning sports teams only go hand-in-hand in the movies.