Article: The Twins Should Be Shopping Ervin Santana

[bird]

 

I cannot for the life of me see why the Reds, an obvious rebuilding team, would take on Santana (and potentially 27m) for Stephenson. That's madness. 

 

Santana isn't a fit for a rebuilding team. He'd make sense for the Angels or Seattle or any other playoff contention team that wants to make their rotation deeper.

 

Or the Twins.

[drjim]

 

Honestly, if he hits it, it means he was largely effective. He led the league in complete game shutouts this year and only made it 211 innings. Any drop in his effectiveness and he doesn't hit 200 IP.

 

Only 15 starters in baseball hit 200 innings last year. I think people are taking for granted what significant accomplishment this is and how it is far from a sure thing he'll hit it again even if he stays healthy. If he hits 200ip he is an easy keep at $14mil.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The only way he isn't hitting 200 IP is if he misses significant time due to injury so in essence it's multiple years. Even severe regression and a poor 18' campaign isn't enough to keep the ball out of his hand as long as he's healthy enough to pitch. Thats more or an indictment of the rest of the staff than praise for Ervin's durability. 

How many bad pitchers do you believe reach the 200 IP mark in the modern game?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Only 15 starters in baseball hit 200 innings last year. I think people are taking for granted what significant accomplishment this is and how it is far from a sure thing he'll hit it again even if he stays healthy. If he hits 200ip he is an easy keep at $14mil.

Yeah, this. At a glance, the only pitchers who crossed 200 IP with an ERA+ under 100 were Samardzija and Cole. Samardzija had a 94 ERA+ while Cole had a 98 ERA+. Given how ERA+ works, Cole is smack-dap at "average starting pitcher". If you want to argue it, Samardzija is close enough to count as well (though I'd consider him just a hair below average).

 

No one with 200 IP came anywhere near "bad" and most were way above average on the season.

[jimmer]

 

Yeah, this. At a glance, the only pitchers who crossed 200 IP with an ERA+ under 100 were Samardzija and Cole. Samardzija had a 94 ERA+ while Cole had a 98 ERA+. Given how ERA+ works, Cole is smack-dap at "average starting pitcher". If you want to argue it, Samardzija is close enough to count as well (though I'd consider him just a hair below average).

 

No one with 200 IP came anywhere near "bad" and most were way above average on the season.

And Porcello.  ERA of 4.65, FIP of 4.60. The worst of all the 200 or more IP.

 

46th in WAR out of 58 qualified MLB starters.

Edited December 1, 2017 by jimmer

[KirbyDome89]

 

One less out per start and he misses it last year. He's absolutely not hitting 200 IP if he shows "severe regression".

33 GS = 33 outs....33 outs/3 outs per inning = 11 IP.....211.1 IP - 11 = 200.1 IP.....so no he doesn't miss it. Who else are they handing innings to? Even Ervin with a league average ERA, no CGs, and a FIP that catches up with him is going over 200 IP. Thats a significant step down ie regression. Unless he has an extended DL stint, makes multiple trips during, or just completely falls apart this season the 200 IP mark is one he should hit given the state of the rest of the staff. 

 

Honestly, if he hits it, it means he was largely effective. He led the league in complete game shutouts this year and only made it 211 innings. Any drop in his effectiveness and he doesn't hit 200 IP.

 

He has hit over 200 IPs without any CGs. He can easily be league average or even slightly below and still hit 200 IP for this team. League average is still effective, but I would rather see the Twins put that $14 million option towards a true front end starter.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And Porcello.  ERA of 4.65, FIP of 4.60. The worst of all the 200 or more IP.

Ah, right. And Porcello. He also had an ERA+ of 98.

 

Or maybe I accidentally flipped Cole and Porcello. I don't care enough to go back and double-check. The overall point is still the same.

[jimmer]

 

Ah, right. And Porcello. He also had an ERA+ of 98.

 

Or maybe I accidentally flipped Cole and Porcello. I don't care enough to go back and double-check. The overall point is still the same.

Sorry, I shouldn't have butt in.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sorry, I shouldn't have butt in.

Oh no, not at all. It was a good catch. I had a dozen tabs open and could easily have missed Porcello or flipped him with Cole.

[KirbyDome89]

 

So why are we assuming that Santana will revert to his FIP (or even that his 2017 FIP was a true measure of his performance)? 

We heard the same thing last offseason when people weren't enamored with Santiago being brought back. 

 

How many bad pitchers do you believe reach the 200 IP mark in the modern game?

Where did I say he was a bad pitcher Brock?...

 

A performance similar to 06' isn't poor by league standards, but for a guy who is the "ace," of a staff it shouldn't be considered a great season. 

[drjim]

33 GS = 33 outs....33 outs/3 outs per inning = 11 IP.....211.1 IP - 11 = 200.1 IP.....so no he doesn't miss it. Who else are they handing innings to? Even Ervin with a league average ERA, no CGs, and a FIP that catches up with him is going over 200 IP. Thats a significant step down ie regression. Unless he has an extended DL stint, makes multiple trips during, or just completely falls apart this season the 200 IP mark is one he should hit given the state of the rest of the staff.

 

 

He has hit over 200 IPs without any CGs. He can easily be league average or even slightly below and still hit 200 IP for this team. League average is still effective, but I would rather see the Twins put that $14 million option towards a true front end starter.

The $14mil going to Santana isn't the limiting factor preventing the Twins from getting an ace.

[Doomtints]

If you want to solve the problem of pitching, you don't sell off your best* pitcher without someone to take his place immediately, unless you want to prolong your pain.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Doomtints

[drjim]

We heard the same thing last offseason when people weren't enamored with Santiago being brought back.

 

Where did I say he was a bad pitcher Brock?...

 

A performance similar to 06' isn't poor by league standards, but for a guy who is the "ace," of a staff it shouldn't be considered a great season.

Santiago got hurt, doesn't seem particularly relevant to that point.

 

And Santana shouldn't be considered an ace, why would we judge him by that standard? They can acquire a better pitcher and keep Santana.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Where did I say he was a bad pitcher Brock?...

You said this, which is what I rebutted:

 

"Even severe regression and a poor 18' campaign"

 

If "poor" isn't synonymous with "bad"... *shrugs*

[KirbyDome89]

 

The $14mil going to Santana isn't the limiting factor preventing the Twins from getting an ace.

Money isn't a factor for this team? The way they've operated suggests otherwise. 

 

Santiago got hurt, doesn't seem particularly relevant to that point.

And Santana shouldn't be considered an ace, why would we judge him by that standard? They can acquire a better pitcher and keep Santana.

He must've been hurt that second half of 15' when he struggled too then.

[drjim]

Money isn't a factor for this team? The way they've operated suggests otherwise.

 

He must've been hurt that second half of 15' when he struggled too then.

Money certainly is a factor for the team overall, but the specific money owed Santana isn't going to be what stops them from getting an ace. That's all I'm saying.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You said this, which is what I rebutted:

 

"Even severe regression and a poor 18' campaign"

 

If "poor" isn't synonymous with "bad"... *shrugs*

So a league average season from him wouldn't be disappointing? Given what this team needed from him to make the WC game last year an average season wouldn't be a step down? Good pitchers can't have disappointing i.e. down i.e. poor seasons relative to expectations? 

 

....*shrugs*

[KirbyDome89]

 

Money certainly is a factor for the team overall, but the specific money owed Santana isn't going to be what stops them from getting an ace. That's all I'm saying.

I'll guess we'll disagree. I think the money owed Santana contributes to the overall funds available. It certainly isn't the only factor involved in brining in a top end starter but with this ownership payroll is always going to be an issue. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

So a league average season from him wouldn't be disappointing? Given what this team needed from him to make the WC game last year an average season wouldn't be a step down? Good pitchers can't have disappointing i.e. down i.e. poor seasons relative to expectations?

 

....*shrugs*

Sure, if that's what you meant, I'm not going to argue with you about your intent but "poor” can easily be interpreted as "bad".

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'll guess we'll disagree. I think the money owed Santana contributes to the overall funds available. It certainly isn't the only factor involved in brining in a top end starter but with this ownership payroll is always going to be an issue. 

If this team and its sub-$100m commitment needs to move Santana to acquire another good pitcher, we should all be furious at ownership. They easily have the wiggle room to move to $120m and even $130m based on previous promises to the fanbase.

[DJL44]

 

If this team and its sub-$100m commitment needs to move Santana to acquire another good pitcher, we should all be furious at ownership. They easily have the wiggle room to move to $120m and even $130m based on previous promises to the fanbase.

 

That would be like the ownership saying "Do you want a top end starter or a full rotation of competent starters? We can't afford both".

[USAFChief]

We should all hope Santana reaches 200 IP in 2018. If he does, he was healthy and made 32+ starts.

[KGB]

We should all hope Santana reaches 200 IP in 2018. If he does, he was healthy and made 32+ starts.

And be in playoff contention or they would shut him down. Coming off 100 lost season and probably a better year, the front office did not seem interested in moving him. I doubt they consider it this off-season.

[ashbury]

We should all hope Santana reaches 200 IP in 2018. If he does, he was healthy and made 32+ starts.

... additionally, pitched well enough to record quite a number of outs in the 7th inning and beyond.

[USAFChief]

... additionally, pitched well enough to record quite a number of outs in the 7th inning and beyond.

True, but He’s reached 200 IP every season of at least 32 starts. I guess he could regress badly, but IMO if he makes 32 starts, he’ll get 200 innings.

[Twinfan & Dad]

Keep Santana and sign an ace. Santana has been the one constant for our staff. The idea of acquiring mid tier starting pichers and hoping they produce hasnt worked out so well recently other than Santana(Hughes,Pelfrey,Nolasco). If the Twins are committed to winning a true ace will be signed but we also need legitimate 2 and 3 pitchers like Santana. In my mind Berrios can be a reliable 2 or 3 guy but doesnt have the experience yet. Keeping my fingers crossed!

[KirbyDome89]

 

If this team and its sub-$100m commitment needs to move Santana to acquire another good pitcher, we should all be furious at ownership. They easily have the wiggle room to move to $120m and even $130m based on previous promises to the fanbase.

I'm not arguing that shouldn't or that they can't bump payroll. In fact I've been squarely on the other side of that issue. The ability to do so and a willingness to bump payroll by nearly $40 million are two different things though. The article poses a scenario where the Twins aren't likely to see a jump that significant, and therefore moving Santana clears more room to bring in a true ace. It's far from inconceivable that the Twins don't spend.

 

Moving on from Ervin is contingent on the Twins having a deal in place with Darvish, finding a suitable trade partner for Santana, and being unwilling to bring on a large pitching contract without shedding some payroll. I think the posts bemoaning the loss of Ervin are missing the fact that all three criteria have to be met for the proposal to work. Of course everybody, myself included, would rather keep Ervin and just sign a front end starter. That's the ideal outcome. The article outlines a plan if the ideal outcome isn't an option. I happen to agree with that plan.

 

[kab21]

 

I'm not arguing that shouldn't or that they can't bump payroll. In fact I've been squarely on the other side of that issue. The ability to do so and a willingness to bump payroll by nearly $40 million are two different things though. The article poses a scenario where the Twins aren't likely to see a jump that significant, and therefore moving Santana clears more room to bring in a true ace. It's far from inconceivable that the Twins don't spend.

 

Moving on from Ervin is contingent on the Twins having a deal in place with Darvish, finding a suitable trade partner for Santana, and being unwilling to bring on a large pitching contract without shedding some payroll. I think the posts bemoaning the loss of Ervin are missing the fact that all three criteria have to be met for the proposal to work. Of course everybody, myself included, would rather keep Ervin and just sign a front end starter. That's the ideal outcome. The article outlines a plan if the ideal outcome isn't an option. I happen to agree with that plan.

Moving on from Ervin is contingent on bringing in a second pitcher in addition to Darvish. This team needs to do more than add one and subtract one this offseason. If money is that tight then they will have to part with prospects for a pitcher like Cole plus Darvish (and then trade Santana). And not offer Gibson arbitration. There is a good chance that money is flushed down the toilet by the end of the season.

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Moving on from Ervin is contingent on bringing in a second pitcher in addition to Darvish. This team needs to do more than add one and subtract one this offseason. If money is that tight then they will have to part with prospects for a pitcher like Cole plus Darvish (and then trade Santana). And not offer Gibson arbitration. There is a good chance that money is flushed down the toilet by the end of the season.

Nobody is arguing that they don't need more pitching or that they might have to turn to alternative means to acquire it. You're preaching to the choir advocating for spending but the point was that the article addresses a scenario where just ramping up spending isn't necessarily an option.

[kab21]

 

Nobody is arguing that they don't need more pitching or that they might have to turn to alternative means to acquire it. You're preaching to the choir advocating for spending but the point was that the article addresses a scenario where just ramping up spending isn't necessarily an option.

Any plans on doing an add one and subtract one scenario doesn't address anything. Add two - subtract one alright.