Ervin Santana: To Trade Or Not To Trade?

jokin · June 12, 2017

Pro tip; you won't find it.

Quick tip: Any amateur who uses the phrase "Pro tip" in their summation, isn't all that sure of his own convictions.

1) Again, my response was to another poster- who characterized it as fairly perfunctory to acquire two "cost-controlled solid MLB-level SPs" for Santana. So, throwing away any chance in 2017 while the Twins are still in 1st place and taking a 50-50 gamble at improving the team over the intermediate run- at best- is the "solution" to the Twins pitching woes? Trading the guy that YOU- not me- say is aging and on the brink of regressing to the mean? Sorry, but the rest of the MLB GMs are smarter than that.

2) Your factual accuracy is wildly off on Nunez. He is a starter for the Giants and started 141 games in 2016.

3) Who said "dump what's left of the farm"? I clearly said they have 4 very intriguing SS and 4 potential Top 100 arms. And another top 100 position player. And they have the #1 pick in the 2017 draft and two more top picks in the first 35. Still a lot of talent floating around in the system, even after a deadline trade for pitching.

4) Who said anything about "renting" an SP? I proposed acquiring a salary dump front-end guy, and possibly trading on the cheap for an impending FA back-end SP- who could possibly re-sign in the offseason.

5) "But it's pie in the sky to think they can get two prospects for Santana. Riiiiight....."

No one is arguing whether or not they can get two prospects for Santana. They most certainly can. The risk is in who they are and what transpires- health and developmentally. That is Chief's "extension of the window of sucking"- trading quantifiable known assets for relatively unquantifiable uncertainly.

jokin · June 12, 2017

Isn't ignoring weaknesses because "they're winning and their luck hasn't run out yet," a big part of the disaster that was last season? This team would be much better off if they addressed problems early instead of waiting until the need to do so became painfully obvious.

You refuted it?

Why the consternation over trading him? If you think he'll continue to pitch like he is I can at least understand the desire to keep him, but if you're agreeing that he is prime for regression then why the uproar at the prospect of a trade? If he regresses, as you believe, what little chance this team does have to be competitive in the postseason, let along make it there, is gone. So why hold onto him?

You are the one with fairly strong certainty that he is aging and going to regress. You believe that, not me. Your argument is your downfall, because you assume you know something more about Santana that gives the Twins the franchise-saving upper hand in a trade. OTOH, I think there is a decent, but not certain, chance that Santana can pitch strongly enough over the course of the season, that, with a little bolstering in the rotation and the pen, the team can remain in the playoff hunt.

I don't have consternation over trading Santana- if they're clearly fading between now and August 1, you solicit your best offer(s). But my position is that you hold on to him while you are clearly playoff-viable.

...And, you most certainly don't automatically assume that because you have all of these intractable personnel, payroll and institutional issues, that the ONLY course to take is that you HAVE to trade your best pitcher in a Cy Young-type season- while your team is on the developmental upswing, with a potential MVP., a revived 1st baseman, oh... and also in 1st place in a division that is up for grabs.

KirbyDome89 · June 12, 2017

Quick tip: Any amateur who uses the phrase "Pro tip" in their summation, isn't all that sure of his own convictions.

1) Again, my response was to another poster- who characterized it as fairly perfunctory to acquire two "cost-controlled solid MLB-level SPs" for Santana. So, throwing away any chance in 2017 while the Twins are still in 1st place and taking a 50-50 gamble at improving the team over the intermediate run- at best- is the "solution" to the Twins pitching woes? Trading the guy that YOU- not me- say is aging and on the brink of regressing to the mean? Sorry, but the rest of the MLB GMs are smarter than that.

2) Your factual accuracy is wildly off on Nunez. He is a starter for the Giants and started 141 games in 2016.

3) Who said "dump what's left of the farm"? I clearly said they have 4 very intriguing SS and 4 potential Top 100 arms. And another top 100 position player. And they have the #1 pick in the 2017 draft and two more top picks in the first 35. Still a lot of talent floating around in the system, even after a deadline trade for pitching.

4) Who said anything about "renting" an SP? I proposed acquiring a salary dump front-end guy, and possibly trading on the cheap for an impending FA back-end SP- who could possibly re-sign in the offseason.

5) "But it's pie in the sky to think they can get two prospects for Santana. Riiiiight....."
No one is arguing whether or not they can get two prospects for Santana. They most certainly can. The risk is in who they are and what transpires- health and developmentally. That is Chief's "extension of the window of sucking"- trading quantifiable known assets for relatively unquantifiable uncertainly.

Personally I think amateurism is when you falsify other posts to form an argument. Still waiting on that quote where I said they'd get 2 frontline starters btw....

I just told you it was sarcasm. I know you're not high on Santiago, which is why I found it amusing that a big part of the rotation righting itself and making the playoffs involves him turning his season around. So just throw in the towel on trading anybody and just chug along with a dumper fire of a staff? That's the solution? They can ignore obvious issues because hey, maybe they'll "get lucky," every year and make a playoff push. I mean once you're in "ya never know," right?

He was a utility player his entire time in NY and the same in 2015 for the Twins. The number of seasons he spent as a bench player greatly outnumber the 1.5 seasons he has started.

"Then trying to trade the remaining prospects (out of 4 SS and 4 MLB Top 100-potential arms) with them for "established, solid and cost-controlled pitchers" to bolster the current pitching depth." That sounds like attempting to dump the farm to me....

All the front end starters you would trade for fit the description of a rental.

Yes I know, all prospects are created the same, they're all huge risks and lottery tickets. Also, all veteran players are safe investments, they can be counted on to perform at an expected level, and they're all immune to regression.

KirbyDome89 · June 12, 2017

You are the one with fairly strong certainty that he is aging and going to regress. You believe that, not me. Your argument is your downfall, because you assume you know something more about Santana that gives the Twins the franchise-saving upper hand in a trade. OTOH, I think there is a decent, but not certain, chance that Santana can pitch strongly enough over the course of the season, that, with a little bolstering in the rotation and the pen, the team can remain in the playoff hunt.

I don't have consternation over trading Santana- if they're clearly fading between now and August 1, you solicit your best offer(s). But my position is that you hold on to him while you are clearly playoff-viable.

...And, you most certainly don't automatically assume that because you have all of these intractable personnel, payroll and institutional issues, that the ONLY course to take is that you HAVE to trade your best pitcher in a Cy Young-type season- while your team is on the developmental upswing, with a potential MVP., a revived 1st baseman, oh... and also in 1st place in a division that is up for grabs.

When did I claim to know something that everybody else doesn't? Can you quote that one for me too while you're searching for the quote about bringing back front end prospects?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you realize just how drastically Santana is outperforming his career numbers. I shouldn't have to explain why that makes him a prime candidate for regression. That in no way is a downfall for the argument to trade him. In fact, it's a strong reason to seek out a trade.

The major league staff has seriously issues. It isn't an assumption to say that this organization has refused to spend big money in FA and the pitching pipeline in the minor league system is underwhelming. Those two FACTS don't leave many other options for acquiring the pitching the Twins need.

Platoon · June 12, 2017

The Twins aren't going to keep winning this year with or without Santana. Not unless some dramatic change in the pitching staff, both SP and RP is made. And I frankly do not see that happening. There is no good answer to this question, but there are several options to choose from. IF I can get two solid, close to MLB prospects I would probably pull the trigger. And the main reason is numbers. The team has an almost bare cupboard in MiLB, and a serious lack of depth, not to speak of quality on the MLB roster. The shortages are mind boggling. In a normal situation guys like Chief are correct, you can't keep trading for the next shiny object. We could hope the Twins would keep Ervin, and go ape bleep crazy in the FA market, but that ain't gonna happen. The Twins problem isnt upgrading a MLB staff, it's acquiring one.

diehardtwinsfan · June 12, 2017

********Moderator Note********

Let's cut back on the bickering please.

Vanimal46 · June 12, 2017

This is off topic but HS pitchers - like Stewart - are risks. Stewart, Kolek, Aiken, Bell, Tate are just a few of the recent HS arms taken in the top 10 that look bad. It is what it is. Would people look at that draft differently if Stewart were the 4th rounder and Gonsalves the 1st rounder?

I mean, not really. And all pitchers/players are risks in the draft, not just HS pitchers. The Twins have certainly swung and missed on several college players as well over the years, just like every team in the MLB.

Squirrel · June 12, 2017

You're banking on the lottery ticket (prospect) that the Twins get back becoming part of the 1-2 punch. That is the definition of needing a lot of things to break the Twins way.

In summary
Nobody is against trading Santana if a GM puts a Francis Martes level prospect out there (upside and near MLB ready).

Nobody is against trading Santana (for less than the above) if the Twins are 3 games under .500 due to a relapse in the next month and a half. But opinion is split on if to trade him when the Twins are winning.

Excellent summary. It is a conundrum what to do when your current best trade asset is also the thing you currently need most.

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

When they first recalled Berrios he WASN'T better than the crap we had.

which is why you call him up in a year you aren't a real contender, to get him exposure.

Going to count on Gonsalves or anyone else next year from AA? Get them up this year to get a taste. Otherwise, you think they'll go with 2 rookies?

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

What young guys? The Twins have zero legit starting pitching prospects in AAA and two decent, though unspectacular, guys in AA. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if neither of them throws a pitch in MLB this season because they're not ready.

No one has been or will be blocked for the foreseeable future. The team is starting Nik Turley today, for crying out loud.

Based on that, how do you propose fixing the pitching next year, if you won't trade Santana or Dozier or anyone else?

Because, they aren't signing a good FA next year.

Brock Beauchamp · June 12, 2017

Based on that, how do you propose fixing the pitching next year, if you won't trade Santana or Dozier or anyone else?

Because, they aren't signing a good FA next year.

They can probably pick up an acceptable free agent starter. Or they could trade Dozier. I later mentioned that I'm open to trading Dozier if it helps the 2017 squad. He's the closest thing to expendable the Twins have on the roster right now.

Doomtints · June 12, 2017

They can probably pick up an acceptable free agent starter. Or they could trade Dozier. I later mentioned that I'm open to trading Dozier if it helps the 2017 squad. He's the closest thing to expendable the Twins have on the roster right now.

Yep.

If Santana and Berrios keep it up, all they will need are a couple of "acceptable" starters. Mejia might be one of them.

The bullpen is another story, and luckily a little easier to fix, assuming Molitor knows how to manage a bullpen. it's a shame this was not addressed a little bit over the winter.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Doomtints

drjim · June 12, 2017

Based on that, how do you propose fixing the pitching next year, if you won't trade Santana or Dozier or anyone else?

Because, they aren't signing a good FA next year.

And who do you propose would come back for Santana that would help next year, even at half the level Santana would? Not sure that asset exists on a team that would target Santana.

Doomtints · June 12, 2017

And who do you propose would come back for Santana that would help next year, even at half the level Santana would? Not sure that asset exists on a team that would target Santana.

Right. If someone already has Santana, they're not going to trade for Santana. If pitching is the need, trading away pitching won't help unless one wants to concede another couple of years....

drjim · June 12, 2017

They can probably pick up an acceptable free agent starter. Or they could trade Dozier. I later mentioned that I'm open to trading Dozier if it helps the 2017 squad. He's the closest thing to expendable the Twins have on the roster right now.

Dozier is not all the expendable though, at least not until mid next year.

They will have a little money to sign a decent free agent starter. You can probably roll with Santana, FA, Berrios, Mejia, and then one of Hughes/May/Gonsalves/Romero out of spring training. Gibson might even rebound enough to make it worthwhile to tender him a contract.

drjim · June 12, 2017

Right. If someone already has Santana, they're not going to trade for Santana. If pitching is the need, trading away pitching won't help unless one wants to concede another couple of years....

I'm very against trading Santana, but a move has to at least concede that moving him is setting back the pitching for at least this year and next year, possibly even 2019. Saying you are going to trade Santana to build the staff for next year is a fantasy.

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

Which of these would be available, and better than Santiago?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/08/2017-18-mlb-free-agent-list.html

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

And who do you propose would come back for Santana that would help next year, even at half the level Santana would? Not sure that asset exists on a team that would target Santana.

I admit to not knowing the list of 100 some SPs that might be available in other minor league systems.

And, I'm not thinking only about next year. I'm thinking the next 4-7 years.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mike Sixel

Doomtints · June 12, 2017

Which of these would be available, and better than Santiago?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/08/2017-18-mlb-free-agent-list.html

No idea. Not seeing any metrics there. Care to provide some metrics?

drjim · June 12, 2017

I admit to not knowing the list of 100 some SPs that might be available in other minor league systems.

And, I'm not thinking only about next year. I'm thinking the next 4-7 years.

You hit on the biggest problem with this whole thought experiment.

A trade of Santana for prospects that are going to step in and perform sounds lovely, but breaks down when you have to match that an actual team with the actual assets that have and are willing to move, while also keeping in mind that there are other pitchers going to be floating out there.

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

You hit on the biggest problem with this whole thought experiment.

A trade of Santana for prospects that are going to step in and perform sounds lovely, but breaks down when you have to match that an actual team with the actual assets that have and are willing to move, while also keeping in mind that there are other pitchers going to be floating out there.

I've never (I don't think) insisted they get someone that would be ready next year, unlike others.

drjim · June 12, 2017

Which of these would be available, and better than Santiago?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/08/2017-18-mlb-free-agent-list.html

I counted 8 guys I'd clearly take ahead of Santiago, and there about 5-10 guys that would be a similar tier. Twins would have a chance at one of that number.

drjim · June 12, 2017

I've never (I don't think) insisted they get someone that would be ready next year, unlike others.

Then you really are advocating for a significant step back. That strikes me as an even bigger mistake. This offensive core is ready, and will be even better next year, why would you subtract from that?

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

I counted 8 guys I'd clearly take ahead of Santiago, and there about 5-10 guys that would be a similar tier. Twins would have a chance at one of that number.

Of those 8, some won't really be available, assuming you counted Sale, for example....

but, they'll have to outbid some teams for sure. I just don't see a difference maker there, that will actually be available and signed by this team.

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

Then you really are advocating for a significant step back. That strikes me as an even bigger mistake. This offensive core is ready, and will be even better next year, why would you subtract from that?

Because I don't think they are good enough next year, unless they can get help from AA. If they can get help from AA, then getting a SP NEXT YEAR for Santana isn't that important anyway, imo.

And, Santana won't be good forever, probably. I'd guess he has maybe 1 good year left. After that? HUGE step back for this team, unless the guys they have and trade for are good in 19 and beyond.

Vanimal46 · June 12, 2017

Right now, I can't endorse trading Santana and/or giving up on this season. I'm very tired of moving the "window of WS contention" goalposts 2 years out every season.... It's not guaranteed that the young offensive core is going to be healthy all season long like they have so far. It's also not guaranteed that the division is going to be this bad in 2019 and beyond.

drjim · June 12, 2017

Right now, I can't endorse trading Santana and/or giving up on this season. I'm very tired of moving the "window of WS contention" goalposts 2 years out every season.... It's not guaranteed that the young offensive core is going to be healthy all season long like they have so far. It's also not guaranteed that the division is going to be this bad in 2019 and beyond.

I absolutely agree with this. They have a window right now, no guarantee how long it will last. I wouldn't do anything crazy this year for a rental, but I absolute wouldn't step back by subtracting from a position of weakness either.

Mike Sixel · June 12, 2017

Right now, I can't endorse trading Santana and/or giving up on this season. I'm very tired of moving the "window of WS contention" goalposts 2 years out every season.... It's not guaranteed that the young offensive core is going to be healthy all season long like they have so far. It's also not guaranteed that the division is going to be this bad in 2019 and beyond.

that's a reasonable stance, and it is hard to argue against it. I just don't love the options this year or next, unless Gonsalves and another SP are good, in which case you don't need Santana as much, and Dozier is maybe redundant.

kab21 · June 12, 2017

Dozier is not all the expendable though, at least not until mid next year.

They will have a little money to sign a decent free agent starter. You can probably roll with Santana, FA, Berrios, Mejia, and then one of Hughes/May/Gonsalves/Romero out of spring training. Gibson might even rebound enough to make it worthwhile to tender him a contract.

Few people want to trade Dozier but when your rotation includes Gibson and Turley and your MI depth includes Escobar and Adrianza in addition to a top prospect in AA. If I can land a good SP'ing prospect or two for Dozier then I would seriously consider the deal.

Brock Beauchamp · June 12, 2017

Dozier is not all the expendable though, at least not until mid next year.

They will have a little money to sign a decent free agent starter. You can probably roll with Santana, FA, Berrios, Mejia, and then one of Hughes/May/Gonsalves/Romero out of spring training. Gibson might even rebound enough to make it worthwhile to tender him a contract.

Dozier isn't fully expendable but he's the closest thing to expendable the Twins currently have on the roster. Polanco and Escobar won't be great but they probably won't kill you, either.

And Gordon is playing like he really wants a September cup of coffee. If Gordon moves to Rochester and continues dominating, he's going to force the issue some time in 2018, even possibly Opening Day.

Sign In

Ervin Santana: To Trade Or Not To Trade?

Twins Video

Community Blogs

Forum Topics

Twins Top Prospects

The Players Project

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Featured Comments

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation