Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Go get Verlander

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
816 replies to this topic

#61 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:20 PM

 

FYI, Tanaka and Cueto are opt-outs that probably won't be exercised, judging by their current numbers/health.

 

Correct, should've added that caveat.  If they each pitch well down the stretch I think they are still opt out candidates, but yeah for now each may be leaning no

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#62 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:25 PM

 

2 years 56 mil is steep, but it's only two years. If you think Helickson is taking less than 3 years 17 mil per year (51 mil) on his next contract, I'd like to se evidence. I'd take the shorter contract every time.  

 

I'm confused. You agree with my premise they could be considered similar over the next couple of years. You would take the pitcher with a higher total contract and and higher yearly avg? Why?

 

Hellickson ($17) and an above avg $11 million RP pitcher isn't preferable than $28 million to Verlander?

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 07:26 PM.

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#63 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 22,637 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:26 PM

 

Dozier increases 3 mil. They won't offer Escobar arb. They might sign him off open market but not at 4 mil. My guess is opening day utility guy is vielma or free agent

I haven't been able to find the payroll spreadsheet lately. Is it still there? That was nifty

Pressly, Grossman, and May are also arb eligible, hence my $5-6m number without Escobar.

  • Sconnie likes this

#64 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:29 PM

 

We'll have to disagree on assessment of guys in the same class or better. None of those guys in your top class has either the pedigree, velocity or recent results that Verlander has. Arrietta is the only of the "better" class that has performed better than Verlander this year, and his stats are trending downward.

I'm not sure how to define available, but not all of these guys are going to be FA's and I can't see their team shopping them either, especially a guy like Tanaka.

 

We are probably arguing over nothing of import though, the Twins aren't going to take on Verlander's salary, and It would be short sighted to give up a huge prospect haul to get Detroit to cover enough of it to matter. 

 

I could make an argument I would take any of the guys I listed over Verlander for 2018 + 2019.  I'm not saying its a slam dunk.  

 

FWIW, I listed guys who are free agents, or could opt into FA.  Those cost you 0 prospects.  There are many other pitchers who would be "available" like Verlander, via trade.  Most of those others aren't going to be 35 and making $28 million / year

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#65 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 22,637 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:31 PM

A few things to keep in mind about Verlander outside the huge hurdle of his no-trade clause:

1. Do we have any indication the Tigers even care about shedding payroll?

2. If Verlander continues to pitch moderately well, his trade value actually increases as his contract winds down.
  • alarp33 and nicksaviking like this

#66 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 30,294 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:38 PM

Ya, just stop trying to get better. Just trust the prospects, or sign reclamation projects. Never change. Sigh.
  • SF Twins Fan and Tomj14 like this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#67 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:47 PM

 

Ya, just stop trying to get better. Just trust the prospects, or sign reclamation projects. Never change. Sigh.

 

That's what you gathered from some people not wanting to trade those prospects for 1 specific pitcher, who has a no trade clause, makes $28 million per year and is going to be 35 by next season? Ok.

 

Keep grasping at those straws 

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 07:47 PM.

  • Thrylos, SwainZag, RaymondLuxuryYacht and 1 other like this

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#68 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 16,553 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:49 PM

Hellickson ($17) and an above avg $11 million RP pitcher isn't preferable than $28 million to Verlander?


Setting aside that Verlander is still better than Hellickson, we'd also be getting Verlander for a guaranteed pennant race while he is healthy and pitching very well.
  • Sconnie likes this

#69 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Moderator
  • 4,984 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:52 PM

I'm confused. You agree with my premise they could be considered similar over the next couple of years. You would take the pitcher with a higher total contract and and higher yearly avg? Why?

Hellickson ($17) and an above avg $11 million RP pitcher isn't preferable than $28 million to Verlander?

with a guaranteed contract, annual rate matters less than total. Hellickson prolly won't go on another one year deal. More likely 3-4 years at 15-17 mil per season. The longer the contract, the more likely the contract diminishes in value.

And they can sign a 10 mil reliever too and still be in the 130-135 mil salary range for 2018-19 years

As spycake said, i just assumed we all agreed Verlander is better now when the Twins need the help

Edited by Sconnie, 21 August 2017 - 08:00 PM.


#70 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan, no joke!

  • Moderator
  • 24,286 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, NV

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:53 PM

depends on the value of the extension... ML min... maybe, then it's Icky Ricky contract

Won't be major league minimum, obviously - humor acknowledged. Let's say two additional guaranteed years at the same $22M salary his current vesting option gets exercised at, to replace that option, for conversation's sake.

  • Sconnie likes this

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. -- Arthur Conan Doyle


#71 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:00 PM

 

with a guaranteed contract, annual rate matters less than total. Hellickson prolly won't go on another one year deal. More likely 3-4 years at 15-17 mil per season. The longer the contract, the more likely the contract diminishes in value.

And they can sign a 10 mil reliever too and still be in the 130-135 mil salary range for 2018-19 years

 

So you shouldn't sign pitchers to deals that are 3 years plus, because it diminishes in value over time, but you should trade good prospects to help the Tigers get out of those last couple of years and  $56 million owed to a 35 year old? Huh?

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 08:01 PM.

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#72 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Moderator
  • 4,984 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:01 PM

Won't be major league minimum, obviously - humor acknowledged. Let's say two additional guaranteed years at the same $22M salary his current vesting option gets exercised at, to replace that option, for conversation's sake.

very true, 2 year extension at reasonable extension rate would prolly be a deal breaker unless the prospects given up were almost E level minor league fodder
  • SF Twins Fan likes this

#73 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:02 PM

 

Setting aside that Verlander is still better than Hellickson, we'd also be getting Verlander for a guaranteed pennant race while he is healthy and pitching very well.

 

Yes, Verlander is better than Hellickson today.  I was giving examples of pitchers who are available at the cost of 0 prospects, less money, and potentially out perform a 35 + 36 year old Verlander.  Hellickson probably shouldn't have been on the list btw, he is a stretch

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#74 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 30,294 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:03 PM

That's what you gathered from some people not wanting to trade those prospects for 1 specific pitcher, who has a no trade clause, makes $28 million per year and is going to be 35 by next season? Ok.

Keep grasping at those straws


What I gathered was that the other alternatives offered were mostly sign bad players on the hope they would be good, or rely on the prospects. No one is offering a good, realistic, alternative. Just more of the same, that had led to one of the worst staffs in baseball for years.
  • Sconnie, SF Twins Fan and Tomj14 like this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#75 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:06 PM

 

What I gathered was that the other alternatives offered were mostly sign bad players on the hope they would be good, or rely on the prospects. No one is offering a good, realistic, alternative. Just more of the same, that had led to one of the worst staffs in baseball for years.

 

Can you point out examples? I haven't seen anyone say the Twins should continue to do what has led to he worst staff in baseball. Should sign bad players, or rely on prospects

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#76 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Moderator
  • 4,984 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:08 PM

So you shouldn't sign pitchers to deals that are 3 years plus, because it diminishes in value over time, but you should trade good prospects to help the Tigers get out of those last couple of years and $56 million owed to a 35 year old? Huh?

prospects are just prospects. I'd take another Berrios on this roster. Imagine trying to sign Berrios today on the open market.... 200 mil easy over 8 years... the money isn't that crazy.

so make a trade for the push, it's only 2 years. For the Twins there's not as much to get stuck holding the bag at the end.

Edited by Sconnie, 21 August 2017 - 08:08 PM.


#77 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,292 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:11 PM

 

prospects are just prospects. I'd take another Berrios on this roster. Imagine trying to sign Berrios today on the open market.... 200 mil easy over 8 years... the money isn't that crazy.

so make a trade for the push, it's only 2 years. For the Twins there's not as much to get stuck holding the bag at the end.

 

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?

 

FWIW, I am not against making a trade for a pitcher at all.  I would not trade top prospects for Justin Verlander and this contract

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 08:11 PM.

  • Sconnie likes this

"The game has changed since I've entered, it's for bright, energetic negotiators moreso than anything I possess." - Terry Ryan 2007


#78 whydidnt

whydidnt

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 564 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:20 PM

I could make an argument I would take any of the guys I listed over Verlander for 2018 + 2019.  I'm not saying its a slam dunk.  
 
FWIW, I listed guys who are free agents, or could opt into FA.  Those cost you 0 prospects.  There are many other pitchers who would be "available" like Verlander, via trade.  Most of those others aren't going to be 35 and making $28 million / year

And as I said, there is a big gap between your valuation of the players you listed and mine. The only two you mention that I'd rather have over the next 2 years are Arietta and Darvish, and both of them carry as many question marks as Verlander. The guys you mentioned as in his class, just aren't. They are worse now, in some cases they are as old or close to as old, and they don't have the track record Verlander has...you are selling raisins and calling them grapes. One could argue that Cueto and Tanaka fit that same mold as well.

Look, this is just wishful talk, but if there was a realistic chance to land Verlander without giving up a pile of prospects, it's probably the best way for the Twins to improve their staff for the immediate future. As much as I'd like to think the Twins could be in the running for Darvish or Arietta, I doubt that will be the case.
  • USAFChief, Sconnie and SF Twins Fan like this

#79 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Moderator
  • 4,984 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:21 PM

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?

FWIW, I am not against making a trade for a pitcher at all. I would not trade top prospects for Justin Verlander and this contract

Verlander has pitched as well as Berrios this year. Having him on the roster this week would be like replacing Gibson with Berrios, like having two Berrios's on the roster.

If Berrios were a free agent 20-25 mil per season for a decade would seem prettt reasonable to market.

Therefore Verlander's Berrrios-like pitching at 28 mil doesn't bother me, and for only being 2 years, the risk of Verlanders age isn't so bad. Most every free agent is 32-35 and if you sign them on the open market, 3-4 years is usually min length for any decent pitcher.

Edited by Sconnie, 21 August 2017 - 08:26 PM.

  • SF Twins Fan likes this

#80 whydidnt

whydidnt

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 564 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:24 PM

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?
 
FWIW, I am not against making a trade for a pitcher at all.  I would not trade top prospects for Justin Verlander and this contract


Well, the Twins don't have any pitching prospects like Berrios, so I'm not sure how you can make this comparison. None of the Twins current prospects is considered the type of prospect that Berrios was. So dealing one for a Berrios like performance would be a great way to improve the team. I do agree that if we are taking on Verlander's contract, I'm not in favor of unloading several top prospects to complete the deal. The Twins still aren't close enough, and don't have a deep enough prospect list to risk it all at this point.
  • USAFChief, Sconnie, SF Twins Fan and 1 other like this