Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Go get Verlander

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

#81 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,085 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:26 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?


Do the Twins have any prospects who are meaningfully "like" Berrios? He was top 20-30 overall, A-/A grade by Sickels. Nothing against our current minor league pitchers, but they all seem to involve more risk than Berrios circa 2015.
  • USAFChief, Sconnie and SF Twins Fan like this

#82 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:26 PM

 

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.

 

Lance Lynn is 30, has a WAR within 1 of Verlander over the past 4 years. Cobb is 29, was better in 2014 + 2015 than Verlander, was hurt in '16, and has been pretty similar this year.  

 

Big difference when you factor in age? I would take either in 2018 + 2019, no doubt.  

 

For the stretch run this year, I would much rather give up a mid to lower level prospect for Jhoulys Chacin than give up 2+ good prospects for Verlander. 

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


#83 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:28 PM

 

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.

 

I would argue many evaluators would choose Fernando Romero over Jose Berrios as a prospect, I would also guess some may take Gonsalves. 

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


#84 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:31 PM

 

Do the Twins have any prospects who are meaningfully "like" Berrios? He was top 20-30 overall, A-/A grade by Sickels. Nothing against our current minor league pitchers, but they all seem to involve more risk than Berrios circa 2015.

 

Romero - I would guess there are many evaluators who prefer him to Berrios.  

 

Gonsalves - possibly

 

Edit: Sickels gave Berrios an A- pre-2016, after having him as a B for a couple years, B+ in 2015  I would be willing to bet Romero will be an A- next year, B+ at worst. 

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 08:37 PM.

  • Thrylos likes this

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


#85 whydidnt

whydidnt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:43 PM

Lance Lynn is 30, has a WAR within 1 of Verlander over the past 4 years. Cobb is 29, was better in 2014 + 2015 than Verlander, was hurt in '16, and has been pretty similar this year.

Big difference when you factor in age? I would take either in 2018 + 2019, no doubt.

For the stretch run this year, I would much rather give up a mid to lower level prospect for Jhoulys Chacin than give up 2+ good prospects for Verlander.

You seem to be picking and choosing the time frame and stats to use to compare. Over the last 2 years here is the WAR for all of these pitchers:
Verlander 9.8
Lynn 2.9
Cobb 1.0
Chacon 2.4 (2.2 of which is from pitching in SD this year)

Verlander's WAR is better this year than any of the guys you mention, and hasn't missed a year lately due to injury. These guys just aren't in his class. They never have been and likely never will be. Lynn has been a nice comback this year, until you look at his underlying stats, he's got a FIP of 4.78 and K/BB of just 2.11. Neither of these points to long term success. See, when we cherry pick our stats, it's very easy to support our own conclusion. I'm not arguing that Verlander is the 2016 version, I'm just saying the guys you are using to support your argument just aren't as good as him.

Edited by whydidnt, 21 August 2017 - 08:44 PM.

  • USAFChief, Mike Sixel and SF Twins Fan like this

#86 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,860 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:47 PM

Assuming for a moment Verlander would waive his no trade clause, AND the Tigers would be willing to trade him within the division, there are so many factors that give me pause.

1] How much salary would the Twins have to eat...and they could afford to eat a chunk for the next two years...to avoid a big prospect payout to get him?

2] Verlander is still a quality SP capable of at least an occasional great performance. But forgetting the money...only 2 years...is he good enough still at 35, special enough in occasion, to warrant the loss of 2-3 quality prospects that could provide real help and possibility the next couple of seasons? (Yes, I know a prospect is still a prospect until otherwise).

3] In the long run, is the team better keeping their prospects, keep developing what they have, and invest $17-20M in a FA for 4-6 years and not only getting the, potentially, best couple 2-4 years from said FA before facing the decking years later, but also still having the prospects to keep building the roster and providing additional future trade value between them and current Twins players?

I'm not opposed to adding Verlander, especially if we can pick up the majority of cost and not have to pay a ton in the way of prospects. At 35yo, but still healthy and with good velocity, and capable of a big game, who says an exciting young team, with a quality defense, a (hopefully) better bullpen and a change of scenery wouldn't lead to a resurgence of some sort and make the Twins look brilliant!

Man...but it's a tantalizing prospect isn't it?!

But at the end of the day, I think I pass. For a team with such a young nucleus, I think I'd rather keep the prospects, and spend the money for a quality FA SP, RP and DH/1B bat. Put those three with what we have and what is coming up and potentially ready soon, and I think we come out ahead.
  • alarp33, whydidnt and Dozier's Glorious Hair like this

"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

 

--Lou Brown


#87 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:48 PM

 

You seem to be picking and choosing the time frame and stats to use to compare. Over the last 2 years here is the WAR for all of these pitchers:
Verlander 9.8
Lynn 2.9
Cobb 1.0
Chacon 2.4 (2.2 of which is from pitching in SD this year)

Verlander's WAR is better this year than any of the guys you mention, and hasn't missed a year lately due to injury. These guys just aren't in his class. They never have been and likely never will be. Lynn has been a nice comback this year, until you look at his underlying stats, he's got a FIP of 4.78 and K/BB of just 2.11. Neither of these points to long term success. See, when we cherry pick our stats, it's very easy to support our own conclusion. I'm not arguing that Verlander is the 2016 version, I'm just saying the guys you are using to support your argument just aren't as good as him.

 

Justin Verlander will be 35 prior to next season has a xFIP of 4.59 and makes $28 million per year and you want to actively give up top prospects to acquire him.  

 

Lance Lynn and Cobb missed last season, that's generally how counting stats work, the totals tend to be lower.  Verlander was awesome last year, I'll pass on his contract at 35+36. 

 

If you could trade for Verlander's 2016 season? Sign me up.  Unfortunately that's not how it works

 

Edit; FYI, WAR adjusts for Park you pitch your games in - clarifying your Chacin comment

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 08:54 PM.

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


#88 whydidnt

whydidnt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:56 PM

Justin Verlander will be 35 prior to next season has a xFIP of 4.59 and makes $28 million per year and you want to actively give up top prospects to acquire him.  
 
Lance Lynn and Cobb missed last season, that's generally how counting stats work, the totals tend to be lower.  Verlander was awesome last year, I'll pass on his contract at 35+36. 
 
If you could trade for Verlander's 2016 season? Sign me up.  Unfortunately that's not how it works


And both Cobb and Lynn are markedly worse this, by FIP or xFIP this year than they were pre-injury, do you want to bank on them returning to pre-injury form? Look, you don't want Verlander, that's fine, just say so. I just disagree that the guys you are suggesting are in his class. Time will tell, I guess.

#89 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:02 PM

 

And both Cobb and Lynn are markedly worse this, by FIP or xFIP this year than they were pre-injury, do you want to bank on them returning to pre-injury form? Look, you don't want Verlander, that's fine, just say so. I just disagree that the guys you are suggesting are in his class. Time will tell, I guess.

And Verlander is markedly worse this year by FIP + xFIP than he has been for his entire career.  Again, because he's getting old.  Do you want to bank on him turning back the clock the next 2 years when he is making $28 million? Not me.  

 

Agree to disagree

 

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


#90 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,706 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:09 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.

They traded 2 impending free agents. Wilson is arb eligible. If he remained a closer and got closer moneyhis trade could be about saving money.Had they traded Kinsler you could say they were dumping money. The issue would be definitive if there was a market for him. There have beenquotes about not adding further payroll. I don't think Avila can withstand another bad contract is more the issue than anything with that type of statement.Sanchez has been a money drain. Victor Martinez is becoming one. Zimmerman has been one. and Cabrera will be paid for a lot of past deeds for a long time. There are expensive contracts any team would love to shed.


#91 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,085 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:11 PM

Romero - I would guess there are many evaluators who prefer him to Berrios.

Gonsalves - possibly

Edit: Sickels gave Berrios an A- pre-2016, after having him as a B for a couple years, B+ in 2015 I would be willing to bet Romero will be an A- next year, B+ at worst.


Note that I am arguing on another thread that the Twins could have done a better job of setting up Romero and Gonsalves for potential 2017 contributions, so I am certainly not knocking them. :)

Romero is pretty good, but it seems his value might still be a peg or two lower than Berrios at the same point. And Gonsalves... I get the feeling like he might be one of those guys who is just never as good as his minor league numbers. Even if those guys contribute in MLB, it is far from guaranteed that they would necessarily exceed even Verlander's diminished contributions. (Still on track for 4+ bWAR this year, after 6.6 last year, and even 2.2 in a partial season in 2015.)

I'd be a little nervous about sending them both away, but if only one could headline a deal, I'd really have to think about it.
  • USAFChief and DocBauer like this

#92 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:14 PM

 

Note that I am arguing on another thread that the Twins could have done a better job of setting up Romero and Gonsalves for potential 2017 contributions, so I am certainly not knocking them. :)

Romero is pretty good, but it seems his value might still be a peg or two lower than Berrios at the same point. And Gonsalves... I get the feeling like he might be one of those guys who is just never as good as his minor league numbers. Even if those guys contribute in MLB, it is far from guaranteed that they would necessarily exceed even Verlander's diminished contributions. (Still on track for 4+ bWAR this year, after 6.6 last year, and even 2.2 in a partial season in 2015.)

I'd be a little nervous about sending them both away, but if only one could headline a deal, I'd really have to think about it.

 

I agree with you on Gonsalves - I also don't think the Tigers would take him as a headliner in a Verlander trade.  Also there were evaluators who doubted Berrios ability to be anything more than a #3 due to his height - Keith Law specifically comes to mind, though I know he rated him fairly highly prior to 2016

 

As for Romero, I personally believe the only thing keeping him a peg or two below Berrios at this point is the missed 2015 season.  I would guess he will shoot up some prospect rankings prior to 2018

Edited by alarp33, 21 August 2017 - 09:17 PM.

  • DocBauer likes this

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


#93 whydidnt

whydidnt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:23 PM

Fangraphs published an article a week and a half ago regarding Verlander's value. Their view was that Verlander could fetch a low top 100 prospect plus some filler, if the Tigers picked up enough salary so the other team was only on the hook for about 30M over the next 2 years. So something like Gosalves or Romero + 1 or 2 C level guys? I know just because Fangraphs writes it, doesn't mean that's what the Tigers would consider, but it does help to put things in context I think, and shows what the market will probably support.
  • USAFChief, Hosken Bombo Disco, dbminn and 1 other like this

#94 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,493 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:33 PM

Just stopped by to say I appreciate the spirited, but reasoned and courteous discussion.  TD is a good place.

 

Those of you who disagree are still wrong, of course, but wrong in a thoughtful manner. ;)  

  • alarp33, snepp, Oldgoat_MN and 4 others like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#95 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 28,790 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:36 PM

I would argue many evaluators would choose Fernando Romero over Jose Berrios as a prospect, I would also guess some may take Gonsalves.


Zero percent chance they like Gonsalves more than Berrios. No way.
  • whydidnt and SF Twins Fan like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#96 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,860 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:37 PM

Note that I am arguing on another thread that the Twins could have done a better job of setting up Romero and Gonsalves for potential 2017 contributions, so I am certainly not knocking them. :)

Romero is pretty good, but it seems his value might still be a peg or two lower than Berrios at the same point. And Gonsalves... I get the feeling like he might be one of those guys who is just never as good as his minor league numbers. Even if those guys contribute in MLB, it is far from guaranteed that they would necessarily exceed even Verlander's diminished contributions. (Still on track for 4+ bWAR this year, after 6.6 last year, and even 2.2 in a partial season in 2015.)

I'd be a little nervous about sending them both away, but if only one could headline a deal, I'd really have to think about it.


I hear what you are saying about Gonsalvez, and he simply doesn't have the pure stuff of a Berrios. But his stuff is still solid. And like Berrios, he sure seems to have the "it" factor when it comes to competitive fire and "pitchability". I really think he's a keeper, though like most young pitchers, he may ride the shuttle a time or two. Which is also why is really like to see him get his feet wet this season.

Also agree with alarp33 that the only thing really holding back Romero is missed time. I am absolutely A-OK with someone that young and talented being brought along a little slow at this point.
  • alarp33 likes this

"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

 

--Lou Brown


#97 alarp33

alarp33

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:50 PM

Zero percent chance they like Gonsalves more than Berrios. No way.


Who's they? Plenty of prospect evaluators thought Berrios was a #3 starter, plenty think Gonsalves is a #3 starter? There certainly is one out there who likes Gonsalves the prospect more than Berrios the prospect (not me for what it's worth)

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


#98 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,789 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:51 PM

Tigers will hold on to Justin try to compete, then sell at the deadline next year if necessary. Why deal with 1 team when you can try to drive the price up through competition later? As others have pointed out, the tigers are built to win now. They can't shed all the contracts, so might as well give their guys one last run at it.

Edited by Jham, 21 August 2017 - 09:51 PM.


#99 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:59 PM

If Verlander were worth the prospects being listed here, he wouldn't be an August trade candidate. If we're taking the salary, we're not giving up Gonsalves, Romero, etc. 

  • Danchat likes this

#100 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 10:01 PM

Let's really open the vault...offer to take Zimmerman if they throw in Verlander. 

  • Oldgoat_MN and Sconnie like this