Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

buying prospects

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 795 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:07 AM

Here is an article on MLBTradrumors.com

http://www.mlbtrader...en-santana.html

Discussing the idea of swapping either Santana or Haren before they need to take action on their options. If the angels were to throw in 3-5 million in a trade what whould we be willing to give up for 1 year of either of these guys?

#2 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,938 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:51 AM

Its an interesting idea, but there is the question of what you'd have to give up in order to acquire one or both of them. Two things the Angels don't need are first basemen or center fielders, so that means prospects of our own.

#3 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

The premise is that your team would not be able to attract a free agent. For a 13-15 million a year one time contract you ought to be doing better than Haren or Santana. If your prospect is that valuable as to get multi millions off the contract of these two, you can probably deal that prospect for a better pitcher or contract. The Angels are fishing for a sucker.

#4 DaTwins

DaTwins

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:39 AM

The Angels are fishing for a sucker.


$14-15 million on one year isn't bad at all. It's actually a good upside play. His peripherals are solid, despite declining velo, he's a prime candidate for a bounce back.

Edit: This in regard to Haren. I wouldn't gamble on Santana's option, for the record.

#5 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,393 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:51 AM

The Angels are fishing for a sucker.


$14-15 million on one year isn't bad at all. It's actually a good upside play. His peripherals are solid, despite declining velo, he's a prime candidate for a bounce back.

Edit: This in regard to Haren. I wouldn't gamble on Santana's option, for the record.


I like the idea of getting Haren but I don't really think that trading a good prospect is worth it for one year.

#6 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,693 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:52 AM

The premise is that your team would not be able to attract a free agent. For a 13-15 million a year one time contract you ought to be doing better than Haren or Santana. If your prospect is that valuable as to get multi millions off the contract of these two, you can probably deal that prospect for a better pitcher or contract. The Angels are fishing for a sucker.


Just curious, but aside from Greinke, what free agents would you prefer to Haren? He'd actually be the guy I'd put #2 on my wish list.

I agree that I don't want to trade for him because I don't feel like giving up prospects for a guy under contract for 1 year and he likely would come cheaper on the market under a multi-year deal, but still he's the guy I hope the Twins target hardest.

#7 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 791 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:00 AM

My guess is it wouldn't cost all that much to get one of these guys. The Angels wouldn't ask that much because everyone knows these options will not be picked up. If a team threw in a B- or C+ kind of guy, my guess is they would take it. I think they are hoping two teams bid up the price. If only one team comes calling, the other team has all the leverage.

#8 jianfu

jianfu

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:12 AM

Here is an article on MLBTradrumors.com

http://www.mlbtrader...en-santana.html

Discussing the idea of swapping either Santana or Haren before they need to take action on their options. If the angels were to throw in 3-5 million in a trade what whould we be willing to give up for 1 year of either of these guys?


I posted this article, as well. I don't think the Angels can really ask for much unless, as others have noted, the bidding for one year of Dan Haren gets heated (which is possible, I suppose). But at any rate, this is sort of strange in that it's basically a deadline type deal/expected return, not a typical offseason deal (not that any such thing exists, but you know what I mean).

Terry Ryan has always maintained that it's not the salary of FA pitchers he's opposed to, it's the years required to get them to sign. The Twins aren't going to bring in a Dan Haren in FA. But this could be an opportunity to add a serious pitcher without committing to a long contract, assuming the trade price isn't too high.

Given the drop in velo and his bad year, I think Santana might go to FA and sign a small contract for less. Although even then it could be close. Him and Edwin Jackson are fairly similar in terms of age, effectiveness, strikout/walk, and Jackson signed for 1/$11 last year (although did so coming off a better season than Santana just had).

#9 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:31 AM

The premise is that your team would not be able to attract a free agent. For a 13-15 million a year one time contract you ought to be doing better than Haren or Santana. If your prospect is that valuable as to get multi millions off the contract of these two, you can probably deal that prospect for a better pitcher or contract. The Angels are fishing for a sucker.


Just curious, but aside from Greinke, what free agents would you prefer to Haren? He'd actually be the guy I'd put #2 on my wish list.

I agree that I don't want to trade for him because I don't feel like giving up prospects for a guy under contract for 1 year and he likely would come cheaper on the market under a multi-year deal, but still he's the guy I hope the Twins target hardest.


I didn't make it clear that I would not advocate spending the money on one player. Haren is still good, just not 15.5 million good.

A second thought would be for the money what is better Pavano and Blackburn or Haren and DeVries? Last years money was about the same for both pairs.

Edited by old nurse, 30 October 2012 - 12:10 PM.


#10 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,938 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:44 AM

The Angels only want to hedge in the event that Greinke signs elsewhere. If the Angels do lock Greinke up later this winter, they may dump one or both of the option guys just for the salary relief and bring in some bullpen guys. Who knows, maybe they'd take Alex Burnett off our hands.

#11 Fire Dan Gladden

Fire Dan Gladden

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:38 PM

I can't see them spending that much for one year of Dan Haren. The Twins are not that close to competing to justify the dollars and the trade compensation. The only way this would work is if they gave him a 3 yr extension. Which, IMO, would be way too much.

I like Haren and think he could be a good fit here, but I wouldn't blow up the ship to do it.

#12 ScottyB

ScottyB

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:38 PM

Let's give them Casilla and Butera for both and then not pick up options on either. Both teams get rid of non-tenders,

#13 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,145 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:17 PM

Let's give them Casilla and Butera for both and then not pick up options on either. Both teams get rid of non-tenders,


Do you think we could get them to do our laundry for a year too?

#14 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 4,954 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:27 PM

With a $3.5M buyout, I gotta think they would be willing to move him for just about anything, including doing our laundry for a year.

I know all the rumors have them turning down this option, and that's one of the reasons that we suggested he would be a FA this year, but now I wonder. $12M isn't a crazy amount for Haren, and that's essentially all the additional money they would be committing to him. Originally, we had them picking up that option, but then the rumors started and we changed it.