Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Twins Interested in Brett Anderson

anderson oakland athletics trade
  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#61 NoCal

NoCal

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 10:21 PM

Actually, I read in the Bay Area media, that Oakland is looking for middle infielders and catchers. The Rosario problem has probably handcuffed the Twins as far as middle infielders, and the Twins do not have much to entice in the catching department.

#62 twinsfaninsaudi

twinsfaninsaudi

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 11:28 PM

Actually, I read in the Bay Area media, that Oakland is looking for middle infielders and catchers. The Rosario problem has probably handcuffed the Twins as far as middle infielders, and the Twins do not have much to entice in the catching department.


It makes the most sense that they are looking for that. They might go for a big right handed bat that can play outfield. I know they've been linked to Nelson Cruz.

#63 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 793 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 11:52 PM

If say Worley and Fien or Worley and Burton would do it, I'd take it. Rosario is a lot to give up, but I'd probably do that too. Any more than that, it's not worth it. The injury history is too extensive and if he doesn't light it up, you're not picking up a $12 million option for 2015.

#64 Trevor0333

Trevor0333

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 12:21 AM

Actually, I read in the Bay Area media, that Oakland is looking for middle infielders and catchers. The Rosario problem has probably handcuffed the Twins as far as middle infielders, and the Twins do not have much to entice in the catching department.


Levi Micheal & Vance Worley anyone hahaha

#65 Don't Feed the Greed Guy

Don't Feed the Greed Guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 516 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 05:14 AM

Here's an interesting article by Clave Jones, entitled "Should the Twins Trade For Brett Anderson? http://fantasybaseba...brett-anderson/

Jones quotes Reusse and Mackey, who were discussing such a trade on 1500 ESPN yesterday. Evidently Reusse and Mackey were dropping names like Rosario, Arcia, May, and Gibson as potential bait for the Oakland leftie.

That seems outrageous to me. But it's a fun read. Take a look.

#66 InfraRen

InfraRen

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:03 AM

Here's an interesting article by Clave Jones, entitled "Should the Twins Trade For Brett Anderson? http://fantasybaseba...brett-anderson/

Jones quotes Reusse and Mackey, who were discussing such a trade on 1500 ESPN yesterday. Evidently Reusse and Mackey were dropping names like Rosario, Arcia, May, and Gibson as potential bait for the Oakland leftie.

That seems outrageous to me. But it's a fun read. Take a look.


I would like a Brett Anderson trade, for sure - but for none of those guys. MAYBE Gibson, but I kind of feel like Gibson is kind of Brett Anderson-like if he could get it figured out.

Would REALLY love the Twins getting in on the Jeff Samardzija trade talks. THEN I'd start looking at the guys in DFTGG's post.
Till I Collapse

#67 halfchest

halfchest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 328 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:17 AM

I would like a Brett Anderson trade, for sure - but for none of those guys. MAYBE Gibson, but I kind of feel like Gibson is kind of Brett Anderson-like if he could get it figured out.

Would REALLY love the Twins getting in on the Jeff Samardzija trade talks. THEN I'd start looking at the guys in DFTGG's post.


I hate to be the we can't trade anyone guy. I'm open to trading especially for the right guy. Given injury history I don't see how BA can command too much. I don't like trading Gibson because I think his value is way too low. I'd rather keep him and gamble that he puts it together this year.

#68 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now Living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 15,242 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:34 AM

He has pitched less than 50 innings a year for several years, and people wnat to give up legit prospects for him?

Mind.
Boggling.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#69 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:55 AM

He has pitched less than 50 innings a year for several years, and people wnat to give up legit prospects for him?

Mind.
Boggling.


He's a top of the rotation guy when healthy. People talk about them like they grow on trees, and here's a real live one. Recently Ryan has been quoted as saying he won't use his prospects and I don't disagree with that, but I do believe a buy low, top of the rotation lefty is worthy of discussion.

Edited by howieramone, 05 December 2013 - 10:02 AM.


#70 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now Living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 15,242 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:03 AM

He is a top of the rotation guy when healthy. People talk about them like they grow on trees, and here's a real live one. Recently Ryan has been quoted as saying he won't use his prospects and I don't disagree with that, but I do believe a buy low, top of the rotation lefty is worthy of discussion.


i agree, but giving up one or more top prospects is not "buying low"

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#71 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,199 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:05 AM

i agree, but giving up one or more top prospects is not "buying low"


Yeah. Anderson is an intriguing player, for sure... But he's incredibly injury-prone and has been paid quite handsomely to not throw baseballs at opposing batters in anger.

And that guy isn't worth a top 100 prospect. He's just isn't.

Why give up, say, Eddie Rosario for Anderson when you can go get Johan Santana for a couple of million bucks? When you get right down to it, they're kinda the same guy (though Anderson has a better chance of rebounding... though I wouldn't put it much higher, honestly).

#72 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,891 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:15 AM

Brett Anderson, career ERA+: 108

Matt Garza, career ERA+: 108

Not advocating one or the other, just thought that was interesting.

#73 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now Living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 15,242 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:34 AM

And all Garza costs is money....

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#74 Siehbiscuit

Siehbiscuit

    Overweight 3rd baseman

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:37 AM

i agree, but giving up one or more top prospects is not "buying low"


"Buying low" is a subjective term. If trading for a "low-valued" Anderson requires a guy like Rosario or even he and Gibson, what would his value be at his "selling high" value? I recall that the Royals were turned away not too long ago when they offered Wil Meyers (top 3 prospect in all of baseball). This guys value is incredibly low righ now, especially for the cash-strapped A's.

To play the what if game: It's 2016 and Matt Harvey hasn't been able to stay healthy and pitched only 15-20 games in 2014 and 2015 combined. Is he worth a couple of very good prospects (Top 100-types)? What if he were healthy? See David Price, that is what these guys are worth.

To get elite pitching requires risk. Anderson is ace material. The Twins will not win unless they have pitching that can compete with the Tigers, Red Sox, and Yankees. Buying Anderson now IS buying him at his lowest value.

#75 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now Living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 15,242 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:57 AM

I don't see how giving up a starting 2B/LF and a #3 pitcher is an incredibly low price. I don't see how giving up only one of those is a low price.

It really depends in your medical analysis of his situation, and how good you think the prospects you are giving up are. I think an everday 2B/LF is worth more than a guy with a 108+ ERA that has not really pitched in three years. I'd rather have Gibson, I think. But I don't know the medicals.

Frankly, why not just sign Garza, he costs zero prospects.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#76 Siehbiscuit

Siehbiscuit

    Overweight 3rd baseman

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 12:20 PM

I agree with the "sign Garza" logic. He doesn't cost prospects and they are very comprable. IMO, Anderson is better than Garza, when he is healthy. The biggest difference to me is Anderson is only 25 (26 on Feb. 1st). We can pay him Garza $, but the prospects are what we pay to get age 26-30 seasons. Age is the reason, imo, to invest with prospects.

#77 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 12:49 PM

Brett Anderson, career ERA+: 108

Matt Garza, career ERA+: 108

Not advocating one or the other, just thought that was interesting.


Look at what the Rangers gave up for less than half a season of Garza. A solidly top 100 prospect (Olt), the new #11 and #12 prospects in a deep Cubs system, and a 25 year old starter with 100 sub-par MLB innings but a 3.23 MiLB ERA mark.

It's not the trade deadline and Garza isn't coming off injury, but Rosario doesn't seem so far fetched.

#78 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,891 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 12:59 PM

I agree with the "sign Garza" logic. He doesn't cost prospects and they are very comprable. IMO, Anderson is better than Garza, when he is healthy. The biggest difference to me is Anderson is only 25 (26 on Feb. 1st). We can pay him Garza $, but the prospects are what we pay to get age 26-30 seasons. Age is the reason, imo, to invest with prospects.


Actually, you'd only be getting Anderson's age 26-27 seasons -- he's only under team control through 2015. Best case scenario, he pitches well, but to keep him he'd need a Garza-like deal, albeit at a younger age but also one that will extend further into our impending "Buxton/Sano return to glory" (assuming we care about budgeting for that, extending Anderson would affect it more than a Garza deal now).

Also, Anderson has pitched 450 innings in the majors. His 147 ERA+ season lasted all of 112 innings. Just looking at last year's game logs, Garza had a 99 inning stretch with a roughly 144 ERA+. I'm not sure how you can reliably conclude he's a better pitcher than Garza, even when healthy.

If you want to take a risk adding this caliber of pitcher now, risking money might be the better play, particularly if Oakland isn't so keen on accepting a "buy low" return.

Edited by spycake, 05 December 2013 - 01:02 PM.


#79 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,204 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 01:10 PM

In the past 3 years, he's thrown 83, 35, and 45 innings (rounded). The idea he suddenly turns into a 150+ guys seem like pure fantasy to me. And how could a mid-market team give him a pricey extension even if he did do well for 2 years, knowing his history?

The Twins need more pitching, but I don't see why someone would give up a good prospect for 2 years of very uncertain upside.

#80 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 5,832 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 05 December 2013 - 01:59 PM

Well let's look at the injury history

http://www.baseballp...rd.php?id=57286

2007: Concussion from a car accident, 29 days missed
2009: blister, 10 days missed
2010: Flexor tendon strain, 40 days missed
2010: elbow inflammation, 56 days missed
2011: Tommy John surgery (Jul 14)
....
2012 (Sept): belly strain, 20 days missed
2013: ankle sprain, 120 days missed

Most of that time is related to the elbow so if TJ fixed it, I think its reasonable to expect him to throw more innings in 2014. 4 months for an ankle sprain does seem like a lot though.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: anderson, oakland athletics, trade