Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

From MinnCentric


Photo

Article: The Case For Brett Anderson

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,115 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 09:57 AM

You can view the page at http://www.twinsdail...-Brett-Anderson

#2 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    Old Geezer

  • Members
  • 1,486 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:23 AM

Any guess as to what it would cost in prospects?

#3 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,710 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:46 AM

I don't know that anyone is saying he's not worth a risk, the question is, what risk/cost?

#4 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 855 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:54 AM

Would depend on the price, and I would want a timeframe for an extension to be signed. Giving away much for 2 years is not worth it, especially when you don't rate to contend this upcoming year.

#5 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 756 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:56 AM

Billy Beane is no dummy, and prying him away from Oakland wouldn't be cheap, regardless of health issues.

It is a classic high risk/high reward proposition.

#6 ericchri

ericchri

    Generally Clueless

  • Members
  • 380 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:08 AM

Lottery tickets are cheap for a reason. Oakland can have someone from our bullpen not named Perkins and a middling prospect (not in our top 15 or so), but I wouldn't feel good about most anything else. His last injury doesn't look like the kind of thing that should have a lasting effect on his pitching, but even so he's barely pitched recently.

#7 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,434 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:18 AM

Prospects prospects prospects. You know at some point you got to trade them when high enough, otherwise they become what the Twins' minor league pitcher of the year award winners (other than Gibson) became.

I have no issue trading any tradeable (ie. Steward, Eades, Gonsalves are not) prospect not named Sano, Meyer or Buxton for Anderson. Funny enough, the Twins are having a jam of RHSP in their prospect ranks and it is certain that some of them will not pan out. May, Berrios, Felix Jorge, et al. You got Meyer, Gibson, Nolasco and Hughes ahead of them, so you got to trade them when they still have value...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#8 richardkr34

richardkr34

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:21 AM

Lottery tickets are cheap for a reason. Oakland can have someone from our bullpen not named Perkins and a middling prospect (not in our top 15 or so), but I wouldn't feel good about most anything else. His last injury doesn't look like the kind of thing that should have a lasting effect on his pitching, but even so he's barely pitched recently.


After getting Gregerson I'm not sure how interested in bullpen help they'll be. Maybe something like Santana and Melotakis...

#9 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,901 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:24 AM

20M in committements have to be factored into this too. This really is selling low for Beane, which is something he doesn't do much. I have a hard time thinking his value will be worse next year than it is right now (which honestly is likely a major league reliever or a C+ level prospect). If he has another injury plagued season, the value wont' change. If he doesn't, it likely will. So here's what I would ask. Would you trade a prospect like Adam Walker, who strikes me as a boom or bust guy in the majors and is likely redundant in this system for a guy like Anderson with the hopes of locking him up long term if he rebounds? Something tells me Beane is floating this, but he's not going to take a Jarrod Burton or Casey Fein.

#10 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,434 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:30 AM

. So here's what I would ask. Would you trade a prospect like Adam Walker, who strikes me as a boom or bust guy in the majors and is likely redundant in this system for a guy like Anderson with the hopes of locking him up long term if he rebounds?.


In a heartbeat.

But not sure that this would be enough
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#11 AScheib50

AScheib50

    Member

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:39 AM

I haven't been as high on the Anderson talk as a lot around here, but the more I hear about it and the more I read I get more interested. I think I would do Adam Walker for Anderson...depending on who else is in that deal. But the idea of getting a possible ace lefty in his mid 20s is pretty enticing. I'm with Thrylos on trading some prospects while we have em. Can't keep them all, just have to make sure you trade the right pieces. But I think this would be a huge addition for the Twins.

#12 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:45 AM

I don't know that anyone is saying he's not worth a risk, the question is, what risk/cost?


Pretty much this. Anderson would be a great lottery ticket but you buy lottery tickets because they are cheap. Everything depends on the asking cost.

#13 Smcginnity

Smcginnity

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 161 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 11:50 AM

I think anything aside from Sano, Buxton, Stewart or Meyer, the Twins need to strongly consider this trade. I have to imagine a trade of Berrios, Taylor Rogers, and Tonkin could get this done. But, who knows with Beane. I'm VERY hesistant to trade Lewis Thorpe or Gonsvalves but at the same time, they are very far away.

#14 Smcginnity

Smcginnity

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 161 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 12:06 PM

You know Beane will ask for a young pitcher in ANY deal. That's how they always have a well oiled stable of pitchers. They traded Dan Haren for Brett Anderson (and 7 others - including Carlos Gonzalez). Gio Gonzalez was traded for Tommy Milone. Trevor Cahill was traded for Jarrod Parker. That's what I worry about...I'm worried they will try and poach our SPs from the Single-A level and that they know more than we know. I guess it shows the trust I have in the Twin's brass to evaluating pitching talent :)

#15 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,434 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 06 December 2013 - 12:07 PM

I think anything aside from Sano, Buxton, Stewart or Meyer, the Twins need to strongly consider this trade. I have to imagine a trade of Berrios, Taylor Rogers, and Tonkin could get this done. But, who knows with Beane. I'm VERY hesistant to trade Lewis Thorpe or Gonsvalves but at the same time, they are very far away.


Cannot trade Gonsalves (or Stewart for that matter) until a year after they signed... Late summer
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#16 SouthDakotaFarmer

SouthDakotaFarmer

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 12:56 PM

Beane also loves cash. Check his history and he almost always gets his trading parter to send some cash considerations in the deal. Adam Walker, Tonkin, and cash could work. Who knows though. As Mcginnity said above, Beane loves to stockpile young SP. So, with that said I imagine my proposal wouldn't work without a Low-A SP in the deal. Crap, I typed all of that for nothing I guess.

#17 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,809 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:27 PM

I think that Brett Anderson is equivalent to what Ricky Nolasco is in terms of potential, but he does come with higher injury risk (at least in theory). He is I would be fine with him being part of the rotation, but this conversation is correct. It's completely about what the Twins have to give up.

It's not going to be a package of guys like Walker and Santana and relief pitchers. I mean, those guy may be included, but it will take a Rosario, Kepler, Berrios type as the starting point, and likely will take 3 more.

Billy Beane will ask for Sano, Buxton and Meyer... Terry Ryan will say no. And then the negotiations will begin.

#18 Trautmann13

Trautmann13

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:46 PM

I would like almost any trade involving Rosario (as hard as that may be right now), and one or maybe 2 of our bullpen guys. The only guys I would not be happy about trading is swarzak and Perk. I feel like the two of them are key to that bullpen being what it is. But if Kepler, Meyer, May, Sano, or Buxton are involved...shut the door in Beanes face.

#19 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member - MiLB Report Contributor

  • Members
  • 589 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:47 PM

Walker isn't going to land him as a frontrunner in a deal. It would have to start with a Rosario, Kepler, Berrios type, and then Walker as one of the other pieces.

#20 halfchest

halfchest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 253 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:56 PM

I think that Brett Anderson is equivalent to what Ricky Nolasco is in terms of potential, but he does come with higher injury risk (at least in theory). He is I would be fine with him being part of the rotation, but this conversation is correct. It's completely about what the Twins have to give up.

It's not going to be a package of guys like Walker and Santana and relief pitchers. I mean, those guy may be included, but it will take a Rosario, Kepler, Berrios type as the starting point, and likely will take 3 more.

Billy Beane will ask for Sano, Buxton and Meyer... Terry Ryan will say no. And then the negotiations will begin.


I don't see how any pitcher who's averaged just over 50 innings a year for 3 years can command that much in a trade. That and the fact his innings these last three years weren't that amazing. I'd love to get him but just don't see any team giving up multiple prospects for him. Now if they keep him and he has a hot first half and they trade him at the deadline then yes. But right now I just don't see any team giving up more than C level prospects for him. Maybe one B level and that's it, even that I just don't see any teams paying up that much for him with the injury history.

#21 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,434 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:10 PM

I don't see how any pitcher who's averaged just over 50 innings a year for 3 years can command that much in a trade. That and the fact his innings these last three years weren't that amazing..


Qualify "amazing"? Think about what Matt Moore (who is one year younger) is worth, and how "amazing" his last season was, and then look at this:

xFIP
2011 Anderson: 3.66; Moore: 1.85
2012 Anderson: 3.06; Moore: 4.32
2013 Anderson: 3.26; Moore: 4.35


SIERA
2011 Anderson: 3.61; Moore: 1.18
2012 Anderson: 3.10; Moore: 4.08
2013 Anderson: 3.31; Moore: 4.31

Plus Anderson in a Leftie.

The issue with Anderson is that he is in his last year of Arbitration (4th he was a super 2) and in order to get value you need to trade and agree to a longer term contact before the trade.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#22 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:14 PM

Beane had Nelson Cruz, Carlos Gonzalez, Andre Ethier, and Gio Gonzalez basically robbed from him. He's had some good deals, but he's not exactly a trade master. I don't think Anderson is a good idea if it's going to cost a top 10 prospect from us and likely that's what we'd have to offer. He had one good year in 2010 and has been quiet since. A starter pitcher that has 24 starts in the past 3 years is way too radical a trade to pull for. He's made of glass. Experience concerns+durability concerns+team control for only 2 more years=Bad trade target.

#23 Siehbiscuit

Siehbiscuit

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 325 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:16 PM

I don't see how any pitcher who's averaged just over 50 innings a year for 3 years can command that much in a trade. That and the fact his innings these last three years weren't that amazing. I'd love to get him but just don't see any team giving up multiple prospects for him.


4 years ago he was the No. 7 propspect in all of baseball and when he came up he pitched VERY well. He had the typical sore forearm, then it was followed up with TJ surgery. Post-surgery it took him a little while to gain any traction, but he ended the year pitching well. He had a oblique strain (fluky), but came back strong enough to DOMINATE the Tigers with a shutout in Game 3 of the ALDS! He has had post-surgery success! The arm isn't the issue anymore. He had another non-arm/shoulder injury to his foot.

This guy is a legit top of the rotation guy that has been successful post-TJ and due to some fluke-type injuries his value is down.

I mentioned in another thread, what if this were Matt Harvey in 2016? He had a great 2013 that ended with him getting TJ surgery. Then he comes back mid to late in 2014. He struggles for a short time and then looks like the old Matt Harvey in 2015, but he strains his oblique and misses time. Then to start 2016 he breaks his foot. Are we willing to give up a good prospect or two to get him if he's available? He's shown he can pitch post-TJ? How else can we acquire MLB frontline starters?

#24 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:16 PM

Qualify "amazing"? Think about what Matt Moore (who is one year younger) is worth, and how "amazing" his last season was, and then look at this:

xFIP
2011 Anderson: 3.66; Moore: 1.85
2012 Anderson: 3.06; Moore: 4.32
2013 Anderson: 3.26; Moore: 4.35


SIERA
2011 Anderson: 3.61; Moore: 1.18
2012 Anderson: 3.10; Moore: 4.08
2013 Anderson: 3.31; Moore: 4.31

Plus Anderson in a Leftie.

The issue with Anderson is that he is in his last year of Arbitration (4th he was a super 2) and in order to get value you need to trade and agree to a longer term contact before the trade.


You're not really giving 160 innings statistical legitimacy are you?

#25 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,434 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:21 PM

You're not really giving 160 innings statistical legitimacy are you?


Tell me how you feel about Perkins as a closer? or how you felt after Nathan's or Aguilera's first 3 seasons as closers? Or even Rivera's for that matter... Do they pitched significant innings to tell? Or relief innings are 3 times as significant as start innings?
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#26 halfchest

halfchest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 253 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:27 PM

4 years ago he was the No. 7 propspect in all of baseball and when he came up he pitched VERY well.

I mentioned in another thread, what if this were Matt Harvey in 2016? He had a great 2013 that ended with him getting TJ surgery. Then he comes back mid to late in 2014. He struggles for a short time and then looks like the old Matt Harvey in 2015, but he strains his oblique and misses time. Then to start 2016 he breaks his foot. Are we willing to give up a good prospect or two to get him if he's available? He's shown he can pitch post-TJ? How else can we acquire MLB frontline starters?


The key is four years ago, that's pretty much my point as to why he's not insanely valuable IMO. If I'm wrong and some team gives up a B level prospect plus two or three C levels I'll applaud and say I was wrong. But until then what sticks out to me is three years in a row of not pitching very much.

2nd question - If Matt Harvey has the same issues you describe and in three years has only thrown 160 innings over three years, then no I wouldn't give up a whole heckuva lot for him either.

I said this in the other thread. If he were to stay with the A's and put together a solid first half 12-15 starts of around 3.5 ERA , FIP, xFIP, etc. then yes, his value suddenly jumps a ton and he's worth a package of multiple solid prospects with one of our top 10s as a headliner. Right now I just don't see it.

I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again. Is there any trades to compare this to? Probably not considering all the factors. I think most teams that have Brett Anderson or a similar player would keep him and hope he turns it around for them or builds trade value rather than selling low. The A's are a different animal though.

#27 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,052 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:28 PM

Tell me how you feel about Perkins as a closer? or how you felt after Nathan's or Aguilera's first 3 seasons as closers? Or even Rivera's for that matter... Do they pitched significant innings to tell? Or relief innings are 3 times as significant as start innings?


I see your point but Perkins is supposed to throw 60 innings a season.

Anderson is supposed to throw 200. A lot could happen in those missing 440 innings. Dead arm and fatigue are issues that face starters as a year wears on.

#28 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:29 PM

Tell me how you feel about Perkins as a closer? or how you felt after Nathan's or Aguilera's first 3 seasons as closers? Or even Rivera's for that matter... Do they pitched significant innings to tell? Or relief innings are 3 times as significant as start innings?


If you're trying to paint Anderson as a reliever go ahead, but he's not. 160IP is not even a year of pitching as a starter and you have no account for starters enduring the grind of a full season. Swarzak pitched 91 innings of 2.91 ball, but he clearly can't make it as a starter. This isn't a good comparison at all. I'm sure Matt Moore could pitch better than that if he knew he was only going throw 50 this season.

#29 B Richard

B Richard

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 522 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:36 PM

4 prospects for Anderson with his contract and history? Pass

#30 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:40 PM

Kevin Correia after 50 Innings the Past 3 seasons

2011: 52.2IP, 3.25 ERA, 1.169 WHIP
2012: 52.1 IP, 4.30 ERA, 1.23 WHIP
2013: 53.2IP, 3.35ERA, 1.24 WHIP

On the note of Matt Moore his 3 seasons really weren't that great.
He outperformed his xFIP by a wide margin in terms of ERA, sat at a 2.0 K/BB rate, pitched to a 1.3 in WHIP, and provided 4.3 Wins above replacement. People just see his strikeout numbers and go "OOoooooh".

Edited by YourHouseIsMyHouse, 06 December 2013 - 02:46 PM.