Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Recent Blogs

From MinnCentric


Photo

Heyman: The Twins made a 3-year offer to Ervin Santana

  • Please log in to reply
249 replies to this topic

#61 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,290 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:04 AM

I'd sign them both, if you sign one...sign the other.

If they do sign Santana, we can only hope Gibson looks great, and is turned into a SS or C or something. Would you trade Gibson to Houston for their catcher, for example?

I would do this under the assumption that Meyer will be ready this year, and others in 2-3 years.


Trading Gibson would be a mistake. His stock is at an all-time low right now. It makes far more sense to just wave goodbye to Diamond, Worley, and Deduno and don't look back.

#62 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,250 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:12 AM

I did say "hope he looks great", didn't I?

Santana, Hughes, Nolasco, Meyer, random guy, backed up by someone in AAA until Stewart and Berrios are up in 2-3 years.

I am a huge Gibson fan, that should be obvious on my statements around the Pelfrey signing and how they did not call him up last year. But if you have the guys above, and Pelfrey, and HUGE GAPING HOLES at SS and DH and C.....and you can get a legit player for him (hence the "hope he looks great" part of my post), then why not? Where are you getting your SS or DH or C from?

Sure, in an ideal world, you cut that chaffe, but then what? Gibson sits in AAA with Meyer and May and the other guys?

Sign Santana, Sign Drew, in 1-2 monts deal Gibson for Houston's catcher they won't pay soon.....that team might actually compete, and you still have Meyer in AAA, and probably a couple of AAAA starters if/when one of the players breaks down.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#63 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 4,132 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:13 AM

I love these little speculative things (gotta have something to entertain when there isn't a game):



#64 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,290 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:22 AM

I did say "hope he looks great", didn't I?

Santana, Hughes, Nolasco, Meyer, random guy, backed up by someone in AAA until Stewart and Berrios are up in 2-3 years.

I am a huge Gibson fan, that should be obvious on my statements around the Pelfrey signing and how they did not call him up last year. But if you have the guys above, and Pelfrey, and HUGE GAPING HOLES at SS and DH and C.....and you can get a legit player for him (hence the "hope he looks great" part of my post), then why not? Where are you getting your SS or DH or C from?

Sure, in an ideal world, you cut that chaffe, but then what? Gibson sits in AAA with Meyer and May and the other guys?

Sign Santana, Sign Drew, in 1-2 monts deal Gibson for Houston's catcher they won't pay soon.....that team might actually compete, and you still have Meyer in AAA, and probably a couple of AAAA starters if/when one of the players breaks down.


If Gibson looks great in ST, his stock doesn't change.

If Gibson looks great in Rochester, his stock doesn't change much.

If Gibson looks great in MLB early this season, then it doesn't make sense to trade him.

I don't see a situation where it makes sense to trade Gibson. It makes far more sense to clear out the out of options players and trade Correia.

#65 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,712 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:24 AM

Doumit is no great loss. Odds are pretty good they'll get better production out of those 538 PAs.


Last year C/1B/DH was Mauer/Morneau/Doumit.

This year it's Mauer/Suzuki/Kubel.

I would not call odds "pretty good" that this group outproduces last year. Some of that depends on how long it's Suzuki/Kubel and not Pinto/Arcia but right now it looks like at least a decent chunk of the season will start that way.

#66 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,712 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:25 AM

To be fair, I believe the Twins' interest in Saunders was described as "incredibly mild". From the report it sounded like a phone call, nothing more.


That is fair and this could be the same thing. My preference, if they are going to make a signing of this ilk, would be to go with Morales or Drew instead. And I'm not a big fan of either of those guys, but it would make more sense for this team at this point IMO.

#67 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,250 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:28 AM

For what you are getting for KC, you might as well just cut him if you sign Santana. And, we disagree on Gibson. If he dominates AAA for 2 months, his stock will be right back to 3/4 starter. But you aren't cutting Hughes, Santana, or Nolasco. You can't send Pelfrey down. Someone other than Gibson is your number 5 starter, probably, because they are totally afraid to lose all these guys out of options.

Look, I'd love to keep him. Don't know who your SS or C of the future are though.....

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#68 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,321 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:47 AM

If Gibson looks great in ST, his stock doesn't change.

If Gibson looks great in Rochester, his stock doesn't change much.

If Gibson looks great in MLB early this season, then it doesn't make sense to trade him.

I don't see a situation where it makes sense to trade Gibson. It makes far more sense to clear out the out of options players and trade Correia.


I agree with this assessment. I would hold onto Gibson. The issue is Gibson and Meyer are blocked by a series of pitchers with much lower ceilings. I think the plan with KC all along was to get a half year or year out of him and flip him. I kind of wonder if TR isn't thinking something similar with Pelfrey.

#69 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:55 AM

Someone other than Gibson is your number 5 starter, probably, because they are totally afraid to lose all these guys out of options. ..


I wouldn't make that assumption. I'm sure they'd rather not lose them, but they have often DFA's guys who didn't fit. Their offseason investments suggest that they will take the best guys north. I have yet to hear anything from the Twins to the contrary.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#70 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:20 AM

I guess I still feel the way I've felt all along. That is, if there's a deal out there that you feel improves your team either this year or in the future (preferably both), then you do the deal. I know some teams are reluctant to trade within their divisions, but I think that's kind of silly. The idea is to improve YOUR team, not worry so much about others. If you think a guy is so good that he's going to kill you as a member of another team, you don't trade him to ANYONE, you keep him. If you're willing to part with a guy who's out of options or is a marginal prospect, you shouldn't care who you trade him to as long as you get someone back that you feel is better for your team.

I'm not a big Ervin Santana fan, at this point. I think last season was a bit of an aberation and I'm just not convinced he's really that great. I also think the offense needs more help than the rotation does, at this point, so I'd rather spend money on bats.

That said, if the people running the team think Santana makes the Twins better, then pay what it takes to get him. Quit screwing around and finishing 2nd in the bidding for these guys.
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#71 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 521 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:41 AM

This is the first time I've seen a number. According to this report, the Twins' offer was about 3 years/$30 million to $33 million.

http://msn.foxsports...-no-lock-030914




That seems conservative to me. Assuming Santana believes he will be healthy, I don't know why he wouldn't go with one of the 1-year offers.


Yeah the money and years have to be lower than he would like. However if he has a bad year or blows his arm out on a 1 Year deal then he will lose that gamble. That is why it seems players almost always take the deal with the most years even if it is less money per year.

If I had to guess I would say Santana feels like he is a better pitcher than Nolasco and Ricky got 4 years at 12 million per year with an option on a 5th year. My guess is it takes a deal similar to that to get him. I think there is too much past inconsistency and potential injury concerns to go there though. Personally I like the Twins offer and I think it is fair to both sides as he does come with risk over the three years.

If I were him I would take the years but it would say something for him to go out on a limb bet on himself and come out better financially next year. Unless of course he doesn't pitch well or gets injured and he comes back on a Pelfrey type deal. Then he loses big time.

I don't think the Twins will be the only team to offer him multiple years but I don't think he will reach Nolasco's numbers.

Edited by Dman, 10 March 2014 - 09:43 AM.


#72 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 4,132 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:02 AM

If I had to guess I would say Santana feels like he is a better pitcher than Nolasco and Ricky got 4 years at 12 million per year with an option on a 5th year. My guess is it takes a deal similar to that to get him. I think there is too much past inconsistency and potential injury concerns to go there though. .


I think he very well may have gotten that type of deal if that is where his (and his negotiating team's) sights were set at the beginning of the off-season. But his team had their sights in the clouds -- apparently thinking about $100 million over 5 years according to Rosenthal (http://hardballtalk....an-100-million/). Nolasco was reportedly looking at $80 million over the same time frame. (Even though we all know that agents blow smoke at the beginning of the off-season, $100 million is a long way from $52 million).

But Nolasco got realistic quickly and got ahead of the market. It is pretty apparent that Santana's team misjudged the market by waiting for the Tanaka dust to settle and perhaps by failing to consider the real impact of draft pick compensation.

While it is easy to say that his negotiating team screwed up, there is still the player's ego involved and perceiving himself as "as good as" or better than Nolasco so asking him to take 3/$33m now would be a really bitter pill to swallow.

He's being asked to take significantly less than Nolasco and to take something that was probably not even in the realm of his possiiblities when the off-season started.

Given that, I still believe that he will sign a one-year deal unless the 3 year money gets more in the range of $39-40 million. Less than that is asking him to take a paycut from his 2013 numbers.

I'm not saying the Twins should do this -- I'm not even totally convinced that they should do it at 3/$33m but I think that's what it is going to take (if not more).

Edited by JB_Iowa, 10 March 2014 - 10:06 AM.


#73 Trautmann13

Trautmann13

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:23 AM

This deal is reportedly still on the table, which is interesting considering we have heard he wants a 1 year deal. If he signs here (which is not likely to happen and we are all probably all wasting our time) the rotation for 2015 could be literally one of the best in baseball.

Meyer
Nolasco
Santana
Hughes
Pelfrey/May

That rotation could honestly lead a team to a championship. I would be good with this deal if it somehow happens.

#74 TKGuy

TKGuy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 316 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:28 AM

I'd certainly do it if he would take 3/$33 or $36. You cannot have enough starting pitching as we have seen over the past couple of years. I would see Santana as an upgrade on Correia and this signing would push Correia out faster, especially if he continues his good spring.

#75 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,321 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:31 AM

On a side note, why would the Blue Jays go 1/14 on Santana and give up a draft pick? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If you get the guy for 3 or more years it is probably worth it. But do they think they are going to compete next year? The Orioles may make a run at the division so I get it from there perspective.

#76 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,290 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:32 AM

On a side note, why would the Blue Jays go 1/14 on Santana and give up a draft pick? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If you get the guy for 3 or more years it is probably worth it. But do they think they are going to compete next year? The Orioles may make a run at the division so I get it from there perspective.


My thoughts exactly. The Orioles have already given up picks, may as well push all the chips to the center of the table at this point.

But the Jays? I don't get that at all.

#77 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,546 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:37 AM

If they do sign Santana, we can only hope Gibson looks great, and is turned into a SS or C or something. Would you trade Gibson to Houston for their catcher, for example?


Here is the question one should ask: Would you rather have Santana in his age 31-33 seasons or Gibson in his age 25-30 seasons plus $33M. Santana has been a (fairly) consistent 4.19/4.36/4.24 (ERA/FIP/xFIP) pitcher. Other than his 6 WAR 2008 season, he has been averaging close to 2 WAR a season (career 1.7 fWAR). This is Kevin Correia territory (4.18/4.40/4.24 ERA/FIP/xFIP and 1.3 fWAR in 2013 for the Twins).

Do you think that Gibson can do better the next 3 (+2) seasons? I do...

Edited by Thrylos, 10 March 2014 - 10:40 AM.

-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#78 whosafraidofluigirussolo

whosafraidofluigirussolo

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:46 AM

But the Jays? I don't get that at all.


IIRC the Jays have two first-round picks in this year's draft and at least one is protected, if not both.
That plus the idea that they suffered bad luck last year and could bounce back to contend with better pitching makes me kind of see their reasoning.

#79 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,250 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:50 AM

If I thought they'd spend that money, and could get a SS or C in FA or whatever, sure, I think I'd rather have Gibson. But that has not yet been their model, other than 1 outlier year. They needed a SS and a C this year, had plenty of money, and signed Suzuki.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#80 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 521 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:55 AM

Given that, I still believe that he will sign a one-year deal unless the 3 year money gets more in the range of $39-40 million. Less than that is asking him to take a paycut from his 2013 numbers.

I'm not saying the Twins should do this -- I'm not even totally convinced that they should do it at 3/$33m but I think that's what it is going to take (if not more).


I agree with your analysis on Santana. You would have to swallow hard to take a pay cut after the year he just had. He can't really afford to do that thus a one year deal would be the only way out. I think if the draft wasn't so deep this year he might have had more competition for services.

Maybe someone will jump in last minute like Milwaukee did and get him numbers that are closer to what he can accept. I like your three year 40 million and above range as doable for him.

I agree with you that I don't know if I want him or not. If he pitches like last year two out of the three years I would give him a 3 year 40 million contract for sure. If he regresses closer to some of his worse years then no thanks I prefer to go with someone else next year or a young guy from AAA.

#81 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:03 AM

Here is the question one should ask: Would you rather have Santana in his age 31-33 seasons or Gibson in his age 25-30 seasons plus $33M. Santana has been a (fairly) consistent 4.19/4.36/4.24 (ERA/FIP/xFIP) pitcher.


That's not exactly the question you need to ask. The question is, would you rather have Santana AND whatever you could acquire in a trade for Gibson or would you rather have Gibson?

Given that I don't think Gibson's market is all that strong right now, the return might not add a lot to the equation, but it still has to be included.
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#82 oldguy10

oldguy10

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:03 AM

How many other posters agree that this rotation "could be literally one of the best in baseball" and "lead a team to a championship"? There are quite a few rotations that are way better, at least I think so. Who else agrees with Trautmann13 or with me on this subject?

#83 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:11 AM

I think it would take pretty much all 5 members having something close to the best years of their careers to make that rotation one of the best in baseball. It might take slightly less than that for it to be good enough to lead a team to a championship IF that team had far more offense than the Twins currently put on the field.

On the other hand, compared to what the Twins have trotted out there for a rotation the past few years, I can understand that it might LOOK like a heck of a rotation, by comparison.
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#84 CRArko

CRArko

    Agent of SHIELD

  • Members
  • 1,782 posts
  • LocationIn the shadows.
  • Twitter: crarko

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:16 AM

How many other posters agree that this rotation "could be literally one of the best in baseball" and "lead a team to a championship"? There are quite a few rotations that are way better, at least I think so. Who else agrees with Trautmann13 or with me on this subject?


I think I don't know. I also think nobody else does either. The 87 and 91 rotations had some pretty huge question marks both before and during the season.

The unpredictability of baseball is one of its charms.

#85 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,321 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:34 AM

Here is the question one should ask: Would you rather have Santana in his age 31-33 seasons or Gibson in his age 25-30 seasons plus $33M. Santana has been a (fairly) consistent 4.19/4.36/4.24 (ERA/FIP/xFIP) pitcher. Other than his 6 WAR 2008 season, he has been averaging close to 2 WAR a season (career 1.7 fWAR). This is Kevin Correia territory (4.18/4.40/4.24 ERA/FIP/xFIP and 1.3 fWAR in 2013 for the Twins).

Do you think that Gibson can do better the next 3 (+2) seasons? I do...


I think this is the wrong question. I think signing Santana means we trade KC.

So would you rather have Ervin for 3/33 over KC this year? I think Ervin is a better pitcher and we have the extra $6M a year.

Ervin has been up and down, but he would have been our best pitcher in 3 or 4 of the last 6 years. So I have no issues throwing KC or Pelfrey over-board for him.

#86 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Rochester

  • Members
  • 1,550 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:36 AM

Old guy, yes, I think it could be at least competitive. You don't need five starters in the post season. I get what you are saying Trautmann.

Seems to me though that the best rotations in baseball are self developed, so yes there are far better ones. Cards, Giants, Rays, Braves, for example. Seattle should hang on to their pitchers better.

If the Twins make one more signing (Ervin Santana for example) it would be hard to deny that the Twins are giving up on developing their own pitchers. That's what bothers me most. I'm hopeful for Hughes though; he is still pretty young and seems to have some stuff. We could make him our own. Santana does feel like a Correia-type short cut to me--somebody else's mediocre guy we are using for a while.

#87 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,546 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:05 PM

If I thought they'd spend that money, and could get a SS or C in FA or whatever, sure, I think I'd rather have Gibson. But that has not yet been their model, other than 1 outlier year. They needed a SS and a C this year, had plenty of money, and signed Suzuki.


As far as free agent catchers go, if anyone else (Pierzynski, Saltalamachia) instead of Suzuki were signed, it would pretty much guarantee AAA for Pinto. And I think that a 50-50 Pinto-Suzuki combination to start the year and end 75-25 Pinto-Suzuki, will be more productive than the 2 aforementioned. Plus the last person I would want back in the team would be Pierzynksi.

As far as SS goes, Drew is still around and if he signs an one year deal it might be alright. I am a bick Eduardo Escobar believer and I think that as the starting SS, he can be a 2-3 win player (like Dozier was last year) which is higher than Drew's average.

Unless they were going to trade for Jose Reyes or Buster Posey or something, not sure that there were a lot of options out there. Drew and the FA catchers would not really make that much difference in this team.

What can make still the difference? Handing Hicks the CF job (instead of Presley or De Aza or something), Have Pinto get at least 50% of the starts at C, have Arcia as the starting RF, have Willingham as the DH and hope they all have good years.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#88 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,546 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:07 PM

I think this is the wrong question. I think signing Santana means we trade KC.

So would you rather have Ervin for 3/33 over KC this year? I think Ervin is a better pitcher and we have the extra $6M a year.

Ervin has been up and down, but he would have been our best pitcher in 3 or 4 of the last 6 years. So I have no issues throwing KC or Pelfrey over-board for him.


A. Pelfrey is better than E. Santana.
B. OK. Let's trade Correia this season. Then the question becomes, who would you rather have, E. Santana or Alex Meyer in 2015?
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#89 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:34 PM

A. Pelfrey is better than E. Santana.
B. OK. Let's trade Correia this season. Then the question becomes, who would you rather have, E. Santana or Alex Meyer in 2015?


This is what bothers me about this purported deal. This year, he would be an upgrade over Correia. But I think he'll be below Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson and Deduno. Next year, he'd be below those four plus Meyer. By the end of his contract, there might be another kid who shoots up through the system.

I suppose they could trade him prior to the end of his contract. But that is a big risk to take on. According to reports, the Twins have not found a buyer for Correia. The same thing could happen for Santana, especially if he gets hurt in one of the three years.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#90 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,321 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:46 PM

A. Pelfrey is better than E. Santana.


Ervin, all in the AL - 1,686 IP, 4.19 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 100 ERA+, 7.1 k/9, 2.8 bb/9, 8.8 h/9. 3 seasons with an ERA under 3.50, 4 seasons with an ERA under 4.00

Pelfrey, almost all NL - 1,049 IP, 4.48 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 91 ERA+, 5.2 k/9, 3.2 bb/9, 10.1 H/9. 0 seasons with an ERA under 3.50. 2 with an ERA under 4.00.

Edited by tobi0040, 10 March 2014 - 12:50 PM.