Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

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

  • Please log in to reply
249 replies to this topic

#161 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,750 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:16 PM

Ya, I don't know why anyone expects the Twins to confirm something as it is happening, one way or the other.


Add another guy the Twins still haven't acknowledged they were pursuing in December:

"Left-hander Chris Capuano told Mike Berardino of the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the Twins showed some early interest in him, but that interest seemed to dry up after the team re-signed Mike Pelfrey in December"

#162 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,336 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:18 PM

Too many ifs, all with a high potential to turn into whiffs. Give me the gold-plated major leaguer option every time. And as you both say, a chance to get one of the gold-platers at a discount doesn't hamstring the chances for Meyer and Gibson to blossom in to the rotation one iota.


Agreed. His numbers are better than anyone that we have. Even the most pessimistic view of Santana and optimistic view of Nolasco, Hughes, and Meyer has him as our 3rd or 4th best pitcher. In three of the last four years he would have been our best or second best pitcher. Last year he would have been hands down our best at a 3.24 ERA.

I think 3/33 or a 3/33 plus 4th year that vests based on innings will be a steal. Even if he has his one clunker year, the 3.50 ERA he may put up the other three years will be a huge discount based on like pitchers. Verlander, Felix, Scherzer, etc. make or will make $25+ million a year. I am not putting Ervin in that camp, but what you may get in 3 of the 4 years at $11M looks very nice compared to what those guys will make.

Looking at the last three years. Santana's 2011 (3.38) was better than Scherzer (4.43) and Felix (3.47). Santana's 2013 (3.24) was better than Verlanders (3.74)

Edited by tobi0040, 11 March 2014 - 01:28 PM.


#163 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,750 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:24 PM

Agreed. His numbers are better than anyone that we have. Even the most pessimistic view of Santana and optimistic view of Nolasco, Hughes, and Meyer has him as our 3rd or 4th best pitcher. In three of the last four years he would have been our best or second best pitcher. Last year he would have been hands down our best at a 3.24 ERA.

I think 3/33 or a 3/33 plus 4th year that vests based on innings will be a steal. Even if he has his one clunker year, the 3.50 ERA he may put up the other three years will be a huge discount based on like pitchers. Verlander, Felix, Scherzer, etc. make or will make $25+ million a year. I am not putting Ervin in that camp, but what you may get in 3 of the 4 years at $11M looks very nice compared to what those guys will make.


Yup. Add some $$$ incentives to the above contract vesting terms and number and you can still get this thing done, Rob Antony.

#164 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,322 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:31 PM

I recognize that I have an irrational affection for Deduno. I just think he's developed by leaps and bounds in the last two years to the point of bucking the age/development curve. He's a late bloomer, who seemed to only learn how to control his fastball last year. But once he did, he took off. When healthy, he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. He was only healthy for a short time. If he could stay healthy, his upside could be higher than Santana, in my admittedly rose-colored opinion.

I like Santana, in part because he has been so durable and consistent. And I wouldn't mind them signing him to a 3/36 type deal, in contrast to my earlier claims. You're right. It is foolish to base your pitching decisions on circumstances beyond this year. I just don't want guys like Meyer blocked, that's all. More of a worry than a plan.


Fair enough... probably more logical than my irrational fave Eric Fryer right now.

I wouldn't worry about anybody being blocked, even with Ervin Santana in the fold. Correia is obviously just a placeholder, and only 1 prospect is knocking on the door right now (Gibson). (Meyer is still walking up the sidewalk, and I think Trevor May is wandering around the lawn somewhere.) And although veterans are more reliable than prospects, I still wouldn't be surprised to see a failure there too (especially given that Hughes and Pelfrey are both gambles, and so is Nolasco to a lesser extent).

It's nice to finally put the staff together, and not have to rely on best-case scenarios for everybody. There are a few ways this could come together for the Twins, and adding Santana would only create a few more. I only hope the offense doesn't become like the 2012-2013 rotation...

#165 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:37 PM

I would go so far as to say were I a GM I would almost never worry about "blocking" a prospect. Worst case, I have two players for one position, at a cost of $500k more than the cost of the veteran player only. That's not really a problem. On the other hand, if I leave a spot open on tbe big league roster for a prospect and he doesn't work out, now I have no players for one position. That IS a problem.

#166 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,750 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:42 PM

Looking at the last three years. Santana's 2011 (3.38) was better than Scherzer (4.43) and Felix (3.47). Santana's 2013 (3.24) was better than Verlanders (3.74)


Excellent addendum. In Santana, you're not only getting a pretty steady, healthy innings eater, you're getting a guy that probably has at least 2 seasons left over the next 4 in him to perform somewhat near the level reserved for guys usually making $17 to $25M/yr.

#167 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 02:24 PM

I recognize that I have an irrational affection for Deduno. I just think he's developed by leaps and bounds in the last two years to the point of bucking the age/development curve. He's a late bloomer, who seemed to only learn how to control his fastball last year. But once he did, he took off. When healthy, he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. He was only healthy for a short time. If he could stay healthy, his upside could be higher than Santana, in my admittedly rose-colored opinion.

I like Santana, in part because he has been so durable and consistent. And I wouldn't mind them signing him to a 3/36 type deal, in contrast to my earlier claims. You're right. It is foolish to base your pitching decisions on circumstances beyond this year. I just don't want guys like Meyer blocked, that's all. More of a worry than a plan.


I am with you on the irrational affection for Deduno. I like that he can miss bats and when he was healthy he was right up there with the big boys. I do have to agree with the nay-sayers that he cannot seem to stay healthy and that is a problem.

My problem is despite the nice stats I just don't trust Santana to stay healthy and pitch as well as he did last year. I don't like the idea of losing a draft pick and possibly DFAing another pitcher to find room for him until they decide what they want to do with the big C.

I am torn on this one.

#168 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,336 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 02:32 PM

My problem is despite the nice stats I just don't trust Santana to stay healthy and pitch as well as he did last year. I don't like the idea of losing a draft pick and possibly DFAing another pitcher to find room for him until they decide what they want to do with the big C.

I am torn on this one.


The thing I can't make sense of, and I am not going to go back and look to view your opinion of Pelfrey, general observations regarding the site. But the pessimism regarding Santana and optimism around Peflrey, given the track record of both is odd to me.

#169 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,116 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 03:25 PM

The thing I can't make sense of, and I am not going to go back and look to view your opinion of Pelfrey, general observations regarding the site. But the pessimism regarding Santana and optimism around Peflrey, given the track record of both is odd to me.


To me the choice isn't Santana or Pelfrey. It's Santana or Gibson/Meyer. That's why it's not so clear cut for me when we're talking about a guy that's a year removed from 74 ERA+.

Rebuilding teams eventually have to hand the reigns over to the young guys and let them sink or swim. Cobbling together a bunch of middle tier starters at the expense of opportunities just doesn't appeal to me. Especially since Gibson and Meyer are likely already behind 7 or 8 guys. This now pushes it to 8 or 9. Possibly more depending upon how the Twins view Johnson. (Their rhetoric indicates 9 is the safer bet)

I'd just assume we go after the 2015 version of Ervin Santana when Correia is gone and spend this money on offense instead.

#170 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 03:41 PM

The thing I can't make sense of, and I am not going to go back and look to view your opinion of Pelfrey, general observations regarding the site. But the pessimism regarding Santana and optimism around Peflrey, given the track record of both is odd to me.



I am not a big Pelfrey fan and I like Santana better than Pelfrey but for the money and optimism I might take Pelfrey . My pessimism for Santana has little factual basis as has been previously pointed out on this board Santana might end up being better than any pitcher we have. It is more looking back at him he seems very up and down year to year and with his arm issue he just feels like more of a risk.

#171 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:07 PM

Excellent addendum. In Santana, you're not only getting a pretty steady, healthy innings eater, you're getting a guy that probably has at least 2 seasons left over the next 4 in him to perform somewhat near the level reserved for guys usually making $17 to $25M/yr.


I haven't been following any news today, so I have no idea if/when Santana makes his decision, but it sounds like Santana himself is thinking the same way you are and that's why he's focusing on teams that will give him 1 yr/$14 mil deals. That's essentially what he and his former agent turned down by rejecting the qualified offer. If he is (and you are) right, then he'll stand to get that $17+ mil/yr multi-year deal next year.

If he's willing to roll the dice on his chances of having back-to-back years like what he turned in last season, any multi-year deal the Twins would be offering would have to include some pretty substantial incentive numbers and/or player options in subsequent years.
I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

#172 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 11 March 2014 - 06:22 PM

To go along with what JC said and to sum up today's rumors:


  • Indeed, as MLBTR's Steve Adams noted earlier this morning, if Santana signs a one-year pact and throws well enough to earn another qualifying offer, he would stand to make nearly as much in two years as he could on the three-year offers he has reportedly received in the low-$30MM range.
http://www.mlbtrader..._medium=twitter

#173 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,336 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 07:16 AM

To me the choice isn't Santana or Pelfrey. It's Santana or Gibson/Meyer. That's why it's not so clear cut for me when we're talking about a guy that's a year removed from 74 ERA+.

Rebuilding teams eventually have to hand the reigns over to the young guys and let them sink or swim. Cobbling together a bunch of middle tier starters at the expense of opportunities just doesn't appeal to me. Especially since Gibson and Meyer are likely already behind 7 or 8 guys. This now pushes it to 8 or 9. Possibly more depending upon how the Twins view Johnson. (Their rhetoric indicates 9 is the safer bet)

I'd just assume we go after the 2015 version of Ervin Santana when Correia is gone and spend this money on offense instead.


I guess I don't consider Ervin a mid tier starter. The AL has 75 starters, he finished 9th in ERA in 2013, 14th in 2011, and 24th in 2010. He has consistently been around a 200 IP guy every year. I get he has been inconsistent.

Your logic is very similar to why I didn't like the Pelfrey signing. I think we overpaid for a guy with limited upside and any number of players between Deduno, Gibson, and Meyer may put up similar numbers. I would have liked to seen that $7-$8M a year get a SS or DH. But I don't see Ervin in the same light as Pelfrey, he has been much better and is not as replace-able.

It is moot now, as he signed with Atlanta 1/14. I get the logic that he could do 1/14 this year and next year and make $28M over two years. So 3/33 is not very compelling. I think we could have gotten this done at 3/36 plus a 4th year vested based on 500 IP, or a $2M buyout. He would have been guaranteed 3/38. If the 4th year vested he would have been on par with Garza and Nolasco. I think that would have been compelling enough for him to not risk the injury next year or inneffectiveness.

#174 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 07:37 AM

I would go so far as to say were I a GM I would almost never worry about "blocking" a prospect. Worst case, I have two players for one position, at a cost of $500k more than the cost of the veteran player only. That's not really a problem. On the other hand, if I leave a spot open on tbe big league roster for a prospect and he doesn't work out, now I have no players for one position. That IS a problem.


I've been around long enough to see inferior veterans block superior prospects a lot. Managers tend to prefer veterans because they're low maintenance. Prospects need to learn at the major league level. In this org, that ends up happening when they're 26. Cuddyer, e.g. So you only benefit from their youth for a few years and then you have to start over at that position. There are exceptions, but the rule is more like Kyle Gibson, who is more than ready at 27, having to wait for the GM to clear a spot for him. Singing Santana to a one-year deal in a year when we need to find out what we have in Gibson is the height of folly.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#175 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,116 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 08:27 AM

I guess I don't consider Ervin a mid tier starter. The AL has 75 starters, he finished 9th in ERA in 2013, 14th in 2011, and 24th in 2010. He has consistently been around a 200 IP guy every year. I get he has been inconsistent.


You also left out his god-awful 2012 and a couple god-awful years prior to 2010. This guy hasn't been consistently good, so he's more of a high-risk #2, more reasonably slotted #3. And he's aging.

He's more of a proven innings-eater than some of the supposed innings-eaters they've signed. I'll give him that. But he doesn't wow me enough to put another roadblock in the way of Gibson. If your point is that you'd rather have had Santana over Pelfrey - I agree 100%. But we have Pelfrey and he isn't going to be traded, so signing another pitcher really only blocks the guys that are in AAA - not the guys already signed.

The offense needed more help anyway, so I'm glad Santana went for the 1 year deal that I was referring to earlier. The notion a 4th year at a reduced yearly average was going to put him over the top never made sense. You either needed to break the bank or give him a one year deal - neither made sense for the Twins.

#176 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,336 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 09:16 AM

You also left out his god-awful 2012 and a couple god-awful years prior to 2010. This guy hasn't been consistently good, so he's more of a high-risk #2, more reasonably slotted #3. And he's aging.

He's more of a proven innings-eater than some of the supposed innings-eaters they've signed. I'll give him that. But he doesn't wow me enough to put another roadblock in the way of Gibson. If your point is that you'd rather have had Santana over Pelfrey - I agree 100%. But we have Pelfrey and he isn't going to be traded, so signing another pitcher really only blocks the guys that are in AAA - not the guys already signed.

The offense needed more help anyway, so I'm glad Santana went for the 1 year deal that I was referring to earlier. The notion a 4th year at a reduced yearly average was going to put him over the top never made sense. You either needed to break the bank or give him a one year deal - neither made sense for the Twins.


Here is what I had in mind. Sign Ervin, trade KC. Some team will take a career 4.50 ERA guy coming off a 4.19 ERA that is on a 1 year, $5M deal. A team will have a need or stick him as the long reliever/insurance policy. Probably not getting more than a guy in A ball with control issues and upside.

You break camp with Nolasco, Ervin, Hughes, Pelfrey, and Gibson (I don't care about losing Worley). One of these guys will get hurt and/or it will not shock me if Pelfrey needs some AAA time to figure something out. In which case Meyer can be up here in June, which I think is the Twins plan anyway. Best case is Pelfrey pitches well and you can trade him in July.

#177 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,614 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 09:29 AM

I would go so far as to say were I a GM I would almost never worry about "blocking" a prospect. Worst case, I have two players for one position, at a cost of $500k more than the cost of the veteran player only. That's not really a problem. On the other hand, if I leave a spot open on tbe big league roster for a prospect and he doesn't work out, now I have no players for one position. That IS a problem.


Having too many good players is a nice problem to have. If someone wants to focus on a problem it's the Corriea's and Pelfrey's of the rotation and not the potential Santana's. This team should be doing what it can to add potential above average players at any position they are starting average at best players (and likely below average).

Is 2016 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation?


#178 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 09:53 AM

Having too many good players is a nice problem to have. If someone wants to focus on a problem it's the Corriea's and Pelfrey's of the rotation and not the potential Santana's. This team should be doing what it can to add potential above average players at any position they are starting average at best players (and likely below average).


This is especially true when the offer represents a multi-year solution rather than a one-year partial fix.

#179 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,336 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 10:15 AM

. If someone wants to focus on a problem it's the Corriea's and Pelfrey's of the rotation and not the potential Santana's. This team should be doing what it can to add potential above average players at any position they are starting average at best players (and likely below average).


If I could like this ten times I would.

#180 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,116 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 10:18 AM

Having too many good players is a nice problem to have. If someone wants to focus on a problem it's the Corriea's and Pelfrey's of the rotation and not the potential Santana's. This team should be doing what it can to add potential above average players at any position they are starting average at best players (and likely below average).


But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corriea and Pelfrey are under contract. There is zero chance Pelfrey gets dealt until July at the absolute earliest and a very minimal chance Corriea does before the same point. They are on the roster, we can't pretend otherwise, and it's an important part of the equation. (Especially for a team that has consistently favored veterans over prospects regardless of talent)

If you want to argue Santana >>>>> Correia/Pelfrey - you'll get no argument from most and certainly none from me. The decision to add someone like Santana does have to factor in their presence and the way the team is likely to treat them. This isn't a video game where you just cut or trade people willy-nilly and stash people wherever you want.

It's better for this team to target a Santana-like player next year when they've gotten rid of one of these uninspiring "innings eaters". If you are hard pressed to spend money now - do it on offense because right now I'd be shocked if this team wasn't last in the AL by a country mile with this group