Santana trade rumors

[jud6312]

Can we start referring to this as the "SantanaS trade rumors"?

 

Maybe if we start talking about their collective greatness and the intangibles they bring to the table somebody else's Terry Ryan will take the bait.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I guess the point for me is, we are in a position where we need to sign a FA starter next offseason. We definitely do if we trade Ervin. How does his 2/27 compare with what we can get on the FA market? Because if a pitcher like Mike Leake gets 5/80 and Nolasco and Ervin 4/50.....than 2/27 isn't the end of the world.

If we can get a good piece, especially if we can get a prospect in AAA who can pitch for us next year by all means. But he is a guy that might actually help us piece together a halway competent rotation

I get that (although technically it's 2/28 with his option buyout, and if you count the remaining 2016 salary, it's actually more like 2.5 years for $34.75 mil guaranteed remaining).

 

But there's no rule that the Twins have to sign another Ervin, or Nolasco, or Leake long-term -- they could use the money and rotation spot to try to find the next Doug Fister, Rich Hill, etc.  A bounceback guy on a cheaper shorter term deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Unless the return is really good - and I don't think it will be - I don't see much of a point in trading Santana.

 

If you hold on to him and he continues being mediocre - given his career, not a big risk - he only becomes more valuable as his contract winds down.

 

If the offer is great, you pull the trigger... But you can say that about damned near any player on the roster.

 

But if the offer is underwhelming, I don't really see the point. Shedding Nolasco and Milone are good ideas for either money or roster space reasons. If you manage to get rid of those two and keep Santana, there's plenty of room in the Twins rotation for any young pitchers that need MLB service time.

 

And, again, if someone like Hughes comes back next season, then trade Ervin at the next deadline. Provided he isn't injured, his value will be the same, if not higher.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And, again, if someone like Hughes comes back next season, then trade Ervin at the next deadline. Provided he isn't injured, his value will be the same, if not higher.

I'm not so sure about that, Brock.  If he keeps putting up a 4.50 ERA and only 5.6 IP/GS, I think his value goes down over the next year.  Right now, someone buying him could hope for a return to his sub-4 ERA, 200+ inning form, but another year of this mediocrity would make that much less likely.

 

Another factor is that as much as you want to, you CAN'T get rid of any of Nolasco's salary right now.  If you want to open a rotation spot, you could release Nolasco, but that doesn't save you any money.  It may be a better play to push that decision off and move Ervin if another team is still willing to pick up the check.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not so sure about that, Brock.  If he keeps putting up a 4.50 ERA and only 5.6 IP/GS, I think his value goes down over the next year.  Right now, someone buying him could hope for a return to his sub-4 ERA, 200+ inning form, but another year of this mediocrity would make that much less likely.

 

Another factor is that as much as you want to, you CAN'T get rid of any of Nolasco's salary right now.  If you want to open a rotation spot, you could release Nolasco, but that doesn't save you any money.  It may be a better play to push that decision off and move Ervin if another team is still willing to pick up the check.

That's an interesting way to look at it. It didn't occur to me to keep Nolasco, knowing he'll suck and trade Santana because he might not.

 

I lean toward just releasing Nolasco, though. Or moving him to the mop-up role. Either way, he leaves the rotation and doesn't return.

[tobi0040]

I get that (although technically it's 2/28 with his option buyout, and if you count the remaining 2016 salary, it's actually more like 2.5 years for $34.75 mil guaranteed remaining).

 

But there's no rule that the Twins have to sign another Ervin, or Nolasco, or Leake long-term -- they could use the money and rotation spot to try to find the next Doug Fister, Rich Hill, etc.  A bounceback guy on a cheaper shorter term deal.

True. I do think we will add one if we trade Santana. And I guess I would rather have his 2/27 than a bounce back type. Most of those don't put up near league average numbers, many have health question marks too.

 

Santana's ERA+ has been 127, 90, 103, and 97 the last four years.

 

I guess the bigger issue is we don't really need the salary relief. A vast majority of the 25 man spots are going to be prospects coming up making peanuts. We will lose about $25m next year between Plouffe, Jepsen, Fein, Milone, and Suzuki. With $11M more the following year with Nolasco and $36M more in 2018 with Mauer and Ervin.

 

The other issue is we don't really have five really good pitching prospects that need reps right now. I would argue Berrios, May, and Duffey do. But the next group won't be here until at least next year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That's an interesting way to look at it. It didn't occur to me to keep Nolasco, knowing he'll suck and trade Santana because he might not.

 

I lean toward just releasing Nolasco, though. Or moving him to the mop-up role. Either way, he leaves the rotation and doesn't return.

That's definitely a reasonable argument too.  The potential cash savings on Ervin won't make or break our budget, and if nothing else it would be encouraging to see the team willing to eat cash on a deal gone bad like Nolasco's.

 

Although they are not mutually exclusive moves.  If you could save money on Ervin now while getting Berrios in the rotation, you could always release Nolasco later if you want his spot open too (i.e. Trevor May back to the rotation, Tommy Milone improving in the second half, a Fister/Hill type FA being available, etc.).

[laloesch]

 

Unless the return is really good - and I don't think it will be - I don't see much of a point in trading Santana.

 

If you hold on to him and he continues being mediocre - given his career, not a big risk - he only becomes more valuable as his contract winds down.

 

If the offer is great, you pull the trigger... But you can say that about damned near any player on the roster.

 

But if the offer is underwhelming, I don't really see the point. Shedding Nolasco and Milone are good ideas for either money or roster space reasons. If you manage to get rid of those two and keep Santana, there's plenty of room in the Twins rotation for any young pitchers that need MLB service time.

 

And, again, if someone like Hughes comes back next season, then trade Ervin at the next deadline. Provided he isn't injured, his value will be the same, if not higher.

 

 

Agreed.  I'd almost prefer the Twins get rid of Nolasco and Milone in favor of the youngsters (Berrios, May, Wheeler, whomever) and keep Santana if the return isn't right.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

True. I do think we will add one if we trade Santana. And I guess I would rather have his 2/27 than a bounce back type. Most of those don't put up near league average numbers, many have health question marks too.

Santana's ERA+ has been 127, 90, 103, and 97 the last four years.

I guess the bigger issue is we don't really need the salary relief. A vast majority of the 25 man spots are going to be prospects coming up making peanuts. We will lose about $25m next year between Plouffe, Jepsen, Fein, Milone, and Suzuki. With $11M more the following year with Nolasco and $36M more in 2018 with Mauer and Ervin.

Yeah, a bounceback guy would have question marks, but they'd be a lot cheaper, and might have more upside too.  Rich Hill is one of the premier trade candidates at the deadline this year.  Fister would be too if the Astros didn't need him.  I don't think Santana has that kind of upside anymore, at least not unless he has a great first half in 2018.

 

And while we don't "need" it, ~$34 mil salary relief isn't small change either.  That alone could finance a bounceback SP candidate and a good FA reliever.  Could it cover most of a Wilson Ramos contract?

[tobi0040]

Yeah, a bounceback guy would have question marks, but they'd be a lot cheaper, and might have more upside too.  Rich Hill is one of the premier trade candidates at the deadline this year.  Fister would be too if the Astros didn't need him.  I don't think Santana has that kind of upside anymore, at least not unless he has a great first half in 2018.

 

And while we don't "need" it, ~$34 mil salary relief isn't small change either.  That alone could finance a bounceback SP candidate and a good FA reliever.  Could it cover most of a Wilson Ramos contract?

You have an assumption that the opening day 2017 roster has the same payroll as 2016, right around $103m. I think payroll goes down as they don't add more than the $25m they lose. Not a knock on the Pohlad's, just a lot of young guys.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You have an assumption that the opening day 2017 roster has the same payroll as 2016, right around $103m. I think payroll goes down as they don't add more than the $25m they lose. Not a knock on the Pohlad's, just a lot of young guys.

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I was talking about Santana's remaining ~$34 mil guarantee.  I have no idea what payroll should or will be next year.

[Dave The Dastardly]

 

No disrespect intended Dave, but this is a ridiculous statement.  Santana has certainly been a viable #3 or #4 starter this year.  He has CERTAINLY NOT been backed by the offense which has skewed his win total in a very negative way.  He should be 6-3 instead of 2-7.  His run support is 3.15 per 9. 

No offense taken. My fault for not make my point well enough. It's not so much that Santana doesn't have value, it's that the Twins are notorious for making bad trades. I think trading Santana is a bad short-term move for the Twins, but a good long-term move; aka creating a spot for a younger player to put up or shut up at the major league level. But if the Twins get suckered into adding a prospect in order to make the trade, as some have suggested here, it's just a bad trade no matter what horizon you're looking at.

[gunnarthor]

I think if the Twins make plays for the 34 year old Fister or the 38 year old Hill, we'll be reading a lot more of the Twins only sign back end guy stuff.  The FA market is horrible this coming year.  Hill might be the best starter.  The Twins aren't going to upgrade their rotation thru FA.  So the Twins shouldn't be giving away Santana just to get out of his contract.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think if the Twins make plays for the 34 year old Fister or the 38 year old Hill, we'll be reading a lot more of the Twins only sign back end guy stuff.  The FA market is horrible this coming year.  Hill might be the best starter.  The Twins aren't going to upgrade their rotation thru FA.  So the Twins shouldn't be giving away Santana just to get out of his contract.

I mentioned Fister and Hill as examples of the types of bounceback free agents previously signed.  Obviously neither looks to be a bounceback player again this winter!

 

The FA SP crop looks thin this year, but it's still a little early to predict a good bounceback candidate.  (A guy like Hill wasn't even on anyone's radar a year ago.)

[drivlikejehu]

The Twins aren't going to contend next year. Giving Santana away doesn't really accomplish anything since there is plenty of dead weight in the rotation as it is, but if they get a legit prospect it's a no-brainer.

[Vanimal46]

Pictured: TR on the phone after Santana's complete game shutout

TR: "What do you mean you won't give up Mazara for Santana?! You're DEAD to me, Texas!" 

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b246/chalkitdown/TV%20Shows/Entourage/phoneslam.gif
 

[old nurse]

 

At the moment?  Perhaps.  But the Twins could shed up to $34 million by shedding Santana.  They could easily afford a Doug Fister ($7 mil) or Colby Lewis ($6 mil) type in the offseason if they so desired a veteran starter.  Heck, even Tommy Milone at his arbitration salary might be able to fill that void, if needed.

Every year there are 10-20 bounceback candidates at various prices. One or two bounce back.  The rest leave fan sites full of words about what idiots the FO is and don't they know players over 30 decline. A couple site get to say what a genius the FO is but.....

[old nurse]

Their name pops up as a rumoured trade candidate, they play better.   Hmmmm...... Time for Pohlad to sneak Carfado some money.

[mazeville]

 

 

That would leave us with a rotation based on current players of Gibson, Duffy, Milone, and then hoped for production from Berrios, and who, exactly? Wheeler may be a competent starter but is more likely to be just yet another soft tossing left handed back end rotation guy (think Pat Dean’s ceiling), Meyer is hurt and looking for a second opinion on his shoulder problems so he may be a ways away if he ever emerges, and the rest of the more highly touted pitching “prospects” are still a couple years away from breaking in and much more time from reliable effectiveness. I think it is unlikely we will be able to attract a high-end starting pitcher both because of money and because the team isn’t an attractive almost contending team in need of one piece.  Why would you come to Minnesota if you are a front-line starting pitcher?

 

You're forgetting that Hughes most likely comes back next spring, I believe. But the best thing this team could do would be to reinsert Trevor May into the rotation. Then you'd have an intriguing starting five of Berrios, May, Duffy, Hughes and Milone or most likely Pat Dean. Perhaps Alex Meyer if he ever gets found. They could also sign one or two low-end guys this offseason. Or perhaps one of the trades nets them a starter.

 

The problem with the Twins in recent years hasn't been spending, it's HOW they've spent. The team went out and got three mediocre starters when they'd have been better off giving those spots to young guys to develop them rather than let them waste away too long in AAA (Meyer), saving the money to go after the real top-end guys once the team is actually ready to contend.

 

I'd be thrilled if the team focused on developing young pitchers, then went out and signed a top-notch free agent starter who could lead the rotation. 

 

[Taildragger8791]

 

You're forgetting that Hughes most likely comes back next spring, I believe. But the best thing this team could do would be to reinsert Trevor May into the rotation. Then you'd have an intriguing starting five of Berrios, May, Duffy, Hughes and Milone or most likely Pat Dean. Perhaps Alex Meyer if he ever gets found. They could also sign one or two low-end guys this offseason. Or perhaps one of the trades nets them a starter.

 

The problem with the Twins in recent years hasn't been spending, it's HOW they've spent. The team went out and got three mediocre starters when they'd have been better off giving those spots to young guys to develop them rather than let them waste away too long in AAA (Meyer), saving the money to go after the real top-end guys once the team is actually ready to contend.

 

I'd be thrilled if the team focused on developing young pitchers, then went out and signed a top-notch free agent starter who could lead the rotation. 

 

Going into next year with those 7 as your SP wouldn't be intriguing, it would be an irresponsible dumpster fire. Milone and Hughes should not be counted on for anything. Duffey and May are reasonable gambles but you can't bank on them holding down 2 spots all year. Alex Meyer is a hot mess who's career may be going off the rails. Pat Dean is a 27-year old non-prospect that doesn't strike anyone out. Berrios is promising but he hasn't established himself in the majors yet. So you're basically looking at 7 lottery tickets and would be lucky if 2-3 paid off. You're certainly guaranteed that 4-5 of those will not.

[nytwinsfan]

What, if anything, would the Twins need to throw in with Santana to get Chance Sisco?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Going into next year with those 7 as your SP wouldn't be intriguing, it would be an irresponsible dumpster fire. Milone and Hughes should not be counted on for anything. Duffey and May are reasonable gambles but you can't bank on them holding down 2 spots all year. Alex Meyer is a hot mess who's career may be going off the rails. Pat Dean is a 27-year old non-prospect that doesn't strike anyone out. Berrios is promising but he hasn't established himself in the majors yet. So you're basically looking at 7 lottery tickets and would be lucky if 2-3 paid off. You're certainly guaranteed that 4-5 of those will not.

 

Is that a real problem? They aren't likely in a playoff hunt next year....even if they keep Santana and Nolasco....so why not try lottery tickets, open spaces for Gonsalves, Stewart, Jay, and others.....and sign a 1 year flyer FA or two (who you can cut or trade if needed)?

 

I agree on Hughes though, if he pitches more than 40 innings next year I'll be surprised.

[laloesch]

 

I guess the point for me is, we are in a position where we need to sign a FA starter next offseason. We definitely do if we trade Ervin. How does his 2/27 compare with what we can get on the FA market? Because if a pitcher like Mike Leake gets 5/80 and Nolasco and Ervin 4/50.....than 2/27 isn't the end of the world.

If we can get a good piece, especially if we can get a prospect in AAA who can pitch for us next year by all means. But he is a guy that might actually help us piece together a halway competent rotation

 

I have no problem hanging on to Santana as long as the Twins understand his limitations, age, etc. AND finally dump Nolasco and Milone (who most likely will not except a BP role). 

 

We have to give the kids a shot soon.   Berrios is ready, just needs experience.  May has proven he's starting material, but the FO needs to stop being stubborn and messing with his head.  Once Meyer is healthy we can evaluate him as well.  That said, the clock is ticking with the M&M boys (both mid 20's). 

 

Further down the line (early 2018) we have Gonsalves, Jay, Stewart, Thorpe (hopefully).   Reinforcements are definitely coming it's just a matter of how long they (front office) are willing to wait. 

 

In my opinion, if you can get a valuable piece via a trade of Santana now, by all means do it.  Not only do you acquire a valuable prospect but you free up cap space and go after a big name starter in a few years when Mauer, Nolasco and Perkins are off the books. 

 

Again just my opinion.  By the way the Hughes contract is frightening.  We can only hope for a speedy and effective recover or retirement.

[Rosterman]

If the Twins trade Santana and send along a [prospect, it can be alright. Remember, they may have some 40-man concerns going forth this year and next. They can only protect so many guys. They have to make hard decisions. And some of these guys will have value.

 

They also can't add 40-man or optionless players from otehr organizations that are looking for a change of place or showing prospect life.

 

It is a tough call. One, you get salary relief on a team going nowhere. ALTHOUGH NEXT YEAR YOU WILL STILL BE EATING Perkins and Hughes salary for a time.

 

But, sadly, if the Twins send - say Nolasco - packing...I don't see them absorbing the salary this season and taking a loss. I see them carrying it over to next season (as I imagine MLB does, too).

[Taildragger8791]

 

Is that a real problem? They aren't likely in a playoff hunt next year....even if they keep Santana and Nolasco....so why not try lottery tickets, open spaces for Gonsalves, Stewart, Jay, and others.....and sign a 1 year flyer FA or two (who you can cut or trade if needed)?

 

I agree on Hughes though, if he pitches more than 40 innings next year I'll be surprised.

 

Honestly, I don't think it is. If we want to punt next year for development and get something for the vets then by all means, go for it. I don't think we'll compete anyways. I'm just pushing back on the statement that the group was intriguing, and setting the expectation that if you enter the year with those names you're looking at another 60 win season.

 

If Stewart and Gonsalves prove themselves they won't have any trouble breaking into this rotation even with Santana and Nolasco still around by mid-year. Most of those names are going to pitch themselves out of a rotation spot. I think that's a big if on Gonsalves until he finds better control, by the way. If you miraculously got 5 good starters and Stewart has to wait for a trade or injury then so be it, that's a good problem to have for a change.

[Monkeypaws]

2 observations:

 

1. Santana hasn't been totally sucky, unlike RN. He is a fully competent ML starter, capable of success in either league.

 

2. Throwing a 2 hit shutout in front of oppnents' scouts shows he knows how to ramp it up.

 

Surely some pitching poor "contender" would take a flyer on him, with no salary retention from the Twins.

 

Nolasco, not so much.

[tobi0040]

I have no problem hanging on to Santana as long as the Twins understand his limitations, age, etc. AND finally dump Nolasco and Milone (who most likely will not except a BP role).

 

We have to give the kids a shot soon. Berrios is ready, just needs experience. May has proven he's starting material, but the FO needs to stop being stubborn and messing with his head. Once Meyer is healthy we can evaluate him as well. That said, the clock is ticking with the M&M boys (both mid 20's).

 

Further down the line (early 2018) we have Gonsalves, Jay, Stewart, Thorpe (hopefully). Reinforcements are definitely coming it's just a matter of how long they (front office) are willing to wait. .

I want to see Berrios and May in the rotation too. We just don't need to move Ervin in order to achieve that. But my gut says May is likely never going to start a game for the Twins.

 

And the danger with the reinforcements is that some never make it. If we go back two years we thought Arcia, Vargas, and Santana were regulars and Sano and Buxton would arrive shortly.

 

With respect to pitchers, Liriano, Baker, Slowey, Blackburn, and potentially Gibson are not what we thought they would be. We probably need 6-7 good starters to compete. So I would shop Ervin and see if someone is really desperate. If not keep him around.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Surely some pitching poor "contender" would take a flyer on him, with no salary retention from the Twins.

 

Nolasco, not so much.

I think you overestimate how much salary that contenders are willing to take on. Even stars like Hamels and Tulo had significant financial components to their trades. Who was the last guy traded, owed ~$34 million or more, where the acquiring team took on the full salary? It is pretty rare, I think.

[kab21]

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I was talking about Santana's remaining ~$34 mil guarantee.  I have no idea what payroll should or will be next year.

Good luck getting any team on taking on the full 34 mil. My guess is that in order to move him the Twins would need to pay 25-50% of that 34 mil. And they are still getting a marginal prospect in return.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Good luck getting any team on taking on the full 34 mil. My guess is that in order to move him the Twins would need to pay 25-50% of that 34 mil. And they are still getting a marginal prospect in return.

I agree. I was just going by the premise of the discussion.