Santana trade rumors

[Rosterman]

I'm preparing myself that no one wants Twins players, except perhaps the Twins. 

[Halsey Hall]

Well we should hang on to Santana. I can see Gibson going, along with Nolasco.

[Jerr]

 

I'm preparing myself that no one wants Twins players, except perhaps the Twins. 

[Rigby]

 

I think the main take away from this is that Kyle Lohse is now available.

Be still my beating heart.

[SF Twins Fan]

I don't understand the desire to trade Santana. He's a middle of the order pitcher, who can have some brilliant games, and doesn't cost very much. The FA pool after this season is AWFUL I mean dead awful. The Twins could go into next season with the following rotation and it wouldn't be half bad:

 

1. Berrios

2. Santana

3. Gibson

4. May

5. Duffey / Hughes / someone from AAA or maybe a free agent they sign for 1 season.

 

Down at AA there are 4 very good prospects in Gonsalves, Jorge, Stewart and Jay. Depending on how they finish the season they all will most likely start next year at AA and move up to AAA or by the end of the season get a couple of starts with the Twins.

 

There is no reason to trade Santana since they aren't going to get anything of real value and there isn't a good pitcher in FA this off season. By the time the above prospects are ready there should be plenty of room in the rotation.

[jimmer]

Unless you feel Santana will be around for contending years, and he won't, trading him is the smart move. If one believes he is being under-paid for this talent, it's even smarter to move him if prospects for the future can be had.

[SwainZag]

 

Unless you feel Santana will be around for contending years, and he won't, trading him is the smart move. If one believe he is being under-paid for this talent, it's even smarter to move him if prospects for the future can be had.

 

After this season Santana will be on a 2 year, $27M dollar deal.  Could he have more value during the offseason than he does now to a team needing a starter?  I think it's something that the front office has to and probably is considering. Judging by the potential free agent class......might be wise to hang on to him if they aren't offered a decent package in the next week?  

[Badsmerf]

If a good offer is on the table, you trade him.

[kab21]

 

Unless you feel Santana will be around for contending years, and he won't, trading him is the smart move. If one believes he is being under-paid for this talent, it's even smarter to move him if prospects for the future can be had.

Name the AA/AAA pitchers (besides Berrios) that you want to call up this season or even at the beginning of next year. Pat Dean, Andrew Albers and Logan Darnell won't be around for contending years either.

If the Twins can actually get a talented prospect back then trade him but he should not be moved just to move him.

[Thrylos]

I just read the title of that post and it seemed like 2007 all over again.

Different Santana, same Terry Ryan gone.

[jimmer]

 

Name the AA/AAA pitchers (besides Berrios) that you want to call up this season or even at the beginning of next year. Pat Dean, Andrew Albers and Logan Darnell won't be around for contending years either.

If the Twins can actually get a talented prospect back then trade him but he should not be moved just to move him.

I'm not sure it matters who comes up.  It's about building for the future, not next year.  Pat Dean (or whoever)in the rotation and prospects versus Santana at  28M for the next two years.  I'll take filler, prospects, and salary relief.

 

But since you asked who.  Trevor May.

[jorgenswest]

The Twins should expect Santana to decline the next two years as they assess offers. If they think he will continue to perform at the same level ages 34-35 as he has 32-33 they would be gambling on the short side of likelihood.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't understand the desire to trade Santana. He's a middle of the order pitcher, who can have some brilliant games, and doesn't cost very much. The FA pool after this season is AWFUL I mean dead awful. The Twins could go into next season with the following rotation and it wouldn't be half bad:

 

1. Berrios

2. Santana

3. Gibson

4. May

5. Duffey / Hughes / someone from AAA or maybe a free agent they sign for 1 season.

 

Down at AA there are 4 very good prospects in Gonsalves, Jorge, Stewart and Jay. Depending on how they finish the season they all will most likely start next year at AA and move up to AAA or by the end of the season get a couple of starts with the Twins.

 

There is no reason to trade Santana since they aren't going to get anything of real value and there isn't a good pitcher in FA this off season. By the time the above prospects are ready there should be plenty of room in the rotation.

At his age, he's walking a tight rope. At some point he's going to decline severely, and it often happens overnight.

It could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 years, I don't know.

Agree to disagree on the return. I actually think that if we paid almost all of his remaining contract, we could get a pretty solid return.

I don't expect this team to compete next year, so to me the question is, do you expect him to be this good for another full year?

I wouldn't take that bet.

[drivlikejehu]

Pitchers don't really get worse just because of age per se . . . typically they lose velocity, and of course every time they throw a pitch there is a chance of injury.

 

My guess is that teams are concerned by Santana's peripherals, which since coming back to the AL have been pretty mediocre (significantly worse than his ERA). His velo is fine, which is a big plus, but AL teams at least might see him as too expensive for a #4 starter, in dollars and prospects, if the peripherals wind up being predictive.

 

[Mike Sixel]

Rebuilding teams trade a guy like him. Teams that try to stay competitive, and rebuild at the same time, keep him. The Astros and Cubs are so far ahead, it is ridiculous.

[darin617]

   For anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to trade Santana, go take a look at the pitchers who will be free agents next year and your mind will change. 2 years $27M is pretty cheap compared to what will be market value this  winter.

    Dump Nolasco for whatever you can get and eat whatever part of his remaining deal to get it done. Trade Tommy Milone as well and promote Jose Berrios and fill the last spot with who ever.

[twinssporto]

 

The Twins are looking for innings from their starters, no way he gets traded - unless some team sends a very good prospect. Not saying he shouldn't get traded -- he's 33, on the downhill slide without roids, big contract -- but the Twins won't be trading him.

I agree with this.  They either bring in the young guys to replace him and hope for the best (not an entirely bad idea either) or stay with him.  The salary market for a proven starter like Santana is in line with what the Twins pay him now.  They will keep him unless they get a good prospect in return.  In addition, I doubt there will be any financial incentives given by the Twins to the acquiring team of Santana.

[kab21]

 

I'm not sure it matters who comes up.  It's about building for the future, not next year.  Pat Dean (or whoever)in the rotation and prospects versus Santana at  28M for the next two years.  I'll take filler, prospects, and salary relief.

 

But since you asked who.  Trevor May.

So in other words you have nobody else to offer this year (aside from Berrios). May would be a good option for next spring though.

The problem is that Berrios can't replace Nolasco, Milone and Santana in the rotation.

 

What are you planning on spending salary relief on? FA is full of mostly older players and usually they want to sign contracts longer than 2 years.

 

So the only reason to trade Santana is if the prospects are actually good. That is the key to the whole trade. There are plenty of spots that can be opened up and spending FA dollars is likely a poor choice unless you go big money.

[jimmer]

So in other words you have nobody else to offer this year (aside from Berrios). May would be a good option for next spring though.

 

The problem is that Berrios can't replace Nolasco, Milone and Santana in the rotation.

 

What are you planning on spending salary relief on? FA is full of mostly older players and usually they want to sign contracts longer than 2 years.

 

So the only reason to trade Santana is if the prospects are actually good. That is the key to the whole trade. There are plenty of spots that can be opened up and spending FA dollars is likely a poor choice unless you go big money.

well, first, its only one spot in the rotation so berrios would be fine (not sure why he should be excluded) but second, I seem to remember saying Dean or someone else cause it doesnt matter. Did I not put that in my post or did you gloss over that in your haste to say I didnt have any names to slide in there?

[Halsey Hall]

 

At his age, he's walking a tight rope. At some point he's going to decline severely, and it often happens overnight.
It could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 years, I don't know.
Agree to disagree on the return. I actually think that if we paid almost all of his remaining contract, we could get a pretty solid return.
I don't expect this team to compete next year, so to me the question is, do you expect him to be this good for another full year?
I wouldn't take that bet.

Yes, and I'd take that bet. 3 wins?  Easily more valuable next year. And cheap at that.

[Jarends703]

 

Yes, and I'd take that bet. 3 wins?  Easily more valuable next year. And cheap at that.

 

Evaluating based on wins?  Last night is a prime example of why that is a poor way to determine effectiveness. 

 

For me the reason to trade Santana comes down to the return.  

 

I would expect Antony to say he thinks keeping Santana for the rest of his contract is a good idea. That is what he should publicly say.  If that is what he thinks, that is a different story.  

[amjgt]

From MLBTR:

 

Twins interim GM Rob Antony has expressed an openness to moving Ervin Santana if approached with a strong offer, but he tells Phil Miller of the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he’s not shopping the right-hander (Twitter link). “I’ll be honest,” said Antony, “I’m not calling anybody trying to move him.” As Antony explained yesterday in a Q&A with MLB.com’s Rhett Bollinger, his feeling is that he couldn’t sign a pitcher of Santana’s effectiveness to a two-year, $27MM contract with a third-year club option (the remaining commitment on Santana’s deal after 2016) on the free agent market this winter and, as such, believes there to be enough value that he needn’t shop Santana to other clubs. Antony again stated that he’s not under any type of ownership mandate to trim payroll, suggesting that shedding Santana’s salary may not be all that appealing

 

 

While I personally am in the "keep him" camp, if Rob Antony really believes that a pitcher of Santana's ability is available in the offseason for the same price as our future commitment to Santana, then you move him. 

 

Option 1: Keep Santana

Option 2: Get some prospects and sign the Santana clone in the offseason.

 

I'm hoping that he's just saying stuff that GMs and doesn't really mean it.

 

[nytwinsfan]

 

From MLBTR:

 

 

While I personally am in the "keep him" camp, if Rob Antony really believes that a pitcher of Santana's ability is available in the offseason for the same price as our future commitment to Santana, then you move him. 

 

Option 1: Keep Santana

Option 2: Get some prospects and sign the Santana clone in the offseason.

 

I'm hoping that he's just saying stuff that GMs and doesn't really mean it.

 

Antony said he thinks a pitcher of Santana's ability is NOT available in that $ range this offseason.  In light of that, your comments are confusing to me.

 

[tobi0040]

From MLBTR:

 

 

While I personally am in the "keep him" camp, if Rob Antony really believes that a pitcher of Santana's ability is available in the offseason for the same price as our future commitment to Santana, then you move him. 

 

Option 1: Keep Santana

Option 2: Get some prospects and sign the Santana clone in the offseason.

 

I'm hoping that he's just saying stuff that GMs and doesn't really mean it.

I think there is another option here. Assess the market for Ervin in the offseason. You will have more trading partners available to you, especially as others miss out on the few available SP on the market (and see how the prices compare to Ervin).

 

The real benefit to this approach is that you avoid Rob Antony negotiating prospects with Jon Daniels.

[bird]

 

I think the main take away from this is that Kyle Lohse is now available.

 

 

But...but...what about his makeup?

[kab21]

 

well, first, its only one spot in the rotation so berrios would be fine (not sure why he should be excluded) but second, I seem to remember saying Dean or someone else cause it doesnt matter. Did I not put that in my post or did you gloss over that in your haste to say I didnt have any names to slide in there?

Make one argument that Milone or Nolasco should be in the rotation. And it is almost impossible to make an argument that they should be back next year.

 

That is the problem. You might be okay with 2-3 Pat Dean's being in the rotation next year but almost all of the AA/AAA pitchers pretty much suck.

 

Next year's rotation

Berrios

Duffey

Gibson

 

Hughes is a possibility but I think he is toast at this point. Perhaps May but the pickings are slim within the organization. If you don't have Ervin then you are diving into FA again or trading prospects for a MLB pitcher.

 

Everyone seems to be in a hurry to dump a solid MLB pitcher when the team's #1 issue going forward is starting pitching. Considering how bad the pitching is behind Santana there had better be a decent prospect involved.

 

[bird]

 

After this season Santana will be on a 2 year, $27M dollar deal.  Could he have more value during the offseason than he does now to a team needing a starter?  I think it's something that the front office has to and probably is considering. Judging by the potential free agent class......might be wise to hang on to him if they aren't offered a decent package in the next week?  

 

 

What makes it a smart move in theory to move him now is if you find a buyer willing to pay a large premium for what they think Santana might do for them right now in the middle of a pennant race. In my mind, if you don't get that premium, he's probably more valuable to you than whatever return will be offered this off-season.

[amjgt]

 

Antony said he thinks a pitcher of Santana's ability is NOT available in that $ range this offseason.  In light of that, your comments are confusing to me.

 

misread on my part. carry on

[bird]

 

Rebuilding teams trade a guy like him. Teams that try to stay competitive, and rebuild at the same time, keep him. The Astros and Cubs are so far ahead, it is ridiculous.

 

 

Rebuilding takes different forms, and rebuilds are delayed when a team trades a guy like Santana for a C prospect. The talent level on the Cubs and Astros is so far ahead, it is ridiculous. Neither of those teams are great examples of shrewd trades that added a slew of talent. That's not what advanced those teams faster. Draft choices and international signings, yes, much more so than great results in circumstances similar to what the Twins are confronting here at the trade deadline. Now, Atlanta? They shrewdly found an idiot to trade with down in Arizona and are on the upswing because of that IN ADDITION to having a good slot in the draft for a few years. So they ARE a good example of how to leapfrog the competition among their fellow rebuilders.

[Halsey Hall]

 

Evaluating based on wins?  Last night is a prime example of why that is a poor way to determine effectiveness. 

 

For me the reason to trade Santana comes down to the return.  

 

I would expect Antony to say he thinks keeping Santana for the rest of his contract is a good idea. That is what he should publicly say.  If that is what he thinks, that is a different story.  

Last night was a perfect example of one way to determine effectiveness. Complete game, 2 runs allowed.

 

Wins get you to the post season, and I'll bet he gets more than 3 wins next year, he's our best pitcher. Build a rotation around him. Trade any of the others in the rotation, either way, we will have to go after pitching in the off season. And it'll probably cost more than what we are paying Santana.

 

Brooks says;  At his age, he's walking a tight rope. At some point he's going to decline severely, and it often happens overnight.
It could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 years, I don't know.
Agree to disagree on the return. I actually think that if we paid almost all of his remaining contract, we could get a pretty solid return.
I don't expect this team to compete next year, so to me the question is, do you expect him to be this good for another full year?
I wouldn't take that bet.

 

So Brooks is guessing that Santana could decline severely next year, and admits he doesn't expect the team to compete next year. Also that we could pay almost all of his remaining contract. Why would we do that when it'll cost us much more than that to not only replace him, but to add at least 2 more pitchers to the rotation?  Make no sense to me.

 

Who knows how this GM situation will play out, but the Twins very well could compete next year, they've got worse to first before. Getting rid of your best pitcher isn't the way to go about it. I think Antony is speaking what he believes.