Santana trade rumors

[gunnarthor]

I think it's fair to ask that if you want to get rid of Santana b/c you think he will suck next year then the obvious question is wouldn't opposing GMs think that, too?  And there would be no market for him.

[jimmer]

 

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.

I agree with most of that. I'd want a better prospect for Santana than a C-Prospect, but I wouldn't require a top 100 guy.  I'd also add trades to what has helped the Cubs. 

 

Also, the Braves haven't had a bunch of great draft slots for a few years.  This year, yes.

[alarp33]

 

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. 

 

Rizzo

Russell

Arrieta

Fowler

Hendricks

Montero

Strop

 

The Cubs sure have avoided shrewd trades

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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

With enough makeup, we could make Lohse look a few years younger too!

[Willihammer]

 

I think it's fair to ask that if you want to get rid of Santana b/c you think he will suck next year then the obvious question is wouldn't opposing GMs think that, too?  And there would be no market for him.

Sure, but its not written in stone. He is on pace for ~200 IP and a 110 ERA+.

Antony makes a fair point. If Santana hit free agency this winter, he'd probably make at least as much as the Twins owe him (3/40.5). No?

[jimmer]

 

Rizzo

Russell

Arrieta

Fowler

Hendricks

Montero

Strop

 

The Cubs sure have avoided shrewd trades

Along with LaStella and Travis Wood, both under-rated.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

It makes no sense to you because you believe they could contend next year.

I don't believe they can, so for me it makes no difference who they replace him or anyone else with. Berrios, May, Dean there are 3 guys not in the rotation right now.

Wheeler at AAA.

Every year there are 3 or 4 buy low 1 year make good type pitchers in free agency that cost very little.

When competing is not a consideration, it becomes pretty easy to fill those spots.

Also, who cares how much it costs, money wise? As long as they are short commitments, payroll is not am issue with a team full of young guys.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think it's fair to ask that if you want to get rid of Santana b/c you think he will suck next year then the obvious question is wouldn't opposing GMs think that, too? And there would be no market for him.

If you eat his salary then why would a GM care what happens to him next year? The team only needs him to be good the rest of this year.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

IMO, Antony's logic is backwards.

As a rebuilding team, the reasons he mentions for not trading him are exactly the reason why we SHOULD trade him.

Having more value than any pending FA gives him trade value!!

[Loosey]

 

I think it's fair to ask that if you want to get rid of Santana b/c you think he will suck next year then the obvious question is wouldn't opposing GMs think that, too?  And there would be no market for him.

It's a bet by both GM's is why.  For example Antony could bet he declines next year, while the trade partner GM bets that he has at least another solid season in him.  Then comes the posturing by both GM's taking the other GM's stance in order to get/pay the right amount for his services.

[Willihammer]

 

IMO, Antony's logic is backwards.
As a rebuilding team, the reasons he mentions for not trading him are exactly the reason why we SHOULD trade him.
Having more value than any pending FA gives him trade value!!

His logic seems to be-

 

If the youth take a step forward, and they have 5 decent starting pitchers, then the Twins should be competitive in 2017.

They currently have 5 or fewer decent starters.

They would be unable to replace Santana internally.

They would be unable to replace Santana in free agency, or in trade, without overpaying.

 

Here's where that logic is wrong IMO.

In the offseason player valuations are determined by the free agent and trade markets. The same is true this time of year. But the trade market in July is overheated by the marginal value of 2nd half wins to teams in the playoff hunt. This doesn't impact trades in the offseason.

 

It boils down to this IMO- sell now, while the trade market is hot, and rebalance later, when the trade market is cool.

[Mr. Brooks]

Not only that, but you get a better return at the trade deadline because teams only have the 1 avenue for improvement (trade), versus the offseason when you have trade and free agency as avenues to improve.

 

Also, in the offseason, all 30 teams can theoretically be a trade partner, whereas at the deadline you are limited to the teams out of contention. (If you are buying.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It boils down to this IMO- sell now, while the trade market is hot, and rebalance later, when the trade market is cool.

I totally agree, BUT -- I don't think the market is "hot" for Santana right now, or any of the Twins trade assets.  I think they are generally viewed as spare assets that can be acquired cheaply, if the "hot" market for greater talents doesn't bear fruit.

[SwainZag]

 

Not only that, but you get a better return at the trade deadline because teams only have the 1 avenue for improvement (trade), versus the offseason when you have trade and free agency as avenues to improve.

Also, in the offseason, all 30 teams can theoretically be a trade partner, whereas at the deadline you are limited to the teams out of contention. (If you are buying.)

 

I would say there a lot of times when you can get a better return in the offseason than at the deadline. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I would say there a lot of times when you can get a better return in the offseason than at the deadline.

I'd be interested in the logic behind that.

[alarp33]

 

I'd be interested in the logic behind that.

 

There may be 29 teams interested in "buying" in December, where there may only be 10 in July.  

 

Also, in regards to Santana specifically, 9 of those 10 teams who are "buying" might think they only need a pitcher for the stretch run, and aren't as interested in taking on a contract for the next 2 years.  Those teams plans may change come December

[bird]

 

Rizzo

Russell

Arrieta

Fowler

Hendricks

Montero

Strop

 

The Cubs sure have avoided shrewd trades

Geez, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

[jimmer]

 

There may be 29 teams interested in "buying" in December, where there may only be 10 in July.  

 

Also, in regards to Santana specifically, 9 of those 10 teams who are "buying" might think they only need a pitcher for the stretch run, and aren't as interested in taking on a contract for the next 2 years.  Those teams plans may change come December

 

But all then again, in the offseason, they may just get a FA where it's just money and no prospects, and they can also trade with the rest of the 29 teams (whereas at the trade deadline, quite a few teams aren't selling some won't be looking to sell). The offseason floods the market. I contend there's a reason they talk about premium prices in regards to the trade deadline.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

There may be 29 teams interested in "buying" in December, where there may only be 10 in July.

 

Also, in regards to Santana specifically, 9 of those 10 teams who are "buying" might think they only need a pitcher for the stretch run, and aren't as interested in taking on a contract for the next 2 years. Those teams plans may change come December

Those concerns came be alleviated by eating a very large portion (if not the entirety) of his remaining salary.

That gives the acquiring team the best of both worlds.

They are not on the hook for any significant future commitment, but with 2 years remaining can either "freeroll" his services until he is no longer good, or flip him and get a portion of their investment back.

[nytwinsfan]

 

IMO, Antony's logic is backwards.
As a rebuilding team, the reasons he mentions for not trading him are exactly the reason why we SHOULD trade him.
Having more value than any pending FA gives him trade value!!

Yeah, normally I'd agree (and I sort of do), but after Berrios, we don't have any decent starting pitchers coming up until realistically 2018 at the earliest, and likely the second half of 2018. If you think we have any chance of contending in 2017 and 2018 (fair enough if you don't) then keeping Santana would be important to that and not easily replaced.

[Willihammer]

The rental market looks thin. Rich Hill is injured. Cashner is probably not much of an upgrade for most teams. Barring a 2nd half injury, Santana's 2/27 contract would be easily movable this winter if a team just wanted to get out from under it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Geez, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

it's easy to not know everything about every team......

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah, normally I'd agree (and I sort of do), but after Berrios, we don't have any decent starting pitchers coming up until realistically 2018 at the earliest, and likely the second half of 2018. If you think we have any chance of contending in 2017 and 2018 (fair enough if you don't) then keeping Santana would be important to that and not easily replaced.

 

There are 4 legit starters in AA right now.....you think NONE of them will be up next year? I hope the Twins aren't on the same slow timeline as you.

 

I expect at least 2 to be up for some time next year.

[Willihammer]

 

I totally agree, BUT -- I don't think the market is "hot" for Santana right now, or any of the Twins trade assets.  I think they are generally viewed as spare assets that can be acquired cheaply, if the "hot" market for greater talents doesn't bear fruit.

No, and the interim GM isn't shopping him. What would the market look like if Antony were more proactive about making a deal?

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah, normally I'd agree (and I sort of do), but after Berrios, we don't have any decent starting pitchers coming up until realistically 2018 at the earliest, and likely the second half of 2018. If you think we have any chance of contending in 2017 and 2018 (fair enough if you don't) then keeping Santana would be important to that and not easily replaced.

If contending in 2017 is a realistic goal than why was Ryan fired?

A new GM isn't going to be able to change the roster that much between November and March, so if we win the WS next year it will be with Ryan's team.

This idea that we are going to go from 100 losses to WS contender in one year blows my mind.

I mean, I guess I understand it's a coping mechanism for fans, but if the professionals making the decisions actually feel that way, that blows my mind.

[Willihammer]

They can trade Santana and still try to contend in 2017. It might just take two trades to accomplish it, rotation-wise.

Wild, I know.

[jimmer]

 

This idea that we are going to go from 100 losses to WS contender in one year blows my mind.
I mean, I guess I understand it's a coping mechanism for fans, but if the professionals making the decisions actually feel that way, that blows my mind.

The professionals (Pohlad and Ryan) thought we'd be contenders this year.  Just saying :-)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No, and the interim GM isn't shopping him. What would the market look like if Antony were more proactive about making a deal?

I don't know if any amount of shopping or proactive-ness would make a "hot" July trade market exist for Santana.  How many older mid-rotation pitchers with future commitments get moved in July, much less for a top return?  Antony is no miracle worker.

[Vanimal46]

 

They can trade Santana and still try to contend in 2017. It might just take two trades to accomplish it, rotation-wise.

Wild, I know.

Woah woah, two trades? That's crazy talk. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

They can trade Santana and still try to contend in 2017. It might just take two trades to accomplish it, rotation-wise.

Wild, I know.

How about one trade, with a PTBNL that gets named sometime later?  That sorta feels like two separate transactions...