Santana trade rumors

[clone52]

 

I'd feel good about it.  The current rotation aside from Santana has been awful top to bottom.  Gibson, Duffey, Nolasco and Milone have all been bad this season. 

 

Agreed.  If Gibson and Duffey still struggle next year, Berrios struggles and whoever they fill the rotation with struggles, do you really want the core of this team to go through several 90-100 loss seasons in a row and develop that losing culture?

 

 

[laloesch]

 

Agreed.  If Gibson and Duffey still struggle next year, Berrios struggles and whoever they fill the rotation with struggles, do you really want the core of this team to go through several 90-100 loss seasons in a row and develop that losing culture?

 

 

They already have.  With the exception of last year it's been 4 out of 5 years of losing. The root cause of a losing culture comes from the front office not the players. 

 

Sure you can have bad apples and guys who don't perform, but there's no doubt that a team with bad ownership, poor player development, inept scouting & drafting, lack of moves at the trade deadline, etc., IS the culture of losing. 

 

There also NO DOUBT  that Antony is the prodigy of Terry Ryan.  Making statements that they are not dealing Santana unless it's a "wow" offer.  It's like the Twilight zone or attack of the clones from star wars.  TR redux 2.0. 

 

I mean what other GM in baseball says stuff like that after you've lost ?  Are you serious about turning this thing around or not. 

 

Either way I think it's unavoidable.  If nothing changes with the rotation heading into next year, this WILL BE  a losing team in 2017.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Agreed.  If Gibson and Duffey still struggle next year, Berrios struggles and whoever they fill the rotation with struggles, do you really want the core of this team to go through several 90-100 loss seasons in a row and develop that losing culture?

 

How have the Astros managed to get over all the losing? "losing culture".....isn't that just code for "bad players on the team"?

[clone52]

 

They already have.  With the exception of last year it's been 4 out of 5 years of losing. A losing culture comes from the front office not the players.  Sure you can have bad apples and guys who don't perform, but bad player development, poor scouting & drafting, lack of moves at the trade deadline, etc., IS the culture of losing. 

 

 

Either way I think it's unavoidable.  If nothing changes with the rotation heading into next year, this WILL BE  a losing team.

 

I agree that changes need to be made in the rotation.  I want Nolasco gone and Milone too probably.

 

If they get a good deal for Santana, I'm all about trading him.  However, I don't think it makes sense to dump him for anything short of a good deal.

 

Who do you want in the rotation next year?  If you don't want Santana, then I assume you want all in house options.  Berrios, Gibson, Duffey, May and Dean excite you?  Is that building towards the future?  Personally, i think keeping Santana and his reasonable contract makes sense if you don't get a good return on a trade.

[clone52]

 

How have the Astros managed to get over all the losing? "losing culture".....isn't that just code for "bad players on the team"?

 

Houston got over the hump by having solid young talent and including solid affordable veterans around it.

 

Last year it was Scott Feldman (32 years old) and Scott Kazmir (31 years old) and Roberto Hernandez (34 years old) who helped fill out their rotation.

 

This year it is Doug Fister (32 years old) and Mike Fiers (31 years old) and Scott Feldman (33 years old) that have rounded out their rotation.

 

Ervin Santana fits the mold almost exactly with how Houston is doing it.  The Twins problem is having Santana AND Milone AND Nolasco AND Hughes.

 

Hopefully Berrios comes back up and improves.

[tobi0040]

How have the Astros managed to get over all the losing? "losing culture".....isn't that just code for "bad players on the team"?

I would almost say the opposite. The Astros team lost a ton but they looked around and realized they had optimism about the future. I would think a team losing with a bunch of veterans would be in a far worse situation, culture wise.

[Halsey Hall]

Anyone hear Greg Gagne interview last night when asked what the key was for the '87 and '91 WS teams? His answer was a very good veteran starting pitcher, Blyleven, then Morris.

 

I'd say the same holds true for any team having success and Santana is the only pitcher we have to carry forward.

[jimmer]

 

Anyone hear Greg Gagne interview last night when asked what the key was for the '87 and '91 WS teams? His answer was a very good veteran starting pitcher, Blyleven, then Morris.

 

I'd say the same holds true for any team having success and Santana is the only pitcher we have to carry forward.

 

Well, if Gagne said it, it must be true :-)  Thing is, I think a lot of people forget that the '87 team just wasn't that great.  It won a weak division with only 85 wins and the '87 rotation was meh (including Blyleven and his league-leading 50HR allowed).   The '91 team, though it had better pitching than the '87 team,  was carried by the offense/position players.

 

And the thing is, Santana isn't a very good pitcher.  He's a #3.  Just cause he's our best doesn't make him very good

[laloesch]

 

I agree that changes need to be made in the rotation.  I want Nolasco gone and Milone too probably.

 

If they get a good deal for Santana, I'm all about trading him.  However, I don't think it makes sense to dump him for anything short of a good deal.

 

Who do you want in the rotation next year?  If you don't want Santana, then I assume you want all in house options.  Berrios, Gibson, Duffey, May and Dean excite you?  Is that building towards the future?  Personally, i think keeping Santana and his reasonable contract makes sense if you don't get a good return on a trade.

 

I don't want to give away Santana for nothing.  But at the same time I realize he's 34 this December has had issues with his UCL in addition to the PED usage.  He's not a long term fixture in the rotation anyway you look at it.  In my opinion if he's at maximum value now why not trade him before he deteriorates and we are stuck with yet another Phil Hughes albatross contract? 

 

To be perfectly honest I would be excited about a rotation of youngsters even if they lose a lot of games.  There are PLENTY of options available and the beauty is it would be true open tryouts.  Gibson, Duffey, Berrios, May, Wheeler, Meyer (next season), Jay (coming soon), etc. 

 

Do I think it will happen?  Not a chance. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Anyone hear Greg Gagne interview last night when asked what the key was for the '87 and '91 WS teams? His answer was a very good veteran starting pitcher, Blyleven, then Morris.

 

I'd say the same holds true for any team having success and Santana is the only pitcher we have to carry forward.

 

Meaning what for 2018 and beyond? They aren't winning the WS next year......Also, former players can be a bit off on their recollection of the facts at times.....

[Major League Ready]

 

Anyone hear Greg Gagne interview last night when asked what the key was for the '87 and '91 WS teams? His answer was a very good veteran starting pitcher, Blyleven, then Morris.

 

I'd say the same holds true for any team having success and Santana is the only pitcher we have to carry forward.

Very easy to agree with the importance of a Blyleven or Morris.  Santana is neither.  In addition,  I think the problem with that thinking is problematic in that it’s the same unwillingness to accept we are not on the verge of contending, at least not in any meaningful way.  What did the Astro, Cubs, Met’s Pirates, and Royals do when they were in this position?  They traded the assets that would bring them pieces that would help when they were ready to contend. 

 

There is no point in giving Santana away.  I am not anxious to make this team worse.  However, if he can net a SP that projects as a 3 with maybe an upside to be a 2 or a decent catching prospect, we need those assets to become a serious contender.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Very easy to agree with the importance of a Blyleven or Morris.  Santana is neither.  In addition,  I think the problem with that thinking is problematic in that it’s the same unwillingness to accept we are not on the verge of contending, at least not in any meaningful way.  What did the Astro, Cubs, Met’s Pirates, and Royals do when they were in this position?  They traded the assets that would bring them pieces that would help when they were ready to contend. 

 

There is no point in giving Santana away.  I am not anxious to make this team worse.  However, if he can net a SP that projects as a 3 with maybe an upside to be a 2 or a decent catching prospect, we need those assets to become a serious contender.

 

Rebuilding teams trade Santana.....successfully. Not "we didn't like any of the offers", not any excuse. Teams that refuse to face reality keep Santana, and well, aren't really rebuilding at all.....

[Everyday Eddy]

 

Anyone hear Greg Gagne interview last night when asked what the key was for the '87 and '91 WS teams? His answer was a very good veteran starting pitcher, Blyleven, then Morris.

 

I'd say the same holds true for any team having success and Santana is the only pitcher we have to carry forward.

I don't think Santana was the pitcher Gagne had in mind.    Ervin is about three class levels below what Morris and Blyleven were and the '17 Twins are going to be nowhere near the world series or the playoffs.   

[Halsey Hall]

 

Meaning what for 2018 and beyond? They aren't winning the WS next year......Also, former players can be a bit off on their recollection of the facts at times.....

Meaning what I've said all along, the rotation needs a veteran to lead it and he's the best we have right now. Have you looked at the rotations that some posters have put up for next year with the young guys? We really be a bad team with only those guys next year. I'm hoping for at least some improvement toward a .500 team in 2017 anyway.

 

[Halsey Hall]

"Very easy to agree with the importance of a Blyleven or Morris.Santana is neither." 

 

I agree totally with that. But we need someone to step on the mound next year with a little better than 50-50 chance of getting a win. I don't see anyone coming back in a Santana trade fitting that criteria.

[alarp33]

 

Anyone hear Greg Gagne interview last night when asked what the key was for the '87 and '91 WS teams? His answer was a very good veteran starting pitcher, Blyleven, then Morris.

 

I'd say the same holds true for any team having success and Santana is the only pitcher we have to carry forward.

 

Well if Greg Gagne says so!

 

I'd say its more important to have very good pitcher(s).  Which Santana is not

[alarp33]

 

 We really be a bad team with only those guys next year. 

 

Like 37-63 bad?

[laloesch]

 

Meaning what I've said all along, the rotation needs a veteran to lead it and he's the best we have right now. Have you looked at the rotations that some posters have put up for next year with the young guys? We really be a bad team with only those guys next year. I'm hoping for at least some improvement toward a .500 team in 2017 anyway.

 

And Santana will make that much of a difference?  I like him as a mid level starter or #2 on a veteran team competing in the playoffs but the Twins are nowhere near that stage.  If he gets injured or experiences any decline at all and we are in the same place again. 

 

Sorry, I hate to be debbie downer but Hughes is likely finished (I hope I'm wrong but labrum tears are very difficult to come back from) and Gibson has not developed into the starter we all hoped he would be.  Duffey is a two pitch pitcher and should be a reliever unless he develops a change.

 

So yeah I'd rather go with youth, see what we have and move on.  If the right trade is not in the cards, fine keep Santana.  But i'm not going to build a rotation around him because he's gone in two years.  However, if you do decide to keep him you absolutely dump Nolasco after the trade deadline and go with Berrios, no questions asked.  Guy has 300+ innings of horrible pitching for the Twins enough is enough. 

[Everyday Eddy]

 

Meaning what I've said all along, the rotation needs a veteran to lead it and he's the best we have right now. Have you looked at the rotations that some posters have put up for next year with the young guys? We really be a bad team with only those guys next year. I'm hoping for at least some improvement toward a .500 team in 2017 anyway.

This is the mindset the 2011-2016 Twins FO took too and look where it got us.    We don't want to be too bad so we better sign/retain some extremely average players to push the team closer to average, but still bad.    A rebuilding franchise has to go all in when rebuilding and take advantage of Santanas when they get hot at the right time

[Mr. Brooks]

Even a mediocre season like 2015 would be worth keeping Santana over giving him up for peanuts.

 

The Twins are a young team. The future of the team is that youth. The Twins are a key juncture right now where they really need to develop a winning culture. That means its very important that they don't tank the rest of the year and that they aren't a terrible team next year. If they tank this year, then great, they get the #1 pick, but all these young guys get a losing culture. If they run into a tough stretch in future years they may just go back to this year and give up. Same thing for next year. You've got guys that will be developing for the future and you need take that incremental step up the winning ladder.

1) Nobody is saying give him away for peanuts. That is a strawman that I keep seeing over and over.

There is a pretty wide gulf of middle ground between "peanuts" and "a kings ransom".

 

2) We've had 2 good stretches of Twins baseball in my lifetime. Both were cores of players who lost a lot of baseball before they figured out how to win. So, I'm not buying that you can't overcome a "losing culture".

[Mr. Brooks]

I have not read all the posts so I apologize if this has been covered. There are several SP prospects among the potential trade partners for Santana that grade out at 50 or 55 on MLB.com. The 55s are top 100 ranked. For me, any of them would be a no brainer. The 50s is where I start to wonder if we jsut waiting until next year when his remaining contract is not as much of an issue. Of course, he could start to show some decline next year and then we are not get much. Where do you draw the line in terms of player profile you would take for Santana?

Is there a reason that we can't absorb most of his remaining contract? That solves the issue of teams being scared off by the remaining commitment.

[Mr. Brooks]

I agree that changes need to be made in the rotation. I want Nolasco gone and Milone too probably.

 

If they get a good deal for Santana, I'm all about trading him. However, I don't think it makes sense to dump him for anything short of a good deal.

 

Who do you want in the rotation next year? If you don't want Santana, then I assume you want all in house options. Berrios, Gibson, Duffey, May and Dean excite you? Is that building towards the future? Personally, i think keeping Santana and his reasonable contract makes sense if you don't get a good return on a trade.

How is keeping Santana building for the future, though?

The guy is 34 years old and even if the Twins take a nice step next year, they aren't going to contend.

 

Also, why does that 5th spot have to be in house? Every year there are a handful of buy low, make good 1 year deal veteran pitcher types. Sign one or two of those and hope to flip them at the deadline, a la Lucas Harrell that the Braves just flipped.

[Mr. Brooks]

Meaning what I've said all along, the rotation needs a veteran to lead it and he's the best we have right now. Have you looked at the rotations that some posters have put up for next year with the young guys? We really be a bad team with only those guys next year. I'm hoping for at least some improvement toward a .500 team in 2017 anyway.

We already are a really bad team even with Santana. We are really not going to miss the extra 2 or 3 wins he might give us.

[Tomj14]

 

What? Are they checking out the hotdogs? The grass?

Red Cow or Tony O's cuban sandwich?

[Major League Ready]

 

Is there a reason that we can't absorb most of his remaining contract? That solves the issue of teams being scared off by the remaining commitment.

Of course not.  I was just cover the potential scenarios. As a matter of fact, if paying part of Santana’s salary made the difference of getting a top 100 prospect I would suggest to Jim Pohlad the trade be made because it’s the best business decision and the best baseball decision.

 

 •  Having Santana on the team is not going to generate anything near $28M in revenue.  They could eat part of it and still be money ahead.

 

•  There is always risk with a prospect but if the prospect meets projection that cost controlled asset is worth much more than Santana from a pure financial perspective.

•  In terms of measuring risk, Santana declining is almost as risky as a prospect not working out so the risk is somewhat balanced between the two scenarios.

•  The top 100 pick has a much better chance of contributing to a contender than Santana.

[clone52]

 

1) Nobody is saying give him away for peanuts. That is a strawman that I keep seeing over and over.
There is a pretty wide gulf of middle ground between "peanuts" and "a kings ransom".

2) We've had 2 good stretches of Twins baseball in my lifetime. Both were cores of players who lost a lot of baseball before they figured out how to win. So, I'm not buying that you can't overcome a "losing culture".

 

Some people are saying give him away for peanuts.

 

Personally, if they can get a AA or AAA player close to major league ready, I'd say go for it.  If they can only get a project from A ball, I say don't.

 

The 1987 team got 89 starts from pitchers over the age of 32.  Thats actually not a terrible comparison for the current state of the Twins.  84 had a .500 record.  85 and 86 went backwards (not to the extend that this years Twins are).  Then world series in 1987 driven by talented ihtters just entering their prime years and veteran pitching.

[clone52]

 

Of course not.  I was just cover the potential scenarios. As a matter of fact, if paying part of Santana’s salary made the difference of getting a top 100 prospect I would suggest to Jim Pohlad the trade be made because it’s the best business decision and the best baseball decision.

 

 •  Having Santana on the team is not going to generate anything near $28M in revenue.  They could eat part of it and still be money ahead.

 

•  There is always risk with a prospect but if the prospect meets projection that cost controlled asset is worth much more than Santana from a pure financial perspective.

•  In terms of measuring risk, Santana declining is almost as risky as a prospect not working out so the risk is somewhat balanced between the two scenarios.

•  The top 100 pick has a much better chance of contributing to a contender than Santana.

 

I'm 100% on board with that.  If they can get a top 100 prospect somehow for Santana, go for it 100%.  I just don't want a A ball project.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Some people are saying give him away for peanuts.

 

Personally, if they can get a AA or AAA player close to major league ready, I'd say go for it.  If they can only get a project from A ball, I say don't.

 

The 1987 team got 89 starts from pitchers over the age of 32.  Thats actually not a terrible comparison for the current state of the Twins.  84 had a .500 record.  85 and 86 went backwards (not to the extend that this years Twins are).  Then world series in 1987 driven by talented ihtters just entering their prime years and veteran pitching.

 

The game has changed a lot in those 29 years.....a lot.

[clone52]

 

How is keeping Santana building for the future, though?
The guy is 34 years old and even if the Twins take a nice step next year, they aren't going to contend.

Also, why does that 5th spot have to be in house? Every year there are a handful of buy low, make good 1 year deal veteran pitcher types. Sign one or two of those and hope to flip them at the deadline, a la Lucas Harrell that the Braves just flipped.

 

Maybe I should make it clearer.  If they can get a Top 100 prospect, or even a AA or AAA guy that looks to turn into low end major leaguer, I think they should.  I just would rather not trade him for an A ball project.

 

Two reasons I keep him over an A ball project.  #1, I think the Twins could get back into contention next year.  There is plenty of talent on the team, so if they do get back into contention, he's still an affordable, affective pitcher.  #2, I'm assuming that they will clear Nolasco out, clear Milone out and Hughes probably doesn't recover all that well.  Basically I don't see Santana blocking the path of a minor leaguer that MUST be in the majors.  I think the Twins should have plenty of spots for those types of guys.  Berrios will get his shot.  May should get moved back to the rotation.  Having Santana still around doesn't prevent that from happening.

 

If I were GM, I'd be calling around to see what I could get for Ricky Nolasco, Kohl Stewart and $13 million.

 

[clone52]

 

The game has changed a lot in those 29 years.....a lot.

 

#1, I was replying to someone talking about how the Twins turned things around in the past.  I didn't set that time constraint.