Article: Servin' Up Ervin

[Steve Lein]

If mid-level prospects are the expected return, you keep him. He can be a veteran part of the rotation for the foreseeable future, and he's currently your best starter if you ask me.

[J_Dobs]

 

What would you guys think of this potential trade? 

 

Ervin Santana to the Rangers for RHP Luis Ortiz.

 

20 year old RHP in AA.  Top 100 prospect (#63 overall) and Rangers #4 prospect.   He's had a few injury problems but profiles as a #2.   Rangers need starting pitching help at least in the short term. 

 

I'd think that if you could get a guy who profiles as a 1 or 2, you'd have to go for it.   And, part of the benefit in trading Santana is the spot it opens up in the rotation to ensure that Berrios, Duffey, May have a spot.  I'd be totally happy with a 2017 of Berrios, Duffey, May, Gibson, and either Nolasco/Hughes.  Moving towards playoffs in 2018 with a rotation of Berrios, Duffey, May, Gibson, and whoever emerges first of Gonsalves, Stewart, Jorge, Jay. 

 

If Terry could pull this off, I would call this a win. But my guess we would need to throw in money in this deal (15 million?) and we would get another low A guy. But will the Twins throw in money? I just don't know if they would.

[nicksaviking]

If there is going to be a regime change in the front office, I'm inclined to move as many vets as possible to clean the slate for the new guy so he can remake this team according to his vision.

 

That being said, Santana is probably the type of good-not-great pitcher that would fit into just about any vision.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Uh, his slow start last year in Minnesota was in July. And his worst month by ERA this year so far is June. I'd guess weather has very little to do with explaining these performances, it's probably just the standard variation inherent in all player performances -- a 4.00 ERA pitcher will have some months at 5.00, some months at 3.00, etc.

Yep. Average pitchers don't pitch only average starts. They pitch phenomenal starts and they pitch clunker starts, often stringing together one or the other for brief periods of time.

[Mike W.]

I just hope the Twins eat some salary and get a better prospect in return, rather than just viewing it as a salary dump and getting 1 or 2 middling prospects in return. We all know that barring some dramatic change in the front office, that Ryan won't spend the saved money and if he does, it will just be on yet another Ervin Santana/Ricky Nolasco/Phil Hughes type. Better to eat some cash (lord knows the Pohlads can afford to) and get a better prospect in return that actually has some upside left in him.

[DocBauer]

Agree that he should only be traded if we get a surprisingly good return. His stuff still plays decently. His next 2 years are affordable and fair value, even if he begins to decline in the final year. It makes little sense to move him for anything other than a surprise, and then go sign another similar starter next offseason. (If there's even one as good and affordable)

 

Dump Nolasco and Milone ASAP and bring up Berrios. Stretch out May, IMO, but also consider giving Wheeler a shot.

[troyhobbs]

I'd trade him before he has no value whatsoever which could happen as soon as next year's deadline, you never know.  Ya, they'll have to pick up another pitcher, or pitcher's in the off-season but next year isn't going to be the year they compete anyway so may as well get something for him and start freeing up salary so they have money to throw at legitimate ace options in a couple years.

 

Not that the Twins would ever target a true ace in free agency but that's where my head would be at and I also understand the argument for keeping him if all the offers are lame but it sounds like there is a good bit of interest.

[tobi0040]

I really don’t see the Twins picking up any salary in a trade for Ervin. I am not sure they should. His deal is really fair given the going rate in FA and his performance. If they throw in $4m each year for example, that is $10M ($2m this year and $4m in 2017 and 2018).

 

We paid $3.5m for Miguel Sano. The other big international prospects were purchased for $4m a year. So I guess I don’t see $8-10m for a top 50 or 60 prospect.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I really don’t see the Twins picking up any salary in a trade for Ervin. I am not sure they should. His deal is really fair given the going rate in FA and his performance. If they throw in $4m each year for example, that is $10M ($2m this year and $4m in 2017 and 2018).

We paid $3.5m for Miguel Sano. The other big international prospects were purchased for $4m a year. So I guess I don’t see $8-10m for a top 50 or 60 prospect.

 

Those top international FAs were purchased YEARS ago, and were 16.....getting a guy in AA who is in the top 50, meaning there is significantly less risk? That costs more. A lot more (if there was a free market).

[tobi0040]

Before we trade Ervin we may want to take a peek at the upcoming FA class. The class was weak to start and here are the top guys.

 

#1 – Strasburg resigned with the Nats

 

#2 – CJ Wilson is 35 and has the roughly the same ERA+ as Ervin over the last four years

 

#3 – Weaver has been awful and has no velocity left

 

#4 – Brett Anderson has roughly the same ERA+ as Ervin the last four years and been hurt a ton.

 

It seems to me you will have a lot of teams chasing a few average pitchers. 2/27 for Ervin may look like a steal.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/11/16/9743932/mlb-free-agency-rumors-trade-2016-2017

[tobi0040]

Those top international FAs were purchased YEARS ago, and were 16.....getting a guy in AA who is in the top 50, meaning there is significantly less risk? That costs more. A lot more (if there was a free market).

Those are valid points.

 

But what do you think the Twins would pay straight up for the 50-60th overall prospect? I would put the number south of $8-10m. Let alone lose Ervin and move the break even point of his number to 2 years and $18m to find a replacement.

Edited July 8, 2016 by tobi0040

[Mike Sixel]

 

Those are valid points.

But what do you think the Twins would pay straight up for the 50-60th overall prospect? I would put the number south of $8-10m. Let alone lose Ervin and move the break even point of his number to 2 years and $18m to find a replacement.

 

I'm not arguing to trade him......but I think if a terrible (or just bad) team isn't willing to trade a 33 yo for a top 50 prospect? Well, then that team is going to have a hard time getting value in any trade ever, and probably should give up on trying to improve any way other than the draft......

[drivlikejehu]

 

Those are valid points.

But what do you think the Twins would pay straight up for the 50-60th overall prospect? I would put the number south of $8-10m. Let alone lose Ervin and move the break even point of his number to 2 years and $18m to find a replacement.

 

Well, the Twins spent what, $12 million on Park? His experience was effectively AA level or so.

 

And they wouldn't necessarily have to sign a FA replacement for Santana - there are basically no FA starters for 2017 anyway - which means it's only a question of how much money they would save, not how much they would be spending.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think the Twins should trade him. His 2018 value is highly uncertain . . . he's a 2-3 win starter right now, but right now it doesn't matter, and it almost certainly won't in 2017 either. 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I really don’t see the Twins picking up any salary in a trade for Ervin. I am not sure they should. His deal is really fair given the going rate in FA and his performance. If they throw in $4m each year for example, that is $10M ($2m this year and $4m in 2017 and 2018).

The issue is, someone trading for Ervin in July 2016 primarily wants the benefit of his 2016 performance.  They might not mind having him for 2017-2018 too, but they would probably want a discount on those years if they are giving up anything noteworthy in terms of prospects.

 

Put another way, I can't think of anyone traded with as much as ~$34 mil guaranteed remaining that didn't have some kind of financial component to the deal, either cash or taking back another contract.

[tobi0040]

I'm not arguing to trade him......but I think if a terrible (or just bad) team isn't willing to trade a 33 yo for a top 50 prospect? Well, then that team is going to have a hard time getting value in any trade ever, and probably should give up on trying to improve any way other than the draft......

The way I look at it is you need 6-7 good starters to compete. I think our path to get there is better with Ervin than with a top 50-60 prospect. Especially if that prospect is not a pitcher or one in the low minors.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

But what do you think the Twins would pay straight up for the 50-60th overall prospect? I would put the number south of $8-10m. Let alone lose Ervin and move the break even point of his number to 2 years and $18m to find a replacement.

It's hard to say, but the Braves picked up BA's #71 prospect last year (Touki Toussaint) by eating the $10.1 mil remaining on Bronson Arroyo's deal, so I might guess your estimate is a little low.  Depends on the prospect, of course.

[tobi0040]

The issue is, someone trading for Ervin in July 2016 primarily wants the benefit of his 2016 performance.  They might not mind having him for 2017-2018 too, but they would probably want a discount on those years if they are giving up anything noteworthy in terms of prospects.

 

Put another way, I can't think of anyone traded with as much as ~$34 mil guaranteed remaining that didn't have some kind of financial component to the deal, either cash or taking back another contract.

I think this is feasible given the FA market next year. His remaining 2/27 may look appealing in that context.

 

And the other side of that equation is teams don't tend to trade players that are under contract another two years and productive because they have value to them.

[tobi0040]

It's hard to say, but the Braves picked up BA's #71 prospect last year (Touki Toussaint) by eating the $10.1 mil remaining on Bronson Arroyo's deal, so I might guess your estimate is a little low.  Depends on the prospect, of course.

I really hope we can agree that the Braves have done a number of smart things over the last 1.5 years that we would never do. #1 on that list is effectively buying prospects and draft picks.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

#2 – CJ Wilson is 35 and has the roughly the same ERA+ as Ervin over the last four years

Wilson also just had shoulder surgery, although it sounds like he plans to return for 2017:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/c-j-wilson-to-undergo-shoulder-surgery.html

 

Still, for a team in the Twins position, if we could add a decent prospect and get out of most of Santana's remaining guaranteed cash, we could always take a bit of that cash savings and invest it in a cheap bounceback vet like Wilson too.

 

Probably not worth it for just the cash savings alone, but hypothetically if there was a decent prospect involved, you'd have to consider it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The way I look at it is you need 6-7 good starters to compete. I think our path to get there is better with Ervin than with a top 50-60 prospect. Especially if that prospect is not a pitcher or one in the low minors.

 

he's 33....are they competing for real next year, when he's 34? What about the year after that, when he's 35?

[laloesch]

 

he's 33....are they competing for real next year, when he's 34? What about the year after that, when he's 35?

 

My thoughts exactly.  Let's be honest the Twins aren't competing next year and likely the year after.  By then he's  almost 36 and close to the end of his deal.  If you can get something decent back in a trade that will help in the future you have to consider it.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Before we trade Ervin we may want to take a peek at the upcoming FA class. The class was weak to start and here are the top guys.

#1 – Strasburg resigned with the Nats

#2 – CJ Wilson is 35 and has the roughly the same ERA+ as Ervin over the last four years

#3 – Weaver has been awful and has no velocity left

#4 – Brett Anderson has roughly the same ERA+ as Ervin the last four years and been hurt a ton.

It seems to me you will have a lot of teams chasing a few average pitchers. 2/27 for Ervin may look like a steal.

It's not a good FA SP class by any means, but I'm not sure if this is really an accurate list of the "top guys" anymore.  Rich Hill, Bud Norris, Doug Fister, Jeremy Hellickson, and Andrew Cashner are all healthier and performing better than Weaver, Wilson, and Anderson.  RA Dickey and Bartolo Colon are still getting it done at an advanced age.  Maybe Sabathia and Jason Hammel, if their options aren't picked up.  Other bounceback guys with recent success would include Buchholz and Colby Lewis.

 

A lot of these guys aren't that different from Ervin Santana (career ERA- of 101, FIP- of 103), and will settle for 2/28 or less.

[tobi0040]

he's 33....are they competing for real next year, when he's 34? What about the year after that, when he's 35?

Valid points. Here are my premises. Not the way I would do it, but likley the reality.

 

-We are not paying Santana to pitch elsewhere. Our history suggests we have effectively sold guys to get out of the remaining 1-2 months and in exchange received nothing in return. So I would be shocked if we ate salary to get a better prospect back.

 

-If we trade him, we are going to sign a free agent pitcher next off-season. We are not running out Gibson and the four guys who were just promoted to AA next year. Given all the young talent, a "veteran" will be added.

 

If we get a top 50 guy back, I would give up Ervin. I am indifferent in the 50-70 range. But given these two working assumptions above I would be fine passing on anything else.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

-If we trade him, we are going to sign a free agent pitcher next off-season. We are not running out Gibson and the four guys who were just promoted to AA next year. Given all the young talent, a "veteran" will be added.

Sure, but the thin crop of FA SP might save us from ourselves too.  There aren't a lot of Edwin Jacksons, Matt Garzas, Ricky Nolascos, or Ubaldo Jimenez's to sink a lot of money into this winter -- I'm not convinced that the bidding will reach that high for, say, Andrew Cashner.  Our veteran FA SP addition could come in lower than Santana's remaining 2.5 year, $34 million guarantee.  With a lower salary and age, such an addition might be easier to move at the 2017 deadline too if we so desire.

[Major League Ready]

 

Valid points. Here are my premises. Not the way I would do it, but likley the reality.

-We are not paying Santana to pitch elsewhere. Our history suggests we have effectively sold guys to get out of the remaining 1-2 months and in exchange received nothing in return. So I would be shocked if we ate salary to get a better prospect back.

-If we trade him, we are going to sign a free agent pitcher next off-season. We are not running out Gibson and the four guys who were just promoted to AA next year. Given all the young talent, a "veteran" will be added.

If we get a top 50 guy back, I would give up Ervin. I am indifferent in the 50-70 range. But given these two working assumptions above I would be fine passing on anything else.

I would not bet on us eating salary but we had different economic circumstances for most of our history.  It’s not like Arizona getting a huge TV contract but we do have more financial resources than we did throughout our history.  It would be nice to see that additional revenue used to get a good prospect in this situation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agree, next year's free agent class isn't impressive. On the other hand, is this team really going to need a pitcher like Santana next year? 2018 in his last year under contract hopefully, but I'm not sure that competing is in the cards next year anyway.

I just don't know about next year, which is why I'd strongly consider hedging the Dozier and Santana bets until next July (but, again, if the offer is generous you take it...).

 

People watched the first half Twins stumble and bumble their way to one of the worst records in baseball. It was awful.

 

Well, there's still half a season left to be played.

 

What happens if the Twins play a second half with a healthy Sano, an emergent Kepler, and a steadily improving Buxton? What if Berrios comes up in two weeks and posts league average numbers? What if the season closes out with a .500 record in the second half?

 

At that point, do we still consider the 2017 Twins a failure before the offseason begins? I don't believe I'm ready to make that call.

 

But, again, any and all offers should be heard. If the offer is good, Ryan should take it. I'm skeptical the 2017 team will be able to contend but I also think it's foolish to write off their contention in July of 2016.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I would not bet on us eating salary but we had different economic circumstances for most of our history.  It’s not like Arizona getting a huge TV contract but we do have more financial resources than we did throughout our history.  It would be nice to see that additional revenue used to get a good prospect in this situation.

I think most of our examples of not eating salary are from the Target Field era.  The Morneau trade saga of August 2013 comes to mind (Pittsburgh wanted him, but we wouldn't kick in any cash, so it waited until August 31st when their owner finally approved adding his final month's salary).

 

Besides, it appears likely we will already be "eating" $2.5 mil of Jepsen's salary, perhaps some of Milone's or Nolasco's if that is how we open a rotation spot for Berrios -- I highly doubt they would consider sending money with Ervin too.

[tobi0040]

I just don't know about next year, which is why I'd strongly consider hedging the Dozier and Santana bets until next July (but, again, if the offer is generous you take it...).

 

People watched the first half Twins stumble and bumble their way to one of the worst records in baseball. It was awful.

 

Well, there's still half a season left to be played.

 

What happens if the Twins play a second half with a healthy Sano, an emergent Kepler, and a steadily improving Buxton? What if Berrios comes up in two weeks and posts league average numbers? What if the season closes out with a .500 record in the second half?

 

At that point, do we still consider the 2017 Twins a failure before the offseason begins? I don't believe I'm ready to make that call.

 

But, again, any and all offers should be heard. If the offer is good, Ryan should take it. I'm skeptical the 2017 team will be able to contend but I also think it's foolish to write off their contention in July of 2016.

The offense looks a lot closer than the pitching.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The offense looks a lot closer than the pitching.

Agreed.

 

But all it takes is a decent-to-pretty-good Berrios and the staff suddenly looks much better. It won't win any awards but it might be enough to get by.

 

Gibson, Santana, Berrios, Duffey, Pitcher X isn't a postseason winner but it might be enough to keep the Twins in the game provided the offense is adequate.

 

And we shouldn't ignore how much better the defense is today and how much that's going to help a staff that struggles to miss bats. The infield is acceptable but that outfield of Buxton, Rosario, and Kepler is going to catch a lot of baseballs.

 

Again, not saying the Twins are on the verge of contending, only that I wouldn't rule it out, either.

[DJL44]

A 50-100 prospect who pitches plus some sweetener like a decent international bonus slot or an A-ball reliever with a live fastball would probably get me to bite. I think the Twins will have the luxury of multiple bidders driving up the price on Ervin Santana. They could do very well.