Heyman: Twins asked about Santana

[jorgenswest]

I think the numbers posted above paint a slightly different picture:

1)most of the pitchers with similar profiles of Santana start to decline in their age 34 or 35 or 36 age season, and most precipitously. And the vast majority were done by 37 with at least two years of below average performance. Now, Santana may buck that trend and pitch above average for two or more years. But he would be an outlier.

 

I would have agreed with you until I looked at a similar group of 20 pitchers that centered slightly above league from ages 29-33 while above league average in the age 33 season.

 

There were injuries and the innings drop was significant. However, it was a skewed group. I took a group of healthy pitchers. Had I taken a random group there would have been some pitchers injured at 33 and contributing innings at 34. If I had taken a group of healthy 28 year olds and looked at their next three years there would be an innings drop also. I might need to do it to see the increase in injury risk.

 

It surprised me that the ERA+ weighted by innings of the group did not decline significantly from ages 34 to 36. The age 34 dropped from 33 but was almost the same as the average from 29-33. At age 35 and 36 it was 94 and 96. A drop... but not steep and still valuable to any team.

 

I don't know how many starts Santana will contribute and the next injury could be significant. That can be said about any pitcher. I do believe that he will be a valuable pitcher the next three seasons when he does pitch. Near league average starting pitching has been difficult to find in Minnesota. It would take far better than prospects than those that slot in 10-15 to persuade me to give up a pitcher I expect to be near league average. It is going to take a near ready pitching prospect that I am confident will be contributing in 2018 and mid rotation in 2019.

[AlwaysinModeration]

I would have agreed with you until I looked at a similar group of 20 pitchers that centered slightly above league from ages 29-33 while above league average in the age 33 season.

 

There were injuries and the innings drop was significant. However, it was a skewed group. I took a group of healthy pitchers. Had I taken a random group there would have been some pitchers injured at 33 and contributing innings at 34. If I had taken a group of healthy 28 year olds and looked at their next three years there would be an innings drop also. I might need to do it to see the increase in injury risk.

 

It surprised me that the ERA+ weighted by innings of the group did not decline significantly from ages 34 to 36. The age 34 dropped from 33 but was almost the same as the average from 29-33. At age 35 and 36 it was 94 and 96. A drop... but not steep and still valuable to any team.

 

I don't know how many starts Santana will contribute and the next injury could be significant. That can be said about any pitcher. I do believe that he will be a valuable pitcher the next three seasons when he does pitch. Near league average starting pitching has been difficult to find in Minnesota. It would take far better than prospects than those that slot in 10-15 to persuade me to give up a pitcher I expect to be near league average. It is going to take a near ready pitching prospect that I am confident will be contributing in 2018 and mid rotation in 2019.

If you had to trade Daniel Palka and Zack Granite to get Ervin Santana, would you make the deal?

 

Also, I see your point about those older players pitching well when they pitch, but the fact that they don't pitch as much is significant and a part of the risk.

[jorgenswest]

If you had to trade Daniel Palka and Zack Granite to get Ervin Santana, would you make the deal?

Also, I see your point about those older players pitching well when they pitch, but the fact that they don't pitch as much is significant and a part of the risk.

I think I would make that trade. I have changed my thoughts on trading Santana.

 

I do want to understand better the correlation of injury and aging. I suspect that injuries to older pitchers make it less likely that they will recover.

[kab21]

 

If you had to trade Daniel Palka and Zack Granite to get Ervin Santana, would you make the deal?

Also, I see your point about those older players pitching well when they pitch, but the fact that they don't pitch as much is significant and a part of the risk.

You didn't ask me but I would definitely trade Palka and Granite to get Ervin. I haven't seen either of these ranked around the top 100 in overall lists. Mostly outside of the Twins top ten although Palka is likely a contentious prospect. Some could have him ranked much higher.

[AZTwin]

Yeah Palka and granite for Santana would be an absolute no brainer. People value prospects too much

[The Wise One]

 

Okay so you clearly don't like Mejia. At least you have said something solid rather than dancing around the question. If you hope to get 3 prospects for Santana then they are likely going to be ranked in the Twins 15-30+ range. It could happen but not as likely.

 

I also think you overestimate the potential starters that the Twins could have up in the next couple of years. More arms like Mejia and Gonsalves are needed imo.

 

I also think you either overestimate Santana's current ability or underrate Mejia's potential.

 

But thanks for actually saying something finally and showing a preference for 3 lottery tickets that won't rank in the top 100 and if you are getting 3 then at least 2 of them won't be top 200 prospects. I don't mind this approach but I wouldn't dismiss making a trade for a pitcher that could merely be good and up quickly. The Twins have a severe shortage of those.

Salazar, Kluber, Alex Wood, and Tyson Ross are all fine examples of quality pitchers who were not top 100 prospects. Kimbrel was not a top 100 prospect until after he made his major league debut. Carasco was not a top 100 prospect until he was 20. Prospect rankings do not mean too much. Brandon Crawford, Kyle Seager, Dozier were not top 100 players as minors. They are doing pretty good. 

[kab21]

 

Salazar, Kluber, Alex Wood, and Tyson Ross are all fine examples of quality pitchers who were not top 100 prospects. Kimbrel was not a top 100 prospect until after he made his major league debut. Carasco was not a top 100 prospect until he was 20. Prospect rankings do not mean too much. Brandon Crawford, Kyle Seager, Dozier were not top 100 players as minors. They are doing pretty good. 

You can't just dismiss things like projections and rankings without offering up better alternatives. I am referencing some sort of valuation system (which of course isn't perfect) while you offer nothing other than your opinion. I state something with some level of backup and you attack referenced information while using very little data to support your argument.

I assess Ervin as a 4.00 and use several sources and explain how I came up with that valuation. You make an argument based on how valuable Ervin was last year to the Twins based on his ERA (3rd best of his career). It doesn't matter how valuable Ervin was last year (based on ERA). It matters what he will do the next two years.

 

And now you want to throw out prospect rankings because prospects bust and unranked (or late ranked) prospects succeed. Everyone knows that propsect rankings are imperfect but if you want to disregard them then you MUST offer up a better alternative. You have at least said why you don't like Mejia so I will give you credit for that but there will be a great deal of irony in the next paragraph related to Mejia.

 

You have dismissed Mejia as a mid/back of the rotation arm that does nothing for you. Ironically you named a bunch of prospects that were dismissed as utility players, no bat types, back starters or future RP'ers.

 

Kyle Seager - 2010 ranking analysis by Sickels - 'I think Seager is an interesting player, but my guess is that he’s more of a utility guy than a future starter.'

 

Alex Wood - 2013 ranking analysis by Sickels - 'If the Braves manage Wood's workload properly and the breaking ball continues to improve, he has a shot at being a mid-rotation starter no matter how weird his delivery is.'

 

Dozier - 2010 analysis by Sickels - 'His range at shortstop is limited and he’s better at second base, but I can see him being a good utility guy.' 2011 analysis also by Sickels - 'At worst he’ll be a fine utility player, and there’s a non-negligible chance he can hit and field well enough to start for some teams.'

 

Corey Kluber fits your look for high upside guys with command problems though. As does Danny Salazar.

 

Crawford was a no hit all glove SS that never ranked well. Here is a great quote from Sickels 'Still, the sort of improvement Crawford has made is actually rather unusual: completely revamping a hitter's swing and hitting approach isn't easy and often fails, especially for a guy coming out of college with established habits.'

 

I chose quotes/ranks from Sickels because the information is easily available w/o a subscription.  I don't recall any different arguments being made for the above players and it really doesn't matter. Prospect rankings are of course a crapshoot but many unranked prospects that succeed were dismissed because they lacked upside.

So if you don't want to use prospect rankings for a rough valuation (I never said they were the end all be all) then what do you propose for assigning rough valuations?

[The Wise One]

 

You can't just dismiss things like projections and rankings without offering up better alternatives. I am referencing some sort of valuation system (which of course isn't perfect) while you offer nothing other than your opinion. I state something with some level of backup and you attack referenced information while using very little data to support your argument.

I assess Ervin as a 4.00 and use several sources and explain how I came up with that valuation. You make an argument based on how valuable Ervin was last year to the Twins based on his ERA (3rd best of his career). It doesn't matter how valuable Ervin was last year (based on ERA). It matters what he will do the next two years.

 

And now you want to throw out prospect rankings because prospects bust and unranked (or late ranked) prospects succeed. Everyone knows that propsect rankings are imperfect but if you want to disregard them then you MUST offer up a better alternative. You have at least said why you don't like Mejia so I will give you credit for that but there will be a great deal of irony in the next paragraph related to Mejia.

 

You have dismissed Mejia as a mid/back of the rotation arm that does nothing for you. Ironically you named a bunch of prospects that were dismissed as utility players, no bat types, back starters or future RP'ers.

 

Kyle Seager - 2010 ranking analysis by Sickels - 'I think Seager is an interesting player, but my guess is that he’s more of a utility guy than a future starter.'

 

Alex Wood - 2013 ranking analysis by Sickels - 'If the Braves manage Wood's workload properly and the breaking ball continues to improve, he has a shot at being a mid-rotation starter no matter how weird his delivery is.'

 

Dozier - 2010 analysis by Sickels - 'His range at shortstop is limited and he’s better at second base, but I can see him being a good utility guy.' 2011 analysis also by Sickels - 'At worst he’ll be a fine utility player, and there’s a non-negligible chance he can hit and field well enough to start for some teams.'

 

Corey Kluber fits your look for high upside guys with command problems though. As does Danny Salazar.

 

Crawford was a no hit all glove SS that never ranked well. Here is a great quote from Sickels 'Still, the sort of improvement Crawford has made is actually rather unusual: completely revamping a hitter's swing and hitting approach isn't easy and often fails, especially for a guy coming out of college with established habits.'

 

I chose quotes/ranks from Sickels because the information is easily available w/o a subscription.  I don't recall any different arguments being made for the above players and it really doesn't matter. Prospect rankings are of course a crapshoot but many unranked prospects that succeed were dismissed because they lacked upside.

So if you don't want to use prospect rankings for a rough valuation (I never said they were the end all be all) then what do you propose for assigning rough valuations?

With Mejia why I really do not like him is mostly the weight issues.  As he gained weight, his stock and performance dropped.   It is going to be a problem for him at some point.   But, if you criticize someone for an issue with obesity you can get called all sorts of names. Never mind that you can't find a single study of where there is a healthy lifestyle, there is also obesity. Mejia was a top 100 prospect somewhere at some point in time.      It takes a pretty good eye for talent, likely other non measurable traits, to see the position players make a career  leap from what their raw talent says.

[kab21]

No, you don't get called all sorts of names if you call a professional prospect overweight. Check out the Sano threads for proof of that.

Yes, weight is an issue but there are plenty of fat successful pitchers and the latest reports (at fangraphs) say that Mejia has it under control right now. And he pitched awesome last year with a 4:1 K:BB ratio. His stuff isn't overwhelmingly awesome but it is decent.

 

But here is my beef with your complaints about Mejia. My comments about Mejia were never specifically about Mejia. I was just looking for a ballpark value of what someone thinks Ervin is worth. The amount of attention that you have spent on Mejia is puzzling since the Twins can't trade Ervin for Mejia. And because you have focused on something unimportant, you haven't actually given me any idea what you think his value is (other than Mejia isn't acceptable). That is my beef.

[drjim]

I think Santana would have to worth more than a Mejia type. If not, why would you move him?

[Squirrel]

And on that note, let's move on from this conversation focused on Mejia and get back to Santana. If either of you wants to continue, start a new thread or take it to PM's.

[kab21]

 

I think Santana would have to worth more than a Mejia type. If not, why would you move him?

So you think his value is more at the Gonsalves level. Or higher?

[kab21]

 

And on that note, let's move on from this conversation focused on Mejia and get back to Santana. If either of you wants to continue, start a new thread or take it to PM's.

I just wanted a rough valuation of Ervin's worth. I thought using prospects from the Twins system would be easy since we know them.

[howieramone2]

 

So you think his value is more at the Gonsalves level. Or higher?

For what it's worth, Gonsalves is a taller version of Milone without a dependable breaking pitch. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

For what it's worth, Gonsalves is a taller version of Milone without a dependable breaking pitch. 

 

Putting aside your personal scouting....I think he is around 80th or so in the prospect rankings, I think that's the question....what would you trade Santana for?

[gunnarthor]

 

Putting aside your personal scouting....I think he is around 80th or so in the prospect rankings, I think that's the question....what would you trade Santana for?

Isn't that somewhere close to where Reid-Foley is?  I think that's about right.  Maybe someone near the backend of a top 100 list and a second, lesser piece.  

[Mike Sixel]

I'd aim for one of the OFers in the 50-75 range, personally. Plus a low end RP type (who could currently be a minor league starter that I'd convert).

[drjim]

So you think his value is more at the Gonsalves level. Or higher?

Depends on context.

 

If I was a team in a position to win and needed a starter and had the payroll flexibility and a little prospect depth, I would certainly be willing to trade Gonsalves. So I think Santana's max value is higher than Gonsalves, or if I was the Twins, I would need more to trade him right now.

 

I'm not especially high on Gonsalves though, or prospects with his profile.

[gunnarthor]

 

I'd aim for one of the OFers in the 50-75 range, personally. Plus a low end RP type (who could currently be a minor league starter that I'd convert).

Looking at mlbpipeline's current list (not recently updated), someone like Seattle's Tyler O'Neil would fit that description.  I'd be fine with that.  

[Doomtints]

 

Depends on context.

If I was a team in a position to win and needed a starter and had the payroll flexibility and a little prospect depth, I would certainly be willing to trade Gonsalves. So I think Santana's max value is higher than Gonsalves, or if I was the Twins, I would need more to trade him right now.

I'm not especially high on Gonsalves though, or prospects with his profile.

 

If the projection is for Gonsalves to fail then the Twins had better open up their wallets wide because there won't be enough coming up from the minors for a hell of a long time to re-stock the rotation. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Looking at mlbpipeline's current list (not recently updated), someone like Seattle's Tyler O'Neil would fit that description.  I'd be fine with that.  

 

To be clear, I'd want a SP back if they don't deal Dozier for a SP or three....

[Doomtints]

 

 

For what it's worth, Gonsalves is a taller version of Milone without a dependable breaking pitch. 

 

That's not worth much at all.  Gonsalves can toss fastballs in the 92-93 range.  Milone tosses fastballs in the 87-88 range.  There is no sane comparison between these two players. 

[drjim]

If the projection is for Gonsalves to fail then the Twins had better open up their wallets wide because there won't be enough coming up from the minors for a hell of a long time to re-stock the rotation.

I don't think he'll necessarily fail, just that he'll be more of a backend starter.

 

I would trade a guy like that for 2 years of a sure thing if I was competitive and needed a starter.

[Doomtints]

 

I don't think he'll necessarily fail, just that he'll be more of a backend starter.

I would trade a guy like that for 2 years of a sure thing if I was competitive and needed a starter.

 

Every team needs 3 back end starters to fill out a rotation.  The Twins are roughly 3 down on that.    Stocking the team with guys who can pitch is a very good thing right now.  They can sign the ace once they have 3-4 other guys who can pitch. 

[drjim]

Every team needs 3 back end starters to fill out a rotation. The Twins are roughly 3 down on that. Stocking the team with guys who can pitch is a very good thing right now. They can sign the ace once they have 3-4 other guys who can pitch.

But they also need guys who can pitch now as they sort through the young guys they have and try to build something of a winning culture with the young everyday players.

 

I'm not against trading Santana, I just need more than a Gonsalves type to do it. And if Santana stays healthy and pitches close to his level last year, he'll be worth more at the deadline anyways.

[Doomtints]

 

But they also need guys who can pitch now as they sort through the young guys they have and try to build something of a winning culture with the young everyday players.

 

That's exactly right.  This is one thing Ryan never realized and many Twins fans do not realize -- a key way to re-stock the minor league talent is to sign competent veteran players.  If you do nothing to stock your team except promote from within, very quickly the minor league talent is depleted and often rushed to the majors before they are ready. 

[drjim]

That's exactly right. This is one thing Ryan never realized and many Twins fans do not realize -- a key way to re-stock the minor league talent is to sign competent veteran players. If you do nothing to stock your team except promote from within, very quickly the minor league talent is depleted and often rushed to the majors before they are ready.

Seems a little unfair to Ryan since we are literally talking about a guy that Ryan signed.

 

But it does explain why the Twins are not in a hurry to get rid of Santana and Santiago this offseason, and why Hughes is likely penciled in to the final slot right now.

[howieramone2]

 

If the projection is for Gonsalves to fail then the Twins had better open up their wallets wide because there won't be enough coming up from the minors for a hell of a long time to re-stock the rotation. 

Stewart and Jay are far better prospects. Also, our top pick in the 2017 draft, may well be major league ready.

[Doomtints]

 

Stewart and Jay are far better prospects. Also, our top pick in the 2017 draft, may well be major league ready.

 

This is the first I have heard the opinion that Stewart and Jay are better prospects.  Why do you think that?

 

Who do you think the Twins could pick in 2017 that would be MLB ready?

[howieramone2]

 

That's not worth much at all.  Gonsalves can toss fastballs in the 92-93 range.  Milone tosses fastballs in the 87-88 range.  There is no sane comparison between these two players. 

Gonsalves sits at 87-90 with no dependable breaking pitch. Milone hit 92 several games I listened to. Take a look at Milone's career record. Gonsalves is pie in the sky, and I would trade him, if at all possible.