Go get Verlander

[alarp33]

 

2 years 56 mil is steep, but it's only two years. If you think Helickson is taking less than 3 years 17 mil per year (51 mil) on his next contract, I'd like to se evidence. I'd take the shorter contract every time.  

 

I'm confused. You agree with my premise they could be considered similar over the next couple of years. You would take the pitcher with a higher total contract and and higher yearly avg? Why?

 

Hellickson ($17) and an above avg $11 million RP pitcher isn't preferable than $28 million to Verlander?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Dozier increases 3 mil. They won't offer Escobar arb. They might sign him off open market but not at 4 mil. My guess is opening day utility guy is vielma or free agent

I haven't been able to find the payroll spreadsheet lately. Is it still there? That was nifty

Pressly, Grossman, and May are also arb eligible, hence my $5-6m number without Escobar.

[alarp33]

 

We'll have to disagree on assessment of guys in the same class or better. None of those guys in your top class has either the pedigree, velocity or recent results that Verlander has. Arrietta is the only of the "better" class that has performed better than Verlander this year, and his stats are trending downward.

I'm not sure how to define available, but not all of these guys are going to be FA's and I can't see their team shopping them either, especially a guy like Tanaka.

 

We are probably arguing over nothing of import though, the Twins aren't going to take on Verlander's salary, and It would be short sighted to give up a huge prospect haul to get Detroit to cover enough of it to matter. 

 

I could make an argument I would take any of the guys I listed over Verlander for 2018 + 2019.  I'm not saying its a slam dunk.  

 

FWIW, I listed guys who are free agents, or could opt into FA.  Those cost you 0 prospects.  There are many other pitchers who would be "available" like Verlander, via trade.  Most of those others aren't going to be 35 and making $28 million / year

[Brock Beauchamp]

A few things to keep in mind about Verlander outside the huge hurdle of his no-trade clause:

 

1. Do we have any indication the Tigers even care about shedding payroll?

 

2. If Verlander continues to pitch moderately well, his trade value actually increases as his contract winds down.

[Mike Sixel]

Ya, just stop trying to get better. Just trust the prospects, or sign reclamation projects. Never change. Sigh.

[alarp33]

 

Ya, just stop trying to get better. Just trust the prospects, or sign reclamation projects. Never change. Sigh.

 

That's what you gathered from some people not wanting to trade those prospects for 1 specific pitcher, who has a no trade clause, makes $28 million per year and is going to be 35 by next season? Ok.

 

Keep grasping at those straws 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Hellickson ($17) and an above avg $11 million RP pitcher isn't preferable than $28 million to Verlander?

Setting aside that Verlander is still better than Hellickson, we'd also be getting Verlander for a guaranteed pennant race while he is healthy and pitching very well.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'm confused. You agree with my premise they could be considered similar over the next couple of years. You would take the pitcher with a higher total contract and and higher yearly avg? Why?

 

Hellickson ($17) and an above avg $11 million RP pitcher isn't preferable than $28 million to Verlander?

with a guaranteed contract, annual rate matters less than total. Hellickson prolly won't go on another one year deal. More likely 3-4 years at 15-17 mil per season. The longer the contract, the more likely the contract diminishes in value.

 

And they can sign a 10 mil reliever too and still be in the 130-135 mil salary range for 2018-19 years

 

As spycake said, i just assumed we all agreed Verlander is better now when the Twins need the help

[ashbury]

depends on the value of the extension... ML min... maybe, then it's Icky Ricky contract

Won't be major league minimum, obviously - humor acknowledged. Let's say two additional guaranteed years at the same $22M salary his current vesting option gets exercised at, to replace that option, for conversation's sake.

[alarp33]

 

with a guaranteed contract, annual rate matters less than total. Hellickson prolly won't go on another one year deal. More likely 3-4 years at 15-17 mil per season. The longer the contract, the more likely the contract diminishes in value.

And they can sign a 10 mil reliever too and still be in the 130-135 mil salary range for 2018-19 years

 

So you shouldn't sign pitchers to deals that are 3 years plus, because it diminishes in value over time, but you should trade good prospects to help the Tigers get out of those last couple of years and  $56 million owed to a 35 year old? Huh?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Won't be major league minimum, obviously - humor acknowledged. Let's say two additional guaranteed years at the same $22M salary his current vesting option gets exercised at, to replace that option, for conversation's sake.

very true, 2 year extension at reasonable extension rate would prolly be a deal breaker unless the prospects given up were almost E level minor league fodder

[alarp33]

 

Setting aside that Verlander is still better than Hellickson, we'd also be getting Verlander for a guaranteed pennant race while he is healthy and pitching very well.

 

Yes, Verlander is better than Hellickson today.  I was giving examples of pitchers who are available at the cost of 0 prospects, less money, and potentially out perform a 35 + 36 year old Verlander.  Hellickson probably shouldn't have been on the list btw, he is a stretch

[Mike Sixel]

That's what you gathered from some people not wanting to trade those prospects for 1 specific pitcher, who has a no trade clause, makes $28 million per year and is going to be 35 by next season? Ok.

 

Keep grasping at those straws

What I gathered was that the other alternatives offered were mostly sign bad players on the hope they would be good, or rely on the prospects. No one is offering a good, realistic, alternative. Just more of the same, that had led to one of the worst staffs in baseball for years.

[alarp33]

 

What I gathered was that the other alternatives offered were mostly sign bad players on the hope they would be good, or rely on the prospects. No one is offering a good, realistic, alternative. Just more of the same, that had led to one of the worst staffs in baseball for years.

 

Can you point out examples? I haven't seen anyone say the Twins should continue to do what has led to he worst staff in baseball. Should sign bad players, or rely on prospects

[Richie the Rally Goat]

So you shouldn't sign pitchers to deals that are 3 years plus, because it diminishes in value over time, but you should trade good prospects to help the Tigers get out of those last couple of years and $56 million owed to a 35 year old? Huh?

prospects are just prospects. I'd take another Berrios on this roster. Imagine trying to sign Berrios today on the open market.... 200 mil easy over 8 years... the money isn't that crazy.

 

so make a trade for the push, it's only 2 years. For the Twins there's not as much to get stuck holding the bag at the end.

[alarp33]

 

prospects are just prospects. I'd take another Berrios on this roster. Imagine trying to sign Berrios today on the open market.... 200 mil easy over 8 years... the money isn't that crazy.

so make a trade for the push, it's only 2 years. For the Twins there's not as much to get stuck holding the bag at the end.

 

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?

 

FWIW, I am not against making a trade for a pitcher at all.  I would not trade top prospects for Justin Verlander and this contract

[whydidnt]

I could make an argument I would take any of the guys I listed over Verlander for 2018 + 2019.  I'm not saying its a slam dunk.  

 

FWIW, I listed guys who are free agents, or could opt into FA.  Those cost you 0 prospects.  There are many other pitchers who would be "available" like Verlander, via trade.  Most of those others aren't going to be 35 and making $28 million / year

And as I said, there is a big gap between your valuation of the players you listed and mine. The only two you mention that I'd rather have over the next 2 years are Arietta and Darvish, and both of them carry as many question marks as Verlander. The guys you mentioned as in his class, just aren't. They are worse now, in some cases they are as old or close to as old, and they don't have the track record Verlander has...you are selling raisins and calling them grapes. One could argue that Cueto and Tanaka fit that same mold as well.

 

Look, this is just wishful talk, but if there was a realistic chance to land Verlander without giving up a pile of prospects, it's probably the best way for the Twins to improve their staff for the immediate future. As much as I'd like to think the Twins could be in the running for Darvish or Arietta, I doubt that will be the case.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?

 

FWIW, I am not against making a trade for a pitcher at all. I would not trade top prospects for Justin Verlander and this contract

Verlander has pitched as well as Berrios this year. Having him on the roster this week would be like replacing Gibson with Berrios, like having two Berrios's on the roster.

 

If Berrios were a free agent 20-25 mil per season for a decade would seem prettt reasonable to market.

 

Therefore Verlander's Berrrios-like pitching at 28 mil doesn't bother me, and for only being 2 years, the risk of Verlanders age isn't so bad. Most every free agent is 32-35 and if you sign them on the open market, 3-4 years is usually min length for any decent pitcher.

[whydidnt]

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?

 

FWIW, I am not against making a trade for a pitcher at all.  I would not trade top prospects for Justin Verlander and this contract

Well, the Twins don't have any pitching prospects like Berrios, so I'm not sure how you can make this comparison. None of the Twins current prospects is considered the type of prospect that Berrios was. So dealing one for a Berrios like performance would be a great way to improve the team. I do agree that if we are taking on Verlander's contract, I'm not in favor of unloading several top prospects to complete the deal. The Twins still aren't close enough, and don't have a deep enough prospect list to risk it all at this point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not understanding your argument. You want another Berrios on the staff because you think he is worth $200 million but also want to trade the prospects who are like Berrios but a year or two behind?

 

Do the Twins have any prospects who are meaningfully "like" Berrios? He was top 20-30 overall, A-/A grade by Sickels. Nothing against our current minor league pitchers, but they all seem to involve more risk than Berrios circa 2015.

[alarp33]

 

And as I said, there is a big gap between your valuation of the players you listed and mine. The only two you mention that I'd rather have over the next 2 years are Arietta and Darvish, and both of them carry as many question marks as Verlander. The guys you mentioned as in his class, just aren't. They are worse now, in some cases they are as old or close to as old, and they don't have the track record Verlander has...you are selling raisins and calling them grapes. One could argue that Cueto and Tanaka fit that same mold as well.

Look, this is just wishful talk, but if there was a realistic chance to land Verlander without giving up a pile of prospects, it's probably the best way for the Twins to improve their staff for the immediate future. As much as I'd like to think the Twins could be in the running for Darvish or Arietta, I doubt that will be the case.

 

Lance Lynn is 30, has a WAR within 1 of Verlander over the past 4 years. Cobb is 29, was better in 2014 + 2015 than Verlander, was hurt in '16, and has been pretty similar this year.  

 

Big difference when you factor in age? I would take either in 2018 + 2019, no doubt.  

 

For the stretch run this year, I would much rather give up a mid to lower level prospect for Jhoulys Chacin than give up 2+ good prospects for Verlander. 

[alarp33]

 

Well, the Twins don't have any pitching prospects like Berrios, so I'm not sure how you can make this comparison. None of the Twins current prospects is considered the type of prospect that Berrios was. So dealing one for a Berrios like performance would be a great way to improve the team. I do agree that if we are taking on Verlander's contract, I'm not in favor of unloading several top prospects to complete the deal. The Twins still aren't close enough, and don't have a deep enough prospect list to risk it all at this point.

 

I would argue many evaluators would choose Fernando Romero over Jose Berrios as a prospect, I would also guess some may take Gonsalves. 

[alarp33]

 

Do the Twins have any prospects who are meaningfully "like" Berrios? He was top 20-30 overall, A-/A grade by Sickels. Nothing against our current minor league pitchers, but they all seem to involve more risk than Berrios circa 2015.

 

Romero - I would guess there are many evaluators who prefer him to Berrios.  

 

Gonsalves - possibly

 

Edit: Sickels gave Berrios an A- pre-2016, after having him as a B for a couple years, B+ in 2015  I would be willing to bet Romero will be an A- next year, B+ at worst. 

[whydidnt]

Lance Lynn is 30, has a WAR within 1 of Verlander over the past 4 years. Cobb is 29, was better in 2014 + 2015 than Verlander, was hurt in '16, and has been pretty similar this year.

 

Big difference when you factor in age? I would take either in 2018 + 2019, no doubt.

 

For the stretch run this year, I would much rather give up a mid to lower level prospect for Jhoulys Chacin than give up 2+ good prospects for Verlander.

 

You seem to be picking and choosing the time frame and stats to use to compare. Over the last 2 years here is the WAR for all of these pitchers:

Verlander 9.8

Lynn 2.9

Cobb 1.0

Chacon 2.4 (2.2 of which is from pitching in SD this year)

 

Verlander's WAR is better this year than any of the guys you mention, and hasn't missed a year lately due to injury. These guys just aren't in his class. They never have been and likely never will be. Lynn has been a nice comback this year, until you look at his underlying stats, he's got a FIP of 4.78 and K/BB of just 2.11. Neither of these points to long term success. See, when we cherry pick our stats, it's very easy to support our own conclusion. I'm not arguing that Verlander is the 2016 version, I'm just saying the guys you are using to support your argument just aren't as good as him.

[DocBauer]

Assuming for a moment Verlander would waive his no trade clause, AND the Tigers would be willing to trade him within the division, there are so many factors that give me pause.

 

1] How much salary would the Twins have to eat...and they could afford to eat a chunk for the next two years...to avoid a big prospect payout to get him?

 

2] Verlander is still a quality SP capable of at least an occasional great performance. But forgetting the money...only 2 years...is he good enough still at 35, special enough in occasion, to warrant the loss of 2-3 quality prospects that could provide real help and possibility the next couple of seasons? (Yes, I know a prospect is still a prospect until otherwise).

 

3] In the long run, is the team better keeping their prospects, keep developing what they have, and invest $17-20M in a FA for 4-6 years and not only getting the, potentially, best couple 2-4 years from said FA before facing the decking years later, but also still having the prospects to keep building the roster and providing additional future trade value between them and current Twins players?

 

I'm not opposed to adding Verlander, especially if we can pick up the majority of cost and not have to pay a ton in the way of prospects. At 35yo, but still healthy and with good velocity, and capable of a big game, who says an exciting young team, with a quality defense, a (hopefully) better bullpen and a change of scenery wouldn't lead to a resurgence of some sort and make the Twins look brilliant!

 

Man...but it's a tantalizing prospect isn't it?!

 

But at the end of the day, I think I pass. For a team with such a young nucleus, I think I'd rather keep the prospects, and spend the money for a quality FA SP, RP and DH/1B bat. Put those three with what we have and what is coming up and potentially ready soon, and I think we come out ahead.

[alarp33]

 

You seem to be picking and choosing the time frame and stats to use to compare. Over the last 2 years here is the WAR for all of these pitchers:
Verlander 9.8
Lynn 2.9
Cobb 1.0
Chacon 2.4 (2.2 of which is from pitching in SD this year)

Verlander's WAR is better this year than any of the guys you mention, and hasn't missed a year lately due to injury. These guys just aren't in his class. They never have been and likely never will be. Lynn has been a nice comback this year, until you look at his underlying stats, he's got a FIP of 4.78 and K/BB of just 2.11. Neither of these points to long term success. See, when we cherry pick our stats, it's very easy to support our own conclusion. I'm not arguing that Verlander is the 2016 version, I'm just saying the guys you are using to support your argument just aren't as good as him.

 

Justin Verlander will be 35 prior to next season has a xFIP of 4.59 and makes $28 million per year and you want to actively give up top prospects to acquire him.  

 

Lance Lynn and Cobb missed last season, that's generally how counting stats work, the totals tend to be lower.  Verlander was awesome last year, I'll pass on his contract at 35+36. 

 

If you could trade for Verlander's 2016 season? Sign me up.  Unfortunately that's not how it works

 

Edit; FYI, WAR adjusts for Park you pitch your games in - clarifying your Chacin comment

[whydidnt]

Justin Verlander will be 35 prior to next season has a xFIP of 4.59 and makes $28 million per year and you want to actively give up top prospects to acquire him.  

 

Lance Lynn and Cobb missed last season, that's generally how counting stats work, the totals tend to be lower.  Verlander was awesome last year, I'll pass on his contract at 35+36. 

 

If you could trade for Verlander's 2016 season? Sign me up.  Unfortunately that's not how it works

And both Cobb and Lynn are markedly worse this, by FIP or xFIP this year than they were pre-injury, do you want to bank on them returning to pre-injury form? Look, you don't want Verlander, that's fine, just say so. I just disagree that the guys you are suggesting are in his class. Time will tell, I guess.

[alarp33]

 

And both Cobb and Lynn are markedly worse this, by FIP or xFIP this year than they were pre-injury, do you want to bank on them returning to pre-injury form? Look, you don't want Verlander, that's fine, just say so. I just disagree that the guys you are suggesting are in his class. Time will tell, I guess.

And Verlander is markedly worse this year by FIP + xFIP than he has been for his entire career.  Again, because he's getting old.  Do you want to bank on him turning back the clock the next 2 years when he is making $28 million? Not me.  

 

Agree to disagree

 

[old nurse]

 

A few things to keep in mind about Verlander outside the huge hurdle of his no-trade clause:

1. Do we have any indication the Tigers even care about shedding payroll?

2. If Verlander continues to pitch moderately well, his trade value actually increases as his contract winds down.

They traded 2 impending free agents. Wilson is arb eligible. If he remained a closer and got closer money  his trade could be about saving money.  Had they traded Kinsler you could say they were dumping money. The issue would be definitive if there was a market for him. There have been  quotes about not adding further payroll. I don't think Avila can withstand another bad contract is more the issue than anything with that type of statement.  Sanchez has been a money drain. Victor Martinez is becoming one. Zimmerman has been one. and Cabrera will be paid for a lot of past deeds for a long time. There are expensive contracts any team would love to shed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Romero - I would guess there are many evaluators who prefer him to Berrios.

 

Gonsalves - possibly

 

Edit: Sickels gave Berrios an A- pre-2016, after having him as a B for a couple years, B+ in 2015 I would be willing to bet Romero will be an A- next year, B+ at worst.

Note that I am arguing on another thread that the Twins could have done a better job of setting up Romero and Gonsalves for potential 2017 contributions, so I am certainly not knocking them.

 

Romero is pretty good, but it seems his value might still be a peg or two lower than Berrios at the same point. And Gonsalves... I get the feeling like he might be one of those guys who is just never as good as his minor league numbers. Even if those guys contribute in MLB, it is far from guaranteed that they would necessarily exceed even Verlander's diminished contributions. (Still on track for 4+ bWAR this year, after 6.6 last year, and even 2.2 in a partial season in 2015.)

 

I'd be a little nervous about sending them both away, but if only one could headline a deal, I'd really have to think about it.