Go get Verlander

USAFChief · August 30, 2017

There is the infamous "mystery team" inquiring about Verlander.
Could it be the Twins? Verlander sure would make a nice fifth starter....

Fingers crossed...

Doubles · August 30, 2017

If there was any sort of guarantee that JV could perform at a high, injury-free level for the duration of his contract, I'd be all in. But the reality is he'll be 35 years old before the 2018 Opening Day. Bringing him in would be a huge risk. In fairness, bringing him in would be a huge risk/reward.

When long-term contracts are signed, it's pretty much accepted by the team that the front-end of the contract will be the player's most productive years, and the hope is that the player will be productive enough to off-set the inevitable decline that is expected over the final years of the contract.

Taking on that contract, not to mention losing the assets it would take to bring Verlander in, is just not worth the gamble to my way of thinking. I think the FO is taking a long-term view, and gambling so much on ONE player- doesn't seem to prudent to me.

nicksaviking · August 30, 2017

If there was any sort of guarantee that JV could perform at a high, injury-free level for the duration of his contract, I'd be all in. But the reality is he'll be 35 years old before the 2018 Opening Day. Bringing him in would be a huge risk. In fairness, bringing him in would be a huge risk/reward.

I'm still not sure how I feel about Verlander, but I do know I want the front office to spend that money. If the front office is confident they can sign or trade for a better pitcher in the off season, great, keep the money until winter. If they think Verlander is the best they'll get, get him I guess.

I absolutely do not want them doing the Correia, Pelfrey, Belisle quantity over qualify free agency bit next year.

nicksaviking · August 30, 2017

Also, I've always railed against old pitchers, I never want them and I always want to get rid of them. But for the record, that's typically due to the associated velocity decline which causes them to in the best cases reinvent themselves as a different kind of pitcher and in the worst cases make them obsolete.

Verlander appears to be one of those guys who isn't losing velocity so I struggle holding his age against him at this point. Seems to me he lost his velocity about four years ago in his early 30's, just as expected. Somehow it's come back with a vengeance now. I'm more open to accepting that he might be an outlier of some kind.

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

If there was any sort of guarantee that JV could perform at a high, injury-free level for the duration of his contract, I'd be all in. But the reality is he'll be 35 years old before the 2018 Opening Day. Bringing him in would be a huge risk. In fairness, bringing him in would be a huge risk/reward.

Huge risk but I don't see the huge reward. Sure, it's possible Verlander returns to 2016 form but he has been that pitcher once out of the past four seasons. He's going to be 35 years old next season.

With that said, I'm not entirely against acquiring the guy but he's probably not a 4+ WAR pitcher at this point in his career. The Twins' offer should reflect his current performance.

Mike Sixel · August 30, 2017

Staying with Gibson, Santiago, Mejia seems like a pretty big risk too.....or counting on Gee or Turley....

whydidnt · August 30, 2017

Huge risk but I don't see the huge reward. Sure, it's possible Verlander returns to 2016 form but he has been that pitcher once out of the past four seasons. He's going to be 35 years old next season.

With that said, I'm not entirely against acquiring the guy but he's probably not a 4+ WAR pitcher at this point in his career. The Twins' offer should reflect his current performance.

While I agree, the Twins shouldn't overpay. Verlander has been darn good this year. Right now, he is better than any starter the Twins have. He started slowly, but he has a 3.34 ERA with 109 strikeouts and 37 walks over his last 105 innings (17 starts). The fact he's getting better as the year goes on reduces my concern about age. If his age was really a factor, wouldn't he be slowing down?

Vanimal46 · August 30, 2017

While I agree, the Twins shouldn't overpay. Verlander has been darn good this year. Right now, he is better than any starter the Twins have. He started slowly, but he has a 3.34 ERA with 109 strikeouts and 37 walks over his last 105 innings (17 starts). The fact he's getting better as the year goes on reduces my concern about age. If his age was really a factor, wouldn't he be slowing down?

Not to mention his velocity has increased to 95.7 MPH this season. The highest it's been since 2011. It's not looking like he's slowing down soon.

GP830 · August 30, 2017

I say do it.

USAFChief · August 30, 2017

Staying with Gibson, Santiago, Mejia seems like a pretty big risk too.....or counting on Gee or Turley....

And counting on internal options to improve in 2018 is the biggest risk of all.

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

While I agree, the Twins shouldn't overpay. Verlander has been darn good this year. Right now, he is better than any starter the Twins have. He started slowly, but he has a 3.34 ERA with 109 strikeouts and 37 walks over his last 105 innings (17 starts). The fact he's getting better as the year goes on reduces my concern about age. If his age was really a factor, wouldn't he be slowing down?

Sure, he looks good right now but two years ago, he looked cooked. He's at the age where a sudden drop off in velocity shouldn't come as a surprise. And that's not factoring in the increasing likelihood of a 35 year old pitcher getting hurt at any time.

In short, age is a concern for any pitcher in his mid-30s. Maybe Verlander is a special case but any offer for a 35 year old pitcher should factor in his age, especially a pitcher owed $55m over the next two seasons.

Again, I'm not against pursuing Verlander but the price would have to be cheap or I'd wait until the offseason and target a pitcher at least half a decade younger than Justin.

Because if Justin ages over the offseason, the Twins are screwed in 2018. Add Verlander's contract to payroll and the Twins have maybe enough left over for a good reliever. That's it. Acquiring Verlander means punting on pretty much every other roster spot this offseason.

Doubles · August 30, 2017

Consider this: the Twins are approaching one calendar year away from being out from under a $23MM salary that some have blamed everything from the Twins struggles, to global warming, to whatever other stupid thing I could insert here. Does anyone really want the Twins to jump right back in to an even bigger contact, on an ever older player, who very likely is headed for a decline, through the 2020 season?

I myself do not.

Mike Sixel · August 30, 2017

Consider this: the Twins are approaching one calendar year away from being out from under a $23MM salary that some have blamed everything from the Twins struggles, to global warming, to whatever other stupid thing I could insert here. Does anyone really want the Twins to jump right back in to an even bigger contact, on an ever older player, who very likely is headed for a decline, through the 2020 season?

I myself do not.

How do you plan to fix the pitching, add a DH, and otherwise improve the team w/o spending money? And, FA contracts for actually good players are getting more and more expensive. Mediocre SP get 13-16MM per year....

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

How do you plan to fix the pitching, add a DH, and otherwise improve the team w/o spending money? And, FA contracts for actually good players are getting more and more expensive. Mediocre SP get 13-16MM per year....

The Twins should definitely spend money. The question to me is this:

Will Verlander actually be better than a mediocre $13-16m pitcher over the next two seasons? That's what is driving my reluctance. Verlander's fWAR is marginally better than Santana this season and I'm already worried about Santana going forward.

But if you can get Verlander for a reasonable price, have at it. He'll definitely add value the final month of this season and the Twins currently hold a postseason spot. But we need to acknowledge how much a Verlander acquisition will hamstring the front office this offseason. Even if they increase payroll by $25m, that only leaves them ~$10m to acquire other players at positions of need.

Mike Sixel · August 30, 2017

The Twins should definitely spend money. The question to me is this:

Will Verlander actually be better than a mediocre $13-16m pitcher over the next two seasons? That's what is driving my reluctance. Verlander's fWAR is marginally better than Santana this season and I'm already worried about Santana going forward.

But if you can get Verlander for a reasonable price, have at it. He'll definitely add value the final month of this season and the Twins currently hold a postseason spot. But we need to acknowledge how much a Verlander acquisition will hamstring the front office this offseason. Even if they increase payroll by $25m, that only leaves them ~$10m to acquire other players at positions of need.

Well, we know each other's stances on this. Teams in position to win, imo, should try to win, and not count on a future that may never come (like, if buxton or Sano is hurt for an extended time next year, like Mauer and Morneau were). We watched the previous regime never really go out and finalize the team. I don't want to see that ever again. Teams should not completely mortgage their future, but they also can't count on adding FAs, since all 30 teams (ok, maybe 20) are bidding. They can't just count on internal options either.

GP830 · August 30, 2017

Well, we know each other's stances on this. Teams in position to win, imo, should try to win, and not count on a future that may never come (like, if buxton or Sano is hurt for an extended time next year, like Mauer and Morneau were). We watched the previous regime never really go out and finalize the team. I don't want to see that ever again. Teams should not completely mortgage their future, but they also can't count on adding FAs, since all 30 teams (ok, maybe 20) are bidding. They can't just count on internal options either.

That's really well put. The mid 2000's teams never felt finished. I heard Dougie say on a podcast once that the current Twins are trying to build a juggernaut. You can't do that without filling holes with proficiency rather than replacement-level filler, which was the old way.

howieramone2 · August 30, 2017

I'm still not sure how I feel about Verlander, but I do know I want the front office to spend that money. If the front office is confident they can sign or trade for a better pitcher in the off season, great, keep the money until winter. If they think Verlander is the best they'll get, get him I guess.

I absolutely do not want them doing the Correia, Pelfrey, Belisle quantity over qualify free agency bit next year.

I'd bring back Belisle in a heartbeat. He's been our best pitcher since mid-June.

Tomj14 · August 30, 2017

Huge risk but I don't see the huge reward. Sure, it's possible Verlander returns to 2016 form but he has been that pitcher once out of the past four seasons. He's going to be 35 years old next season.

With that said, I'm not entirely against acquiring the guy but he's probably not a 4+ WAR pitcher at this point in his career. The Twins' offer should reflect his current performance.

What is the huge risk? Money? prospects?

56 million is a lot of money, 2020 only kicks in if in the top 5 cy young voting in 19.

Prospects? maybe we have no idea who it would be.

Opportunity cost? possibly

The upside is he pitches like he has this year for two more years. I don't see him blocking any of our pitching prospects, maybe if the contract was 4 or 5 years he would.

nicksaviking · August 30, 2017

The Twins should definitely spend money. The question to me is this:

Will Verlander actually be better than a mediocre $13-16m pitcher over the next two seasons? That's what is driving my reluctance. Verlander's fWAR is marginally better than Santana this season and I'm already worried about Santana going forward.

But if you can get Verlander for a reasonable price, have at it. He'll definitely add value the final month of this season and the Twins currently hold a postseason spot. But we need to acknowledge how much a Verlander acquisition will hamstring the front office this offseason. Even if they increase payroll by $25m, that only leaves them ~$10m to acquire other players at positions of need.

I've really grown to dislike 13-16M pitchers. From our team's experience, you typically have to give them 4 years also.

I'm not asking for Verlander (though I'm not NOT asking) but I'd rather have a big paycheck over two years than the medium paycheck over four, particularly with the money falling off of the books over the next couple of years.

But I'm open to lots of ideas to get a playoff starting caliber starter.

Tomj14 · August 30, 2017

Well, we know each other's stances on this. Teams in position to win, imo, should try to win, and not count on a future that may never come (like, if buxton or Sano is hurt for an extended time next year, like Mauer and Morneau were). We watched the previous regime never really go out and finalize the team. I don't want to see that ever again. Teams should not completely mortgage their future, but they also can't count on adding FAs, since all 30 teams (ok, maybe 20) are bidding. They can't just count on internal options either.

it does seem like some think that are next bunch of prospect don't come with risk or at a cost. What if Gonzo doesn't get it right away or Romero is still working though issues. And we have to run though a bunch of starters again next year?

I would rather have prospects absolutely pushing the big club to get them up (Granite/Garver) then the big club going down just looking for bodies. (Turley, Jorge, and every other pitcher we have called up)

amjgt · August 30, 2017

What is the huge risk? Money? prospects?
56 million is a lot of money, 2020 only kicks in if in the top 5 cy young voting in 19.
Prospects? maybe we have no idea who it would be.
Opportunity cost? possibly
The upside is he pitches like he has this year for two more years. I don't see him blocking any of our pitching prospects, maybe if the contract was 4 or 5 years he would.

This is where I'm at.

The fact that he went through waivers means that teams were worried Detroit would let him go for nothing. No prospects just $56M in payroll for the next two seasons.

So, the starting point in my mind for the question of "what do we have to give up" is: $56M and a flyer prospect.

As the negotiations progress and some part of that $56M gets picked up by Detroit, the level of prospect(s) changes.

The only way the prospects get anywhere close to the "Gonsalves and Gordon" level (which I don't think Falvine would allow it to get to) is if Detroit was picking up at least half of what owed. So now we are talking about $14M per year for the next two years.

But lets even say that the Twins are picking up all of the salary.... As some people have stated above, they think that a younger $15M Free Agent pitcher might give just as much value as Verlander. While I probably disagree, let's dig deeper into that. Do you think that those younger $15M free agents will be looking for a 2 year deal? I highly doubt it. You're likely looking at 4-5 years. Now were starting to get into those high-cost years of our young core.

At the end of the day, I can't say whether they should do the deal or not because I don't know what the deal is. I don't think a $56M investment in the next two years (plus about $5M remaining this year) will overly hamper the ability of the Twins to be successful, but if that $56M investment also came at the price of some high level prospects, then I'd be a strong "NO"

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

Well, we know each other's stances on this. Teams in position to win, imo, should try to win, and not count on a future that may never come (like, if buxton or Sano is hurt for an extended time next year, like Mauer and Morneau were). We watched the previous regime never really go out and finalize the team. I don't want to see that ever again. Teams should not completely mortgage their future, but they also can't count on adding FAs, since all 30 teams (ok, maybe 20) are bidding. They can't just count on internal options either.

I'm not against mortgaging the future, my sticking point is whether Verlander is the guy you choose to do it. We both agree the Twins need to spend money and plug holes.

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

What is the huge risk? Money? prospects?
56 million is a lot of money, 2020 only kicks in if in the top 5 cy young voting in 19.
Prospects? maybe we have no idea who it would be.
Opportunity cost? possibly
The upside is he pitches like he has this year for two more years. I don't see him blocking any of our pitching prospects, maybe if the contract was 4 or 5 years he would.

The huge risk is that Verlander suddenly starts pitching like he's 35 years old and the Twins have no payroll space to resolve that problem. It's a mid-term problem and only really affects 2018 (after which Mauer comes off the books and opens payroll space) but the Twins' window might only be 2-3 seasons, at which point you're closing the door on 33% or more of your contention window.

Whereas if you go pick up another decent pitcher for $20m per year over 4-5 seasons, you're getting the front end of that contract during your contention window, a time when that pitcher is likely 29-31 years old. Every pitcher is a risk but the front of a contract is less risky than the back.

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

I've really grown to dislike 13-16M pitchers. From our team's experience, you typically have to give them 4 years also.

I'm not asking for Verlander (though I'm not NOT asking) but I'd rather have a big paycheck over two years than the medium paycheck over four, particularly with the money falling off of the books over the next couple of years.

But I'm open to lots of ideas to get a playoff starting caliber starter.

Same here. I want more than another Santana if the Twins dip into free agency. My point was whether Verlander would actually be better than that $13-16m guy, not whether the Twins should pursue that guy in FA.

Verlander is marginally better than Santana right now, who is not only a $13-16m guy but also closing in on the back of his contract.

amjgt · August 30, 2017

The huge risk is that Verlander suddenly starts pitching like he's 35 years old and the Twins have no payroll space to resolve that problem. It's a mid-term problem and only really affects 2018 (after which Mauer comes off the books and opens payroll space) but the Twins' window might only be 2-3 seasons, at which point you're closing the door on 33% or more of your contention window.

Whereas if you go pick up another decent pitcher for $20m per year over 4-5 seasons, you're getting the front end of that contract during your contention window, a time when that pitcher is likely 29-31 years old. Every pitcher is a risk but the front of a contract is less risky than the back.

My question to those with this line of reasoning is: Who?

Who is that Free Agent pitcher who will be going for 5/100M this winter?

I don't necessarily disagree that this generally might be better option, but I'm not seeing a guy out there that would make sense.

Also, don't forget that we'd almost certainly be giving up our first round pick in this scenario.

Mike Sixel · August 30, 2017

My question to those with this line of reasoning is: Who?

Who is that Free Agent pitcher who will be going for 5/100M this winter?

I don't necessarily disagree that this generally might be better option, but I'm not seeing a guy out there that would make sense.

Also, don't forget that we'd almost certainly be giving up our first round pick in this scenario.

do people think the Twins will outbid all the other teams for the 2 or 3 or so really good FA pitchers next year? They've never done that. I doubt any mid-market team has more than 1-2 times.

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

My question to those with this line of reasoning is: Who?

Who is that Free Agent pitcher who will be going for 5/100M this winter?

I don't necessarily disagree that this generally might be better option, but I'm not seeing a guy out there that would make sense.

Also, don't forget that we'd almost certainly be giving up our first round pick in this scenario.

Darvish will come in over $20m per season but I'm not sure how much over. And five years was just throwing out a number, I have no issues with the Twins going longer term than that if required.

And Darvish was traded so the QO does not apply. In any case, I'm far less worried about losing a draft pick than I am losing a prospect who may contribute in the near future.

But I'm also not against trading prospects for a pitcher. Basically, go find a good pitcher with control. I don't really care how it's done but I'd prefer free agency if given the choice.

Brock Beauchamp · August 30, 2017

do people think the Twins will outbid all the other teams for the 2 or 3 or so really good FA pitchers next year? They've never done that. I doubt any mid-market team has more than 1-2 times.

The old rules shouldn't apply. If a big name FA is how you get it done, then do that. The Twins have the money and the old front office is gone. I suspect Falvey won't be a big FA guy but I don't know that for sure and I kinda hope I'm wrong.

Doubles · August 30, 2017

How do you plan to fix the pitching, add a DH, and otherwise improve the team w/o spending money? And, FA contracts for actually good players are getting more and more expensive. Mediocre SP get 13-16MM per year....

Errrr, I didn't say anything about not spending money. They absolutely have to spend. But they have to spend wisely. Jumping into another big-money contract, and having that contract go sideways, would set the franchise back several years.

Doubles · August 30, 2017

This is why its always a risk to get those last years. It's pretty much the norm in baseball to sign a long term contract knowing that the player will not be worth the salary he's being paid in the last year or two. I'd love to get Verlander but not at the cost of prospects AND taking on the salary and bailing the Tigers out of the overpaid years that they bargained for while getting the productive years.

BTW, love the wrestler avatar. Is that the Crusher or Luscious Lars Anderson?

You make many good points above, and you worded it way better than I would have been able to.

Avi is The One, The Only, The Crusher!

Sign In

Go get Verlander

Recommended Posts

Archived

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates