Go get Verlander

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What that means to me is, if he's not one of those 5-7 really, really good ones, then he's not really worth very much.  He'd be in the "everyone else" group, which doesn't do a whole lot for your team, and isn't particularly hard to find in trade or free agency.

Again, this is how Gordon gets undervalued. Look at his offensive line and say "meh". Look at his defensive scouting reports and say "meh". Look at this stolen bases... "meh".

 

But how many of those "not so good but an okay starter" guys are average to slightly above average at everything? And that's Gordon's profile. He'll hit for acceptable average. He'll hit for acceptable power from short. He'll get on base at an acceptable clip. He'll play acceptable defense. He'll steal an acceptable number of bases.

 

That's the kind of player that ends up sneaky good. Will he be elite? No, probably not... but a shortstop that can OPS at .775, swipe 20-25 bags, and play average or a touch better than average defense is a damned fine player, one that often can't be had on the free agent market because by the time your average shortstop hits FA, at least one of those skills is in decline (usually defense and probably baserunning).

 

Basically, think of non-concussion Denard Span at short. Probably a little more power and a little less discipline. That's a player you want.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He may end up being that. He still has a long ways to go against LH pitching, where he's OPS'ing .525 this season. .530 the season before that. 

I just don't know how you can be an everyday SS and quite valuable when there's a massive hole in his game like that. 

That's easily his biggest flaw right now but also not atypical for young LHBs. How he advances through AA and AAA will be telling (and his left/right splits are probably the biggest reason I want to see the front office take their time with the kid).

[USAFChief]

 

Again, this is how Gordon gets undervalued. Look at his offensive line and say "meh". Look at his defensive scouting reports and say "meh". Look at this stolen bases... "meh".

 

But how many of those "not so good but an okay starter" guys are average to slightly above average at everything? And that's Gordon's profile. He'll hit for acceptable average. He'll hit for acceptable power from short. He'll get on base at an acceptable clip. He'll play acceptable defense. He'll steal an acceptable number of bases.

 

That's the kind of player that ends up sneaky good. Will he be elite? No, probably not... but a shortstop that can OPS at .775, swipe 20-25 bags, and play average or a touch better than average defense is a damned fine player, one that often can't be had on the free agent market because by the time your average shortstop hits FA, at least one of those skills is in decline (usually defense and probably baserunning).

 

Basically, think of non-concussion Denard Span at short. Probably a little more power and a little less discipline. That's a player you want.

fair enough.  he has to do all those things at the MLB level, though.  

 

And again...I'm not in favor of trading Gordon for Verlander.

[Vanimal46]

 

That's easily his biggest flaw right now but also not atypical for young LHBs. How he advances through AA and AAA will be telling (and his left/right splits are probably the biggest reason I want to see the front office take their time with the kid).

 

Patience is definitely needed because that's an extreme left/right split. For context, Max Kepler OPS'd .691 at Fort Myers, and .869 at Chattanooga. And he's generally viewed as a huge liability against LHP in the majors. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

fair enough. he has to do all those things at the MLB level, though.

 

And again...I'm not in favor of trading Gordon for Verlander.

Oh, definitely. I'm speaking mostly in the context of Gonsalves, who doesn't profile as well as Gordon. Gordon could bomb out, just like any prospect. But indications are that he should be a decent MLB starter.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

 

 

That fact doesn't mean that at all. Bryce Harper also cleared waivers. Far more likely, they both cleared because teams knew they weren't getting moved without significant talent/prospects going back in return.

[drjim]

Why get Verlander when we can have another Gee start!

 

[USAFChief]

After tonight, the Twins will be 28-19 in games started by either Santana or Berrios.  Below .500 with all others.

 

They're a good team when they just get reasonably good starting pitching.  Add one more reasonably good starter now (Verlander), and one this winter, and they're a very good team.

 

Do it.

[drivlikejehu]

I'm still confused as to why the Twins would trade a top prospect for someone that no MLB team would take even as a 100% salary dump.

[whydidnt]

I'm still confused as to why the Twins would trade a top prospect for someone that no MLB team would take even as a 100% salary dump.

He was never available as a 100% salary dump. Revocable waivers are just that. Every team knew that if they put in a claim they'd have to negotiate a deal with both the Tigers and Verlander (because of his no trade clause) within 48 hours or no deal and the Tigers would just sit on him for the remained of the year. Much easier to get a deal done without the time constraints.

 

As other poster pointed out, Bryce Harper also cleared revocable waivers, do you really think we could have just "had him" if we had put in a claim?

[diehardtwinsfan]

I highly doubt Verlander costs Gordon. I just don't see that.

 

My personal preference would be to go big and get one of the better pitching names in FA this offseason, but if that's not in the cards, Verlander is in my opinion a very acceptable fall back plan. The velocity is still there, and while I don't expect him to be what he was, he could be a very acceptable starter. The question is the cost. I'm not even sure he'd cost Gonsalves if the Twins were picking up the contract. But that's just me and I could be wrong.

 

I'd definitely be talking right now, that's for sure.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm still confused as to why the Twins would trade a top prospect for someone that no MLB team would take even as a 100% salary dump.

Because that would never be the outcome of trade-waiver claim.  Trade-waivers are revocable.  A team would who claimed Verlander would still need to negotiate with the Tigers to ensure they would not pull Verlander back.  Putting a claim on Verlander is risky because there's no market at work, and the Tigers can be steadfast in their unreasonableness and the possibility of retaining Verlander is simply lost.

 

Both the Tigers and teams pursuing Verlander probably believe they would have more leverage if Verlander were to clear trade-waivers.   Tigers can create a bidding war as the deadline approaches; teams pursuing hope the Tigers will eat more and more money.  

 

( I think there's even more strategy at play here, but I'm not sure of the precise rules, which may limit the number of claims a team can make, and hence make the timing of putting a player on waivers a tactic the Tigers could exploit.  Can someone smarter/better-informed shed light?)

[Jham]

Tigers fan forum says stros, Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Baltimore, and...

 

Atlanta. We were not mentioned. No prospects mentioned. Our forum is way better.

 

Pirates outrighted Nicasio. He'll never get to us. But one can dream.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

After tonight, the Twins will be 28-19 in games started by either Santana or Berrios.  Below .500 with all others.

 

They're a good team when they just get reasonably good starting pitching.  Add one more reasonably good starter now (Verlander), and one this winter, and they're a very good team.

 

Do it.

I'm still not sure they need to add two starters. Adding one legitimately good starter might be enough.

 

May, Mejia, Gonsalves, and Romero might be enough to round out a rotation.

 

And any savings found in the rotation can be applied to the bullpen, where I still want to see them pick up a good RH guy on a short-term contract.

[Tomj14]

 

I'm still not sure they need to add two starters. Adding one legitimately good starter might be enough.

 

May, Mejia, Gonsalves, and Romero might be enough to round out a rotation.

 

And any savings found in the rotation can be applied to the bullpen, where I still want to see them pick up a good RH guy on a short-term contract.

If you are only getting one, then add Gibson to that list, he is the only one of the five that you really know what you are going to get. 5-6 innings on average and a ERA just a bit higher than league average. Which isn't too bad for a 5th starter if your first 4 are good.

I think it is a huge mistake going into next year with Santana, Berrios and three question marks.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Because that would never be the outcome of trade-waiver claim.  Trade-waivers are revocable.  A team would who claimed Verlander would still need to negotiate with the Tigers to ensure they would not pull Verlander back.  Putting a claim on Verlander is risky because there's no market at work, and the Tigers can be steadfast in their unreasonableness and the possibility of retaining Verlander is simply lost.

 

Both the Tigers and teams pursuing Verlander probably believe they would have more leverage if Verlander were to clear trade-waivers.   Tigers can create a bidding war as the deadline approaches; teams pursuing hope the Tigers will eat more and more money.  

 

( I think there's even more strategy at play here, but I'm not sure of the precise rules, which may limit the number of claims a team can make, and hence make the timing of putting a player on waivers a tactic the Tigers could exploit.  Can someone smarter/better-informed shed light?)

 

You're thinking about the wrong teams - the proof of Verlander's negative value is with the clubs who do not actually have interest in him. Players who might really be dealt are often subject to blocking claims, whereby a club puts in a claim with no intent of offering trade value. 

 

The only risk is that the player's current team simply allows the claim to go through. For Bryce Harper or something, this is obviously a non-issue and so it's pointless to even put one in (you didn't raise the Harper comparison but several posters have, without understanding the distinction). 

 

When a legitimately trade-able player is not subject to a blocking claim, it means that a number of clubs were too afraid of being stuck with that player's salary to make the claim. Therefore, at least some subset of contenders and borderline contenders believe that Verlander has negative value.

 

It's also incorrect to suggest that teams would rather engage in a bidding war in lieu of having the sole negotiating position with the Tigers. That's clearly wrong - the "market" you cite benefits the Tigers at the expense of all potential buyers.

 

So the most logical conclusion is that virtually all clubs believe Verlander has negative value. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If you are only getting one, then add Gibson to that list, he is the only one of the five that you really know what you are going to get. 5-6 innings on average and a ERA just a bit higher than league average. Which isn't too bad for a 5th starter if your first 4 are good.

I think it is a huge mistake going into next year with Santana, Berrios and three question marks.

I agree that three question marks is a terrible idea, which is why I want the front office to acquire an established, above average starter to complement Berrios and Santana.

[mikelink45]

Not excited by this unless he is replacing Santana.  One Vet and a group of young arms is more appealing to me and the large salary would come back to haunt us if he under performs. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I highly doubt Verlander costs Gordon. I just don't see that.

 

My personal preference would be to go big and get one of the better pitching names in FA this offseason, but if that's not in the cards, Verlander is in my opinion a very acceptable fall back plan. The velocity is still there, and while I don't expect him to be what he was, he could be a very acceptable starter. The question is the cost. I'm not even sure he'd cost Gonsalves if the Twins were picking up the contract. But that's just me and I could be wrong.

 

I'd definitely be talking right now, that's for sure.

 

which names? I posted the whole list. There are like 3 good pitchers. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not excited by this unless he is replacing Santana.  One Vet and a group of young arms is more appealing to me and the large salary would come back to haunt us if he under performs. 

 

two years will haunt them? how? 

[USAFChief]

 

two years will haunt them? how? 

If they don't spend the money on Verlander, then it won't tie their hands and prevent them from not spending the money on somebody else.

 

or something.

[mikelink45]

 

two years will haunt them? how? 

The size of this contract exceeds Mauer's and we keep getting told how that prevents us from doing things.  We have Hughes, Mauer, Santana ($49.7M) all going through next year and an option on Perkins.  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

If the Twins are willing to ride with all of this and add Verlander I do not object, but if signing Verlander prevents a better bullpen or causes other areas not to be addressed I am not sure I can see that as a good deal.  Verlander is on the downside of his career so what do we expect - I know his downside is better than many of the current Twins upsides, but my problem is that I have watched this team since the first game in 1961 and money does count so I am waiting to see the changes in attitude before losing my cautions.

 

We are still paying off Park and I believe we are still sending $4M to the Angels for Nolasco's contract next year.

 

I understand your question, I just need to know more about the trade, Verlander's future, and the finances before I can be supportive. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You're thinking about the wrong teams - the proof of Verlander's negative value is with the clubs who do not actually have interest in him. Players who might really be dealt are often subject to blocking claims, whereby a club puts in a claim with no intent of offering trade value. 

 

The only risk is that the player's current team simply allows the claim to go through. For Bryce Harper or something, this is obviously a non-issue and so it's pointless to even put one in (you didn't raise the Harper comparison but several posters have, without understanding the distinction). 

 

When a legitimately trade-able player is not subject to a blocking claim, it means that a number of clubs were too afraid of being stuck with that player's salary to make the claim. Therefore, at least some subset of contenders and borderline contenders believe that Verlander has negative value.

 

It's also incorrect to suggest that teams would rather engage in a bidding war in lieu of having the sole negotiating position with the Tigers. That's clearly wrong - the "market" you cite benefits the Tigers at the expense of all potential buyers.

 

So the most logical conclusion is that virtually all clubs believe Verlander has negative value. 

 

Verlander wasn't really "legitimately trade-able" as a pure salary dump.  The Tigers could (and likely would) eat some cash to get back talent/prospects, but they were never going to let him go for salary relief alone.  No one is apparently willing to meet that price of talent/prospects, but I don't think that means no one was willing to take Verlander and his contract "for free" -- it simply wasn't an option.  (Heck, with Verlander's no-trade clause, he probably was never going to consent to a pure salary relief deal either.)

 

I think the default position for teams on August waiver claims is, if no one has much of a shot of making a deal, you pass. And for all the bluster around Verlander, Stanton, etc., no one has been particularly close to a deal on them.  And I don't blame the Twins for not pursuing him either, given the apparent costs (beyond his contract).

[Vanimal46]

 

The size of this contract exceeds Mauer's and we keep getting told how that prevents us from doing things.  We have Hughes, Mauer, Santana ($49.7M) all going through next year and an option on Perkins.  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

If the Twins are willing to ride with all of this and add Verlander I do not object, but if signing Verlander prevents a better bullpen or causes other areas not to be addressed I am not sure I can see that as a good deal.  Verlander is on the downside of his career so what do we expect - I know his downside is better than many of the current Twins upsides, but my problem is that I have watched this team since the first game in 1961 and money does count so I am waiting to see the changes in attitude before losing my cautions.

 

We are still paying off Park and I believe we are still sending $4M to the Angels for Nolasco's contract next year.

 

I understand your question, I just need to know more about the trade, Verlander's future, and the finances before I can be supportive. 

 

Another poster gunnarthor put together a google doc for the 2018 payroll , and going off of his projections, the Twins have ~$20 MM to spend this off-season based off past payroll levels. That could be more if Hughes doesn't return from injury and insurance kicks in. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Verlander wasn't really "legitimately trade-able" as a pure salary dump.  The Tigers could (and likely would) eat some cash to get back talent/prospects, but they were never going to let him go for salary relief alone.  No one is apparently willing to meet that price of talent/prospects, but I don't think that means no one was willing to take Verlander and his contract "for free" -- it simply wasn't an option.  (Heck, with Verlander's no-trade clause, he probably was never going to consent to a pure salary relief deal either.)

 

I think the default position for teams on August waiver claims is, if no one has much of a shot of making a deal, you pass. And for all the bluster around Verlander, Stanton, etc., no one has been particularly close to a deal on them.  And I don't blame the Twins for not pursuing him either, given the apparent costs (beyond his contract).

This is my feeling as well. The Tigers have never shown a desire to dump salary for salary's sake. As a result, their asking price is likely higher than Verlander's worth as a player.

 

If the Tigers don't care about salary, they can keep their asking price high on Justin, probably with the caveat the Tigers eat some salary to get a better return.

 

Verlander is super-popular in Detroit and if he keeps pitching as he is now, his value actually increases as his guaranteed money lowers.

[Bill Brown69]

 

You're thinking about the wrong teams - the proof of Verlander's negative value is with the clubs who do not actually have interest in him. Players who might really be dealt are often subject to blocking claims, whereby a club puts in a claim with no intent of offering trade value. 

 

The only risk is that the player's current team simply allows the claim to go through. For Bryce Harper or something, this is obviously a non-issue and so it's pointless to even put one in (you didn't raise the Harper comparison but several posters have, without understanding the distinction). 

 

When a legitimately trade-able player is not subject to a blocking claim, it means that a number of clubs were too afraid of being stuck with that player's salary to make the claim. Therefore, at least some subset of contenders and borderline contenders believe that Verlander has negative value.

 

It's also incorrect to suggest that teams would rather engage in a bidding war in lieu of having the sole negotiating position with the Tigers. That's clearly wrong - the "market" you cite benefits the Tigers at the expense of all potential buyers.

 

So the most logical conclusion is that virtually all clubs believe Verlander has negative value. 

 

But you are missing the part about being a MLB GM is the utmost is exclusive "good ole boys" club. You can get away with blocking a player now and then but if you consistently play like a jerk then all the other GM's will just quit even taking about dealing with you. When that happens you are out.

[mikelink45]

 

Another poster gunnarthor put together a google doc for the 2018 payroll , and going off of his projections, the Twins have ~$20 MM to spend this off-season based off past payroll levels. That could be more if Hughes doesn't return from injury and insurance kicks in. 

Thanks for that update.  It seems like every decision has multiple layers and it is hard to find them all. 

[jorgenswest]

I have been on the side arguing that the Twins were not a place free agent pitchers would want to land.

 

Lots of pluses now. You get a young line up that will only get better. You get an outfield defense that might be the best in baseball. You get a good defensive catcher in Castro. You see the difference it has made for Colon. Why not drop your no trade if you are Verlander? Why not accept a competitive offer from the Twins if you are a free agent?

 

It is the right time to be aggressive. Pitchers would be crazy not to listen.

[nicksaviking]

 

The size of this contract exceeds Mauer's and we keep getting told how that prevents us from doing things.  

 

No one of repute has ever said that. There is so little to spend money on this off season that if the Twins were ever going to take on a salary dump, this would be the window to do it.

[nicksaviking]

I moved the Justin Upton stuff to another thread FYI, same team but it seemed a bit out of place here.

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/27360-august-trade-deadline-news-and-notes/