Go get Verlander

[Otto von Ballpark]

Hellickson might take less than that, because he has an ERA of 5 and a 5.5 K/9 this year...

[Mike Sixel]

 

Hellickson might take less than that, because he has an ERA of 5 and a 5.5 K/9 this year...

 

sounds like a major upgrade!

[cmoss84]

 

The Tigers will be less interested in sending Verlander to an AL Central team, no? 

I thought about this as well-it comes down to if the Tigers want to completely tear down and start over in the off-season. If they do, I'm guessing they would trade him to whoever gives them better prospects. If they think they are only a couple pieces away, then they won't trade him...especially to us. 

[Siehbiscuit]

Keep in mind, two years for Verlanders salary is while the Buxtons, Sanos, Keplers and Rosario's are cheap. Add in Berrios, Romero, Gonsalves and they two will be pre-arb. Mauer comes off the books after next year and for the chance that Verlanders can rediscover a second life here, isn't if worth the is risk? Verlanders, Berrios and Santana followed by some combination of Gonsalves, Romero, Gibson, Slegers and others seems like the beginning of a solid rotation.

 

If the Twins were willing to absorb much of the salary, I think Verlanders could be had for a couple of C propspects. The Tigers are more concerned with $$$ and rebuilding than his legacy.

[nicksaviking]

I'm not saying the Twins should go after Verlander specifically, but with Perkins, Santiago, Belisle, Breslow and surely Gibson coming off the books, the Twins are shedding 20.70M in five pitchers of which only one of whom has even been remotely useful this year. 

 

They don't have to spend it all in one place (though I'd vote they do) but they better be spending it somewhere. And I really hate the nickle and dime, quantity over quality approach to free agency.

 

They're also shedding the 4M or what-not they're paying Garcia to pitch for the Yankees. Which makes me think they are more open to any and all options. At least more open than they used to be.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I would imagine the Tigers would want Gordon and Gonsalves as a starting point but more would be needed. Not sure how money plays into all this but Detroit isn't just going to get rid of him and they are also trying to shed payroll.So the Twins (or Astros) would have to give up real talent and take on a lot of salary. Does that sound like a Pohlad move? 

Pohlads be damned, I'd argue that sounds like an illogical move.

 

If the Tigers want a top 50 (possibly top 30) and a top 100 prospect for the honor of paying Verlander's contract, they can piss right off and go straight to hell.

 

Verlander is good. He's no longer great or anything close to it. He has one elite season out of the past four and he's not getting younger.

[USAFChief]

It seems to me many of the same arguments being used against trading for Verlander were used to argue against trading for Cole Hamels.

 

And the Twins would be lucky to have Hamels right now.

 

One of the things I think the Twins HAVE to do is stop operating like they can't spend money.  They certainly can, all they need to do, is do it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

For the record, I might give up Gonsalves for Verlander. Anything past that, hard pass.

 

And I'd think long and hard about even giving up Gonsalves for a pitcher of Verlander's age under that contract.

[TRex]

 

For the record, I might give up Gonsalves for Verlander. Anything past that, hard pass.

 

And I'd think long and hard about even giving up Gonsalves for a pitcher of Verlander's age under that contract.

I agree, and I think everyone is forgetting that he just passed through waivers! Someone could have had him... or been stuck with him... for nothing! Why is he all of the sudden worth 3 or 4 of our top 25 prospects?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not saying the Twins should go after Verlander specifically, but with Perkins, Santiago, Belisle, Breslow and surely Gibson coming off the books, the Twins are shedding 20.70M in five pitchers of which only one of whom has even been remotely useful this year. 

 

They don't have to spend it all in one place (though I'd vote they do) but they better be spending it somewhere. And I really hate the nickle and dime, quantity over quality approach to free agency.

 

They're also shedding the 4M or what-not they're paying Garcia to pitch for the Yankees. Which makes me think they are more open any and all options. At least more open than they used to be.

Agreed about the money part but I'm not ready to risk the 2018 season on Verlander's arm, which is a real possibility if you acquire that contract and give up Gonsalves and Gordon.

 

If you have Verlander's contract, okay. So you're not going to spring for a real pitcher in FA because you already have $50m tied up in Verlander and Mauer.

 

You no longer have the option of Gonsalves to fill out the rotation if things go badly.

 

You no longer have the option of Gordon if Polanco takes a step back and you no longer have the option of trading Dozier this offseason.

 

Which means you run out close to the same team in 2018, only the payroll is a lot higher now.

 

That's a gamble I'd be willing to take if the Tigers are eager to shed salary and take a smaller prospect deal... but not for both Gonsalves and Gordon.

[USAFChief]

 

Agreed about the money part but I'm not ready to risk the 2018 season on Verlander's arm, which is a real possibility if you acquire that contract and give up Gonsalves and Gordon.

 

If you have Verlander's contract, okay. So you're not going to spring for a real pitcher in FA because you already have $50m tied up in Verlander and Mauer.

 

You no longer have the option of Gonsalves to fill out the rotation if things go badly.

 

You no longer have the option of Gordon if Polanco takes a step back and you no longer have the option of trading Dozier this offseason.

 

Which means you run out close to the same team in 2018, only the payroll is a lot higher now.

 

That's a gamble I'd be willing to take if the Tigers are eager to shed salary and take a smaller prospect deal... but not for both Gonsalves and Gordon.

It's not going to take Gordon.

 

As far as Gonsalves, I wouldn't even bat an eye.  

 

Or, just keep running out the Melvilles of the world and hope.

 

And the bolded part is simply wrong.  As noted above, there are $20M-ish in just pitching salaries coming off the books next year.  So payroll hasn't jumped (which it could, BTW), and you're already not bringing back the same team.

[darin617]

No thanks. The Twins should not even be thinking about Verlander. 2 years left for $56M. He has been hot lately and would most likely demand additional years added on to the contract to waive his no trade clause. He most likely has 1 more solid year left but after that it's all down hill.

 

Way too miles on his arm for any team to give him additional years. It would be worth it for Houston for just the 2 years if he gets him to the World Series. For Minnesota to get him they would also need a way better closer to try to make the push. Besides the Twins are chasing a Wild Card and not a division leader.

[Rosterman]

At this point in time, I would still rather stick with the possibilities prospects will bring to the team than spend all the money on an aging game changer. I don't think he would totally put us over the edge for this season, especially if we would have to tradeoff any parts of our current lineup (be it Kepler or Rosario) and considering how much it would improve us for 2018...I would rather hope we can get the same, if not better, results from the likes of Romero, Jorge and Stewart...if not individually, at least in combination for the next couple of years and spend the money elsewhere in the off-season.

 

We are still excited here, but one of up to a half-dozen teams in the second wild card playoff hunt.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Arrietta, Darvish, Tanaka, Cueto - better than Verlander, will be expensive

FYI, Tanaka and Cueto are opt-outs that probably won't be exercised, judging by their current numbers/health.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And the bolded part is simply wrong.  As noted above, there are $20M-ish in just pitching salaries coming off the books next year.  So payroll hasn't jumped (which it could, BTW), and you're already not bringing back the same team.

No, it's really not. Yeah, a lot of money comes off the books. On the flip side of that coin, existing player salaries also increase, such as Brian Dozier. That wipes out at least $5-6m of that $20m, maybe as much as $7-8m if you retain Escobar. And Verlander is paid $28m so that's a $13-17m payroll increase without doing anything.

 

Does that leave room to spend money? Sure, maybe $10m, which barely gets you one good reliever. I don't see the Twins increasing payroll by more than $25m this season (which they absolutely should do, I'm simply saying that acquiring Verlander eats most of your offseason options).

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

If you take on the entire salary commitment it won't be this expensive in terms of prospects.  And that's the whole point.

 

This.. I cannot imagine Verlander being that expensive given that he's underperforming his salary. I'm fine picking him up, because his underperformance is still a heck of a lot better than we are getting right now. I don't think he'd cost much to be honest.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'm not saying the Twins should go after Verlander specifically, but with Perkins, Santiago, Belisle, Breslow and surely Gibson coming off the books, the Twins are shedding 20.70M in five pitchers of which only one of whom has even been remotely useful this year.

 

They don't have to spend it all in one place (though I'd vote they do) but they better be spending it somewhere. And I really hate the nickle and dime, quantity over quality approach to free agency.

 

They're also shedding the 4M or what-not they're paying Garcia to pitch for the Yankees. Which makes me think they are more open any and all options. At least more open than they used to be.

they should grow their payroll a bit too

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This.. I cannot imagine Verlander being that expensive given that he's underperforming his salary. I'm fine picking him up, because his underperformance is still a heck of a lot better than we are getting right now. I don't think he'd cost much to be honest.

To be clear, I'm not against acquiring Verlander but the price has to be cheap to offset that contract.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

No, it's really not. Yeah, a lot of money comes off the books. On the flip side of that coin, existing player salaries also increase, such as Brian Dozier. That wipes out at least $5-6m of that $20m, maybe as much as $7-8m if you retain Escobar. And Verlander is paid $28m so that's a $13-17m payroll increase without doing anything.

 

Does that leave room to spend money? Sure, maybe $10m, which barely gets you one good reliever. I don't see the Twins increasing payroll by more than $25m this season (which they absolutely should do, I'm simply saying that acquiring Verlander eats most of your offseason options).

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

[Otto von Ballpark]

I agree, and I think everyone is forgetting that he just passed through waivers! Someone could have had him... or been stuck with him... for nothing! Why is he all of the sudden worth 3 or 4 of our top 25 prospects?

Revocable waivers. His no trade clause actually prevents Detroit from giving him up on waivers without his consent. And they weren't going to give him up without getting prospects in return, so no one bothered claiming him. I wouldn't read too much into it. Bryce Harper reportedly cleared waivers too, by the way.

[Thrylos]

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/82052/verlanders-domination-of-the-dodgers-looked-like-an-astros-audition

 

Best possible combination of help in 2017 and help in the next couple years, right where the Twins need it, at a reasonable cost and not for the 6-7 years it'll take to get a similar pitcher over the winter.

 

Verlander isn't quite what he was, but he's still very good.

 

To put things into perspective:

 

Verlander in 2017: 3.96 ERA, 4.12 FIP, 1.31 WHIP, 14.0 % K-BB%.

Owed $56 Mil for his age 35 and 36 seasons and has a $22 M vesting option for his age 37 season.

 

Berrios in 2017: 3.99 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 1.15 WHIP, 14.5 % K-BB%

 

So Verlander is pitching just about as good as Berrios this season.

 

Older Mystery pitcher in 2016: 3.43 ERA, 3.99 FIP, 1.21 WHIP, 12.1% K-BB% 

Arguably better numbers than Verlander in 2017, no? 

Hint: He is with the Twins now.

 

That's what you risk when you try to get Verlander.  Never mind the 3 more years of contract and the prospects you will give up...

 

Plus:  Getting Verlander might get the Twins to the post-season but will not get them past the Red Sox, Astros and Dodgers.

 

So they better play the kids instead

 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

To put things into perspective:

 

Verlander in 2017: 3.96 ERA, 4.12 FIP, 1.31 WHIP, 14.0 % K-BB%.

Owed $56 Mil for his age 35 and 36 seasons and has a $22 M vesting option for his age 37 season.

 

Berrios in 2017: 3.99 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 1.15 WHIP, 14.5 % K-BB%

 

So Verlander is pitching just about as good as Berrios this season.

 

Older Mystery pitcher in 2016: 3.43 ERA, 3.99 FIP, 1.21 WHIP, 12.1% K-BB%

Arguably better numbers than Verlander in 2017, no?

Hint: He is with the Twins now.

 

That's what you risk when you try to get Verlander. Never mind the 3 more years of contract and the prospects you will give up...

 

Plus: Getting Verlander might get the Twins to the post-season but will not get them past the Red Sox, Astros and Dodgers.

 

So they better play the kids instead

losing Santiago and Gibson, they can do both

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Hellickson might take less than that, because he has an ERA of 5 and a 5.5 K/9 this year...

"Icky" Ricky Nolasco signed a 49 mil contract. Had to trade away a prospect to get his equivalent back. Stuck with that garbage for 4 years. I'll take the 2 years of Verlander, given the choice.

[ashbury]

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/82052/verlanders-domination-of-the-dodgers-looked-like-an-astros-audition

 

Best possible combination of help in 2017 and help in the next couple years, right where the Twins need it, at a reasonable cost and not for the 6-7 years it'll take to get a similar pitcher over the winter.

 

Verlander isn't quite what he was, but he's still very good.

How does your math hold up if Verlander demands a 2-year extension in return for waiving his no-trade clause? Because my recollection is that's how a lot of no-trade's work out.

[Squirrel]

How does your math hold up if Verlander demands a 2-year extension in return for waiving his no-trade clause? Because my recollection is that's how a lot of no-trade's work out.

Damn math

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I agree, and I think everyone is forgetting that he just passed through waivers! Someone could have had him... or been stuck with him... for nothing! Why is he all of the sudden worth 3 or 4 of our top 25 prospects?

passing through waivers means nothing. IF it means anything, it means teams thought he could be had, but it might take extra haggling and they might run out of time in the waiver period.

[Blake]

 

To be clear, I'm not against acquiring Verlander but the price has to be cheap to offset that contract.

Yes. That makes sense.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

How does your math hold up if Verlander demands a 2-year extension in return for waiving his no-trade clause? Because my recollection is that's how a lot of no-trade's work out.

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

[jimbo92107]

Bidding war with Houston, a team that is set to make a serious run right now. We played them, remember? They killed us, and so did the Dodgers. 

 

All I got to say is, remember what happened to Cinderella. Sure, she married a prince, but then what happened? They sat around in a castle. Playoffs came, and they just sat there in that castle. They went NOWHERE. 

 

That's all I got to say.

[alarp33]

 

FYI, Tanaka and Cueto are opt-outs that probably won't be exercised, judging by their current numbers/health.

 

Correct, should've added that caveat.  If they each pitch well down the stretch I think they are still opt out candidates, but yeah for now each may be leaning no