What does it take to get Archer?

[Mr. Brooks]

Maybe a trade centered around Sano for Archer? They seemed to do ok without Sano and his long term injury concerns have to be considered.

Sano has the same amount of team control left as Archer. If they only want 4 years of team control, why not just keep Archer?

I'd guess they'd much rather have Lewis, and his 6 full years of team control- and actually almost 7 if they wait 3 weeks for his first call up.

[notoriousgod71]

I don't get these trade proposals where we wonder if we need to trade our top five prospects for Archer.

 

In most of these trades Team A unloads superstar to get out of paying salary and Team B trades a few decent prospects but almost certainly not more than one of their top five.

 

Falvey and Levine have to take advantage of these cheap and awful franchises or they will continue to join them in mediocrity.

[Physics Guy]

One of those players has the same number of years of team control as Archer. Two more have only 1 extra year.

I would assume if the Rays are trading a guy with 4 years of team control- with a cheap contract to boot, that they will be looking for the full 6 year window in return. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to even trade him.

Are you assuming that the Rays would prefer Gordon, Kiriloff, Gonsalves and Romero? I don't think the Twins have a package of similar players that have no service time that would be of equal value to Grosario, Polanco, Mejia and Romero.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't get these trade proposals where we wonder if we need to trade our top five prospects for Archer.

 

In most of these trades Team A unloads superstar to get out of paying salary and Team B trades a few decent prospects but almost certainly not more than one of their top five.

 

Falvey and Levine have to take advantage of these cheap and awful franchises or they will continue to join them in mediocrity.

Except Archer is not a salary dump. Quite to the contrary, his extremely team friendly salary is precisely why he'll cost a haul to land.

[Physics Guy]

I don't get these trade proposals where we wonder if we need to trade our top five prospects for Archer.

 

In most of these trades Team A unloads superstar to get out of paying salary and Team B trades a few decent prospects but almost certainly not more than one of their top five.

 

Falvey and Levine have to take advantage of these cheap and awful franchises or they will continue to join them in mediocrity.

The difference here is that Archer isn't being paid a high salary.

[Mr. Brooks]

Are you assuming that the Rays would prefer Gordon, Kiriloff, Gonsalves and Romero? I don't think the Twins have a package of similar players that have no service time that would be of equal value.

I'd think any Twins offer would start with Lewis, Gonsalves, Romero, and maybe a Rooker or Kiriloff.

And if the Twins don't have a package of prospects with zero service time that the Rays like, they'll simply pass. It's not like they'd have a shortage of interested clubs.

 

It just doesn't make sense for them to trade Archer, IMO, for any player whose service time has already started. Archer still has 4 years of team control remaining, so trading him means they are looking further down the road than 4 years.

[Physics Guy]

I'd think any Twins offer would start with Lewis, Gonsalves, Romero, and maybe a Rooker or Kiriloff.

And if the Twins don't have a package of prospects with zero service time that the Rays like, they'll simply pass. It's not like they'd have a shortage of interested clubs.

It just doesn't make sense for them to trade Archer, IMO, for any player whose service time has already started. Archer still has 4 years of team control remaining, so trading him means they are looking further down the road than 4 years.

I understand what you are saying, but we are completely speculating since the Rays haven't specifically stated what they want. Is it feasible they would want four players with equal or more controllable service time, including two that would provide significant upgrades over their likely current starters.

[Mr. Brooks]

I understand what you are saying, but we are completely speculating since the Rays haven't specifically stated what they want. Is it feasible they would want four players with equal or more controllable service time, including two that would provide significant upgrades over their likely current starters.

Well yes, it's speculative. I'm giving my opinion.

And we'll have to agree to disagree on that being feasible. There is a reason you don't see contending teams trading ace starters to "spread the wealth" so to speak. You only see rebuilding teams doing that, and that's because ace starters are just too important to trade away if you're contending.

To me, trading Archer would mean they are building for 4+ years from now. Speculative, yes, but that's the whole point of a message board like this. I certainly respect your differing opinion.

[amjgt]

In the interest of providing 6+ year guys...

 

Gordon + (Gonsalves/Romero) + Rooker + Graterol + Baddoo

 

If they would prefer Polanco to Gordon, I'm fine with that swap

 

If they would prefer Jay or Thorpe to Graterol, I'm fine with that swap.

 

If they would want Berrios, I'd be willing to add him if we signed Darvish, but I'd pull out Gonsalves/Romero, Rooker, and Baddoo

 

If they would prefer Kiriloff to Baddoo, so be it.

[Mr. Brooks]

In the interest of providing 6+ year guys...

 

Gordon + (Gonsalves/Romero) + Rooker + Graterol + Baddoo

 

If they would prefer Polanco to Gordon, I'm fine with that swap

 

If they would prefer Jay or Thorpe to Graterol, I'm fine with that swap.

 

If they would want Berrios, I'd be willing to add him if we signed Darvish, but I'd pull out Gonsalves/Romero, Rooker, and Baddoo

 

If they would prefer Kiriloff to Baddoo, so be it.

Just my opinion, but I think any offer that doesn't include Lewis gets a swift "Thanks, but no thanks" hang up.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Just my opinion, but I think any offer that doesn't include Lewis gets a swift "Thanks, but no thanks" hang up.

Agree, either that or having to include Berrios as a deal centering around Gordon likely doesn't get it done unless you put Kepler with him and then Gonsalves and Romero.  Archer is signed for 4YR at 6.5M in 2018, 7.5M in 2019, and 8.25M in 2020 and 8.25M in 2021.  He is not coming cheap and the Rays don't have to trade him so unless they swooned they'll hold on to him til midseason or even next offseason.

[Physics Guy]

Agree, either that or having to include Berrios as a deal centering around Gordon likely doesn't get it done unless you put Kepler with him and then Gonsalves and Romero.  Archer is signed for 4YR at 6.5M in 2018, 7.5M in 2019, and 8.25M in 2020 and 8.25M in 2021.  He is not coming cheap and the Rays don't have to trade him so unless they swooned they'll hold on to him til midseason or even next offseason.

Well then put me in the no thanks group. I'd rather they sign Darvish and keep the prospects, even if Archer is maybe better.

[notoriousgod71]

 

The difference here is that Archer isn't being paid a high salary.

 

But he will be which is the same thing.

[notoriousgod71]

 

 

Are you assuming that the Rays would prefer Gordon, Kiriloff, Gonsalves and Romero? I don't think the Twins have a package of similar players that have no service time that would be of equal value to Grosario, Polanco, Mejia and Romero.

 

no, I'm assuming the majority of star players are not going to land an entire farm system.

[Mr. Brooks]

But he will be which is the same thing.

No, he won't. He's still under contract for four more cheap seasons. That is precisely why he will demand a kings ransom in a trade.

[gunnarthor]

These Archer offers where we give up half our system are not realistic. Look at other trades for starting pitchers and work off of that. Archer is cheap but he was worth 1.2 WAR last year and 1.8 the year before. He had a higher whip than Santana. He's a flyball pitcher who had two seasons where he didn't give up home runs b/c he played in one of the best pitching parks in the game. He's not an ace and you don't give up truly elite prospects for him. Make a reasonable offer and move on if Tampa insists on a Sale-like return, he won't get moved.

[notoriousgod71]

 

These Archer offers where we give up half our system are not realistic. Look at other trades for starting pitchers and work off of that. Archer is cheap but he was worth 1.2 WAR last year and 1.8 the year before. He had a higher whip than Santana. He's a flyball pitcher who had two seasons where he didn't give up home runs b/c he played in one of the best pitching parks in the game. He's not an ace and you don't give up truly elite prospects for him. Make a reasonable offer and move on if Tampa insists on a Sale-like return, he won't get moved.

 

This is exactly what I'm saying.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Since there is a Gerrit Cole topic, let’s try one for a better pitcher who could be a Twin for four years instead of two.

What kind of a deal would it take? And could they land him without giving up Lewis, Buxton, Sano, or Berrios?

Here’s my suggestion:

Kepler, Gonsalves, Jay, and Kiriloff.

Would that be enough? Would Gordon have to be in the deal? Or Rosario?

No, that is not enough. My thinking is that it would require something like this:

 

Lewis, Rosario/Kepler, Gonsalves, and maybe a decent toss-in like Thorpe.

[gunnarthor]

 

No, that is not enough. My thinking is that it would require something like this:

 

Lewis, Rosario/Kepler, Gonsalves, and maybe a decent toss-in like Thorpe.

That is an insane offer. That's a borderline elite prospect, another top 50ish prospect, a quality ML OFer with 4 years of control left and a former top 100 prospect in AA who has rebounded nicely from injuries and could sneak into a few top 100 lists now. That's better than the Chris Sale deal, the Hamels deal, Quintana deal, etc. The Rays would take that in an instant and Falvey would fire Lavine a moment later.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That is an insane offer. That's a borderline elite prospect, another top 50ish prospect, a quality ML OFer with 4 years of control left and a former top 100 prospect in AA who has rebounded nicely from injuries and could sneak into a few top 100 lists now. That's better than the Chris Sale deal, the Hamels deal, Quintana deal, etc. The Rays would take that in an instant and Falvey would fire Lavine a moment later.

Eh, maybe I overshot the mark. But it's going to take a lot to get him away from the Rays, at least one top 50 prospect, another top 100 prospect, and then one or two decent prospects on top.

[Physics Guy]

 

That is an insane offer. That's a borderline elite prospect, another top 50ish prospect, a quality ML OFer with 4 years of control left and a former top 100 prospect in AA who has rebounded nicely from injuries and could sneak into a few top 100 lists now. That's better than the Chris Sale deal, the Hamels deal, Quintana deal, etc. The Rays would take that in an instant and Falvey would fire Lavine a moment later.

I agree with you that the offer is more than I would care to part with, but not that it's better than the Sale trade.  Moncada was in the top 5 and Kopech in the top 50 of all prospects.  They also got two more prospects, but for a significantly better pitcher who was also on a friendly contract.  I've changed my mind from what I said earlier on what I would give up.  IMO, Rosario, Polanco, Romero and Mejia is too much.  Our cost to get Archer should be less than what Sale cost and if not, move on. 

[markos]

 

These Archer offers where we give up half our system are not realistic. Look at other trades for starting pitchers and work off of that. Archer is cheap but he was worth 1.2 WAR last year and 1.8 the year before. He had a higher whip than Santana. He's a flyball pitcher who had two seasons where he didn't give up home runs b/c he played in one of the best pitching parks in the game. He's not an ace and you don't give up truly elite prospects for him. Make a reasonable offer and move on if Tampa insists on a Sale-like return, he won't get moved.

Baseball Reference has one estimate of his value. Fangraphs and Baseball Prospectus have very different estimates: Fangraphs valued him as a 3-5 WAR pitcher the past three seasons; Baseball Prospectus valued him as 5-6 WAR pitcher. So there are definitely analytic systems that value him highly. There is some evidence with James Shields and David Price that BR systemically underrates their pitching. If you were to predict their post-trade bWAR performance based on their last four seasons in TB, they both exceeded that expectation by ~50% after their respective trades. That gap is much smaller using fWAR: almost perfectly predictive in Shield's case and only underestimating Price's performance by ~10%.

 

Obviously, Shields and Price are a sample size of two, so take it with a grain of salt. But at the same time, it certainly wouldn't surprise me in the least that BR's pitching WAR model breaks down a little bit at the extremes, and it is certainly the case that the Rays, by putting very good defenses in an extreme pitcher's park, are definitely an outlier. In fact, BR calculated that Archer had the 2nd easiest run environment (combination of opponents/ballparks/defense) of any pitcher in the AL behind fellow Ray Odorizzi. But it also made those decisions based on some contentious assumption. BR calculated that Archer's stadiums depressed run scoring by 4.5%; BP calculated it less that 2%. BR used DRS for defense which has the Rays as the best defense in baseball, 50 runs above average. UZR only has them at 8th, almost 30 runs less.

 

All that said, I lean more towards Fangraphs and BP in this case. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to value Archer in similar terms to Jose Quintana. By age, performance, and contract they are very close. And Quintana did end up fetching an elite prospect in Jimenez and a very solid pitching prospect in Cease. I think Lewis + Romero is the Twins equivalent.

[Doomtints]

The Rays would be utterly insane to trade Archer, a player they are getting for essentially half price for even the most skeptical opinions of his ability. Using the Fangraphs value projections, they are paying him 84% below market value (which, yeah, is obtuse. Fangraphs needs to fix their algorithm).

 

The Rays might have the best contract in history over this guy. If he starts to drop off, they can cut him loose before he ever makes anything close to what he's worth.

 

The earliest it would make sense for the Rays to trade Archer would be midseason 2019. Any trade happening before then should result in their entire front office being committed to the nearest mental health facility ... and even if they did it then, they'd be acting questionable. This would be like the Twins trading off Brad Radke in 2000. People probably talked about it at the time, but it never happened.

[Loosey]

I still don't understand the desire from Tampa's side to trade Archer.  He has 4 years of control.  If I am Tampa I want a Hershel Walker type haul for him.

[Vanimal46]

The Rays would be utterly insane to trade Archer, a player they are getting for essentially half price for even the most skeptical opinions of his ability. Using the Fangraphs value projections, they are paying him 84% below market value (which, yeah, is obtuse. Fangraphs needs to fix their algorithm).

 

The Rays might have the best contract in history over this guy. If he starts to drop off, they can cut him loose before he ever makes anything close to what he's worth.

 

The earliest it would make sense for the Rays to trade Archer would be midseason 2019. Any trade happening before then should result in their entire front office being committed to the nearest mental health facility ... and even if they did it then, they'd be acting questionable. This would be like the Twins trading off Brad Radke in 2000. People probably talked about it at the time, but it never happened.

Completely agree. Archer's situation is exactly what a cheap, small market team dreams of. It's insane for the Rays to trade him away. Thus it will take an insane return for the Rays to actually do it.

 

Not worth the time or energy thinking about acquiring him.

[AlwaysinModeration]

You people are doing this wrong. The correct answer is and always has been “that’s too steep for Archer, who is entering his decline phase and isn’t that good anyway.”

[Brandon]

I'm more interested in winning.  If we sign Darvish.  Overpaying for Archer is probably the next best way to boost the rotation in preparing for a playoff appearance.  Granted there are other pitchers we could trade for that would cost less.  but for the money we would either need to trade too many prospects to Tampa for Archer or get a lesser pitcher or roll the dice with our own.  We wont likely have the money available to sign another decent started unless we get another injury signing like Pineda.  We trade for Archer and sign Darvish our 2019 rotation is looking crazy good with Pineda too.  Though i suspect we would either trade Santana or not pick up his option if this was the case.  

 

Also since our window of opportunity is the next 4 years, I am more interested in trading prospects above low A ball as the players from this years draft and drafts moving forward will be the core of a future winning cycle.  In terms of an overpay i think we are not in a position to overpay for Archer unless we get another starter such as Archer.  I say this because we have 5 or 6 starting pitchers who are getting close to the majors and only 1 for sure starter the next 4 years.  Getting Darvish nets us another and trading for Archer as the 3rd.  We still have May, Mejia, Gibson, trying to lock down the 5th spot in the rotation unless any of these are included in the Archer trade.  And we have Enns, Slegers, Jorge, Gonsalves, Romero, Littell, Thorpe, Stewart, and Eades and probably more....So if we traded 3 of these guys like Gonsalves, Romero, and May in the Archer deal along with Gordon, and Granite or Wade, I would be good with this package after a Darvish signiing.  not before.  before getting a pitcher like Darvish i think a package of May Romero, Wade and Beeker and some low 30s ranked prospect is more than enough. 

 

While Gordon is currently at SS he probaby could be shifter to a corner OF spot and hit similar to Span if we need to include him in a deal with Tampa...

[Linus]

I would love Archer and would pursue him far harder than Cole. However I have to agree with the posters that maintain that Tampa has zero reason to deal him- he is the ideal pitcher to build around. This means that in order to get him you are likely agreeing to a bad deal, which the Twins can't afford at this point.