Heyman: The Twins made a 3-year offer to Ervin Santana

[Jim Crikket]

Yeah, I was ok with bringing Pelfrey back on a reasonable deal and I'm not a big believer in Santana coming off an unusually (for him) productive year, but I still wouldn't agree that Pelfrey is better than Santana. He may be less of an injury risk, given that Pelf's had TJ and Santana has been pitching through the UC issues, but I think if you set money aside, most people would take Santana in their 2014 rotation over Pelfrey.

[jokin]

Ervin, all in the AL - 1,686 IP, 4.19 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 100 ERA+, 7.1 k/9, 2.8 bb/9, 8.8 h/9. 3 seasons with an ERA under 3.50, 4 seasons with an ERA under 4.00

 

Pelfrey, almost all NL - 1,049 IP, 4.48 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 91 ERA+, 5.2 k/9, 3.2 bb/9, 10.1 H/9. 0 seasons with an ERA under 3.50. 2 with an ERA under 4.00.

 

Thankyou for the reality check, Tobi! In what universe is Pelfrey ever better than Santana? And to JC yes, last year was a productive year for the inconsistent Santana, but you're understating his value, even though we both agree that he's way better than Pelfrey. To wit: Santana has been really good in 2 of the last 3 years and had an ERA+ above 100 in 4 of the last 6 years, a WAR @ 3 or better in 5 of 8 years.

 

By contrast, Pelfrey has been really good in ZERO of the last 3 years and had an ERA+ above 100 in 2 of the last 6 years, none since 2010, and he has had a WAR of 3 or better only ONCE in 7 years.

 

This is not close. And given that the Twins have actively been pursuing both Garza and Santana, AFTER signing Pelfrey, Hughes and Nolasco, tells me that they feel compelled to hedge their bets on what the remaining "crazy" SP depth can possibly bring to the table, including Gibson.

[thetank]

How many other posters agree that this rotation "could be literally one of the best in baseball" and "lead a team to a championship"? There are quite a few rotations that are way better, at least I think so. Who else agrees with Trautmann13 or with me on this subject?

They need to score runs.

[tobi0040]

Thankyou for the reality check, Tobi!

 

And given that the Twins have actively been pursuing both Garza and Santana, AFTER signing Pelfrey, Hughes and Nolasco, tells me that they feel compelled to hedge their bets on what the remaining "crazy" SP depth can possibly bring to the table, including Gibson.

 

Thank you.

 

I agree to a certain extent about the depth. I think at the end of the day the Twins were embarrased about our staff and wanted to get some depth and infuse talent. If we trade Correa this year or Pelfrey next year to make room for someone, that is a good problem to solve. A lot of these issues solve themselves through injury/ineffectiveness. I have almost zero confidence in Worley, very little in Diamond, and slightly more in Deduno but with him it is health.

 

Looking two years out and from a building block perspective, we have only four guys you can say with reasonable accuracy that they will be part of the solution. Nolasco, Hughes, Meyer, and Gibson. That assumes nobody is off 15 months with TJ, our thesis on Hughes struggles in NY are correct, Gibson figures it out, etc. Had we had this conversation in 2008 or 2009 we would have all said Baker, Slowey, Blackburn, and Liriano were all staples for years to come. This is the logic that resulted in us trading Garza for an OF.

[jokin]

This is the logic* that resulted in us trading Garza for an OF.

 

* or lack thereof.

 

I guess we can coin a new term, as a future warning and caveat: Beware of "staple logic". Translation: you can't have enough quality SP in your depth chart and developmental pipeline.

[Thrylos]

In what universe is Pelfrey ever better than Santana?

 

Donuts to dollars Pelfrey will have better numbers than Ervin Santana in 2014.

 

Feel free to tell me after the season if this does not come true

[TheLeviathan]

This is what bothers me about this purported deal. This year, he would be an upgrade over Correia. But I think he'll be below Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson and Deduno. Next year, he'd be below those four plus Meyer. By the end of his contract, there might be another kid who shoots up through the system.

 

I suppose they could trade him prior to the end of his contract. But that is a big risk to take on. According to reports, the Twins have not found a buyer for Correia. The same thing could happen for Santana, especially if he gets hurt in one of the three years.

 

This is a more clear and concise way to say what I've been trying to. At some point these multi year deals start to create impediments to prospects. If you want to do something like this, do it for Morales or Drew. This isn't the best allocation of resources.

[S.]

So your guess on their 2014 numbers > 1000+ IP sample size when it comes to gauging who is a better player?

 

If you want to say that it's your opinion that Pelfrey will be better than E. Santana in 2014 with no evidence to support it, thats your call, but saying Pelfrey is better than E. Santana is in no way a true statement.

[jokin]

Donuts to dollars Pelfrey will have better numbers than Ervin Santana in 2014.

 

Feel free to tell me after the season if this does not come true

 

On what basis are you assuring us of this? Don't get me wrong, I hope you prove to be right, but I don't see the data or evidence, other than betting on a contrarian long shot.

[Thrylos]

So your guess on their 2014 numbers > 1000+ IP sample size when it comes to gauging who is a better player?

 

If you want to say that it's your opinion that Pelfrey will be better than E. Santana in 2014 with no evidence to support it, thats your call, but saying Pelfrey is better than E. Santana is in no way a true statement.

 

Aren't the 2014 numbers the ones that really matter for the Twins vs. the past of these 2 players? I don't care what E (or J for that matter) Santana did in 2008, I care for what he is going to do in 2014 vs what Pelfrey (or Correia for that matter) is going to do. Fair? And there is no sample size for the future

 

On what basis are you assuring us of this? Don't get me wrong, I hope you prove to be right, but I don't see the data or evidence, other than betting on a contrarian long shot.

 

I am not assuring anyone for anything. It's a gamble. I am betting Pelfrey is younger and I think that he has better stuff while Santana has been regressing since 2008. Last season Santana had a 3.93 FIP and Pelfrey a 3.99 FIP with all he went through with the elbow. Another season removed from that for Pelfrey and another season of regression for Santana.... (unless you count wins and losses and ERA or something, which all depend on others.)

[TheLeviathan]

The quotes might be out there somewhere but I just heard a clip of Lavelle asking Rob Antony about this offer and Antony basically said "We have a lot of multi-year commitments right now, this probably wouldn't be in our best interest"

 

Maybe that was out of context, but that was the jist of it.

[cmathewson]

The quotes might be out there somewhere but I just heard a clip of Lavelle asking Rob Antony about this offer and Antony basically said "We have a lot of multi-year commitments right now, this probably wouldn't be in our best interest"

 

Maybe that was out of context, but that was the jist of it.

 

Rhett Bolinger also indicated that it was unlikely, in a balanced piece about the fifth starter spot.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/min/fifth-starter-battle-to-assume-spring-spotlight?content_id=69040472&partnerId=as_min_20140310_19834344&vkey=news_min&ymd=20140310

 

I found the last quote interesting.

 

"[We] have roster issues, guys that are out of options, but I think you take the best player," Gardenhire said. "Best pitcher. That's what we have to do. We've lost enough. Now it's time to take the best pitchers."

[TKGuy]

Sounds like Gardy is tired of the slim pickings of the past.

[twinsnorth49]

Sounds like Gardy is tired of the slim pickings of the past.

 

Aren't we all?

[amjgt]

The quotes might be out there somewhere but I just heard a clip of Lavelle asking Rob Antony about this offer and Antony basically said "We have a lot of multi-year commitments right now, this probably wouldn't be in our best interest"

 

Maybe that was out of context, but that was the jist of it.

 

That quote isn't quite right (but it's relatively close), but a) you didn't include the quote that immediately followed which was a canned "we're always looking to improve the team", and more importantly the quote doesn't do justice to what I perceived as a "I know you know that I know that we're talking about Ervin Santana, but I'd prefer not to talk directly about that" undertone

[ashbury]

Aren't we all?

 

Disapproves:

 

 

/ Slim Pickens, of the past

[jokin]

The quotes might be out there somewhere but I just heard a clip of Lavelle asking Rob Antony about this offer and Antony basically said "We have a lot of multi-year commitments right now, this probably wouldn't be in our best interest"

 

Maybe that was out of context, but that was the jist of it.

 

This certainly doesn't square with the reports that there is still a standing offer out there. More bad reporting? Or a slip-up in messaging on behalf of the Twins? Just a PR move to show the fans "We're still trying"?

[TheLeviathan]

That quote isn't quite right (but it's relatively close), but a) you didn't include the quote that immediately followed which was a canned "we're always looking to improve the team", and more importantly the quote doesn't do justice to what I perceived as a "I know you know that I know that we're talking about Ervin Santana, but I'd prefer not to talk directly about that" undertone

 

Well I appreciate the context, I didn't hear anything other than the snippet. What went on in those negotiations is anyone's guess. The reports are that an offer was made but there are also conflicting reports.

 

In any case, I think Antony's point should be well-taken. FA, as far as I know, happens next year too. It isn't essential to hand out as many 2+ year deals as we can right now as if we'll never have the money or opportunity to do so again if needed.

 

Especially since we (hopefully) have some young standouts on the way very soon (as in this year!) that will need more than injury fill-in opportunities.

[cmathewson]

This certainly doesn't square with the reports that there is still a standing offer out there. More bad reporting? Or a slip-up in messaging on behalf of the Twins? Just a PR move to show the fans "We're still trying"?

 

Have the Twins confirmed the offer is on the table? I had not read that. Sounds to me like more bad reporting. It wouldn't be the first time a reporter fell for the "my client has an offer from team X" trick.

[jokin]

Have the Twins confirmed the offer is on the table? I had not read that. Sounds to me like more bad reporting. It wouldn't be the first time a reporter fell for the "my client has an offer from team X" trick.

 

Published today:

 

"Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports also has some specifics on recent offers made to Santana; the Orioles' last three-year offer was believed to be in the $27MM range, while the three-year offer from the Twins was in the $30-33MM range. That offer was still on the table as of last night."

[TheLeviathan]

Published today:

 

"Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports also has some specifics on recent offers made to Santana; the Orioles' last three-year offer was believed to be in the $27MM range, while the three-year offer from the Twins was in the $30-33MM range. That offer was still on the table as of last night."

 

Rosenthal reporting it and the Twins confirming it are not the same thing. Nor does that mean it wasn't offered, but it leaves questions.

[jokin]

Well I appreciate the context, I didn't hear anything other than the snippet. What went on in those negotiations is anyone's guess. The reports are that an offer was made but there are also conflicting reports.

 

In any case, I think Antony's point should be well-taken. FA, as far as I know, happens next year too. It isn't essential to hand out as many 2+ year deals as we can right now as if we'll never have the money or opportunity to do so again if needed.

 

Especially since we (hopefully) have some young standouts on the way very soon (as in this year!) that will need more than injury fill-in opportunities.

 

Does it come down to a sense of urgency from both the owner and the marketing department to stop the bleeding at the ticket window and effect change on the current image after the 2013 of the Twins Starting Rotation from "laughingstock" to major league "legitimate"?

 

Why else the long and public pursuit of Garza, Johan, and now Santana?

[jokin]

Rosenthal reporting it and the Twins confirming it are not the same thing. Nor does that mean it wasn't offered, but it leaves questions.

 

I agree- bad reporting could be the culprit, or misdirection from the club or the agent. It's just what's currently out there. And Anthony's comments bear no resemblance to Rosenthal's. So many questions.

 

Berardino is doing the main frontline reporting on this, he's apparently got his ironclad source on the story (agent?), here's what he said last night:

 

"Six weeks after falling short in their pursuit of Matt Garza, the Twins are still trying to add to their starting rotation.

According to a person with direct knowledge, the Twins have made an offer to free-agent right-hander Ervin Santana. That offer remained on the table as of late Sunday, the person said, but it was unclear if Santana was inclined to accept it.

According to CBS Sports.com, the Twins’ offer was for three years at an undisclosed sum.

However, the person with direct knowledge indicated the Twins could greatly improve their chances of landing Santana if they were to guarantee a fourth year on his contract."

[TheLeviathan]

And yet many other reports say Santana wants one year, not multiple years. So this source with direct knowledge is implying a method to improve their chances that directly contradicts the majority of other reports.

 

In any case, Ervin Santana and his inconsistent career aren't going to make any significant changes on ticket sales.

[jokin]

And yet many other reports say Santana wants one year, not multiple years. So this source with direct knowledge is implying a method to improve their chances that directly contradicts the majority of other reports.

 

In any case, Ervin Santana and his inconsistent career aren't going to make any significant changes on ticket sales.

 

Maybe not his name per se, but finally having a guy coming off of an ERA+ year of 127 and with a career ERA+ of 100 would certainly be a refreshing change for the hometown faithful.

 

The same arguments you make about Santana can be made even more strongly about Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey, none of them, on a name basis alone, perk up ticket sales, but it's obvous that the Twins pulled out all the stops concerning the rotation this offseason for a reason- they have been losing credibility and paying the price at the ticket window and the TV ratings with the sub-standard product they've foisted on the Twins the last 3 years.

[jokin]

And yet many other reports say Santana wants one year, not multiple years. So this source with direct knowledge is implying a method to improve their chances that directly contradicts the majority of other reports.

 

 

"Majority of other reports?"

 

Every report I've read includes both the long-term (Orioles and Twins) and one-year scenarios (Orioles, Jays, Braves) in the body of their reportage.

[TheLeviathan]

The same arguments you make about Santana can be made even more strongly about Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey, none of them, on a name basis alone, perk up ticket sales

 

None of them fixed ticket sales either. That's why it's a silly argument to make.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24472284/report-ervin-santana-now-seeking-one-year-deal-wants-to-sign-quickly

 

This is what is being said about what Santana wants. A one year deal to re-establish value and get away from having a comp pick attached to him.

[jokin]

None of them fixed ticket sales either. That's why it's a silly argument to make.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24472284/report-ervin-santana-now-seeking-one-year-deal-wants-to-sign-quickly

 

This is what is being said about what Santana wants. A one year deal to re-establish value and get away from having a comp pick attached to him.

 

CBS sports, dated March 7. This same author also reported on the Orioles and Twins offers yesterday, and he also quotes Ken Rosenthal in your link. They've covered all angles of the story- short and long-term. And won't the comp pick just be around his neck again next year?

 

"Silly argument to make?" Why didn't the Twins just keep trotting out PJ, Cole and Pedro- they could have saved $84M by doing nothng- if not to make games more entertaining and competitive to the ticket-buying fanbase?

[JB_Iowa]

I don't know if the Twins' offer is still on the table (Antony apparently didn't totally disavow it) but I just don't think it matters.

 

There hasn't been much come out today except the possibility of a one-year deal with Atlanta given the injury status of Medlen and Beachy.

 

I don't think the comp pick is an issue next year if he signs a one-year deal this year but that is just from memory.

 

I still don't think that 3/$33m is really in the ballpark. Heyman (who seems to be pretty on top of this story) seems to think that Santana is still looking for 4 years at around $50 million. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24475143/twins-enter-fray-but-jays-and-orioles-may-still-lead-the-ervin-derby

 

If the 4th year is an important part of the equation to him (and I read somewhere else that it was), I don't see the Twins going that far based on Antony's comments tonight.

 

It still looks to me like this is primarily among Santana's one-year suitors. The question is which one -- and now it looks like Toronto, Baltimore and Atlanta might be interested.

[kab21]

At some point adding guaranteed contracts and 40 man spots starts to work against a rebuild too. Had this been Santana over Pelfrey - hell yeah. But what are they going to do? Have Saunders and Santana join and do a 7 man rotation? You reach a threshold at which point "more" no longer helps enough to warrant the commitment. I think, for 2014, we're there for SP.

 

I didn't want to lose this quote.

 

I would rate our offense as a bigger problem currently but at least there are quite a few great prospects on the way to save it. Our pitching hopes rest on Meyer and there is a little hope that Gibson could become what Santana is. That really doesn't make it a great idea to pass on him imo.