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

[jokin]

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.

 

That 4-year preference conforms precisely with Berardino's source who said that Santana would be interested in the Twins offer if they guaranteed the 4th year- so the money is apparently not that far off- $11M AAV vs. $12.5M AAV. But you're probably correct, Antony is pulling back.

[Oxtung]

Trading Gibson would be a mistake. His stock is at an all-time low right now. It makes far more sense to just wave goodbye to Diamond, Worley, and Deduno and don't look back.

 

Unless the Twins have a different viewpoint on Gibson than this board has. If they saw enough last year to lose confidence in his chances to succeed and in their minds he has been passed up by Meyer, May, Darnell, Gilmartin, etc... then they should trade him for whatever they can get back before his stock plummets.

[Oxtung]

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

 

Perhaps not on the 2014 season ticket sales but if Santana were to come to Minnesota and put up a sub-3.50 ERA season I think it would certainly add to the 2015 season ticket sales.

[TheLeviathan]

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.

 

But don't take it out of context either. This is still not a good staff, but the Twins have already tossed a lot of commitments into it. FA will still happen next year and they can add more then, especially if they have shed some of these players and have more clarity about their youth.

 

We're not talking about passing up on an ace here, we're talking about adding another fourth starter on a good team that will continue to push Correia/Pelfrey into an interference role with young player development. There would be far better ways to allocate this money.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Have the Twins confirmed the offer is on the table? I had not read that. Sounds to me like more bad reporting.

 

Hey, earlier in the thread, you said this:

 

The Twins have a strict policy to not reveal this information until all is said and done. They have reported that they made offers to people like Garza. But only after he signed elsewhere.

 

So if you are asking for confirmation from the Twins, about an ongoing negotiation, by your own admission you're basically demanding evidence that cannot exist.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

 

Deduno? You project Deduno as better than Ervin Santana, not only for 2014 but also 2015? Deduno, whose FIP/xFIP, K/9, and BB/9 were all worse than Santana last year, in half the innings? Deduno, whose season last year ended early due to shoulder surgery? Who only has 192 career MLB innings? Who hasn't pitched more than 138 innings in any professional season, ever? Who is only 8 months younger than Santana?

 

You made some fair points in the Drew debates, but this is wild. Methinks you are severely underestimating the value of established MLB performance.

[TKGuy]

But don't take it out of context either. This is still not a good staff, but the Twins have already tossed a lot of commitments into it. FA will still happen next year and they can add more then, especially if they have shed some of these players and have more clarity about their youth.

 

I agree with your statement that this is still not a great staff. However, for the first time in 3-4 years, we have a competent starting rotation with pitchers that deserve to be in the major leagues so based on that low bar, we should be better

[DaveW]

Unless the Twins have a different viewpoint on Gibson than this board has. If they saw enough last year to lose confidence in his chances to succeed and in their minds he has been passed up by Meyer, May, Darnell, Gilmartin, etc... then they should trade him for whatever they can get back before his stock plummets.

 

By all accounts the Twins are going to give Gibson plenty of chances to succeed, I think us fans who were so desperate for ANY starting pitching to come from within the system a lot of us assumed Gibson would be a savior. At this point, honestly he looks more like a possible #3 then a top rotation guy (which is OK). Gibson hasn't been passed by anyone IMO.

 

Back to the discussion about Santana, I think you absolutely bring him in if the terms are reasonable (3 years), the starting pitching depth in this system is still very weak, Gibson and Meyer are the only two who look to have impacts possibly in the next 2 years. Guys like May, Berrios, Stewart etc are either still 3-4 years away (Stewart) or hugggggggge question marks (May/Berrios)

 

All it takes is one army injury to one of Gibson/Meyer and the system is effectively baron again.

[tobi0040]

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."

 

It is tempting to offer a vested 4th year based on innings. That way you are protected from an injury perspective. But with the depth we have, this is not a deal that we have to do. So giving this guy a 4 year deal when the next best offer is a 1 or 2 year deal seems a little nuts. I think a take it or leave it 3 year deal makes sense. There will be free agents next year.

[JB_Iowa]

Back to the discussion about Santana, I think you absolutely bring him in if the terms are reasonable (3 years)

 

Dave, what would you offer on a 3 year contract?

 

Do you think $40 million would lure him to Minnesota? Less? More? Just curious.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

 

The comp pick would still be a possibility for Santana next year, unless he played less than a full season with a team this year (i.e. traded mid-year like Garza, or if he waited to sign until April).

 

Stephen Drew was a one-year contract for Boston last year, and he was still eligible to be made a "qualifying offer" and net a comp pick.

[JB_Iowa]

The comp pick would still be a possibility for Santana next year, unless he played less than a full season with a team this year (i.e. traded mid-year like Garza, or if he waited to sign until April).

 

Stephen Drew was a one-year contract for Boston last year, and he was still eligible to be made a "qualifying offer" and net a comp pick.

 

 

Question: Can the FA and the team agree in the contract that the team will not make a Qualifying Offer to the FA at the end of the year?

 

That would be a way to avoid the compensatory draft pick problem.

[ppearson50]

I listened to Lavelle Neal's interview with ROb Anthony KFAN and did not sound to me like the Twins are out on Ervin Santana. It just sounded like Anthony didn't want to discuss a player that they may be negotiating with or may have recently negotiated with.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

 

It's not a contradiction at all. Santana may currently prefer a 1 year deal to the 3/33 offer out there, but that doesn't mean he'd necessarily prefer 1 year over an improved 4/44 offer.

[Mike Sixel]

Ya, I don't know why anyone expects the Twins to confirm something as it is happening, one way or the other.

[tobi0040]

Question: Can the FA and the team agree in the contract that the team will not make a Qualifying Offer to the FA at the end of the year?

 

That would be a way to avoid the compensatory draft pick problem.

 

I believe this is possible and I think it has happened before. I want to say Orlando Cabrera maybe did this? Signed a 1 year deal and the terms specificed the team can't offer arbitration.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Question: Can the FA and the team agree in the contract that the team will not make a Qualifying Offer to the FA at the end of the year?

 

No, this is not possible.

 

It used to be possible with the old arbitration system, but it is not anymore, and is expressly forbidden in the bargaining agreement.

 

You might be able to sneak under that with a handshake agreement, but with so few Qualifying Offer FAs, it would invite a lot of scrutiny.

 

The better and more likely outcome is that QO FAs will start with more reasonable demands, or negotiate earlier in the offseason. I'm pretty sure Santana could have gotten his 4/50 or better if his demands had been in that ballpark to begin with (or if he had adjusted his demands anytime through January, probably).

[tobi0040]

It's not a contradiction at all. Santana may currently prefer a 1 year deal to the 3/33 offer out there, but that doesn't mean he'd necessarily prefer 1 year over an improved 4/44 offer.

 

My read on this whole thing is the 1 year route is a ruse to try and get a 4th year from us or someone else.

 

If his options are 3/33 here or 1/14 with Toronto, I think he will ultimately accept our deal (or a similar 3 year deal with a better team is one exists). If he signs here, KC is shipped out of town and I would love to see those two things happen. He is a definitive upgrade over KC and under a reasonable deal for a longer period.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Twins do seem to have a lot of pitchers under contract, but remember that two of them (Hughes and Pelfrey) are still very speculative gambles (and were priced accordingly), and the other (Nolasco) was mostly a safe, durability/stability-type acquisition, and a bit of a gamble too (on the predictive power of xFIP).

 

So there is definitely room for improvement there. Doesn't necessarily have to be now, but this does appear to be a good offseason to add midrange SP at reasonable contracts. No reason to pass up a better pitcher than those currently under contract (like Santana) if he is available at a discount now (like 3/33 or similar would represent). Same with Garza (I actually wish we been a hair more aggressive with him, and made the same offer as the Brewers).

[Otto von Ballpark]

If his options are 3/33 here or 1/14 with Toronto, I think he will ultimately accept our deal (or a similar 3 year deal with a better team is one exists).

 

Not necessarily. For that to be true, he'd have to think he is unlikely to get better than 2/19 next offseason, which seems very low. Heck, someone was willing to pay him 1/12 (plus a minor leaguer) for 2013 even coming off a poor 2012. True, the extra $19 mil guaranteed now would be tempting, but to a man who's already made $43 mil in his career, he's probably willing to play with reasonable odds.

 

Now, up the money (3/39? 3/42?) or add a fourth year and things start to get a little more interesting. He knows the midrange starter market is around 4/50, and he'll only be a year older next year, and not being an "ace" type pitcher, I don't think he's likely to have a performance that could move him beyond that 4/50 class of pitcher.

 

It will be interesting to see what he settles for.

[TheLeviathan]

Same with Garza (I actually wish we been a hair more aggressive with him, and made the same offer as the Brewers).

 

This was a very good post. I think I could handle the amount of guaranteed contracts/spots being handed out in the case of Garza. So it got me thinking - I think a big part of my issue is that I'm just not all that impressed with Santana. If it were Garza or Ubaldo Jimenez I think I'd be more inclined to throw another impass in the way of a prospect.

 

Santana? No, just not doing it for me.

[JB_Iowa]

Well, 3/$33m is Kyle Lohse money -- with the same rejection of a QO as last year.

 

But Lohse was 3 years older. I'll leave you to compare the stats but would you rather have Santana at 31 or Lohse at 34?

 

It's hard for me to see Santana committing to 3/$33m but if it gets in the range of 3/$39-$40m, it would be a lot harder for him to turn down.

 

If the Twins really want him, would that extra $2/million a year hamstring them? No.

 

I'm still not convinced they that they should do this but if they really want him and aren't just shopping for a bargain, it would seem like they will need to up their offer.

[cmathewson]

Deduno? You project Deduno as better than Ervin Santana, not only for 2014 but also 2015? Deduno, whose FIP/xFIP, K/9, and BB/9 were all worse than Santana last year, in half the innings? Deduno, whose season last year ended early due to shoulder surgery? Who only has 192 career MLB innings? Who hasn't pitched more than 138 innings in any professional season, ever? Who is only 8 months younger than Santana?

 

You made some fair points in the Drew debates, but this is wild. Methinks you are severely underestimating the value of established MLB performance.

 

I'm higher on Deduno than most. My only worry with him is health. And, to be honest, that is a big worry. But, when healthy, he is better than Santana.

[jokin]

This was a very good post. I think I could handle the amount of guaranteed contracts/spots being handed out in the case of Garza. So it got me thinking - I think a big part of my issue is that I'm just not all that impressed with Santana. If it were Garza or Ubaldo Jimenez I think I'd be more inclined to throw another impass in the way of a prospect.

 

Santana? No, just not doing it for me.

 

 

Santana is definitely #3 on this list. He still would have been much better than anything currently slated for the Twins rotation. And it's quite likely that he would have had one clinker in his 3-year contract. But then again, based on their own individual career tracks as evidence, it's similarly just as likely that you would have had the one clinker year in three with both Garza and Jiminez, as well. Worth the risk, imo. And Santana has proven to be the most durable of the 3.

 

 

 

 

The biggest take I get from this is the Twins taking on the mantle of a Don Quixote-esque persona. Through cold introspection and cold reality, they finally acknowledged how badly they had bungled the Rotation situation, but lacked the true vigor, mettle and guile to go all the way in completing their quest to returned legitimacy. In both the cases of Garza and Santana they did just enough to NOT get the deal done, whereas they did too much to get the deal done for the lesser targets. Of course their quests for Starting Pitching and a major league catcher were at the cost of also considering the other holes that glaringly still need filling. (Forget pursuing a legit FA MLB hitter or a high-priced SS, even going on the cheap, all they could muster was to sign 2 veteran guys who appear to be done..... over other examples of going on the cheap, ie, what looks like a successful resurrection of Grady Sizemore's career, or going the relatively inexpensive Intl. route for impact from one or more of the Cubans).

[Thrylos]

Santana is definitely #3 on this list. He still would have been much better than anything currently slated for the Twins rotation. .

 

I still think that Santana will be better than Correia (of the 4 pitchers slated to be in the Twins' rotation.) That's about it. If 2008, things might be different, but it would still be a close call with Nolasco (matter of fact, I'd take Nolasco's 2008 with the Marlins over Santana's 2008 with the Angels...)

[jokin]

I'm higher on Deduno than most. My only worry with him is health. And, to be honest, that is a big worry. But, when healthy, he is better than Santana.

 

Big worry? How about over-arching worry? As long as Deduno is cost-controlled, you can throw him into the depth chart and get some sporadically spectacular results.....coupled with the full expectation of an eventual breakdown and disruption to the rotation.

 

By contrast, Santana, less spectacularly but very reliably, has averaged 193+ IP and nearly 31 starts per year over his 8 full-time years.

[jokin]

I still think that Santana will be better than Correia (of the 4 pitchers slated to be in the Twins' rotation.) That's about it. If 2008, things might be different, but it would still be a close call with Nolasco (matter of fact, I'd take Nolasco's 2008 with the Marlins over Santana's 2008 with the Angels...)

 

The salary figures being thrown around indicate that you're in the minority (at this point, anyway, doesn't mean you won't turn out right, but as it stands now, MONEY TALKS, and indicates that those with the money are putting that money where their mouth is, and willing to foresake a high draft pick to do so, besides).

[tobi0040]

I still think that Santana will be better than Correia (of the 4 pitchers slated to be in the Twins' rotation.) That's about it. If 2008, things might be different, but it would still be a close call with Nolasco (matter of fact, I'd take Nolasco's 2008 with the Marlins over Santana's 2008 with the Angels...)

 

Here are the career numbers on the Twins top 4 and Ervin. My personal opinion is Ricky has been more consistent and if you take out Hughes numbers in the new Yankee stadium, his numbers are very similar to Santana's and he is arguably more talented (and 3 years younger). But adding Ervin, if it means pushing out KC or Pelfrey via trade would certainily add talent to this rotation. Two years down the road, Ervin, Hughes, Meyer, and Nolasco is a pretty talented rotation. None of these guys is a #5 starter, with Meyer, Ervin, and Hughes, I would argue you have #2 potential or better.

 

 

ERA WHIP ERA+ K/9

Ervin 4.19 1.28 100 7.1

 

KC 4.49 1.41 89 5.8

 

Pelfrey 4.48 1.47 90 5.2

 

Ricky 4.37 1.28 94 7.4

 

Phil 4.54 1.32 95 7.6

[TheLeviathan]

But adding Ervin, if it means pushing out KC or Pelfrey via trade would certainily add talent to this rotation.

 

In addition to being unconvinced by Santana's erratic career...I'm even less convinced these two are the victims of being pushed out.

[tobi0040]

In addition to being unconvinced by Santana's erratic career...I'm even less convinced these two are the victims of being pushed out.

 

I would guess the odds KC is with the Twins after July is under 10%. So I think he is either moved before the start of the season or before the deadline. At the very least, we wait a few months for Meyer or Gibson to step up and fill that role if we sign Ervin.

 

Even that assumes Pelfrey is somehow the guy he was in 2008 or 2010 and is worth keeping, our thesis on Hughes was correct, none of our five starters needs TJ (which seems to happen every year), no shoulder issues, etc.