jianfu

Download attachment: dan-hare.jpg Jon Heymannotes the Angels are looking to trade Dan Haren and/or Ervin Santana. Both have option years for 2013, and if their options are picked up both are fairly pricey: Haren's is for $15.5 million and Santana $13 million. Neither had fantastic years (Santana in particular, who also experienced a drop in velocity), but both have a track record of success and both are still fairly young. If they can't trade them, everyone expects the Angels to buy both of them out (a combined cost of a little over $4 million). So why would anyone give the Angels anything for these guys they don't want? Because a team could offer a bag of buttons to the Angels (saving them a little cash in the process for their Greinke offer), instead of signing a pitcher in FA long term in 2012/13 and having to pay him 3 or 4 years from now. TThey'd pay steep for 2013 but then be done (if they so chose). Almost every year, dating back to his run as GM in the early 2000s, Terry Rya has maintained that the Twins don't necessarily have an issue with the salary of free agent pitchers. Their issue is they aren't comfortable (probably justified) with the commitment in years, which of course not only add cost, but also, given pitchers can go off a cliff at the drop of a hat due to injury, a lot of risk. Now, I have no idea what their opinion might be on Haren or Santana, but here's an opportunity, at least, to add a relatively "name" pitcher to fill in one of 4 open rotation spots, literally without any longterm commitment after next year. The Angels aren't in position to ask for anything serious in a trade, either. The alternative for these two is things unfold as most expect and they're bought out and become free agents. But I'm fairly confident Haren would get paid on a multi-year contract. Santana? Not as sure. But a top-of-the-head comp might be Edwin Jackson (similar age, pedigree last year), who signed 1 year, $11 million. Fairly close to Santana's option. Click here to view the article

The Jays's Top 15 Prospects for 2013, according to Fangraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/toronto-blue-jays-top-15-prospects-updated/ Most of the pitching is a ways away...not that that's terrible, but I suspect the Twins are itching for ML-ready guys if they're going to trade. Still not sure what Morneau's value might be. I was skeptical, but Adam Laroche apparently is getting a lot ot suitors. Morneau's a bit younger, is AL-tested, and for all his struggles and inconsistencies lately, particularly in 2011, Laroche's 2011 was even more crappy. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/larocad01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morneju01.shtml

Guthrie doesn't do much for me. Although Fangraphs crowd-sourced contract projections have Guthrie at 2/$12. I could handle that. Although I think they're too low. For instance, they have Edwin Jackson at 3/$36 and Marcum at 2/$20. Sign me up if that's the case.

I agree. THere are concerns, but the Twins could do much worse. Hellickson was a strikeout pitcher in the minors, so maybe there's a chance he'll trend upward. That said, given the questionable peripherals, I'm not sure I want to see the Twins try to match wits with the Rays on this particular player.

If doing so nets them a young, cheap starter to upgrade the rotation now? Absolutely. Although the "get a replacement RH bat" brings back uncomfortable memories of the logic that led to the Delmon (currently a FA!) trade. Maybe they could strike a deal and then bring back Torii for one last hurrah... Nah. I get the sense sometimes Ryan just doesn't/won't think two or three moves down the road. They need pitching; they don't have many avenues to get it; if an opportunity comes, I'd prefer they just do so and deal with untied ends later. Yes, Willingham was fantastic (and healthy) this past year. He probably will be less so next year.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?1132-Don-t-Want-to-Pay-Long-Years-for-a-Starter

I posted this article, as well. I don't think the Angels can really ask for much unless, as others have noted, the bidding for one year of Dan Haren gets heated (which is possible, I suppose). But at any rate, this is sort of strange in that it's basically a deadline type deal/expected return, not a typical offseason deal (not that any such thing exists, but you know what I mean). Terry Ryan has always maintained that it's not the salary of FA pitchers he's opposed to, it's the years required to get them to sign. The Twins aren't going to bring in a Dan Haren in FA. But this could be an opportunity to add a serious pitcher without committing to a long contract, assuming the trade price isn't too high. Given the drop in velo and his bad year, I think Santana might go to FA and sign a small contract for less. Although even then it could be close. Him and Edwin Jackson are fairly similar in terms of age, effectiveness, strikout/walk, and Jackson signed for 1/$11 last year (although did so coming off a better season than Santana just had).

Heyman notes the Angels are looking to trade Dan Haren and/or Ervin Santana. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/20740083/angels-exploring-trades-for-haren--greinke-before-option-decision-is-due Both have option years for 2013, and if their options are picked up both are fairly pricey: Haren's is for $15.5 million and Santana $13 million. Neither had fantastic years (Santana in particular, who also experience a drop in velo), but both have a track record of success and both are still fairly young. If they can't trade them, everyone expects the Angels to buy both of them out (a combined cost of a little over $4 million). So why would anyone give the Angels anything for these guys they don't want? Because if a team would offer a bag of buttons to the Angels (saving them a little cash in the process for their Greinke offer), instead of signing a pitcher in FA long term in 2012/13 and having to pay him 3 or 4 years from now, they'd pay steep for 2013 but then be done (if they so chose). Almost every year, dating back to his run as GM in the early 2000s, Terry Ryan's maintained that the Twins don't necessarily have an issue with the salary of free agent pitchers. Their issue is they aren't comfortable (probably justified) with the commitment in years, which of course not only add cost, but also, given pitchers can go off a cliff at the drop of a hat due to injury, a lot of risk. Now, I have no idea what their opinion might be on Haren or Santana, but here's an opportunity, at least, to add a relatively "name" pitcher to fill in one of 4 open rotation spots, literally without any longterm commitment after next year. The Angels aren't in position to ask for anything serious in a trade, either. The alternative for these two is things unfold as most expect and they're bought out and become free agents. But I'm fairly confident Haren would get paid on a multi-year contract. Santana? Not as sure. But a top-of-the-head comp might be Edwin Jackson (similar age, pedigree last year), who signed 1 year, $11 million. Fairly close to Santana's option.

Heyman notes the Angels are looking to trade Dan Haren and/or Ervin Santana. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/20740083/angels-exploring-trades-for-haren--greinke-before-option-decision-is-due Both have option years for 2013, and if their options are picked up both are fairly pricey: Haren's is for $15.5 million and Santana $13 million. Neither had fantastic years (Santana in particular, who also experience a drop in velo), but both have a track record of success and both are still fairly young. If they can't trade them, everyone expects the Angels to buy both of them out (a combined cost of a little over $4 million). So why would anyone give the Angels anything for these guys they don't want? Because if a team would offer a bag of buttons to the Angels (saving them a little cash in the process for their Greinke offer), instead of signing a pitcher in FA long term in 2012/13 and having to pay him 3 or 4 years from now, they'd pay steep for 2013 but then be done (if they so chose). Almost every year, dating back to his run as GM in the early 2000s, Terry Ryan's maintained that the Twins don't necessarily have an issue with the salary of free agent pitchers. Their issue is they aren't comfortable (probably justified) with the commitment in years, which of course not only add cost, but also, given pitchers can go off a cliff at the drop of a hat due to injury, a lot of risk. Now, I have no idea what their opinion might be on Haren or Santana, but here's an opportunity, at least, to add a relatively "name" pitcher to fill in one of 4 open rotation spots, literally without any longterm commitment after next year. The Angels aren't in position to ask for anything serious in a trade, either. The alternative for these two is things unfold as most expect and they're bought out and become free agents. But I'm fairly confident Haren would get paid on a multi-year contract. Santana? Not as sure. But a top-of-the-head comp might be Edwin Jackson (similar age, pedigree last year), who signed 1 year, $11 million. Fairly close to Santana's option.

Other long-shots: Jon Lester Pro: Might be relatively easy to acquire given his rough season and signed for only one more year. Con: Signing on to a FA-to-be situation isn't their style. Ervin Santana Pro: Another guy with a rough season but with a track record of decency previously. Heading to FA. Con: Signing on to a guy they'd probably consider an "enigma" isn't their style. I suspect they'll work the scrap heap per usual, and then hope some guys step up. I suppose they might maybe consider moving a Sano or Hicks for a young SP. That's not their style, either, but given the circumstances they might consider it.

I agree. I would have been in favor even if it was a pure salary dump. Morneau's really not worth near his contract, and they have a cheap plug-in with Parmalee (or even other options such as Willingham, Mauer, even potentially guys such as Doumit or Plouffe (if he continues the carosel of hell that is guys who can't garner trust at 3b)...it's not hard to find a guy to play first) Or to put it another (simplified) way, if given the choice of going into 2013 with Morneau + SP's off the discount rack, or Parmalee + $14 million to go chase SP, I think they're better off with the latter. But we'll see. It's also possible LA wanted MIN to eat some salary. That would be a different issue, potentially.

I'm sure it's mostly injuries, but I also think the move to TF has really been difficult on him. I don't know if he's at the end or not, but even at the height of his powers he was U-G-L-Y to watch when he slumped. Those terrible attempts to pull low offerings six inches off the outside of the plate were there even around 2006-2010. So, in a weird way, maybe that's good news?

Always fun to hear about young talent coming in. Although it'd be nice if one of these times they'd target a young shortstop or two who actually might stick at the position. Cuddyer, Plouffe, Sano, Levi Michael, Goodrum, Minier... I once heard Kevin Goldstein observe that if a young shortstop has doubters that he can stay at short, he probably won't stay at short. It's a really hard position to find. (Perhaps not coincidentally, this is Gardy's 11th season at the helm. How many times has he written in the same starting shortstop on opening day? Three: Cristian Guzman from 2002-2004. Since 2005, the opening day shortstops have been Jason Bartlett, Juan Castro, Bartlett again, Adam Everett, Nick Punto, JJ Hardy, Alexi Casilla, and Jamey Carroll. If you adhere to the tenant that quality teams are built up the middle, that's not a great pattern.) But enough unprovoked ranting. Glad to see they've added another fairly regarded international prospect. They've been more aggressive as of late in this area, but given they spent more money than anyone else in the draft this year, I wasn't sure if they'd do much internationally.

I think Gould's the prospect that was going to go in the nixed Carlos Lee deal. FWIW. Nice piece. Looks like they have a lot of arms.

The ESPN numbers do compare home v. road numbers; to that end they are an attempt to measure park influence. BBall-ref goes a step further by including opponents performance at the park compared to other parks. But you can consider these a park factor measure. They're not simple runs-per-game type stuff. The homeruns are still down (these past two homestands notwithstanding, in particular the interleague homestand where there were nearly 3 hrs per game), but the doubles, triples, and walks are all way up, contributing to the runs. I suspect the park will eventually settle into neutral-to-slight-pitcher park. That's how it's played last yaer and this year. I think that's what they wanted. But who knows?I hope that's the case as I'm not a fan of extreme parks. It's also interesting to go to hittracker and check out the park overlays, where you can put an outline of parks on top of each other to compare. Dimensions of fields are probably much more similar than many realize. Target Field is about the ezxact same shape as Safeco, but it's also not too different than US Cellular.