2016 Trade and Roster Move Speculation thread

[moonslav59]

I do agree that a 3 year recent sample size can be more telling than a 6 year. One caveat to the "larger the sample the better" rule is the longer you go out the more likely you are including good stats to a guy who is declining, or stats when he started out and struggled while he's in his prime.

 

However, as with everything, context is needed. That one year Santana was hurt weighs down a 3 year sample size more than a 6 year and besides that one half season missed Santana has a remarkedly better track record than Clay.

 

If Santana could be had for Clay, that's as about as easy a yes as you can get. I suspect it would take a bit more but Santana is an easy upgrade over Clay.

 

Agreed, but it's a half year of Buch vs 2 1/2 years of Santana at the same yearly cost.

 

If you'd like to sign Santana to a $26M/2 contract this winter, then this is a no-brainer trade with no extra financial compensation required from the Twins.

 

I don't think I'd spend that kind of money to maybe, just maybe slightly upgrade or 5th starter slot and improve SP'er depth.

 

I realize this half season of Santana vs Buch is a big value too, but I'm not sure it outweighs the future budget restrictions.

[mvp 78]

That is a big difference, but so is a 91 to 100 ERA- differential.

 

Again, I'm not saying Buch has been better than Santana over 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years. He's certainly way worse this year.

 

I chose the comp, because they both are being paid $13M, and they both are slotted or would be slotted as our 5th or lower SP'er, and I see so much vitriol against Buch, that I don't see a big difference in their two histories. The IP differential is nearly cancelled out by the ERA- disparity.

 

Yess, I think Santana is an upgrade over Buch, but Buch is our 8th or 9th SP'er right now, so Santana would have to be way better (or better than ERod and others) to be worth taking on $26M/2 after this year.

 

What good is an ERA- differential if Buchholz can't stay healthy? I'd rather the extra 50 innings a year. Otherwise you have to add Buchholz's ERA- to a AAAA player.

[User Name]

That is a big difference, but so is a 91 to 100 ERA- differential.

 

Again, I'm not saying Buch has been better than Santana over 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years. He's certainly way worse this year.

 

I chose the comp, because they both are being paid $13M, and they both are slotted or would be slotted as our 5th or lower SP'er, and I see so much vitriol against Buch, that I don't see a big difference in their two histories. The IP differential is nearly cancelled out by the ERA- disparity.

 

Yess, I think Santana is an upgrade over Buch, but Buch is our 8th or 9th SP'er right now, so Santana would have to be way better (or better than ERod and others) to be worth taking on $26M/2 after this year.

 

You're massively understating the importance of IP, and twisting the argument to defend the indefensible.

[a700hitter]

Half year pitchers like Buch are not worth a straight prorate of a full season pitcher. An additional discount has to be applied to take into account the cost of replacing the other half of the season -- costs in salary, plus prospects and other players traded to acquire the replacement. Buch has cost us a f*** TON as someone posted yesterday.

[moonslav59]

You're massively understating the importance of IP, and twisting the argument to defend the indefensible.

 

You're mistakenly underestimating the importance of a much lower ERA-. I said his IP outweighed Buch's better ERA- (slightly), so what's the argument?

 

What am I misdefending?

 

Santana is better than Buch. He has been over the years (slightly) and he's way better this year.

 

Santana may or may not be worth $26M/2 over the next two years.

 

Tell me how I'm way off base.

[moonslav59]

Yes, 37 to 47 extra IP are very important, but if you are calling Buch a half season pitcher, then don't call Santana a full season pitcher.

 

We're comparing the histories of a half season 91 ERA- pitcher to a 3/4 season pitcher at a 100 ERA-.

 

The disparity is not as great as some seem to be making it out to be.

 

Look, I'll take Santana over Buch right now for the rest of this year, or if Buch was signed for 2 more years at $26M. It's a no-brainer. Santana is better and projects to be better.

 

I'm just saying, I'm not sure I'd sign Santana to $26M/2 (what he's due) next winter. I'd probably want to spend more to get someone better or to use towards getting Encarnacion and/or a couple RP'ers.

[Hugh2]

What good is an ERA- differential if Buchholz can't stay healthy? I'd rather the extra 50 innings a year. Otherwise you have to add Buchholz's ERA- to a AAAA player.

 

Exactly, there is real tangible value in a guy who can stay healthy and in the rotation. Clay hasn't been barely been able to stay healthy, and he hasn't been healthy and good in a very long time.

 

Clay has made more than 18 starts 2 times since 2010 and even then he only made 28 with 173 IP. Those two years he started more than 18 games in 2012 and 2014 he was horrible. His ERA/FIP/ERA+ was 4.56/4.65/92 and 5.35/4.01/75 This year he is sporting a 5.91/6.03/76

 

Pretty much every year Clay has either been injured 1/2 the year or a disaster in the rotation.

 

You can not really stress enough the type of value of having consistency brings to a rotation.

[moonslav59]

What good is an ERA- differential if Buchholz can't stay healthy? I'd rather the extra 50 innings a year. Otherwise you have to add Buchholz's ERA- to a AAAA player.

 

You make a valid point, and I know ERA- is not the be-all-end-all stat either, but I look at it this way, the guy who replaces Buch for those 37-47 IP would have to put up an ERA- of worse than 110 or 120 or worse to even up with Santana's 100 ERA-.

 

Again, I've said the IP slightly outweighs the ERA disparity, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

[Hugh2]

Santana has almost double, as in almost 1000 more IP than Buchholz in just 2 more years in the league. That gap doesn't look as extreme because if you only go back a few years Santanas 2015 and 108 IP weight heavily on his average. But here's the thing in his 12 year career Santana has a very good track record of staying healthy and staying in a rotation, he got hurt one year and looks healthy again. Meanwhile, Buchholz has a season like that every other year.

 

I honestly don't even think it's close, Santana is easily worth his contract and Clay is worth nothing at this point. I honestly am inclined to not believe this rumor because the Twins could probably do much better. If there is a trade where Santana is price and the big piece is Clay then that is about as close to a no brainer as you get to make.

[mvp 78]

You make a valid point, and I know ERA- is not the be-all-end-all stat either, but I look at it this way, the guy who replaces Buch for those 37-47 IP would have to put up an ERA- of worse than 110 or 120 or worse to even up with Santana's 100 ERA-.

 

Again, I've said the IP slightly outweighs the ERA disparity, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

 

And the guy that was the replacement would most likely put up a 120 or worse ERA-.

[Bellhorn04]

To me a WAR analysis makes more sense with Buchholz. WAR accounts for the # of innings and you can assume that the other innings that year were filled by someone with a 0 WAR.

 

But it's all a moot point because he has no value any more.

[mvp 78]

To me a WAR analysis makes more sense with Buchholz. WAR accounts for the # of innings and you can assume that the other innings that year were filled by someone with a 0 WAR.

 

But it's all a moot point because he has no value any more.

 

Santana's career WAR is almost double Buchholz's.

[Bellhorn04]

Santana's career WAR is almost double Buchholz's.

 

There you go.

[User Name]

You're mistakenly underestimating the importance of a much lower ERA-. I said his IP outweighed Buch's better ERA- (slightly), so what's the argument?

 

What am I misdefending?

 

Santana is better than Buch. He has been over the years (slightly) and he's way better this year.

 

Santana may or may not be worth $26M/2 over the next two years.

 

Tell me how I'm way off base.

 

You are trying to create an argument that effectiveness outweighs IP to the point where one can infer that Santana and Buchholz offer similar value regardless of Buchholz' lack of durability. That is silly.

[User Name]

Yes, 37 to 47 extra IP are very important, but if you are calling Buch a half season pitcher, then don't call Santana a full season pitcher.

 

We're comparing the histories of a half season 91 ERA- pitcher to a 3/4 season pitcher at a 100 ERA-.

 

The disparity is not as great as some seem to be making it out to be.

 

Look, I'll take Santana over Buch right now for the rest of this year, or if Buch was signed for 2 more years at $26M. It's a no-brainer. Santana is better and projects to be better.

 

I'm just saying, I'm not sure I'd sign Santana to $26M/2 (what he's due) next winter. I'd probably want to spend more to get someone better or to use towards getting Encarnacion and/or a couple RP'ers.

 

How is Santana not a full season pitcher? Other than his injured half last year, dude has pitched less than 175 IP two times since he became a full-time starter in 2006. Buchholz has eclipsed 170 IP thrice in his entire career. Are you serious?

[Dojji]

The one thing you can't accuse Ervin Sanatna of is lack of durability. A normal year for him is somewhere between 175 and 200 innings.

 

In the last 5 years Santana has pitched 228 2/3, 178 in a down year, 211, 196, and 108 in an injury shortened season, and is on pace for over 180 innings this year. The trend is durability, last year is the exception that proves the rules.

 

I've been calling for adding more more guy in the Jeremy Guthrie/Paul Byrd/Ryan Dempster mold. Santana is at the high end of that group of pitchers at this point in his career. he is a very good bet to improve the rotation if we bring him in.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Dojji

[Spudboy]

Is there an actual Buck for Santana rumor? I step away from the laptop for a few hours and the whole world fall apart.

 

I' really saddened that Milania is a t-boy, too.

[Bellhorn04]

Is there an actual Buck for Santana rumor? I step away from the laptop for a few hours and the whole world fall apart.

 

I' really saddened that Milania is a t-boy, too.

 

Hard to figure why the Twins would have any interest in 2 months of Buch.

[Spudboy]

Hard to figure why the Twins would have any interest in 2 months of Buch.

 

To get out of 2/26 of Santana?

[Kimmi]

Santana's career WAR is almost double Buchholz's.

 

Fangraphs or BR?

 

Don't answer that, I know.

[Kimmi]

To get out of 2/26 of Santana?

 

That would be part of it, IMO. They would also want a prospect or two.

[moonslav59]

You are trying to create an argument that effectiveness outweighs IP to the point where one can infer that Santana and Buchholz offer similar value regardless of Buchholz' lack of durability. That is silly.

 

No, I said Santana has been better than Buch.

 

I said something like Buch's 91 ERA- vs 100 ERA- "nearly" outweighs the IP disparity. I didn't say it makes them even. I also said Santana is better now, and that I'd rather have him than Buch, but that his $26M over the next 2 seasons vs zero for Buch makes it a difficult choice for me.

[moonslav59]

How is Santana not a full season pitcher? Other than his injured half last year, dude has pitched less than 175 IP two times since he became a full-time starter in 2006. Buchholz has eclipsed 170 IP thrice in his entire career. Are you serious?

 

The two sample sizes I chose showed Santana with 37 IP per season more than Buch and 47 IP per season in the other. I went on to say that if you are calling Buch a half season pitcher, then adding 37 or 47 IP to that total does not make you a full season pitcher- it would be more like 3/4.

 

Maybe my math was wrong, and if so, I apologize.

[moonslav59]

The one thing you can't accuse Ervin Sanatna of is lack of durability. A normal year for him is somewhere between 175 and 200 innings.

 

In the last 5 years Santana has pitched 228 2/3, 178 in a down year, 211, 196, and 108 in an injury shortened season, and is on pace for over 180 innings this year. The trend is durability, last year is the exception that proves the rules.

 

I've been calling for adding more more guy in the Jeremy Guthrie/Paul Byrd/Ryan Dempster mold. Santana is at the high end of that group of pitchers at this point in his career. he is a very good bet to improve the rotation if we bring him in.

 

Santana has been way more reliable and consistent than Buch. I never even implied a otherwise. I never meant to imply IP and consistency is not important, but only that performance level has importance as well.

 

Santana's ERA- and IP have been much more steady than Buch's...

...........IP/ERA-

Year... SANT....... BUCH

2010 223/98 174/ 54

2011 229/86 83/ 82

2012 178/133 189/ 107

2013 211/80 108/ 42

2014 196/109 170/ 133

2015 108/99 113/ 77

2016 98/96 81/ 132

 

Clearly Buch has been all over the map with his ups and downs and missing time. I'd rather have Santana's record since 2010 than Buch's, but Buch does have 4 of the best 5 ERA- seasons. Buch has also had 2 of the worst three, and those two have been in the past 3 years.

 

On IP, Santana blows Buch away. I realize that has a lot of value. He's been over 170 IP 5 out of the previous 6 seasons, while Buch has just three times. Buch's highest IP (189) was bested by Santana in 4 of the last 6 seasons, including 3 times by more than 20 IP.

 

My point was meant to show that posters here seem to despise Buch, who makes $13M a year. Santana makes $13M a year as well, but is signed for that amount for 2 more years.

 

Clearly, nobody here wants Buch for the next 2 years at $26M. How many here would sign Santana for $26M/2 this coming winter (assuming he doesn't get hurt or flop the second half?)

 

If your answer is no, then the trade may not make sense, even with the gain we might get by replacing ERod with Santana to finish out the year.

 

If your answer is yes, then the deal is a resounding no-brainer. I will add that the $13M luxury tax hit will lessen what we can spend elsewhere.

 

I see Santana as a 4th starter or solid 5 slot starter...kinda like Dempster. I prefer to rebuild a staff from the top or near the top rather trying to rebuild from the bottom of near the bottom. Perhaps the added value of having Santana for the remainder of 2016 tilts the balance in favor of "yes".

 

(That's assuming the trade rumor is valid.)

 

[Bellhorn04]

To get out of 2/26 of Santana?

 

But Santana has been pitching decently lately and is not unreasonably priced. I can't see why they would trade him now except for a good prospect.

[moonslav59]

But Santana has been pitching decently lately and is not unreasonably priced. I can't see why they would trade him now except for a good prospect.

 

Exactly. They should be able to get a decent prospect and total salary relief.

 

Maybe it's Buch and someone like Owens or Johnson.

[Slasher9]

Beni & mon should start packing. Another RP injury....

 

(Ok, hopefully DD doesn't trade one of them for RP but we are in trouble now)

[Spudboy]

But Santana has been pitching decently lately and is not unreasonably priced. I can't see why they would trade him now except for a good prospect.

 

I agree. I was ONLY responding to the idea of a deal straight up for Buch.

 

I would have little reservation in committing to 2/26.

[a700hitter]

Beni & mon should start packing. Another RP injury....

 

(Ok, hopefully DD doesn't trade one of them for RP but we are in trouble now)

Moncado is stuck behind Pedroia at second base. He is blocked at SS by Bogaerts, and even if he could play the OF, he is blocked by Betts and Bradley. Unless he can play 3B, he doesn't have any position for a few years. Either him or Benintendi could be a nice juicy chip to net us a TOTRS.

[Nick]

Getting Santana would be a side way move I'm opposed to. I'm with Moon on this. Locking into a two year contract for $26M plus giving away additional prospects would be the dumbest thing to do at this point.

 

Now that we have Pomeranz, just play it out and see what's in store.