Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 110

Thread: Twins Interested in Brett Anderson

  1. #61
    Actually, I read in the Bay Area media, that Oakland is looking for middle infielders and catchers. The Rosario problem has probably handcuffed the Twins as far as middle infielders, and the Twins do not have much to entice in the catching department.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by NoCal View Post
    Actually, I read in the Bay Area media, that Oakland is looking for middle infielders and catchers. The Rosario problem has probably handcuffed the Twins as far as middle infielders, and the Twins do not have much to entice in the catching department.
    It makes the most sense that they are looking for that. They might go for a big right handed bat that can play outfield. I know they've been linked to Nelson Cruz.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    389
    Like
    3
    Liked 144 Times in 77 Posts
    If say Worley and Fien or Worley and Burton would do it, I'd take it. Rosario is a lot to give up, but I'd probably do that too. Any more than that, it's not worth it. The injury history is too extensive and if he doesn't light it up, you're not picking up a $12 million option for 2015.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    310
    Like
    4
    Liked 42 Times in 28 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by NoCal View Post
    Actually, I read in the Bay Area media, that Oakland is looking for middle infielders and catchers. The Rosario problem has probably handcuffed the Twins as far as middle infielders, and the Twins do not have much to entice in the catching department.
    Levi Micheal & Vance Worley anyone hahaha

  5. #65
    Senior Member Triple-A Don't Feed the Greed Guy's Avatar
    Posts
    426
    Like
    219
    Liked 219 Times in 94 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Here's an interesting article by Clave Jones, entitled "Should the Twins Trade For Brett Anderson? http://fantasybaseballcrackerjacks.c...rett-anderson/

    Jones quotes Reusse and Mackey, who were discussing such a trade on 1500 ESPN yesterday. Evidently Reusse and Mackey were dropping names like Rosario, Arcia, May, and Gibson as potential bait for the Oakland leftie.

    That seems outrageous to me. But it's a fun read. Take a look.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Triple-A InfraRen's Avatar
    Posts
    300
    Twitter
    @InfraRen
    Like
    42
    Liked 14 Times in 9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Don't Feed the Greed Guy View Post
    Here's an interesting article by Clave Jones, entitled "Should the Twins Trade For Brett Anderson? http://fantasybaseballcrackerjacks.c...rett-anderson/

    Jones quotes Reusse and Mackey, who were discussing such a trade on 1500 ESPN yesterday. Evidently Reusse and Mackey were dropping names like Rosario, Arcia, May, and Gibson as potential bait for the Oakland leftie.

    That seems outrageous to me. But it's a fun read. Take a look.
    I would like a Brett Anderson trade, for sure - but for none of those guys. MAYBE Gibson, but I kind of feel like Gibson is kind of Brett Anderson-like if he could get it figured out.

    Would REALLY love the Twins getting in on the Jeff Samardzija trade talks. THEN I'd start looking at the guys in DFTGG's post.
    Till I Collapse

  7. #67
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    237
    Like
    16
    Liked 35 Times in 30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by InfraRen View Post
    I would like a Brett Anderson trade, for sure - but for none of those guys. MAYBE Gibson, but I kind of feel like Gibson is kind of Brett Anderson-like if he could get it figured out.

    Would REALLY love the Twins getting in on the Jeff Samardzija trade talks. THEN I'd start looking at the guys in DFTGG's post.
    I hate to be the we can't trade anyone guy. I'm open to trading especially for the right guy. Given injury history I don't see how BA can command too much. I don't like trading Gibson because I think his value is way too low. I'd rather keep him and gamble that he puts it together this year.

  8. #68
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    He has pitched less than 50 innings a year for several years, and people wnat to give up legit prospects for him?

    Mind.
    Boggling.
    Lighten up Francis....

  9. This user likes mike wants wins's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    thetank (12-05-2013)

  10. #69
    Banned Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    715
    Like
    82
    Liked 40 Times in 29 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    He has pitched less than 50 innings a year for several years, and people wnat to give up legit prospects for him?

    Mind.
    Boggling.
    He's a top of the rotation guy when healthy. People talk about them like they grow on trees, and here's a real live one. Recently Ryan has been quoted as saying he won't use his prospects and I don't disagree with that, but I do believe a buy low, top of the rotation lefty is worthy of discussion.
    Last edited by howieramone; 12-05-2013 at 10:02 AM.

  11. #70
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by howieramone View Post
    He is a top of the rotation guy when healthy. People talk about them like they grow on trees, and here's a real live one. Recently Ryan has been quoted as saying he won't use his prospects and I don't disagree with that, but I do believe a buy low, top of the rotation lefty is worthy of discussion.
    i agree, but giving up one or more top prospects is not "buying low"
    Lighten up Francis....

  12. #71
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,022
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,514 Times in 792 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    i agree, but giving up one or more top prospects is not "buying low"
    Yeah. Anderson is an intriguing player, for sure... But he's incredibly injury-prone and has been paid quite handsomely to not throw baseballs at opposing batters in anger.

    And that guy isn't worth a top 100 prospect. He's just isn't.

    Why give up, say, Eddie Rosario for Anderson when you can go get Johan Santana for a couple of million bucks? When you get right down to it, they're kinda the same guy (though Anderson has a better chance of rebounding... though I wouldn't put it much higher, honestly).

  13. #72
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,558
    Like
    3
    Liked 312 Times in 195 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Brett Anderson, career ERA+: 108

    Matt Garza, career ERA+: 108

    Not advocating one or the other, just thought that was interesting.

  14. #73
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    And all Garza costs is money....
    Lighten up Francis....

  15. #74
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    302
    Like
    166
    Liked 30 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    i agree, but giving up one or more top prospects is not "buying low"
    "Buying low" is a subjective term. If trading for a "low-valued" Anderson requires a guy like Rosario or even he and Gibson, what would his value be at his "selling high" value? I recall that the Royals were turned away not too long ago when they offered Wil Meyers (top 3 prospect in all of baseball). This guys value is incredibly low righ now, especially for the cash-strapped A's.

    To play the what if game: It's 2016 and Matt Harvey hasn't been able to stay healthy and pitched only 15-20 games in 2014 and 2015 combined. Is he worth a couple of very good prospects (Top 100-types)? What if he were healthy? See David Price, that is what these guys are worth.

    To get elite pitching requires risk. Anderson is ace material. The Twins will not win unless they have pitching that can compete with the Tigers, Red Sox, and Yankees. Buying Anderson now IS buying him at his lowest value.

  16. #75
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    I don't see how giving up a starting 2B/LF and a #3 pitcher is an incredibly low price. I don't see how giving up only one of those is a low price.

    It really depends in your medical analysis of his situation, and how good you think the prospects you are giving up are. I think an everday 2B/LF is worth more than a guy with a 108+ ERA that has not really pitched in three years. I'd rather have Gibson, I think. But I don't know the medicals.

    Frankly, why not just sign Garza, he costs zero prospects.
    Lighten up Francis....

  17. #76
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    302
    Like
    166
    Liked 30 Times in 24 Posts
    I agree with the "sign Garza" logic. He doesn't cost prospects and they are very comprable. IMO, Anderson is better than Garza, when he is healthy. The biggest difference to me is Anderson is only 25 (26 on Feb. 1st). We can pay him Garza $, but the prospects are what we pay to get age 26-30 seasons. Age is the reason, imo, to invest with prospects.

  18. #77
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    872
    Like
    12
    Liked 49 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Brett Anderson, career ERA+: 108

    Matt Garza, career ERA+: 108

    Not advocating one or the other, just thought that was interesting.
    Look at what the Rangers gave up for less than half a season of Garza. A solidly top 100 prospect (Olt), the new #11 and #12 prospects in a deep Cubs system, and a 25 year old starter with 100 sub-par MLB innings but a 3.23 MiLB ERA mark.

    It's not the trade deadline and Garza isn't coming off injury, but Rosario doesn't seem so far fetched.

  19. #78
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,558
    Like
    3
    Liked 312 Times in 195 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit View Post
    I agree with the "sign Garza" logic. He doesn't cost prospects and they are very comprable. IMO, Anderson is better than Garza, when he is healthy. The biggest difference to me is Anderson is only 25 (26 on Feb. 1st). We can pay him Garza $, but the prospects are what we pay to get age 26-30 seasons. Age is the reason, imo, to invest with prospects.
    Actually, you'd only be getting Anderson's age 26-27 seasons -- he's only under team control through 2015. Best case scenario, he pitches well, but to keep him he'd need a Garza-like deal, albeit at a younger age but also one that will extend further into our impending "Buxton/Sano return to glory" (assuming we care about budgeting for that, extending Anderson would affect it more than a Garza deal now).

    Also, Anderson has pitched 450 innings in the majors. His 147 ERA+ season lasted all of 112 innings. Just looking at last year's game logs, Garza had a 99 inning stretch with a roughly 144 ERA+. I'm not sure how you can reliably conclude he's a better pitcher than Garza, even when healthy.

    If you want to take a risk adding this caliber of pitcher now, risking money might be the better play, particularly if Oakland isn't so keen on accepting a "buy low" return.
    Last edited by spycake; 12-05-2013 at 01:02 PM.

  20. #79
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    494
    Like
    2
    Liked 79 Times in 49 Posts
    In the past 3 years, he's thrown 83, 35, and 45 innings (rounded). The idea he suddenly turns into a 150+ guys seem like pure fantasy to me. And how could a mid-market team give him a pricey extension even if he did do well for 2 years, knowing his history?

    The Twins need more pitching, but I don't see why someone would give up a good prospect for 2 years of very uncertain upside.

  21. This user likes drivlikejehu's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    thetank (12-05-2013)

  22. #80
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,755
    Like
    640
    Liked 380 Times in 212 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Well let's look at the injury history

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ca...d.php?id=57286

    2007: Concussion from a car accident, 29 days missed
    2009: blister, 10 days missed
    2010: Flexor tendon strain, 40 days missed
    2010: elbow inflammation, 56 days missed
    2011: Tommy John surgery (Jul 14)
    ....
    2012 (Sept): belly strain, 20 days missed
    2013: ankle sprain, 120 days missed

    Most of that time is related to the elbow so if TJ fixed it, I think its reasonable to expect him to throw more innings in 2014. 4 months for an ankle sprain does seem like a lot though.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.