|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, January 14, 2008
Wookle! More Santana news...I haven’t been this thrilled since those Sugar Pie DeSanto 45’s somehow fell into my shopping bag!
For the second time this offseason, the Yankees have pulled their Phil Hughes-centered trade offer for Johan Santana off the table.
The Yankees, then, will not restart trade talks with the Twins unless Hank Steinbrenner has another change of heart, a baseball official with knowledge of the talks told 1050 ESPN Radio’s Andrew Marchand.
The Yankees’ desire Monday to turn their attention away from the two-time Cy Young winner leaves Boston and the New York Mets as Minnesota’s trade partners, the official told Marchand.
Repoz
Posted: January 14, 2008 at 03:13 PM | 48 comment(s)
Related News: General, Boston, Minnesota, NY Mets, NY Yankees, Rumors
|
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Does Hank's heart need to change, or Hal's. I'm telling you, they really are the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of MLB now. If A-Rod asks them to deliver a message in person to Bud Selig, they'd better not wait around for Bud to read it.
(Yes, that was hackenyed. Sorry.)
Now you know what it feels like to be a Red Sox every one of the past 3-4 offseasons.
I was like, "Cool, now I'll have a good chance to see him no-hit the O's."
Theo can't even decide if he wants to be GM or not. How can you expect him to decide on trades and stuff?
Wait, I've seen this a lot.
unlessuntil Hank Steinbrenner has another change of heart, a baseball official with knowledge of the talks told 1050 ESPN Radio’s Andrew Marchand."Fixed!
At first glance, I thought it said "Yankees pull trade off for Santana." Emphasis mine.
I skimmed the headline and I originally thought it said "Yankees pull trade off for Santana."
When the headline popped up, I initially thought it said "Yangtze pulp bake-off, or Dan Tanna?" I was skeptical.
I believe both of these posters have kevin on their "Ignore" list.
EDIT: Who did the Yankees give up?
Who doesn't?
You seem to be under the illusion that Hank Steinbrenner is a calculating businessman, not a blustering jackass.
And if the Twins DO win next year with Santana, they might -- gasp -- even be able to keep him in town.
Is there any particular reason the above options don't seem to be part of the discussion?
I'm not sure myself. Holding onto Santana seems like a perfectly viable option for the Twins to me.
I believe both of these posters have kevin on their "Ignore" list.
Who doesn't?
Seriously.
It's obviously part of discussion. This isn't a situation where they plan to trade Santana for whatever is the best offer on the table.
Seriously, does anybody still do this? The newspaper? To see if anything happened since you checked the internet before going to sleep last night? That is the strangest part about this story.
Depends. Tell me what Santana has really said to the Twins in private, and I'll tell you if this is a "perfectly viable option" or not. If he has said -- or if he says at some point -- that he will exercise his no-trade clause and refuse to accept a deal once the season starts, then he puts the Twins in a very difficult position: they have to decide if (a) he's bluffing, and (b) if he's not, whether they honestly think they can realistically contend by holding on to him.
So long as they think trading him in-season is within their control, then sure -- it's an option. But they have Santana's veto power to consider, and that complicates matters. Considerably.
Even if the answer to both questions is "no", it still might not be a bad idea to hold onto him.
Well, IMHO, it would be. They have offers on the table that would be better than taking draft picks for Santana after losing him when the season ends. Plus, they'd save the $13M they owe him for 2008, which makes all the sense in the world if they really don't think they can contend.
So did I, after his 'turn her tits into wallets' remark on a recent thread, but his comments keep showing up. Doesn't "ignore" mean you don't see that person's posts?
Even if they don't think they can contend, they can do worse with $13 million than give it to Johan Santana. He's probably worth more to them than $13 million.
I'm not a believer in the notion that, if you don't think you can contend, you should dump all your veteran players.
I'm not either. Just the ones who you know are going to leave at the end of the season, whom your owner is determined not to pay their market value, and whom you can trade to obtain reasonable value better than you'd get from FA compensation.
If the Twins believe they can't contend, what's the upside of keeping Johan? Respectability? Fan attraction? Gettting Hughes et al is better than draft picks, no?
Exactly that. Santana is worth more than $13 million to the Twins whether or not they contend.
I'd trade Santana for the Yankees' package, but that's just me. If I didn't think I was getting decent value for Santana, I wouldn't trade him.
IMHO, I would rather have the prospects too. The other route (failing to cash in on a vet's trade value to gain respectability or fans) seems like the Orioles Way the last 15 years.
No, the Orioles Way is to overpay for the decline phase of players' careers (this is also the Giants Way). I don't think the Twins are in danger of that.
The Orioles Way can spell failure in more ways than one. For example, they held on to Tejada long enough to let his trade value decline.
I still don't see why the Twins wouldn't keep Santana. How much can he possibly be asking for? If you're in Minnesota, you're buying tickets to see Morneau & Mauer - and on every fifth day or so, Johan Santana. (And Joe Nathan every third day or so.) Their farm system isn't what it was a few years ago either. Those are the guys putting butts in the seats and the guys you can build around to create a contender. Unless they're asking for $50 million a year, I don't know why you'd let any of them go.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-yankees-santana&prov=ap&type=lgns
Maybe they fear trading Santana, w/o getting a palatable (to the fans) package in return might sour luxury box,seat-license and season tickets sales for the new stadium.
They might also be hoping to get lucky w/Liriano's recovery and contend. If so, they should trade some of their minor league pitching for another hitter.
Hank: There, that's over with.
Cashman: What is?
Hank: I just got done telling the media we pulled our offer for Santana.
Cashman: You did what?!
Hank: I just got done...
Cashman: You dolt! Why would you tell them that?
Hank: Because I'm sick of all this Santana talk. Every day it's "Are you trading for Santana?" "What's the news on Santana?" "Santana baby, just slip a sable under the tree for me." Every. Single. Day. So I told them we're done. That'll shut 'em up.
Cashman: (sigh) What did I tell you six weeks ago?
Hank: That we should try to sign A-Rod?
Cashman: No. After that. About Santana, what did I tell you?
Hank: You said we want to keep Boston's price for Santana high enough that they won't sign him.
Cashman: Right.
(pause)
Hank: ...And?
Cashman: If they know we're out of the bidding, they won't have to bid very high.
Hank: But they don't know.
Cashman: What do you mean, they don't know?
Hank: I had someone check the press room. They weren't there.
Cashman: Who wasn't there?
Hank: The Red Sox. They weren't in the room, so they didn't hear me say it.
Cashman: So, just the media was in the room?
Hank: Yes.
Cashman: The media who write what you say in the newspapers?
Hank: Yes.
Cashman: The newspapers that the Red Sox will read tomorrow?
Hank: Ye - oh.
(pause)
Hank: I got it!
Cashman: (mutters under his breath) I doubt you do.
Hank: What?
Cashman: I bet you do! What is it?
Hank: I'll talk to them again and tell them we're not really out of it. Or maybe we are. Or maybe we were never formally in it, but we were talking with them and still do. That'll throw the Red Sox off the trail.
Cashman: Good luck with that. (mutters) Dolt.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main