BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Fake Teams: The Twins Ready To Move On Johan Santana

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, January 25, 2008

Fake Teams: The Twins Ready To Move On Johan Santana

As Oswald Loomis once said…“Thudds to you, Superman!”....well, Thudds to you, Posnanski!

FWIW, Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune told Charlie Steiner on his XM Radio show, “Baseball Beat”, that Twins officials he has spoken with on the team’s Winter Caravan would ideally want a Johan Santana trade completed by next week. His colleague, La Velle E. Neal III writes the Twins do not want to extend this into Spring Training and have picked-up the pace in discussions with the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox.

The sticking point, according to Mr. Neal, is the Twins don’t want $0.20 on the $1 in terms of talent. Unfortunately, this implies the Twins are the team being unreasonable. Why would these deep-pocketed teams bid against themselves when they can simply let Santana hit the free agent makret next year and overpay him while keeping all those valuable 0-3 players?

That said, La Velle reports the Mets appear to be in the lead to land him. Given Boston’s offers are better in terms of player contributions in 2008 and forward, one can easily conclude the Red Sox are not serious and remain in the discussions only to drive the Yankees’ price upwards. One can easily conclude the Twins know that, too, and that is why they have not taken the deal.

Repoz Posted: January 25, 2008 at 02:01 PM | 40 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Boston, Minnesota, NY Mets, NY Yankees

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.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Nasty Nate Posted: January 25, 2008 at 02:32 PM (#2675929)

Given Boston’s offers are better in terms of player contributions in 2008 and forward, one can easily conclude the Red Sox are not serious and remain in the discussions only to drive the Yankees’ price upwards.

I dont understand this sentence ...?

2. OCD SS Posted: January 25, 2008 at 02:49 PM (#2675939)

I read it as "The Sox have a better offer on the table, and the only reason it hasn't been accepted by the Twins is because it is not serious (ie they will back out of the trade if it comes to that)."

I really disagree with the $.020 on the dollar line. The Twins are trying to pretend like the money that Santana will demand as an extension is not a consideration, but if they're too cheap to pay him the going rate it seems pretty silly to expect that another team who will have to pony up for that amount might not care... (Sure he qualifies it as "talent", but let's not pretend the money isn't a huge factor.)

3. Raleigh Horn Posted: January 25, 2008 at 02:50 PM (#2675941)

I took it to mean that Boston's offer is better than the Mets, but it's not a real offer, so Minnesota "can't" take it.

Then again, the next sentence kind of screws up that theory, so nevermind.

4. Cris E Posted: January 25, 2008 at 02:52 PM (#2675943)

If everyone is short of the Twins' mark then best isn't relevant yet. What's relevant is who you can get to up the ante, and it doesn't look like Boston will move except in response to a Yankee offer. It's not well written, but it's not a very original sentiment either.

5. OCD SS Posted: January 25, 2008 at 03:14 PM (#2675955)

I believe the idea under discussion is "If I confuse the reader, s/he won't realize that what I really wrote is 'I have nothing new to report.'"

6. The Kids Are Enright (1k5v3L)

Posted: January 25, 2008 at 03:15 PM (#2675957)

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with buIIshIIt

7. billyshears Posted: January 25, 2008 at 03:27 PM (#2675968)

I believe the idea under discussion is "If I confuse the reader, s/he won't realize that what I really wrote is 'I have nothing new to report.'"

I disagree that there is nothing new here. Everybody has always suspected that the Red Sox were lukewarm about Santana and were mainly in this to drive up the price, but I think the perception was that the Red Sox would take Santana if they could get him at their price. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never thought that the Red Sox offer was a total ruse.

8. Will Young finally tied the knot Posted: January 25, 2008 at 04:14 PM (#2676003)

Relying on Jim Souhan for facts is like relying on Dr. Phil for open heart surgery.

9. The Piehole of David Wells, Red Sox Colostomy Bag

Posted: January 25, 2008 at 04:21 PM (#2676013)

I think the Red Sox have made the best offer they will make. I don't think they will improve their offer if the Yanks improve theirs because if the Yanks improve their offer, they won't surpass the Sox.

A football analogy:

If the Red Sox get Santana, they're the 2007-08 Patriots; without him, they're the 2007-08 Colts.

If the Yanks get Santana, they're the 2007-08 Colts; without him, they're the 2007-08 Jaguars.

If the Mets get Santana, they're the 2007-08 Cowboys; without him they're the 2007-08 Seahawks.

Without the Patriots in the league, everyone has a chance to be the champion because they can knock off the Colts.

10. chris p Posted: January 25, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#2676022)

Everybody has always suspected that the Red Sox were lukewarm about Santana and were mainly in this to drive up the price, but I think the perception was that the Red Sox would take Santana if they could get him at their price.

agreed.

11. OCD SS Posted: January 25, 2008 at 05:01 PM (#2676060)

I disagree that there is nothing new here. Everybody has always suspected that the Red Sox were lukewarm about Santana and were mainly in this to drive up the price, but I think the perception was that the Red Sox would take Santana if they could get him at their price. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never thought that the Red Sox offer was a total ruse.

I didn't and still don't think it's a ruse; the conclusion is the reporter's. In order for him to make that conclusion every other premise in his article would also need to be correct, including the fact that "the Mets have taken the lead."

That requires that the source for that nugget was being forthcoming about the actual state of affairs, and not leaking something in the hopes of getting the Yankees or Red Sox to upgrade their offers.

I find it more likely that the Red Sox would make the trade as they have offered it than the Twins are disclosing the actual state of the trade to the media.

12. Valentine Posted: January 25, 2008 at 05:14 PM (#2676070)

That requires that the source for that nugget was being forthcoming about the actual state of affairs, and not leaking something in the hopes of getting the Yankees or Red Sox to upgrade their offers.

You mean we can't believe everything we read in print? I would estimate that both the Red Sox and Yankees offers are over $.50 on the dollar if you ignore salary. The $.20 figure is a clear exaggeration.

13. SacBunt Posted: January 25, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2676077)

It's times like this I wish I understood game theory better. Does anyone know of a place where game theory is applied to player trades? Or even a good intro on the topic?

14. OCD SS Posted: January 25, 2008 at 05:34 PM (#2676083)

You mean we can't believe everything we read in print?

Well, far be it from me to suggest that any esteemed member of the 4th estate would resort to printing their own opinion based on a less than completely direct and candid admission from a club official just to fill column space.

15. A One-Shoed Craig K Posted: January 25, 2008 at 06:05 PM (#2676105)

If the Red Sox get Santana, they're the 2007-08 Patriots; without him, they're the 2007-08 Colts.

I think the Red Sox are good, too; but don't you think 173-0 is a bit of a stretch?

16. Fraud Cried the Maddened Thousands Posted: January 25, 2008 at 06:06 PM (#2676106)

I would estimate that both the Red Sox and Yankees offers are over $.50 on the dollar if you ignore salary. The $.20 figure is a clear exaggeration.

What does this mean? How is it measured? What effect does the amount of time these players would be under team control have on the calculation?

17. Valentine Posted: January 25, 2008 at 06:37 PM (#2676128)

What does this mean?

It's a half-assed guess. Do you think it is inaccurate? I'd look for Santana to average a +40 to +60 VORP over the next five years. Lester and Lowrie might average a +20 to +30 VORP, Hughes an expectation of +30 to +40. Use an exponent of 2 (since it is appropriate to put a premium on "concentrated" talent) and I'd estimate that either Lester or Lowrie is worth 1/4 of a Santana and Hughes is worth roughly 1/2 a Santana. (I'm worth approximately 0.0000001 Santanas on a good day.)

What effect does the amount of time these players would be under team control have on the calculation?

None. Presumably they would all be with their new team for at least ~5 years, with the team that wins Santana signing him to a contract extension. The greater difference is in $$$$, not time-under-control.

18. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 25, 2008 at 06:44 PM (#2676132)

I'm not how this ruse, if that's what it is, is supposed to work:
--- Yankees: We'll give you X, Y, and Z.
--- Twins: No, that won't work. The Red Sox are not offering a better deal. You'll have to beat it.
Then again, maybe Stein, Jr., really is that dumb.

OR, maybe the Yankees' offer isn't genuine either. In that case, the Mets have to beat two nonexistent offers. Perhaps Omar should offer Lastings Milledge.

19. Valentine Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:03 PM (#2676147)

Perhaps Omar should offer Lastings Milledge.

Too much. Milledge has similar present value to Ellsbury (excellent defense, above-average offense) and is a couple years younger. Milledge+Guerra would blow away either the Red Sox or Yankees offers. Minaya should hang on to his top talent. Maybe substitute a lesser player like Gomez or FMart for Milledge?

20. Crispix Attacks Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:06 PM (#2676150)

If we're talking imaginary trade offers, the Mets offering Milledge would clearly be trumped when the Phillies decide Kevin Oudeis is available.

21. Gaelan Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:07 PM (#2676151)

Too much. Milledge has similar present value to Ellsbury (excellent defense, above-average offense) and is a couple years younger. Milledge+Guerra would blow away either the Red Sox or Yankees offers. Minaya should hang on to his top talent. Maybe substitute a lesser player like Gomez or FMart for Milledge?

That is either unintentionally funny or the cruelest thing said to a Mets fan all year.

22. DL from MN Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:16 PM (#2676156)

On the positive side, the Twins are announcing a long-term deal with Morneau in time for TwinsFest.

23. Sam M. Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:18 PM (#2676158)

Perhaps Omar should offer Lastings Milledge.

Oh, what the hell. Let's go all in. Omar should offer Milledge, Kazmir, Nolan Ryan, Ken Singleton, Amos Otis, Lenny Dykstra, and Kevin Mitchell. Oh, hell. Why stop at players they never should have traded? How about the guy they didn't draft but should have? Tell Smith we'll throw in Reggie, too.

Now, that's a lot more than $.20 on the dollar!!! Of course, it's easy when you don't actually have any of the players you're throwing around . . . .

24. DL from MN Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:29 PM (#2676169)

We'll need Seaver to get that deal done.

25. Valentine Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:42 PM (#2676179)

That is either unintentionally funny or the cruelest thing said to a Mets fan all year.

The latter. Maybe the Mets know what they're doing and I'll eat crow in a couple years, but the Milledge trade REALLY puzzled me. Maybe Gomez and Martinez will grow into the job eventually, but Milledge seems ready to emerge in 2008. I do think he's better than Ellsbury.

26. DL from MN Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:49 PM (#2676181)

Charley Walters has numbers...

"The Twins have agreed to multi-year deals with first baseman Justin Morneau (for six years and about $75 million) and outfielder Michael Cuddyer (for three years and about $23 million), according to a person close to the situation.

Cuddyer's deal also will include a club option for a fourth year that could raise the overall value of the contract near $35 million."

I'm saying thumbs up to both.

27. The District Attorney Posted: January 25, 2008 at 08:59 PM (#2676218)

I'd have spent $100M on Santana instead.

28. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:10 PM (#2676223)

If the Red Sox get Santana, they're the 2007-08 Patriots; without him, they're the 2007-08 Colts.

I think the Red Sox are good, too; but don't you think 173-0 is a bit of a stretch?

Maybe closer to the '85 Bears? Okay, they wouldn't go 146-16, but their *upside* would be 110 wins and a historically good pitching staff.

I'm not saying this would happen - I'm not 100% sure the Red Sox are even a 100 win team if they add Santana, but they'd have a shot at being that good next year. Santana/Beckett/Schilling/Matsuzaka/Buchholz/Wakefield? Are you kidding me?

29. Dan Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:16 PM (#2676227)

If the Red Sox acquired Santana, they'd have a pretty decent shot at the best starting rotation of all time, I think.

30. Valentine Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:35 PM (#2676232)

I'd have spent $100M on Santana instead.

Would that have been enough? I thought he was talking about $140M/6yrs?

These are good deals for the Twins. Possibly better than giving a pitcher too much for too long.

31. Dan Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:42 PM (#2676234)

I think that the Twins are smart investing their money in hitters rather than pitchers long term. If hitters are really a lot lower risk than pitchers over the course of a 5-6 year contract, then it makes sense that a team with a limited payroll should invest most of its money in premium hitting talent, and then get what pitching it can from its system. This especially makes sense for Minnesota given their recent success in developing pitching and lack of hitting talent coming up from their system. Now a team like the Red Sox or Mets or Yankees can afford to gamble on FA pitching, simply due to the fact that $20 million isn't 20-30% of their total payroll. If one of these teams locks up Santana and he falls apart by year 4 of a 7 year deal, the team won't be hamstrung in terms of spending, whereas a team like the Twins likely is hamstrung by that kind of deadweight.

32. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:59 PM (#2676245)

If the Red Sox acquired Santana, they'd have a pretty decent shot at the best starting rotation of all time, I think.

Actually, I don't think they'd have a decent chance of having the best Red Sox rotation of this decade. In 2002, Red Sox starters went 78-47 with a 3.53 ERA, which was good for a 129 ERA+. I don't know how that team didn't make the playoffs.

33. Dan Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM (#2676247)

2002 was an odd year. The A's, Angels, Red Sox, and Yankees were all legitimate 98-100 win teams (although the Red Sox underperformed their Pythagorean by 7 games, I think it was).

34. DKDC Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM (#2676248)

Actually, I don't think they'd have a decent changc of having the best Red Sox rotation of this decade. In 2002, Red Sox starters went 78-47 with a 3.53 ERA, which was good for a 129 ERA+. I don't know how that team didn't make the playoffs.

You beat me to the punch. ZiPs has the Sox rotation with Santana projected to a 117 ERA+, which is very good, but not exactly within striking distance of best ever.

35. Dan Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:22 PM (#2676262)

Well obviously to have a historically good rotation at least 3 of the 5 starters will have to beat their median projection. No rotation has a median projection of a 130 ERA+ or greater. For example, I'm sure if you could have looked at a ZiPS projection for that 2002 Red Sox rotation the only one who would have projected to an ERA anything near that good would have been Pedro. And a rotation of Santana - Beckett - Matsuzaka - Schilling - Buchholz with Wakefield in the wings would certainly have several candidates to post great years.

Perhaps saying a "decent shot" is a bit of a reach, it's certainly not a 30% chance or anything, but I would definitely call it a significant non-zero chance, at the least.

36. DKDC Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:39 PM (#2676277)

Perhaps saying a "decent shot" is a bit of a reach, it's certainly not a 30% chance or anything, but I would definitely call it a significant non-zero chance, at the least.

I'd guess it's probably lower than that.

The ZiPS optimistic (15%) ERA+ projections for Beckett and Matsuzaka are about 20% higher than the mean projections. If all of the Sox starters hit their 15% projections, that gets them to a 140 ERA+, which is probably approaching best ever territory.

According to my rudimentary statistics knowledge, that has only a 15%-to-the-fifth-power chance of happening (1 in 13,000). Another way of looking at it is that those 5 pitchers have combined for a grand total of 3 seasons of 140 ERA+ over the last 3 years (and 13 total seasons).

Of course, the Red Sox probably aren't getting Santana, so the argument is most likely moot.

37. OCD SS Posted: January 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#2676306)

On the positive side, the Twins are announcing a long-term deal with Morneau in time for TwinsFest.

I like those deals alot; but the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this helps to appease the fan base and makes it easier to deal Santana (and not get the full talent exhcange they want)?

38. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: January 26, 2008 at 08:03 AM (#2676510)

"The Twins have agreed to multi-year deals with first baseman Justin Morneau (for six years and about $75 million)...

For a 1Bman who won't average .500 slugging over the life of the contract? Contracts really have exploded.

"... and outfielder Michael Cuddyer (for three years and about $23 million), according to a person close to the situation. 

For a RFer with one above average year in his career? What am I missing here?

39. a bebop a rebop Posted: January 26, 2008 at 08:38 AM (#2676512)

For a RFer with one above average year in his career? What am I missing here?

Well, he's a CFer now.

(According to Mr. Gardenhire, that is...)

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, January 25, 2008

Fake Teams: The Twins Ready To Move On Johan Santana

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics