Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Twins agree to deal Santana to Mets for prospects

FINALLY!!!!

The New York Mets have agreed to a trade for two-time Cy Young Award winner Johan Santana, giving up four prospects to acquire the left-handed ace of the Minnesota Twins, according to two high-ranking Twins officials with knowledge of the talks and a person close to Santana.

The deal is pending the Mets and Santana reaching agreement on a six- or seven-year contract extension and that Santana passes a physical; they have been granted a 48 to-72-hour window to do so. Santana has a no-trade clause that he will waive if agreement is reached on a contract extension.

The Mets paid a high price in prospects to land Santana, agreeing to send the Twins outfielder Carlos Gomez and pitchers Phil Humber, Deolis Guerra and Kevin Mulvey.

Repoz Posted: January 29, 2008 at 04:37 PM | 412 comment(s)
  Related News: GeneralMinnesotaNY Mets

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 3 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 >
   201. Rough Carrigan Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:38 PM (#2679263)
#167. Furious? Nope. I (and the other Sox fans I know) was ambivalent about the trade costs and what Santana will cost.
   202. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:38 PM (#2679264)
I expect the 2008-2009 offseason to have some serious Texiera bidding by Minaya.

Dunn is a free agent as well. Ideally, Delgado has a good enough year that you pick up his option and trade him and try to get one of Teixeira or Dunn. It won't be easy because the Yankees are looking for a firstbaseman as well and people have been talking about Dunn going to Texas or Houston for a long time.
   203. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:39 PM (#2679265)
If it's me, and I don't even get back the team's best prospect in return for one of the best 3 players in baseball, I tell them thanks but no thanks.

Albert Pujols
Alex Rodriguez
Chase Utley

You really think Santana is one of the best three players in baseball???

Anyway, the Twins might have been able to get F-Mart, but then they would have been criticized for getting even less immediate return than they are already getting, since he is further away and more of a question mark than Gomez. The problem was they weren't getting both.

The issue here -- to me -- is not whether Smith took the right offer at this point. It's whether he blew it by not acting sooner. It seems pretty clear that (for whatever reason) both the Yankees and Sox cooled off, and he was left pretty much with the Mets. Should Smith have anticipated that was going to happen? Maybe, but I certainly didn't think he was going to be left holding the bag, and thus that he should have jumped a month ago while Hughes/Melky or the Sox offers were on the table.
   204. Mike A Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:42 PM (#2679269)
Bud Selig, please step in and stop this horse**** trade. Thank you.

OK, granted, after the McGriff deal I shouldn't be throwing any stones, but man...this one is frustrating.
   205. BurlyBuehrle Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:43 PM (#2679271)
199 --

It seems to me that of contending teams (or would-be contenders) the Cubs have a back-of-the-bullpen need and some prospects Minny might want. They don't really want to try to win their first in a century with Dumpster closing, do they? Or do they think Carlos Marmol can close?
   206. fear and loathing in birdlives Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:43 PM (#2679272)
"so expecting a sure-fire position prospect like Adam Jones in return for Johan was unrealistic all along."

The Twins had a hughes package from the Yankees, not to mentioned a rumor Lester or Ellsbury package. Not only was it realistic to expect a high end prospect, it happened. Smith overplayed his hand.
   207. Baseballing powerhouse Crispix Attacks Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:45 PM (#2679273)
I'm going to continue saying that as long as we don't know which teams Santana would have allowed them to trade him to, we don't know how much leverage the Twins had, and therefore we don't know how good this trade is.

Remember when Ken Griffey said he would only be traded to the Reds? Maybe this is like that.

(of course, the Mariners were trying to reload and keep winning games, so they were looking for people ready to contribute immediately...and getting Mike Cameron probably made that a good trade, despite the rest of the return being duds)

The Twins had a hughes package from the Yankees, not to mentioned a rumor Lester or Ellsbury package. Not only was it realistic to expect a high end prospect, it happened.

Did the Twins say no to those? Or did Santana invoke the no-trade clause, and the Twins kept it quiet in order to make it seem like they had more leverage?
   208. BTF's left-wing cheering section (formerly_dp) Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:47 PM (#2679274)
Is it crazy of me to think the Twins take Martinez over Gomez if Fernando was at St Lucie and posted a .310/.350/.450 line? Having him post poor numbers at AA may have been what kept him in the organization...
   209. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:48 PM (#2679275)
Is it crazy of me to think the Twins take Martinez over Gomez if Fernando was at St Lucie and posted a .310/.350/.450 line? Having him post poor numbers at AA may have been what kept him in the organization...

The Twins wanted Fernando more Gomez anyway.
   210. Booey Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:50 PM (#2679277)
Did Glavine retire? Sign with another team?

Seriously, I don't remember...
   211. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#2679279)
Glavine's a Brave.

I wonder where Lohse goes now. The Phils and Braves could both use him.
   212. 1k5v3L Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#2679281)
If it's true both the Yankees and Red Sox pulled their offers off the table, the Twins really had two choices: keep Johan and collect draft picks in 2009, or take the only offer on the table, from the Mets. I think the Mets offer was definitely better than 2 draft picks in 2009. Plus, now Santana will likely remain in the NL for the next 7-8 years, which may not have been the case had he become a free agent. So you can see why the Twins made this trade.
   213. BTF's left-wing cheering section (formerly_dp) Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:58 PM (#2679289)
The Twins wanted Fernando more Gomez anyway.

Oh, I thought they wanted both, but the Mets would only give up one and the Twins wanted Gomez due to their immediate lack of a CF. Makes a lot more sense that they'd rather have Martinez.
   214. drea Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:58 PM (#2679290)
"The Twins had a hughes package from the Yankees, not to mentioned a rumor Lester or Ellsbury package. Not only was it realistic to expect a high end prospect, it happened. Smith overplayed his hand."

Since you refer to rumored packages, I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming "happened". When (or if) packages from teams like the Red Sox or Yankees were ever on the table is a matter of conjecture and debate, so I find it difficult to say with any certainty how Smith overplayed his hand. Given what I do know (that Santana had a complete no-trade and only six months left on his current deal), I think that a package of high upside, high risk players was probably the best that we could have expected from the eventual trade for Minnesota.
   215. DKDC Posted: January 29, 2008 at 07:59 PM (#2679292)
I hate this deal for the Twins, but if it's any solace for Twins fans, I also hated the Beckett deal for the Marlins.
   216. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2679293)
One of the main criticisms of Minaya as a GM is that he tends to fill holes too quickly. It seems that he did not do this in acquiring Santana. He could have caved in and given up Fernando. Good for him.

I'm also glad for the NL. The NL needs the Dodgers, Cubs, and Mets to spend money (wisely) so the other teams in the league aren't content with being mediocre.
   217. Git 'er Dunn Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:05 PM (#2679296)
I just wonder what kind of haul the Twins would've gotten mid-season after the Indians or Tigers locked up the wild card and the Yanks and Sox are battling for the one remaining playoff spot...
   218. fear and loathing in birdlives Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:07 PM (#2679297)
Did the Twins say no to those?

From what was reported, they wanted Kennedy as well.

Since you refer to rumored packages, I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming "happened".

Of course, we can only go by what we hear in the papers. If you're looking for a formal statement on what they're offering in trade negotiations, then your statement (the Twins got the best package they could) is a tautology.
   219. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:08 PM (#2679298)
I just wonder what kind of haul the Twins would've gotten mid-season after the Indians or Tigers locked up the wild card and the Yanks and Sox are battling for the one remaining playoff spot...

Santana has said that he would veto any trade during the season. Wasn't really an option.
   220. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:10 PM (#2679300)
I just wonder what kind of haul the Twins would've gotten mid-season after the Indians or Tigers locked up the wild card and the Yanks and Sox are battling for the one remaining playoff spot...

By the time that happened -- IF it happened -- the trading deadline almost certainly would have past. The odds the Indians and Tigers would be so far ahead of both the Red Sox and Yankees, who would then be locked in mortal combat and thus have maximum incentive to bid up the price for Johan, are tiny. Smith would more likely have been left with the option of sending Santana to a division rival than in the catbird seat.
   221. billyshears Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:12 PM (#2679302)
it isn't clear that the Yankees were still serious about trying to acquire Santana, once it became clear the Red Sox were not.


I'm all for building with prospects, but I think the Yankees may have underestimated their need. I get the sense that the Yankees are having a bit of an identity crisis. The Red Sox just won the World Series and look to have a very good rotation without Santana. They could play this coy, as they did. The Yankees lost in the first round again and have a rotation that is highly dependent on prospects and veterans that are injury risks. Santana would have been just as big of an asset to the Yankees as he would be to the Mets. I think Hughes is a fantastic prospect and I can understand the desire to take him off the table, but it seems as if the Yankees didn't even try to counter with a Tabata/Jackson/Horne/Karstens package or something similar. That doesn't make sense to me.
   222. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:13 PM (#2679304)
I'll tell you one thing. If frigging Mike Pelfrey can't learn to pitch on a staff that has Pedro Martinez and Johan Santana on it, he truly is a hopeless case.

Then again, he couldn't seem to learn from Pedro and Tom Glavine . . . .

Sigh.
   223. baudib Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:15 PM (#2679305)
The best part about this deal is that it's not even a future-for-now trade for the Mets.

Will there ever be a point when Mulvey/Humber/Gomez/Guerra contribute more on the field than Johan Santana? I say no.
   224. drea Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:17 PM (#2679309)

Of course, we can only go by what we hear in the papers.


Agreed. What I read in the papers was often contradictory and portrayed the Red Sox and Yankees as conflicted pursuers of Santana. Thus, I don't believe that Smith necessarily overplayed his hand. He was dealing with some very serious obstacles and moving targets, and he ended up with a group of projectable, high upside players, which I felt was a must for any Santana deal. I guess that's why I seem to disagree with the vast majority of people here, in believing that the Twins did pretty well, all things considered.
   225. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:20 PM (#2679310)
The best part about this deal is that it's not even a future-for-now trade for the Mets.

No, the best part about this trade is that it makes Wallace F'ing Matthews look like a total idiot. That is always the best part of anything good the Mets do.

I repeat: you will have to look at the ways in which the Mets go about dealing with replacing Moises Alou, El Duque, and Carlos Delgado (and perhaps Pedro) starting in 2009 before you can tell me that this trade wasn't a "future for now" trade. They may also need to replace their closer, and their catcher and second baseman (depending on other things). Even if you don't particularly like the players themselves, they did represent possible assets the Mets could have used to go about filling SOME of those holes that will need to be filled. Now, they have fewer options to deal with their future needs. In a meaningful sense, they have restricted their ability to deal with their future in order to deal with their now.

Was it worth it? Yes. But will it affect how easily they can meet future needs? Absolutely.
   226. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:24 PM (#2679312)
Gammons has really jumped the shark. He just said that he didn't think Gomez would crack the Red Sox or Yankees' top-10 prospect lists.
   227. Tanner Boyle Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:27 PM (#2679314)
With Santana going from the Big Boy League to the AAAA League, he's a cinch to rack up 30+ W's & 500+ K's.

And the over/under for no-hitters should probably be around 5, perfect games about 3.

Oh yeah, the Mets will go 127-35...
   228. danielj Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:29 PM (#2679317)
Gammons has really jumped the shark. He just said that he didn't think Gomez would crack the Red Sox or Yankees' top-10 prospect lists.

Sounds like soemthing Buster Olney would say. I remember he said that Beltran should sign with the Yankees because the Mets were not likely to make the playoffs in year 1 of the deal. A 7-year deal can only be valued by the first year!
   229. Matt Waters Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:30 PM (#2679318)
Gammons has really jumped the shark. He just said that he didn't think Gomez would crack the Red Sox or Yankees' top-10 prospect lists.


What really interests me is how highly the Twins value Gomez. Would they have been so much worse off taking Austin Jackson, Jeff Marquez, Ross Ohlendorf and Alan Horne? It seems they were insistent on making the Yankees and Red Sox pay through the nose. Any you guys think Gomez is clear-cut better than Jackson, or has a higher upside?
   230. The Jerry Royster Experience Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:31 PM (#2679319)
It seems they were insistent on making the Yankees and Red Sox pay through the nose.

Either that, or the Yankees and Red Sox weren't really that interested in the first place.
   231. bibigon Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:32 PM (#2679321)

Gammons has really jumped the shark. He just said that he didn't think Gomez would crack the Red Sox or Yankees' top-10 prospect lists.


Maybe he meant a combined top 10 list. I could see an argument for that.
   232. fear and loathing in birdlives Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:33 PM (#2679323)
Agreed. What I read in the papers was often contradictory and portrayed the Red Sox and Yankees as conflicted pursuers of Santana.

I certainly believed the Yanks and RS were conflicted pursuers but a Hughes or Lester or Ellsbury centered package were all widely reported. Sure, they were moving targets in that each package was pulled or put back but that those package were offered. You either beieve those reports or you don't. And if you do, Smith overplayed his hand.
   233. bibigon Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2679324)
Will there ever be a point when Mulvey/Humber/Gomez/Guerra contribute more on the field than Johan Santana? I say no.


While I bet there will be such a point, you're right, that there's a very strong chance the answer is "no", is a pretty good indication of how good a deal this is.
   234. Sowers the Seed of Love (B.J. & The Tear) Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2679326)
Gammons was shot before the stroke. When was the last time he wrote a decent article? 2002?

Personally, I'm just happy for Johan to leave Minnesota. I got so bloody tired of watching him lose games like this last season.
   235. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:44 PM (#2679328)
Random stat:

In 2007, Santana, Pedro, Maine, Perez, and Duque combined to strike out 749 batters in 762.2 IP. That's good for a k/9 of 8.84.
   236. Dave Cyprian Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:45 PM (#2679330)
Like many others, this deal has me completely dumbfounded. Is this the result of a world where Barry Zito gets $126 million? This is non-salary cap insanity.

Crazy athlete money is turning the market for elite talent in such twisted ways. The Miami Dolphins probably won't be able to achieve their dream of trading away the #1 pick in the NFL draft. The Twins get a package of wishes and dreams for the best pitcher available in at least two years?
   237. Raskolnikov Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#2679332)
You got him, Omar!
YES!
   238. Justin Zeth Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:50 PM (#2679334)
Well, the Miami Dolphins' dream is to trade the #1 pick and get back the kind of haul the last time the #1 pick was traded, which was the #4 pick, a third rounder, and a first rounder the following season. If the Dolphins were willing to trade the #1 for, say, the #6 and a third rounder, and nothing more, it would get done. And they should do that, because only about once every five years does a prospect come along that's worth the insane money an NFL #1 pick gets, and 2008 ain't one of those five years.

If no one at all is willing to give the Dolphins anything for the #1 pick, they could simply pass. That's allowed in the NFL draft.
   239. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:51 PM (#2679336)
An appearance by Rasky. All we need is one by OFF, Banta, Heit, and Gelb and this will be like a game chatter!
   240. Justin Zeth Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:52 PM (#2679338)
By the way, since several people keep making this point, I want to reiterate: If this was the very best deal the Twins could get for Santana, they'd have been better off keeping him.
   241. Al Kaline Trio Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:53 PM (#2679339)
he didn't think Gomez would crack the Red Sox or Yankees' top-10 prospect lists.


He could run circles around them though. But he couldn't out-crack the new Rangers CF.
   242. Raskolnikov Posted: January 29, 2008 at 08:59 PM (#2679340)
When my friend told me about the deal - my heart sank because I was sure we gave up the Franchise. No Fernando! And then, the bonus, no Pelfrey! That's insane.

Last month, I even harbored thoughts about making the Mets a lower priority in my life than watch Omar shred my heart trade by trade.

Today, Omar redeemed himself and much, much more.
   243. franoscar Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:01 PM (#2679342)
In the regular season, the Tigers play 18 games against the Minnesota Twins; 7 games against the Boston Red Sox & 6 games against the Yankees. (more or less, I might have missed something.) That is 31 games without Johan Santana. Yay!
   244. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:03 PM (#2679344)
(What does David Wright think???)

After watching that video, I think David Wright is an enormously boring human being.

Sorry Sam!
   245. zonk Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:07 PM (#2679345)
Since this thread is probably destined to be the longest baseball-centric thread of the offseason, I feel like I should add some worthless comments of my own to it...

Only problem is - I got none except to say @#@$@@!!@# is that all it takes to land Santana?

I mean seriously-- of all the teams that could afford Johan -- you're telling me none of them could or would be that pile of overrated drek?
   246. William K. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:09 PM (#2679346)
Well, the disparity of the starting pitching between the 2 leagues continues to grow...What are the odds of Bedard also moving to the NL?
   247. philly Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:16 PM (#2679352)
By the way, since several people keep making this point, I want to reiterate: If this was the very best deal the Twins could get for Santana, they'd have been better off keeping him.


How so? Because they could trade him during the season? BEcause 2 picks are better? Because 2 picks and a good chance at the playoffs are better?
   248. retro-shiite Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:16 PM (#2679353)
Or do they think Carlos Marmol can close?

You think he CAN'T? Guy's feckin' nasty.

Dempster notwithstanding, the Cubs are as deep in hard-throwing righthanded relievers as any team in baseball. They're about the last team that'd trade much for Nathan.
   249. Hugh Jorgan Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:17 PM (#2679354)
auctioneer: step right up, step right up...quality starters going cheap!

Mets: Well we've got 2 paperclips, a nail and a button in our pocket.

auctioneer: yep, that'll do!
   250. drea Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:21 PM (#2679358)
I can't conclude that Smith overplayed his hand, in light of conflicting reports about how interested the Red Sox and Yankees really were in actually consummating a deal (with all the pertinent questions about whether the Sox and Yankees were just trying to play one another off each other, whether they would be willing to fork over the necessary extension in terms of money and length for Santana, etc). Even if Smith had a guy like Ellsbury as his bird in hand, I don't see how that would have benefited the Twins ultimate goals better. A polished but low power CFer as the headliner would serve a team on the cusp of contention, but again, a package of multiple high ceiling young players is the type of gamble that Smith needed to take here. I certainly wouldn't consider the Twins a big winner here, I might even put them in the "loser" category (although those categories can be arbitrary to begin with). But given the context and factors that he couldn't control, I don't fault Smith and think that this is probably the best he could have done. Not an ideal scenario, but this is likely the best deal given the circumstances.
   251. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:25 PM (#2679362)
I mean seriously-- of all the teams that could afford Johan -- you're telling me none of them could or would be that pile of overrated drek?

If they would, why didn't we hear a rumor about ANY other team stepping forward with an offer? I can think of only two reasons. They weren't interested in paying the combined freight (in talent to the Twins and dollars to Santana) it would cost, or they knew that Santana wouldn't approve a trade to them (perhaps some teams even approached the Twins and were told as much -- we don't know that).

The fact that so much money has to change hands makes a lot of teams say they just won't ALSO hand over a bushel-basket of talent, and that is, frankly, NOT an unreasonable position.
   252. AJM Misses Brodeur Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:32 PM (#2679369)
The Mets still have Pelfrey and Sosa who are acceptable 6th and 7th starters. I could see them signing Garcia and letting him rehab until he's ready.

Is Colon still available?

When my friend told me about the deal - my heart sank because I was sure we gave up the Franchise.

Me too, I saw the headline on the hot topics list and thought "oh no".
   253. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:35 PM (#2679371)
Is Colon still available?

Yeah, but I heard he wants 4-8 million guaranteed and he hasn't been pitching well in the Dominican.

You know who is still available?

Kris Benson.
   254. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:35 PM (#2679373)
I could see them signing Garcia and letting him rehab until he's ready.

Is Colon still available?


Good God, people. We're about to get Johan Santana, and you're still out there macking on starting pitchers? Can you give it a rest for one day, at least???
   255. Joshemy Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:40 PM (#2679376)
An appearance by Rasky. All we need is one by OFF, Banta, Heit, and Gelb and this will be like a game chatter!

#152, Russlan.
   256. CFBF Has Neither Diabetes nor Cryabetes Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:42 PM (#2679378)
Good God, people. We're about to get Johan Santana, and you're still out there macking on starting pitchers? Can you give it a rest for one day, at least???

Maybe they think the deal is "just fine," and are looking for a little more?
   257. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:44 PM (#2679379)
My bad, Heit. I didn't recognize that handle.
   258. AJM Misses Brodeur Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:46 PM (#2679380)
Good God, people. We're about to get Johan Santana, and you're still out there macking on starting pitchers? Can you give it a rest for one day, at least???

Look toward the future, isn't that what you always say?
   259. Baseballing powerhouse Crispix Attacks Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:49 PM (#2679381)
Is Colon still available?

It better be, the supplies of liquid of feces are running low.
   260. Raskolnikov Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:50 PM (#2679382)
I'd still like to have that one additional average level starter to buffer away from having Brian Lawrence types starting "must win" games for us in September.

Barring injuries, we have to be a 90+ win team now, no?
   261. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:52 PM (#2679384)
Look toward the future, isn't that what you always say?

If Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia are how you "look toward the future," I think you've heard my words, but missed my point! ;-)
   262. F Diddy Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:55 PM (#2679385)
Okay, I have a question. Why is everyone so convinced that Jacoby Ellsbury is a much better prospect than Carlos Gomez? Let's go through the run-down:

first shot at AA: Ellsbury slightly better than Gomez
second shot at AA: Ellsbury dominated, Gomez N/A
AAA: Gomez slightly better than Ellsbury
MLB: Ellsbury dominated, Gomez sucked.

So, aside from 200 ABs at the end of 2007, they seem pretty comparable. Oh, and Gomez was/is two years younger than Ellsbury at each of those levels.

Is everyone just so blinded by Ellsbury's post-season heroics?

I'm not saying that Ellsbury isn't better than Gomez, just that when scouts compare Gomez to Carl Crawford (whose MiLB stats are very similar to Gomez's), we may want to acknowledge that the gap isn't nearly as large as the mass media hype machine would lead you to believe.
   263. snapper Posted: January 29, 2008 at 09:57 PM (#2679386)
As a Yankee fan, I'm very pleased with this.
   264. Baseballing powerhouse Crispix Attacks Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM (#2679388)
Is everyone just so blinded by Ellsbury's post-season heroics?

Yes.

Also, people don't realize he's 24 already.

I'm surprised the Red Sox haven't traded him. He seems to be very likely at the top of his perceived value, and it's not like the team doesn't have 15 other "fan favorites" to make people quickly forget he existed.
   265. Justin Zeth Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:02 PM (#2679390)
How so? Because they could trade him during the season? BEcause 2 picks are better? Because 2 picks and a good chance at the playoffs are better?


1. Because keeping him makes it easier to sell tickets; without him, it's more likely they'll fall 10 games out by June and play before sparse crowds all year. There IS a financial impact here.
2. Because they have the flexibility to either get a better offer sometime in the next couple weeks, or use him through the season and then trade him at the deadline for probably not much less, if at all less, than the Mets gave up just now.
3. Because they COULD sign him to an extension. Personally, I don't think it's crazy for the Twins to spend 6/120 on him, if they can convince him to sign for that. The Twins have money; Pohlad just doesn't like to spend it. And they have a new park coming. They could afford to re-sign him, if they really wanted to.
4. Because, while making the playoffs even with Santana is a long shot--they'd need a lot to go right AND a lot to go wrong with the Indians and Tigers--making the playoffs without him is a near impossibility. They COULD contend with him in 2008.
5. Because, even in the worst-case scenario that they don't make the postseason and Santana walks after the year, they still get two first-round picks, which isn't as good as what they got from the Mets... but it isn't far enough behind to justify bypassing items 1-4 above.

If the Twins couldn't get a serious, MLB ready prospect for Santana, they should have kept him.
   266. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:05 PM (#2679392)
According to Pete Abe:

"Minnesota called the Yankees today, hoping to get some sort of offer. Brian Cashman didn’t budge.

Boston reportedly took Jon Lester off the table and was offering a package led by Jacoby Ellsbury and Jed Lowrie."

IMO, Sabathia and Teixeira are the biggest winners from this Santana trade, because they immediately become THE most atractive commodities in the 2008-2009 off-season - and both the Mets and Yankees have over $45MM coming off the books and a desire to upgrade at pitcher and 1B.

Long term, the Indians and Braves both stand to lose, because unless Sabathia and/or Teixeira fall in love with the cities they're playing in, they have a big payout waiting for them at the end of this year.
   267. Justin Zeth Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM (#2679397)
Teixeria's a Bora$ guy, so he's as good as gone in Atlanta. The Braves know this; they traded Saltalamacchia in a win-now move for 2007/2008 as Smoltz and Chipper Jones' careers finish up.
   268. Sam M. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:10 PM (#2679398)
Taking Baron's arguments in order:

1. Probably true. But not enough to make a big difference in the long run.

2. False. If in all this time, and with Smith having issued a call for "best offers," no other team stepped forward, it should be obvious by now that the interest in paying a huge price in prospects and $120M+ for Santana just isn't there. There is not a market for the product Smith was selling. If a full year of Santana isn't worth more than the Mets paid, then two months of Santana at the deadline isn't, either. Bottom line: you believe in what the market tells you, or you don't. I do. The market of offers -- or their lack -- for Santana tells you what you need to know about his value.

3. They could, but they weren't. You can't blame Smith for taking the deal when he knew Pohlad isn't willing to pay the market price for extension.

4. We just differ here. The Twins with Santana were no contender in 2008. Not in that league, not in that division.

5. So that leaves only # 1 with some validity, and that's not enough to just hold on to him and take the draft picks instead of the Mets' package.
   269. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:25 PM (#2679416)
Santana for President of 9/11!
   270. Gamingboy Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM (#2679421)
Santana for President of 9/11!

Given Giuliani's defeat, the renaming of "America" to "9/11" has been permanently put on hold.
   271. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:41 PM (#2679423)
If that's true, Delta, I have to wonder why the sox took Lester off the table. I thought, from a Red Sox perspective, the Ellsbury/Lowrie/Masterson swap was a less desirable one than the Lester/Crisp/Lowrie/Masterson one.

Maybe Lester is looking good and starting to throw like his old self.

The other thing is that this now really puts Crisp back in play.
   272. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:43 PM (#2679425)
Also, people don't realize he's 24 already.


If he contiues to play like he has been, he could be 28 and still be a great prospect.
   273. F Diddy Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:46 PM (#2679426)
I thought, from a Red Sox perspective, the Ellsbury/Lowrie/Masterson swap was a less desirable one than the Lester/Crisp/Lowrie/Masterson one.

No way. Ellsbury's value is artificially inflated by public perception, and Crisp's value is currently at a low. Crisp is likely to outperform Ellsbury in the short run, and so whatever value Lester can provide is a bonus.
   274. Darren Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:46 PM (#2679427)
I don't think the Yankees and Red Sox offers are nearly as mysterious as drea and others are making them out to be. They were repeatedly reported and never denied by either side. Also, I don't recall any inkling that Santana wanted to go to the Mets only. It's possible, but it doesn't seem likely that he'd want to play there and not across town. I think the most logical assumption is that the Twins turned down getting Phil Hughes+ and got some inferior players, while acknowledging that there are ALWAYS things that we don't know about in any baseball transaction.

In light of that, I'd say they blew it. In a vacuum, I'd say 4 B to B+ prospects is a reasonably good haul for 1 year of Santana (+ picks).
   275. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM (#2679429)
. Ellsbury's value is artificially inflated by public perception


No. It's been actually inflated by his performance.
   276. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM (#2679430)
Crisp is likely to outperform Ellsbury in the short run, and so whatever value Lester can provide is a bonus.


You're insane. Ellsbury is twice the player Crisp is. There is not one thing on a baseball field that Ellsbury cannot do better than Crisp.
   277. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:50 PM (#2679431)
Boston reportedly took Jon Lester off the table and was offering a package led by Jacoby Ellsbury and Jed Lowrie."

If Masterson or some other decent prospect was included, that sounds better than the Mets' package.
   278. snapper Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:50 PM (#2679432)
I think the most logical assumption is that the Twins turned down getting Phil Hughes+ and got some inferior players, while acknowledging that there are ALWAYS things that we don't know about in any baseball transaction.

I think the Twins put quite a lot of value on getting Santan out of the league. In NY (AL) or Bos, he was a major barrier to them ever competing for the wildcard.
   279. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM (#2679434)
Giuliani hasn't been defeated yet. . .
   280. Darren Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:52 PM (#2679435)
But how are they going to compete for the Wild Card now?
   281. Master of Karate and Friendship (Kyle C) Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:52 PM (#2679436)

Boston reportedly took Jon Lester off the table and was offering a package led by Jacoby Ellsbury and Jed Lowrie.


I would take those two alone over the Mets' package. What an awful trade for the Twins.
   282. Edmundo, survivor of 7 right-sourcings Posted: January 29, 2008 at 10:58 PM (#2679438)
It's a good thing that Jimmy Rollins predicted 100 wins for the Phils because that's what it is going to take for the Phils to overtake the Mets.
The Phils make a late move and get Feliz; the Mets, Santana. Hmm... (Not that the Phils really had anything to offer)
At least the Mets' farm system isn't any deeper than the Phils any more. :(
Yeah, I'm a little down.
   283. S.E. Kaufman Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:02 PM (#2679442)
You're insane. Ellsbury is twice the player Crisp is. There is not one thing on a baseball field that Ellsbury cannot do better than Crisp.

I am so glad Furtado banned idiotic hyperbole at BTF, otherwise I'd be liable to take this tripe seriously.
   284. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:03 PM (#2679443)
OK, asshoel. Name something that Crisp can do better than Ellsbury.
   285. Valentine Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM (#2679444)
I imagine they're simultaneously relieved and furious. Both sides.

As a Red Sox fan I'm not quite ready to throw a Santana-departure party, but I'm definitely more than "relieved". I know there are so many logical arguments why trading a handful of pretty-good prospects for an ace pitcher makes sense, but I was never all that excited about the idea in the first place. Mostly stupid, sentimental reasons. Beckett is our "ace" and doesn't deserve to be upstaged by somebody making literally twice as much. Ellsbury is fun to watch. Lester has been our "future" for so long, and after coming back from surgery seems to be on the verge of real success (at least viewed through these rose-colored goggles).

The Red Sox are still the best team in the AL, if not by an overwhelming margin.
   286. spycake Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:08 PM (#2679445)
1. Because keeping him makes it easier to sell tickets; without him, it's more likely they'll fall 10 games out by June and play before sparse crowds all year. There IS a financial impact here.

Not only is Santana a pitcher who plays only 1 in 5 games, he's also not the "face of the franchise" in Minnesota -- Mauer and Morneau have been just as popular among fans as well as in the team's marketing. I doubt that this trade impacts ticket sales too severely as long as they can hang near .500, especially not with "new ballpark priority" already in play.
   287. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#2679446)
Oh, wait a minute. It's coming back to me now. S.E. Kaufman is the literature student with the website called "brainless" who likes to troll every now and then.

Never mind.
   288. Biff, Red Sox Jinx Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:14 PM (#2679450)
Boston reportedly took Jon Lester off the table and was offering a package led by Jacoby Ellsbury and Jed Lowrie."

#### Bill Smith. Those two and anything is better than the Mets offers.
   289. F Diddy Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:19 PM (#2679452)
OK, asshoel. Name something that Crisp can do better than Ellsbury.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite: [1] hit for power.
   290. OCD SS Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM (#2679455)
OK, asshoel. Name something that Crisp can do better than Ellsbury.


Play CF defense in Fenway? I mean, if you're going to stick to your hyperbolic "twice as good" line it's not going to be that hard. Jacoby might get to be as good as Crisp was in CF with a bit of work, but he's not there yet.

There were a lot of reports that came out yesterday that the rumor that the Sox had pulled Lester (which came from Olney) simply wasn't true. A Twins beat writer (Neal III) did say that the names at the back had changed, although Lowrie was still in it (so Masterson was out).

I think I may owe an apology to the legions of people I've held in contempt for thinking that the Sox were only in it to block the Yankees.

Sorry about that...
   291. philly Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM (#2679456)
1. Because keeping him makes it easier to sell tickets; without him, it's more likely they'll fall 10 games out by June and play before sparse crowds all year. There IS a financial impact here.


Last year with Santana the Twins ranked 9th in AL attendance at just under 2.3M. The bottom 5 teams:

9. Minn 2.30M
10. Cle 2.27
11. Bal 2.2
12. Oak 1.9
13. KC 1.6
14. TB 1.4

How far do think the Twins will fall in attendance in 2008? Can they draw about the same as a hapless Balt organization? Will they fall below Oak at 1.9M? All the way down to the dregs of the AL at ~1.5M?

I have no idea, but it doesn't seem to be a stretch that they'll top 2M. If the attendance loss is in the ballpark of 300k, I'd rather have the prospects than the picks.

Your points #2 and 3 are issues that the Twins have clearly explored. That they haven't explored them to your satisfaction isn't compelling to me.

I don't know about #4. I'd be curious about the BP odds report with and without Santana. Is it 2% vs 10%? 1% vs 20%? 5% vs 10%?

If attendance drops by 300k and the playoff odds only drop by a handful of percentage points, then I'd rather have the prospects. That's not a slam dunk - and let me say I think the Mets offer was the 3rd best - but it's not improbable either.
   292. Russlan is an overhyped Met BTFer Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:22 PM (#2679457)
It's going to take a few years to see if I'm right but I think Gomez is going to be a better player than Ellsbury.
   293. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:22 PM (#2679458)
Crisp has no power. Ellsbury outslugged him by 120 points. Even a drastic reduction in power by Ellsbury will keep him above Crisp's Mendoza line of .383 the last 2 years.
   294. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:23 PM (#2679460)
Jacoby might get to be as good as Crisp was in CF with a bit of work, but he's not there yet.


He'll be there by June. And he's faster, so he'll do better in neutral parks.
   295. Valentine Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:24 PM (#2679461)
If Crisp can return to his 2004/2005 level of play, he will be as good or better a hitter than Ellsbury. But recently? I'm not THAT impressed by .270/.330/.380 play. Ellsbury should top that BA and OBP, and (because of the extra hits) should match that SLG as well. An OBP-heavy speedster can hide his lack of SLG in the leadoff role, but Crisp's .330 relegates him to the bottom of the lineup.
   296. Baseballing powerhouse Crispix Attacks Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:25 PM (#2679462)
Hey kevin...I hear Ellsbury is going to be one of the next names subpoenaed in the steroid investigation!

Logical paradox logical paradox BRAIN EXPLODE!
   297. kevin Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:28 PM (#2679463)
If Crisp can return to his 2004/2005 level of play, he will be as good or better a hitter than Ellsbury.


He had the same year twice in a row, Val. I think we have to assume this is his talent level right now. Ellsbury played his way onto the starting 9 and Crisp played his way off it. It's that simple.

Either Crisp had 2 fluky seasons in '04 and '05 or the hand injury has crippled his offense. Either way, Ellsbury is better, short of a trip to Lourdes by Crisp.
   298. OCD SS Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:28 PM (#2679464)
So as I look forward to thinking about the last great whale of a pitcher available, I'll ask Indian fans: What does it take for the Tribe to give up C.C. Sabathia?

The Indians are in much better shape than the Twins, and should legitimately compete in '08 (so if they keep talk about keeping C.C. it's not an empty threat). At the same time it looks less likely that he'll sign another discounted deal, so you're looking at draft picks if he leaves, and Santana will likely set the benchmark he'll be looking at for an extension (which I have hard time seeing Cleveland giving to him).

Throw into the mix that Bill James was gushing about CC earlier in the offseason, and the Indians decided that the pitcher with the best stuff they faced (after Beckett) in the post season was Lester, is there a match to be found?
   299. snapper Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:31 PM (#2679466)
But how are they going to compete for the Wild Card now?

I think their intent is to compete in 2010, maybe 2009.

They probably expect the Tigers to decline quickly due to age at key positions (Ordonez, Sheffield, IRod, etc.) and a completely gutted farm system.

If Cleveland stays good they need to beat Cle or one of NY and Bos.

I would bet they think sending Santana to either NY or Bos would cause the other to react with even more spending in an AL East "superpower" arms race, and making it much harder for Minn. to compete with them.

Just my 2 cents.
   300. OCD SS Posted: January 29, 2008 at 11:34 PM (#2679470)
He'll be there by June. And he's faster, so he'll do better in neutral parks.


Well, at least you're backing off the "twice as good" part. That's something.

To my eye Jacoby has a real problem with walls, which is going to causes a problem when playing half his games in Fenway if it's not corrected. I think June might be a tad optomistic, but overall I do think Ellsbury will outplay Crisp. But this is mostly due to my feeling that Coco needs a change of scenery. I don't think it's going to happen for him in Boston.
Page 3 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule

Buy Cheap MLB Tickets

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Page rendered in 0.8019 seconds
81 querie(s) executed