I'll take the over on that projection, as good as it is. A 2.94 ERA means Santana's 2008 won't be better than Pedro's 2005. I think he's better than that.

What's the official line on why the Twins didn't trade or extend Santana a year ago? They effectively spent $12.5 million + likely better talent haul to finish third, which probably would've happened without Santana.

You have to remember that Jim Callis -- among all the BA analysts -- is by far the least impressed with Carlos Gomez. His chats week after week have trashed Gomez. And he's entitled to that POV; he might be right, and Manuel and others who think more highly of Gomez (Manuel likes Gomez more than Milledge, for example) might be wrong. So it's unsurprising that Callis would take this view of the deal, Levski.

IMO, he also puts too much emphasis on a pure talent comparison and not enough on the circumstances -- especially the lack of leverage the Twins had in this situation. It's awfully easy for him to say Smith should just wait for a better deal to come along -- when if it doesn't, he's left losing Santana for nothing (if, for instance, Santana refuses to be traded mid-season).

With the NY media frenzy over the deal, he's in a great bargaining position to extract a king's (or is that Queens') ransom. 7 years/$180M probably isn't out of the question. I wouldn't be shocked to see Santana play hardball and refuse to sign the extension with the Mets, making the deal null and void.

Or at least, as a Phils fan, I'm hoping like hell that's what happens.

Big picture: I'm happy the Dodgers didn't make a comparable deal for Santana.

Was just looking at Santana's career stats, thinking over Russlan's point in 312...and yet all I can think about is how the Twins traded this guy away for four scratch tickets. I mean, if you're a Mets fan and you aren't ecstatic over this...

I wouldn't be shocked to see Santana play hardball and refuse to sign the extension with the Mets, making the deal null and void.

I wouldn't be shocked, either -- but I would be surprised. I think Santana wants this to happen. And I also think his agents sent pretty good signals to the Mets about what it would take, and the Mets went this far into the thing with a good idea of the parameters of the deal. That's how these things are done; that's the ONLY way it can be, and still get the contract wrapped up in 72 hours.

Russlan, don't get greedy.

I take those 225 innings of 3.00 ERA and run to the bank. If Santana gives us his typical season, the Mets should be a solid 95 win level team.

Keith Law has a FREE!!! "insider preview" review of the deal, with some nice, balanced analysis of the Mets' prospects. He ain't thrilled with the haul Smith got.

Obviously, I'd be very happy with season. Don't get me wrong, that's a fantastic season. But Santana is moving to a new league, to a DH-less league, to a less talented league, and to a stadium that masks his biggest (only?) flaw, that he is kind of tater-prone.

My over/under on Santana's ERA is 2.60.

Heh Nate Silver thinks Santana is losing it a bit because he gave up so many HRs in 2007. Sample size!

Plus didn't pitch f/x reveal that most of those were on sliders. Facing most new hitters, I don't think Santana will be throwing too many sliders.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Santana play hardball and refuse to sign the extension with the Mets, making the deal null and void.

I would be. I get the sense that this is Santana's first and last bite at the apple (so to speak) this offseason. He could turn down the Twins offer because he assumed that he would get traded to a team that would put more money on the table. If he turns down the Mets offer, the Mets are out of the picture and he is left with the Yankees and Red Sox. Ordinarily, that would be great, but those teams appear to be actively trying to find a way not to trade for Santana right now. If things don't work out for the Mets, I think there is a very real chance that Santana plays out the season without an extension. He may have been willing to do that when the marginal difference between signing now with the Twins and signing as a free agent was $40 - $50 mil, but at the end of the day, I don't think he leaves $140 mil or so from the Mets on the table to scratch out the extra $10 mil or so that he might get if he becomes a free agent.

Obviously, the Mets need to get the deal done, but I don't think the Mets are in quite as weak of a position as it may appear. There's a bit of pressure on Santana to make this work as well.

I'm hoping he signs for 5/120 or something like that.

Maybe the Twins should have taken Real Madrid's offer of Robinho and Ruud van Nistelrooy.

I think Smith was holding out for Aliaksandr Hleb.

With the NY media frenzy over the deal, he's in a great bargaining position to extract a king's (or is that Queens') ransom. 7 years/$180M probably isn't out of the question. I wouldn't be shocked to see Santana play hardball and refuse to sign the extension with the Mets, making the deal null and void.

I'd be shocked.

Santana wants that extension so he can avoid rolling the dice in 2008. If his true talent is now 2007 instead of something around the 2004-2007 average, that lowers his value a little. If he gets hurt, it lowers his value a lot.

The Mets are aware that Santana's contract is expected to set the market for pitchers. Zito got $126/7 and that contract isn't looking very good. Zambrano, a pitcher pretty much universally thought of as an ace, got $91.5/5. Certainly, these were very good pitchers and Santana is better, but I expect something like $130/6 or $150/7 is pretty much the cap.

$180/7 would be more per year than any player not named Alex Rodriguez. I don't see that happening.

The deal is still mind-boggling to me. Two months ago, Howard was suggesting that we deal Reyes for Santana. Now we get to see Reyes/Wright/Santana *and* Fernando all intact. I worship the ground Omar treads on.

BTW, with Santana/Pedro/Perez/Maine/Duque all being flyball pitchers, maybe it might not be a bad idea to play Endy more and Alou less? Endy/Beltran/Church has pretty good range, I think.

I'm hoping he signs for 5/120 or something like that.

Isn't the report that the deal is contingent on a 6 or 7 year extension?

Friggin Mets.

Great trade for NY. I have a hard time believing this was the best deal on the table unless the Twins saw more in these prospects than most of the rest of the baseball world.

I am very surprised the Twins accepted players so far from the majors to get this done. The only guy ready to contribute in 2007 is, probably, Mulvey.

Where were the Mariners on this deal? I think the rumored return on Bedard is much better.

Two months ago, Howard was suggesting that we deal Reyes for Santana.

He was, wasn't he? This deal vindicates the ever-loving hell out of my reaction to THAT proposal, doesn't it? Anyone who would have dealt away Jose Reyes when the market would have allowed him to make this trade instead . . . well, I think I called Howard insane, and that is the kindest thing one can say about it.

You know it's a good deal for the Mets when Rasky is happy about a trade in which the Mets gave up prospects.

Isn't the report that the deal is contingent on a 6 or 7 year extension?

Is it? I don't know. Still, I can hope for that deal.

Just being nitpicky... the following is from Law's analysis (which I liked) linked by Sam:

The Twins deal their best asset and the best pitcher in franchise history -- not to mention the greatest Rule 5 pick in the history of that draft -- for quantity, but not the type of quality you expect a pitcher of his caliber to fetch in return.

Is there some technicality on which this is true, or did he forget Roberto Clemente?

You know it's a good deal for the Mets when Rasky is happy about a trade in which the Mets gave up prospects

I believe in the intrinsic value of seeing one's own kids mature into stars, but when it's Johan Santana ... I think you make an exception.

The proposals that drove me crazy were those Willis and Blanton rumors. And if Omar had yielded back then, I don't think he could have made this deal today.

So who starts Opening Day, Pedro or Johan?

So who starts Opening Day, Pedro or Johan?

The fact that you can even ask this question makes me delirious!

So who starts Opening Day, Pedro or Johan?

That is a lovely sentence, isn't it? Has a much better ring to it than, "Brandon or Dan." Don't you think?

So who starts Opening Day, Pedro or Johan?

Good question.

Pedro seems like the type who might feel insulted by not starting opening day.

Pedro also seems like the type to step aside and have Johan start.

YEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the future, well, we still have the Franchise, don't we?

As for the future, well, we still have the Franchise, don't we?

Poor guy. F-Mart is going to be awfully busy, playing all three outfield positions and pitching three days a week for both New Orleans AND Binghamton. But he is pretty much the only guy left above A ball who can pitch or play the OF, isn't he?

But yeah, the future is intact. Yup, bright as a nova in the night sky.

That is a lovely sentence, isn't it? Has a much better ring to it than, "Brandon or Dan." Don't you think?

In 2005, yes.

Two months ago, Howard was suggesting that we deal Reyes for Santana.

He was, wasn't he? This deal vindicates the ever-loving hell out of my reaction to THAT proposal, doesn't it? Anyone who would have dealt away Jose Reyes when the market would have allowed him to make this trade instead . . . well, I think I called Howard insane, and that is the kindest thing one can say about it.

Good thing I checked!!!! I NEVER, EVER suggested that the Mets trade Jose Reyes- not for Santana, not for anyone. There is a substantial body of work here, at the Observer, and on the radio to support me- I suggested that the Mets trade a large quantity of prospects, and that if it were the difference between making a deal or not, you include Fernando Martinez. But Reyes, was NEVER, EVER on the table for me.

As for the future, well, we still have the Franchise, don't we?

Poor guy. F-Mart is going to be awfully busy, playing all three outfield positions and pitching three days a week for both New Orleans AND Binghamton. But he is pretty much the only guy left above A ball who can pitch or play the OF, isn't he?

But yeah, the future is intact. Yup, bright as a nova in the night sky.

Church, and Beltran will be with the Mets for the next three years, so with Fernando! replacing Alou in a year or two, the OF seems to be covered.

The rotation will be trickier, but when you cross out "ace" off the list, it really helps things out. Pedro will probably be back. Maine is going to be cheap for a while. Perez might stay (and if not, we get some draft picks). Pelfrey needs to step up, of course, but if he doesn't, its not like its the end of the world. By then maybe Niese develops into something. And if nobody in the farm does, there are plenty of fifth starters that can be had on the cheap. Yes, you can make the argument that in three years, the picture looks bleak, but that doesn't take into account the international signings and draft picks (don't we have a couple of first rounders, and some supplemental picks this year?) that will most certainly will enter the system and who might be able to either help out themselves, or be traded for someone who will.

But yeah, the future is intact. Yup, bright as a nova in the night sky.

The farm is barren, but it can be replenished. I think this core we have, along with the spending flexibility intrinsic to a New York team, should enable the Mets to remain contenders for the next 2-3 years.

Beyond that, we just have to hope that the scouts and evaluators can do their jobs well to replenish the pipeline.

Actually, I realized the same thing, Howard, when I checked the archive. I did call you insane, but over an entirely different issue: your proposal to move David Wright to second base. You're exactly right about the Santana thing -- we differed on whether to include Martinez if necessary. It was that ######## Matthews who asked, in print, whether Reyes should really be untouchable.

Why he won’t go: Even Jim Duquette himself, father of Kazmir-for-Zambrano, knows you don’t trade gold-glove caliber shortstops with top-level offensive games entering their age 25-seasons. That combination might be the only thing harder to find in baseball than a number-one starter.

http://www.observer.com/2007/all-santana?page=0,1

And the day after the season ended, here is my prescription for the Mets- notice the inclusion of prospects, and that the name "Jose Reyes" doesn't come up once.

Move One: trade for Johan Santana.

He is unquestionably the best pitcher of the past four seasons. He doesn’t turn 29 until March of 2008. His contract is up following the 2008 season, and it is highly unlikely that Minnesota can afford him. The Twins might well take their chances on one more run with Santana before he hits the free agent market.

If they don’t, the Mets would be in position to trade for him. Few teams could offer the major league-ready talent of Lastings Milledge, who could take over for free agent Torii Hunter in center field, Ruben Gotay, who could play second for the Twins, Mike Pelfrey and Philip Humber, who would both challenge for rotation spots. If those four aren’t enough, include Carlos Gomez.

While a Santana would draw intense interest from every team in baseball, the Mets should do what it takes to top these offers. Santana is as sure a bet as there is. He is on the right side of 30, he has been dominant for years, his peripheral statistics are steady and spectacular, and he even pitched out of the bullpen during his early twenties, saving his arm from the abuse that often ends a career early (think Steve Avery). And he’s put up these numbers in the American League—he’d likely improve statistically in the NL.

One caveat—to give up this much talent, the Mets will need to make certain that they get a 72-hour window to sign Santana to a long-term deal. Once they do, price must be no object. Paying a premium for the best pitcher in baseball will not come back to harm you. Just ask the Red Sox if they regret trading their two best pitching prospects for Pedro Martinez, then holding onto him for seven years.

The deal likely will clean the Mets out of trading chips for any other improvement, and Milledge is poised to become a star as soon as next season. With Gomez either in the deal or needing another season at AAA, the Mets would need to sign Jose Guillen or Bobby Abreu to patch right field for 2008. Ideally, Gomez would take over in left for 2009, while Guillen (the preferred choice) could last in right until 18-year-old prospect Fernando Martinez could take the reins.

Such contingencies are worth dealing with if Santana comes to the Mets. A dominating presence with Pedro Martinez would make the Mets formidable in the regular season and nearly unbeatable in a short series. And Santana would match with Oliver Perez and John Maine to provide the Mets with a fantastic starting pitching foundation to pair with Jose Reyes and David Wright for years to come.

http://www.observer.com/2007/three-blockbuster-targets-mets

Sam, you and I disagreed over moving Wright to second. Not once did I believe that the Mets should deal Reyes.

Whoops, then I retract that statement.

I could swear that there was a lengthy thread earlier in the offseason that the Mets should do something bold like trade Reyes for Santana.

I don't even care at all that the Giants are in the Super Bowl anymore. I want baseball to start NOW.

Actually, I realized the same thing, Howard, when I checked the archive. I did call you insane, but over an entirely different issue: your proposal to move David Wright to second base. You're exactly right about the Santana thing -- we differed on whether to include Martinez if necessary. It was that ######## Matthews who asked, in print, whether Reyes should really be untouchable.

Do you understand that confusing me with Wallace Matthews is much more offensive than anything else you could have said?

The Mets have 3 of the first 34 picks in the draft. Hopefully, they can do something with that. The farm system is pretty barren right now.

Here's how the Mets' future looks like:

Catcher: We are totally screwed here.

First base: Delgado has to rebound. He's too good of a hitter to put the numbers he did last year. After that, it's definitely free agent time. That really doesn't change the budget all that much. Carlos is making a lot of dough, and whoever replaces him, should too.

Second base: Castillo is here for the next four years. Gotay is not a bad plan B

Third base: Wright.

Shortstop: Reyes.

Left field: Alou for 2008. Then stopgap, and then the Franchise.

Center field: Beltran.

Right field: Whether we want it or not, we are stuck with Church. He's not THAT bad, but obviously having Milledge would be better.

To recap, the Mets need for Fernando to continue doing what he's doing, find a replacement for Delgado (Tex?), hope Castillo and Church are adequate (which they project to be).

OFF, you think Francisco Pena is totally useless?

Are we not going to have a rotation or a closer, OFF? Because that's where some of the real holes are going to appear soon, OFF, and the means to fill them are not readily apparent -- unless Mike Pelfrey puts it all together quickly, and/or one of the 47 college relievers Omar's been drafting emerges as Billy Wagner's successor.

Don't laugh - Mike Sweeney is a free agent and I'd love to have him to back up Delgado, so long as he isn't considered to be a prick or something. Always liked Sweeney, and I'd like a PH who can hit better than ... oh ... Marlon Anderson... and just in case Delgado falls off the table. What is our contingency plan right now if he becomes totally useless?

And would Shawn Green come back? He sucked, but I liked him... and he could pick it at first if necessary.

As for Sam's concerns. Uh... yeah, I'm going to cross my fingers that one of these guys learns how to pitch (Preferably Pelfrey makes strides in AAA since he's been pushed from the rotation).

What do you guys know about Ruben Tejeda? He's 17-18 and posted a .283/.401/.367 batting line in 120 AB with a 16/19 k/bb ratio in the GCL over 120 AB. He's a SS so in theory, he could shift to 2b. That's a Castillo like line.

I'm still high on Burgos.

Always liked Sweeney, and I'd like a PH who can hit better than ... oh ... Marlon Anderson... and just in case Delgado falls off the table. What is our contingency plan right now if he becomes totally useless?

Marlon Anderson is pinch-hitting awesomeness.

Another thing is: didn't we hear that the Mets might include Ryan Church in this very package? Even that would have been a heist....why didn't the Twins even get Church?

Also, they have a very low payroll now. Wonder what they should spend the extra 13 million on. If it goes into Pohlad's pockets, then he really is a greedy old man.

Are we not going to have a rotation or a closer, OFF? Because that's where some of the real holes are going to appear soon, OFF, and the means to fill them are not readily apparent -- unless Mike Pelfrey puts it all together quickly, and/or one of the 47 college relievers Omar's been drafting emerges as Billy Wagner's successor.

Rotation: Santana and Maine will be Mets' property for the next seven and three years respectively. That's two out of three. Pedro and Perez are free agents, but both of them have a good chance of coming back. El Duque could be replaced by Pelfrey, or a random fifth starter. Granted, this is not the most cost-effective plan, but it looks pretty good for the next three years. If the Mets don't want to spend that much money on the rotation, they can go with Santana, Maine, Perez/Pedro, Pelfrey, and a FA. But with Citifield opening up, I see no reason for the Mets to be tight with their purses. This rotation is World Series caliber.

Bullpen: Wagner is signed for two more years, I believe. By that time, I'm sure they can find another reliever to take the $13MM he makes a year, and have him be the closer.

Maine is under the Mets control for 4 more years. He only has two years of service time. The one thing the Mets have going for them next season is that it looks like several quality pitchers will be free agents next year.

The Mets can build a farm system if they are committed to it. Now, they haven't really shown that they are committed to it at any time in the past ten years, but it can be done. If the Mets pay for top talent and make reasonable talent evaluations, they could have a very good system in 2 - 3 years, as the Red Sox and Yankees have done. That system might lack for major league ready talent, but it should be good enough to provide ammunition to make trades to fill holes, if necessary.

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.

I know you're not actually this infatuated with Ellsbury's last 200 AB, right? Last year, Ellsbury managed all of a .380 SLG in 400 PA at AAA, to go with a career .425 minor league SLG. Yeah, I know he did his best Derek Jeter impersonation last September/October. ZIPS projects a .392 SLG for Ellsbury this year, and I (and ZIPS) expect Crisp to rebound above that.

Tejada was a signing from Panama. He played in Venezuela before coming to the states. IIRC, he's a good defender at SS.

I haven't really been following the system this past year. Anyone care to enlighten me about our draft/international signing crop? Any potential blue chippers out there?

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

Deemed washed up in January, I love it. Even if those guys are all done by then (and it could happen), you still have a core of Verlander, Cabrera, Granderson, Bonderman, Willis, Zumaya, Porcello in the minors, and tons of salary room. The Tigers may have dealt better prospects than NY did here, but the fact that the overwhelming reaction is YES METS! when so many here panned getting 24-year old Cabrera and Willis is puzzling.

I haven't really been following the system this past year. Anyone care to enlighten me about our draft/international signing crop?

We drafted a bunch of college relievers. We signed a bunch of Latin American prospects, some of whom were reasonably hyped, but none of the really big names. In other words, nothing much to see here.

I've said many times that I don't like this kind of deal, but now that it is fait accompli, I have to hope this guy is the best pitcher out there. It does make the Met rotation, IF HEALTHY, the best in the division and perhaps the league. But if not healthy, will we get doomed again by the Brian Lawrence types? Now the Pagan deal makes sense, because with Gomez gone, we'll probably need him AND Endy when Alou goes down.

I never thought this package would be accepted by the Twins. Certainly the Yankee and Red Sox packages would have been better for them in 2008. So were the Yankees and Sox just in it as a sham?

And now, Omar, get Ollie Perez signed to a long term deal. He's already won 15 for you, and could be on the cusp of superstardom. I don't want him starring in Yankee stripes.

post 162:

Sam, you're insane. Certifiably crazy.

Being called certifiable by Levski is like. . . .

being called "conservative" by Rush Limbaugh.

being called "dead" by Generalissimo Francisco Franco.

being called "cunning" by Machiavelli.

being called "red-nosed" by Rudolph.

being called "hung" by John Holmes.

Limbaugh's no conservative.

I'll give you the other guys, though. ;)

Perez won't ever be staring for an American League team.

Well, I'm glad I didn't kill myself after the Milledge trade!

Honestly, Milledge, Gomez, Guerra, Humber, and Mulvey for Santana, Church, and Schneider isn't that bad. I would have probably argued against it at various points during last season but sitting here right now, I'm pretty happy with the team's construction. As for the future, the Mets needed to upgrade their farm system ANYWAY, realistically and at least there's enough talent at the major league level to sustain success for a few seasons.

Time for spring training.

Just here to say Heckuva trade

So, if you leave out giving Milledge away, what has Omar accomplished this off-season?

1. This deal, which I am hope I can eventually call "the Carter deal of the 21st century", which gave the rotation a whole new look (15 game winners as #3 and #4 starters!).

2. Totally improving the catcher position. Offensively and especially defensively.

3. Adding Wise and maybe Stokes to the pen. And I'm sure Omar is crossing his fingers about Sanchez. So that becomes Wagner, Schoeneweis, Feliciano, Heilman (who I still don't trust), Sosa and Wise.

4. Improving right field. I won't miss watching Shawn Green lumbering after flares down the
line. Church and Easley could give us good numbers and will play better defense.

5. Not doing the panic move of firing Randolph.

6. Keeping Anderson, Easley and Endy and adding Pagan to a pretty good bench.

Not bad. Who else in the division (except maybe the Nats) improved? I don't think Pedro Feliz or Mark Kotsay are difference makers. So, after kicking Minaya around a couple months, I guess we can say nice job.

My interpretation of this -- and yes, I know that some of you disagree -- is that the Twins accepted this offer instead of a better offer--maybe not a tremendously better offer, but a better one--for two reasons:

1. They really wanted to send him out of the AL if they had to trade him, enough so that they left some talent on the table;
2. They really like Carlos Gomez, more than just about anybody else does.

The Yankees and Red Sox are going to continue winning for the foreseeable future with or without Johan Santana. I personally have little doubt the Twins could have accepted a better offer from either team, and did not simply because they didn't really want to see Santana in either uniform.

Also, now that the drama is over, I'm thinking back to how the Mets traded Milledge for Ryan Church while Santana was still on the table. At the time, we all assumed that was the end of the Santana Sweepstakes for the Mets, unless they put Fernando Martinez on the table. Now, I wonder if the situation really wasn't that the Twins told the Mets they have no interest in Lastings Milledge. Some teams put a higher value on Character Points than others.

So thats Haren and Santana in the Senior Circuit, and the AL got Willis.
Somehow I don't think it is a wash.

I really can't wait for my first Peavy/Santana matchup. Looking at the schedule, it could come on one of those four days in June.

Bob Klapisch has this: Link.

This was late Monday night, about 12 hours before the Mets would pounce upon their most dramatic trade in recent history. Twins' general manager Bill Smith, in a panic to move Johan Santana, called the Yankees and admitted surrender: Phil Hughes was no longer a prerequisite, he said. Instead, the Twins asked for Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera and a top prospect. Would the Yankees still be interested, Smith wondered?

The Yankees considered the idea, but only briefly and not seriously. Their passion for Santana started waning as far back as December, when Andy Pettitte announced he was returning to the Bronx. The Yankees' internal straw vote was unanimous: The Twins had waited too long. On Tuesday Yankees' GM Brian Cashman told Smith he was passing on the deal, prompting the Twins to call the Red Sox. Equally devastating news awaited. Both Jacoby Ellsbury and Jon Lester were unavailable.

The Red Sox, in lock step with the Yankees, had essentially backed out, too.

I think the Red Sox and Yankees will both wind up regretting this move. With the Yankee offense, they could afford to punt CF for a glove this year.

Well, with that information, you have to think that neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox were ever serious about wanting to acquire Santana; each only wanted to see to it that the other did not, or overpaid if they did.

But this:

Twins' general manager Bill Smith, in a panic to move Johan Santana, called the Yankees and admitted surrender

is weird. Did Smith get a dictate from ownership that Santana must be gone in 24 hours, or something?

And I guess the two L.A. teams weren't players at all, after all; there's no mention of them anywhere. So it seems Sam and others were right: The Mets' offer really was the best (only?) offer out there, and apparently Smith for some reason suddenly had to trade Santana right now.

Last year, Ellsbury managed all of a .380 SLG in 400 PA at AAA, to go with a career .425 minor league SLG.

It's just slightly cherry-picking to cite Ellsbury's AAA numbers and not his AA numbers.

Ellsbury's MLE + MLB numbers last year were 308/359/411 with 44 steals and 9 CS.

Did Smith get a dictate from ownership that Santana must be gone in 24 hours, or something?

I don't know why people discount the possibility that SANTANA was in control of the process. He had a full no-trade clause. Wouldn't the fact that Santana would only agree to be traded to the Mets, or to the NL, be a reason why superior offers (to the extent they really existed, and aren't just fabrications by the Boston and NY media) might have been rejected?

Now maybe you can say that Smith would've been better off keeping Santana than trading him, but without knowing what Santana was demanding (and without knowing what offers were on the table at what times), I don't know how we can criticize Smith for taking this offer.

Yeah, actually, I just posted in the other Santana tread agreeing with you: I have to wonder, now, whether Santana and his agent haven't been quietly engineering the whole thing, especially with Klapisch now reporting that Bill Smith called Brian Cashman, quote, "in a panic" and told him Phil Hughes doesn't have to be in the deal.

Santana may have been demanding to be traded right now.

Did Smith get a dictate from ownership that Santana must be gone in 24 hours, or something?

From ownership . . . or Santana. Remember, at anytime, Santana could have said, "If I'm not traded by Date X, I won't waive my no trade clause, and I'll just play out the season with the Twins." At that point, the Twins lose all leverage in keeping bidders guessing on whether they might just hold on to him until mid-season. He might be bluffing, of course, but he might not be, either. Perhaps Santana's agent said, "February 1st is D Day -- that's when we go public with our declaration." So the Twins wanted this all wrapped up (including contract signed with new team) by then.

Speculation, obviously, but plausible, I think.

If Klapisch is right, by the way, it tells you how tough a position the Twins were really in. When you really think about the price they were asking teams to pay -- $150 million, plus a significant haul of talent including one elite, major-league ready prospect -- that is a HUGE investment. Huge. There are just not that many teams that even CAN do both of those things, and (obviously) there were none who were willing to do so. If you want to get that much talent back, you have to be selling some "cheap" years in the bargain, and the Twins weren't. That's the lesson.

THis trade seems perfectly fair to me. 30 years ago, the Mets coughed up their franchise pitcher. It's time that get rectified.

THis trade seems perfectly fair to me. 30 years ago, the Mets coughed up their franchise pitcher. It's time that get rectified.

Ummm . . . if it's all about cosmic balance, Chris, don't the Reds owe the Twins something here???

It's only about the Mets cosmic balance. #### all those other teams.

Congratulations to the Mets on their 2008 NL championship.

If Klapisch is right, by the way, it tells you how tough a position the Twins were really in. When you really think about the price they were asking teams to pay -- $150 million, plus a significant haul of talent including one elite, major-league ready prospect -- that is a HUGE investment. Huge. There are just not that many teams that even CAN do both of those things, and (obviously) there were none who were willing to do so. If you want to get that much talent back, you have to be selling some "cheap" years in the bargain, and the Twins weren't. That's the lesson.

The lesson is, quite clearly, that you can ask teams in a trade like this to pony up great prospects OR lots of cash, but you can't get teams to pony up great prospects AND lots of cash. That's why Nick Swisher brought so much in trade (he's signed through '12 and will make about $37 million over the next five years). The Twins couldn't lessen the cash part (the Mets don't have any huge contracts they wanted to lose, do they?), so they had to accept relatively less in terms of prospects.

It's only about the Mets cosmic balance. #### all those other teams.

Two words: Frank. Viola.

I just hope Kevin Mulvey doesn't turn out to be the next Kevin Tapani, and Deolis Guerra the next Rick Aguilera . . . .

Deemed washed up in January, I love it. Even if those guys are all done by then (and it could happen), you still have a core of Verlander, Cabrera, Granderson, Bonderman, Willis, Zumaya, Porcello in the minors, and tons of salary room. The Tigers may have dealt better prospects than NY did here, but the fact that the overwhelming reaction is YES METS! when so many here panned getting 24-year old Cabrera and Willis is puzzling.

I think the Tigers will be formidable for two years, ands then need a rebuilding phase.

Zumaya's career may be over (his shoulder injury was about as bad as you get, which is a real shame, exciting pitcher) and Willis is an enigma. The other guys will be getting expensive, and there is no help in the minors right now except Porcello.

I don't think the Tigers are going to become the Pirates, I just said the Twins will think they can beat them by 2010.

Ummm . . . if it's all about cosmic balance, Chris, don't the Reds owe the Twins something here???

They took Wayne Krivsky off their hands just two years before Terry Ryan resigned, potentially diverting the destruction of the Twins franchise. That evens it up, don't you think?

Two words: Frank. Viola.

Maybe we rank pitchers differently. I don't really put Viola in a Seaver or a Santana class. But you go ahead.

I think the Red Sox and Yankees will both wind up regretting this move. With the Yankee offense, they could afford to punt CF for a glove this year.

The only way I see this happening is if Santana beats one of them in a close World Series; which is still not the end of the world.

The Yanks and Sox will both be 90+ win teams for the forseeable future. They're rich, and now they're both smart.

Cleveland media outlets are reporting this morning that Jhonny Peralta sent $10 million of his own money to the Twins as part of the deal to get Santana to the Mets.

Maybe we rank pitchers differently. I don't really put Viola in a Seaver or a Santana class. But you go ahead.

No, I don't. I just worry about the regrets you can have when prospects are let go for current value, and when those guys end up producing for years to come for somebody else. How come when we traded Tom Seaver we got crapola, but when we acquired Frank Viola (who -- as you point out -- wasn't nearly as good) we gave up Aguilera and Tapani???

That is why even trades like this that I like . . . still make me nervous. I can't help it.

THT's take on the trade.

Rejoice, Willie Randolph fans. This trade just might be what ensures a contract extention for the Mets manager.

That is why even trades like this that I like . . . still make me nervous. I can't help it.

I understand, but look at it this way if you want to feel better. None of the guys the Mets gave up for Santana are as good/close to being good as the guy they gave up for Zambrano....Guerra could be, but he's much further away than Kazmir was when he was dealt. Humber could turn out to be very good- I look at McGowan's jump forward for the Jays now that he's recovered fully, but McGowan was younger when he got hurt, and still took a good deal of organizational patience for him to develop. The Mets are not the team to nurture a guy like that, throwing him out there for development starts. After what happened in '07, they'll be very paranoid no matter how large their lead.

Ummm . . . if it's all about cosmic balance, Chris, don't the Reds owe the Twins something here???

Well, they did (indirectly) get Eric Milton. That should even things out, right?

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

What was he supposed to learn from Glavine? How to whine like a busted radio when the ump doesn't give him strikes three inches off the outside of the plate?

The Yanks and Sox will both be 90+ win teams for the forseeable future. They're rich, and now they're both smart.

Hank died? Damn.

They're rich, and now they're both smart.

How about: "They're rich, and therefore are both perceived as smart."

How about: "They're rich, and therefore are both perceived as smart."

I think the Yankees and Red Sox have both made major leaps forward in developing young talent and using it.

They're not the A's or Indians yet, but they don't have to be.

From the THT roundtable

Richard Barbieri: I think the Mets are now definitely the favorites in the East, but I don't know about the NL. How Pedro and El Duque hold up into October will be a major factor. Santana is a great pitcher, but if the Mets were to run into Arizona they'd be facing Brandon Webb (who is nearly as great) and Dan Haren (who is probably a level below, but only just).

If the Mets are countering Webb/Haren/Doug Davis/Micah Owings rotation with say, Santana/John Maine/Oliver Perez/Mike Pelfrey, I know who I'm picking in a short series, and they won't be wearing orange and blue.

Thank you, RB. But I'm disappointed you left RJ out of the rotation. Really disappointed. At the risk of sounding like a fan boy, he's going to be Johan Santana good in 2008. Just watch.

I loved that comment from Barbieri. If the Diamondbacks' rotation stays healthy, and the Mets lose Pedro Martinez and El Duque, then I'd pick Arizona.

Duh. Well, thanks for the insight there, Richard.

At the risk of sounding like a fan boy, he's going to be Johan Santana good in 2008. Just watch.

At the risk of??? There's no risk factor here, Levski. You bought yourself an ironclad guarantee with that sentence.

It seems Santana put the Twins in the same tight spot that Schilling put the Dbacks back in 2003. At least Smith was smart enough to ask for players with some upside. Joe Garagiola Jr. asked for Michael Goss.

Ah, Sam, Sam, I'm trying to join the exclusive club of "certifiables" on this board...

Hey, Levski -- nothing wrong with fan boyism, in its place. I happen to be positive that the 2008 Mets are going to be the first team since the '71 Orioles to have four 20 game winners. I just can't decide if El Duque will get enough starts to make it a fivesome.

Wouldn't the fact that Santana would only agree to be traded to the Mets, or to the NL

Someone on ESPN last night mentioned that Santana really likes to hit.

But I think it might have been Phillips who said it, so we can just ignore it.

He could have meant it in the Steve Garvey sense. Hard to tell, with Phillips.

I happen to be positive that the 2008 Mets are going to be the first team since the '71 Orioles to have four 20 game winners.

A cheesehead was arguing the same thing last year about the 2007 Brewers...

Webb/Haren vs. Santana/Pedro, I think you have to take Arizona b/c Pedro is such an unknown quantity going into this year. But, even as a huge fan of both Webb and Haren, I have concerns about Haren going into that park. Haren took a small step forward last year and solidified his status as a front-line starter, but he could easily regress a bit this year.

I think 1-5 the Met rotation has the edge. Perez as your #4 is great...

If the Dbacks in 2008 don't hit any better than they did in 2007, the Mets could bring Jose Lima, Dave Williams and Brian Lawrence back and it won't make any difference

I think 1-5 the Met rotation has the edge. Perez as your #4 is great...

Two things about that. First, having Maine and Perez in the 4-5 slots is pretty awesome, no doubt. Of course, that depends on Pedro's health, which I am less convinced than some Mets' fans is "proven," since he never did start on regular rest last year and even on five days rest pitched only a handful of times. There's still a lot to prove in terms of durability over the long haul.

Second, pushing El Duque all the way back to # 5 in and of itself pays dividends. Early in the season, when you don't necessarily need your fifth starter on a regular basis, the Mets could use him out of the pen at times, and save him innings and wear & tear. The less he is used, the better the odds he holds up later in the season.

When El Duque was in Arizona, he complained about being bumped off a regular starter's schedule, and had choice words for Melvin when the Dbacks wanted him to skip a start. The guy may be old as dirt, but his competitive fires are burning strong...

Very good point Sam. I was assuming Maine/Perez 4-5 though. Duque needs to have his innings limited, even if he's not necessarily happy about it. One (huge?) question- do they try to turn Pelfrey into a set-up man at least for 2008 and hope he becomes Heilman? He'll get some work this year as a #6 starter, but what do you do with him long-term?

I haven't seen this mentioned a lot, but what does everyone think of this:

"According to the Bergen Record's Bob Klapisch, the Twins came back to the Yankees with an offer of Johan Santana for Melky Cabrera, Ian Kennedy and a prospect on Monday, only to be turned down.
If true, the Yankees declined the chance to acquire Santana without giving up Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain. Klapisch also believes the Red Sox had both Jacoby Ellsbury and Jon Lester off the table by the time the Twins chose to accept the Mets' offer." From Rotoworld.

They could have gotten Santana and drastically improved their pitching for years, without giving up Hughes or Chamberlain. I'd say they blew it there.