Who?

Would prospects include Humber and Pelfrey?

...nevertheless, people connected to the Mets still seem positive, though i keep hearing that they’ll continue to ‘monitor the situation,’ which hardly invokes confidence from me...

I believe "monitor the situation" also describes how doctors assess the care of terminally ill patients. Unless the Mets include Reyes their chances of landing Santana could be best described as "resting comfortably>"

Johan ain't going to no Mets.

Has anyone in the mainstream media suggested the Mets are really even a candidate to get Santana recently, at least in a non-Reyes scenario?

And the Mets offered different packages of prospects that included either outfielder Carlos Gomez or outfield prospect Fernando Martinez but not both, declining to include the one extra prospect the Twins requested to clinch the deal according to people familiar with those talks.

Santana's trade value is limited to perhaps only those three big-market teams because they are the only ones that truly seem comfortable with giving a pitcher a six-year extension worth between $20 and 25 million annually, which Santana will command when his current contract expires after next season. But eventually one of these teams is going to realize that acquiring an ace in the prime of his career is worth the cost in dollars and players.

Heyman, SI.com

That reads like it would take both Gomez and Martinez, which I think is credible. But which I think has zero chance of happening.

That seems to be the problem with Mets trade scenarios...

Texas? TEXAS?

Is Santana set to become the ARod of pitchers?

Because Omar's in charge of the team, if the Mets get Santana, the price is going to be too much.

More from Metsblog:

…the way i have heard it, also from people connected to these talks, the Twins want gomez plus four pitching prospects…yes, four…

…from what i can gather out of people connected to santana, though, is the Yankees have been very, very quiet of late…and, additionally, santana is not too excited about playing in the Bronx, while preferring the Mets then the Red Sox…

So... the Yankees nixed their Santana deal because they wouldn't add Kennedy or Jackson to the package, and the Mets wouldn't part with just "one extra prospect" to "clinch the deal."

Something tells me these teams aren't really that close to landing the best pitcher in the game.

Well, I think the Mets hand if probably better than they realize and worry that if they do get Santana they'll give up too much and give up more than they had to.

I think Gomez may well rate better than Ellsbury (although he'll require more patience) so perhaps the Mets don't need to include as much along with him in a package. The Red Sox are apparently not going Ellsbury and Lester so their package doesn't have a big #2 either. Granted, in the Mets system it's a fair drop off after Gomez and FMart but "gomez plus four pitching prospects…yes, four…" must mean that they're asking for what? Gomez, Pelfrey, Guerra, Mulvey and Kunz?

If I were Omar I'd try to hold on to one of Guerra, Pelfrey and Mulvey, probably Guerra if possible and then send the rest on their way.

the Mets wouldn't part with just "one extra prospect" to "clinch the deal."

Well, you can't really blame them. That "one extra prospect" is code-named Prospect Dolly, the secret clone they made of Scott Kazmir just before the trade. He's just about ready to debut now at St. Lucie, having had his maturation accelerated. Would you want to trade him now, and thus repeat Jim Duquette's mistakes if you were Omar Minaya???

EDIT: It can't be Kunz (a 2007 draftee), can it? I thought he can't be traded until a year after he's drafted. Or am I misremembering that rule?

No way, no how, not within the realm of possibility of Theo ever giving Santana a 7 year contract. I can see 5 with a 6th year club option, but 7 years guaranteed is not ever going to happen.

Glad the Santana speculation has returned, there's been a massive hole in my life since the winter meetings finished...

So... the Yankees nixed their Santana deal because they wouldn't add Kennedy or Jackson to the package, and the Mets wouldn't part with just "one extra prospect" to "clinch the deal."

The Yankees nixed the Santana deal because they decided they didn't want to part with Hughes and pay $20+ million a year on Santana, too.

But eventually one of these teams is going to realize that acquiring an ace in the prime of his career is worth the cost in dollars and players.

If it's just three teams they may be thinking, "none of us is going to bite now, let's wait until next year when he'll just cost money and a 2nd round pick".

I think Gomez may well rate better than Ellsbury (although he'll require more patience) so perhaps the Mets don't need to include as much along with him in a package.

What is the basis for this, out of curiousity? Gomez seems like the far more likely guy to flame out, and it's not totally clear that his tools are superior, either.

Gomez seems like the far more likely guy to flame out, and it's not totally clear that his tools are superior, either.

More likely to flame out, certainly. But "may well rate higher" suggests to me only the proposition that a particular team could -- depending on how its scouts see things -- believe Gomez projects to have a higher ceiling, given what he can already do at a significantly younger age than Ellsbury. If the Twins are such a team that does rate him better, it could put the Mets in a relatively better position. The problem with that thinking is that the Twins are unlikely to just tell the Mets that, even if they do, in fact, rate Gomez more highly. They are too shrewd to admit, "Hey, we like your guy better than the Sox guy, so we'll take less from you."

To the contrary. They'll say, "Your guy is a bigger risk, and he gives us less immediate help than Ellsbury. So you have to up the ante." And I doubt the Mets would take the chance they are bluffing, at least not if the demand remains within the realm of the reasonable.

The Yankees nixed the Santana deal because they decided they didn't want to part with Hughes and pay $20+ million a year on Santana, too.

... And that's if you believe the Yankees' spin on it.

I think it's more likely that after their deadline they floated the Hughes/Melky/former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez/3B prospect pulled from Gitmo after their "deadline" and Twins said "Are you kidding?" at which point the Yankees decided that Cashman should say that they couldn't spend $20M on Santana and trade Hughes.

If it's just three teams they may be thinking, "none of us is going to bite now, let's wait until next year when he'll just cost money and a 2nd round pick".

But then they will hardly be assured of securing Santana's services, especially if other teams join the bidding.

The Yankees nixed the Santana deal because they decided they didn't want to part with Hughes and pay $20+ million a year on Santana, too.

Well, I don't know if the Yankees nixed it, or the Twins simply didn't accept it.

But yes, you are probably correct in why those discussions stalled. And all of the media reports claiming the simple inclusion of Kennedy or Jackson was holding up the deal were about as credible as this one. Frankly I don't believe any proposed deal has been terribly close yet.

And I doubt the Mets would take the chance they are bluffing, at least not if the demand remains within the realm of the reasonable.

Well, they should take that chance. Better to try for a good deal and risk not coming to an agreement than to accept a marginal one.

EDIT: It can't be Kunz (a 2007 draftee), can it? I thought he can't be traded until a year after he's drafted. Or am I misremembering that rule?

You are not misremembering.