bobbob1313 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I also view this as a huge "Win now" move for the Mets. That team is aging or going to be too expensive before long. Link to post Share on other sites
Serak_the_Preparer Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I love Santana, this is a great trade for the Mets. Gomez and Humber aren't very good, I wouldn't have done Dontrelle for the two of them. I'm surprised they didn't have to give up Martinez or Pelfrey, who I think are better prospects. And it's also slightly (not much, but slightly) troubling that his HR and BB rates went up last year while his K rate went down last season. He's still the best or 2nd best pitcher in the league. But if he falls off even a little bit (which is entirely probable), it'll be a terrible contract. Santana's ERA in Shea is a pultry 0.60. His ERA vs. NL teams is under 3.00. He'll do fine in the NL. Worst. Trade. Ever. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 I guess they could have kept him for another third place season, let his contract expire, and gotten nothing for him. They definately overplayed their hand and ended up with a little bit less than they were hoping for, but its not a terrible deal considering their chances of re-signing him were zero. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Santana's ERA in Shea is a pultry 0.60. His ERA vs. NL teams is under 3.00. He'll do fine in the NL. Worst. Trade. Ever. Smallest. Sample. Size. Ever. That is like saying "Mike Redmond has a career batting average against Tom Glavine of .400+. Best. Player. Ever." It is quite obvious you didn't read my post. Cool. Link to post Share on other sites
Serak_the_Preparer Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Smallest. Sample. Size. Ever. That is like saying "Mike Redmond has a career batting average against Tom Glavine of .400+. Best. Player. Ever." It is quite obvious you didn't read my post. Cool. I read your post as saying it was a good trade for the Mets (aka bad for the Twins). I was agreeing with you. The worst trade ever was in reply to the Twins choice to go with the Mets. They had the worst offer of the 3 teams in the mix. As a Twins fan I would have rather traded straight up for Phil Hughes or for Jacoby Ellsburry. We didn't even get a #1 prospect from the Mets, very dissapointing. So i guess it is quite obvious that you didn't read my post...cool. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I read your post as saying it was a good trade for the Mets (aka bad for the Twins). I was agreeing with you. The worst trade ever was in reply to the Twins choice to go with the Mets. They had the worst offer of the 3 teams in the mix. As a Twins fan I would have rather traded straight up for Phil Hughes or for Jacoby Ellsburry. We didn't even get a #1 prospect from the Mets, very dissapointing. So i guess it is quite obvious that you didn't read my post...cool.I'm not sure you're following the progression of the thread, though. It's been mentioned a few times that the feeling is that the Twins probably burned some bridges in their dealings with the NYY and BOS. Also, that they still got #2, 3, 4 and 7 top prospects from the NYM. Which isn't bad. Link to post Share on other sites
Serak_the_Preparer Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I'm not sure you're following the progression of the thread, though. It's been mentioned a few times that the feeling is that the Twins probably burned some bridges in their dealings with the NYY and BOS. Also, that they still got #2, 3, 4 and 7 top prospects from the NYM. Which isn't bad. I guess I read that, but i didn't know that everyone agreed. I read that BOS may have taken Lester off the table, but that Ellsburry was still up for trade along with some lesser pitching prospects. I don't know if NYY was ready to depart with Hughes any longer, but it would have been worth another try. Anyway, yeah, we are all on the same page now However, I am still not happy with the end result of the trade... Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I'd take the 4 over just one of Ellsbury or Hughes. Prospects have such high attrition rates, that it probably makes sense to have more with lower ceilings than one with a high ceiling. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 I read your post as saying it was a good trade for the Mets (aka bad for the Twins). I was agreeing with you. The worst trade ever was in reply to the Twins choice to go with the Mets. They had the worst offer of the 3 teams in the mix. As a Twins fan I would have rather traded straight up for Phil Hughes or for Jacoby Ellsburry. We didn't even get a #1 prospect from the Mets, very dissapointing. So i guess it is quite obvious that you didn't read my post...cool. A trade can be good for the Mets without being bad for the Twins. Some trades are good for both teams (see the Miguel Cabrera trade to Detroit earlier this offseason). Also, as was addressed by...um...someone earlier, there is a little bit of added value by trading to the National League instead of to Boston or New York, because the Twins won't have to face Santana as much (if at all) during the regular season, and are less likely to have to face him in the post-season. Link to post Share on other sites
Twisted Acres Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Perhaps the Sox caught wind that the Yanks were pulling their offer off the table completely, and decided that if their divisional rival was no longer interested, that they had no need to surrender any of their prospects, knowing full well that their rotation is much better than the Yankees rotation as they currently stand. Really, it comes down to the fact that the Twins should have pulled the trigger back in December. Why do you think they didn't wait until the end of this coming July, when his value may have skyrocketed in the eyes of drooling division contenders? Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Looks like Erik Bedard to Seattle for Adam Jones is imminent:http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...MLB&id=3449...or not. Jeebus, this team can't even make a trade without shitting all over itself. I can't even decide how I feel about losing Bedard--prospects are nice, but this team is now perennially building toward some future that keeps looking farther away all the time. At this point I'm curious to see just how bad this team can get! I can't imagine why anybody would want to play for this club. [edit] PS - Mr. Angelos, if you are reading this, I was just kidding about that last part. I played some high school ball and had some pretty good defensive range at shortstop back in the day. PM me if you're interested. I'll be looking for my plane tickets to spring training in the mail. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Perhaps the Sox caught wind that the Yanks were pulling their offer off the table completely, and decided that if their divisional rival was no longer interested, that they had no need to surrender any of their prospects, knowing full well that their rotation is much better than the Yankees rotation as they currently stand.This was my take on it, too. Of course, there were so many rumors/reports swirling daily around the Santana trade possibilities that it's hard to truly know what offers were valid and which were bluffs/hedges/etc. by Cashman and Epstein. Link to post Share on other sites
Serak_the_Preparer Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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. If this is true then I can ALMOST see why they went with the Mets. They really should have dealt him during the winter meetings. They couldn't hold on to him this year because Santana had a no trade claus and said repeatedly that if he wasn't traded this spring he would wait it out until free agency in 2009. The Twins would have lost him and would have only gotten 2 draft picks for their effort. I can see why they pulled the trigger when they did, I am just dissapointed with what could have been. Again, an outfield of Young, Ellsbury, and Cuddyer would have ruled for years to come. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I was just about to post the Klapisch link. It does seem hard to believe that the NYY would NOT accept Santana for Ian Kennedy, Melky, and a prospect. Thwe bottom line is the Twins ended up settling for less than they could have gotten a few weeks earlier. The prospects are nice but there was proven very young talent on the table not long ago. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 It does seem hard to believe that the NYY would NOT accept Santana for Ian Kennedy, Melky, and a prospect. Unless it's true that they were only in talks for Santana in the first place to raise the price and keep him away from the Red Sox. If they knew that the deal with the Red Sox was dead, then they don't really have a reason to accept the offer. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Unless it's true that they were only in talks for Santana in the first place to raise the price and keep him away from the Red Sox. If they knew that the deal with the Red Sox was dead, then they don't really have a reason to accept the offer.But how would they know a deal with BOS was truly dead? Those two teams are incredibly leery of eachother and the Twins pitted them nicely. You'd think that the NYY would be foolish to turn down the Klapisch mentioned deal, regardless of BOSD's offers or supposed non-offers. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 But how would they know a deal with BOS was truly dead? Those two teams are incredibly leery of eachother and the Twins pitted them nicely. You'd think that the NYY would be foolish to turn down the Klapisch mentioned deal, regardless of BOSD's offers or supposed non-offers. They knew that the Red Sox deal was dead because the Twins were coming to them with an offer that would require them to give up less than what they'd discussed before, or what was rumored in the Red Sox deal. Why would the Twins be coming to them with that offer if they still had a better offer on the table from Boston? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 They knew that the Red Sox deal was dead because the Twins were coming to them with an offer that would require them to give up less than what they'd discussed before, or what was rumored in the Red Sox deal. Why would the Twins be coming to them with that offer if they still had a better offer on the table from Boston?I guess what I'm saying is: why would NYY turn that deal down, regardless of what BOS had or didn't have on the table? NYY need the pitching more than BOS and it would have been a good deal for NYY to not have to give up Champberlain/Hughes. Either way, it appears that once NYY and BOS both "knew" the other was not going to pursue Santana and that they'd be able to hold on to their young guys, it didn't matter too much too either team that NYM got him. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 I guess what I'm saying is: why would NYY turn that deal down, regardless of what BOS had or didn't have on the table? NYY need the pitching more than BOS and it would have been a good deal for NYY to not have to give up Champberlain/Hughes. Either way, it appears that once NYY and BOS both "knew" the other was not going to pursue Santana and that they'd be able to hold on to their young guys, it didn't matter too much too either team that NYM got him. I'm not saying that the Yankees were smart to turn down the deal. I agree with you that it would have been a good trade for them. I just meant that, if their only concern was keeping Santana away from the Red Sox, they could tell from that offer that the Red Sox were no longer in the running. Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyMike Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I was just about to post the Klapisch link. It does seem hard to believe that the NYY would NOT accept Santana for Ian Kennedy, Melky, and a prospect. Bob Klapish is the Jason Blair of sports writers, so I wouldn't exactly trust that one. But I think the Yanks were PO'd at theTwins, considering none of the prospects the Twins got from the Mets wold have been considered top 10 prospects (or suspects) in the Yankee system. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Bob Klapish is the Jason Blair of sports writers, so I wouldn't exactly trust that one. But I think the Yanks were PO'd at theTwins, considering none of the prospects the Twins got from the Mets wold have been considered top 10 prospects (or suspects) in the Yankee system. This seems like a strange thing to say with nothing to back it up. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 This seems like a strange thing to say with nothing to back it up.I think that's just Yankee exceptionalism talking. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 It also occurs to me that the Yankees may have thought that, with the deal with the Red Sox dead, the Twins were going to end up not trading Santana after all, and that they may be able to just sign him as a free agent after the '08 season. He's not really a threat to them pitching in Minnesota, and though they'd miss out on having him for one season by not pulling off the trade, they could easily outbid everyone else in the free agency market and not have to give up any prospects. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 It also occurs to me that the Yankees may have thought that, with the deal with the Red Sox dead, the Twins were going to end up not trading Santana after all, and that they may be able to just sign him as a free agent after the '08 season. He's not really a threat to them pitching in Minnesota, and though they'd miss out on having him for one season by not pulling off the trade, they could easily outbid everyone else in the free agency market and not have to give up any prospects.Fair point. Though I'm not sure any team really thought he'd be a Twin (including the Twins) when the season starts. There's also the possibility that both NYY and BOS (and NYM, even) know things about risk-injury with Santana that we don't know. And that both NYY and BOS simply couldn't justify spending that kind of money for a 5-6 year deal on a power pitcher who in no way is guaranteed to continue to produce at the level he has. In the end, Santana is a huge investment and may well produce at comparable levels down the road to what he has done in the past, but it's a long contract for a pitcher with plenty of room for caution, none the less. Some justifying on my part, sure, but I'm sure there are plenty of other factors involved than what we read in print. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 For what it's worth, I don't see Santana being this good for more than a few more years. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts