Feel free to post your comments/questions below regarding the Santana deal, since my ESPN column’s Conversation has been, um, overrun.
Meanwhile, my ESPN mailbag has been filling up. Three people wrote to say that Walter Johnson is the best pitcher in franchise history – technically true, but I don’t see that as a practical way of looking at the question, and I wasn’t using “franchise” in a business sense, but in a city/nickname sense. Several others wrote to say that Roberto Clemente was the best Rule 5 pick ever; he has Santana on career value, but Santana was the best pitcher in the American League for about a four-year stretch, and that peak crushes Clemente. One guy wrote in to argue both points and screwed up his own email address.
EDIT: One other point worth mentioning on the Rule 5 draft. In Clemente’s day, acquiring a player via the Rule 5 draft meant acquiring him for life, since there was no free agency and the reserve clause was treated as a perpetually renewing form of indentured servitude. Now, of course, if you acquire a player via the Rule 5, you only get his rights until he earns enough service time to become a free agent. So the return Clemente gave the Pirates will never be matched because the system doesn’t allow it. Adjusting for that context, the Santana pick is clearly the better return.
And then there’s this from a Twins fan:
(217) Paddy Boston 2008-01-30 07:43:00.0
Jack Morris, Jack Morris, Jack Morris. Johan Santana is not the best pitcher in Twins history.
Oooh-kay.
Gosh Keith! You basically suck as a writer and as an analyst! Seriously, how many emials do you get saying that? It’s quite humorous.
Omar Minaya finally made a good move, and I mean finally!
I guess you get a pretty thorough cross-section of humanity in your comments, even though they are theoretically limited to sports aficionados. Whew. How thick is you skin? How long your patience?
I’ve had two home teams these past 20 years. The Mets have my affection, the Ms my attention. While Minaya’s got some tunnel vision, he builds contenders whatever finances he’s handed. Bavasi is clueless and all over the place. Exciting time to be in Queens, another long summer here in Emerald City.
Trying to say Jack Morris is even half as good as Johan Santana offends me deeply. Ugh.
Keith,
Is it likely that the Red Sox were only in the Santana sweepstakes to keep the Yankees from acquiring the lefty? I thought I had read that at some point through this.
If that’s the case and the Yankees did essentially “pull out” of the running, wouldn’t the Sox have pulled out as well thus leaving the Mets as the winners by default, even with a sub-par package?
Is it possible that Minaya played his hand this way? If so I’ve underestimated his abilities, although I’m still not that impressed with his overall performance.
Keith,
What is the general consensus on Minaya in and around baseball? I have a hard time reconciling the Santana trade with the Milledge trade. On one hand, he was able to get the best pitcher in baseball for 4 good but not outstanding prospects. But on the other, he traded a good to great prospect for two bench players. Does that say something about the job of a general manager in general or, perhaps, Minaya specifically?
Keith,
I need some clarification because I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. You have many times stated that teams are only trading for 1 year of Santana plus a negotiating window. My question is: If the extension negotiations fall through, do not the Mets get to keep their prospects? (If the answer is no, then my confusion is mitigated) It appears to me that the trade is 4 prospects for one year of Santana and the right to pay him market value for the next 7 years.
Is this what you mean by stating they are only trading for a negotiating window?
The value for the Mets lies in the one year plus the chance to lock him up, plus the added benefit of ensuring your competitors don’t lock him up on the open market. Maybe I just dont understand the characterization as “one year and a window” since there is nothing gained/lost if they don’t sign them. What am I missing?
Paul: obviously I’m not Keith, but here’s how I understand it.
Santana has virtually no incentive at this point to sign with any team for less than the very limit of what he (well, his agent) feels he can get on the open market, exclusive window or no. If the Red Sox were willing to pay him that today, they could just as well do the same next offseason and not have to give up *anybody*. So that’s the problem–of course you get your guys back if you *don’t* sign him, and then it’s merely a PR disaster. But if you DO sign him, a package like Ellsbury and Lowrie is an awful lot to pay just for that one year and insurance against the chance that somebody is going to swoop in in a panic and seriously *overpay* for him next year.
(Of course my understanding the concept doesn’t mean I like it–I’m a Twins fan who thinks they just should’ve hung onto him and either resigned him or waited until someone panicked and gave up a top-shelf guy. This deal makes me a little sick.)
Yeah, but Paul, the Twins tried to sign him for 5 years 100mil but he didn’t bite. It sounded like if all things were equal (same deal in MN or NY) he wanted to go East.
I wouldn’t be happy about it either if I were you, I’m just saying…
What I mean by saying the Mets here are acquiring him for a year plus a negotiating window is that while they may sign him for six or seven more years, they are not acquiring those years of value right now. They will have to pay Santana market value, maybe over market value, to get those years of production from him. So, when doing up the accounting for this trade, the Mets get Santana’s production for 2008, plus whatever value the club places on getting that exclusive negotiating window (hint: I don’t think it’s much), while the Twins get the future value streams for those four young players through the end of their six years of service.
I never thought the Red Sox were serious about Santana.
Thanks to Keith/all. It’s much clearer now. I think I was understanding the concept, but overvaluing the “certainty” of signing Santana over your competitors signing him since it was likely that one of 3-4 teams was going to end up with him anyway.
I am a bit curious as to what would be an appropriate value for the exclusive window (I’m sure it would vary team to team). For examples, which level prospect should the Yankees be willing to give up to ensure that they won the Santana sweepstakes and the Red Sox did not?
As a Phillies fan, I guess we can always look forward to the seasons after Santana retires or is traded away from the Mets. *sigh*
Josh- it was 4 years, $80 mil that the Twins offered, not 5/$100, and he wants at least 6 years. You may be right about what he wanted, but we’ll never know, since all things ain’t equal. 🙂
Keith: I know that the Twins should not have traded Santana without getting their partner’s top prospect, but, based on your rankings today, their farm system was so barren that 3 of the 4 they got were good enough to make their top 5. I think it’s safe to assume that if the trade included Martinez instead of Gomez, either Guerra or Humber gets left out or replaced with a lesser pitcher. Considering the prior state of the Twins’ system, doesn’t the quantity make up for the slight lack of quality? Or is Martinez that much of an upgrade over Gomez?
Agreed on the Red Sox. It always seemed obvious to me that they weren’t serious.
I just can’t believe the Twins passed up Phil Hughes if he was really available. An epic mistake in my mind, since getting a guy like that as the centerpiece was always the best-case scenario.
What were the Twins thinking? Was Hughes never really available, or did Smith think they were going to get Joba?
Paul – I believe the valuing the negotiation window could be simply the difference between the price the Mets pay and the price Santana would receive on the open market. Given his strong bargaining position and the fact that few expect Santana to give the Mets any sort of discount, this value is likely to be small.
Aren’t the Twins virtually obligated to trade Nathan now? I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to keep him at this point.
Clearly the emailer who commented that Jack Morris is the greatest “Minnesotan” Twin of all-time was dead-on. Unless you want to argue Jerry Koosman?
I was wondering the same thing as Scott, and mainly, why didn’t the Twins get Martinez? I know Gomez is another great prospect, but all I heard about the Mets farm system is Martinez…the Twins had to get him, didn’t they?
Ah, I guess it doesn’t matter anyway. Gonna be a couple years before we find out if this was a good deal or not. Here’s hopin’ it’s another AJ for Nathan, Liriano, BOOF trade.
Doubtful.
Blimey!
I have to agree with the befuddlement over passing up Phil Hughes. I wonder if the ability to get Santana out of the American League factored into the appeal of trading wit the Mets?
Will this trade have any impact on the stalled Jones and Co. for Bedard deal? The M’s rumored offer for Bedard certainly appears more palatable to my ravenous fantasy baseball cravings than the Mets’ offer. Gomez sounds promising, but not Torii Hunter 2.0 promising.
I know Bedard is locked in for two more years at a relatively modest sum, but he lacks Santana’s track record.
If the Orioles are holding out for Carlos Triunfel, doesn’t this trade weaken their position?
I understand the economics, but I find it ironic that the best pitcher fetched the worst prospects this offseason.
I think an underrated part of the Santana deal is that I’m assuming the Twins value the free agent compensation much less than most teams due to the high signing bonus for 1st rounders/sandwich picks. Also, all things being equal i think most teams would rather wait as long as possible before signing long term contracts so that negotiation window is nice but not worth much, if anything, due to the increased risk.
Keith, do you think some teams are kicking themselves for not getting in the mix on this after seeing the final selling price?
James, as a fellow phils fan I am obviously disappointed that the mets were able to acquire santana. This however, does not ensure them anything. The mets are now the favorites to win the division, but they are far from a lock. They have a lot of aging players that will be asked to play key roles this year (wagner, delgado, pedro, el duque, castillo). Their depth is limited, so it will be interesting to see how the mets overcome the inevitable in-season injuries.
The phils now have their work cut out for them, but I am still optimistic about the upcoming season…except for the 3,4,5 starters of course.
Should be an exciting year…I’m looking forward to watching these teams beat up on each other again this year. hopefully the mets will choke again.
I think the real lesson here is not to give out no-trade clauses. Santana’s no-trade clause gave him all the leverage. I’m sure the Twins would have come out much better if they could’ve traded him anywhere or waited until the deadline.
Not dealing Santana for Hughes because you want him out of the AL would be ridiculous. You have to take the best offer you can get, especially in a situation like this, where the long-term deal a team will have to give Santana is likely to blow up in the team’s face.
i feel like santana’s no trade clause had more to do with him going to the mets than anything. once the twins decided to trade him they really couldnt go back. and once the ball got rolling i feel like santana kind of forced bill smith to trade him to the mets (the only contender in the NL that was going to pay), and that smith probably tired to use the yankees and the redsox to to bid of the mets as much as they were smoke screening each other.
I am a life long Mets fan. Let me just say that the initial joy of winning Santana has already passed. Mets fans are born pessimists and now that Santana is ours I’m sure that I am not alone in my belief that he is injured, on the decline or engaged to be married to a crazy super model.
Santana is one of the greatest pitchers ever. It is absolutely not possible that this can work out for the Mets. So Phillies fans don’t fret, something WILL go horribly wrong.
Kris, I was being a bit sarcastic.
I think that the Phillies were 1-3 wins better than the Mets on paper before the trade. The Mets might be 1-2 wins better on paper now. If we add Lohse, which I think is a realistic possibility, then we get a win back. If it’s within 3 games on paper before a game is played, it’s kind of pointless to even pick a winner, as luck and variance will have a big say at the end of the day.
Keith,
What’s up with the prognostications of doom lately? Tons of analysts have been saying that Santana has already reached his peak–because of his performance in the last seven games last season–or they are all blathering that he’s definitely going to get hurt. Last year he was the best pitcher in baseball and now some are making it look like he is yesterday’s news.
Over 1300 comments already. wow
Ok, I want to preface this by saying I am not one of “those” fans that makes up crazy ass trades for my team and truthfully believes that those trades should happen and I should be the teams next GM. Ok? I’m not. Shut up. 😉
But seriously, couldn’t, like, 15 other major league teams have put together a similar quality/quantity package to what the Mets did? My Cubs, for example, could have done something around Pie (Gomez-ish, no?), Marshall, Gallagher, and Veal. Am I an idiot? Regardless of how we all *feel* about trading prospects for one year of Johan and a negotiating window, wouldn’t that trade at least *meet* the Mets where they were at?
It’s been one hundred years for us. One F’NG hundred years. I’d give the whole farm for the chance to get Santana on the Cubs…in the NL Central…in the National League. ADFKAJSDFJSAJDF!
I hate baseball.
Thanks.
I pointed out Santana’s late fade and his history of minor elbow issues back in November or so, just to raise a contrary viewpoint to all of the “pay anything to get him, he’s the best pitcher ever” articles I was reading. I agree that it has spiraled well out of control. The guy was still leading AL pitchers in VORP on Labor Day.
Jose – the Twins love Gomez. I’ve been saying that all along, and it meant the Mets had a huge leg up in these negotiations.
Aren’t the Yankees losers here as well? They had a chance (from what NY area papers are reporting) to trump the Mets offer and refused. They are now counting on 3 rookies as major pieces of their rotation. Replacing one of them with Santana would be a huge upgrade… and then all the $$ they get back with contracts expiring next season plus the new stadium.
For the Mets, I think Minaya was holding back Pelfrey and Martinez to sweeten the deal if the Yankees and Sox got involved again… and the whole thing fell in his lap. He must be ecstatic.
The biggest loser is Brian Cashman.
Santana is going to be pitching in a significantly weaker league and facing pitchers 1/9 of the time, setting him up perfectly for a big year. And Yankees fans will have to see it on TV, hear about it on the radio, and read about it in the newspaper, because he’ll be right across town.
Cashman made the right move in not dealing Joba or Hughes for Santana, but if the Yankees’ rotation struggles, people will be all over him.
2008 Cy Young ???
Brandon Webb
Dan Haren
Jake Peavy
Chris Young
Johan Santana
I can already feel the east coast bias working its way into the discussion. 🙂