nathan is apparently on the block as well... would anyone be averse to putting together a painfully good looking package of prospects for both? how would that be for a winter!

trading the two together inherently decreases their respective values, but the dreamers can dream.

It doesn't seem like the Mets have enough blue chips to get Santana. The Mets might be better off going for Nathan.

Apparently Chamberlain and Cano are untouchable according to the Star Ledger. It also appears its between the Red-Sox and Yankees for Santana's services.

My sense of this is that these blue chip packages being bandied about are simply nuts. The Twins have a problem in that Santana has a full NTC and can veto a deal to any location he doesn't like. So the Twins leverage is undercut severely. The other teams realize that, if they sit back and wait, the Twins will have to either drop their price to place Santana in a location he will accept or hold him for the season and reap one last season of Santana and Liriano, the potential of a first round draft choice and the surety of a supplemental pick.

The teams who desire Santana want to minimize the value of the package of players they will have to offer in order to simply obtain the privilege of negotiating a multi-year contract with him. In fact I think it quite reasonable to argue that they would rather try to negotiate with and obtain Santana next year as a free agent then give up a bevy of players to negotiate a huge deal with Santana and get him now. Additionally, the longer the Twins hold out the more attractive it becomes to them to hold Santana for the season. It seems to me that the logic of this may drive everyone to do nothing.

For teams like the Yankees, there is lots of sense in low balling all the way through this thing. The Twins only hope of obtaining a set of top flight prospects and young major leaguers is to set the teams in competition against each other. Yet in this situation I don't think there are any rules against the teams in competition for Santana talking to each other publicly to hold the bids low and preventing that from happening.

I could be wrong (as I often am) but I just don't see the Twins landing one of these premium packages for Santana because I think they're dealing from a weak hand. Their only real strength here is that they currently hold the player under contract for one year and that leverage weakens with each passing day. I sure as hell hope we don't win the "shmuck award" by jumping first with an inflated bid. I say patience is the best ploy right now and if we exercise it we may find that at worst we end up with the big three and the little two in pinstripes as well as Santana to boot, in the 2009 season.

Santana is clearly a great pitcher, and might very well be worth the rumored packages, but the claim that "there has never been a pitcher quite like him" is absurd.

For his career, Santana's ERA+ is 141 in 1,300 IP at AGE 28. That's great. It really is. But, it's no better than Roy Oswalt (ERA+ of 143 in 1,400 IPs; AGE 29) or Brandon Webb (ERA+ of 144 in 1,100 IPs; AGE 28). To be honest, it's not light years ahead of Carlos Zambrano (ERA+ of 130 in 1,200 IP; AGE 26). Santana is probably the best pitcher in the game right now, but he isn't head and shoulders better than the names above (as well as a few others I might not have mentioned).

As for the comparison to Pedro, well, that's beyond absurd...it's just plain stupid. Even into his decline phase, Pedro's ERA+ is still an astounding all-time best 161. Also, on a year by year basis, Pedro's ERA+ blow Johan out of the water. Fomr age 24-28, Santana's ERA+ was 148, 182, 155, 161 and 130. Pedro, over the same same span, was 117, 219, 163, 243 and 291!

Clearly, Pedro is the only pitcher worthy of the claim "there has never been a pitcher quite like him."

4 i agree with a lot of what you are saying - but i think as 3 pointed out since it is both the yanks and red-sox involved - the twins other strength is that one team (and my guess is it is more the yanks than the red sox) MIGHT do what it takes to keep the other team from getting santana. the red sox know they have an ace in beckett. the yanks know they have a very, very good, but probably not an ace in wang - and hope they have in ace in joba and perhaps even hughes (probability not as high, but you never know) but santana is more the sure thing, especially for the next few years. also, a lot of it is just posturing, so who knows, but it seems the red sox are more likely to hold on to buccholz/ellsbury than the yanks are with hughes/melky, but the buccholz/ellsbury package will be more valued than hughes/melky.
so all of this is to say that although the twins aren't necessarily dealing from a position of strength - in some ways the yanks might not be either.

4 The problem with your suggestion is there is no way teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets will cooperate with each other. In fact, it would be in their interest to make sure whoever gets him winds up overpaying. I personally don't think the Mets prospects are that good, but a bidding war between the Red Sox and Yankees still could be enough to get the Twins what they want.

6 I am not sure Buccholz/Ellsbury would be more highly valued. Going into this September, neither was really considered a prime, top grade prospect. Hughes, on the other hand, was universally thought of as one of the top prospects in the game. I think any package with Hughes would rate well.

5 Even though he was on the "other side," I always marveled at how absolutely dominant Pedro was. And the Sox got him for Pavano (was he the Sox top prospect at the time?) & Armas.

Snatana doesn't have a full no-trade. He needed to finish in the top 3 in the Cy voting for that. He has a partial no-trade list of 12 teams for 2008.

3 I'd be tempted to add Hughes to that list of untouchables. It's been extremely gradual, but Stantana's hit, homer, and walk rates have all gotten worse in each of the last two seasons. If that trend continues, the gap between him and Hughes may not be that much as soon as 2009. Melky's a great fit for the Twins, so a package of Melky, Kennedy and someone like Jeff Marquez or a projectable low-minors prospect who's too far away to bank on (but not Austin Jackson if Melky goes in the deal and I'd trade Melky over Jackson) I could do, but Joba, Hughes, and Cano should remain in pinstripes no matter what.

4 MFD, your logic makes sense to me, but as they say, logic doesn't sell newspapers.

7 I think both the Yanks and the Sox are smart enough to understand and take advantage of the Twins' lack of leverage on their own, without worrying about what the other team does. I don't think either will blink; I think Santana stays put.

Besides, the Twins and Santana aren't apart on money; they are apart on years. Santana will take the $20M/season the Twins are offering. He wants a 6 year deal, but so far the Twins have only offered 4. In that context, getting a deal done should be easy.

I'm against dealing Hughes plus any important player for Santana. Because I'm not at all confident that Santana will be a better pitcher than Hughes in 2010, let alone 2013. Extra talent dealt and huge piles of money tip the balance away from acquiring Santana, in my opinion.

If it were Phil for Johan straight up, that would be worth it, though it still wouldn't be a no-brainer (because of the money and the expectation for the late years of Santana's contract).

8 i agree with you - and i know the twins are one of the better talent evaluators, but teams still have a tendency to value "the recent" which would tilt it to b/e. also, and i know many people are going to jump on this, but there is some merit in these opinions, but every espn chat i have read with keith kaw and jim callis rank buccholz ahead of hughes.

Could not agree more with you williamnyy23.

These fans that are so eager to trade the farm for Santana have overstated his value. It doesn't mean that he's not great. But they've inflated his value to that of vintage Pedro, and that he ain't.

I want Santana because he is a No. 1, just like Hallday, Oswalt, Beckett and, C.C and Peavy are No. 1s.

But to inflate his value, and say he is far and away the best pitcher in baseball simply isn't true.

Listen for Pedro in '99, I would trade the farm. For Santana in '08, I trade IPK, Melky and Horne or possibly Hughes and Melky with no third prospect. If that doesn't get it done, so be it.

What the rotation needs is an innings eater to save the bullpen. If Billy Beane is having a firesale, try to trade for Blanton, who is a very good young pitcher - or Haren, who is an ace. It will cost a little less in prospects that Santana.

10 Actually, he needed to finish in the top 3 in Cy Young voting in either 2006 or 2007 to get the full no trade - since he won it in 2006, he's got it.

Okay, Cliff 11 got in ahead of me 13 with more details.

By the way, I don't think it makes any difference whether Santana has a no-trade veto. Even if he has none in his contract, he can effectively veto any trade by declining to sign a new contract with the team the Twins want to trade him to. Obviously nobody is going to part with significant young talent of the kind the Twins insist on if they only get Santana for one year.

7 I see your point. What bothered me about it when I was thinking about this was one would have to assume that that teams such as the Sawx don't really want Santana or they would be ensuring that the price they would potentially pay for Santana is inflated as well by following such a course. If they don't want him I can't see them risking a bid that might actually be accepted and then running a sham negotiation on a contract with Santana in order to blow the deal up.

There's no doubt we don't want to see Santana headlining on Yawkee Way so that posses a problem and it may well be the only hope the Twinkees have in starting a bidding war. I think the Sawx are actually playing this smart by talking about who is not going to be included rather than discussing who they might include. If we would stick to that as well I think there's a good chance he either hits free agency or the compensation to the Twins is greatly reduced from the blue chip loaded packages that appear to be in play.

15 very well put. and i have long wanted to hear what beane wants for blanton or haren which as you state are both substanial innings pitchers.

Oh, and I agree with Cliff and rconn about what would be a reasonable trade for Santana.

No matter what happens, I don't think any trade for Santana will end up being "reasonable." Someone is gunna overpay...

If the Yankees do trade Melky in a package, They're looking at Aaron Rowand, the Phillies Free Agent, for Centerfield.

I think Cliff's package is about what I have in mind if it goes off now. I'd have a list of potential Low A, A and AA guys that I wouldn't toss in as well including but not limited to Tabata, AJax, Betances, Heredia, Melancon, Montero, Sanchez, Garcia, Cervelli, McCutchen, Nova and Abe Almonte. Other than that I'd say "pick one in addition to Cliff's list" also understanding that guys from last years draft aren't tradeable yet.

Did the Sox overpay when they sent Hanley to the Marlins for Beckett and Lowell? In essence, how big a hit does a big market team take when it trades an actually cost-controlled young super star for more expensive older stars? The Sox won their world series, still have roster flexibility, etc.

9 Before the Pedro deal, Carl Pavano and Nomar were the Red Sox two top prospects. According to Baseball America, Pavano was the 17th ranked prospect in the game (he moved up to number 9 in 1998).

As for Armas, he eventually cracked the top 30 in 2000 (he was ranked #27), but as a 19 year old at the time of trade, was far less projectable. Of course, the Red Sox only had Armas because they acquired him from the Yankees in return for Mike Stanley. So, in many ways, the Yankees faciliated the Sox' Pedro acquisition.

14 I'd have to see the context of those chats. For most of the year, Keith Law was a big Hughes proponent, but he did back off some after the injury. I am not sure how most agencies view Buccholz and Hughes now, but they weren't even in the same ballpark before last April.

23 The Yankees really do have several highly touted prospects, so they might be able to get away without dealing Hughes and Chamberlain (although I think that puts everyone else on the table). Quite frankly, I think a deal of Kennedy and Cabrera as well as Tabata/Jackson and Sanchez/Horne/Betances would be a pretty steep price...one that the Twins would have to think about it. I also don't think Boston could go four deep like that (both LA teams probably could). The question then becomes, is saving Hughes worth giving up more prospects?

24 That's an interesting question...I think the answer is yes and no. On the one hand, Hanley Ramirez is one of the best young position players in the game. He could probably land Johan straight up right now. Considering that Santana is better than Beckett, I'd think you'd have to say that the Red Sox overpaid (ignoring Lowell's contribution because the Marlins would have given him a way in a separate deal anyway).

On the other hand, the Red Sox did win a World Series thanks mostly to Beckett's contribution, so at least for now, I think it winds up being a deal with which everyone is happy.

26 yeah - keith law was a little down on him after the injury, even writing a story about his mechanics. as far as the context - there wasn't much of any - it was more those rank the following guys or "lightning round" with them having buccholz over hughes.
i am higher on hughes than buccholz, my only point is what the twins would think - and especially if the combo of b/e would be rated higher by them then h/melky.

29 Unfortunately, the Twins are one of the more savy organizations, so it's likely they will make informed opinions. I say unfortunate, because they are less likely to accept snake oil. For all the bad press the Twins received about letting Hunter go, I think that decision exemplifies this point.

29 Well, Kevin Goldstein/Baseball Prospectus have the Yankees up next for their top 11 prospect review. Hopefully it's coming today! Hughes won't be on it, but we can review the reports on Joba and Kennedy etc.

24 I think the main difference with the Beckett deal is that he was cost controlled for a little while with the Red Sox. (And the Sox were also smart in signing him to a very favorable longer term deal). Granted, he wasn't as proven a talent as Santana. He was a good deal younger though so the Sox were getting his prime years.

The Yankees, or whoever trades for Santana, is not only trading large amounts of talent, but will then have the pleasure of paying Santana over $20 million a year over the next 6 or 7 years. Basically paying him for what he accomplished for the Twins, the end of his prime, and his decline years.

I would love to have Santana, he would certainly be the ace the Yankees need, but Hughes, Joba or Cano are a large price to pay in talent to then have to pay lots of cash. I would be all for a deal involving Kennedy, Melky, Tabata, or any of the other guys on the farm (other than Austin Jackson). Granted, I think the Twins can get more than that from someone else.

I posted this early this morning. It's the number one reason I don't want to trade for him:
Santana's comps through age 28:
1. Tim Hudson (949) active
2. Roy Oswalt (940) active
3. John Candelaria (935) A bit of a hiccup at age 26, but otherwise a brilliant pitcher until age 30 then he was below league average.
4. Juan Pizarro (931) A terrific pitcher through age 27, then not so much
5. Bob Welch (929) A great pitcher through age 30 and had a couple of solid years at 33 and 34 then he was below league average.
6. Mike Mussina (928)I'm a big fan, but his last really good year was at age 32.
7. Kevin Appier (927) Another guy who was brilliant until he hit 30, then he was anything but.
8. Jack McDowell (921) Solid until he got to be 30.
9. Kevin Millwood (915) Two outstanding years and one very good one. Since he's turned 30 he's been less than league average.
10. Sid Fernandez (915) Another guy who was brilliant through age 30 then hung on for a few years before retiring.
I didn't pick who the comps were, baseballreference.com did. I don't completely agree with all of them, but the vast majority of those guys aren't really that much different than Johann, and almost every one was done being anywhere near great before their 31st birthday.
Santana's numbers have declined a bit every year since 2003, especially his WHIP and his HRs allowed. He isn't nearly worth the king's ransom the Twins are demanding and is just as likely going to be the next John Candelaria or Juan Pizarro (one of my favorite pitchers to watch way back when) as he is to become David Cone II.
(reason one-A?):
Whoever said Pedro Martinez is a good comp should take a closer look at their respective stats. Santana's highest ERA+ is 182. Pedro had a seven year stretch when he averaged 200. Pedro is light years ahead of Santana (and almost everybody else.)

33 I don't think those comps really have significant predictive value. They're really just a fun toy, no more.

OK, scratch one or the other "really."

I'm willing to give up a substantial package for Santana, because I think he's that good. But I wouldn't sign him - or any pitcher - for 7 guaranteed years.

I'd offer 5 guaranteed. Years 6 and 7 could have an option that could become guaranteed by (say) top 3 CYA finish in year 5.

Santana almost certainly wouldn't accept that now, but I think that's where I would draw the line.

One more thing to think about...I wonder what would a package of Santana AND Nathan would cost? Now that would be a blockbuster...the kind of deal that gets vetoed in fantasy leagues.

I totally agree with Zavo.

The key to all of this, for me, is that this will cost the Yankees both talent and $$$ - lots of both. If it were one or the other (preferably $$, not talent), fine. But Hughes, Chamberlain and Kennedy are major-league caliber pitchers right now Yes, they're young and there will likely be growing pains. Yes, it's possible (probable, even) that one, two or all three of them could get hurt, or never reach their supposed potential.

But I'm up for rolling the dice on those guys by keeping them, and hoping that Santana (or CC Sabathia - as unlikely as I think that is) hits the FA market.

Too bad Hank can't leak an item to the press saying that the Yankees have dropped out of the race, but would be certain to offer Santana $30/year as a free agent after next season. If you could guarantee he'd be available as a free agent, you could keep your prospects and wait for a year.

39 I'd be on board for that! Wouldn't it be tampering though?

I disagree with those comps having no predictive value.
I got the numbers to show how pitchers approaching their 30th birthday are a bad investment if they cost young players who may become stars in their own right.

I expected maybe half losing it by age 35 (with the exception of true power pitchers, which Santana is not), but found that almost all were done by age 31. How can such an overwhelming number not be predictive? And why would anyone want to trade potentially great pitchers in light of those examples? Even if there were only a 30% chance he'd pull a Higuera, the trade still makes no sense.
It's a trade we don't need to make on any level, and one that could set us back significantly.

The Yankees MUST get Santana. It will be a colossal disaster if the Red Sox get him; we can forget about winning the division and possibly even making the playoffs, if that happens. The Twins have the Yankees by the Bosox. From reading all of these posts, it sounds like the Yanks may be offering Hughes, Melky and a grade B prospect to the Twins.

>> It will be a colossal disaster if the Red Sox get him; >>

I honestly don't believe the Sawx are seriously interested - IMO Elsbury and Bucholz are their versions of Cano and Hughes. They already dropped a ton of money on Dice-K, and in general the problem wasn't pitching - I'd have believed the A-Rod rumors before Santana.

I tend to think the Mets will go all out - they REALLY need pitching.

I agree about Theo not really being interested.

43 i agree about the mets - but they have the least to offer. in a way that's what happens when you let propsects become players.

39 40 hank is so loquacious i'm confident he will find a way.

Hmm, Pete Abe has an interesting point about Santan:

Here's a little quiz, baseball fans:

This pitcher [Santana] was 3-2 with a 5.70 ERA against teams from the AL East last season (not counting the Yankees).

He was 5-7, 4.04 in the second half of the season, allowing 88 hits (16 of them home runs) over 98 innings. The 33 home runs he allowed for the season were nine more than in any other previous season. Scouts have noticed he appears hesitant to throw his slider.

He has one victory in five career playoff starts.

--

I know this is all small sample size mumbo jumbo, and i've never heard about the hesitance to throw the slider (which would be a huge red flag)... But