Hmmm...interesting. I'm still with ya Cliff. I say no to Hughes in a Santana deal. For the price + other prospects + best Yankee pitching prospect in ages = not worth it.

I'm definitely on the side of keeping Hughes. I lean that way rationally for many of the reasons Cliff points out, and also for the possibility Santana could be had at the end of next season for cash and draft picks.

But as a Yankee fan, I'm just sick of other teams' pitchers. It feels like paying through the nose for leftovers at an expensive restaurant.

Really, really good post Cliff. Reading a dialog between 2 (rational) people I respect was very helpful.

Bottom line: Keep Phil!
(We don't need no stinkin' Santana!)
Primarily Reasons: Santana is going to get FA money, which is almost always overpaying. In itself, not too bad. But to give up 3 players I expect on the field.. one with a good upside, one with a great one? No deal. WE CAN EVENTUALLY BUY 90% OF A SANTANA IN THE NEXT YEAR OR 2 without losing Phil.
And emotion be damned! Phil is OURS! a TRUE Yankee! You simply can't ignor the 'Joy' factor here.

Also, run some scenerios. We make the trade. They both turn out to be good: We get good Santana, but we ARE paying a premium for him. Over 10 years, Phil produces close to or better.
We don't do the trade and Phil flops: Well, that sucks, but hasn't cost us any money. And aside from injury, Phil might still be a viable #3, #4 or #5 guy.
We do do the trade and Santana is less then expected/injured: It's deja vu all over again. Yankees trade the farm for high priced BFOG veteran! Yanks try to buy PS and lose! Red Sox keep their kids and rule the AL!

We do a few more deals (BP, 1 SP, maybe 1st base), we have a winning team AS IS. I'm happy with what we got. Stay pat! And enjoy the kids!

Question: Who had a better upside at this age/point in their career?
Phillip Hughes or Derek- Pettitte- Bernie- Posada- Rivera?
We kept all of them, right?

(PLUS-PLUS-PLUS)---
You can't rule out the possibility that Santana becomes a FA and we buy him next year.. or that we can get Haren or CC or Kazmir. We are NOT desparate!

SAVE PHIL HUGHES!
SAVE PHIL HUGHES!
SAVE PHIL HUGHES!

P.S. Now that the Twins have traded away pitching and got an impact RFer, I propose this:

Santana === Melky, 2 of (Alan Horne, Steven White, Steven Jackson, Mark Melancon) and 2 of (Ross Ohlendorf, Tyler Clippard, Dan McCutchen).

These aren't scrubs. There is some talent in that list. 5 players, all cheap, one MLer and 4 guys with decent potential.

When figuring out which pitching prospects to make available in a trade isn't it better to look at how many more wins Hughes will be worth vs. Kennedy rather than Hughes vs. Santana? I highly doubt the Yankees will have room for 3 young pitchers in the rotation in '07 so part of what you are dealing away is the cost of storing Kennedy at Scranton.

no matter what, all the twins can give us is one year of santana. that is all they have to give. just because we'd get a chance to sign him to an extension doesn't mean that the twins are actually giving us more than that one year. they don't have more than that one year. we must not let them fool us into thinking we're getting more than one year. the only possible reason i can think of for giving up a lot of top prospects is that the red sox could trade for him. but at the same time, they could also sign him as a free agent next year. overall i'd prefer them to overpay for him, even though he is definitely the best pitcher in baseball right now.

While I am definitely on the fence about trading Hughes for Santana, I think too much is being made of Santana's "decline". It's very hard (perhaps absurd) to project Phil Hughes to have a long successful major league career, when you start with the premise that an established pitcher like Santana is already in decline before his 29th birthday.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Santana will be better than Hughes over the next 5 years. What starts tilting the balance is the opportunity cost of the money, the other prospects in the deal and the intangible satisfaction of having a homegrown ace. I think we need to frame a possible deal in that light, as opposed to trying to determine which pitch will perform better over the next 5 years+.

6 It's easy to dismiss Santana going to the Red Sox, but what if Santana and Beckett turn out to be the best two pitchers in MLB over the next 5 years (not a far fetched scenario). Is that the hole the Yankees want to be working from...even if Joba and Hughes develop into the 3rd and 4th best pitchers (a less likely scenario)?

Like it or not, the presence of the Red Sox and Yankees as possible suitors gives the Twins a lot of leverage. They aren't simply offering one year of Santana, but also the chance to sign a long-term deal (thereby preventing him from joining the enemy).

According to John Heyman in SI:

The Twins have asked the Yankees for one of three top pitching prospects -- Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes or Ian Kennedy -- plus center fielder Melky Cabrera and one or two younger prospects.

If that is true, the Yankees can make the deal without Hughes, although it would probably cost better additional prospects. That then leads to the question of whether saving Hughes is worth losing, let's say, Tabata and Horne?

If the options were Hughes, Melky, Ohlendorf and Cervelli or Kennedy, Melky, Horne and Tabata, which would be the better deal.

Essentially, the Yankees need to really determine what they think Hughes will become. If they really think he will be a long-term #1/#2 starter, it's probably worth it to give up more top level prospects. If, however, they think he may not be as good as the hype, dealing Hughes would be a chance to cash on his inflated value.

It's really a very difficult call.

9 I would take the Kennedy, Melky, Horne and Tabata deal. As much as I love and want more hitting prospects, and I believe Tabata may be the real deal, corner outfielders aren't really that hard to find if you're willing to eat salary. Further, I would think the Twins might target infielders once they get Melky - they have Cuddyer in Right, could have Melky in Center, and have Young in Left. Then need a third baseman - and we have Wilson Betemit, who would be a big upgrade for them. Maybe Kennedy, Horne, Melky, Betemit gets it done, maybe plus a Cox or Clippard or Oheli or Whelen or something. Maybe they could throw in a LOOGY prospect or something.

10 Man, I'm already wavering on the Kennedy+Melky+Horne+Tabata... that's a lot of talent. All this Santana talk is really giving me agita, but my real priority is to keep Hughes and leverage the pitching depth.

I'm on the Keep Hughes side, too.

But 6 although all the Twins can give is one year of Santana, that's a misleading way to put it. Any trade for Santana would have to include his agreeing to a new, 5-yr contract (or longer). Maybe that won't happen, but there is no question of a trade in which the Yankees get just one year of Santana and give up great prospects.

3 and 10 I'm 100% with you guys. I'd rather keep what we have and see what happens, then bid on Santana on the open market next year. Is the loss of one year of Santana worth the potential loss of many productive years from the farm? I'd take him if we can get him for a song (Melky, IPK, some crappy arms in the bullpen) and I also think we shouldn't be trading any pitching prospects until we know whether or not Pettitte is coming back.

It was a great back and forth, though. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm sentimentally attached to the kids because I really feel like the re-energized the clubhouse down the stretch and helped us into the playoffs.

I think the most frustrating part of trading Hughes for Santana is not just that Hughes is an exciting young player with a high ceiling, but the idea that trading him is a complete abandonment of the rebuilding-from-within movement we have been discussing now for several years (and are rightfully proud of). Whether Hughes will be better than Johan in 2010 is almost immaterial here: Trading Hughes as part of a package for Santana -- and then signing Santana for 6/150 -- shows an utter lack of guile on the part of our FO (unlike, say, the Abreu deal), an all-too-familiar reliance on our limitless wealth and a seeming disregard for the feelings of the involved, hardcore fan in favor of the casual, corporate fan. Four million tickets don't sell themselves, you know.

This, of course, is a sentimental plea; it's based in perception and emotion rather than fact. We have come to love Phil Hughes as a prospect, as a player, and as a person, yes. We have also come to love him as a symbol of our team's evolving intelligence and cunning, our team's youth, our team's long-term future and health. We've grown proud of our team's ability to find and develop young talent, and proud that we had the top pitching prospect in baseball -- that's new for us, and exciting. He's not a sure thing by any means, and Johan's decline could reverse itself at age 29, and the move could win us a few rings over the course of Johan's contract. Trading Hughes might be the right move -- and I trust Brian Cashman to be smart and deft here, where my own judgment is clouded -- but if he is traded, it will not be a proud moment for the Yankees; it will be an ugly, sad, frustrating one. We can only hope it won't be an ugly, sad, frustrating future.

14 Just two comments...as I mentioned above, Santana is not in "decline". He should be in the midst of his prime and maintain his ability for a good part of the next 5 years.

Also, I can see being sentimental, but suggesting a trade for the best pitcher in baseball would be an "ugly" moment is pretty harsh. Sad and frustrating perhaps, but ugly?

I'm with Uncle Cliffy on this one. If a deal goes down I would have a very hard time justifying the inclusion of Hughes. A mid-line scenario with Hughes is as a number 3. Even with Santana as a dominant 1 would he be worth the value difference represented in their respective salaries? I doubt it. Even if we weight the value of post-season wins and say that Santana gets us 2 extra post season wins which means the surety of at least two additional post-season games played in each season and the additional revenue generated therefrom (i.e. if you win today you are guaranteed to play again tomorrow unless today's win was the 19th game played). Would even that bring the value of their marginal products close to a wash over the life of a Santana contract? I still doubt it. I'd need to be damn sure that Santa will continue to be what he was prior to August/September 2007 before I pulled the trigger on a deal that included Sir Phil. Even then it would keep me up nights.

Count me also on the "keep Hughes" side. Not only is his current ML success a very good sign, what the kid in the minors is nothing short of incredible. (And yes, I know he did spent quite a bit of time in the pitching haven that is the Florida State League.)

Excellent post, Cliff. Great banter and trade breakdown by you and Goldman.

I don't have any great insights to offer, but here's what I'm thinking:

Amid all the speculation and fantasy trade proposals, has Santana himself ever revealed his intentions?

Is the Bronx his ultimate destination of choice? Would he refuse a trade elsewhere to ensure that he lands on the Yanks?

My Yankee arrogance tells me there's no place he'd rather be.

There should be no question in his mind that the Yanks have the wherewithal to overpay him in dollars and years for his services. If he understands and appreciates this, it's just a matter of time (and filling in the blanks) before he becomes a Yankee.

If I'm the Yanks, I'm making this quietly (illegally) clear to Johan. The Yanks have to turn this into a one team race in Santana's mind.

If Santana wants nothing more than to make Yankee money, wear the uniform, and do the king of NY thing, and whispers this to the Yanks, and whispers to the Twins that it's the Bronx or bust for him, there's no reason to overpay the Twins for Santana now or ever.

What's overpaying? I see no reason to go beyond Kennedy, Melky, plus some filler to make it happen this winter. If the Twins demand more than that, wait, and see what happens.

15 Pitchers' primes are hard to predict. Just on the basis of age, we should expect Santana to have a couple of prime years left, and then decline. But many pitchers improve in control for a couple of years in their thirties, while others drop off after 28, so it's hard to say. It's unlikely that all five contract years would be among Johan's best, anyway.

18 Sliced, IIRC, the last time Santana made his desires clear was spring training '07, during which time he was begging the Twins to offer him a 6-year extension.

His first desire might be to stay in Minnesota.

19 Agreed. Though its unlikely, Santana may be past his prime already. Its a much safer bet that Hughes's prime is in front of him.

The one risk is injury, and I'm not sure which side that weighs more heavily on. Hughes doesn't have lots of mileage on his arm because he's young, so maybe he's less susceptible to injury . . . but his youth might means he's more susceptible to injury. Santana has mileage on his arm, but whether that means he's less likely or more likely to be injured I'm not sure.

17 I am big Hughes fan, but he didn't exactly light it up last season. While his later season improvement was encouraging (especially because I think he was still feeling the effects of the injuries), I wouldn't say he had success...rather, he made gradual improvement.

18 I made the same suggestion yesterday...somehow circulate the idea that if he becomes a FA in 2008, the Yankees will go overboard. The biggest risk is not acquiring Santana this season, but having another team lock him up long-term.

19 Pitchers are hard to predict, but Johan has been excellent now for 6 straight years. At some point, you have to stop being skeptical of a 28 year old with that track record, and importantly, no injury history.

20 Santana does have "mileage", but the Twins really worked him in the right way: gradually from bullpen to full-time starter.

This is what makes the hot stove so great. IMHO, what we have here is a debate over the Yankees doing things the "Yankee Way" vs. the "Money Ball Way". And while I have longed wished for the Yankees to re-build this team the way it was built in the early 90's. It's soooo damn tempting to take advantage of the natural advantage we have.

I'm not sure I know the answer. But for me, I'd rather Joba and Phil were (still) untouchable.

20 But isn't it now a foregone conclusion that the Twins won't give enough to retain him? If that's the case, is the Bronx his 2nd destination of choice?

Has he expressed any desire to play in Boston, or Los Angeles?

I've read that he's nterested in NY, and it's been said that he'd love it here, but I'm curious how much he wants to be a Yankee.

If he's half-hearted about it, or only vaguely interested in coming here, or would just as soon play in Boston -- best to hold tight to the kids and wait until free agency.

bottomline: if Santana really wants to come here, he can quickly turn this into a one team race, and we all know that's the kind of race the Yanks can easily win with the wallet.

Why does it seem that every rumored offer from the Yankees includes top prospects, while the Red Sox offer includes marginal guys or flat out bad major leaguers like Coco Crisp.

WW has a deal from a Minny paper stating Masterson, Lowry, Crisp and Lester is being considerd. That would be a steal for the Red Sox, Lowry is a decent SS prospect, but nothing special, while Masterson is a long ways away (the Yankees have a handful of pitching prospects who might be better than he is).

As for the main components, Lester is already 24 with very few innings, but two full years of service time, while Coco Crisp flat out sucks. I can't imagine the Twins even considering a deal like that.

24 Not to mention the deal, proposed by a Twin Cities "journalist," that was ripped upon by FireJoeMorgan.com: a trade that included Carlos Silva, free agent.

There's probably no way Santana becomes a FA -- the Twins will have to accept even a lowball offer, otherwise they get bupkus, aside from a 1st round draft choice. And baseball draft choices are a crapshoot. So it's either make a trade for him or be prepared to go without.

I don't mind trading Kennedy (not Hughes or Joba) but I'm leery of trading Melky. None of the FA CFs whelm me, and sticking Damon back in CF, with Matsui in LF is not a favorable option. Maybe convince the Twins to take Edwar & Bruney & Henn & Clippard & Wright, in addition to IPK?

Hey Guys,

I have actually moved back to New York for the time being.

First of all, I say don't trade Phil. I'd rather fail with the kids than drop huge money on a free agent pitcher and keep going down the path of the past 35 years.

Second of all, does anyone know a good bar in Manhattan that will have the NFL Network/Cowboys/Packers game?

Thanks!

23 "But isn't it now a foregone conclusion that the Twins won't give enough to retain him?"

No. Word is the Twins offered Santana $80M/4 years. Santana said $20M/year was fine, but he wants 6 years. So far, the Twins have not counter-offered. It seems like they could do a deal easily.

21 "17 I am big Hughes fan, but he didn't exactly light it up last season. While his later season improvement was encouraging (especially because I think he was still feeling the effects of the injuries), I wouldn't say he had success...rather, he made gradual improvement."

But those ML numbers from a 21 year old with less than 300 IP in the minors are damn good. And in 17 I was focusing on Hughes' minor league numbers, which were utterly ridiculous.

15 William, I don't mean to suggest that adding Johan would be an "ugly" move by any stretch -- I would LOVE to see him in pinstripes. He's a legitimately great pitcher and the prospect of having him on our team is exhilarating. I meant only that trading Hughes right now would be ugly: He's a player near and dear to many of us, and a symbol of something pure and fresh (and a top-rated prospect, let's not forget), and the loss of that -- regardless of the return -- would be ugly. To me, at least. My stomach turns at the thought of it, quite frankly. But again,