Baseball Toaster Bronx Banter
Help
King Kong v Godzilla
2007-11-30 05:47
by Alex Belth
Note: The Bronx Banter blog has moved to bronxbanterblog.com.

We need a No.1, and I think that's one of the reasons we're going after Santana," [Jorge] Posada said. "It is a need in October, no question about it. When you look at the past World Series champions, they were able to have a No.1 throwing at least two games to win the title."

..."I was really, really impressed with him during the All-Star Game when I caught him," Posada said. "To face someone is completely different than catching him, and I was really comfortable with him. I would love to have him."
(Feinsand, N.Y. Daily News)

Jorege Posada's deal was made official yesterday and Posada spoke to reporters. Pete Abe has the audio.

Elsewhere, according to ESPN, the Red Sox have a deal on the table for Johan Santana, which includes Coco Crisp and John Lester. This morning, Buster Olney reports on his blog:

There are a lot of factors involved in these talks, including the desire of ownership, so it's possible that the Red Sox could finish the deal. It's possible that the Steinbrenners will push for Santana. But I would bet that if you gave truth serum to either Boston general manager Theo Epstein or Yankees GM Brian Cashman, they would tell you that they secretly hope the other team winds up giving up the boatload of prospects and dollars for Santana -- because doling out this kind of package in prospects and money is not something Epstein or Cashman believe in, philosophically.

I'd bet if you gave Cashman and Epstein truth serum, they would admit that they would prefer to package prospects and trade them to Oakland for Dan Haren, the 2007 AL All-Star starter who would be a much more cost-efficient acquisition because he is under contract for only $16.25 million (including an option for 2010) over the next three years.

But Epstein and Cashman have to stay at the Santana table, playing this game of pitching poker, because their rival is staying at the table.

Finally, there is this from Jack Curry on Andy Pettitte:

"He's so torn right now," [Andy's father] Tom Pettitte said. "Everybody knows that he was done last year and he didn't want to play because he wanted to be with his kids. That's what this is all about. He's not looking for more money or anything."

..."I guess if he hadn't had as much success as he's had or accomplished as much as he's accomplished, I don't know, it might be different," Tom Pettitte said. "He's pretty much accomplished everything he wanted to."

Maybe, maybe, if the Yanks make a boffo deal for Santana, we'll see Pettitte return, unable to resist the chance to win another Serious. But right now, it looks as if Andy is looking out the front door for good.

Comments (167)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2007-11-30 06:19:32
1.   ms october
Andy - look at the front door and come back and be the Main Source

Interesting take from Posada about Santana.

I wonder if the Red Sox package of Lester/Crisp actually helps the Yanks a little because it allows the Yanks to downgrade the package some by keeping Hughes out and point to the Red Sox package centering on Lester.

2007-11-30 06:22:30
2.   williamnyy23
The Santana issue is a very excruciating one. The range of risk and reward to making/not making a deal is so wide that it's almost maddening. Essentially, there is no wrong answer AND no right answer…at least not right now. I'd bet Cashman and Epstein are secretly hoping Santana just stays put in Minnesota.

As for Pettitte, I have a hard time believing he will turn away $16mn to stay home. I know he is probably set for life (many generations over), but that kind of money is hard to pass up. Also, what exactly does he plan to do? At age 35, I find it hard to believe that Pettitte is ready to play golf full-time.

2007-11-30 06:29:25
3.   wsporter
2 Man are you right on that. This situation is excruciatingly difficult to analyze. I'm right there with Cash and Junior and hope that Santana stays put as well. I also wish that Jorge would just shut the F up about it. Great catcher and good man he appears to be, negotiating savant he is not.
2007-11-30 06:41:53
4.   ny2ca2dc
3 "negotiating savant he is not"

As evidenced by the monster (all things considered) contract he just got?

I kid, I kid, I also wish everyone, JoPo, and *especially* Hank, would STFU about Johan and let Cashman do his Kaiser Söze thing.

2007-11-30 06:43:21
5.   ny2ca2dc
0 Oh, and by the way Alex, King Kong ain't got shit on me.

I had to go and do it.

2007-11-30 06:48:54
6.   Count Zero
4 Agreed!!!

Jorge needs to keep his mouth shut. If he thinks comments like that are helping Cashman with the negotiations, he's an idiot. That's like having your wife tell the car salesman that this is definitely the car she wants, and she doesn't care how much it costs.

That was by far the dumbest thing Jorge's ever done...almost makes me regret re-signing him.

2007-11-30 06:49:09
7.   ms october
2 excellent take.
i am not a big fan of microeconomics, but we have no idea what the opportunity cost is here.

3 4 agreed that everyone should shut-up about this. when i wrote that posada's take was interesting - i should have also stated - but we didn't need to hear it from him. but it is interesting that he is believing in the notion that a "true #1" is needed for october. the overall pitching has been so awful the last few postseasons, that he is probably been driven to this conclusion.

2007-11-30 06:53:41
8.   wsporter
4 "As evidenced by the monster (all things considered) contract he just got?" You mean that his negotiating savant agent got for him. :-)

Have you tried that deli?

2007-11-30 07:01:39
9.   Sliced Bread
Again I ask: Has Santana ever expressed a desire to play in Boston?

I've only heard and read accounts of how much he wants to come to NY. Nothing against the Mets, but who says they want to come to NY meaning the Mets?

I'm starting to think this is a one team race, and that the Red Sox, try as they might to raise the price, are just blowing smoke, believing they don't have a good chance of landing him.

I have a feeling Santana would politely refuse a trade to Boston (after failing to reach agreement on an extension), knowing a bigger payday, and more years await him in the Bronx. Also, it doesn't seem he's in any rush to leave Minnesota, and doesn't seem to be looking to change teams this season just for the sake of change.

Patience at this point is crucial.

At the same time, I like that Posada expressed his desire to work with Santana. It reminds Johan that a great reciever awaits him in the Bronx, and how valued he would be by the Yankees. It puts the ball in Santana's court for him to make this happen now -- if that's what Johan wants.

2007-11-30 07:03:03
10.   Yankee Fan In Boston
has anyone else heard the mark loretta to the bronx rumor?

http://tinyurl.com/32h2wt

does this mean that robbie is on his way out? or, preferably, betamit?

2007-11-30 07:10:42
11.   ChrisS
I really can't see Cashman signing Loretta as a replacement for Cano. Even if it's straight up Cano for Santana, if that's the plan, then I'll start rooting for a new team.

Good bye Wilson Betemit, it was nice knowing you.

2007-11-30 07:15:46
12.   williamnyy23
9 Again, Hank should make a very innocent comment stating that as much as they'd like to acquire Johan now, the team would prefer to offer him a boatload of money next winter. What would be so wrong with that (besides tampering charges)?

10 I don't think acquiring Loretta would serve as a portent. Cano isn't going anywhere and Betemit not only backs up SS/3B, but could also be in the 1B mix. The Yankees could use a decent right handed bat who can play 2B, so his addition wouldn't require subtraction elsewhere.

2007-11-30 07:28:44
13.   rbj
If the RS are offering Coco Crisp as part of their package, the Yankees should make Carl Pavano part of theirs.

Kennedy + Melky > Lester + Coco.

2007-11-30 07:29:15
14.   liam
6 i dont think posada gives a damn.. he wants to win a championship, and he wants to do it before he gets hurt / contract runs out. santana gives him the best opportunity to do that in his eyes i guess. i dont think that he has or will have any effect on the santana negotiations.

10 & 12 i seriously doubt that they are going to trade cano, who definitely has some of his best years ahead of him- i think it might give them the flexibility to move betemit?

2007-11-30 07:34:04
15.   Sliced Bread
12 Good idea.

Hank: "Tampering schmampering. It's all on the up and up. (blows cigarette smoke) Nothing to see here, Commissioner, no aces up our sleeves."

(just then, a Johan Santana baseball card falls from Hank's cuff)

Hank (mock surprise): "Hey, who put that there?"

2007-11-30 07:34:10
16.   RIYank
Is Loretta going to sign with a team that will make him a back-up? Maybe he doesn't have much choice.
2007-11-30 07:39:32
17.   williamnyy23
16 I don't think he has much of a choice. I'm sure if he could get a starting role, he'd grab that, but there might not be one available.
2007-11-30 07:43:42
18.   wsporter
10 I saw that as well. I hope it means WB goes and Robbie stays. I'll really be disappointed if the panic and move Robbie in all this Santana mishigosh. I actually hope it doesn't really happen that we obtain Loretta period. What the hell do we need with a guy who can't get on base, can't field and can't really run any longer. If that's what where looking for I'd rather have the GOB back.
2007-11-30 07:43:47
19.   Shaun P
16 No reason Loretta couldn't possibly get some playing time at 1B; we all discussed that possibility last winter.

11 "Good bye Wilson Betemit"

Actually, I think this means the end of Andy Phillips' days in the Bronx, not Betemit's. Betemit could also be in the 1B mix.

2007-11-30 07:46:56
20.   Yankee Fan In Boston
19 i figured phillips was on his way out even before these whispers of loretta.

the next week or so should be interesting.

2007-11-30 07:49:05
21.   RIYank
20 And by the way, "Whispers of Loretta" would be an excellent title for a Bob Dylan song.
2007-11-30 07:51:07
22.   YankeeInMichigan
14 I agree. Posada's word doesn't mean too much. When ownership mouths off, then you have a problem. That was George's weakness (note how Cash lost all of his leverage in the first RJ deal). While Hank certainly likes to talk, I haven't seen him expose his hand to date.
2007-11-30 07:51:37
23.   Yankee Fan In Boston
21 ooh... "blood on the tracks" era dylan, if i had my way.
2007-11-30 07:52:49
24.   mehmattski
Get back, Loretta.... get back to where you once belonged...
2007-11-30 07:53:32
25.   Yankee Fan In Boston
22 also, jorge was on a conference call and was asked about the possibility of getting santana. it isn't as if he called a press conference for the purpose of expressing his desire to have santana on the team. it came up. it didn't bother me.
2007-11-30 08:04:56
26.   ny2ca2dc
8 Have not been to that deli yet, but I work in Tysons so should be able to get there some time soon. I think about it all the time though, as I'm eating my bag lunch at my desk... Maybe if I spend less time reading Yankee blogs I would get more work done and not need to work thru lunch.
2007-11-30 08:09:22
27.   OldYanksFan
For those who are interested by the Yankees paying ARod $275m+, you might want to read: http://tinyurl.com/3xsz7t, written by: http://tinyurl.com/2m7mbl.

Winshares: (WS / 3 = Wins) 2005-2007
Santana. 23-25-18 = 22 wins
ARod.... 37-25-39 = 34 wins
Beckett. 14-12-19 = 15 wins
Jeter... 24-33-26 = 28 wins
Sabathia 13-14-24 = 17 wins
Haren... 15-15-19 = 16 wins
Wang.... .7-17-16 = 13 wins
FattyMC. 29-34-30 = 33 wins
Moose... 10-15-06 = 10 wins
Cano.... 12-18-21 = 17 wins

Whattyyaknow about WinShares? Decent for relative comparisons?

2007-11-30 08:09:46
28.   dianagramr
24

ex-cellent!

==============

As the BP.com boys have noted, the $$$ impact of a Santana signing is only worthwhile if it takes you from a borderline playoff team to a bonafide playoff team (ex. going from 89 to 95 wins rather than from 76 to 82 wins).

The Yanks have made the playoffs every year since '95, so the "extra" $$$ that a Santana MIGHT secure would be when/if they make it to the World Series (thus maximizing revenue).

As it stands now, the Yanks merely need to stay as the 4th-best team to turn on the playoff revenue faucet. Will the umpteen millions more it will take to sign Santana be enough to cover any possible additional playoff revenue (especially in light of the gaudy contracts just given to Posada, Mo and A-Rod)?

2007-11-30 08:15:09
29.   Yankee Fan In Boston
more on loretta:

"The Rockies contacted the agent for Loretta, who tore up the National League West while with the San Diego Padres. However, the Rockies don't like their chances, believing he will end up with the Yankees. While that deal is close, Loretta has made it known how much he likes the Rockies and would prefer to see how their second base situation plays out before signing with the Yankees."

http://tinyurl.com/2sr2us

hmmmm...

2007-11-30 08:20:06
30.   Yankee Fan In Boston
completely off topic, but i just saw this over at firejoemorgan.com, regarding torii hunter's $90M deal with the angels:

"I would have signed for less," said Hunter, who had five-year offers, ranging from $70 million to $75 million, from the White Sox, Rangers and Royals, and the day before the Angels offer dined with Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks.

What if the Angels offered less than those other teams?

"I still would have taken it!" Hunter said.

original article: http://tinyurl.com/226poq

2007-11-30 08:27:16
31.   dianagramr
29

It could be worse .... you could be an Astros fan, and just read that your GM signed Kaz Matsui to a 3-year, $16M deal.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=86977

(shaking my head at that one)

2007-11-30 08:30:08
32.   mehmattski
31 Well, to be fair, $5M/year is pretty cheap. But Kazuo Matsui is still not a very good baseball player, at least at sea level.
2007-11-30 08:32:34
33.   Yankee Fan In Boston
31 true, but the angels overpaid by roughly $20M or so. that is even more than matsui is taking the astros for.

but i agree. that matsui deal was "surprising."

2007-11-30 08:49:37
34.   Nick from Washington Heights
Pavement already has the song "Loretta's Scars". Not sure if that works though.
2007-11-30 09:56:56
35.   RichB
I love what a skewed view the media takes on these rumors, just to pump up the interest. 29 Mark Loretta "tore up" the NL West three years ago, when he was 32. He'll be 36 next season and has been below average for the last three seasons. 10 To say that signing Loretta makes "no sense" unless they ship Cano somewhere is a huge stretch (not sure whether that view came from Olney or Crabb). Again, Loretta is a an offensively challenged infielder in his decline years. At this point, on a contender he's a backup and on a non-contender he's filler until someone else comes along.

Yes, it gives the Yanks some flexibility where, perhaps, they could move Cano to Minnesota for Santana. Lord knows the Twins need a 2B. But, even if they don't move Cano, Loretta could be a back in place of Phillips or Betemit. I could easily see the Yanks keeping Betemit, Loretta and Cano - Cano takes 2B, Loretta and Betemit share backup IF & 1B, Melky goes to Minn, Matsui goes back to LF, Damon back to CF, Giambi back to DH. Or Melky, Cano and IPK go to Minn and Loretta becomes the default 2B, unless they can get someone else later. It's all very fluid, I'm sure, but locking up Loretta would definitely give flexibility.

2007-11-30 10:05:19
36.   51cq24
35 cano, melky, and kennedy?? are you nuts?
2007-11-30 10:06:50
37.   JoeInRI
Who's Loretta's agent? Nick Tortelli???
2007-11-30 10:12:50
38.   wsporter
37 Oh my word a Cheers! reference. Nice.
2007-11-30 10:17:28
39.   51cq24
milledge for brian schneider and ryan church. huh?
2007-11-30 10:21:10
40.   Alex Belth
Great Cheers reference. I can't say the name "Loretta" without thinking of good ol' Nick Tortelli. Nice call.
2007-11-30 10:23:47
41.   Shaun P
39 Did that just happen?
2007-11-30 10:25:21
42.   JoeInRI
40 With an emphasis on the "t"
2007-11-30 10:25:41
43.   OldYanksFan
Hey... Am I being ignored? Do those values posted in 27 Have meaning? Do Moose and Cano together generate more wins then Santana?

If these numbers have meaning, trading:
Santana >? Hughes, Melky and Tabata + $25m/yr
is insanity?

2007-11-30 10:34:36
44.   51cq24
41 yes supposedly
http://tinyurl.com/36tl6k
2007-11-30 10:35:32
45.   Yankee Fan In Boston
41 it would appear that way. there was a post at metsblog.com saying so. (i can't get the page to load to convert to a tinyurl.)

43 i wish that i could answer you.

also:

and kenny rogers signed with the tigers for a year. http://tinyurl.com/2gfdta

2007-11-30 10:35:47
46.   tommyl
39 I'm hearing that too. What the hell? The Mets trade a younger, better OF for a so so OF and a crappy catcher to replace the crappy catcher they just got for Mota, hence said other crappy catcher likely won't be offered a contract.

WTF?!

Hey Omar, I've got some magic beans here...

2007-11-30 10:41:54
47.   Yankee Fan In Boston
SI.com confirms the milledge deal.

http://tinyurl.com/yugx24

2007-11-30 10:46:16
48.   Shaun P
43 OYF, I don't particularly value or know a lot about WinShares, so I can't really comment on what you're saying.

Gennaro's basic thesis makes sense to me, but I've never read any of his stuff, so again, I don't feel able to comment.

My own opinion is that I'd prefer to take my chances with Hughes's potential for injury and his upside (at very cheap prices for the next 6 years) vs. Santana's established performance and injury risk at a significantly greater cost.

Put another way - the Yanks (seemingly) have tons of "pitching prospects" (if such things exist). They have maybe 2 hitting prospects who could contribute in a big way in the next 3 years (and that's if Jackson isn't a flash in the pants and Tabata finally shows 20+ HR power).

If the pitching prospects are going to be traded, I'd like to see a big bat come back. Otherwise, the Yanks should hang on to the cheap pitching prospects, so that they can devote the big dollars to signing the big bat(s) (eg Mark Teixeira?) they are going to desperately need soon. Because as of right now, the best bet on the farm of a big bat is just 18 years old (Montero).

2007-11-30 10:48:32
49.   Shaun P
44 Wow. What is Omar doing?

And, should the Yanks think about trying to grab Estrada? Molina's deal isn't finalized yet . . .

2007-11-30 10:59:56
50.   wsporter
48 MFD, I think 'd rather consider moving some of the names we're talking about in a Cabrera deal than in a Santana deal. I thought after the news broke on A-Rod we should have (and still should) move on Cabrera. What do you think?
Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2007-11-30 11:01:46
51.   tommyl
49 Is Schneider really any improvement over Estrada? We're talking Schneider with a career OPS+ of 82 and Estrada at 86. Schneider walks a bit more but has no power, Estrada hits for more power. I bet their difference is close to about 1 win.

Actually in VORP Estrada is at 14.7 and Schneider is at 8.8. WTF?!

2007-11-30 11:03:22
52.   wsporter
Milledge must be one immense pain in the ass for the Mets to make that deal. Church looked like he was going to be something once but not now. Wow.
2007-11-30 11:08:23
53.   dianagramr
52

Wow ... to think that Milledge only last year was gonna be one of the chips used in a deal for a front-line pitcher ...

The Nats have been down on Church for a while now, so maybe its a trade of bad for bad, but still ...

2007-11-30 11:09:47
54.   williamnyy23
43 Win Shares isn't so flaws, but it's a solid gauge. The problem with comparing a pitcher to position players is that latter has the opportunity to impact more games. A pitcher, however, has a greater impact in the games they play. Any comparison has to be viewed in that context.

49 Church is a very nice player, so I wouldn't sell him short. Apparently, Milledge's stock really dropped, so if Omar also believed he wasn't as much a prospect as first thought, getting Church isn't horrible. Of course, had Omar dealt Milledge when everyone thought he was a stud...

2007-11-30 11:11:46
55.   williamnyy23
54 Should read wins shares aren't without flaws...I have no idea how it became what it did!
2007-11-30 11:11:48
56.   tommyl
53 I fail to see how Milledge is "bad"? except for the fact that he sometimes pissed of Willy. He hit 7 HRs in 59 ABs last year! He walks a decent amount and he's 22! Compare that to Ryan Church.

My Mets fan friend just called this Kazmir level bad.

2007-11-30 11:15:14
57.   williamnyy23
56 I am not sure it's Kazmir level bad...Church's OPS+ the last three seasons is a pretty good 118, 131 and 114. Of course, the problem is he is 28 and Milledge is 22.
2007-11-30 11:15:18
58.   williamnyy23
56 I am not sure it's Kazmir level bad...Church's OPS+ the last three seasons is a pretty good 118, 131 and 114. Of course, the problem is he is 28 and Milledge is 22.
2007-11-30 11:15:28
59.   dianagramr
56

I'm sorry ... I meant Milledge was bad in terms of his "issues", not his play in the field.

Yes this smells Kazmir bad at first whiff ...

2007-11-30 11:19:22
60.   Shaun P
51 From what I've read, the Mets wanted Schneider for his defense, not his offense.

50 MFD, if the Yanks could get Cabrera without giving up Joba, Hughes, or Cano, then yes, I still say get Cabrera. However, I don't think that's possible.

All the trade talk now is because few people truly believe the Yanks are done trading prospects for established stars. They've done it for far too long. But no one seriously believes that the Yanks will trade established major leaguer stars for other established stars. (Look what happens here when someone mentions trading Cano.)

Get Joba and Hughes a year of being in the rotation, and performing as well as we all hope, and it changes. Teams stop asking about them, because they are established; teams like the Yankees do not trade established stars, because they have the cash to keep them forever. Then teams start asking about Sanchez, Marquez, etc.

2007-11-30 11:20:08
61.   tommyl
58 Yup, as in Milledge is going to likely get a lot better, and Church is going to get worse. Schneider is a slight upgrade on defense, slight downgrade on offense, so its a wash.
2007-11-30 11:21:55
62.   Shaun P
57 I think we could all see it becoming Kazmir-level bad. Of course, if Gomez and Fernando Martinez develop the way the Mets hope, Mets fans probably wouldn't care.
2007-11-30 11:22:00
63.   tommyl
I'm an idiot, that was in 59 games, not ABs. Still Milledge has a lot more upside.
2007-11-30 11:22:47
64.   ny2ca2dc
Man, the Nats outfield situation went from totally abysmal to average-ish with some good upside in 6 months. I'm pretty happy with Millage in center, Kerns in Right & Willy Mo in Left. Millage can still play center, right?!

Bowden has really established that he'll only make trades/moves if they're on the margins or total heists. I don't think he's a good GM, but score one for the home team, as much as I liked Church and hated the Bobby Mecham treatment he was subjected to.

I wonder if a package of Clippard & Desalvo & Kastens could net Cordero from the Nats. They ought to be able to get 2 reasonable NL starters out of those 3, for a closer they don't need. I'm dreaming, huh.

2007-11-30 11:26:50
65.   tommyl
You should read the comments on metsblog.com . Its Kazmir this, no longer a Mets fan that and a small minority who are convinced this is just a hoax or something.
2007-11-30 11:30:29
66.   wsporter
60 MFD, I think that's about right all the way round. Can't believe that Milledge deal. For that kid to blow that opportunity borders on felony stupid; an immense pain in the ass he must be.
2007-11-30 11:33:46
67.   williamnyy23
62 I just don't think Milledge's upside is the same as Kazmir's. Also, I think everyone knew Zambrano was awful when he was acquired. Church has the potential to be a solid OPS+ 110-120 bat for the next few years. So, while this could turn out to be a bad trade, I don't think Kazmir bad is likely (Milledge turns out to be a top player and Church is awful for his Mets' career).
2007-11-30 11:40:06
68.   OldYanksFan
54 Doesn't it seem to you that we are talking our very favorite pitcher, a decent CF, and stud prospect and $25m/yr for a net gain of 4 wins/yr? Maybe less in the future? Am I missing something? This seems insane to me. There are cheaper ways to get 4 wins withOUT losing any kids. This deal looks terrible to me. I mean, as a straight FA, 6/$150 is a lot of commitment.

Why are we talking about this trade?
Is the name 'Santana' so seductive that we have lost our business sense?

2007-11-30 11:42:59
69.   Yankee Fan In Boston
65 those comments at metsblog.com are entertaining.
2007-11-30 11:45:54
70.   Shaun P
66 Thanks, MFD. Lastings is, IMHO, somewhat lucky - he could end up becoming part of the face of the Nats (with Zimmerman). Acta will reap the benefits Willie wouldn't.

Here's my hope on all this. Cashman and Co are in charge and have sold Hank and Hal on their/his plan. The Santana talk is just talk to drive the price up for Boston, and to make it clear to Johan that, if he waits, lots of Yankee dollars will be in his future.

Cashman is definitely smarter than me, so he knows what I said in 60 , which means Hank knows this, which means they both know they need big bats - which means they hold on to the kid pitchers so they have lots of cash to spend on some hitters.

2007-11-30 11:50:48
71.   ny2ca2dc
68 *Is the name 'Santana' so seductive that we have lost our business sense? * Yes.

Save Hughes!

2007-11-30 11:51:09
72.   Yankee Fan In Boston
70 ...meanwhile getting haren at a relative bargain.

a guy can dream, can't he?

2007-11-30 11:54:58
73.   tommyl
68 Yes, at least some have. I've been salivating over a Hughes-Chamberlain-Wang front three. Why is Joba so untouchable and Phil isn't? Phil almost threw a freakin' no hitter, had a 2.75 ERA in september and won us game 3. And he's 21!
2007-11-30 12:01:48
74.   Yankee Fan In Boston
the cards just signed cesar izturis.

http://tinyurl.com/3byn3c

if the moves keep coming at this pace, i can forget about my plans to write some papers this weekend. i won't be able to concentrate on anything else.

2007-11-30 12:04:26
75.   Shaun P
74 At least now the talk of the winter meetings can become "What team will guarantee a championship by signing David Eckstein?" instead of stale old Santana talk.

;)

2007-11-30 12:08:05
76.   Yankee Fan In Boston
75 i'm on the edge of my seat.
2007-11-30 12:21:41
77.   ny2ca2dc
75 What team will guarantee a championship by signing David Eckstein?"

That's awesome. The FJM guys would have a conniption.

2007-11-30 12:23:41
78.   ny2ca2dc
76 Maybe we can trade Cano, Melky, IPK, Hughes & Joba to the Twins for Santana & Nathan and then sign Eckstein for 2B and Podsednik for CF. We'd never lose!
2007-11-30 12:35:19
79.   tommyl
75 That team would automatically compete with the Red Sox in the short grittiness stat.
2007-11-30 12:36:37
80.   wsporter
From MiLB which named Joba their #5 prospect: "... You never can tell what might happen in the future with trades and signings, but the concept of a Philip Hughes-Joba Chamberlain-Ian Kennedy rotation should make Yankee fans plan for baseball deep into October for the next decade or so." Oh if we could only leave well enough alone.
2007-11-30 12:37:29
81.   tommyl
80 That's a Philip Hughes-Chamberlain-Kennedy-Wang rotation.
2007-11-30 12:47:22
82.   wsporter
Keith Law Says: "Washington gets better end of deal". The man is a gold plated genius!

81 I'll let them know. :-)

2007-11-30 16:17:50
83.   Eirias
Why, exactly, are the A's willing to trade Haren? He's under a fairly cheap contract until 2010 (assuming the A's pick up his option). I understand a "small-market" team trading when they have too, but I don't understand trading away great, cheap starting pitching. Are their other needs really that big?
2007-11-30 16:42:03
84.   Ken Arneson
83 The A's won only 76 games last year, and have basically no good prospects in the upper minors. The only hope for improvement in the next two years is through better health; there's not much near-term help on the way, and free agents are not an option. Plus, if the Angels look like locks to win 90-95 games in the near future, you might as well do a total rebuild.
2007-11-30 19:40:22
85.   Shaun P
Dammit: "Yanks may be ready to add Hughes to deal for Santana"

http://tinyurl.com/2ygkyd

Buster Olney, I've never hoped you were more wrong in my life.

2007-11-30 20:10:02
86.   rabid stan
85 After waiting 2 seasons as Phil Hughes came up through the system, I find this whole Santana affair very distressing.

So a guy goes from stud to trade bait after a strong stretch drive and playoff performance.

They're supposedly offering this and the Twins have no leverage other than the Red Sox offering a half-hearted package? Let Santana go to Boston. What's the worst that can happen, Boston wins the World Series? My God! Think of how insufferable their fans would become!

The Yanks have let themselves get reamed this off-season. Let's hope they don't actually let the Twins and Santana in on the act.

2007-11-30 20:11:36
87.   ChuckM
Now the Daily News is saying that the Yanks have decided to include Hughes. NOOOOOO.

Is it just me, or would that be a complete waste of time and effort? I know Johan is a proven stud, but I think all pitchers should be regarded as ticking time bombs and I'd rather take my chances on the guy with 900 less innings pitched...

2007-11-30 20:18:24
88.   rabid stan
87 This whole thing hinges on the fact that Santana is better and Hughes is more of a risk.

It's objectionable because the Yanks would be throwing so much money and talent for a handful of wins they might get elsewhere, or at the end of next season, for so much less. Typical Steinbrenner move.

The Yanks problem isn't that they've lacked a "true ace", it's that they've lacked pitching depth, relying on guys like Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano and a revolving door of failed call-ups, broken down FA's and costly trade prizes. With Hughes, Kennedy, and Chamberlain, they would have had a young, cheap source of depth even if one or two of these guys fell short of projections.

2007-11-30 20:39:15
89.   51cq24
82 "The only way this deal doesn't turn out to be a disaster for the Mets -- second in this decade only to the Victor Zambrano-Scott Kazmir deal -- is if Milledge doesn't pan out as a hitter, and the smart money is that he will. This is a heist for Washington, and a serious mismanagement of assets for the Mets. "

he doesn't write the headline

2007-11-30 20:55:26
90.   Mike T
Please tell me this isn't happening. If the Yanks trade Hughes, then they had better win the next five World Series with Santana.
2007-11-30 21:00:16
91.   JimCobain
90 Because they would win the next 5 with Hughes?

I guess you have to give up talent to get talent, I wish the Twins kept him to try to win this year...

What blows me away is the over half a billion dollars the Steinbrothers shelled out in their first 2 months on the job... wow...

What bothers me is Cashman being marginalized...

2007-11-30 21:35:09
92.   ChuckM
Yeah, that's what is bugging me the most. Hank is trying to come off like a more benevolent version of Big Stein in all his interviews, yet he's trying to make the kind of back page moves that got us in trouble in the 80's.

Again, I'm not saying that I'd be upset with Santana in pinstripes, I just think the cost is prohibitive. My guess is that Hank may be viewing any one of the Young Guns as replaceable since they're throwing more cash into scouting and development, I just don't think he realizes how hard it is to come by talent like Hughes and to keep it on the right track to the majors.

2007-11-30 21:58:25
93.   yankz
Any non-Yankee fans want to chime in on how this looks from the outside?
2007-11-30 22:01:03
94.   brockdc
This whole thing just feels ominous.
2007-12-01 05:18:36
95.   wsporter
89 Law is a master of pointing out the obvious. That headline was representative of the article which was a waste of cyber-space IMHO. We need an "insider" to tell us that?

Hughes in a Santana deal. Nooooooooooo!

2007-12-01 05:57:22
96.   51cq24
95 i don't mind him. pointing out the obvious is better than going against it.

has anyone seen the plans for the new tampa bay stadium? it's pretty awesome.
http://tinyurl.com/36jves
there's a link to renderings at the top

2007-12-01 07:04:57
97.   Sliced Bread
If they're shipping Hughes to Minnesota (which I am completely against) the Yanks better have the sense to remove Melky from the deal. Waaaaay too much to give for a player who, by all accounts, wants to come here, and would not mind waiting a year.

As much as I love the idea of Santana in pinstripes, I HATE parting with Phil Hughes.

Truly hoping this supposed deal does not happen.

2007-12-01 07:25:49
98.   vockins
That whole "Cashman works independently of Tampa" thing didn't last long.
2007-12-01 07:53:16
99.   wsporter
This is a bad dream. It's as though we can see the future, we want to warn management not to trade Phil and they won't believe us. I'm thinking Greek tragedy. I'm thinking Euripides and The Trojan Women, Cassandra, Hecuba etc.

I'm thinking I better go rake some leaves.

2007-12-01 08:11:15
100.   joe in boston
Include me in the "Don't Trade Phil" camp....

Why do I think that Theo is playing us ? And what an awful feeling that is ....

Just hang on to Phil and Joba. A trade of Melky and Kennedy - well that I can live with.

Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2007-12-01 08:12:40
101.   JeremyM
You know, if this is true, the Yankees word means jack now. Didn't they say Hughes was an untouchable? Now every team is going to aim high in every trade the Yankees do. They always do anyway, but it's going to be worse.

I don't know, I want Santana, and maybe Hughes is overrated, but I just get a bad feeling about this. And Hughes showed a lot this past season. A lot. And to throw in Melky to boot, which means they're going to overpay on the free agent market to replace him... It just doesn't add up.

2007-12-01 08:14:58
102.   rabid stan
Joe Sheehan on BP has an interesting article about the potential trade. It was written before the Newsday/Olney stories, but it may hold out hope.

The bottom line is that everyone here is thinking about the Yanks and not the Twins. The Twins need hitting, and Delmon Young alone doesn't fill that need. They have Morneau, Mauer, Young and nobody.

The Phil Hughes/Melky trade does not offer them hitting. A hot, cost-controlled young pitcher with star potential is intriguing, but the Twins have a couple of strong pitchers in their system already. There's a reason they opened their demands with Robinson Cano.

Some of us, I include myself, saw the rumored Boston package a few days ago as a ploy to drive the Yanks into offering Hughes. Now it's possible that the Twins will use a potential Hughes deal to drive the Sox to offer Ellsbury, or the Mets to offer Fernando Martinez, or the Dodgers to offer one of their many good young hitters that the organization seems so strangely cool to (rather like the Yanks and Hughes at this point).

It all hinges on Santana. If he wants to go to the Yanks, and nowhere else, the Twins will happily take Hughes (the Yanks are certainly offering more than they need to be competitive in this). If he's open to going to Boston, or to the NL, this may not be the end of Phil Hughes, New York Yankee. If one of these other teams offers hitting because the Yanks are offering Hughes, the Steinbrenners won't be able to match it.

Unless they put Cano on the block.

2007-12-01 08:15:12
103.   Yankee Fan in Chicago
I just don't get the hand wringing over this potential deal.

To me Hughes + Melky + someone else not named Joba/IPK/Horne/Jackson/Tabata is a no-brainer.

It's unlikely Hughes is in Johan's league for the foreseeable future, if ever. We get 7 years of Johan, likley 3 more truly dominant years, plus a few more well-above league avg years, at the end of which, if Hughes is the pitcher we all think, we'll be able to sign him as a free agent.

2007-12-01 08:16:45
104.   Nick from Washington Heights
"Didn't they say Hughes was an untouchable?"

When reports started surfacing about Johan's availability the front office actually said that they would have to reconsider the big 3's untouchable status, so "no" they didn't, without qualification, say he was untouchable in this scenario.

2007-12-01 08:19:49
105.   JohnBlacksox
Yankee offseason?

Goodbye:

Melky - 23 (min wage)

Hughes - 21 (min wage)

Jackson/Tabata - 20/19 (min wage)

Hello:

Santana - 28 ($25 mil)

Posada - 36 ($13 mil)

Rivera - 38 ($15 mil)

ARod - 32 ($30 mil)

Pettitte? - 35 ($16 mil)

Nice to see their new strategy of getting younger and being more financially sound. I was afraid they were going to continue the failed strategy of mortgaging their future, and being hamstrung by devoting exorbinant salaries to players past their peaks.

2007-12-01 08:35:30
106.   rabid stan
103 All pitchers are risky, even Santana.

If Phil Hughes turns out like your post supposes, take your Santana projections and flip them so the good years come early and the great years come late. Then take eight or nine figures off the total salary paid for those seven years. See what the Yanks could be parting with? It's not a no-brainer.

"We can just sign him as a free agent"

After we spurned him. After missing his prime years. At a very high price.

If they let Hughes go, they should let him go for good.

2007-12-01 08:42:18
107.   rabid stan
105 Yeah, they've been put over a barrel this off-season, huh?
2007-12-01 08:47:50
108.   tommyl
Damnit! Everything I was excited about in terms of the Yankees and their future is being taken away! I loved the idea of building up a core of homegrown, cheap (for now) players and a dominant rotation. Good to see that the "patience" has lasted all of about 1 year. If they make this trade, I'm going to be really upset. We're giving away a 21 year old who almost threw a no hitter and was our best pitcher down the stretch and in the playoffs. This is lunancy, and it smacks of overrating Santana, who is great, but not Pedro/Rocket great.
2007-12-01 08:53:48
109.   tommyl
103 Its about how much you are getting. By comparison the baseline 2007 PECOTA projections have Santana at a 7.6 WARP and Hughes at 3.9 . So you're talking about a difference during the regular season of 3-4 wins between them. Now add in Santana's likely demand of 6 years/$120 million+ and that he's in decline, whereas Hughes isn't even arbitration elgible. Then include that Santana is slowly declining, whereas Hughes is likely to get better, and throw in that we have to give up Melky and another prospect and this deal just seems awful, really awful to me.
2007-12-01 08:54:30
110.   tommyl
103 Its a "name" deal, we're overpaying because he's named Johan Santana and that comes with mystique of it.
2007-12-01 09:01:32
111.   yankz
You people have gone nuts. Whether or not you support this deal, it in no way shows that the Yankees have "abandoned their plan" or "returned to their old ways" or whatever.

Returning to the old ways would have been trading for Mark Buehrle or Eric Gagne midseason. They did neither. They saved their prospects for the one trade where they might get equal value.

As for resigning their free agents: it was the only option, and it was an intelligent decision.

The Yankees plan of late has always been to save money by developing your own players, and then using the saved money/prospects to blow the competition away for the difference-makers. They did it with Clemens and Abreu, and they're doing it now.

2007-12-01 09:25:16
112.   randym77
I don't know what to think about this. On the one hand, we need a left-handed ace. It's Yankee Stadium, and the Yanks have no lefties. Teams actually want to trade for Kei Igawa, but the Yankees won't do it, because he's their backup if Pettitte doesn't come back. Yikes.

OTOH, I hate to see our young talent traded away for yet another veteran. I was looking forward to seeing Hughes develop.

The money, I don't mind. Look at the contract the Angels gave Hunter, and the contract the usually tightfisted Reds gave Cordero. (The biggest contract for a relief pitcher ever.) I think that tells you what the market is like. MLB is raking in the bucks, and that's being reflected in payroll.

Melky, I don't mind too much either. He's fun to watch, but I was never sure he was the future of the Yankees CF. His defense has improved a lot, and is still improving, but his bat hasn't. As Cliff predicted (I think it was Cliff), his OBP fell back to his mean this season. Another team might keep him in CF for his glove, but I'm not sure I can see the Yanks doing it, at least long-term.

It's losing Hughes that bothers me. That, and the feeling that trading with the Twins is just not a good idea. They always seem to come out on top. Maybe Hughes will turn out to be another Brandon Claussen...but if the Twins want him, I doubt it.

And yeah, as others have said, it sounds like the Yankees organization is in major upheaval, and not in a good way. That's not encouraging.

2007-12-01 09:27:51
113.   rabid stan
111 The legacy contracts they offered to Mo and Po are going to make it harder to deal with Jeter and any other older player on their roster they might want to keep later on, like Hideki, Damon or Abreu after his extension is up.

I hope we're not returning to the halcyon days of 1983, and you're right that they've got a lot more to screw up till then, but nursing a closer, catcher and third baseman into their forties is not good.

2007-12-01 09:43:42
114.   jeterian swing
102 Sheehan's argument makes sense in the abstract, but it ignores the realities of the market: Right now, the best talent being dangled IS pitching (both the Yanks' and Sox's packages start with a SP as their centerpiece). Unless LAD decides to get involved -- and assuming Johan would approve that trade -- the interested teams don't really have much MLB-ready impact hitting to offer. (This assumes Cano is off the table, period, as he should be.)

What Bill Smith should do -- and, I believe, what he's said he WILL do -- is bring in the most possible talent for Santana and then assemble his team afterward, i.e., he could accept Hughes et al. from the Yanks and then flip Hughes for a low-priced, high-impact bat (say, Matt Kemp...or even Jacoby Ellsbury -- and wouldn't THAT be fun to deal with).

The point is, Bill Smith's moves won't end with this one, and when all is said and done, I expect the Twins will have a well-rounded, inexpensive team ready to compete in '09 and beyond.

That said, I would be happy if somehow Smith and the Dodgers (or the Mets, who are lurking in the weeds here) worked out a deal for Johan and we got to keep Hughes and Melky and whichever other prospects we'd have to give up in this trade. The fact that this deal doesn't appear to have Cashman's stamp of approval makes me greatly apprehensive, on top of my already-monumental ambivalence of trading Hughes EVEN IF Cash had approved.

2007-12-01 09:46:31
115.   Zack
I'm going to stay clear of these blogs until people have gotten over their gut, emotional, freak out reactions and let this all settle in a bit more. Until they really absorb the awesomeness of Johan and actually look at his so-called decline. The ONLY # that has increased is his WHIP. If you take out a bad second half (which still only had one month with an era north of 4.00, when they weren't playing for anything), Santana's last season doesn't look so bad. As it is, he was still a top 5 pitcher. And his worst year was arguably better than Beckett's best. Plus he is moving from the turfed homerdome to lefty haven Yankee stadium.

Losing Hughes hurts, its a punch to the gut. But only b/c he made it to the majors last season and was the ONLY person until this year to follow in the minors. But losing Hughes doesn't make this team worse, doesn't hurt the farm, doesn't mark a change in philosophy (half the reason to stockpile young talent is to trade them. In the memory of JD, they had TOO MANY RHP. Look at the (Devil) Rays. Until now, they wouldn't trade anyone and sucked. Now, they start to make some smart trades, a few signings here and there and are looking a lot better), and helps the Yankees win a WS.

The window of this team as it stands now is the next 3 years or so. Then, Damon, Matsui, Posada, Rivera, Abreu, and Moose will all be long gone. They have the choice of winning now and letting the kids further down in the minors catch up, at the expense of a few upper level prospects, or suck it up and suffer through a few rough years, at which time Hughes, Joba et al won't be kids anymore. But then the whole point of having these older guys seems silly, if not to go for one last run...

In any case, let this sink in for a few days, and once the emotional outcrying is gone, we can have some real discussion...

2007-12-01 09:46:53
116.   wsporter
Sanchez, Betences, McCutchen, Brackman, Horne, Pope, Heredia, Garcia, Marquez, Nova, Kontos, White, McAllister, Reyes. I may have missed some but these appear to be the starters comming up who will be ready in 0 - 3 years that may be more than just trade throw ins at some point. At this time I can't see more than one or two of them, if any, becoming what Phil is right now. You don't develop guys like Phil often. We better be damn sure that Santana is the best pitcher in the MLs still and that he will continue near that level for some time prior to moving Phil for him.

Even if we do the deal this year what happens if Andy doesn't come back? Santana, Wang, Moose, what's left of the kids and Igawa? Are we going to win with that? Do we beat Boston, Detroit or the AAs of LA in the playoffs with that next year? We may still have to do another deal.

I would not be averse to allowing this thing to play out over the coming season and standing pat with the kids. If we have a season comparable to the Sawx in '06 next year I can live with it. I know it's the last year at the Old Park and management would really like to turn the lights out there with a championship. I'm not sure this deal gets us that though and I think it may mean that were going to have to watch Phil, IPK and the rest perform their miracles for others while we watch Santana slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) shrink to league average. Then we will also have the great pleasure of listening to the snide remarks and snickers that will role southbound down I95 from that pestilential bean pot on the Charles.

If Boston grabs him perhaps that will nail our lid shut for 5 or more years. I doubt it though. I can't see a lefty pitching out of Fenway changing the balance of power for that long. Let them be the schmucks and risk moving their Blue Chippers.

2007-12-01 09:49:31
117.   Zack
Oh, and I know its hypothetical, but if Smith accepted a Ellsbury for Hughes swap, he would be insane...
2007-12-01 09:51:24
118.   Zack
Anyway you look at it, a rotation of:
santana, Wang, Joba, Kennedy, moose>
Wang, Joba, Hughes, Kennedy, Moose.

Are you telling me a weekend matchup of Beckett vs. Santana, Wang vs. Dice-K, and Joba vs. Buccholz aka felon doesn't get you excited? And that the Yanks don't have to advantage there?

2007-12-01 09:54:05
119.   rabid stan
114 I agree that the Yanks do have the most Twin-friendly package on the market, and if they get nothing better they will snap it up. What happens from there is anybody's guess. That's why the situation isn't necessarily so bleak.

Just because the deal is proposed, disturbing as that is, doesn't mean it's done. Things are out of the Yanks hands now because they've buckled first. But The Twins - and Santana - could do almost anything at this point.

2007-12-01 09:54:41
120.   tommyl
111 What troubles me, is that this trade and all the talk around it seem to be of the idea that Johan Santana is the last piece to the puzzle and that by getting him we're suddenly set for the World Series. Its just not true, he upgrades the rotation yes, but not a huge, huge amount. He's also had his share of so so playoff starts (as has everyone). I'm in no way disparaging Santana, over the last few years he's probably been the best pitcher in the game, but he's 29, very expensive and we're giving up our number 1 prospect to get him. Am I the only one who remembers how high everyone was on Hughes last spring training. When he got called up? When he dominated Texas? That we would have been swept in the ALDS if not for him?

I guess I'm just sad and a bit sentimental. I've been following him for the last two or three years, patiently waiting for him to contribute at the ML level and now it appears that that will all be flipped for an overpriced veteran.

2007-12-01 10:01:05
121.   rabid stan
119 Word in the Twinsphere seems to be that Hughes/Melky might not even be enough. The Twins may ultimately refuse it. Hopefully the Yanks are done sweetening the pot for now. There are plenty of players (we haven't even heard a peep from another team besides Boston), so this should go on for awhile.
2007-12-01 10:05:13
122.   wsporter
118 How many inning are Joba and Kennedy going to pitch this coming year? 140 - 170 maybe. What about Moose, how many innings does he give us? Who will pick up that slack? Who's going to pick up the ball against bloody sox?

I'm not saying our rotation would be better next year year without Santana and with Phil. You're right it is, we agree. However, what about the 5 years after that?

Additionally, if we do the deal with Hughes it doesn't give us a rotation that matches Boston's for 162 games plus playoffs IMHO.

I'd rather wait, see if the Twinkees decide to hold on to Santana for one more run and spend money and draft picks on him at the end of 2008. What I'd really like is a 2009 rotation of Santana, Wang, Hughes, Joba, and IPK with Betances, Sanchez and the others pushing up from below. That bad boy of a rotation may in fact win a a few Seriouses.

2007-12-01 10:28:26
123.   wsporter
122 "I'd rather wait, see if the Twinkees decide to hold on to Santana ..." I'm pretty sure most everbody would prefer that as well. So 'duh' to me. I'm going back to play with my leaves.
2007-12-01 10:29:52
124.   jeterian swing
115 Zack, you're right that too much has been made of Santana's decline, but his home runs allowed have increased as well, if I'm not mistaken. That's not to say he won't be dominant in Yankee Stadium (surely he will be), but lefthanded pitchers between the ages of 29 - 35 are historically more likely to decline than improve. This is not to say I wouldn't welcome Santana with open arms were such a trade/signing to occur.

That said -- and following your own argument -- if we do trade Hughes for Santana, and sign Santana for 6/150, at what point do even we have to admit that anything short of a WS win is a failure? Is it enough to win the divsion? Make it to the DS? The CS? From an economic point of view, it might be. But as a fan, if we're fielding a team that should dominate in any 10-team fantasy league, should we not expect that Santana is the piece to put us over the top, not merely keep us afloat?

Many Yankee fans clearly have an affinity for Phil Hughes; that's not to say we wouldn't root for the team, and Santana, were Hughes dealt. But we could probably make it to (and lose) the ALCS with either pitcher, and this being the case, most of us would rather have Phil Hughes be that pitcher than Johan Santana. If Santana is the key to us winning EVEN ONE WS, then this is irrelevant. If he's not, then the argument against this deal has some merit. Either way, we're allowed our sentiment -- we're FANS, we've been hearing about and waiting for and thinking about and watching this kid for too long not to feel a little betrayed if and when he's flipped for someone else. If we win the WS, we'll get over it. If not...you tell me: Was this deal worth it?

117 I was indeed offering a hypothetical trade and really trying to think of an extreme worst-case scenario, but why would it be insane? It's much easier to find a CF in this market than a high-upside SP who is under team control for half a decade. What's more, the Sox have another CF as it is, and one who won't command equal value on the trade market. Hughes for Ellsbury seems like an even swap to me, and it would bring the Sox a more valuable commodity than the one they would be trading away, no?

2007-12-01 10:40:54
125.   DadinIowa
I am not concerned if Boston gets Santana (although I think it is unlikely they will either pay him, or that he will approve a trade there).

We will score close to 1000 runs again this year with our present lineup.

We have the BEST closer in the league.

We have young guns who can shore up the bullpen, including the 8th inning.

We have 3 young studs to start, plus Wang who is a stud and Moose who is ok.

We may get Andy back. If not, we either go with what we have plus the kids, or find someone else who will not cost an everyday centerfielder and starting pitcher.

We HAVE a playoff team. Maybe a championship team if either of the three rookie starting pitchers turn into an ace this year.

Get away from the ledge, no need to jump.

2007-12-01 10:45:24
126.   jeterian swing
121 That seems like posturing to me: No other team has offered a package with nearly as much value as Melky + Hughes +unnamed prospect, and I doubt anyone is going to do so -- if the Twins are demurring, they are likely doing so to see if someone else will rise to the bait. I do not believe anyone will be so foolish. Even for the few teams that can afford him, Santana would take up a considerable percentage of their payroll for the next seven years -- even the worst GMs know not to sacrifice both a wealth of talent AND a wealth of dollars and years to add one player on the down side of his career. We can afford it becaue we have an unlimited payroll and a well-stocked farm. This is not true of any other team in baseball.

The one GM who MIGHT panic and try to top the offer is Minaya -- he's obviously doing whatever it takes to win now, at the expense of stripping his farm -- but even he knows that once the Santana domino falls, Bedard and Haren will follow, and with the Yanks out of the market for those players, they will come that much cheaper.

2007-12-01 10:48:32
127.   Zack
124 His HR rate only jumped this year. Prior, like everything else, it was in normal flux. And I fully accept that Santana will decline at some point, don't get me wrong, and also that Hughes will improve. I am not basing my argument on whether or not Hughes will be any good. I am arguing that Santana make this team better, for at least 6 more years. Look at, say Mussina's year 29 season and beyond. 6 more seasons of front line #s (and Santana is way more the pitcher Moose was), plus another 3 or so years of league average. So i wouldn't say hes all that likely over the next 5 years to decline any noticeably. Plus he will be helped by Yankee stadium a lot more than we realize.

All i am saying is 5-6 years of front of the rotation work is all you can ever really expect from any pitcher. Santana can reasonably be expected to do that for that time span. If people would stop focusing on the WHIP, they would notice that all of his other #s are in a normal fluctuation range. Assuming a physical doesn't find anything wrong, then you chalk last season up to a bad half (really only a bad two months).

And I would strongly disagree with the notion that the Yankees could make it to the ALCS with either pitcher. If you want to talk about indications, there are far more signs based on last season that Hughes will get hurt than Santana, added to the fact that with Hughes, Joba and Kennedy in the rotation, you only have ONE guy capable of 200 innings.

And isn't it always about winning the WS. Look at the Beckett trade. Wouldn't you make that trade again despite seeing what Hanley has become (far more valuable than Hughes ever could be) considering that Beckett and Lowell helped them win the WS?

2007-12-01 10:50:16
128.   Zack
125 And take one of those three kids and turn him INTO an ace, like JOHAN SANTANA, and you actually do have a championship team. Without, you have a whole lot more ifs and innings to fill...
2007-12-01 10:59:50
129.   Simone
I can't believe I just read Olney's ESPN piece that the Yankees are willing to give up Hughes. First, the Yankees overpay for Alex Rodriguez, now they are giving up Hughes. I don't like this at all. Ugh. Maybe the Twins will like another team's offer better. If the Red Sox gets Santana though, the division and World Series is theirs for the next 5 years.
2007-12-01 11:01:05
130.   Zack
And yet despite what i said I am still posting...Don't get me wrong, I love Hughes and have followed him from the start. I have literally woken up from nightmares the last few nights about trading Hughes, which concerns me for a number of reasons. But people just don't realize how good Santana is. Perhaps if they got to see him more they would. We are literally talking about the best pitcher in the game, and one who is built for Yankee stadium.

You can construct any argument you want about how good Hughes might become and how much Santana might decline, but you can't say this isn't a fair trade or that it represents anything but a smart baseball move by the Yanks. They aren't trading the farm for old players or overhyped ones, and they are dealing from a position of strength.

Word is that the Sox might just consider giving up Ellsbury (who as I have said is overrated, but still) and that the Sox package would then be prefered. FIne, at that point, you stop. The Yanks can't/shouldn't go any higher.

If you are okay with the Yanks going into a series with a matchup of beckett vs wang, santana vs joba, dice-k vs hughes, then so be it. But the Yanks won't be winning anything for the next 3-4 years, count on it...

(and like I said, I wouldn't up the offer either. And the Sox would be insane not to offer Jacoby and get this done. Jacoby is no Santana either)

2007-12-01 11:03:03
131.   SF Yanks
I am NOT happy about this. I'm sure most here are well aware of my "man affection" for Hughes. I've read every article I could find on the guy for the last two years. I've re-watched most of the games he pitched last year just because I loved watching him pitch that much. I still have a few DVR'd Hughes games to keep me occupied over the winter. I literally have dreams of watching a Joba, Hughes, IPK rotation next year. I bought a signed Hughes ball and his rookie card and now he may go to the Twins?

Holy smokes this sucks. I know Santana is no scrub, but that's not the point. I can't wait until 5 years from now when Hughes is entering his prime and Santana is on his way out.

And on top of it, Melky will be gone along with who the hell else knows. I don't want to cut ties with Hughes just because of a different uni, but how far can I actually take it? What happens when he faces the Yanks? I haven't enjoyed watching a player like him for roughly ten years now. Now that feeling will most likely be gone come next year.

Ugh. Sorry for the rant. I'm just bitter.

2007-12-01 11:07:11
132.   jeterian swing
127 Well said -- I take issue only with the idea that it is "always about winning the WS." We're all smart fans here -- we know that the best team doesn't always (or even often) win the WS. Too frequently it comes down to the bounce of the ball. We've seen it happen to us, both for and against us. That being the case, it's disheartening to follow a team for whom the regular season is meaningless, for whom the DS and CS are meaningless, for whom success can only be declared with a win of the WS. And I feel that trading Phil Hughes for Johan Santana makes us that team...again.

Also, there is the possibility that the Yanks blinked here MUCH too early, that Hughes wouldn't have been necessary had the Yanks waited out the Twins' bluffs. That bothers me -- if this was Cashman's deal, I wouldn't be so critical, but the fact that (by all accounts) this is Hank's call...it doesn't sit well.

Assuming Melky is included, can we agree that Andruw Jones is the best option for CF? If we're REALLY going for a win-it-all-right-now-damn-the-cost approach, we may as well add a good glove and power bat to the lineup where a light-hitting bat had previously been slotted. Because if we lose games with Damon in CF and Hideki in LF, then this is a flawed, incomplete plan.

2007-12-01 11:23:18
133.   Zack
132 Yes, Jones is without a doubt the way to go. If they can sign him for what Hunter got, its a bargain. Then they have the CF bridge to Ajax/Tabata, who can develop at their pace and play lf/rf in the meantime (which Tabata does anyway). And the whole notion of "flexibility" is silly as within 3 or so years the Yanks will have Santana, A-Rod, and maybe Jones as their big contracts, thats it...

But as for the first part, I agree that I prefer a team to act like it cares etc. But I don't see the Santana move as doing that. I see it as smart baseball. No matter what we are all saying now, if the Yanks struggle next season with the kids and get hit around while the Sox continue to dominate, that whole attitude will change quickly. Among "most fans' that is.

The Yanks are stuck in a bind. On the one hand, they have a whole bunch of older players who have about 3 years left in them, and on the other, they have a TON of potential talent that may or may not pan out but is still 3 or so years away from either being in the majors or being good in the majors. That doesn't fit very well. So they are going with the best course, which is to try and win no without selling the farm on has beens etc. They are getting a 29 year old pitcher for a young stud pitcher and a weak hitting CF. Thats really not that bad...

2007-12-01 11:47:44
134.   Shaun P
133 It may not be bad - unless, of course, Hughes outpitches Santana over the next few years - at a fraction of the cost!

If the Yanks do this trade and sign Andruw for $18M/season, say hello to a $220M+ payroll for 2008.

Again, to me, the Yanks' primary needs over the next few years will be impact bats. (PS - Andruw Jones is not an impact bat, I don't care how much power he has) They haven't drafted any, so they are going to have to shell out big bucks for them. Why spend that money on pitching, which they already have in abundance?

Hughes+_______ for Santana, to me, makes no real sense for either side. The Twins need bats, not pitching. The Yanks need future bats, not now pitching.

2007-12-01 11:49:29
135.   randym77
I think they'll put Damon in CF, as Pete Abe suggested. Damon's wheels are still good. He can cover CF as well as Leche. His arm isn't nearly as good as Melky's, but his bat is better.

Matsui will be okay in left. And it's not like we needed two DH's.

It might not be a long term solution, but it's good enough until someone emerges from the farm or through a trade. Hopefully with Girardi in charge, they won't have to get a veteran superstar just make sure the manager uses him.

2007-12-01 11:59:15
136.   Zack
Ahh, but he IS an impact bat. Do you trust the down year or the years of good OPS+?

And as for what the Twins need, I agree. which is why Boston would be insane not to throw in Ellsbury, who is never going to be THAT good. A package of Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Bowden would get it done for them. It fits the Twins much better, and the Sox with that rotation can easily afford Crisp's lousy bat...

2007-12-01 12:32:09
137.   jeterian swing
136 I don't believe the Sox have any sincere interest in Santana: He doesn't fit their park well; they have enough starting pitching as it is (of course you can never have enough...); he won't be a huge revenue-producer for a team that sells out all its games anyway; Theo doesn't believe in long-term contracts; Henry is not going to want to pay both Santana AND what Beckett will soon command, especially when the Sox will have to add a bat to make up for the loss of Manny in '09...it's just not a logical fit. The Sox's BEST reason to add Santana is to keep him from the Yankees. That's not how this version of the Sox operates: They're much shrewder than that, much smarter. We'll get there someday, but Hank has to make mistakes in order to learn from them.

The Sox are in the bidding to hurt the Yankees, period. They'll bow out now that the Yanks have sufficiently upped the ante. We've been bidding against ourselves all along.

2007-12-01 12:38:36
138.   Zack
137 Oh but they do operate that way. Just look at Dice-K...
2007-12-01 12:47:13
139.   tommyl
131 I'm right there with you man. I went to bed last night actually upset. I haven't been that upset about the Yankees since well, I was in the stands for Game 4.
2007-12-01 12:55:41
140.   jeterian swing
138 It may have initally appeared that the Sox moved on Dice-K to keep him from the Yanks, but hindsight shows that Dice-K was a rational signing: At that point, they needed an additional arm; the posting fee wasn't exorbitant (though it overshot the market, it wasn't irrational); and his actual salary -- the thing that counts against the salary cap -- is a bargain, well below market. Had they not signed Dice-K, they would probably go hard after Johan, but Dice-K really provides them with a low-cost alternative to Santana. They will not offer Ellsbury or Bucholz, I guarantee -- they'll walk away from the table now, and they'll have accomplished what they wanted to accomplish (or, at least, the best they could have hoped to accomplish). Unless LAD or the Mets jumps in with a mind-boggling mistake of a deal, the Yanks will acquire Johan.
2007-12-01 12:57:56
141.   jeterian swing
And by "salary cap" I mean luxury tax threshold, of course...
2007-12-01 13:09:34
142.   Zack
139 Exactly the reason to WANT Santana. Wang thus becomes your #2, where he belongs...
2007-12-01 13:10:15
143.   Zack
140 Doesn't matter about hindsight, they openly admitted the reason to bid so high was to keep him away from the Yanks...
2007-12-01 13:43:42
144.   jeterian swing
143 But that's only one element of the deal: Yes, they overshot the market with a high bid to make sure that they beat the Yankees' bid -- agreed. But they wanted the pitcher, too, not just because they wanted to keep him away from the Yanks, but because they knew he was a BARGAIN. He cost them no talent, his salary is so low that it doesn't affect their spending elsewhere, AND he's a good pitcher (maybe not as good as they were hoping for, but he's a solid 2/3 -- hardly a flop along the lines of Igawa or Irabu).

Now, we're playing catch-up: We have to fork over talent AND money -- and our money WILL count against the luxury tax threshold, so it could prohibit us from signing someone else (Teixera?) in the future. Maybe it won't. Either way, we're spending a fortune. The more we spend to play catch-up with the Sox, the better they look. They're not only smarter and more effeicent than we are, they're still the better team.

Dice-K was a bargain -- and the Sox smartly kept that bargain away from the Yankees and every other team in baseball. Johan is a great pitcher, but he comes at a commensurate price. The Sox won't pay it -- it's that simple.

This is all conjecture, of course. Let me put it this way: If the Sox REALLY wanted Santana, Ellsbury and/or Bucholz would be a small price to pay to obtain him (and it would have the added benefit of keeping him from the Yankees). The Sox could absorb the losses of those players with no problem. Watch, though, as it plays out: They will offer NEITHER player. To me, that suggests that they have less concern with keeping him from the Yankees than they do with driving up the Yankees' price and sticking to their own very smart, very effective organizational philisophies.

2007-12-01 16:09:13
145.   SF Yanks
Someone wake me when this is all over. Hopefully I'll wake up and Hughes will still be wearing pinstripes.

I do have to admit, Santana would look quite nice in pinstripes, just not at the expense of Hughes, Joba, or Cano, however.

repeating to myself over and over...
Hughes will remain with the Yanks
Hughes will remain with the Yanks
Hughes will remain with the Yanks...

2007-12-01 16:16:42
146.   Zack
144 i have already said that the Sox don't NEED Santana. But they do want him, and they don't want the Yanks to have him, Hughes or no. They very may well not offer Ellsbury or Buchholz because they don't have to, the Yanks offer may be more than they are willing to do. But thats because they don't NEED him the way the Yanks do.
2007-12-01 16:38:23
147.   rabid stan
The more I look at it, the calmer I get. You have to expect that what the Twins really want is hitting. If all they get from the Yanks as an offer is Hughes and Cabrera, they may prefer to hold on to Santana and get draft picks next year, or renegotiate with him. If they take the deal as is, they'll shed a lot of payroll, but they'll be worse off for it. They'll have to bet that Hughes will fill into a #1 by '09 or '10, but you don't typically give up a star for a pitcher who's practically a prospect. And I don't think either Jackson or Tabata alone added to the package will do it for them.

If they deal with the Yanks, the scuttlebutt in Minnesota is that minimum they'd take would probably include Hughes, Kennedy, Melky and Jackson/Tabata.

In other words, the key for the Yanks at this point is whether they offer Kennedy too. Nothing short of that or Cano added to Hughes/Melky/TBN will make this a can't miss for the Twins.

2007-12-01 17:19:57
148.   randym77
Are you sure the "scuttlebutt" isn't just fans who don't want to see Santana go? From what I've seen from Twins fans, they are pretty upset at losing so many of their stars, and might be in denial about Santana. Doesn't mean the Twins front office is thinking the same way.

I do think Santana will either become a Yankee or stay put. I don't see anyone else offering the money and prospects.

2007-12-01 17:34:46
149.   rabid stan
148 The point is they'll want either hitting or too much pitching to pass up. That's why the present deal proposed by the Yankees isn't enough. Until the Yanks or someone else gives them what they really want (rather than more of what they already have, plus a fourth outfielder and a prospect), as you say they may just stay put, shed the payroll after next season and get draft picks.
2007-12-01 17:58:26
150.   rabid stan
148 Put it this way, Santana is now more important to the Twins with Torii Hunter gone, even though the they would like to trade him.

He's possibly their most bankable star, he sells a lot of jerseys, and if they deal him, their fans will take it as a white flag for the 2008 season. That will cost them a lot of money.

The bottom line is that Santana is a big asset to them on his present deal. They may have judged that he's not worth 150 million dollars from '09-'14, but he's certainly worth 13 mil for next year. They're testing the trade market to see if there's a deal that will make them better in '09 and beyond, so much better that they can afford their fans writing off next season. The current deal can't do that.

They'd be getting 150-160 innings next year out of Hughes at most, and getting him, they may choose to be more careful. So they certainly will be worse next year if they take a Hughes-centered deal, both as a division contender and a money-making machine. Then they'd have to wager that Hughes would fill Santana's shoes, at least in terms of marginal value, in revenue and performance two or three years from now.

That's a long bet. They'll need more security; either a new centerpiece for the deal like Robinson Cano, or a surfeit of insurance with Kennedy and our young outfielders thrown in.

I hope such a deal would be too rich for the Yankees to contemplate, that absolutely nothing happens with Santana this off-season, and that the Yanks can pick him up as a free agent next year.

Show/Hide Comments 151-200
2007-12-01 18:36:48
151.   randym77
At first I thought the Twins would prefer an outfielder to pitching, because they have a lot of young pitching talent. Then they got Delmon Young. Then I thought they'd want an infielder. Till they traded for Brendan Harris.

No, Brendan Harris is not Robinson Cano. But as others have noted, the Twins pride themselves on their scouting, and on going after the players others don't see as being that valuable.

IOW...I think if the Twins wanted Cano, the Yankees would be offering him. They don't want Cano any more. They want Hughes.

2007-12-01 19:01:47
152.   randym77
Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the third player is now the sticking point. The Twins want either Alberto Gonzalez or Alan Horne. The Yankees are reluctant to give up another top prospect.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7512024

Well, at least it's not Ian Kennedy, as rumored earlier.

2007-12-01 19:11:46
153.   51cq24
144 i think you're giving way too much credit to the sox. there's no way they want santana to go to the yankees. how much really separated the 2 teams last year? if i were running the sox i'd be very scared of the yankees adding the best pitcher in baseball. and why does everyone think they're so smart?

personally, i'd rather keep hughes. but i definitely think we'd be favorites next year with santana.

2007-12-01 19:12:13
154.   rabid stan
152 Via Pete, the AP says additionally that the Yanks are now using Dan Haren as leverage to force Minny off Gonzales and Horne.

The offer may now only have a few days on the shelf. I wouldn't be sorry to see it die and the Yanks pursue Haren. Beane will squeeze them, but he can't demand Hughes.

2007-12-01 19:27:38
155.   Simone
The Yankees should go after Haren, offer Kennedy and keep Hughes. If the Red Sox get Haren or Santana, they are super improved.
2007-12-01 19:29:17
156.   Simone
The Yankees are making a huge mistake trading Hughes.
2007-12-01 21:14:53
157.   JeremyM
According to Pete, nobody thinks the Red Sox are serious. Yet the Yankees have felt compelled to offer up Hughes anyway. What the hell is going on here?
2007-12-01 22:31:52
158.   randym77
IMO, the Yankees aren't bidding against the Red Sox. They're bidding against the Twins, so to speak. The Twins could just keep Santana.
2007-12-02 06:52:12
159.   wsporter
158 I get a sense that they may be bidding against themselves. I guess we'll find out but I'm running out of steam on this one.
2007-12-02 07:21:17
160.   tommyl
And now apparently, even Hughes isn't good enough. The Twins want Hughes, Melky and Austin Jackson. Um, no, please do not make that trade. Melky+Hughes is stupid enough, Melky+Hughes+elite prospect is retarded.

Cough, cough...Jay Buhner, cough cough...

2007-12-02 08:50:46
161.   randym77
The NY Times reports that the Yankees have a list of five "untouchables" (players who won't be the third player in the deal):

Dellin Betances
Alan Horne
Austin Jackson
Ian Kennedy
José Tabata

The Attorney General isn't on the list. The Twins were interested in him, so maybe he'll be the one.

The Times thinks the third player has become so important because the Twins are lukewarm on Melky. They want Ellsbury, even more than Hughes, but Boston isn't giving him up.

2007-12-02 11:11:16
162.   vockins
161 According to ESPN, Ellsbury is in.

HANK - STAND DOWN.

2007-12-02 11:28:08
163.   51cq24
162 ok you say that now but what are we gonna do when we can't compete with boston for the next 5 years? that isn't to say i want to give up any more than hughes (or hughes at all), but if boston does get santana we're in a lot of trouble.
2007-12-02 11:34:48
164.   51cq24
162 but ellsbury without lester or buchholz.
2007-12-02 12:57:03
165.   tommyl
161 -164 Yeah, I can see where the Twins are coming from, but at some point their demands are a bit unreasonable. From the Yankees they are saying a cost controlled, decent CF and the #1 pitching prospect in the game aren't enough. For the Sox, they are saying they want their best pitching prospect (or second best) and their best position prospect. I know its Santana and all, but he's going to be so expensive they have to back down a bit.
2007-12-02 16:09:09
166.   randym77
164 Exactly. It's Ellsbury without Lester or Buchholz. Ellsbury alone is not worth Santana. The Twins want one of Buchholz and Lester, plus Ellsbury. The Sox aren't offering that.
2007-12-02 18:54:30
167.   randym77
Hank speaks:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-spyanks1203,0,399845.story

He doesn't think the third player is the sticking point. He says the deadline is Monday. (But after that A-Rod thing, who'll believe him?)

Still, Santana has told the Twins it's now or never; he's not waiving his NT during the season.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.