Master Index of Archived Threads


Johan Redux

Rotblatt Jan 10 2008 05:57 AM

I couldn't find the old thread after looking back a bit, so I started a new one. Some interesting stuff from the [url=http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/13627791.html]Minneapolis Strib[/url]: ]According to people with knowledge of the discussions, the Mets have offered top pitching prospect Deolis Guerra, along with center fielder Carlos Gomez and pitchers Kevin Mulvey and Phil Humber. The Twins like those players. They've told the Mets they'd have a done deal if New York would add prized outfield prospect Fernando Martinez. Sounds like a lot, but . . . If I were Omar, I'd be sorely tempted.

Willets Point Jan 10 2008 06:22 AM

I'd do it. Getting a top-notch starter for 2008 will make me join TITTS.

smg58 Jan 10 2008 06:56 AM

Five of our top seven prospects, AND the biggest contract ever offered to a pitcher? Um, no.

mario25 Jan 10 2008 06:57 AM

You can always find outfielders via free agency but pitching is not so easy to find. I would seriously think about it if I was Omar.

seawolf17 Jan 10 2008 07:15 AM

Five top prospects? Seems a bit steep, no?

metirish Jan 10 2008 07:17 AM

Seems like an awful lot of talent to give up but I'd do it....I would like to see Martinez stay though. AAnyway who else would Minaya be bidding against?, Hank has been running his big gob again in the News today. ] But while stressing there is "absolutely nothing new" in terms of recent trade discussions with the Twins, Hank is beginning to sound convinced - if not nearly ready - to walk away from any potential blockbuster deal for Johan Santana. "We went into this with me making the final baseball decisions and Hal more addressing the financial aspects of the company, but we both do everything," Steinbrenner said yesterday in a phone interview. "We're equal partners, but at this point, to tell you the truth, I'm leaning away from it anyway, so it doesn't matter. Same thing with Brian, he's another integral part of it, obviously, being the general manager, and one day he's leaning to do it and the next day he's not sure. "But what it comes down to right now is giving up a lot (in a trade) and then having to do the big contract, as well. If (Santana) was just a free agent, we could just go ahead and do it. There's a big difference this way. We have to sign him as if he's a free agent, plus you have to give up major talent. That's a tall order."

Valadius Jan 10 2008 07:38 AM

NO. Absolutely not. It reminds me of the Herschel Walker trade in the NFL, and that gave the Cowboys three Super Bowls.

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 07:39 AM

No way.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 10 2008 08:14 AM

It's too much. Deolis Guerra Carlos Gomez Kevin Mulvey Philip Humber Fernando Martinez I might consider it if you remove Mulvey or Martinez. But both of those guys, plus the other three? No. If that's the price, the Mets should just focus on Blanton.

soupcan Jan 10 2008 08:29 AM

mario25 wrote: You can always find outfielders via free agency but pitching is not so easy to find. I would seriously think about it if I was Omar. That's a good point. ="AG/DC"]No way. That's a pretty strong opinion. Really?

DocTee Jan 10 2008 08:52 AM

Do it. Five unknowns for a Cy Young winner?

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 09:02 AM

Really. Pitching is so ephemeral. Quantity and potential trumps quality and huge paychecks for me. Pedro blew my mind. But our investment has netted a mere year and a half so far. Give me redundancy. If Humber doesn't hunt, there's Mulvey. If Mulvey doesn't, there's Guerra. If Guerra doesn't, well, we have a ton of money left over that we're not paying anybody. Santana's a beter bet than any of them, certainly, but nobody's a lock --- particularly with pitching --- and keep in mind he fell back somewhat this season after a bout of gopheritis. If something pops in his elbow, we're broke and gutted. BROKE AND GUTTED! Use the farm to grow stars. Not to trade for them. No matter how much we give up for him, and how much we pay him, 2003-2006 won't come with him. He'll be 0-0 when he gets here, and just a prospect himself, albeit a damn good one.

attgig Jan 10 2008 09:36 AM

just a prospect himself? sure, if we acquire him, he hasn't done anything for us 'yet'. but... that's pretty ridiculous to consider him a 'damn good prospect'. you're saying, when we traded for piazza, he was just a prospect? there are great players, good players, mediocre players, and prospects/unknowns. santana is a great player. durability for the most part has NOT been a concern. so, to start saying that his elbow is giong to make us broke and gutted is just based on fear, not actual history. if you were talking about liriano, sure. I can understand that. but you're just trying to convince via fear. I'd rather have 1 santana than 3 or 4 traschels any day (who knows what they'll pan out to, but nobody's projecting any of them to be a santana).

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 09:41 AM

attgig wrote: santana is a great player. durability for the most part has NOT been a concern. so, to start saying that his elbow is giong to make us broke and gutted is just based on fear, not actual history. Well, one, I didn't say that it was going to happen. I said it could. Two, it's based on the history of pitchers. There's nothing wrong with any of them, until there is. attgig wrote: I'd rather have 1 santana than 3 or 4 traschels any day (who knows what they'll pan out to, but nobody's projecting any of them to be a santana). Then we differ. Is somebody projecting them to be 3 or 4 Trachsels? That's remarkable. I think we'll get a variety of performance that's absolutely unknowable.

smg58 Jan 10 2008 10:46 AM

The issue with Santana for me is that we'd have to pay a really steep price for him twice, not once. If I only had to give up money, I'd open my wallet. If he was already signed for a non-prohibitive salary at a non-prohibitive length, only David Wright would be off the table. But we'd have to empty the farm system, and then make him an offer that would give him no reason to consider testing the market next year. That price is double what he's worth.

Rotblatt Jan 10 2008 11:16 AM

smg58 wrote: The issue with Santana for me is that we'd have to pay a really steep price for him twice, not once. If I only had to give up money, I'd open my wallet. If he was already signed for a non-prohibitive salary at a non-prohibitive length, only David Wright would be off the table. But we'd have to empty the farm system, and then make him an offer that would give him no reason to consider testing the market next year. That price is double what he's worth. I think for the Mets, the money issue should be manageable right now. Our payroll is relatively low at the moment, and we should be making money hand over fist, what with the new network, attendance records, etc. etc. In other words, we can more than afford him. The only sticking point for me is how much talent we'd be giving up, especially given how barren our farm system is right now. We'd basically be starting over from scratch. On the other hand, we do have a good, young core, and adding Santana (who's entering his 29th year) to it would be pretty much a coup. Barring injuries, Santana, Wright, Beltran, Reyes should be a core to be reckoned with for a good 4+ years, and throw in role players like Maine, O. Perez & Heilman . . . With those players, I think we'll be in the mix for the next couple of years, making a talent like Santana's that much more valuable.

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 11:23 AM

attgig wrote: you're saying, when we traded for piazza, he was just a prospect? Whwn we traded for Foster, was he a Hall of Famer?

Willets Point Jan 10 2008 01:19 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="attgig"]you're saying, when we traded for piazza, he was just a prospect? When we traded for Foster, was he a Hall of Famer? And yet Foster made more and better contributions to the Mets than Steve Chillcott, Shawn Abner, and Paul Wilson.

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 01:27 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 10 2008 08:23 PM

We're resorting to cherrypicking. At his price (one of the top three contracts in the majors at the time), he was still not as valuable as an average selection of five of our top prospects and all that money in hand. My broader point remains that a player's past performance is useful as information but is worth nothing as an asset. So I try not to get too excited, particluarly with pitchers. I like farms and the redundancy they offer. John Maine started his career off with the Mets not as their top pitching prospect at all. He entered 2006 13th on the depth chart for starting pitchers, behind Yusaku Iriki. It takes a handful of Irikis to find a Maine, and I'm about hanging on to them when you find them.

Frayed Knot Jan 10 2008 01:45 PM

I never like to tab any one player - particularly those still minor leaguers - as untouchable. But there is ALWAYS a price at which you should be prepared to walk away no matter how tempting the prize. So, assuming the demand is correct as listed where F. Martinez gets ADDED to a package of 4 prospects, I think this one is too high, especially when a huge contract needs to get tacked on to the end. But mostly I'm upset, first with myself for the earlier Santana thread and now with Rotblatt for this one, that no one thought to use a subject heading of: 'Visions of Johan-ah'

OlerudOwned Jan 10 2008 02:07 PM

I wouldn't have even minded if we packaged Gomez and Martinez (but kept either Guerra or Mulvey) if Milledge was still around. Sigh.

attgig Jan 10 2008 02:44 PM

I'm not saying that we do this deal, and i'm not saying that guerra, mulvey, humber become better or worse than a 4th or 5th starter (traschel), but we have plenty of middle to back end starters. none of those three are projected to be aces. could one of them become an ace of santana's caliber? yes. is it likely? no. so, if we laready have a pitching staff of middle to back end rotation guys... why do we need three more? simply because they're home grown? we need an ace, and johan's out there. it's ridiculous to just pass that off as a stupid trade not to do. it deserves serious consideration.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 10 2008 02:54 PM

Just because that's what the Twins are asking for, it doesn't mean the deal can't be done for less. Who are we competing against? If recent accounts are to be believed, it's at most, two teams. Perhaps less than that. Play it cool and let them come to us. Keep talking about Blanton. Let the Twins know that we can go elsewhere. Don't just leap at the first expensive package that will allegedly "get the job done."

Willets Point Jan 10 2008 03:00 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Just because that's what the Twins are asking for, it doesn't mean the deal can't be done for less. Who are we competing against? If recent accounts are to be believed, it's at most, two teams. Perhaps less than that. Play it cool and let them come to us. Keep talking about Blanton. Let the Twins know that we can go elsewhere. Don't just leap at the first expensive package that will allegedly "get the job done." Most sensible post yet. There's definitely room to negotiate. The Twins know that they'll have to accept 3-4 prospects now or a lot less come July.

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 03:05 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 10 2008 06:05 PM

I don't think we have plenty of middle- to back-end starters. I think what we do have came from being smart and careful and not throwing them over in big deals. I think not having an alleged ace (didn't have one last year either) has to be weighted against not having to go to retreads when our rotation breaks down.

Centerfield Jan 10 2008 04:50 PM

I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but somehow I'd feel better about adding Martinez if we still had Milledge.

smg58 Jan 10 2008 06:27 PM

Centerfield wrote: I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but somehow I'd feel better about adding Martinez if we still had Milledge. I spent all of last year working under the assumption that Minaya signed Alou instead of Soriano or Carlos Lee because he was committed to keeping two of the three young outfielders. The move made no sense otherwise, and now we're looking at the possibility of going into this season with none of those outfielders in the organization.

Elster88 Jan 10 2008 07:33 PM

I would do the trade in a heartbeat.

Nymr83 Jan 10 2008 09:19 PM

the mets are giving up ALOT but i'd still be happy to get santana in here. this team can always buy outfielders who will outslug those guys.

Frayed Knot Jan 10 2008 09:22 PM

Considering the prices that good, but not great, OFers are getting lately (Torii, Rowand) I think it's about time to file away the notion that decent ones are grow-on-the-trees cheap.

Nymr83 Jan 10 2008 09:33 PM

they're not cheap in $$ but they're far more plentiful in the FA market every year than top pitchers and the Mets have $$, they can't sign someone that isnt out there though

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 09:33 PM

The Dodgers just signed Andruw Jones at $18.1 million per after a disastrous walk year. That's not walking-around money.

Nymr83 Jan 10 2008 10:15 PM

it is for the Mets with their own new network and a new $tadium on the way

AG/DC Jan 10 2008 11:14 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 11 2008 07:56 AM

Come on, now. How dangerous is to say, "We're rich, and we can spend off our assets that we don't need today because we have enough money to find what we need tomorrow"? That's a poor way to run a baseball team or any other business. Go to a trade association meeting and sustainablity is all you'll hear about. Tomorrow's assets will be more elusive than you bargained for and tomorrow's competition will be more resourceful than you bargained for.

Nymr83 Jan 11 2008 02:01 AM

when you're a business with a level playing field sure, but the Mets can keep outspending 25+ teams for the forseeable future, they don't have to be as protective of low cost unproven talent as others do, particularly when they can pickup top level proven talent at a position where that talent is hardest to come by.

attgig Jan 11 2008 02:08 AM

or just stay away from borass clients.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 11 2008 06:12 AM

="New York Daily News"] Mets: Report on trade offer for Johan Santana is off the mark BY IAN BEGLEY and ADAM RUBIN DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITERS Friday, January 11th 2008, 4:00 AM While the Yanks seem to be out of the race to land Twins ace Johan Santana, the Mets look like front-runners, but a team insider dismissed a report out of Minnesota that the Mets could land Santana for a five-prospect package. The source said the Mets are still in negotiations with the Twins, but Minnesota hasn't told them a package of prospects including outfielders Carlos Gomez and Fernando Martinez, and pitchers Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra would seal the deal for Santana. The Mets have said in the past that they wouldn't include Gomez and Martinez, their top outfield prospect, in the same deal. If they included both outfielders and all three pitchers (Guerra is an 18-year-old righty who is considered one of the organization's top pitching prospects), it would basically wipe out their farm system. Regardless, the Mets seem to be the leaders in the Santana sweepstakes because the Yankees' interest in the two-time Cy Young winner has cooled in the past few days. Hank Steinbrenner told the Daily News on Wednesday that the Bombers were "leaning away" from making a deal for Santana because of the high asking price in both dollars and prospects for the lefthander. "We have to sign him as if he's a free agent, plus you have to give up major talent," Steinbrenner said Wednesday. "That's a tall order." GM Brian Cashman reiterated that sentiment last night on the YES Network. "I think we're probably closer to going with what we've got than making any substantial changes at this stage of the game," Cashman said. "Discussions can always change and that's why you stay engaged with the opposing teams as well as the ownership side of this. Every day could be something different, but right now I'd say we're going to go with what we've got." Cashman also said the Yanks have agreed to a minor-league deal with and extended an invite to training camp to Jason Lane. The 31-year-old outfielder/first baseman batted .175 in 171 at-bats with Houston and San Diego last season. He belted 26 homers with the Astros in 2005. With Peter Botte

AG/DC Jan 11 2008 07:14 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 11 2008 07:55 AM

Nymr83 wrote: when you're a business with a level playing field sure, but the Mets can keep outspending 25+ teams for the forseeable future, they don't have to be as protective of low cost unproven talent as others do, particularly when they can pickup top level proven talent at a position where that talent is hardest to come by. Tomorrow's assets will be more elusive than you bargained for and tomorrow's competition will be more resourceful than you bargained for.

AG/DC Jan 11 2008 07:15 AM

="attgig"]or just stay away from borass clients. How does that work?

Frayed Knot Jan 11 2008 08:24 AM

]NYDN: Mets -Report on trade offer for Johan Santana is off the mark Both times now that there have been public reports claiming that the Mets could get Santana for an all-prospects (read: no Reyes) package it's been shot down soon afterward by seperate sources. It's part of why I generally try to not take these breathless off-season rumors too seriously.