« Japan Team To Lure Sammy? | Main | Pirates Still In On Ohka »

Johan Santana Has Full NTC For '07

Charley Walters of the St. Paul Pioneer Press writes that Johan Santana's 2006 Cy Young triggered a full no-trade clause in his contract for 2007.  The clause will stick for 2008 if he finishes in the top three of the voting for that award.  Otherwise, he can choose 12 teams he can't be traded to in '08.

There's a lot of speculation going around concerning Santana.  Patrick Reusse opined that Santana will become baseball's first $200MM starter and the Twins have no chance.  Furthermore, a lot of folks are trying to fit him for Yankee pinstripes already. 

Before the 2005 season, the Twins locked Santana in at four years and $40MM.  That he was willing to let the Twins buy out a few years of free agency may indicate that Santana will take a discount to remain in Minnesota.  Not a ridiculous discount, but still.  $20 million a year would be a bargain for Santana - I'm sure he could top that in free agency.

I imagine there's a good chance that even if they don't intend to re-sign him, the Twins will just hold on to Santana until his contract runs out.  The NTC is a big obstacle and it may prevent some team from offering three top-flight prospects.  That's probably what it would take.  The Yankees may not have three guys that would get this deal done.  The Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, or Devil Rays might be able to pull it off if they were so inclined.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/447826/7431516

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Johan Santana Has Full NTC For '07:

Comments

"The Yankees may not have three guys that would get this deal done. The Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, or Devil Rays might be able to pull it off if they were so inclined."

Well since you said 3 guys, I'll throw 3 names out there: Phillip Hughes, Humberto Sanchez, and Melky Cabrera. I think those 3 could get it done, not to mention anything else the Twins would want the Yankees to throw into the pot. If it comes down to the Yankees, they will do whatever it takes to acquire Santana. Of course I would love to make the deal without Hughes being involved, but like I said. If that is what it takes, do it. You can't pass up on Santana..

Humberto Sanchez is an oft-injured bullpen arm, Phillip Hughes is unproven(ace possibility), and Melky Cabrera is a piece of crap 4th outfielder...shut up.

Maybe David Murphy, Julian Tavarez, and Daniel Bard can get it done for the best pitcher in baseball. ugh

Well that was an intelligent response. Apparently you know nothing about these players or baseball in general, judging from that ignorant tirade.

Pat, I feel like the Twins could top that by a bit. Hughes and another Hughes-level guy would be the key. I could be wrong. Maybe if you substitute Tabata for Cabrera or something.

Hey Pat he was just bein sarcastic the trade proposal you put out there was kinda weak.

RotoAuthority, great point. I agree that Tabata would be more attractive than Cabrera. I just figured there should be one cog in the deal with some major league experience. Unlike our Red Sox fan above who knows so much about prospects, I appreciate your knowledge in responding.

hood, Yes I know it was sarcasm. But it doesn't change the fact that his assessment of those players was completely incorrect.

And, I disagree that the proposal was weak. Hughes is a top 3 pitching prospect. Sanchez isn't that far behind believe it or not. I have seen him in many top 10 pitching prospect lists. Cabrera is only 22 years old who hit, .280 with decent run production for someone who hit for the most part at the bottom of the order. And unfortunately doesn't have a starting spot on the Yankees, unless there is an injury. But like I said I agree with RotoAuthority about Tabata being more attractive, considering he is only going to be 18 with some reports stating he could be Bronx bound as early as 2008.

Maybe my Cubs could offer Pie,Hill and Marshall - that way we can have 2 pitchers that just walk away when they become free agents.

couldnt the braves give up Salty, James, Lerew, and Langerhans or something. could that get it done? probably not i could name 3 other teams off the top of my head that could give better bounties

If this trade is for the last couple months of '08 and you are picking him up at the deadline maybe a hughes, tabata kind of deal gets it done but I doubt it. Right now its two full years of the best pitcher in baseball, hands down. Start that trade talk with Delmon Young, and Scott Kazmir...something like that.

Everyone prizes their own prospects higher than other people do. I think Jacoby Ellsbury is going to be the next Johnny Damon. Humberto Sanchez isn't that good a pitcher, the most you can hope for from him is a couple years of decent bullpen help. If Melky Cabrera played anywhere else no-one would give the slightest crap about him. Every team has someone like him, his Boston counterpart is David Murphy. You need a backup outfielder they are critical to your team, don't over value them.

question: what if the mets served up david wright and maybe aaron heilman for him? mets get their ace and the twins get a right-handed power hitting third sacker. the mets would still have enough offense to survive in the national league

that woudl be really stupid for the mets to do that, but as a Braves fan i'm all for it. they could trade Wright, reyes, and Heilman for Santana. i would love to see it, but it wont happen while Minaya is gm. plus they just signed him to an extension so wats the point of trading him even for Johan. a more reasonable trade would be Pelfry, Heilman, and Milledge. i think that would make sense for both sides.

Here's the thing folks. We could sit here all day discussing different packages of players, which ones better than the others. But, the fact is not only does it come down to what the Twins want. It comes down to what Santana wants. He has a No Trade Clause this year and if he finishes within the top 3 for Cy Young will have a No Trace Clause next year as well. So of course a very substantial package of prospects will have to be offered up, but also a team that Santana not only wants to play for but who will give him they incredibly lucrative extension he will require.

Now let's run through the teams mentioned, not only this original post but by the users as well...

Devil Rays: Has the prospects no doubt, but not the appeal of a winner or the resources to get it done.

Marlins: Again has the players to make it work, but would never dish out that kind of cash for anyone. Until they get a stadium deal they will continue to be frugal.

Angels: Has the prospect, is a winner, and has the money. But and it has been widely reported that they have their sights and wallet ready for a big name bat, not pitcher.

Diamondbacks: Could put together a decent package, chance to eventually be a winner. They have the money but they also have money problems that they are looking to get out from under. I just don't see them signing off on a giant deal like this would become.

Dodgers: Absolutely have the talent. Absolutely are winners, and absolutely have the money if they want to spend it.

Cubs: Have some decent talent in the system, not enough in my opinion. As far as winning, I think this year will show us alot. Definitely have money but if so, they'll have enough of a finacial commitment to Zambrano is they lock him up long term.

Braves. Again decent players to offer up. Not far from truly contending again, but I simply don't see them putting up the kid of money required here. Again a very frugal organization.

Mets: Has the players, but wouldn't trade their core for Santana.

Red Sox: A few decent prospects. A contender. They have proved money isn't an issue anymore after this winter.

Yankees: Due to recent trades and homegrown talent, in my opinion have enough to get a deal done. Definitely a contending and winning team. Money... well we all know the Yankees would do whatever it takes to lock up a guy like Santana long-term...

So in my honest opinion if Johan Santana becomes available. I think it's a two team race, considering all factors: Prospect Package, Winning Team, and Contract Extension.

Dodgers and Yankees...

For now we will just have to wait an see.

I actually nevermind he aint goin nowhere til free agency no need to even fantasize.

hood, that could very well be a possibility as well. Although I highly doubt the Twins aren't going to at least explore a trade. That way they get something in return for their future as opposed to nothing if he were to just leave the team as a free agent..

man Santana would be scary in pinstripes at this point in his career imagine him with that offense behind him he could win 25 games at least now with the twins there a week hitting team. so there is some chance of him loosing a few games. im sure he would shine in the ALE. i bet he wants to play on the biggest stage in baseball.

"i bet he wants to play on the biggest stage in baseball"

What gives you that impression?

Pat - Where exactly have you seen Humberto Sanchez a top 10 pitching prospect? I know its a little dated but BA list last year doesn't have him in the top 100. I could of the top of my head list at least 10 pitching prospects i would rather more then him. I don't know if this is because of the trade but he isn't even on the Tigers top 10 for this year. A trade of Lester, Ellsbury, and Buchholz might not even be able to get this deal done. Thats just the Red Sox, the Angels, Rays, and Dodgers could easily top that. I love typical Yankee and Red Sox fans. No offense but everyone complete overrates their prospects. Your trade even with Tabata would not be enough, probable not close to enough.

Ripwa, read my previous post. The larger one, on how all of us and I do mean everyone. Not just Yankees and Red Socks fans, should not waste time comparing what kind of packages our respective teams can put together. There are other issues at hand here. Like I mentioned in the post above such as winning, and contact extension. Which in some ways is much more of a determining factor that this trade would ever get done, considering the No Trade Clause...

you can't underestimate how desperate teams are for pitching. if jason jennings can cost the astros 3 of their top young players what do you think the twins would want for santana? granted the stros prospects aren't the best but the fact that they gave up almost all of their best trade chips for jennings tells you how desperate some teams are for proven pitching...and nobody's more proven than santana r/n

If the Twins wouldn't want Hughes, then who could they possibly want?

I agree that Hughes, Tabata, Sanchez, and Cabrera probably gets it done. And the Yankees could easily take on some bad contracts that the Twins will have.

Other teams could offer more too. Virtually any team _could_ make an offer that's acceptable to the Twins (eg. Wright and Reyes, Drew + Quentin + Jackson, etc.).

If they really wanted to the Yankees could include Cano and/or Wang, so to say that teams don't _have_ the young talent is just silly.


Also, I don't know how much money is an issue for any team. Several teams that historically refuse to go after top players, instead wasting a few million here and there on near-replacement level players (eg. KC, MIL, SF) have been willing to open their wallets for one player. And if there's any player to do it for, it's Santana.

A rough guess is that about 20 teams would be interested, and willing to pay. The twins could play this to get a really amazing group of players back.

They can definitely end up _much_ better by trading Santana given the interest that's guaranteed to be there. I think they'd be fools not to seriously explore trading him, possibly as soon as this year.

Kelly I love your completely Bias post there

The red sox "have proven they will spend money this offseason"


So has pretty much every other team. Get your head out of your ass man.

I cannot believe Pat Kelly argues that Santana will come down to a two team race. The dodgers... and of course the yankees.

GoBoSox420, Another intelligent response full of insults. I wonder how old some of you out there really are? Or mature?

Anyway in response to that, I believe I was completely unbiased in my opinion. The Red Sox have proven they will spend whatever it takes this winter. Is there anything inaccurate with that statement? No. Yes other teams have spent alot of money this winter as well. But I was going through each team and their prospective chances at a deal with the Twins for Santana.

I am a Yankees fan, I'll admit it. However, I am more a fan of baseball in general than anything else. I reserve the right to criticize my team as well as all the rest of them. But as far as you go. Next time, read through and comprehend the entire post before making assanine responses based on hatred of another team.

Pat, where have you seen Sanchez as a top 10 pitching prospect? Because that is news to me. Plus, even with all the new prospects the Yanks still probably don't have a top 5, maybe even 10, farm system. Santana has never said he wanted to pitch in a big market, for all we know he would want nothing more then to stay away from the LAs, New Yorks, and Bostons of the world. To be completely frank your assessment of the Yankees being the front runner for him makes you look very uneducated and extremely bias.

GoBoSox420, How can you not believe it? It's an opinion. We all have them. I believe due to those 3 factors: Trade Package, Winning Team, and Money for contact extension. It will come down to 2 teams like the Dodgers and Yankees. I can see the Angels getting involved as well but not before they add a big bat. Like I said above.

Your Yankee bias couldnt be more evident with that list. Where are the stats to back all of that up? I understand its your opinion, but some of what you said just be statistically backed up.

If the yankees have the prospects to land Santana then so does almost every other MLB team without a doubt. Your list make it seems like only the Dodgers and Yankees could get him.

Only 2 teams? Are you serious? You cannot believe that only TWO teams are in the running for santana.

Ripwa, When have I ever said the Yankees were the front runner? I said it was my opinion that is a trade came down to those 3 factors, it would be between the Dodgers, Yankees and possibly the Angels. Uneducated, that's amusing. Biased? Again it was a baseball opinion, a completely unbiased one. Oh and as far as farm systems go. I believe it was ESPN just last week who ranked the Yankees 6th best farm system. This coming from ESPN, a completely unbiased sports outlet broadcasting out of Red Socks Nation. (sarcasm)

For the record- I am not pushing for a red sox trade for santana whatsoever, could we get him? Maybe. Do I want him? Of course. Should we trade the damn farm for him? Dont think so.

GoBoSox420, Can you read? When or where did I say that only 2 teams were in the running? Of course many teams have the prospect/players to be in the running for a trade. I was including those 2 other factors which in some ways could be considered more important in any deal for Santana considering he would have to ok a deal.

Winning - No there hasn't been anything I have ready stating Santana would either like or dislike the grandstage and pressure of a big market. It's just my opinion that any athlete has the fire to win.

Money - Santana would require a longterm lucrative extension with any team he accepts a trade from.

People can you pelase read through the posts before making ignorant responses. Ready what I have actually said, as opposed to your assumptions of me being a biased Yankees fan.. Read and comprehend it.

I think the biggest decider here on who'd be able to swing the deal is whether Santana could be extended.

If it was a possibility I think the Twins could ask for the moon and get it.

In fact I think I will bid you all adieu. This is one of the worst baseball boards I have ever been on. Maybe I will make my return, when the intelligence level rises. For those of you who proved reasonable, thought out responses and ideas. Thank you.

So in my honest opinion if Johan Santana becomes available. I think it's a two team race, considering all factors: Prospect Package, Winning Team, and Contract Extension.


Those are your words. How does that not sound like you're making it a two team race for santana?

Wouldn't the twins be as likely to let Hunter walk and use that money for Santana? Hunter will be near 17mil a year for sure - if not more. Hunter brings alot to the table but there are 8 other bats in a lineup. If they want prospects I am certain they can get plenty of them for nathan.

It is going to take a lot to get the best pitcher in baseball. There are probably at least five teams that have interest. It's not a given that the Yankees are in the best position. It comes down to what teams will give to get him if he becomes available.

"People can you pelase read through the posts before making ignorant responses"

You mean like the post which said:
"Johan Santana's 2006 Cy Young triggered a full no-trade clause in his contract for 2007"
&
"I imagine there's a good chance that even if they don't intend to re-sign him, the Twins will just hold on to Santana until his contract runs out.  The NTC is a big obstacle and it may prevent some team from offering three top-flight prospects.  That's probably what it would take.  The Yankees may not have three guys that would get this deal done.  The Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, or Devil Rays might be able to pull it off if they were so inclined"

So where did you get your "Johan will be traded to most likekly the Dodgers or Yankees"?

You guys are fighting over nothing and all these trade proposals are just wishful thinking. Fact is the thread is about him probably not getting traded...

Yet here you are with your argument regarding the one team Roto says probably doesn't have the prospects to get it done...

All these trade proposals? It's one moron making stupid, ridiculous and unsupported statements.

Nobody's claiming that any statements are supported by anything. If you don't want to discuss rumors, perhaps you're on the wrong site.

I love when people are made to look stupid than play the holier than tho card and act like they are better than everyone. Honestly, everyone knows this guy is still going to be checking the board and see how his dumb comments are being ripped apart. Personally, i hate to call someones comments "dumb" but this guy is asking for it. He acts like an expert and when everyone disagrees he runs away. Sorry man, but you need to take your shots and not act like you are better than us, you are just another self absorbed Yankee fan that thinks the world revolves around New York. If you can't see that there are at least 5 teams more likely to get Santana than the Yankees than you are blind and this place is better without you.

I think RotoAuthority provided a pretty good example of how to disagree with someone without making him/her feel like a moron.

At this moment, I don't understand why the Twins would feel compelled to trade Santana, and if they did feel compelled, it would have to be a truly unbelievable offer (which means probably more than Hughes, Tabata, and Melky). As last season demonstrated, the Twins are very capable of getting to the post-season with the roster as it is currently constructed. This is not the case of a crappy team that needs to rebuild for the long-term like the Expos when they traded Pedro to the Sox.

I understand this a rumors site, it's why I love it. It wasn't so much that he was spewing unsupported drivel. It was that he got MAD when we didn't agree with it.

I agree, but you bit his head off, and did it rudely.

Oops - GoBoSox - I apologize - it was ARodSucksAtLife, not you.

It's all good, it is the internet...surf with caution.

Bobo, I understand what you are saying but were the posts being discused really rumors or where they actually just random wishful thinking?

Its not like the Yankee fan was telling us some inside info, he was just telling us that he thinks the Yankees should be considered favirotes to land a guy who Roto stated was probably not going to be traded and that of all the teams the Yanks have what is possibly the least to offer. His first post was in essence saying "Roto you're wrong" and he listed a prospect and two unwanted players as his argument. He went against the topic (Johan prob not going to be traded) & against the facts (yanks don't have enough to offer); sbf although I agree the first reaponces may not have been presented in the best way, he could have explained his first post instead of incuraging the childishness.

If we hear something we don't like should we attack back or try to figure out the differences? That's what it boils down to... And if your kind of going out on a limb with the dialog which got attacked its even more reason to explain rather than get into a name calling match.

Granted that this is about trade rumors, but there is no rumor in this. The guy, who is entiled to his opinions, has no more knowledge of anything than you guys. Now, in regards to the twins retaining Santana. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have money coming out of their ears. But don't believe for a second that the twins don't have any coin. The twins have hardly spent anything in recent offseasons. They are on the verge of getting a new stadium and if they have a ws type season this year, then they will be seeing massive revenue increases. They also need Santana just as much as any other team in the league. There is a very good chance they retain him, unless they feel that other teams will be so desperate for a pitcher of his calliber that they will recieve more talent than santana alone.
My point is that everyone is being illogical in saying that the twins are just going to trade him because you guys, who I guess have access to their financial records, won't be able to retain him.


Well, I think that 98% of the posts here are people giving their opinions. I see no problem with people who have differing opinions, whether they're with Roto or anyone else.

I guess I disagree - if Roto posts "Santana is unlikely to be traded", and I reply with "Actually I think he will be traded because A, B, and C", then I think that's absolutely on-topic.

Also, he was specifically responding to (and even quoted) Roto's statement that the Yankees don't have 3 players to get it done. The Yankees _do_ have enough to offer, as do most teams in the majors, as I explained above. Though I agree the Twins could get more, his proposed offer wasn't unreasonable - I don't think any offer starting with Hughes is _that_ unreasonable.

Again, that comment was directly relevant to the blog post.

I guess my problem is just the blatant name calling and profanity (granted not so much in this thread). I'm about as far from a prude as you can find, but it just reeks of immaturity - and I am am also searching for new intelligent, mature baseball boards.

Even more annoying are posts from people who insult other people but offer no arguments of their own. I've just about had it with responses like "If you think that XXXXX is true, then you're a fucking idiot." I'm already visiting the site less because of them.


I guess my stance boils down to a couple things:

1 - Intelligent posts saying a team should do something are valuable, even if there is no factual basis (or rumor) for them.

2 - There's a right way and a wrong way to respond to a post you don't agree with.

And, like I said above, this thread is _far_ from the worst I've seen here. There wasn't too much that offended me here.

Ripwa, I guess Pat Kelly was making up the whole Sanchez top 10 prospect thing, since he never even acknowledged your question, then he calls the whole board idiots. MEanwhile, how many yankee fans can come on here and say the Yankees are the front runner for a pitcher everyone wants, provide absolutely no evidence, no logical reasoning, except saying the yankees are a winner and johan wants to play there. Typical yankee fans man, typical

for what it's worth, Sanchez is 14th here: http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=303&p=9&c=12&yr=2006&nid=287&lnid=287&rc=4&pid=49

He was also in the top 10 as recently as mid-2006 in several of the lists here, including one by the readers of John Sickel's site.

http://attheplate.com/2007/07_rookied.htm

I think the point is a great prospect combined with a 4th ofer and a top 15 prospect is an offer that could be made by so many clubs.

It certainly doesn't give the yankees any sort of advantage in getting Santana.

True. Like I said, nearly any team could offer enough talent if they wanted to. All he said was that it "could get it done", which I take to mean "here's a reasonable package the Yankees could offer." Roto agreed, with the substitution of Tabata.

I don't agree with all of the points he made when he narrowed it down to the Yankees and Dodgers, and he probably was a bit too thin-skinned - at least compared to what goes on in some of the other threads here.

I think people may have missed a crucial statement in this, which is the 2008 bit. He will not be traded in 2007.

Hughes will not be a prospect in 2008, and he will either pitch well and the yankees may well keep him, or badly and no one will want him. Cabrera will be long gone in 2008.

On the Red Sox, their next line of good prospects is due in 2008/09. That could work in their favour for a trade. The last line worked out ok - Papelbon, Lester, Hanley Ramirez

And why would the Sox/Yanks/Dodgers or any other team for that matter spill out a line of good prospects for a guy when they could probably have the same chance of landing him as a free agent, and don't lose any talent.

And really, I think the Red Sox are in a position where they hope they don't need him. Matsuzaka, Beckett, Lester, Papelbon. That should be a strong top 4. They just have to pitch like it. Imagine adding Santana to that lot.

I personally just don't see Santana being traded, but I'd love to see it happen.

"2 - There's a right way and a wrong way to respond to a post you don't agree with"

Exactly, that is why Pat responding to Arod with this:
"Well that was an intelligent response. Apparently you know nothing about these players or baseball in general, judging from that ignorant tirade"
Brought about the results it did. Agree or not you should respond the same and if presented with a childish remark you can either ignore it and show you are better with facts to back yourself or provoke it further. If you provoke it further you are exactly what you are complaining about...

I will give you that Pat had a right to post the post he did but he has to be open to disagreements in all forms. Replies like this to BoSox:
"GoBoSox420, Another intelligent response full of insults. I wonder how old some of you out there really are? Or mature?"
Only brings problems - besides I don't know if GoBo was really out of line in the posts this was regarding.

Quite often people will complain of the same things they themselves are guilty of, I see all of this as nothing more than that based on what has transpired. I still feel his argument was semi off-topic to start and with resistance he just continued to try to pound his ideas on us ignoring facts presented along the way...

If he wants to complain about a problem he faced then I would advise him to find a mirror, atleast in this instance.

I may have been out of line with the "get your head out of your ass" comment.

Although it was true, I probably could have framed it a bit nicer.

I also wanted to respond to what it 'might' take to get johan since I haven't mentioned it yet.

The best compairison deal we probably have is the Colon deal from 2002. Bartolo while with the Indians stated he was probably going to get 10+mil as a FA two years from then. He was up for grabs and the team which stepped in was not one of the monsters but instead one with the talent to spare. Mon offered up three prospects which were ranked in their top 10, two of which were in their top 5. Mon also knew they would not retain him but thought that he might give them the push they needed that year.

That being the case it is much more likely that the big spenders will stay away from a trade hoping to sign him as a FA and that a team which is on the cusp could sneak in.

Bartolo btw had not given us the stats Johan has and still got 3 top 10s, all three of which are ML starters and still comand great trade value themselves. To think Santana may go for anything less in a year when pitching is even more scarse is dare I say, a little foolish...

Yeah, I agree - he's certainly not innocent. I'm just venting more on the overall state of the site. I'm guilty to an extent too - I've written stuff like "If you think that, then I'd like to have some of the drugs you're on" but I do try to include an explanation. Also, maybe this is just being nit-picky on my part, but when people reply with spelling mistakes, no punctuation/capitals, AND it's full of curses (nobody on this thread), it just makes me not want to read it anymore.

I don't think anyone was way out of line here.

Assuming Santana won't agree to an extension, what is 1 year of the best pitcher in baseball worth, prospect-wise?

My argument is that the Twins _should_ look into trading him this year becuase the bounty could be huge. They could demand a top young player as well as prospects and get it.

I'll use the Yankees as an example since they've been discussed so much - if they trade him this year, they could probably get something like Cano, Tabata, Wang or Hughes, Sanchez, and maybe more.

I'm just saying it's not out of the question to think they could make a trade in 2007 that could leave them just as good and save them tens of millions of dollars per year.

And, I don't think Phillips or Lee were in the class that Hughes is in now - so it's tough to compare the offers. I always loved Sizemore, but he wasn't _as_ highly regarded then. Phillips was the key to that deal, and he had question marks too.

But quintjs - agree about Hughes in 2008 - actually I think I posted something very similar - by mid-2008 I think he'll either be worth Santana on his own, or will no longer generate much interest.

I disagree with trading him now. The truth is if Minn ever gets to a point where they feel like they HAVE To trade a pitcher as good as Santana, it's to the advantage of every other team.

I could probably see Cano, Hughes, Tabata as being a very competitive offer. I still think a couple unwanted contracts would have to be taken as well.

Yep. Really though? I think they can come out ahead - I don't think they _have_ to trade him, but if they're smart, given how good Santana is, they can get someone to overpay. Kind of like the Mulder trade, but on a whole different level. Beane didn't _have_ to trade him, but he got a great offer and took it.

At some point, the players you get back for Santana will be worth more than Santana himself. Just for argument's sake, what if the Mets offered Pelfrey, Reyes, Humber, Wright, Milledge, etc. - of course it would be worth it then.

Now of course they won't get that much, but an offer like that - say Hughes or Wang, Cano, and Tabata, + taking on, say, $5M of bad contracts (though the twins don't have any! amazing!) can keep the Twins competitive in 07 at a savings of ~$12M, and possibly even better in 2008 and beyond at a savings of ~$10M-20M per year. That's just my thinking.

I guess the argument's kind of silly, but I'm just saying the Twins could explore what the offers would be like.

But of course, these trade talks don't happen in a vacuum - you wouldn't want Santana to hear about it and get pissed and lose your chance to sign him. Maybe just for that reason what I'm saying doesn't make sense.

As an AZ fan, I wouldn't see them as trade possibilites. Our high-valued prospects will be on the field next year and spending 3 of them to get Santana would leave us with too many holes to fill.

Not that anyone saw us as a serious trade contender.

I meant I disagree with any other team trading for him now. I think he is WORTH the cost in prospects/players but why not wait?

I also think how Liriano responds in 08 will be a huge factor in trading Santan. If you can replace his production with Liriano plus add the likes of Hughes/Wang in addition to Cano, Tabata you have a much stronger team.

Bobo,

"And, I don't think Phillips or Lee were in the class that Hughes is in now - so it's tough to compare the offers. I always loved Sizemore, but he wasn't _as_ highly regarded then. Phillips was the key to that deal, and he had question marks too"

You don't? I come from a line of thought that says a surething hitting prospect is a safer bet that that of a pitcher and I believe Phillips was one of the most highly regarded prospects in baseball. A pitcher who is a 'sure thing' often times doesn't have the MLB career planned where hitters seem to have a better shot at obtaining that. I can name hundreds of pit who didn't live up to their potential due to injury or just not having it where hitters will oftentimes atlest provide some results. Afterall, how many 5 tool sure thing 2nd basemen are there in comairison to pitchers.

That being the case and since both are/were at the top of the ranks I think they match up pretty well. Since Lee was something like 7 on their lists and sizemore was touted as the possible best of the bunch and was ranked like 3 I think it was a pretty good bounty and that Min would have to expect much more than just Hughes, and I mean MUCH!

Hughes, is a good pitcher and could have a great career ahead of him but its such a gamble taking a pitcher as if he will be a savior. The burnout rate of pitching prospects is so high and I believe most of the star pitchers with a history of results were either not a high ranked guy to begin with or were given up on long before they got that success. I think if it was only pitching prospects in return there would have to be a few which were just as highly regarded...

Just my thoughts though...
And remember Johan is much better than Colon was!

First off, I'll admit that I am probably a _bit_ biased towards Hughes, as a Yankee fan. But I'm looking at what he's done so far, and there is just no negative you can possibly find in his performance. I honestly can't remember any prospect who looked this good, from a pure statistical standpoint.

I know those guys were up there, and Phillips was a BA top 10 prospect in 03 or so, but he didn't show much power in the minors, didn't have a great eye, etc. - BA does tend to overrate toolsy players a bit - I think his rating was based more on that.

I don't think Lee was ever ranked that high - I think he was Montreal's 2nd or 3rd best prospect (and best pitcher, probably) but not 7th in baseball.


Agree totally on the fact pitchers that totally burnout are common, but I think hitters with poor strike zone judgment are too.

I guess I just think Hughes is really in another class. Reasons I could be wrong:

1) Yankee bias
2) small sample size
3) possible minor league park factors? haven't looked at this


I'm curious if anyone has some comparable pitchers to Hughes - I'm having a hard time finding them. Josh Beckett, perhaps. Maybe someone with a BP subscription can post his PECOTA comparables?


Oh yeah - agree too on Santana vs. Colon - I think the package for Colon for 1.5 years is reasonable for Santana if he were traded in 2008.

First off, I'll admit that I am probably a _bit_ biased towards Hughes, as a Yankee fan. But I'm looking at what he's done so far, and there is just no negative you can possibly find in his performance. I honestly can't remember any prospect who looked this good, from a pure statistical standpoint.

I know those guys were up there, and Phillips was a BA top 10 prospect in 03 or so, but he didn't show much power in the minors, didn't have a great eye, etc. - BA does tend to overrate toolsy players a bit - I think his rating was based more on that.

I don't think Lee was ever ranked that high - I think he was Montreal's 2nd or 3rd best prospect (and best pitcher, probably) but not 7th in baseball.


Agree totally on the fact pitchers that totally burnout are common, but I think hitters with poor strike zone judgment are too.

I guess I just think Hughes is really in another class. Reasons I could be wrong:

1) Yankee bias
2) small sample size
3) possible minor league park factors? haven't looked at this


I'm curious if anyone has some comparable pitchers to Hughes - I'm having a hard time finding them. Josh Beckett, perhaps. Maybe someone with a BP subscription can post his PECOTA comparables?


Oh yeah - agree too on Santana vs. Colon - I think the package for Colon for 1.5 years is reasonable for Santana if he were traded in 2008.

hehehe, so easy to double post with this site huh?

So anyway, first I meant Lee was like 7th in their system at the time and was I think the second highest ranked pitcher they had - not positive though.

As far as the hitting prospect thing I think back to the early 90s when such surethings as Jeter, A-Rod, Nomar, John Orlirude (can't remember how to spell it for some reason :/ ), Sheffield, JuanGone, The BigHurt, Manny, JR, Shawn Green, Chipper, A.Jones, etc were coming up. Of course there were the Kevin Mass', Rubin Riveras and Dwayne Hoseys but for the most part they are names everyone knows even today. Some others were Kendal, Hudley, Greg Vaughn, JT Snow and a couple others who did produce good numbers for a few years or more even. Almost all of them had some success, many are future hall of famers and all but a few will be remembered...

There were a lot of pitchers who never made it to the bigs or only got a cup of coffee though (VanPop, Brien Taylor, D.Nied, T.Saunders, Bill Pulse...whatever, etc. There were also guys like Issy, Brian Anderson, Daryl Kyle and Steve Karsay who didn't get their success till later. Come to think of it I can't really think of many pitchers who got and sustained their success instantly outside of maybe BlackJack. Some guys had a minor bit of success like Wilson Alveraz and some were given up on by a team before they acheived it like Pedro and The Unit. All in all not too many of those 'sure things' will be remembered 10 years from now though...

Point? Pitchers are tough to call. Sure you could be holding onto a Prior but your Prior could also be a Jaret Wright, where your JohnnyD. is more likely to be Damon or atleast E.Burks than a Billy Ashley.

Oh, and I'm not sure what his minors stats look like and I'm on my phone so I can't really check too easy but I did look up D.Willis the other day and was pretty impressed by the sub 2 ERA for two straight years and even though his first year his ERA was a bit higher his other stats that year were impressive. He might be one to compair to...

Ha, yeah - I hate this format, but whatever.

re: Lee - oh, ok - absolutely - I think he might even have been higher - I think he was in the top ~30 in baseball one year.

I definitely see your point, but there are a lot more hitters we forget about too - your names reminded me of the guys in the "top rookie" subsets of baseball card sets in the early 90s - and there are a ton more busts.

But yes, I absolutely agree that pitchers are harder to predict. But as for pitchers who were successfully quickly and sustained it, just off the top of my head there are guys like Mussina, Zito, Oswalt, Hudson, Haren, Mulder, etc.

But anyway my main point is that I can't find pitchers with minor league numbers quite as good as Hughes. Obviously they're out there, but I'm just having a hard time finding them. Beckett is a good comparison, and Mussina's close, but less dominating.

I'm sure there are guys with similar numbers who have failed too. The only one I can find, ironically enough, is Sam Militello (remember him?).

I looked at the guys you mentioned, but they're not that close, and some had special circumstances like Nied (drafted by Colorado), Taylor (freak injury), etc.

Most of the guys were heavily hyped, and had great arms, but just weren't as good as Hughes, usually because they had control problems (eg Van Poppel, Kile, Alvarez, etc.).

Even Jaret Wright was a phenom (no doubt helped by that playoff appearance against the Yankees) and had some immediate success but had serious control issues.

Anyway, that's all - I'm totally guilty of getting caught up in "prospect hype" - I would always think "there's now way this guy can fail", but it's hard not to predict great things when you see those numbers AND hear the comparisons to Clemens, etc.

Oh, I didn't see your Willis post. He's close but not nearly as dominant. His control was a little better, and otherwise they're similar. Anyway, I'm not the biggest Willis fan (mostly due to his not-great strikeout rate and slipping control), but still he's been very good, and I know he doesn't have the pure stuff that Hughes does.

BTW, Verlander looks like a decent comp, albeit in half as many minor league innings.

If the twins chose to trade Santana I wouldnt think they should trade him for minor league talent. I think they are going to be asking for a major league stud. I think a trade with the yankees makes a lot of sense if we're talking something like hughes and cano. Of course the yankees would need to sign santana long term first.

As a cubs fan I think I am allowed to dream....

Pie, Hill, Murton...I would give those guys up in a heartbeat for santana. Maybe they would ask something like Pie, Hill, Veal, and Patterson?

Is that even semi-realistic?...I doubt it but as a biased cubs fan it seems semi-realistic to me.

Bobo- If Dtraint has better control than Hughes, and everything else is simliar how is he not nearly as dominant?

Sam Militello (remember him?).
... Hahaha, another Yankee 'great'

Re: "Mussina, Zito, Oswalt, Hudson, Haren, Mulder, etc"
... Yeah, Mussina is another good example who I didn't think about but the others were a bit late for the timeframe I was taking. I also didn't think about the Atl Corps, but I'm not sure how much of their success came from staying with the Braves and if they would have kept it up elseware (like Avery dropping off the map once leaving) Smoltz and Glavine did keep their numbers great from the get-go though, as did Maddy.

Other than those guys can you think of more? So far we have Maddux, Glavine (although wasn't Tom kind of average for his first few years?), Smoltz, McDowell and Mussina - there has to be atleast a few more though... I guess we could add Pettite and maybe Nagy but I don't think they were top prospects and rather crept up on everyone, besides they both kind of struggled throughout times and their value was increased more because of the teams they were on. I can think of another flop though - Hipolto Pichardo or whatever his name was. Oh and Ben McDonald! Or Stan Belinda anyone? Willie Banks... Denny Neagle (I guess he did have some success and a huge contract year)...

I guess my point is that it seems a lot harder to think of pitchers from a given timeframe that had good careers after all the hype than the hitters, and even some of the failures as far as hype goes for the hitters were pretty good to great at times or had long productive careers (Mondesi, Cruz JR., Karros, Lankford, Brian Jordan, Alou, etc)

--- sidenote on your continued success pitchers of 'Mussina, Zito, Oswalt, Hudson, Haren, Mulder, etc'. 4 of those 6 are from Oak and the 2 of those 4 who have left lost that success rather quickly when removed from the Bay. Just thought it interesting ---

"your names reminded me of the guys in the "top rookie" subsets of baseball card sets in the early 90s"
... Hahaha, tell me about it, I kind of thought about it as I was posting the names and I can picture atleast a card or two of each of them...

Oh, and there are more names which didn't get the success predicted as far as hitters go, but its much harder to remember some of those than all the pitchers that tanked. I can think of guys like Chad Curtis and Brian Hunter. Jose Offerman, but he did have a long career. Desheilds and Grissom had ok stats although not what was expected. Larry Walker was helped by Col, as were Bichette and the BigCat. Henry Rodriguez was to be something. Oh and Marc Newfield! As an Indian fan there is Mark Lewis and 'hittin Whitten', infact we had a ton but I'm not sure if some of their hype was because of my biased attitude towards them... On the flip I remember Alan Benes and Jason Bere just the same for the pitchers though...

Lastly, it might actually say something that you are having a hard time finding pitchers who had success after numbers like that in the minors!

You know, I'm thinking McGriff, Delgado, the Alomar brothers, Bernie Williams, Matt Williams, Joe Randa, Fryman, Chuck Knaublach, Dye, Durham, Klesko... Most of the "hyped" hitters had really good careers looking back 10-15 years later...

Ok, flip side I did think of Jerome Walton who is one of the biggest flops. Scott Leuis also comes to mind...

OK, first off, I think the big key that everyone is missing is Liriano and 2008. I really don't see the Twins dealing Santana for these reasons:
1) Liriano is back in 2008. Santana thinks the world of the kid and I really get the impression that he wants to form the best 1-2 punch in baseball history for a few years with him.
2) With Liriano back in 2008, and Mauer/Morneau/Cuddyer/Kubel/Bartlett/Garza/Bonser/Slowey a year older, the Twins know they could have a very, VERY special year. Imagine that staff, with probably the best two pitchers in baseball (Liriano and Santana) and a more mature Garza, who was just named Minor League Player of the Year last year. That is a FILTHY staff, especially with that bullpen and the best closer in baseball in Joe Nathan. In fact, the Twins are probably the FAVORITES to win it all in 2008 with Santana and Liriano leading the team. If they win it all, that's a huge revenue stream to keep them afloat for a year or two before the new stadium fund windfall kicks in in 2010.

I really think Santana will stay and get extended, but with that being said:

IF the Twins dealt him, I think they'd really try to trade him to the NL. They know that they are set to make playoff runs with their stud young pitching for the next decade or so, and why would you want to have to go through the best pitcher in baseball every year in the playoffs? Of course you wouldn't.

Also, just for a for instance:

I think from the Yankees it would take something like Hughes, Tabata, Wang, Sanchez, and Cano or another bat. The Twins love Wang and have wanted him for a while, they'd expect at least one of Hughes/Sanchez to fail, and Tabata being so young is no sure thing. Cano and Wang would be the only "sure" guys in the deal for the Twins. It's a lot, but I really think that's what it would take. Remember there would be EVERY other team fighting for the best pitcher in baseball too.

But again, I just don't see it happening. He, Liriano, and Garza will be forming the best 1-2-3 in baseball history starting in 2008, and for at least a few years. Scary thought for the rest of baseball, so get used to it.

Ok so sitting here and out of bordem I figured I would see what type of % of top prospects have the careers expected. I found a site with the top 100 for each year since 90 and took the top 10 pitchers and hitters. I also didn't take a player twice as some guys were on the list multiple years and I wanted to cover as many players as possible and get a good idea of the percentages. Here is what I found:

1990 hitters:
S.Alomar, Eric Anthony, Jose Offerman, Willie Ansley, Todd Ziele, Greg Vaughn, Tom Goodwin, Robin Ventura, Ty Griffen, Ray Lankford
1990 pitchers:
Steve Avery, Roger Salkeld, Ben McDonald, Charles Nagy, Pat Combs, Darryl Kile, Mike Harkey, Julio Machado, Kiki Jones, Mike Stanton

1991 hitters:
Tino Martinez, Mark Lewis, Ivan Rodriguez, Ryan Klesko, Mo Vaughn, Reggie Sanders, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Costo, Greg Colbrunn, Gary Scott
1991 pitchers:
Todd VanPopple, Julio Valera, Rich Garces, Anthony Young, Brian Barnes, Mike Gardiner, Gerald Alexander, Rafael Valdez, Kirk Dressendorfer, Mike Linskey

1992 hitters:
Wil Cordero, Marc Newfield, Chipper Jones, Reggie Sanders, Mike Kelly, Raul Mondesi, Derek Bell, Royce Clayton, Manny Ramirez, Kenny Lofton
1992 pitchers:
Brien Taylor, Pedro Martinez, Saloman Torres, Mark Wholers, Kurt Miller, Lance Dickson, Arthur Rhodes, Jeff Juden, Donovan Osborne, Sterling Hitchcock

1993 hitters:
Javy Lopez, Carlos Delgado, Rondell White, Dmitri Young, Tim Salmon, Dave McCarty, Jeffrey Hammonds, Melvin Nieves, Phil Nevin, Pokey Reese
1993 pitchers:
Joey Hamilton, Tyrone Hill, Tavo Alverez, David Nied, Bobby Jones, Troy Percival, Aaron Sele, Kurt Miller, John Roper, Brad Pennington

1994 hitters:
Cliff Floyd, Alex Gonzalez, A-Rod, Trot Nixon, Russ Davis, Johnny Damon, James Mouton, Glenn Williams, Curtis Goodwin, Rich Becker
1994 pitchers:
Steve Karsay, Terrel Wade, Jose Silva, Darren Derifort, James Baldwin, Tyler Green, Ugueth Urbina, Rodney Bolten, Jeff Granger, John Burke

Now, as you can see the pitchers lists are a 'who's who' of 'who the f***' where the hitters lists have about a 50% success rate or more. I went through and counted the 'plus careers' (atleast a long steady career if not a star) as I felt them fit and this is what I got:
1990 6/10 hit, 3/10 pit
1991 6/10 hit, 0 pit
1992 7/10 hit, 4/10 pit
1993 5/10 hit, 2/10 pit
1994 5/10 hit, 3/10 pit
5yr avg 29/50 hit & 12/50 pit

Ok, so it looks as though we have about a 60% chance of a hitter having at least a good long career and a 24% of a pitcher having the same. What does it mean? Who knows for sure but at those odds I would be worried about a pitching prospect much more than a hitter... Man there are some bums on there btw :)

Also of note, the top 3 for hitters were 11/15 where the pitchers were an amazing 2-3/15 (depending on how you feel about Avery). Those 3 were Avery (couple years then out), Pedro (start kinda slow then best in game) and Karsay (success comes many years after he hits the bigs and as a middle reliever)... Not exactly a great track record!

So, Hughes might turn out to be great but the odds are about 25% chance on "top pitching prospects" even having any type of career no matter how good they seem like they will be. If you look through the lists you will also notice very few pitchers who would be considered stars by any means. Some were for a couple of years (Sele, Urbina, etc) but only Pedro really stands out as something special. It looks like most pitchers are the 'creeper' type I guess, building their success slowly instead of with flash.

I also scanned over the next couple of years and the averages is still about the same so I think its a pretty safe %. You may also realize I was kind of generous on what I called a good career for the pitchers and truthfully it might be even lower in most peoples eyes.

"Bobo- If Dtraint has better control than Hughes, and everything else is simliar how is he not nearly as dominant?"

"Dominance" (in Shandler-speak) refers to a player's strikeout rate. Hughes has a big edge. Willis has a slight edge in control, and everything else is similar. Hughes definitely has the edge in terms of minor league stats.

darkstar - interesting. You'll get no argument from me about the chances of success of a hitter compared to those of a pitcher. I'm still interested in seeing pitchers with comparable stats to Hughes and how they faired. I'll look up some of the guys on your list if I get a chance.

Now I'm also interested in seeing exactly where good pitchers come from.

Also keep in mind that I think our standards may be lower when it comes to hitters - for example we may look at a hitter who had 20HR and 80RBI for an extended period and call him a success, and see a starter with an ERA of 4.50 and not be impressed, while both are pretty much league-average. Not to imply that most of the pitchers on that list were anywhere near league-average though.

Ok, so I looked a little bit more and some stars do start cracking the lists a bit more starting in about 97 and of the 40 or so pitchers on the top 100 list about 7-10 have pretty good to great numbers for atleast a couple of years. I will posts the names in a bit...

Also back to what started this portion of this thread, at the time of the Bartolo deal Phillips was #7, Lee was #18 and Sizemore hit 42 just after the trade on the top 100 lists I found so I would think Johan would comand three top 50 prospects at the very least...

Ok, so I was kind of generous on listin some of these guys but here goes:
1991:
Mike Mussina 45th, 17th pitcher
1992:
Trevor Hoffman 83rd, 32nd pit
1993:
Kevin Rogers 67th, 27th pit
Tim Worrell 73rd, 27th pit
Trevor Hoffman 78th, 31st pit
1994:
Rick Helling 80th, 29th pit
Darren Oliver 95th, 37th pit
Brian Anderson 86th, 32rd pit
1995:
Chan Ho Park 46th, 16th pit
Billy Wagner 51st, 17th pit
Paul Shuey 61st, 21st pit
1996:
Bartolo Colon 9th, 3rd
Billy Wagner 10th, 4th
Jeff Suppan 17th, 7th
Jason Schmidt 18th, 8th
Kerry Wood 55th, 22nd
Jaret Wright 72nd, 29th
Chan Ho Park 81st, 31st
Matt Morris 88th, 35th
Danny Graves 90th, 36th
1997:
Kerry Wood 6th, 1st
Bartolo Colon 8th, 2nd
Carl Pavano 18th, 7th
Kris Benson 20th, 8th
Jaret Wright 21st, 9th
Livian Hernandez 23rd, 10th
Jeff Suppan 28th, 11th
Chris Carpenter 31st, 12th
Matt Morris 41st, 17th
Roy Halliday 51st, 19th
Kelvim Escobar 61st, 23rd
Danny Graves 62nd, 24th
Sidney Ponson 90th, 35th
1998:
Kerry Wood 2nd, 1st
Kris Benson 10th, 3rd

Carl Pavano 11th, 4th
Eric Milton 19th, 7th
Matt Clement 41st, 15th
Roy Halliday 77th, 30th
Jarrod Washburn 79th, 32nd
1999:
Roy Halladay 11th, 4th
Matt Clement 14th, 5th
Brad Penny 17th, 7th
Mark Mulder 37th, 13th
Odaliz Perez 38th, 14th
Kris Benson 57th, 21th
AJ Burnett 71st, 28th

So you can see there are some stars in there, most were a 2-3 year wonders though and the stars often had to build up their success over time. The next couple years also saw Sheets, Beckett and Prior crack the top 10 and CC and Mulder in the top 10 of pitchers.

There are a couple noteworthys in Gagne 41/15, Zito 54/20, Oswalt 44/21, Peavy 61/28 & 31/12 and Zambrano 30/12 & 72/29 as well as some good arms making a quicky...

"Also back to what started this portion of this thread, at the time of the Bartolo deal Phillips was #7, Lee was #18 and Sizemore hit 42 just after the trade on the top 100 lists I found so I would think Johan would comand three top 50 prospects at the very least..."

Which goes back to my idea of starting a trade proposal with Delmon Young, and Scott Kazmir...

Yes I guess I was rude to the Pat Kelly guy didn't realize he was a guy who had never posted on here before I was bitching more about the fact that people keep touting Melky Cabrera as this great player who can be used in trade proposals to get awesome players in return when he is nothing but a 4th outfielder.

My bad and whatnot.

love looking at these old rumors.

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.