 |
|
|
| |
« Brewers Looking For A Closer | Main | Morning Yankees Rumors »
Santana Has Full No-Trade Clause
The fine Cot's Baseball Contracts site indicates that Johan Santana only received full no-trade protection for 2008 if he finished top three in the Cy Young voting. However, I do not believe that is accurate.
There are multiple reports from good reporters with solid sourcing indicating that Santana has a full no-trade clause. There's Kat O'Brien, Buster Olney, Michael Silverman, and Joe Christensen all saying it's full. It's safe to assume that Santana controls his own fate and can kill any deal. Perhaps he'd just want compensation to waive the clause, or perhaps he'd demand a record contract extension worth over $20MM per year.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e20105349eca2f970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Santana Has Full No-Trade Clause:
Comments
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
What's not accurate about Cot's?
"full no-trade clause for 2007-08 with top 3 in CY vote in 06 or 07"
Santana won the Cy Young in 06, hence the full no trade clause.
Posted by: xaseq | November 24, 2007 at 12:42 PM
"Santana, meanwhile, likely will veto any trade agreement unless he is signed long-term as a condition of the deal, according to a source with knowledge of his thinking."
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7480346
he isn't going anywhere without an extension.
Posted by: Kramerica Industries | November 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Santana didn't get top 3 in 07, so he can only block a trade to 12 teams. According to cot's...At least that's what I got from it.
Posted by: MarkEllisforMVP | November 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM
It seems like Santana isn't asking for too much from the Twins. He wants what, 6/120 or so? If he doesn't move far from that deal (unless he goes to a rich team like the Yankees that he can bleed for more money), then it might very well be worth it to trade talent for him, and get the best pitcher in baseball for an expensive, but not crazy contract (compared to Arod, for example).
Posted by: Guitar Hero | November 24, 2007 at 01:02 PM
"full no-trade clause for 2007-08 with top 3 in CY vote in 06 or 07"
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/minnesota-twins_17.html
just like xaseq he has full no trade protection according to Cot's
Posted by: Kramerica Industries | November 24, 2007 at 01:02 PM
TD,
Cot's is 100% accurate here:
"full no-trade clause for 2007-08 with top 3 in CY vote in 06 or 07"
Santana finished unanimously 1st in CY vote in '06, giving him a full no trade clause for '07-'08.
Posted by: zubes007 | November 24, 2007 at 01:18 PM
The way it's typed in it looks like if he's top 3 in Cy voting he'll have the no trade clause for '07 and '08. But my guess is that he'd have to be top 3 in each previous year to have a no trade clause for the upcoming season. If that were the case he loses his full no trade clause due to his poorer than normal second half over this last season (when I ponied up for his fantasy numbers). Then it would revert back to the previous where in 2007 he'll be able to block a trade to 10 teams and in 2008 he'll be able to block a trade to 12 teams.
I believe personally that this isn't the time to trade him because the big boys aren't fishing hard for starters this off season. The Twins will drag this out longer. And I also am torn as to whether he should accept Minnesota's 20M offer for four years beyond his current contract. He's worked hard to get to this point where he has the chance (his last one) to sign his biggest contract.
But on the other side, that's more than fair of Minnesota to give four years and 20M per. Having owned him this year, I'm surprised no one has referred to the loss of a few mph on his fastball. He has a great compact delivery that repeats every time, but he isn't dominating like he did the second half of each year previous to this last one.
Posted by: HeadFirstSlide | November 24, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Imagine if the Angels can land Santana They would have Lackey, Escobar, Santana, Weaver, Garland without including Joe Saunders. That rotation says championship even without Santana.
Posted by: angels fan | November 24, 2007 at 01:55 PM
this could be one of the more interesting parts of the offseason if santana does have a full no trade clause. it could end up being that a team like the dodgers offers the best prospects but the trade doesnt happen because santana doesnt want to pitch there. Or it could be that a team like the dodgers has the prospects to land him and he is willing to pitch for them, but a deal doesnt go down because the dodgers dont want to sign him to an extended deal that he requires. so in essence, it could be a team with lesser prospects that lands him because he can choose where he wants to go not only by destination, but by a team offering him the money that he wants. so the question at that point becomes should the twins take the package of lesser prospects from that team now, wait and see if things change by the trade deadline, or let him walk and get draft compensation for him. interesting, very very interesting.
Posted by: integr96 | November 24, 2007 at 02:03 PM
I think Santana would shut up if he goes to a contender and gets his money he would go.
Posted by: angels fan | November 24, 2007 at 02:09 PM
I think only Jake Peavy would be the guy to match-up Santana's salary. The difference between the both is that Santana is greedy for money, Peavy is not and thats why I think we have a shot at resigning him this offseason.
Posted by: Franco | November 24, 2007 at 02:27 PM
In a strange way Santana's no trade clause will actually help facilitate a trade this off-season.
I agree that the only way he waives it will be if the new team signs him to a huge extension. Knowing this, the Twins better not gamble with holding on to him until the trading deadline. Will the Yanks still be interested if Hughes/Joba/Kennedy are all making significant contributions? How about the BoSox if Buchholz and Lester live up to their hype?
My point is, there are teams right now that want to make a deal. No guarantees there will be the same kind of interest from teams that can afford him 6 months from now.
Posted by: bjsguess | November 24, 2007 at 02:49 PM
I agree with bjsguess. I don't see this no trade clause as an issue as any team looking to give up the farm should be smart enough to try to negotiate an extension at the same time.
Posted by: tmar | November 24, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Santana DID finish in the top 3 for the Cy Young Award. That's how he has a full no trade clause. Get your info right!
Posted by: spencer_hong | November 24, 2007 at 03:47 PM
How is Santana greedy? The problem was the Zito signing. Now every ace-caliber pitcher is going to say, look, there is no way I'm worse than Barry Zito, so I just want a fair contract, and that's 18-19 million a year at least.
Peavy has already said he wants a fair contract and he doesn't think the Padres will pay up, so it'll most likely be the hot topic next season(it's not this season because he has 2 years left and the Padres aren't in a hurry to trade him yet).
Posted by: zs190 | November 24, 2007 at 03:56 PM
"I think Santana would shut up if he goes to a contender and gets his money he would go."
Really going out on a limb there arent you?
Posted by: nrmax88 | November 24, 2007 at 04:12 PM
What makes Santana greedy... because he wants to be compensated as the best pitcher in baseball, which he is? He's been underpaid for years... and hasn't complained... with his free-agency upcoming, he has every right to leverage that to play for the team he wants to at the salary he's long deserved.
Posted by: DrewB | November 24, 2007 at 04:37 PM
I get the point how you think he has been underpaid but I think baseball players deserve 25 MM at best and even the best pitcher isn't worth 25 million a year. How can you complain you aren't paid what you are worth in a job that you do it once a week, do it 6 months and get paid the travel and stuff? Hell even A-Rod isn't worth 30 MM to me. Santana is at best a 16-17 MM player and I think thats what the market should be like. But I can understand Santana's point of view as they are the teams' fault for paying the players way too much.
Posted by: Franco | November 24, 2007 at 05:08 PM
I said it in another thread, but its at the bottom so I'll say it again here...
I think the Twins should trade Johan to Fla for Miguel Cabrera! Here is how I see it taking place:
Min gets Cabrera and replaces him with Liriano in essence. Cabrera instantly becomes the huge bat they need at a position they have a hole for 1-2 years before he becomes their DH. The production lost from Hunter is then easily replaced and them some. End results is a team with better offense than last year and possibly not much lost in the rotation because of Liriano. They lock up Cabrera with the money they were willing to give Hunter/Santana…
Fla gets Johan, instantly making their rotation respectable. They then trade Willis (because they don’t need to try to force him to be a ace anymore) for a 3B and CF prospect somewhere (maybe Cleveland for Marte & Francisco). They lock Johan up for years as the “face of the franchise” and he is a much better “face” then Cabrera or Willis to try to get people interested in… The main reason they wont lock up Cabrera is the question on what he will be a couple years from now with that weight and all right? Willis is because of the questionable numbers every so often as if he isn’t focused… Johan is still only 28, in amazing shape with a great mind-state and would be going to a pitchers park (until they move) ~ there is no reason not to make him your one guy to lock up…
…I mean, it would never happen, but I love the idea…
Anyway, back to your conversation...
Posted by: darkstar1661 | November 24, 2007 at 05:23 PM
"How can you complain you aren't paid what you are worth in a job that you do it once a week, do it 6 months and get paid the travel and stuff"
Because you don't get paid for how often you work.
Posted by: DrewB | November 24, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Not to mention though tht this job is baseball. All he has to do is throw a baseball from a mound and he's complaining that 15 million a year would not be enough for him.
Posted by: kevybo1 | November 24, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Actually, that's not all he has to do. There are quite a few guys who "throw a baseball from a mound".... and no one does it as well as Santana....which is why every team that can afford him is clamoring for him.
On the surface, of course it sounds ridiculous for a person participating in a game to make upwards of $20m.... but it's a game that generates billions .... why shouldn't it's best players be compensated proportionally.
Posted by: DrewB | November 24, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Kevybo1
Arguing that baseball players are paid too much is like arguing that Bill Gates makes too much money.
Its the condtion of the system, and as such, baseball players are entitled to make as much money as they can. If i was a baseball player, especially one of his Caliber, I'd be asking for for 25 million a year, because i know the guy that writes my check is making 10 times that on a yearly basis, and without me, he doesn't have a product.
You want baseball players to make less money: then stop paying 40 dollars to get into a game(not to mention the 20 dollars per person on food and drinks and souvenirs).
Stop buying the products from the companies who pay for advertising at baseball games and on tv/radio/etc... during baseball games, or use baseball as any part of the marketing at all.
Its a Free Market. And in this Market, the Sellers are setting the price. Santana has something to sell, namely himself, and he's going to sell himself for as much gosh-darn money as he can, and i don't blame him one bit.
Its still America's Game: its America that has changed, not baseball.
Don't talk about the old-days, cus the old days are gone and they ain't coming back. Guys don't have second jobs in the off-season. And not to mention, would you really want it to go back to that, where guys basically did zero-conditioning, didn't take care of their bodies etc...the game would be even slower!
That's why i don't care if guys are on steroids, uppers, downers, whatever: I could care less. I know what I am paying for: to watch something thats exciting. And yeah, thats worth 60 bucks a head to go to a game to me.
I'm poor and I'm not complaining. It is what it is.
Posted by: tmichalski | November 24, 2007 at 05:53 PM
Also: If players were paid less, if Baseball Insitutued a Price Celing for Players Salaries, do you think the owner groups would lower prices?
Are you out of your mind?
Might as well go to the players, there the ones doing the work.
Posted by: tmichalski | November 24, 2007 at 05:54 PM
quiet day of the offseason
Posted by: angels fan | November 24, 2007 at 06:44 PM
BrewCrew ~ stop posting that every hour! We get it already...
Posted by: darkstar1661 | November 24, 2007 at 07:32 PM
darkstar -
Trading one expensive star for another solves neither teams salary issue.
Posted by: greenbaydude1232 | November 24, 2007 at 07:37 PM
ahh, but it suits their huge needs and it it would be someone they would spend money on to keep if they were smart. They both have the money, they are just both trying to spend it wisely on parts they cant replace easily or with huge long-term questions...
...besides, I was throwing it out there because it just makes a ton of sense and is fun to think about ~ not because it would ever happen.
Posted by: darkstar1661 | November 24, 2007 at 07:48 PM
brewcrew12333:
thanx for that link. you are my new God
Posted by: maximumpotential | November 24, 2007 at 08:37 PM
where is it??
Posted by: maximumpotential | November 24, 2007 at 10:58 PM