« Erik Bedard Rumors | Main | Pirates Have Multiyear Offer Out To Sanchez »

Johan Santana Rumors

By Tim Dierkes [January 25, 2008 at 9:46pm CST]

UPDATE, 1-25-08 at 9:46pm: According to LEN3: I was told today that next week is a big week in terms of determining if and where Santana will be dealt. The end is in sight, then?

FROM 1-25-08 at 9:30am:

Time for your daily Johan Santana rumors post.

LEN3 talked to a Twins official who said there had been no recent extension talks between Santana and the Twins. Meanwhile Sid Hartman at the same paper says the Mets and Yankees won't go seven years, and he think the Twins' 4/80 offer is fair.

Neal says that while Santana won't necessarily veto any trade reached after Spring Training starts, it's in everyone's best interest to avoid dragging it that far.

The Mets are still reluctant to part with Fernando Martinez, seemingly the dealbreaker right now. Aaron Heilman could enter the mix though.

Neal believes the Yankee/Red Sox offers from December are still on the table. This has been my hunch as well. Which is why I think Boston can still pull this off.

If no deal can be reached soon the Twins might have to sign a stopgap CF like Corey Patterson or Kenny Lofton.

Buster Olney on Johan's warning signs: I talked with evaluators and scouts with three other teams since then, and they all saw the exact same thing in Santana: diminishment in velocity, relatively few sliders thrown, subpar (for Santana) performances. But two of the three believe the regression could be attributed to the Twins not being in the race, Minnesota not playing in a high-adrenalin situation, and Santana coping with a cracked nail. The third evaluator wonders, too, if Santana is OK. "If a deal is made, you could see there would be a complete physical, given the money involved," said the evaluator.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010534c7b3cd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Johan Santana Rumors:

Comments

There's a reason Sid Hartman doesn't have a blog like Joe Christensen and LaVelle Neal. Instead of "Around the Majors" or "Twins Insider, they'd have to call it "I'm too lazy to do any research and the only real sources I've ever had have died years ago, so let me just tell you what I dreamed up last night".

There's absolutely no point in even linking to any column he writes. I was among those hoping maybe the Twins would seriously talk to Santana and his agent about an extension, but now that Sid's written that he's on board with that idea, I realize there's absolutely no chance of it being the case.

Posted by: JimCrikket | January 25, 2008 at 09:47 AM

Amen brother .....

Posted by: Dee Edge | January 25, 2008 at 09:49 AM

Boston won't make the deal also because they will not give Santana a 6year deal worth $20 million a year plus all the prospects.
Teh team with the most need are the Mets adn they'll end up ponying up whatever it takes

Posted by: Revilo | January 25, 2008 at 09:50 AM

Yeah, all this crap about the offers diminishing is bogus. They're probably just saying that but I think if the Twins said we'll do it for their December offer, they would take it in a second.

Posted by: johansantana17 | January 25, 2008 at 09:52 AM

You're right, the Mets are most desperate and probably the most willing the give up what it takes (a seven year contract and F-Mart).

Posted by: johansantana17 | January 25, 2008 at 09:54 AM

The Sox dont want this deal. They were only in it to drive the price up. if they wanted Santana this deal would have been done months ago.

The Yanks are going to get him for a deal sans Hughes. Cashman played this perfectly.

The Mets dont have the prospects to get this done in any way without offering Reyes.

Posted by: Dave Polands Gut | January 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM

I totally disagree. If Cashman "played this perfectly", it's because he never wanted to make the deal in the first place.

But I see no way the Yankees get Santana without Hughes in the deal. The Twins will keep him before they'll make a deal like that with the Yankees. They'll certainly take a Mets deal before anything with the Yankees that doesn't include Hughes, if for no other reason than it gets him out of the AL.

Posted by: JimCrikket | January 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM

"The Sox dont want this deal. They were only in it to drive the price up."

"The Yanks are going to get him for a deal sans Hughes."

So the Red Sox want to drive up the price but they would let a Yanks deal without Hughes go by without trumping whatever meager offering it may be? I don't see that happening.

If the Sox goal was to drive up the price, would they let the Yanks pay 50 cents on the dollar? I don't believe that, and judging by your post, you don't either. You just need to think about it for a minute.

Posted by: Mr_Punch | January 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Sorry, that was just stupid. The Yanks don't get this done without Hughes. I do think that they and the Sox have pretty much made it clear to the Twins where their line is (the Yanks won't include Kennedy and Hughes, the RS won't include Lester and Ellesbury), and it seems like they both want Santana, but because of the extension won't put the extra player in. The Mets need Santana, and I suspect the Twins are waiting to see if they break over F-Mart.

My suspicion is that if any of the teams (Sox/ Yanks/ dark horse) gets publically back in the race the Mets will give in. In which case the Twins have played it perfectly. Otherwise the Twins will pick, perhaps pretty soon (before Spring Training) between the three offers.

So, my prediction? I think either the Mets bend (most likely) or the Sox get him for the Lester package.

I see a LOT of negotiating over salary if it's the Sox though - and I don't think it's a done deal that he'll take the extension and sign.

And I'm a Yanks fan.

Posted by: Lockie | January 25, 2008 at 12:11 PM

This might be a stupid question, but who is Neal (I'm from the UK, so sorry!)

Posted by: Lockie | January 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM

If the Sox were in it to get actually get Santana this deal would have been done in November.

The Yanks called their bluff. The Sox do not want any part of Santana. Money or prospect wise.

And the Mets prospects are a joke. The only reason they are even talked about right now is to get the Yanks back to the table.

Posted by: Dave Polands Gut | January 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM

"The Yanks are going to get him for a deal sans Hughes. Cashman played this perfectly.

The Mets dont have the prospects to get this done in any way without offering Reyes."

No Hughes and they get Santana? That is utterly ridiculous.

As for the Mets prospects, they are just fine. Anyone remember what the Marlins got for Josh Beckett? Santana now > Backett back then, but for Hanley and Sanchez the deal got done and Lowell was basically a salary dump.

Gomez is crazy talented and compares favorably with Hanley (check out Gomez's AA stats vs. Hanley's AA stats), Guerra is going to be one of the top ten best remaining pitchers in the minors with the '08 graduations, Mulvey is a B/B+ guy, F-Mart is a stud, etc.

I'm not going to dream up a package, but anyone saying the Mets prospects that are being offered are a joke is nonsense.

You can prefer a close to the bigs package. I get that, but saying there is a dearth of talent there is silly.

On top of that, the only guys who are far away are Guerra and F-Mart who are looking like late 2009/2010 big leaguers.

Gomez could be ready 2nd half of '08 and for sure in '09 so I am a bit lost as to why he is being considered far away. Mulvey, Humber, and Pelfrey are ready right away for the most part. Mulvey might need half a season, but whatever.

The Hughes package is a joke anyway. Even if Hughes was in it, the rest is piss poor. Gomez > Melky / Mulvey/Humber/Guerra > Marquez / Whomever the Mets are giving is > whomever the Yankees last prospect is.

If you love Hughes that much I guess you can sacrifice, but I think there is a reason Smith wants more. The package blows outside of Hughes.

The Lester package still trumps all in my opinion for it's combination of ready and talented players.

RE: Reyes. I'll just repeat what Jayson Stark said. THERE IS NO PLAYER I WOULD TRADE REYES FOR.

Posted by: themetros | January 25, 2008 at 12:54 PM

This all ignores the fact that it is highly questionable for any team to give up all those prospects for one year of Santana and the right to pay him market value after that.

Dan Haren was much more valuable as is Bedard actually given their contract status. I would rather take my chances with the Met prospects and hope Santana or CC is out there after '08.

Posted by: themetros | January 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Can the Mets forget about Santana for a second and go after Bedard. Can a package of:
Heilman, Mulvey, f-Mart, Church and Guerra get it done?

Posted by: beezer | January 25, 2008 at 02:27 PM

Met fans are delusional.

The Twins dont want a package top lined by Mulvey and Humber. 2 bullpen arms.

They dont want Gomez who cannot hit.

If the Mets could get Santana for that and Martinez they would have driven from Queens to pick Johan up.

Its a pipe dream. Its what the Twins are floating to get the Yanks back to the table because they are the only serious players here.

The only thing the Mets have to offer is quantity and you dont get aces like Bedard or Santana for 6 average 19 yr olds.

The Mets dont have one prospect that is a headliner. The neglect of their farm system is coming back to bite em.

The Mets dont have 10 prospects combined worth the value of a Hughes. Make that Horne. There system is one of the 5 worst in baseball joining the Astros, Twins, Pirates and White Sox.

Posted by: Dave Polands Gut | January 25, 2008 at 02:32 PM

"The Mets dont have 10 prospects combined worth the value of a Hughes. Make that Horne. There system is one of the 5 worst in baseball joining the Astros, Twins, Pirates and White Sox."

Ha. Talk about delusional. Why take the word of people who actually scout baseball when you can impart such valuable knowledge?

Keith Law actually favors F-Mart over Hughes, Ellsbury, Lester, etc.

He even said he favors Humber over Horne and he is not all that high on Humber.

F-Mart, Guerra, Gomez, and Mulvey are better than every Yankee prospect but Joba and Hughes. Tabata and Kennedy are above Mulvey, but you can make a case for F-Mart, Guerra, and Gomez being on par or equal.

Don't buy it? Check out Sickels, Callis, Law, whomever. You can favor one package over another depending upon what you are looking for, but try and use logic and reasoning.

But hey, you seem to have your finger on the pulse.

Posted by: themetros | January 25, 2008 at 02:45 PM

"being on par or equal"

being on par or even above

Posted by: themetros | January 25, 2008 at 02:46 PM

Please excuse "themetros". He is obviously a rabid Met fan who doesnt think clearly about his teams own prospects.

Everyone with a brain knows the Mets cannot get him with the prospect base they have.

Anyone who says otherwise is a die hard Met fan who is praying too hard at night.

You dont think Omar would trade those 5 scrub prospects for Johan considering hes in the final yr of his deal????

The Twins would rather be stuck with Johan and the daily BS with his impending free agency than take a package lead by Humber and Mulvey and Gomez.

Posted by: Josh | January 25, 2008 at 03:13 PM

LOL @ warning signs, I want to drop kick Olney sometimes for being such a Yankee homer.

Posted by: HeyBlueJay | January 25, 2008 at 03:32 PM

I hope the Red Sox do pull off this trade. I want them to lose their prized outfielder, speaking as a Yankee fan of course.

I don't want to lose Hughes.
Sorry. Nope.

Petitte
Wang
Hughes
Chamberlin
Kennedy

...is a powerful rotation.

Posted by: lekman | January 25, 2008 at 03:59 PM

I am a die hard Met fan, and I wouldnt trade them Fernando Martinez straight up for one year of Santana. Or Gomez.

You make it sound like the fact that he is in last year of his contract gives him more value.

So please excuse Josh, I am not sure what type of fan he is, but he is just a moron in general, no bias needed.

Posted by: nrmax88 | January 25, 2008 at 04:01 PM

Josh....just exhibit some objectivity. I can openly admit that Lester/Lowrie/Masterson/Crisp is the best deal.

I admit that I do not agree with Law and think that Hughes is the single best player being rumored to be in any deal.

However, to deny the fact that the Mets have talented kids is crazy. They may have a top heavy system and may truly lack anything significant after the usual suspects, but they have talent.

Three guys in the top 100 and I suspect Mulvey is on the bubble. That sounds pretty good.

I would also venture to guess Guerra and Martinez in the top 25 with Gomez in the top 50.

Posted by: themetros | January 25, 2008 at 04:13 PM

"Petitte
Wang
Hughes
Chamberlin
Kennedy

...is a powerful rotation."

Whoa whoa whoa, WHAT?
So you're saying that if the Red Sox acquire Johan, the Yankees rotation can still rival it? Here's what it would look like:

Beckett
Santana
Matsuzaka
Schilling
Wakefield

Buchholz in the Wings.

Basically the Red Sox have what no team has ever had, the best left-handed pitcher in the game, AND the best right handed pitcher in the game. Then they have a guy who could, if he adjusts, become an ace for another team in Dice-K. After that you have the grizzled big game pitcher in Schilling, followed by Wakefield. And if any of those 40 year olds break down, then hand the ball to Buchholz.

Now to look at the Yankees rotation. Pettitte has those steroid allegations surrounding him, and also his age might catch up to him. Next, you've got Chien-Ming Wang who is nothing more than a 2 starter after his disastrous postseason. Then the three kids, none of which will be able to pitch more than 170 innings, which will put a toll on the Yankees dismal bullpen. Is it really that powerful? No.

Posted by: dudewheresmygrl | January 25, 2008 at 05:13 PM

Sorry, but could the Yanks match the Mets offer without Hughes.

F-Mart -> Tabata
- Both highly talented young outfielders, much too young to be at the level they are at. One could argue which has more upside and scouts have. Personally I'd take Tabata.

Guerra -> Betances
-Again two very talented young pitchers. Guerra is probably closer but Betances has more upside.

Gomez -> Cabrera
- Twins want ML ready. Cabrera already is. He is not as fast, but is a good hitter with more power potential. He could develop into a Milton Bradley or even a Bernie. But he can play now, is anyone sure about Gomez.

Humber/Mulvey -> Horne/Kennedy
- Humber and Horne both have good stuff and good potential. Both had injuries. Could be as good as a number 2. Kennedy is already ML tested (limited). Has better stuff than Mulvey and better command. Upside Mike Mussina but ready now.

No Hughes. Big package, but that tops the Mets. Plus it also does not include Jackson, Brackman or any other Yankee high level prospects.

Posted by: NJYankeeFan | January 25, 2008 at 05:25 PM

"Basically the Red Sox have what no team has ever had, the best left-handed pitcher in the game, AND the best right handed pitcher in the game. Then they have a guy who could, if he adjusts, become an ace for another team in Dice-K. After that you have the grizzled big game pitcher in Schilling, followed by Wakefield. And if any of those 40 year olds break down, then hand the ball to Buchholz."

Beckett is not the best right handed pitcher in the game. The guy had 1 good year. He has been horribly inconsistent in his career.

Santana is a Twin and the Sox package for him is not very interesting. So I doubt he becomes a Red Sox. Even so, he was about the 10th best pitcher in MLB last year and far behind Sabathia for best lefty. He was great and is still good, but he was far from the best at the end of the year and that is a lot to invest in a guy that could be on the downswing.

Dice-K. Look at the history of how Japanese pitchers adjust. Hint: they don't usually get better after the first year.

Schilling: Washed up blowhard. Just as likely to be effected by lack of steroids as any other pitcher.

Wakefield: Nice old knuckleballer. Good guy to have around.

Buchholz: Talented, head case. Stuff wise on par with Hughes. But makeup?

The Sox have a good staff, and yes it goes into the year better than the Yanks. But it is by no means an invulnerable pitching staff like some fanatics make it out to be.

Posted by: NJYankeeFan | January 25, 2008 at 05:31 PM

It's pretty obvious the Sox were just in this to drive the price up. When the Yanks didnt come up with IPK suddenly the Sox got very quiet. Really????

The Mets are being dragged into this as a pipe dream. They'd have to trade 7 minor leaguers to get it done. Even they arent that desperate.

Sucks that they have nothing in the system besides an 18 yr old pitcher and an 18 yr old OF'er.

Posted by: LesterFreed | January 25, 2008 at 08:22 PM

"I am a die hard Met fan, and I wouldnt trade them Fernando Martinez straight up for one year of Santana. Or Gomez. "

This is why nobody values your opinion highly. That was a retarded statement.

"Buchholz: Talented, head case. Stuff wise on par with Hughes. But makeup? "

What about makeup? Are you referring to the laptops he stole in high school? According to scouting reports he has ice water running through his veins.

Posted by: themfightnwords | January 25, 2008 at 09:57 PM

Some people need to check their homerism at the door.

Tabata over F-Mart? Really? According to Baseball America, F-Mart is the 23rd top prospect in all of baseball. 23rd.

Your ignorance shows. Do some research before you try to discuss baseball with the grownups.

Posted by: JerseyMetFan | January 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM

I loved all the bias comments in here.

Posted by: Barroid_Bonds | January 25, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Is this the longest group of ignorant awful posts in row this website has ever had? It might just be.

"Buchholz: Talented, head case. Stuff wise on par with Hughes. But makeup?"

head case? I love saying baseless annoying crap too. I randomly make references to the fact that Derek Jeter sodomizes kittens. However people know I'm kidding, you sound like you believe your utter crap.

Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | January 25, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Since when is Humber/Mulvey the same as Horne/Kennedy? Just look at what they've done in the minors. Kennedy looks like a solid mid rotation starter right now, and Horne just had a great year (i.e. sell high).

As a Yankee fan, I really dont want to see any of the Big Three leave, especially Hughes/Joba, so why not offer a package like Kennedy/Horne/Cabrera/Marquez? That would give Minnesota 2 guys to plug into the roster this year (IJK and Melky) plus two guys that are somewhat comparable to Mulvey/Humber (probably a little less than the two Mets). I find it hard to believe that this wouldn't at least cause Minny to balk at NYM's offer, because they wouldn't be that much different.

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM

I bet adding AJax or Tabata to that or subbing one of them for Marquez would get it done, but I'd rather not do that.

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Yes, seriously, that was about the most bias look at comparable packages I've ever seen.

I'm a Twins fan, and no way in hell do I take that package over the Mets' package. And I don't even like the Mets' package as much as EITHER of the Sox packages. Those are still the best 2 to me. The best combination of readiness/upside/likely to reach it. The only thing that has me thinking Mets is because of just how good that Sox rotation would be.

I have to agree; that would be the best ever. I don't think Beckett is the best RH pitcher in the game (that would be Peavy to me) but he does have the ability to be, and the Sox would have the best 2 big game pitchers in the game with him and Johan.

Those two, plus Dice-K (he is going to have a great year next year, I have to agree), and the best pitching prospect in the game in Buchholz is one hell of a filthy combination.

If the Sox got Johan, you can just start engraving their World Series rings for the next 3 years right now, because they would be nasty. Which is also why I think it's so hard to believe that they wouldn't just give up Ellsbury/Lowrie/Lester, as good as they are. The Sox lost their opportunity to seal this deal and have their dynasty.

Now, even though they DO have the best packages, I'm not so sure I want to see that dynasty and have to fight through it. Cisco should be great again, but he can't match up to that group alone.

At this point, it's in the best interests of the Twins to either bite the bullet and sign Johan and have the best 1-2 in baseball with a much, much improved offense to contend for it all, or to take a 5 for 1 from the Mets of Martinez/Pelfrey/Guerra/Mulvey/Church.

Those are the 2 real remaining options if you ask me.

Any Yanks' trade principles outside of Hughes are just not enticing in the least compared to the other offers.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM

It's kind of ridiculous to say that Humber and Mulvey are ready to IMMEDIATELY start for the big league Twinkies if traded, and yes, I've read that numerous times on this site. How about a 1st rounder with MLB exp and, I don't know, the smarts of pitching? Kennedy hits the corners and knows what he's doing, he's not high risk.

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM

1) Melky and Kennedy are not special at all. Jason Pridie could probably do just as well as Melky this year in CF for the Twins and he won't cost anything. They have him. And Kennedy might be "decent" but the Twins have a good 5-6 guys IN ADDITION to Johan that are as good or better than him. Plus Swarzak/Manship on the way. He probably wouldn't even merit a rotation spot.

2) Even if the Yanks package was slightly above the Mets (which it's not), it would make more sense for the Twins to take slightly less and deal him to the NL so they don't have to face him in the playoffs.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM

As a Twins fan I'm surprised you would take anything less than two of NYY/BOS guys. One probably wouldn't cut it. However, I fail to see why Hughes MUST be in a deal and the Red Sox can keep Buchholz. Lester is more akin to Ian Kennedy in terms of value/upside, so unless youre enamored with Lowrie or Masterson, you'd be getting ripped.

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Humber and Mulvey aren't ready to start in the AL. In fact, all of the Mets prospects have been rushed, at least in comparison to the Twins' organizational philosophy. Those guys would start in AAA I'm sure.

But I still don't think Kennedy would even crack Minnesota's rotation.

I also left out Slowey before. All of Liriano/Boof/Baker/Slowey/Perkins, and likely Blackburn would probably start over Kennedy.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 25, 2008 at 10:40 PM

In my defense, none of these trades really help Minny anyway, basically every position except left field (maybe CF and SS) and 3rd are closed tight. They dont need pitchers that are less than excellent and they dont need fielders unless theyre high upside guys. They most need Ellsbury, Hughes/Buchholz, FMart or maybe Gomez. So yes, my crappy proposal was a ripoff attempt. But so is everything that doenst include these guys.

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:41 PM

I take it you guys have never seen Kennedy pitch a full game on TV or in person as I have......

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:42 PM

.....because you dont seem to realize that control and pitch selection is more important than velocity or "stuff".

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM

I completely disagree on Lester/Hughes.

Buchholz is above Hughes. He's got a deeper repertoir and a better health history. He's the best pitching prospect in the game.

Lester is a whole lot closer to Hughes than people are giving him credit for. He was not far off from Hughes at all before the cancer and that is gone now. Hell, Lester was ranked above Hughes by BA before his cancer. He should be a #2 starter. Hughes is a backend #1, very similar to Matt Garza in overall stuff. And in fact they were 1/2 for pitching prospects in BA last season according to at least one of their main guys. Kennedy is a #4 on a playoff rotation, nothing more.

The real key is the other pieces.

Hughes/Melky/Marquez or Horne vs. Lester/Crisp/Lowrie/Masterson/Kalish breaks down like this for me:

Hughes is certainly better, but not by THAT much. Crisp and Melky are about equals, especially when you factor in defense. Crisp is one of the best defensive CF's in the game and Melky is one of the worst (with the exception of his arm). And then it's Marquez or Horne vs. a 3 some in Lowrie/Masterson/Kalish that DESTROYS the difference between Hughes/Lester.

Lowrie really should be just as good as Dustin Pedroia, who just won ROY.

I really don't think those 2 packages are comparable at all.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 25, 2008 at 10:47 PM

JD, I agree that that's all the Twins need are "stud" guys. CF/3b/SS/stud pitchers are the only real positions of future need. Ellsbury/Lowrie fit that bill. Martinez/MAYBE Gomez (I'm not high on him) fit that bill. And Hughes/Lester/Guerra fit that bill.

We'll have to disagree on Kennedy. I saw him many times at USC in person and was not impressed in the slightest.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 25, 2008 at 10:52 PM

To go one further, I've always thought Kennedy's biggest comparable was another guy with not great stuff that I saw many times in college; Jered Weaver.

And I think of him as a backend #3/frontend #4 as well. Just not a "stud" at all to me. And as mentioned, that's what the Twins need.

They have more than enough arms comparable to a Kennedy right now. They just need a #1 or #2 guy to go with Cisco until the next crop of their own "stud" pitching prospects are ready. Guys like Swarzak/Robertson/Bromberg/Burnett/McCardell (1-2 of those should pan out).

That's why at least the Mets deal makes sense in that regard. They don't get a ready player now other than Church for CF, but they do get a couple possible studs in Guerra/Martinez, plus a couple of comparable arms to Kennedy in Mulvey/Pelfrey. Plus they ship Johan to the NL, which is valuable.

Ideally if they do do that they would ship off some of the pitching excess (guys like Pelfrey/Mulvey/Duensing/Blackburn) for a true #2 or another ace.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 25, 2008 at 10:56 PM

On a side note i was sad to see Twins AA OF/DH Garrett Guzman get Rule5'd to Washington. It would've been nice to give him a shot as a backup or platoon; he's small but he hits for a high average and has average/below average power for a corner OF (15 HR ?)

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM

LOL I love people who look at career lines of other teams prospects and judge them, its hysterical. Hey guys, lets go out and pony up the 20 bucks for a subscription to BA or BP and read a scouting report.

Really, my biggest problem with the Mets farm is how they handled their prospects.

If they start Kevin Mulvey in A+ like Kennedy did and moved him up a level every two months, he probably would look almost as good right now, if not right on par. They're scouting reports read incredibly similarly. They're the same size and age, feature 3-4 polished offerings, excellent command, good mound presence, but don't have blow-away ace stuff.

If Fernando Martinez had spent the season in the FSL, the difference between he and Tabata would be much clearer.

Gomez didn't belong on the big league roster for more than a cup of coffee. Even without having a monster breakout season yet, his comps are very favorable. Melky Cabrera with more speed and defense is probably his low end projection. I got to watch him play (I was at Shea for his MLB debut), and he's absolutely electric. I get panned for saying it, but there's a part of me that would be just as happy to hold onto him and trade Martinez as going the other way around. He and Reyes could be a completely unique monster. Plus they're a good story. They grew up in neighboring towns in DR, they were familiar with each other before they joined the Mets organization.

Is the Yankee farm system stronger and deeper than the Mets? Of course. More than anything, this is because the Mets refused to slot up in the draft and because they rush their prospects. This doesn't make the good ones valueless, but it makes them look less appealing. The Mets may still have been the most successful organization in the Caribbean market in the last few years, which makes up a bit of the difference. There's more depth than there appears in the Mets system, and its balanced between the different levels pretty well, but its heavy in mid-ceiling pitchers and very light on advanced infielders.

And djskilbr, Pelfrey doesn't have the mid rotation repertoire of Mulvey/Kennedy. Those two are very similar. 6' four pitch guys with low 90s fastballs. Pelfrey's completely the opposite, although he has restrictions that make some feel he's also a mid rotation ceiling guy. 6'7" heavy sinker in the mid-90s, but all he needed to back it up in college and the minors was a weak curveball. His fastball is ace caliber, but his ceiling will be determined by whether he can ever develop another decent offering or two. The slider started looking really solid in September, but one month is hardly proof of anything.

Posted by: MEddler | January 25, 2008 at 11:21 PM

BTW, Pelfrey canned the curve and started working on a slider/change around the midway point of 2006, effectively a year and a half ago. The fact that he hasn't managed to accomplish is goal yet is an overblown criticism. Teaching yourself two new pitches is possible in your early 20s, but its rarely something that would take less than a year and a half.

Posted by: MEddler | January 25, 2008 at 11:24 PM

MEddler, I agree with pretty much everything you said on those guys. I actually like Pelfrey best of the Mets' pitching prospects, personally. And I agree that the Mets' prospects have been completely rushed. If they were in a conservative organization like the Twins, Fernando wouldn't have even hit high A yet maybe, and Pelfrey/Mulvey would have been in AA/AAA all year last year. And would start there this year I imagine as well. That definitely makes a huge difference in public perception.

I don't like the Mets' package as much as either of the Sox packages, mainly because I like Lester better than any of the Mets' pitching prospects, and there's just a lot more certainty there since all of Ellsbury/Crisp/Lowrie are really MLB players right now, and Masterson's awfully close. But I do like it better than the Yanks' package.

And I would be okay taking a Mets package just based on the switch in leagues. Again, I just really, really don't want to face a Sox staff that has all of Santana/Beckett/Buchholz/Dice-K. That would be dynamite.

But ya, overall I agree completely. It'll be interesting to see what those Mets guys do with better instruction in a more conservative organization if that deal goes through.

I'm not as high on Gomez as you, so I'm fine with him not being in the deal if all of Church/Martinez/Pelfrey/Mulvey/Guerra are. Also, how do you feel about Humber as a Mets' guy? I don't like him as much as the other 3 but I know some do. What are your thoughts?

JD, I agree on losing Guzman. Stupid loss to me. Just as we lost Cameron and Alex Romero last offseason by bad 40-man roster decisions, of which I expect less with Bill Smith, judging by his work so far. But really, I'm not sure it matter anymore since we are very well stocked in OF's now and Pridie is better than Guzman anyway. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you and Guzman may well be a decent player for the Nats if they keep him, but I don't think we'll really miss him in the longrun now. Our OF is as young in deep talent as any team right now, especially if we do the Mets' deal with Martinez.

Gonna be interesting guys.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 26, 2008 at 12:11 AM

"This is why nobody values your opinion highly. That was a retarded statement."

Would you trade Alex Gordon and Billy Butler for Santana? No, you wouldnt, and neither one of those guys has ever done shyt at the major league level. And both are atleast a few years older then Martinez. So shut the fukc up. I dont think I ever post something where you dont take something out of context and try to call me out on it. You need to hop off my nuts man. Seriously. All I ever do on here is state my opinion. I wouldnt trade those guys for Santana. I dont come on here and spout nonsense as if I represent a whole fan base. And besides, nobody values my opinion highly? Really? This coming from the John Maine abuser who has a man crush on Brian Bannister? Ironic much?

Posted by: nrmax88 | January 26, 2008 at 01:26 AM

As for the shock at the Tabata / F-Mart comparison. Tabata was 18 in the FSL and played the whole year with a wrist injury. Gary Sheffield couldn't hit for power with a wrist injury. It's not something to hold against him.

Tabata is very young and very talented. I have heard projections along the lines of Manny, but I think that is too high.

Any 18 year old prospect could become nothing, but this guy has the highest ceilling of any player mentioned, including "F-Mart".

As for Kennedy vs. Met's pitching prospects. I have never seen Mulvey but from the biased articles from Mets writers I hear he tops out around 89-90. Kennedy has a few more miles than that, better secondary pitches and better control.

If the Twins deal him to the NL for a lesser package, I'd be real happy with that. The Mets could use him and I am not sure I give up that package for a pitcher who appears to be entering the decline phase of his career.

Posted by: NJYankeeFan | January 26, 2008 at 06:55 AM

NJYankeefan, I said it once and I'll say it again, read a scouting report. Martinez had the EXACT SAME hand injury in 2007 as Tabata. Exactly the same. And he still put up a better line at a higher level.

In fact, if you read Martinez's PECOTA card, Jose Reyes and Miguel Cabrera were his #5 and #6 top comps going into 2007 (to be fair they were both up there for Tabata too, but not as high).

Martinez's projected 2010 and 2011 lines as per his 2007 PECOTA, before he swung about a bat in AA and before either he or Tabata had their hand injury:

.292/ .337 / .470
.303 / .351 / .513

Here's the 2010 2011 forecast for Tabata from his 2007 PECOTA Card:

.286 / .332 / .419
.299 / .352 / .459

Its pretty clear they thought Martinez was the higher upside player going into 2007, especially in the power dept., and if anything all 2007 did was emphasize that difference.

If you have the means (which I doubt you do), go ask some scouts who they grade higher? I'm pretty sure at least 80% of them would say Martinez.

Mulvey tops out in the low 90s. He is VERY similar to Ian Kennedy. Wanna do some more research? Check their game logs. Mulvey started the year in AA and had a tough April while Kennedy was dominating A+. After that, they're incredibly similar through July, when Kennedy was promoted and a new league had to adjust to him, while Mulvey stayed the course. They both finished very strong, Kennedy in the big leagues and Mulvey throwing 13 scoreless AAA innings, both in clinching games.

And Mulvey throws four polished pitches: fastball, slider, curve, change, and has outstanding command. Like Kennedy, none is a true putaway pitch, but they all grade out as plus offerings. If he had jumped to AAA earlier and threw those 13 scoreless innings, you'd have likely seen a 1-2 month stint with a low 2.00s ERA and a possible September callup. The same can be said for his April if he'd been in the FSL. His season line would have looked almost identical to Kennedy's.

Now I'm done doing research for you NJYankeeFan. You can start doing some yourself, or just continue being ignorant and coming off like a troll.

Posted by: MEddler | January 26, 2008 at 08:20 AM

Interesting take djs, the only thing I can really argue with is your take on Masterson. He has a ton of upside, but he may be further than you think. His career line looks very nice, but that's because he had 30 dominant innings as a reliever. As a starter, he hasn't put it all together yet. I'd say, compared to say Kevin Mulvey or Ian Kennedy, Masterson has more upside but he's further away. He could go and put it all together right away in 2008 with his stuff/size, but he hasn't done it yet.

As for Humber, I think 2008 is a make or break year for him. Its hard to tell whether or not that could be a good thing. His 2007 season line looks somewhat weak, but the PCL is extremely hitter friendly. He actually lead the league in WHIP and was 5th in Ks, despite putting up fewer innings than any of the four who were higher.

Still, his season was uneven. He started out okay, his velocity was good (low-mid 90s) and his curve looked almost like it was all the way back to the pitch it was pre-TJS. But his inning total shot way up, and by the end of the year his velocity dropped. It appeared to be mostly due to stamina loss and a bout with food poisoning around August, but its always hard to tell in the second year after surgery.

Hypothetically, if he were traded, and he was throwing 91-94 by the end of the spring with one of the best power curves you've ever seen from a non-established big leaguer, you'll probably have come away with a great bargain and a potential future #2 starter. He has big game credentials and a bulldog style on the mound. But if he's throwing 86-89 and his curve doesn't look dominant around March 25th, he could top out as a reliever/swing man. Anything in between is still possible.

Posted by: MEddler | January 26, 2008 at 08:31 AM

Meddler,

I have seen many scouting reports for both Martinez and Tabata. They vary. I have seen some with Tabata higher and some with them lower. They have similar upsides. We won't know for a few years but as an obvious Mets fan that hates all Yankees you must know now.

And didn't Martinez have a lower SLG than Tabata last year. 377 to 392. Given different leagues, but F-Mart wasn't killing the ball.

They are both young, both can hit, both have immense upsides, but no one, even raging fanatical Mets fans can tell which one will be better at this point.

I have never heard of Mulvey throwing low '90's and the article I referred to was from an extremely biased Mets beat writer drooling over him.

Mulvey seems a lot more comparable to Clippard than Kennedy. The Yanks dumped Clippard because they didn't have room for him.

Mulvey was at a 3.22 ERA (or close) to Kennedy's worst ERA of 2.59. Kennedy then came up and pitched 3 games down the stretch in a pennant race for a 1.89 ERA.

Would anyone choose Mulvey over Kennedy?

I'm not a troll, I am just not creatively selecting certain stats to try and distort my point.

Which is very clear, the Yanks could offer a better or at least equivalent offer to the Mets offer. And listen, if the Twins feel Pridie is so great, and want upside the Yanks could substitute A-Jax. They could replace Kennedy with Brackman. The Yanks have a lot of other talent, that could go in. The Mets don't.

Posted by: NJYankeeFan | January 26, 2008 at 09:32 AM

1. At least I did enough research to know that Martinez and Tabata had the EXACT SAME INJURY.

2. No, no one would take Mulvey over Kennedy. But that's due more to perception than anything else. Take April 2007 out of the equation, and they had very similar statistical seasons.

Obviously, Twins fans have said to you they don't even like an Hughes-less offer as much as what the Mets can offer, so why can't you see, an objective, neutral person disagrees with you? You can call all Mets fans crazy and ranting all you want, but sir, the same could easily be said about you.

Notice, I didn't say you were troll, I said you came off like one. What I will say you are is a spoiled Yankee fan who assumes just because something wears pinstripes its automatically better than anything in Blue and Orange.

There is no debate right now, Fernando Martinez is one of the best prospects in baseball. Tabata is close, but he's not top 20 top 30 or whatever top you want to do.

And PECOTA is not a report, its a projection. Its not opinion, its a systematic prediction. Its not some guy going "Well I like this guy better because he's a Met". Its a bunch of guys taking actual figures and metrics (including size, weight, batting statistics, etc.) and comparing them to tens of thousands of historical figures, to try and best determine what his future will be like. Does that mean Martinez will have an .800+ OPS in 2010 and 2011? No, but its a pretty good indicator of "upside". If you want to figure that out for yourself, why not go do some more research. Go check out what BA says wget a copy of the Prospect Handbook or take a look at what another projection system says. I didn't selectively choose PECOTA because it was favorable, I chose it because I subscribe to BP.

Look, I'm not accusing you of selectively looking at stats to make certain players look certain ways. What I am accusing you of is not looking any deeper than the 2007 and career lines of certain players. Check Mulvey's game log. His ERA was over 4.30 in April, while Kennedy was in the FSL. If we take those two months out of the picture, aside from Kennedy's big league innings, they look almost exactly the same. Plus Kennedy had the advantage of changing levels every time his league started to catch up to him. One thing we know, he's not 1.80-2.20 ERA pitcher. Maybe he breaches his "ceiling" of being a #3 starter, but hitters will catch up to his stuff to some degree.

Jim Callis recently ranked the Yankee farm system as fifth overall, which I'd say is fair. However, by the way you talk about every one of your upper level prospects, its like you expect them all to be all-stars. Lets try to bring some realism to our lives here people. No Mets fans here are saying Dylan Owen is the next Sandy Koufax, but go check out what he did last year.

Posted by: MEddler | January 26, 2008 at 01:20 PM

MEddler, good stuff. Thanks for the thoughts on Humber. I haven't studied him enough.

I agree with you that Mulvey/Pelfrey are BOTH at least as good as Kennedy. I've just never bought the hype in Kennedy at all. I saw him pitch many times at USC, and he's Jered Weaver to me. Who I also think is highly overrated. Those are both backend #3's/#4's on good teams, nothing more.

The Twins have plenty of those. And I would say the upside for Pelfrey is significantly higher than Kennedy, just based on arsenal/build, etc. Clippard sucks, by the way. He'll be lucky to ever stick in a major league rotation.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 26, 2008 at 02:14 PM

Oh, MEddler, I don't even think of Masterson as a starter actually. I think the Twins would groom him to be a dominant setup man or closer quite quickly. And if they did that, I think he'd be ready by 2009 at the latest. Probably the end of this season, to contribute. That's my thinking there.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 26, 2008 at 02:16 PM

Meddler,

Of course Twins fans would rather have a package with Hughes. There is something about getting the best the other teams have to offer.

Hughes was rated by most as the #1 pitching prospect in baseball. And then had a pretty good rookie year despite being rushed up and rushed back from injury.

He's the best "prospect" the Yanks have and everyone is going to want him.

The Mets package is everything they've got. So you really can't complain they ar holding anything back.

As for Tabata, you are referring to one man, Sickels. I have seen him ranked higher than Martinez and was universally so before last year. And you are right, I have never heard of Martinez's injury. Never saw it mentioned anywhere and I read too much baseball.

I'm not saying the 5 propsects I proposed are all better than the Mets 5. They are at least comparable. I think they are better overall. You disagree. Ok. But if the Mets can get Santana for that package, there is no way the Yanks should include Hughes.

Posted by: NJYankeeFan | January 26, 2008 at 02:50 PM

No prob djs, its nice to have a good, open minded discussion about prospects with someone. Must people see age 25 and his 4.00+ ERA last year and count him out. By the same token, if you don't mind, what can you tell me about Duesing and Blackburn? Similar situations? I read mixed things on them ranging from LR/swing man projections to mid-rotation starters. Was Duesing also a TJS victim?

NJ, Where did I even refer to Sickels? let alone in the Tabata/Martinez discussion. I was talking about PECOTA, the projection system of Baseball Prospectus, devised by Nate Silver. And its not an opinion. Its a systematic evaluation based on comparable players, both contemporary and historical.

Any your just plain wrong. Bring me three ranking systems that had Tabata over Martinez last year and I'll back off, but I don't think there are that many. Fernando Martinez has been a hype machine since he was signed to a record setting contract on the international market. Almost every team who had a presence in DR (which is most teams) courted him. He wound up signing with the Mets in part because of Pedro. If you want some actual sources how about this:

Fernando is a "teenage hitting machine"

-Ken Rosenthal

"It's interesting to note that when the updated PECOTA cards come out, his comps will include Jose Reyes and Miguel Cabrera, so the system doesn't know what he'll end up as either, other than really, really good."

-Kevin Goldstein

"wouldn't deal Martinez for one year of Santana under any circumstances."

"Fernando Martinez is still one of the top 10-12 prospects in the game"

-Keith Law

Posted by: MEddler | January 26, 2008 at 06:42 PM

Back at ya MEddler, I always like getting the views of a knowledgeable opposing fan on their prospects. Much more insightful.

As for Duensing/Blackburn, bear in mind that this is one fan's take, but I'm lower on them than most. BA is actually pretty high on Blackburn overall and really like his stuff. They surprisingly just ranked him the #1 Twins' prospect (not just upside of course; also more about his likelihood of being a ML contributor). And he did have a good run with the Twins last year and a good AFL.

Duensing is kind of the same thing. I think he was a TJ survivor; not positive. He's a lefty, which helps, and a lot of people compare him to Glen Perkins, which may be accurate. He also has kind of come on strong and had a good run with the USA team.

So in theory, a lot of people think both can be #3 quality starters. Personally, I'm not quite as high on either, especially in the Twins' system. I think Duensing has a shot as a 4th or 5th starter, though I'm also lower on Perkins than most. I think Perkins' best spot is as a dominant lefty reliever. That may end up Duensing's niche eventually as well. Blackburn, I see much the same way, potential for a 4th/5th starter, but probably will end up settling in as a very, very good longman for a pen, kind of what Guerrier has been for the Twins.

I may be selling them short, but that's what I see. I like both about the same as Kennedy actually, but as the Twins' rotation shapes up right now, I think it might be hard for either of them to crack it. Santana (or replacement)/Liriano/Baker/Slowey/Boof (who reportedly has lost 40 pounds this offseason to get in shape) all seem like locks for the rotation this year for me. With Perkins in the wings. Either of them could end up starting due to injury or ineffectiveness of course, but I think for the most part Baker/Bonser/Slowey are ready to stick. Slowey's certainly got nothing left to prove in the minors.

And then the Twins have a couple other guys just as good or better that are getting close and could be ready for the start of 2009 in Swarzak (who I really like and expect a big year from), Manship, and Oswaldo Sosa. I just think it will be awfully tough for Blackburn/Duensing to crack that group longterm.

The Twins just seem to have a whole bunch of arms ready or just about ready right now (that's why I don't really like Kennedy at all in a trade) while their higher ceiling guys are a little bit away. Guys like Swarzak (relatively close) and then ace/#2 potential guys in Robertson/Bromberg/Burnett/McCardell at the lower levels. Robertson's probably got the highest ceiling of any pitcher in the Twins' system and if everything breaks right, he might not be a whole lot different than Kershaw. High praise, I know, but he has that potential.

Anyway, that's one fan's take and I know it's long, but I hope that helps.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 26, 2008 at 07:59 PM

Awesome, no that's great. In fact that was pretty much what I'd figured, but a lot of Twins fans got really mad at me about it.

To be objective here too, I think there's a really good chance you find Mulvey similar to Kennedy. He's the same mold of pitcher, and he wasn't very effective at all in college until his senior year when he posted a 3.61 ERA. His ceiling is probably a step up from Carlos Silva, which is about where I'd put Kennedy too. They'll throw a ton of strikes like Silva, but they'll mix up their pitches better and have higher GB%. The benefit with either guy is that they're virtually there already.

As for Jeff Marquez, he seems similar to both, but he doesn't rank in the Yankees top 10 on BP or on Sickels list, but that's partly a credit to the Yankee farm system (although Sickels has Marquez as a C+ while Kennedy is B+ and he's undecided between B/B+ on Mulvey). My sense is Marquez's ceiling is something like Silva.

And another note on Humber in case you didn't know: He was the #3 overall pick in the 2004 draft, but after 15 pro starts and just over 70 IP he fell to Tommy John Surgery (around mid 2005). He returned to action in 2006 and had a great bounceback half season that included a 2.37 ERA in 7 FSL (A+) starts and a 2.88 ERA in 8 Eastern League (AA) starts. He added two scoreless relief innings in the big leagues to cap off his season.

When I say 2008 will be a make or break year, I mean that since he's 25, we'll probably see whether 2006 or 2007 was the aberration. Like I said, 2007 wasn't really that awful. He lead the league in WHIP, was 5th in Ks, and was tied for 6th in Wins. He really lost some stuff at the end of the season, but the food poisoning thing seemed to be pretty serious. It was horrible timing, as he was just starting to pitch really well and there were indications he was about to get called up right before it happened, but he never seemed to regain his midseason form.

He's most famous for the complete game four hitter he threw to clinch the 2003 College World Series for Rice.

I'd be careful with my expectations for Swarzack. His inning load last year was pretty light. Even if he sees some big league time it would probably be wise to shut him down some time in August, and play for him to have a nice full season at whatever level in 2009. One thing Bill Smith needs to be careful of, especially with pitching prospects, is to avoid pushing them too hard in the minors. They paid for it big time with Liriano. I do like Swarzack though, he seems like a solid prospect.

That's really my problem with the Twins rotation on the whole though. Even if Liriano is effective, he won't be stretched. Same with Perkins. Slowey is your most reliable looking pitcher going into the season, and while I do like him a lot, he wasn't exactly a stud last year in the majors. To me, this is why I'm not even sure Phil Hughes is the answer. He's not throwing more than 150 innings next year. Doing so would be incredibly foolish, taking a risk like that with such a huge investment. Even if he's there for beyond 2008, someone has to eat those innings now. This is why I was curious about Blackburn and Duensing. If they could be guys that would take the ball and give you something, you could afford to shut down Hughes somewhat early in the season if you needed to. If not, it would be a problem, and you'd almost certainly wind up putting a pretty good arm at significant risk.

Posted by: MEddler | January 27, 2008 at 01:42 AM

Oh, and another guy you should probably take a harder look at is Joe Smith. He'd be the perfect weapon against that deadly right handed Tiger lineup. If I'm Omar, and I wanted to do something like the Sox did and put two offers on the table, this would be them:

Martinez, Church, Pelfrey, Guerra, Smith

Martinez, Church, Mulvey, Humber, Guerra

Those are both good solid offers. The key for the Mets is they retain something for the upper end of their system in terms of arms. I'm a huge Guerra fan, and I hate to part with both he and Martinez, but its just the nature of the deal. Its a win now move for the Mets, a win later move for the Twins.

Also keep in mind I value Gomez much higher than the average fan (most baseball insiders seem to as well). I really think he could fall somewhere in between Jose Reyes and Alex Rios, and there's a really good chance he busts out in 2008. IMO, this is the lowest anyone's going to get to buy on him in a long time if they want him.

Also, what are your thoughts on John Maine? There's been a lot of debate between Mets fans as to whether he should be grouped with Wright and Reyes as untouchable. Personally, I think the Mets would probably value him higher than most AL teams. He works up in the zone and his style might not be very well suited for the AL. Still, he's still not yet arbitration eligible and he probably should have been an All-Star last year. If the Mets were getting Johan, I could stomach downgrading Maine to Livan. Most Mets fans haven't even dared speculate such an outcome, but couldn't that be what the Livan talk is all about? I'm just not sure others would agree with Omar on what Maine's value is. What about:

Church, Martinez, Maine, and either Humber or Mulvey?

If I'm a Twins fan I still think I'd prefer one of the five player deals, but there is more potential for a quick turnaround here.

Posted by: MEddler | January 27, 2008 at 02:04 AM

Meddler,

A very quick google search. Doesn't really turn up ones I had read previously but I don't have thte time to do more detailed search right now.

http://www.sportfanatics.net/Fantasy/Baseball/2008/SF_Future_Fantasy_Baseball_Prospects.htm (2008 Ranks Tabata as #1 prospect for 2010 and beyond. Ranks Martinez #2)

http://mlb.scout.com/a.z?s=243&p=9&c=12&nid=287&lnid=287&pid=88&yr=2006
(Mid 2006 – Tabata is #17. Martinez is 37)

http://mlb.scout.com/a.z?s=243&p=9&c=12&nid=287&lnid=287&pid=88&yr=2007
(By 2007, Tabata had moved up to 14 and Martinez 33)

http://forums.rotoworld.com/lofiversion/index.php/t510.html
(supposedly republished from Scouts Inc and ESPN for 2007 – Tabata is 10 – Martinez is not listed – haven’t searched for the original link)

And I know what Pecota is, I'm a long time BP reader and I know it does not like Tabata but it is tough to find comparables for him or Martinez.

And you are missing my point. It is not that one is essentially better than the other. They are both very talented.

The point is the Yankees can put together a very, very competitive package without including Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain. My hypothetical package was meant to mirror the Mets package.

Melky is major league ready now with good upside. He might never be more than a league average guy.

Kennedy is also ML ready.

The other guys are lottery tickets in some sense, you never know.

If they want more lottery tickets, fine. Take out Kennedy and Melky and give A-Jax and Brackman.

It still does not include Phil Hughes (and go back to those prospect listings from last year - you will see one constant in the top 3).

There is no reason to give up Hughes. The Yanks can top any offer rumored to be out there, without including him.

Posted by: NJYankeeFan | January 27, 2008 at 07:59 AM

Wow, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that the Yanks can top any offer out there without Hughes. IMO, they can't even top some of the offers out there WITH Hughes. I'd take either Sox offer over the Yanks' Hughes offer right now, without hesitation.

MEddler, thanks a lot man. That's great info. A few things:

On the Twins' guys, I'm not sure if you know or not, but he was under a 50 game suspension for drugs last year (ie drugs, not steroids) so that's why his IP were lower. You're right that they need to hold him back some though.

On Liriano, I really don't think they pushed him too much. They even started him in the pen in 2006. I honestly believe that his entire problem has stemmed from his shoulder problems early in his minor league career in SF (weak workouts, etc.) that was never solved, and that put added stress on the elbow. Now that he has gained 25 pounds of muscle, mostly in the shoulders, and has a "man's body" I really think he'll be fine. That being said, I wouldn't push him past 150-160 IP this year max, and I doubt the Twins will either. They're generally extremely conservative with pitchers. But I think there is a very good chance Liriano bounces back fully, especially with the recent reports about his velocity/movement.

Lastly on the Twins, re: innings eaters this year, I agree that will be a problem, but I do think both Baker and Bonser are ready to eat fairly big innings. Baker seemed to have finally gotten it last season, and Boof has dropped 25 pounds this season (the Twins have been wanting him to do that for years) and looks ready to go as well. So between those guys, Liriano for 150, and hopefully a fairly stable 150 innings from Slowey, that should help. Then the key will be shuffling innings between Perkins/Blackburn/Duensing/whoever they get for Johan if he's gone. Obviously if Johan stays, the IP burden is much lighter.

On the Mets, interesting on Smith. I must admit that I don't know as much about him. On Maine, I'd say that I'm in between on him. I think you're right that he might have some trouble in the AL. I'm lower on him than some, but I'm not nearly as low as others on him. I'd say he's a solid 3 or 4 in the AL. That said, I do think his value might be at its highest point right now. Not sure. I don't think the Mets/Twins would agree on his value though and so he probably wouldn't be in a deal.

I still like the Sox packages the best, but I'd probably lean towards a 5 for 1 from the Mets just because of the league. In the end, I still think locking Johan up is the smartest thing to do. His contract won't be that bad in a few years, the Twins offense figures to be better this year than it has been in a LONG time (and only figures to get better as Delmon Young matures), and you have a dominant, dominant 1-2 in Johan/Liriano, both lefties as well.

And contrary to the media/public opinion, they DO have the money to lock him up with the ballpark just 2 years away. Payroll is supposed to jump to $100 M (up from probably about $80 M this year) in 2010. I've run basically full payroll projections for the team through 2012 and it works every year to keep him. If I were the Twins I'd offer him a 5 year extension at $105 M, plus $6-7 M as a bonus for this season on top of his current $13 M, with an optional 6th year that vests based on IP or GS in the 3rd of 4th year of the extension. If the Mets/Sox/Yanks are really only willing to offer him 6 years on an extension as well, and the Twins have already offered 4 and by some reports 5 years, then 5 years with an option seems like a pretty damn reasonable compromise.

But hey, I'm not the GM, so we'll see. I'd sign him, but I have a feeling that that Mets deal will go down in a number of days.

Posted by: djskilbr | January 27, 2008 at 06:12 PM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Johan Santana Rumors

TrackBack

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Post a comment

Top Stories

Search MLBTR

MLBTR Features

Recent Posts

MLBTR Mailing List

Rumors By Team

Monthly Archives

Live Chats


Home Contact About Advertise Archives Widget Twitter RSS Usage