Johan Santana Rumors: Saturday

Tim, I know he has a Full NTC but how serious was he about not going to the West Coast? And has there been any discussion as to why? I mean I would think he might like to play on the Halos.

At least George had some class. Hank is more like a 7th grade school girl clamoring for attention.

I don't' see how the Twins could trade Santana to the Red Sox for those packages. Neither Lester or Ellsbury is likely to be a star (unlike Hughes) so they might as well just hang on to him. I think he's going to end up with the Yankees since he means more to them then to any other team -- why do the Red Sox really need him, they proved they can win without him?

Hank is a fit heir to follow in the footsteps of his dad - the "Boss" of the poorest run team in all of sports. He has already presided over a team that spent over $250 mil to win one playoff game. That's right in line with almost 700 mil to get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs over the last three years. Is there another team in sports that , if given that budget, would have achieved those abysmal results?

Funny how the 'poorest-run team' in all sports is also, by far, the most popular of all time. From a pure business standpoint, all that matters in the dough. And believe you me, the Yankees are ROLLING in it. And with their new stadium in 2009, they'll be richer than ever.

At any rate, seeing that Ellsbury and Lester in the same deal is 'out of the question' is great news to me - since that means the Sox have no shot at Santana, unless the Yankees take Hughes out of the deal. Personally, I hope the Mets empty their already meager farm for Santana and continue to go right on losing. Now they are, truly, in the running for one of the worst-run franchises in baseball.

First the Poorest run in all of sports in unquestionably the Chicago/St Louis/Phoenix Cardinals in the NFL. Peroid! The Bidwell family absolutely has no clue. They make the 2 headed Steinbrenner monster seem like freaking Einstein.

But back to Santana... The team that gets Santana is the team that puts what the Twins feel is the best package, and who Santana approves the trade to and the extension they offer him. We can speculate all day on who we feel is better prospects but it’s ultimately up to Smith and the Twins who they like.

I personally hope the Twins decide to lock him up themselves. They get a new stadium in 2010 so they will ultimately have him at current salary in 08 and new salary in 09 before they get some more revenue. Locking him up will allow them to take their time getting Lirano healthy. Then they can really make a push in 09 just in time to sell season tickets for their new stadium.

If there was a salary cap in baseball the Yankees would devolve into total mediocrity or worse. They would be just like other New York teams that have to abide by a salary cap in New York, the Rangers, Knicks, Giants, Jets, etc. For them to have to actually evaluate talent and spend wisely would be a disaster.

So you're going with a homegrown mentality, you know, to stay under the cap?

Youkilis, Papelbon, Pedroia, Delcarmen....Then later on Ellsbury, Buchholtz, Lester.

Or

Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Cabrera, Cano, Wang, Pettitte (who in a salary cap sport would not have such high salaries, along with the rest of baseball)

then later on: Duncan, Hughes, Joba, Ramirez, Ohlendorf, Veras, Kennedy, .

You're right, the Yankees are the only team who wouldn't survive on their 14/25 homegrowns. It's THEIR fault. THEY are the only fraudalant team.

Funny considering they didn't even have the highest payroll in the 90's or before that. No talent evaluating whatsoever, good post.

"Hmm, if there were a salary cap in baseball, the Sox would never have been able to acquire Schilling, Beckett, Lowell, since Manny would be eating up most of their allowable salary. Funny how these things work."

Very true - they would never have been able to acquire those players. They would have actually had to play some of their young players. The true indicator of baseball competency then would be how they evaluated talent and assembled a winning team. They wouldn't be looking at Santana right now, but instead they would be assembling a team around Ellsbury etc., and wisely allocating salary cap salary.

"The true indicator of baseball competency then would be how they evaluated talent and assembled a winning team"

Again, what's your point in regards to the Yankees? Even with a salary cap, without the ability to trade, there would be no Randy Moss on the Patriots, or many of those other players. I'm failing to see what your point is when actually given the facts about the high majority of players on that Yankees roster.

Oh, you can add Igawa to the "bought" category, that should help you sleep at night.

I favor a salary cap, but having one wont have as much effect as people may wish it to...

If one was instituted right now, it would probably be set around $120 million, and would only effect Boston and New York for the most part.

There of course would always be players who would sign for less or renegotiate to help the team thus allowing a lot of the deals Boston made to still be possible.

Baseball players are only greedy, because theres no cap on how greedy they can be.

Not to mention this isn't football with a 16 game regular season. This isn't Basketball or Hockey with an 82 game schedule.

This is a 162 game schedule and all stadiums are different sizes and have different levels of popularity.

Why SHOULD a team that draws 4 million home fans and is essentially in a tie for first for road attendance through the season, have to use the same amount of money as say, the Marlins, who have a bigger stadium, yet draw 1/8th of the home attendance, have no regional network and have an owner unwilling to spend?

I agree, a minimum payroll is more necessary.

Gnick, you seem unable to grasp the fact that most of the money spent on the Yankees is just extending their own talent/through trades. How much of that money is through free agency?

History is history, do you want a breakdown of the 7 years before that?

If not, what's your point exactly? The Yankees fail when spending a ton of money? Don't you SUPPORT the Yankees failing? What's your problem?

Vince Mercandetti you seem unable to realize that the fact the Yankees spend four and half times more than the Marlins and still win less championships means they are a poorly run organization. Or at least have been over the past few years.

By your argument, 26 teams have been poorly run since 2003. Winning the World Series does not decide if you are well run or not. In Yankeeland it might determine their personal success or that might be their goal every year, but you certainly cannot crucify the corporation over it. The corporation is booming.

trades=FA's

You can call me Vince, btw.

Vince:

In your litany of "home grown" Yankee players it is important to note that many of them are only on the Yankees because of their deep pockets. Foreign players like Wang or Rivera are free-agent signings. Guys like Chamberlain were draft picks that dropped and the Yankees paid a lot to get them. These are not guys that the Royals or Pirates could have gone after.

But the funniest is Andy Pettitte. Home grown? Really? Gee I thought he was signed as a free agent and paid more than any other pitcher in the league (except Clemens). If he's home grown then Schilling is too.

Wang is as home grown as Matsuzaka.

Wang had no posting fee, you have an odd perception of some things.

International drafting is as much a part of scouting as the major league draft. Matsuzaka was a free agent that involved a contract and a posting fee. Wang is still in arbitration and involved no money to "talk to". Just like Schilling is as much a homegrown as Pettitte, right?

You are missing the point. Those players that were draft picks fell to the Yankees because of contract demands, so money was a deciding factor. The same is true for a lot of draft picks on the Red Sox and guys like Andrew Miller on the Tigers, too.

Free agent signings of foreign players is also largely driven by money, whether it's Matsuzaka or Rivera or Tabata or whomever. Yes these players are home grown in a way, but it's not like Jose Contreras had any chance of going to the Brewers.

I don't get the Pettitte thing. Yeah he was home grown before. But he came back because he got a contract that made him the highest-paid pitcher in the league. He would have played in Nome for that dough.

I'm a Sox fans and the same criticism apply. It just seems silly to hear Sox or Yankee fans boast about their farm systems when those are advantaged by money just as much as any big name free agent signing.

"If New York wanted to, they could trade Jeter, Damon, Abreu and Posada tomorrow for prospects, cut their payroll and have mostly homegrowns..."

This just isn't so - there is no market for these players if high ceiling prospects are expected in return - and that is even if the Yankees ate the vast majority of the contracts. What is being discussed is whether or not the Yankees are a well run baseball team (not corporation). How would they fair if they were subject to the same fiscal limitations that the majority of other teams are subject to? How can a team spend $650 to 750 mil in three years and never get out of the first round of the playoffs? If they turned a profit I guess that is a good corporate strategy. If you spent that money to field a World Series team - more money in one year than playoff teams that went much deeper into the off season spent in three years, than that is incompentency.

My point is this:

Yes, the Yankees give major drafting bonuses to their draft picks, they are able to sign the picks that a lot of other teams are not. They can sign guys like Pettitte when they go to another team. They can sign A-Rod. If they wanted to, I'm guessing they can extend Santana.

That is how big market teams, like the Red Sox, like the Mets and to a lesser extent the Angels, operate. The Yankees build their farm not on high draft picks, but on picks that could not be signed somewhere else because Boras is their agent, or they demand too much, or think they are that good.

Just like how Oakland can get rid of their team right now because they are small market and their players are all cheap and get draft picks in return to rebuild and three years from now have a force, the Yankees can sign expensive draft picks and buy anybody they want in free agency. Do they use free agency as much as people would like to think? No.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't argue on one hand that the Yankees don't evaluate well and then complain because they can spend money on draft picks. What would you like them to do? You're the owner of the Yankees, what is your strategy? Develop players and let them go to other teams while your fans pay 27 dollars for "cheap" seats?

Not sign international draft picks have them develop in the minors before being promoted while your regional netwrok rakes in hundreds of millions? I don't see how you make any sense, whatsoever.

Your argument is with a salary cap the Yankees are terrible. Well how do you know that? With a salary cap, Andy Pettitte isn't looking for 16 million because 16 million for a pitcher doesn't exist. Manny Ramirez doesn't leave the Tribe for 100 million. Giambi doesn't replace Tino.

It's such an arbitrary argument to begin with. Is your point that the Yankees overspend?

Have you ever read the book, Moneyball? Other teams and players don't negotiate with the Yankees unless they do things like pay off Abreu's no trade clause. Big market teams don't get treated the same way, not in the draft, not in free agency, not by agents, owners, or draft picks.

If there was a cap, there is no big market (though with the vast differences in money at each stadium, there should not be), if there is no big market, you have no way of knowing how any team adjusts. It's like saying "this stree is closed from now on, go find a different way to work". It makes no sense. The Yankees, the Red Sox, these teams are build for big market, they are designed that way and rightfully so with all the money we spend to watch and see them.

Other teams' fans don't relate to that, they can't. Football stadiums are ALL overpriced. I watched a 1-14 team play and the tickets were 130 dollars face value (two of them). You simply cannot make this argument to begin with.

Now, had I said Matsui was homegrown, you can throw Matsuzaka and Okajima at me, those are the same circumstances, Wang and Cano and Cabrera, are not.

If I had argued Proctor for never pitching for any other team except the Yankees, despite being developed elsewhere, then you can argue Varitek, but I did not.

"Is your point that the Yankees overspend?"

The point is that the Yankees do get the cream of the minor league picks because they are financially able to, they do sign the best of free agents to meet their needs because they are able to, they can trade for a player who another team can no longer afford because they are able to, they can pay huge posting fees or out bid others for Cuban players because they can afford to and yet they still can't get out of the first round of the playoffs. Is that a well run team?

The Marlins draw 7,000 in a stadium that isn't even their own. Their owner pockets luxtery tax and the Yankees pay out to MLB and the rest of the league through luxery tax and revenue. Carl Pohlad is a billionaire, the Twins could easily have a 200 million dollar payroll and a new stadium with a retractable roof in Minnesota.

They are not on an even playing field and deservedly so.

Claiming the Yankees get the best draft picks is complete crap. They get some that would have gone higher but the best players in the draft still go to the worst teams in baseball, usually. If the Yankees got the best draft picks, free agents and international players, the Marlins would never have had Pudge, Beckett, Penny, Willis, Delgado or anybody else to win their championship, same with Brown, Leiter etc before that.

"and still win less than the Marlins" 1-0? Fine, you're right, everybody except the Red Sox, White Sox, and Cardinals spend their money unwisely and are poorly run. They all spend more than the Marlins and none have win as often as the Marlins since 2003. Forget about the 100 years of baseball before that, the 26-1 or 4-1 while the Marlins were in existance doesn't matter whatsoever.

And people say Yankees fans live in the past?

How about the 86 years of spending the Red Sox did before their 2 championships? Was that money poorly spent? What about 2006 and 2005? Or is that some sort of rebuilding that doesn't count because it's the Red Sox. If the Yankees win in 2008 is all of this forgotten? Then was it 7 years of rebuilding while staying competitive? Will they get credit for that like the Sox are for being brilliant, by paying a ridiculous fee for a 3 starter, trading for Beckett, paying Schilling,paying Manny, paying Lugo, Drew, Crisp, Okajima, Wakefield, Tavarez and everybody else who chipped in?

It's amazing how a team can spend 100 million in an offseason on one player, win a world champioship and then THE YANKEES get crucified for not winning a title AND for having too high of a payroll. Yet if the Yankees win, then what? They did their job but it's not fair?

"They have 4 world series in 13 since 96."

Should say they have 4 world series out of 12, not 13.

Yankees generate money, they should be allowed to spend it, they pay for a lot of teams out there, they can spend it on themselves too.

Red Sox are the same.

The Yankees are overpaying for their guys, (A-Rod, Posada, and Rivera) they could have got them for less, all of them and not risen the bar for lesser teams, that is poor, but other than that, who cares.

"And if there was a salary cap in baseball the Yankees would be in last place."

3 words come to mind. Stupid, Unsubstantiated, Ridiculous.

You couldnt prove this, because there is no salary cap. Why shouldnt the Yankees use their money. Shut up and stop crying. Why are you arguing over this anyway. Its not the Yankees fault that they have an incredible product that people all over the world want to see that makes them billions of dollars. It is nice to see that they actually invest this money back into their product to try to make it as good as they can. You guys are fucking insane.

"Yes,m they are, and who has more world series then the Yankees?"
History
"Who has more world series in the last 20 years then the Yankees."
History
Three three in a row - over $200 million spent - can't get past first round.
Fact

Stop living in the past. One additional suggestion - when you can't substantiate your argument with intelligent discourse it really makes you look childish when you start acting infantile.

Yes, I am indeed living in the past. The Yankees are among the top 5 or so things that I hate in life, so there goes your homer Yankee fan arguement save your time. I hate them, but saying a team is a horribly ran franchise because you hate them, when in actuality they are the best franchise in the history of sports, it tends to look stupid on your part.

Calls me 13 years old in the same post that he calls me nerdmax88. That might be the most ironic thing I have ever seen. Seriously, nerdmax88? That is like something that a even 2nd grader wouldnt find funny. Anyway, I guess game, set, and match to me on this point because usually when somebody counters my point by talking about my family and so creatively altering my username into the bellybusting piece of humor that is "nerdmax88", it means they have nothing more to add. Atleast you could have used the nerdmax88 joke in the midst of making a point, but I guess that would require too much brain power on your behalf.

I am not sure who mentioned this but yes Carl Polhad is a billionaire, but as has been mentioned multiple times this is a Corporation/Organization. Just because he is rich should he pay out of his pocket to have a $200M Payroll? He has a market that is very small. The city of Minneapolis is only something like 373,000 People. So the immediate market is vastly greater than what Minnesota has to work with. The Yankees can draw from 20M people to fill their stadium. The Twins have just over 3M in the entire Minneapolis/St Paul and suburbs. So it’s NOT fair to compare.

The Twins do what they can with what they have, and I think the do a pretty damn good job. I think if the staff of the Yankees traded places with the Twins staff, the small market Yankees would suck. But they have a big market and can do what they do, so they do it. Its time to get past it and think what should be doing to try to make things more competitive.

I personally think the Luxury Tax should be there and lower than what it currently is. But I also think that the Marlins, Rays, etc... Should have a minimum as well. Anything that is given to the small market teams in revenue sharing has to be spent or given back. This will still allow the small markets to make a profit but they can actually retain some of their homegrown talent or things they get in smart trades.

I don’t think the Yankees are the best franchise in sports history. I can’t say who is. I think that the Yankees “brand” is huge and is marketed very well. But again they have advantages that other teams do not have. I do however think that good Yankees/Red Sox teams are good for baseball. Fans watch on TV, and then they can get better National TV contracts which ultimately help the small market teams.

So just root for your favorite team and root for Baseball as a sport. It’s the GAME that we love or we wouldn’t be on this dang website daily and allow Tim the chance to give up his day job to keep feeding us our Baseball Crack. There isn’t much sweeter than a 6-4-3 DP, unless you hit in to it.

Calling them the best franchise ever isnt nearly as much of an overstatement as calling them a poorly run franchise. They make the playoffs and win the division nearly every single year. What more can you want. The playoffs are a crapshoot. Making the playoffs is a success. They also make tons of money, so it is ridiculous to call them a poorly run franchise because they havent won a world series in 7 years.

You guys are pretty silly…

Organizations as a whole will vary in how they are run as the years go on. I cant say I’m doing a horrible job with, say, a Train-Track producing company just because my business and profit% is not as high as it was in say the 40’s-50’s when trains were much more a necessity and popular amongst the population. On the flipside, the Yankees (or other longstanding hugemarket clubs) can not take credit for things like attendance/team-popularity etc if they are so heavily affected by things which are not controlled by the current front-office in any way, shape or form ~ ie the geographic (huge tourist destination with largest population already) and since we are talking about a sport which creates a following/loyalty situation, the teams past success. How many people wearing a Yankee hat today to a game played in KC are doing so because they were a Yankee fan 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years ago when they lived in the area or because they grew up following that team at that time? To say that their attendance/popularity is so high because of how well this current FO is running the club is almost laughable. Their road attendance specifically is deceiving because of the fact that past-success and a tradition of winning has left many locals showing up to see them get beat or root for a longstanding favorite team from their childhood. Their recent vulnerability can enhance this on both sides really…

For a fairly similar comparison to what I am saying above, look to the Dodgers. A team which is a favorite around the world because of past success, and one which draws huge amounts of people despite not winning really at all the last 20 years. Strong road attendance, strong popularity, huge market to draw from… This team could be run by chimps (and seemingly has been from time to time) but can still claim its flourishing based off those rather uncontrolled circumstances...

The only real gauge of how well a team is being run would have to be factored between stuff like:
A) How much they spend
B) How much they spend compared to the division they are in
C) How much they spend compared to teams with similar success rates
D) Success
E) Success vs success of primary competition / division
F) How the money was spent with regards to depth it provided
G) Amount of on-field production for money ~ ie, are they often overspending for guys
H) Drama produced from within organization (as silly as it sounds, but this shows an un-organized management structure at the top quite often ~ again see Dodgers circa 1990-1995.)

Now, sadly the recent Yankees organization is not doing very well in almost all of these categories. They are lightyears ahead of the next closest spender, and that next-closest is even lightyears ahead of the 3rd-5th highest spenders. They are spending more than the bottom 3 clubs in their division combined ~ not a good sign; and 25% more than Boston which has had more recent success. Similar recent success rates can be found in teams like Atlanta, Oakland, Minnesota, etc (teams making 1st round consistently but struggling to advance) ~ all teams with much, much lower payrolls (infact the three combined generally made pretty close to what the Yankees paid). They aren’t spending the money very well, this is evident in the consistently overpaying players and amount of contracts which they are in essence just eating while getting very little to no return on their investment.

Conclusion ~ where the franchise historically has been run very well, the recent state of the franchise is much less than one would anticipate. Sure, you can say things like “well going deep in the playoffs is a crapshoot” ~ which is really only semi-true and when played against the percentage odds vs the supposed talent levels they should have provided better recent success. Even if they do somehow go against the odds and consistently struggle in the playoffs despite the talent ~ they shouldn’t be able to escape it so consistently in the regular season. The last time they really ran away with the best record in the AL was 2003 ~ 5 seasons ago now; and they have only had the best record in the AL 1 time in the last 3 despite consistently being lightyears ahead of everyone else with the salary. Oh, and they are not even being beat out by the next highest spenders here a good chunk of the time, smaller market teams are also providing better records or beating them in the playoffs. To top it off, they play so many of their games against some of the worst teams around in Balt and TB while still not getting huge regular-season results with that gigantic payroll. This team, based off salary and strength of the rest of the division should probably easily win 100G a year ~ which they did in the first half of the 2000’s, but couldn’t even reach the last three years.

Can I say they are a horribly run franchise ~ no, because that such a global, longter-term situation. What they are is a franchise in a rather large downward spiral, and they are no where near what they have been as of even the last 3-5 years. With payroll not going down but the team going into a semi-rebuild the next year or two it doesn’t seem the trend will end anytime soon. By 2010-2011 maybe the team’s on-field production will again match the resources available to them ~ and that would actually be a result of the current FO’s efforts. What we do know for certain at this time, the low-point as far as the results seem to go has to be considered the management teams activity 2-5 years ago ~ the FO of that time is what has put the team into the situation they have been for the last 3… We will have to see what todays management will truly be able to produce ~ but based off obvious bad contracts like the Posada and Rivera deals and the questionable public displays and way of conducting business… well, those arent really a good sign… It’s a great franchise overall, but the last few years will go down as quite a blemish…

Front Offices, scouting, coaches, etc all cost money, but how much? All that, I am guessing, cannot cost more than 10-15M per year. If teams are required to spend the revenue/luxury tax money they still have merchandise, local TV contracts, ticket sales, plus money earned at the stadium to pay these costs.

Even the Marlins if they average 8,000 people per home game, at $20 per ticket still pull just under $13M in just ticket sales. You can’t tell me that Jeffery Loira isn’t making money. If the Devil Rays weren't also turning a profit why would they have recently been sold? So while I agree with everything you said Dark, I still think there can and should be a minimum.

BTW Dark, Nice post on the Yankees. It was very well thought out and accurate IMHO.

There isn't much I can argue in your last post. Other than the $13M covering the coaches salaries. I Joe Giardi signed for $2M per year with the Yankees. I cant imagine his salary was more than that in FL. But I see your point and even agree.

I know teams like the Twins have great scouting. I know they spend a good bit of money on scouting and player development. I also know this isn't cheap. I guess we wouold need to know actual costs to have an idea.

On your suggestion for pooling all profit and divying it up how do you judge what a team makes? Would money from the YES network and the Mets/Nets networks etc.. also be included? Just curious what your thoughts are. I am all for competitive balance, but I dont want the NFL type of product either.

Just to throw my two-cents in:
For a while I really wanted Johan Santana to be a Yankees next season. However, the more I consider the possibilities, the less I like them. I agree that using Phil Hughes, Joba, and Ian Kennedy as half of the projected 2008 starting rotation is risky. I will be one of the first to say that relying on prospects is a risky business, one that might come back to haunt the 2008 Yankees. Bryan Cashman likes to say prospects are suspects, and I cannot agree more. But I have to consider all scenarios, and the Madden article(http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/06/2008-01-06_owners_should_think_twice_before_signing.html) really changed my thinking. I think signing Johan to a 6-7 year contract extension would be a huge mistake for the Yankees. While the thought of Johan in pinstripes is tantalizing, and has the potential to work out great in the years to come, the fact is that the odds - and history - are not in the Yankees favor. The key word in both scenarios is potential. Phil Hughes, Joba, and Ian Kennedy all have the potential to be stars. Johan Santana has the potential to be a star for the Yankees. But there's also the possibility of him blowing out his arm in July and never pitching for the Yankees again. (-cough- Carl Pavano -cough-) If I were in Brian Cashman's shoes, I would tell Hank Steinbrenner to shut the -beep- up, and say no to the Twins demands, even if it means Johan goes to Boston. The risks of a long-term deal are equal to the risks of relying on three unproven pitchers. The price the Yankees would have to pay to acquire Santana, in terms of players, money, and length of contract, is just too great.

-end book here-