Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MLB Hotstove 08
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And no prospects given up.
That's an interesting ending spot for Santana. It makes sense for the Mets, but it sure looks like the Mets got the better end of the deal. From what I've heard on the radio driving home from rehearsal, the Mets' offer wasn't as good as the Red Sox. Curious.
Reminds me of the Frank Viola deal with the Mets where the Twins got Rick Aguilera, Kevin Tapani and three others. Hopefully Liriano can come back sometime in '08 and the Twins can contend.
The Twins really dropped the ball on this one, The Yankees and Red Sox both had better offers on the table then the Mets had and they chose to try to get more. When the Yankees dropped out it really hurt any bargaining the Twins had. The only team that loses here is the Twins. The Yankees and Red Sox keep there prospects and the Mets trade away a lot of no name talent to snag Santana.
the santana trade could be cancelled. met fans, don't start getting cocky too fast, because it could come to bite you very soon...
and jesse jackson had attacked mlb again. more details here.
and jesse jackson had attacked mlb again. more details here.
What team in their right mind would give Santana 7 years. I agree with the Mets here.
Rather then investigate the umps why not look at what the players are up too.
Have you seen the games the umps have called last season. It is obvious that they are not doing anything illegal, they are just blind.
Rather then investigate the umps why not look at what the players are up too.
Have you seen the games the umps have called last season. It is obvious that they are not doing anything illegal, they are just blind.
I hold to the theory that it's almost always a bad deal to trade young position players or prospects for pitching. If the pitcher you get blows out his arm, the team has given up players who can't be replaced easily, and will have nothing to show for it. At least with free agents, the team can insure his salary against injury, and they lose only the injured pitcher if he goes down.
Santana seems to have a big ego that is getting in the way of reality. Im not so certain that even if the Red Sox made a trade for him that they would be able to afford him. The Yankees could do it but I don't think they want to give him that much. Santana has to realize that he isn't going to get what he wants. Pitchers are much more of a risk then position players. Look at Pavano.
Pitchers are more of a risk, definitely.
But none are more reliable right now than Johan.
Not only have the Twins protected him from high pitch counts, but he's also fairly young.
Johan is no Carl Pavano.
There's really no comparison anywhere.
This is the best pitcher in the major leagues.
And for reference, Barry Zito:
Seven years at $126 million.
Ego or not, if I am Johan I look at that deal and say, pony up people...or I reject your trade as is my right and wait for free agency where someone will be happy to pay market value for him.
A big reason the Sox were hesitant,is that we would be giving Santana around 25mil/year.The feeling was that wouldn't go over well with Beckett, who has proven himself with team/ownership/clubhouse..
I wasn't a big fan of getting him for the simple fact.Who was the last lefty to win 20 games pitching in Fenway--Mel Parnell?Hurst and Lee never won 20.
The Green Monster has traditionally been the death of LHPs
Exactly. Zito was considered to be one of the best starters in the game when he landed that deal. Has he been worth it, so far?
At least the Giants didn't give up players and prospects to get him.
Zito is no Johan.
Not even close.
Zito was simply not one of the best pitchers when he landed that deal.
But you know who was the best pitcher in MLB when Zito signed that deal? That's right, Johan Santana.
Zito didn't even finish in the top 7 for Cy Young in 2006.
Nor did he finish in the top 7 for Cy Young in 2005.
Nor did he finish in the top 6 for Cy Young in 2004.
Nor did he finish in the top 7 for Cy Young in 2003.
In fact, in 2003, 2 teammates (Hudson and Foulke) finished higher in the Cy Young balloting than Zito.
He simply was not one of the best pitchers.
What he was, was one of the best available.
Two very different things.
Johan is not only available, but is also the best pitcher in the major leagues over the last 5 years.
Jake Peavy may be ready to surpass him, but right now I still take Johan as the best pitcher in the game.
Santana is getting too the point of no return, he won't be effective for 6 years straight without some fatigue. He is not a 21 year old ace anymore. One wrong move and something pops and his career is over. Zito was over paid, no pitcher is worth 150 for 6 years.
...
Do you follow Santana and how the Twins have used him?
This is Johan's classic line:
7 IP, 90-100 pitches. 2 runs.
They simply never overworked him.
Never.
He may be the freshest 29 year old pitcher in the history of the game and he has no injury history.
He was the most sought-after free agent starter available last year, and he did win a Cy Young, in 2002, and has been an all-star several times.
And, FWIW, I am not making a direct comparison, only responding to your argument that if Zito was worth $126 million for seven years that Santana must be worth $150 million for six. As I said before, the biggest problem I have with the deal is the position players the Mets are prepared to sacrifice for one starter who could break his arm tomorrow. He could be the greatest pitcher ever and not be worth that kind of risk, IMO.
Johan's CAREER numbers at Fenway:
ERA: 7.20
W-L:1-3
That plus a 3.97 ERA and a post season record of 1-3..In 4 postseason starts vs. the Yankees, he scraped out a 1-1 record. In 2003, his ERA against the Yankees in the postseason was 7.20..Toronto can beat him. He has a 7.44 era versus them in three years. And a 5.68 versus Baltimore.
And the Sox are supposed to give up Ellsbury and Lester/Bucholz for those numbers?No thanks....
ERA: 7.20
W-L:1-3
That plus a 3.97 ERA and a post season record of 1-3..In 4 postseason starts vs. the Yankees, he scraped out a 1-1 record. In 2003, his ERA against the Yankees in the postseason was 7.20..Toronto can beat him. He has a 7.44 era versus them in three years. And a 5.68 versus Baltimore.
And the Sox are supposed to give up Ellsbury and Lester/Bucholz for those numbers?No thanks....
You're not seriously arguing that those small sample sizes mean anything, are you?
You want numbers?
How about Jon Lester's career 4.68 ERA and a 1.566 WHIP in 144.3 IP?
How about Bucholz and his 22.9 career IP.
Shall I make you a list of pitchers who have combined for fewer than 200 career IP who never won 20 in a season, who never won a Cy Young, who never won an ERA crown or a strikeout title.
Ellsbury? Sure he's exciting, but the guy has 116 career AB!
You're talking about not wanting a 29 year old 2 time cy young winner in his prime because of 3 players who have combined for 177.2 IP and 116 AB?
You're nuts.
I know the Bagwell for Anderson deal stings but seriously, you need to get a grip on overvaluing prospects.
Santana's performance is already declining (look at his numbers last year). You'll get more value out of Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz and Masterson over the long term for FAR LESS money (like $120 million less over a few years) than you would get out of Santana. Oh, and what would happen if Santana ****ed up his arm? Then you'd be screwed because you gave up all your prospects and are paying a ton of money and getting nothing.
Besides, we already have the best pitcher in the game.
Heh.
Shouldn't you have won at least 1 Cy Young before you are considered the best pitcher in the game?
And you're talking about Santana like he is the one with the injury history.
Take a look at Beckett's medical chart sometime.
Trivia question:
How many times has Josh Beckett started 30 games or more in a season?
Answer: 2
How many times has Johan Santana started 30 games in a season?
Answer: 4. Including two 34 start seasons and 2 33 start seasons.
Beckett is only 1 year younger and yet he has nearly 300 fewer IP in his career.
I know you'll view everything through the lens of winning the World Series, but the bottom line is that the potential trade for Johan would make far more sense than the trade they actually did to get Beckett.
All the arguments you are making against Johan applied but even moreso to Beckett. He actually had an injury history and was coming from an extreme pitcher's park in the NL.
His 5.01 ERA in 2006 is a testament to his trouble adjusting.
But hey if you need to make yourself feel better for not trading for the best pitcher in the last 10 years, then by all means, say what you need to.
Yes,I'm serious.Why is that such a shock? You can make all the lists,copy and paste all the stats you want. In relation to the "Best pitcher in the last ten years",that "small sampling" is against the division he'd be pitching in.Which is kind of important,IMO.As I pointed out, his numbers in Fenway are awful. Which isn't a suprise for lefties..He struggles against the AL East,which again,is the division he'd be pitching in if he came to Boston. I prefer not to look at total overall/career stats (which can be skewed by pitching against weaker teams).I like to break them down a little better. And over his career,he's struggled against the AL East..Again,a somewhat important fact IMO...And I have a fine grip on valuing prospects...