Comments on: Santana … why keep dancing?

By: Stillsane

Stillsane — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:46:16 +0000

I think that the Twins were likely told by Santana's agent exactly where he would consider going and what exactly he is looking for in terms of years and dollars. Santana leverages the Twins and they leverage the prospective teams to see who will panic first in this game of chicken. No matter what deal is done or not done, there will be no clear cut winner as far as the fans of the various involved parties are concerned. Santana will be the ultimate winner, in his financial statement. There are no sure things, not even Santana, that is why it is called a game. I cannot wait for the game to start being played within the lines, so we can all have something to focus on besides the games played outside the lines.

By: dave

dave — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:12:35 +0000

I was watching sny tonight. They made some interesting points. One of which is that when he was drafted Pelfrey was considered one of the best pitchers in the draft ( spoken by the person who drafted him ).

Pretty much everyone on the panel was saying the Mets need Santana and odds are the Mets are the favorite to land him.

They made the usual arguments of trading half the team, what is the value of prospects and the trading of Milledge. Oh yeah. they all picked philly to win this year.

By: xryanx

xryanx — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:40:14 +0000

Santana is not the solution to the problems

By: dave

dave — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:55:34 +0000

I am all for the trade for Santana except FMart who is supposed to be our OF of the future. I would seriously consider trading him to get the ACE we need.

Also we should consider giving up Pelf ( who went through the fire last year, Gotay or any other young guy with experience ).

As someone above said – and as I said previously, we have 2 old guys , the wild thing and maine. Santana could head up our rotation and help save the pen. It is all a question of cost. At the end of the day if I were GM I guess I would pay the piper.

You would take a big risk with injuries and all, but he is available and we need him. We do not have anything in the minors that even smells like him.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:11:48 +0000

So we are saying here is the Mets have produced maybe 4 or 5 top players from their farm system in the past two decades. I agree with that, so I say let's take the chance and trade 4 or 5 prospects to Minnesota for Santana. It is a worthwhile gamble. Even if one or two of the prospects pan out we still get the best pitcher in baseball, and the Mets are built to win now.

By: scoopcoop

scoopcoop — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:26:36 +0000

jason,

Colon has been rumored to have arm trouble in winter ball. I wouldn't touch him.

slop,

Except for Pelrey and maybe Humber the others are way off from being ready for MLB.

But I do agree that they generally don't give the youngin's much of a chance.

By: GSE

GSE — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:22:44 +0000

Prospects = PROSPECTS

Ace = ACE!

Looking at our starting rotation(2 old guys + 1 wild guy + Maine), why is it so hard to understand? Does anyone want to bet on any of our pitching prospects become Johan? SURE! we don't know! But Johan is a SURE THING!!!

WE NEED HIM!!!!!

By: sloppy

sloppy — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:21:33 +0000

Scoop: How can you expect Omar to be really concerned about the farm when he always finds a has been or a never was to play instead of a rookie?

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:20:08 +0000

Let's be honest…we need this guy and we need him now! i would trade all the guys mentioned and even more to get santana. The prospects being mentioned are not going to amount to anything and if we can steal Johan for those 5 prospects…we should do it now. I am also wondering why we havent signed Bartolo yet for a low risk one year deal. Spring training is a month away and it is time to do something. Come on Omar

By: scoopcoop

scoopcoop — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:44:25 +0000

The worse part about all of this talk about prospects is I believed Omar when he said he would improve the farm.

It hasn't happened.

Why? Either b/c he doesn't know how to do it.

Or b/c the Wilpons don't want to spend $ on draft picks.

Or both.

By: sloppy

sloppy — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:30:14 +0000

Using these prospects as insurance is a losing strategy. These prospects are all outfielders and starting pitchers. There is not one infielder in the Met system or Catcher who is considered a top close to the bigs propsect. And since the two key offensive weapons on this team play infield this system has NOTHING to even help a little if injury strikes. So with or without these kids we have no depth. So they add nothing to the system in an emergency.
And what does an ace do for a team.
1. It replaces a 5th starter, not a second so you go from maybe 7-8 wins to 17-18 wins a year.
2. Your 5th starter gives you 5 innings if you are lucky while your ace gives you 7 conservatively so you save 65-70 innings from your pen, innings that bums like Sele and Schoeneweis wouldn't be needed. Innings that guys like Heilemann wouldn't have to waste too early in a game like was necessary last year.
3. The innings you get from an ace are quality innings vice the mediocre innings you get from your 5th starter. So not only is your pen saved in a game it is also saved from needing to be warmed up over and over every time the 5th man is in trouble.
And what about the future?
Which of these prospects is going to play 1B?
Which is going to play Catcher?
You have a LFer, I'll give you that.
Which is going to replace Wagner?
Which is going to Catch?
Which will Omar allow to replace El Duque, Pedro and maybe OP in 2009?
So since we all know that the answer is none of them except for LF, why are you saving them?

By: stick

stick — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:11:27 +0000

Couple of pionts for an interesting discussion.

Let's see, there is Bar, Kazmir, Izzy… And I am sure plenty others I can't recall (Hey, I can barely remember last week!)

But even if it is true, it is dangerous to assume the all the prospects they have now will stink. Plenty of stars come out of the minors every year, and the current Mets crop has to be evaluated on their own merits, not tarnished by the best.

Remember, there was a different regime in place for much of the last 20 years. Maybe this one knows how to find talent?

And no, because Ochoa flamed out I won't automatically assume the F Mart will bomb. And Escobar I think could have been very good if he hadn't gotten hurt.

Another thing about aces. Lost of the guys that are aces now either exceeded expectations (Webb say), or were traded when they were young (or not so young). Heck, Johan was a rule 5 guy, and traded after that! Randy Johnson certainly bounced around. Clemens? CHris Carpenter?

Maybe the rules are different today about pitchers, but quite likely, guys moving as minor leaguers will still end up being studs. Haren was traded to the As before he went to the D backs.

On the Mets, Maine could be a top guy for years to come. Perez, if he gets his head together and clicks, could put up a few years of Cy Young quality work (he is only about 26).

Will it happen? WHo knows, but it could. Just like Deolis G. could be the Twins "ace" in 3-4 years. Or maybe he won't ever make the majors. I don't know.

But the thing with prospects is, as long as other teams think they might be great, they have value to trade to fill other holes. And once they are gone, they are gone!

By: cver

cver — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:58:18 +0000

Hi Todd. I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical question, but you are right and it could be a fun place to take the discussion. I can remember off the top of my head one in 20 years – Isringhausen, but I'm guessing there must have been at least one or two more, if anybody wants to chime in.

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:25:28 +0000

stick, How could any Met fan even worry at all about trading minor leaguers ? Were you here for the Alex Escobars and Alex Ochoas of the world ? Do me a favor, other than Wright and Reyes name the top players the Mets farm system has produced for the past 20 years. Since the boom of guys like Gooden, Darling, Strawberry, Dykstra, etc. in the mid to late 80's this farm system has produced nothing but stiffs other than Wright and Reyes. Don't be afraid to trade prospects for the best pitcher in baseball, most Met prospects are all talk and hype and do nothing in the majors, anyway.

By: cver

cver — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:30:13 +0000

Stick, all good points. I just think that first of all, Perez might possibly not be on the team after 09, so as long as Santana is healthy and produces at least what he normally does, this innoculates us a bit from losing him and face it, wouldn't we rather invest 20 million a year now for Santana than 12 million or more for Perez? Next is what seems to be the situation which points to "we're not gonna get a guy like this any other way". These guys don't grow on trees. We can't magically expect one of the pitchers we have been proposing to be traded (Mulvey, Guerra or Humber – or even Pelfrey for that matter) to become sooner rather than later a Johann Santana, if ever. The new trend is for the teams that have these guys to either re-sign them at a hometown discount or trade them. This is our chance to get the absolute best one in baseball in a trade. Sabbatia probably won't become a free agent. Zambrano, Oswalt, and Peavy are committed for multi-years. Webb and other young studs are not gonna be available for awhile, if ever. This is the brass ring for us, unless the Mets don't want to have a true ace lead us the next 5 years, because there probably won't be any available, except if we grow one ourselves or trade for a young guy who develops under our tutelage. We do have other holes, but these prospects won't necessarily fill them. They could help or be superstars though – you never know. Free agent aces might be a thing of the past, so if we want one, a real one ever again, the only options might be by developing one or trading the farm for one.

By: stick

stick — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:55:27 +0000

One more thing. If the Mets were overloaded with top end prospects (like Ariz. seemed to be), then I would be more in favor of overpaying to get Johan. That would mean they would still have enough minor league talent to serve as call up depth or trade bait.

So, trade up to the amount that still leaves enough in reserve to run the team.

Kind of like the difference Bill Gates buying a new Ferrari on a whim, and me doing it (since I would have to sell the house to do it, and he has plenty of excess cash!)

By: stick

stick — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:52:54 +0000

Cver, you sort of present an arguement I like to make (actually, I think you made both sides of it!)

That is, If you think the team is strong overall, and just needs that one SP to make them the Patriots, and are willing to go with very little of a depth safety net, then unloading the farm for Santana is logical.

But, if they have holes all over the place that need to be filled, unloading the farm for 1 guy is going to be counter productive (that is, you might end up getting worse!)

Some posters basically have the Mets as lucky to be .500, 3rd place at best, also rans as currently constructed. But, add Santana, and they are suddenly odds on favorites to be in the WS.

Obviously, Santana will be an upgrade over whichever other starting pitcher(s) make the 34 or so starts he would be making. But, is it enough of a difference to take them deep into the playoffs, if they aren't good enough to make it there without him (and yes, if they get there without him, they can win some series').

I think John's point boils down to, what is the net improvement Santana will give you (wins over displaced #5 SP – loses from not having the prospects they have to trade). This year, and over the next few years.

IMO, that is why it isn't a no-brainer to ship out the top 5 prospects in the system for the guy.

Now, if he was a FA and it was only $$, then yeah, go over the top to get him! Even though that can still have downstream impact if it cuses a budget crunch, but I don't think it will really be a problem.

I would love to see him on the Mets, but it is a huge investment.

By: cver

cver — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:36:20 +0000

John, I always look forward to reading your site and you do make a good point from one perspective. Of course the other is that the Mets have major holes right now. The starting rotation is not top notch. No ace, for starters (no pun intended). Basically, it's Maine, Perez and Pedro, as long as his toe can hold out (remember, that toe did not and we've been told cannot be surgically repaired). El Duque has his initials wrong – He is DL not El D, so that'a a big worry. Sure, we could plug along with those great front 3 as long as we can, hope El Duque performs well and stays healthy at his age (although he hasn't shown he can) and then theoretically betweeen all of the young talent we have, at this poínt, you would think one of them could plug the 5 hole. Isn't this the third offseason we've been hoping that Humber or Pelfrey (and last year Vargas, too – this year insert Mulvey's name instead) can make an impact? The bullpen is trouble, too. I don't trust Show and only half trust Heilman. Joe Smith was nice for awhile. Feliciano and Wagner are dependable, but that's it. If Padilla and Sanchez come back to form, we could be alright, but if I'm the GM, I would have made a move already to make sure we're OK. LF, RF, 2B, 1B and C are all in decent shape, but do have the potential to either be great or terrible. Who's backing up Delgado now – I forget. We do have a lot of young kids that would be interesting to see if they can develop and contribute, so that would be the upside to not acquiring Santana, but we DO need him badly, especially since aces don't grow on trees and the Mets have only had ONE longterm true ace in their history – Seaver!

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:40:43 +0000

scoopcoop, I can tell you are a die hard Mets fan like me that knows what is going on. You know the way it is with this organization. After the 2000 World Series they no longer needed A-Rod. According to them it was not the money, but A-Rod was a 24 and 1 player. Than it was Guerrero who had a "bad back" so they could not sign him. Now with Santana it will either be they can't give up the prospects or Minnesota asked for Reyes. Every real Mets fan knows the reason. It is the money !! It always is with this team. It is always about the money, even though they always have another excuse why they never get a big money player. Tell us the truth Mets, it is the money that is holding up the deal.

By: scoopcoop

scoopcoop — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:20:22 +0000

Todd, "They will tell us it was the prospects they did not want to give up, but the real reason is they do not want to pay Santana."

I would add to that the Mets will claim Twins still wanted Reyes.

Either way, get ready for some excuses.

Still hoping for the best, but expecting the worse.