Dec
05

Let’s be clear on the Santana offer

By

Look, you can chastise Cashman all you want. But understand that the Hughes-Melky-Marquez-Hilligoss rumor didn’t necessarily happen. So many rumors have flown about at the Meetings, and many of them are completely bogus. I’d file this in that category.

In any event, even if the offer was made and was rejected, I understand why. Phil Hughes is still in it. He’s one of the Big Three. Our mission is to Save the Big Three. Ergo, we don’t want to see Hughes go in a deal for Santana. Dispute us on that point if you will. But please don’t believe Bill Madden solely because he has a press pass. Because along with that pass comes an agenda.

Categories : Asides
  • waswhining

    After reading the article I took the poll on whether to trade Phil Phranchise for Santana. Even though the article was taking a you-better-be-right-Brian attitude on not having pulled the trigger on the trade (over protecting prospects? Dombrowki of the tigers has cajones, etc) in the poll 70% was in favor of keeping the Phranchise. I thought that was an amazing number.

  • Hank (no not that one)

    I agree with you completely Joe. Santana is great but the reality of
    the changed economics of baseball post luxury tax and revenue
    sharing is that the only way you can prosper long term is by investing
    in and developing young talent. That goes for the Yanks as well.
    I’m glad the Santana trade as Madden describes it didn’t go through
    for the same reasons you list.

    • zack

      Thats not entirely true though. Half the reason to develop young talent is to have trading chips. There is no way in hell you can develop an entire team from within, and if these so called new baseball economics stick (wanna bet that 5 years from now those “economics” have suddenly changed yet again, as thats what markets do), then signing FAs to fill needs just won’t be very easy or cost effective. So what you do is take a lot of those excess prospects and trade them for pieces to your overall puzzle. Like the Beckett trade. Like what the Sox almost had pulled off (although now Gammons is suddenly reporting that he doesn’t think it will get done at all, where is the accountability here Petey? Last night you were waxing poetic about this trade being done, and now its not going to happen? Ridiculous journalism). Even like the Tigers trade. If you aren’t willing to give up talent you probably won’t get any talent back, and as good as your youth movement is, it will be hard to put a complete team out there.

      Look, the reality is that Cashman’s move looks great if the Twinkies hold onto Johan or deal him to the NL or even the Angels. But if the Sox had acquired/do acquire Santana, then Cashman’s stand, if true, looks a lot more foolish. That trade, again, if true, seems quite fair to me and while slightly above the Sox offer, not very far above it…

  • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

    Yes. I should have been more clear in my post below. That’s all contingent on whether or not Bill Madden is actually reporting facts, always a dicey proposition at best.

  • CB

    I don’t buy that Madden article. The New York Times today goes against what Madden said. Tyler Kepner reports that the yankees were willing to include Jeff Marquez in the deal.

    So the idea that Mitch Hilligoss was all that stood between the yankees getting santana or not is laughable.

    Madden’s point on money being everything seems unsubstantiated. Money has to be a factor when you’re spending $150 million on an arm. But the yanks wouldn’t have gotten into this without being willing to spend. Pulling out over kennedy or horne/jackson was the right thing to do.

    I thought this quote from Hank concerning the future direction of the organization was great:

    “But Steinbrenner said he would continue to “pour as much money as possible” into scouting, the draft and Latin America, and he emphasized that he was excited about the Yankees’ young pitching.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12.....oref=login

  • Count Zero

    It’ll be nice when this whole Santana thing is over. There’s more BS out there than you’d find at the local dairy farm.

  • http://yankeesetc.blogspot.com/ Travis G.

    giving up Hughes (with reservations about Damon in CF, Santana’s decline and subsequent huge extension) was enough for me to be against it.

    • http://yankeesetc.blogspot.com/ Travis G.

      plus the fact that Pettitte returned made the Yanks even less ‘needy’ for a LHP.

  • Ivan

    Man the media is letting the yanks brass have it.

    It’s almost like they want the prospects to fail so they could tell the yankees “hey we told you so” specifically Hughes.

    • zack

      Of course they do, in a way. One, non of the media are fans (save gammons), or at least aren’t supposed to be, and 2) the NY media LOVES to find any angle to bash the Yankees on, especially the guys like Madden, O’Connor, Lupica, and even Pete Abe, who make their money being loud, opinionated, and somehow almost always way off the mark. If the kids succeed, they will simply ignore what they wrote before and chalk it up to something else they somehow can take credit for, and if they fail, they will be all over Cashman etc, which is what they really like doing…Its a joke.

  • Bo

    It’s funny. The News bashes the yankees consistently for actually spending money and when they practice patience and faith in young minimum salary players they get bashed even more.

    Can the yanks win?

  • Bo

    Santana is unreal.

    But 6 years each of Hughes and Kennedy and your starting center fielder who is also under cost control is a ton to give up.

  • Chris

    i think its vey likely that the madden deal was accurate consideing what the Sox are packaging. If its true than we are aleady seeing the affect of losing the Boss. I dont want to hear this payoll crap. In all likelyhood the Yanks could have convinced Johan to stay at his current salay for 2008 with the extra money made up thoughout the lifetime of the contract. This team will lose 50 million off the payroll next year and by acquiring Santana – the Yanks could have gone into next offseason set up everywhere but first base and right field – positions that they could have scrimped on if need be. Think about the total amount of payoll the Yankees rotation would have comprised next season even with Johan making 20 million. Wang is under control, Joba and Kennedy near the league minimum and maybe a veteran innings eate as the numbe 5 (a Livan Henandez type)

    What is that 30 million on the rotatation for 2009. I am not a math whiz but thats about what they are paying their 3rd baseman. You hold you ground cash – there is no way this team makes the playoffs next season and lets face it – as much as we love te big three – there is a vey good chance that 1 of the 3 (at least) doesnt make it eithe because of innefectiveness or injuy –

    Remember the mets big three or how about the cubs with prior wood and zambrano – very comparable the the Yanks big three – take a look at them now – 1 of the three has made it, 1 will have an okay career as a middle reliever and the other is washed up at age 25.

    If this is a money thing then the yanks could have taken a financial hit this year considering the massive incease in revenue they will have in 2010. It also shows how much better the Red Sox have been run that they can affod to add Johan

  • Bart

    We have no mission except to put the best team on the field that we can, drafts, trades, minors –

    We lack a CF because of cashman, we lack 1B because of cashman, we lack pitching because of cashman, we have Abreu in RF because of Cashman – we could have had Vlad — We have corner outfileders and 1B that are slightly above average and Matsui has been hurt badly –or may be all that is a mix of cashman and Steinbrenner

    Cashman has made some awful deals — and he made the ARod deal and the Abreu deal, so there is a lot to thank him for as well –now we need him to stop drinking his own Hughes IPK they are the future bathwater and make the best deal he can that GETS Santana

    Hoping we get to the World Series with Hughes, IPK and Chamberlain is a Hope — getting there with Santana, Chamberlain and *Karstens or a *susbtitute is closer to reality — I hope Hughes and IPK pitch for Minnesota and do realy well – I want Sanata for the next five years and I hope Chamberlain is as good over a season as his audition — And we need him in the pen where he can impact 50 games – not 30; but if he has to strat OK – i think that is tactically dumb but i can see that side of it

    And anyone who watches Melky play baseball is foolish for believing he is an important part of a WS winning team — he is a cog and can be replaced; he is never going to be the 2nd Bernie and neither is Austin Jackson — the bloggers and the NY Hype machine have done their job; The Twins believe in Hughes and IPK (not quite so much in Melky – which is why Jackson) — sell them now while the hype is believed – there are more coming – there are no more Santanas for a while – not while Jeter and Posada can stil play

  • Chris

    while i am not a fan of giving up 2 of the three, i totall agree Bart..Cashmans moves have nealy ruined this team and addled us with almost 00 million dollars in wasted payoll

    As I watch this and read how the Twins were so anixous to unlaod santana and have, since the yanks pulled out, i really think that they want to deal with the Yankees. They get the top player available and can get depth = a decent CF, a possible future closer ) Home Sanchez, or Melancon and can get some othe decent ole playes (gonza;ez0 o young guys with high ceilings theso much sense for both teams that it makes me sick that bo ston will him holdin not only to thei best pospect, but not even their second best pitcher. The Yanks ae offering up a guy who in 2006 was the best pithing pospect in basbeball and is still looked at in many circles as having a higher upside than Joba.

    This deal would not kill the future, but it will kill the present if not done

  • RAYMOND SAMUELS

    the yanks will be fine without santana he has never been really good in the playoffs keep the kids.

  • RAYMOND SAMUELS

    boston looks stupid now never really wanted santana and did not have the money or guts to get santana.beckett would have been mad he is only making 10 mill.

  • Larry

    You can’t blame Cash for not getting Vlad. Steinbrenner wanted Shef. Perhaps Vlad’s back concerned some. That’s yesterday’s news. If you took Santana for 2008, his salary would be at the current level. The extension wouldn’t kick in until 2009, when all the other dead $ falls off. Santana, Pettitte, Wang, Joba, IPK/Moose is not a terrible starting five for 2008.

  • Rob_in_CT

    “we need him to stop drinking his own Hughes IPK they are the future bathwater and make the best deal he can that GETS Santana”

    “This deal would not kill the future, but it will kill the present if not done”

    I disagree. I think those guys are the future (though I would definintely do the deal if Kennedy was the centerpiece, instead of Hughes). I think that the kids are going to be good in 2008, meaning they are the present too. Hughes+Kennedy together, in fact, may well equal (or exceed) the production of Santana alone.

    Much is made about the lack of an ace pitcher for the playoffs. There are some issues I have with that line of thinking:

    1) You have to get to the playoffs, and teams typically need at least 6-7 starting pitchers over the course of the year. Hughes + Kennedy for Santana means we’re down one quality pitcher, bringing the words “now pitching for the Yankees, Kei Igawa” to mind. Santana is an upgrade in one rotation spot, but his acquisition at that cost means a downgrade at another. Somebody will get hurt, and the team’s 6th or 7th best starter will have to step in. Right now #6 is probably Mike Mussina. If Hughes and Kennedy go, Mussina is definitely in the rotation and #6 is… Darrell Rasner? Kei Igawa? Jeff Karstens? Alan Horne?

    2) The dynasty Yankees didn’t have a clear ace – they had 3-4 solidly above-average starters. Even dominant guys have bad games. But if you have several good pitchers, then you can survive a loss by your “ace.”

    3) The Yankees won 1 playoff game in 2008. Who won it? Phil Hughes did. In the last two seasons before that, their wins came courtesy of CM Wang (2005, 2006) and… Shawn Chacon, IIRC (2005). Wang got blown out this year – he clearly was not himself. If he had gone out there, pitched the way he normally does (6-7 IP, ~3 ER), and still lost to a superior pitcher, that would be one thing. But there was obviously something wrong with him and he was getting shelled in a very uncharacteristic way. It reminded me of Andy Pettitte in the 2001 WS – everything he threw up there got hammered. Did that mean AP sucked? No. It meant that he had a couple of bad starts at the worst possible time. The same is true of Wang this year.

    Both Hughes and Chamberlain have “ace” potential. I understand that it is still potential at this point, but both of those guys have shown us things that give me reason to think it’s not pie-in-the-sky stuff to think that one of them really does become that guy. So the ace Yankees fans want so badly may already be on the team.

    Bear in mind that there is still the possibility that the Twins keep Johan and end up taking the two draft picks as he walks away as a FA. It’s not the most likely scenario, but there is a decent chance of it. If that happens, Santana probably becomes a Yankee for 2009. So that’s a factor in all of this too.

    Basically: Don’t Panic!

    • Rob_in_CT

      One playoff game in 2007, rather.