Question of the Day: Did the Blue miss the boat?
So it turns out the king's ransom required to land Johan Santana from the Twins wasn't quite all it was cracked up to be. Yeah, the price was steep for the Mets (four solid prospects), but New York didn't have to surrender two of their top prospects, according to folks who keep track of this sort of thing, in pitcher Mike Pelfrey and OF Fernando Martinez. They did lose prospects 2,3,4 and 7 according to Baseball America, including young OF Carlos Gomez, who in the limited amounts I saw him play last year (that would be the three game set NY played at the Ravine last June, plus some scattered games on the telly) looked like the fastest human on the planet. I'm talking comic book fast. So call it a prince's ransom. Maybe a duke's. The point is that NY, assuming they can iron out Santana's extension, nabbed him without giving up any current Major League talent of significance.
Which leads me to today's QOTD: Should the Dodgers have made a move? Could they have? In BA's recent assessment of their top 10 prospects, completed in December, numbers 2,3,4, and 7 were Andy LaRoche, Chin-Lung Hu, Scott Elbert, and James MacDonald. Obviously, the Twins might have asked for/insisted on some of LA's big league young 'uns, so a direct comparison can't be made. But assuming this sort of thing is what Minnesota was reduced to, would you pull the trigger on that deal to get quite possibly the best pitcher in baseball in return? Did the Dodgers miss the boat? Do you think the monster deal Santana and the Mets are negotiating- almost assuredly north of $100 mil, very likely well north- was the sticking point more than the prospects?
As always, it's not my money, but if that was the holdup, that's a bummer. I tend to agree with Jon Weisman over at Dodger Thoughts that the Blue didn't necessarily need Santana, but if there's a hurler on the planet worthy of that kind of money/risk, it's him. Santana won't be 29 until March, and has been very durable over his career. Last year's 3.33 ERA, 219 IP, 15 win season was something of an off year, based on his history. Dude's that filthy. The Dodgers have a very good rotation. Santana would have guaranteed them, assuming good health, the best, for at least a couple years.
I doubt Ned Colletti is planning on revealing, at least to me, how deeply the Blue got involved in the revised Santana talks. But if the cost in Major League/near Major League talent would have been LaRoche, Hu, Elbert, and MacDonald? Or some similar combo? Plus a small nation's GDP in cash?
It's all extremely hypothetical of course, but I'd have done that.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
I think the Dodgers were wise not to make the move. They've got what looks like a solid rotation as it is, got to keep their prospects and aren't saddled with the contract. Good move.
Posted by: Eric B. | January 30, 2008 at 03:43 PM
I think if they didn't have 2 terrible contracts (Pierre/Schmidt) maybe Ned would have pulled the trigger. I have yet to see a 7 yr contract for a SP that has been worth the money.
Posted by: Jess | January 30, 2008 at 04:25 PM
it blows my mind to see what the twins accepted for santana. during the winter meetings minnesota was asking for the cream of the crop from teams interested. not just some, but almost all of the creamy goodness. they wanted kemp, kershaw/bills, plus two other high level prospects from us. demanded elsbury and lester from the sox. and wanted a combo of hughes, chamberlain, and i forget who else from the yanks. i think the mets came away with a bargain. seems only one prospect they gave up, gomez, is anywhere near contributing to the big league team right now.
eric b - our rotation is good but santana would have made us by far the best in the n.l. and possibly the entire mlb. remember, it looks like we will be trotting out all righties to start this year. santanas golden left arm is what we needed.
i agree w/ jess. i think the contracts for schmidt and pierre may have not allowed ned to sign santana. way to go colleti. you missed out on the best pitcher in the game because you signed two guys who can't throw to big contracts and big money. bringing anymore old frisco cronies down south? i was expecting to see pedro "please strike out" feliz manning the hot corner for us next year.
Posted by: j_dub | January 30, 2008 at 05:48 PM
BK
I'm with you. I would have given up the mentioned players in a heartbeat for Santana. The small amount of time LaRoche has been in the majors and his performance, along with the others is a no brainer. You just cannot keep betting on the come. Santana is a proven winner. I don't really think the Dodgers were ever really in the game.
Package
Posted by: Package | January 30, 2008 at 07:09 PM
The Mets gave up 2 Crunchy Tacos, a Chalupa, and a plastic bin of Rice.
We would have given up Caviar, Kobe Beef, Foie Gras, and some American Cheese.
We were smart not to move. I'm hungry.
Posted by: benzo jones | January 30, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Other GMs have demonstrated time again that when it comes to trades, they have one price for the Dodgers, and a significantly lower price for the rest of the league.
If Minnesota were willing to part with Santana for LaRoche, Hu, Elbert, and MacDonald (probably a better package than what the Mets eventually had to give up), then the deal should have been done in a heartbeat. But no one wanted to play with Colletti unless Loney/Kemp/Billingsley were at stake, which is a shame, because by all accounts it seems like the Twins ended up getting shafted.
As for Santana and his contract, he is probably worth whatever he is demanding, even if the price is absurd. But, in the end I'm happy and relieved that the Blue were able to avoid such a monumentous decision. I'm still not totally convinced in the competency of the Colletti-led Dodgers front office.
Posted by: Makoto Ueno | January 30, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Question is, what happens to the price for Bedard if the deal with Seattle falls through?
If Bedard is as good as advertised (I have personally never seen him pitch), then I would certainly consider a deal involving LaRoche, Hu, Elbert and McDonald. If Baltimore insisted on a major league player, then I would consider adding Ethier to the deal (but subtracting one or two of the others). I would include Ethier (but definitely not Kemp or Kershaw) only because I am reasonably confident that Delwyn Young will hit enough to handle left field. If Baltimore would like us to throw in Juan Pierre, all the better.
Of course, given the murky mind of Peter Angelos, who really knows what's possible?
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | January 30, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Mak (and others)-
I think you're probably right to a great extent about what teams ask for from the Dodgers. Because they have so many high level guys, it's easy to hold fast for them, and feel like you're getting shafted if you don't get one or two back in return.
Like I had said, it's a totally hypothetical question, because I don't know the ins and outs of the deal. I don't know how deeply involved the Dodgers were, and I'm not saying Colletti had a deal like that available and didn't pull the trigger. It's just a fun scenario to kick around.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | January 31, 2008 at 08:28 AM
BK -
Instead of kicking around scenarios, can we kick around Kent?
... I'm just saying...
Posted by: benzojones | January 31, 2008 at 08:35 AM
benzo-
I'm afraid scenarios, at this time of year, are all that are available (haha).
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | January 31, 2008 at 09:31 AM
LaRoche, Elbert, Hu, and McDonald for Santana? IN a heartbeat. But I never heard anybody mention any of those names in a deal. All I heard was how we can't give up Kershaw and Kemp. Sorry, but even if the price were Kershaw and Kemp, it's a no-brainer. An ace only comes around four times in 52; Can't miss prospects, meanwhile, often miss. In his wildest dreams, Kershaw MAY turn out to be as good as Santana. But he may also turn out to be Edwin Jackson. Remember how great we all thought he was going to be.
I'm disappointed that Ned didn't stay in the negotiation longer. Clearly, the asking price for Santana continued to go down, and he could have been gotten for an equivalent to what the Mets paid.
I wouldn't give him a 7-year deal; that's too much for a pitcher. But five for sure, and we could argue about the sixth. If the Mets can't negotiate and extension, I sure hope the Dodgers will get back into the mix. They could use a lefty, and a two-time Cy Young Award winner.
Posted by: SaMo | January 31, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Chances are we would have hired him for like 7 years and he would have broken his arm first day of spring trainning. We are lucky like that. Glad we kept the kids.
Posted by: DC76 | January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Benzo,
"Instead of kicking around scenarios, can we kick around Kent? ... I'm just saying..."
At the very least, you can always kick around scenarios in which you kick around Kent. haha
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | January 31, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Let this be one more reason we'll throw on the already mountainous pile of why Ned Colletti is a horrible GM. If memory serves, Frank McCourt fired Paul DePodesta because he viewed him as an outsider...not someone who commanded respect from other MLB front office personnel, thereby inhibiting his ability to hire first rate managers, coaches, scouts or pull off a decent trade with another team. If all Ned Colletti can do is bring in former SF Giants or overpay for free agents, then how is he an improvement over his predecessor? We don't have a true #1 starter, and haven't had one for quite some time. Johan Santanna will almost certainly win 20+ games for the Mets this year. A pitcher of his magnitude changes everything....Every other fifth game would create an amazing buzz for a team with an ace of his magnitude.
Posted by: J_Is_Dismayed | January 31, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Dismayed-
Like I wrote earlier, it's hard to say the Blue passed up a deal similar to this one, b/c we don't know how deep they were in teh conversations, or if Minnesota would have taken a similar package from the Dodgers, who have way more MLB ready young talent than the Mets. Sometimes, organizational depth can work against a team. If you include the Ethier, Kemp, Bills, Brox contingent into their top 10 prospects list, all of a sudden guys like Elbert drop down a lot.
The good news about low level farm systems is that you can make teams happy by saying, "here, take our second, third, and fourth ranked guys!" because they may not be all that good. Where as the Dodgers, with more depth, might have an eighth ranked guy who is better than that team's fourth, but it doesn't look as good.
Make sense?
Basically, I was just throwing the scenario out there, as much to see where the line is with spending prospects and cash in the Dodger Nation, so to speak. Until more facts are known one way or the other, I'd try not to get too judgemental.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | January 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...bottom line, McCourt was not going to spend the money to get Santana.
Posted by: steve r. | January 31, 2008 at 01:09 PM
BK,
Well, isn't part of a General Manager's job to negotiate with the corresponding club to hammer out a win/win situation for both clubs? I don't blame anyone for passing on an unfair exchange, but it doesn't really seem like he entered into the negotiation process at all. Let's face it, we have a staff full of number 2's and 3's, with no true ace. Did the trade have to include prospects only? Are you going to tell me the Twins wouldn't have taken one of the veteran pitchers packaged with one, maybe two prospects? We have six or seven starters who going to compete with one another for the rotation....Other than Gagne, we don't exactly have a great track record of converting starters into relievers. So, a trade might be a forthcoming necessesity prior to opening day, depending on who makes the cut. In my mind, Lowe and Penny are expendable. We've seen their cealing....they can only try to be as good as they have in seasons past. Neither is going to become a superstar before they retire. Granted, they are both good pitchers...but, Santanna brings a lot more than they do in terms of seasonal wins and overall team confidence going into a playoff series. Remember when Greg Maddux was with the Dodgers? The days he was going to the mound had a different feel...a more competitive mood from the clubhouse. He was no longer the Maddux of old in terms of ability, but he certainly set the tone for the game the same way. Joe Torre is here for three years....don't we need to start thinking a little more in terms of winning now?
Posted by: J_Is_Dismayed | January 31, 2008 at 01:12 PM
It does look like there is a Dodgers price and a rest of the league price when it comes to trades.
But even if we worked out a trade there was no guarantee that an extension would have been worked out. Didn't Santana want to stay on the east coast?
Posted by: Andy B | January 31, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Dismayed-
I get what you're saying, but I can't believe a team like Minnesota would have taken guys like Penny and Lowe, who are relatively expensive now and will continue to be if they want to keep them, as opposed to young, cheap, controllable talent. So I don't think that was an option, so I guess yeah, I'm telling you they wouldn't have done that. You're absolutely right that a GM's job is to negotiate the best deal for his team. My only point was that sometimes, the other side doesn't cooperate, adn when that happens, there isn't always much to be done. If they insist on something that you're not willing to give up, then it's over.
The wild card is the money. Personally, while it's a fair risk to give a pitcher that much scratch and the Dodgers have been burned before, if there's someone with a track record and profile worthy of a megadeal, it's him. I'd have paid up. (And this goes to steve r's comment, too...) If the McCourts were ready to pony up for ARod, adn I think they were, I think they'd have done it for Santana.
Just my feeling. I know he gets a lot of flak, and isn't exactly the type of guy with whom I'd love to kick back a few beers, but in terms of spending money to improve the team, he's shown a willingness to do it over the last few years. I don't see why this would have been much different. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but McCourt's track record says he isn't cheap.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | January 31, 2008 at 01:50 PM
By the way, if McCourt is cheap, why is it that the Dodgers had the highest payroll in the National League in 2007?
Furthermore, giving a pitcher, any pitcher, a six or seven year megabuck deal is fraught with downside risk. Historically such deals have rarely (if ever) worked. The ones that come to mind are Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Pedro Martinez, Darren Dreifort, and although its been only one year, Barry Zito. It wasn't as long term (and perhaps it will get better), but our own Jason Schmidt could also be included. Maybe I'm forgetting some that have worked, and perhaps others that haven't. Bottom line, investing long term in pitchers is risky business. As I recently read (or heard), pitchers are the most fragile of players.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | January 31, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Coletti shoud be fired because the Twins did not call him!. We fans are always right, even if we have no knowledge of the facts.
Posted by: dodger1955 | January 31, 2008 at 05:18 PM
I trust Ned and company on this one. While it's true that the Mets made a great deal, there is still considerable risk with the length and size of the contract that they will give him. If the price was all minor leaguers, I'm sure Ned would've made the deal, but the Twins obviously weren't going to deal with the Dodgers unless they got the proven youngsters like Lo-Dog, Kemp and C-Bill. So combine the monster contract and the high asking price, and Ned was right to stand pat. I would make the exact same argument about the Tiger's deal for Cabrera.
Dismay - I agree that Santana is a true ace and is the perfect guy to take the hill in October, but how can you say that Lowe and Penny are expendable and don't inspire confidence? Didn't both of these guys pitch their teams to World Series victories? These guys were nails last year. They probably had 5 bad starts all season between the two of them.
Don't get me wrong, Santana would've been great. But I like our current staff just fine. Penny, Lowe and Bills would all be #1s on a lot of teams and Kershaw is supposedly an ace in the making. This team is ready to compete, as is.
Posted by: D-Web | February 01, 2008 at 10:09 AM
D-Web,
Derek Lowe posted a losing record last year (12-14)....How is that "Nails?" Brad Penny won the exact same number of games (16) he did the prior season. For all the talk of him being an improved pitcher, he still faded in the second half.... Look, I said they were good pitchers. But, c'mon....you wouldn't trade one or both of them to get Johan Santanna?....Erik Bedard? I'll admit, maybe I carry a grudge, because it seems like every time I can afford to see a game at Dodger Stadium, Brad Penny takes the mound that day AND LOSES EVERY TIME! Trust me, D-Web, I want to believe as badly as you that either one of them will produce that magical season we so badly need from them on our way to a World Series Championship, but as you mentioned, they both have already done that for another team earlier in their careers. I'm beginning to feel they are not capable of doing it again. There's a lot to be said about being hungry to win a ring....Do Brad Penny or Derek Lowe still have it, now that they both wear one?
Posted by: J_Is_Dismayed | February 01, 2008 at 11:33 AM
The Twins and O's have no interest in either of those guys because of their ages and salaries, so it's silly to even entertain those trades.
Penny and Lowe each pitched 200 innings, made 33 starts, and posted WHIPs around 1.30. That puts them in the same company as guys like Halladay, Oswalt, and Zambrano. Plus, they always compete, keep their team in the game, and avoid Tomko-esque bad innings. I don't think either one needs to have a "magical" season for the Dodgers. Neither one is Orel and this isn't 1988. This Dodgers club is talented and balanced. I will be perfectly happy if Brad and Derek duplicate their 2007 seasons. Combine that with a better back-end of the rotation and an improved offense and this team should definitely contend in the NL.
Would it be great to have a lights-out ace for the postseason? Of course, but how many of those guys are there, really? Beckett is one. Santana hasn't proven it yet. Peavy couldn't beat the Rockies when it mattered. Neither could Brandon Webb. Atleast the Dodgers have guys that have done it in the past. Forget about Santana. Forget about Bedard. Spring training is a couple weeks away, people. Shake it up!
Posted by: D-Web | February 01, 2008 at 06:14 PM
In defense of Lowe, though. How many games last year did he hold the other teams to only 1 or 2 runs, but the offense failed miserably to give him any support whatsoever? If the Dodgers had been able to score even 2 or 3 runs in several of Lowe's games, he would have had a winning record that would probably match Penny's. Lowe was a victim of terrible timing last year.
Still...I would go with Santana in a heartbeat.
Posted by: djansson | February 01, 2008 at 06:26 PM