Carlos Santana: He's quite a prospect

"It was asked at the time but is worth revisiting: Was $2 million in the bank a good use of Santana's value?"

The answer is an emphatic NO. The Dodgers could have had Casey Blake and Carlos Santana for $2 million. More than that is spent on bonuses to amateur prospects, and Santana was already an accomplished professional. The Casey Blake deal was an exercise in shortsightedness. It would have been nice to have held on to a premium catching prospect, who at the very least could have been used as a valuable trading chip. It would also, in the long run, have given the Dodgers additional options at 3B, since both Santana and Russell Martin are converted third basemen.

I don't know if it means anything, but this morning I heard a report on a NY radio station that Fred Wilpon is denying that the decision of the Mets not to make an offer to Manny was not his, but Omar Minaya's. That's exactly in opposition to the conventional wisdom in NY that Wilpon is the roadblock keeping the Mets out of the Manny sweepstakes. If so, it could be a signal that they might get involved. Mind you, this is just a radio report, and I have yet to see anything in writing. However, if the Mets decide to get seriously involved, it's probably goodbye Manny. Could be that the Dodgers' game of brinksmanship could turn out badly. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

Who knows if Santana will make it in the bigs? It was a good deal because we still have Blake, an all-star catcher and the 2 Mil, at least until Manny is signed. It would be nice to have him now for trade bait for a pitching prospect but I will take a seasoned starter any day over a prospect. The 2 Mil will help pay for Martin's new salary so until the guy comes to the show and hits 300/30/100 we are ahead of the game.

Jack,

You miss the point. We could have had the seasoned starter and kept Santana, all for a lousy $2 million, which as I pointed out, is less than is typically spent on unproven amateur draft picks. That's called penny-wise and pound foolish.

And for those who noticed, sorry for the double negative in my previous post.
Regarding Manny and the Mets, the sports sections of the following should be of interest.

nypost.com
nydailynews.com
newsday.com

Don't think that the Mets won't suddenly get interested, denials notwithstanding.

it became apparent to me at that time last year that the dodgers were being run like a second-rate small market team instead of the first class, big-market team they used to be under the O'Malleys. McCourt should sit down with Mr. Buss and get some pointers on how to run a first class organization. and, much as i hate to say it, kupchak is a genius compared to ned. dodger fans are in for some rough times in '09 and beyond with these two buffoons running the show.

The hot stove reports are saying the Dodgers are officially talking to Randy Wold, Jon Garland, and Brandon Looper. It looks as if they are really trying to fill the bottom of the rotation spots, and leaving the #1 and #2 duties to what we already have. THis news is not too pleasing.

Mccheap please sell the team to a real Owner that wants to win. The Mccheaps are just signing mediocore players and raising prices. But us real fans will not show up to support his highway robbery.

PLEASE SELL THE TEAM!

I think giving up Santana just to save $2M is bad, but I disagree that we always "keep the mediocre prospects and ship the top players" as someone suggested. If that were true, Kemp would be long gone (seems like everyone was interested in trading for him). We've kept Martin, Loney, Ethier, Broxton, Billingsley, Kershaw, Wade... we've traded Edwin Jackson, Dioner Navarro, Franklin Gutierrez, Andy LaRoche, Jon Meloan--I'm not really missing any of these guys. I haven't forgotten the Pedro trade, so there's always that chance that we'll get burned by one of these (and maybe Santana will be the one that burns). But everyone seems so upset by the team trading prospects when most of the positions already have former prospects manning them (and blocking new prospects from coming up--pitching excepted, of course). Prospects are great for backup in case of injury (see DeWitt), but for the Dodgers, their biggest value will be in trade. Of course, we have to actually make good trades, which isn't a given (Julio Lugo is worth no prospect, no matter how superfluous or mediocre the prospect may be...).

I don't get why people were upset when we traded him and i don''t get it now. Are we that down on Russell Martin?? We are already blessed with a greatly talented young catcher who has the added benefit of being a natural leader. Blake was a key part in our playoff run, and Santana would be stuck behind Martin for years anyway. Benefitted the Dodgers and the player himself.

I mean seriously, when did Martin become so un-popular?
Calm down people we have plenty of good young talent who are ready to help NOW, and the best young catcher in the game. The whole argument is ridiculous.

Speaking of catchers, John Heyman of SI.com mentioned in an article that we signed Brad Ausmus this off-season: When did this happen and why haven't I heard a word about it?

It’s been very frustrating being a Dodger Fan and as long as we have this front office (McCheaps) we are not going to win a World Series any time soon. The Mccheaps are content with just winning the NL WEAK we are in the 2nd largest Market behind N.Y & the mccheaps are running this organization as if it were the TWINS.

Valmont,

You mentioned a number of players that were traded that you're not missing. Among those you included Dioner Navarro. In case you hadn't noticed, Navarro hit .295 in 2008 for the American League champion Rays. At the very least, don't you think he might have been a nice backup to Russell Martin, instead of Danny Ardoin and Brad Ausmus, among others? Perhaps with him backing up Martin, it might have been possible to give the latter a few more days off the last couple of years.

And for those of you who don't see the folly in including Santana in the Blake deal, let me repeat what I said previously. The Dodgers could have had Blake WITHOUT including Santana, who is now not only #13 on Keith Law's list, but is also rated the #1 Cleveland prospect by Baseball America. Again, as I pointed out previously, $2 million is less than is typically paid to top amateur draft picks. Santana wasn't an amateur when the Dodgers let him go. Instead he was an accomplished, and very highly regarded 22 year old professional. $2 million would have gotten us Blake, and organizational depth at a very pivotal position. And as I pointed out earlier, both Santana and Martin can play 3B. Also, having Santana in the organization would have given the Dodgers a valuable trade chip, were they inclined to use him in that manner. Keeping Santana was a no brainer.

I can see the point a bit more when you put it that way- I was just thinking in terms of what we had rather than maximizing the return for the guy, so i can definitely understand frustration over things from that perspective.

I like the Ausmus signing, if this was 1998.... if we keep plugging in over the hill backup catchers Martin probably will make that eventual move to 3rd

Why is everyone in such a rush to move Martin to 3rd? I know his numbers were down in 2008 (offensively and defensively), but he's still one of the best young catchers in baseball. Even if the Blue had a better option at catcher, I don't think Martin hits for enough power to play third. Another reason I don't like it is that the gravitas of his leadership will be diminished if he's not catching.

Maybe Santana turns out to be great, but he could also turn out to be another Angel Pena, another highly touted Dodger catcher whom I would have gladly traded for $2MM.

Anyone know where Lucas May is ranked? The Dodgers were pretty high on him a year ago and maybe they favored him among their catching prospects.