If MLB would include a rule forcing teams receiving Luxury Tax and Revenue sharing to put that money back into their teams, it would be a lot closer than it is now. Instead, this money is pocketed, and these teams say they can't compete. These teams are receiving 20-30 mil per year from the luxury tax alone. The old TV deal cut them each another 30 mil a year (not sure what the current TV deal pays out). With that 50-60 mil per year that is GIVEN to them, they could sign anywherre from 2-5 all-star players. Throw in the money they make from their own sponsors, and the money they would make from ticket sales, and you could field one hell of a ball club. You got to spend money to make money. Unless you're a small market ball club, then you can hoard all the money given to you because you refuse to try to compete. The Twins screwed themselves with this deal. Boston and the Yanks each had offers that were much better than this one. Hell, at one time, the Red Sox were dangling BOTH Jon Lester AND Jacoby Ellsbury, plus a minor league shorstop. 2 guys with Major League (and postseason) experience. Instead they settled for guys ranked 2,3,4,7 in the Mets system. Tori hunter is gone, and Ellsbury could have stepped right in. Santana is now gone, but who you going to put in his place? Lester ain't at that level, but he's better than most available at such a cheap price.
Boston never would have given both Ellsbury and Lester. It was rumored for a while but was quickly shot down. Regardless, Gomez and Guerra have far greater upside anyway. Guerra throws mid 90's fastball with solid off speed pitches that will continue to develope. He's a future #1 or 2 starter. According to Jose Reyes, Gomez is the only baseball player he doesn't think he could beat in a race. If he developes the power they expect him to, he'll be comparable to Carl Crawford, who IMO is one of the most underappreciated stars in the game. Unless they could have gotten Buchholtz along with with Ellsbury from the Red Sox, I think they made the right move. Lester is a nice pitcher, but he'll never be anything more than #3 or 4 pitcher and a feel good story. As far as the Yankees, they were never going to get what they wanted from them. The Yankees had the pieces to get the deal done, but Cashman wisely decided to not deplete the farm system. Joba was untouchable, and they refused to package Hughes and Kennedy together. I don't think they were willing to give up Jose Tabata either. I'll say it again, this was the best possible deal. Trading Santana was a must because they had absolutely no shot at resigning him. It's also going to put the Mets in a tough spot in the future. Santana turns 29 in a few months and will be 31 at the end of his current deal. You know he's going to want a long term deal at $25+ per year (Johan says a little prayer thanking Barry Zito every night before he goes to bed).
agree. plus the twins wanted to trade with anyone but the sox and yanks if at all possible unless it was outrageous. they better hope liriano comes back to form and remains healthy. twins cant even be sure gomez is ready for this year leaving a huge void in the trade. ellsbury is certainly more game-ready and they should have looked to improve today if they wanted to contend. i think clair was correct. wait til trade deadline and someone will offer their soul. however, its better than letting him go FA next winter while holding the bag. agree the yankees are idiots because they need stellar pitching now. santana would have leveled the difference to a large extent. so he isnt even 29 yet. he can pitch another 10 yrs with 5+ as an ace. salaries dont mean anything if you're proven. its all monopoly money anyhow. given zito and clemens latest contracts, santana is a steal and they are 2 of the better ones in comparison to what many other teams have. give me the stopper any day of the week in his prime. let the other teams build merely on faith. the twins suck for not keeping their stud. small-market my ass. its all about revenue and Carl Pohad , the twins owner (if still alive), is a multi-billionaire and the richest of any owner in baseball. he's been getting a free 20 million dollar check compliments of steinbrenner and henry et al, with zero incentive to spend as nootch pointed out. losing hunter and santana with a new stadium on the horizon is a disgrace to the twins fanbase. At least the marlins dont have any fans show up so they have a built-in excuse.
The goal of this deal was certainly not to have them in contention this season. At this point Gomez is nothing more than a great defensive player that will also be a terror on the bases, and Guerra is still 2 or 3 years away from being ready. It was a move for the future. They now have a very good group of young pitchers (including Liriano if he can stay healthy--and I'm not sure that he can) and will be a factor in the division in a couple of years. Regarding the Yankees being idiots for not trading Hughes, Joba, or Kennedy, I couldn't disagree more. I think we are about to see a new era, so to speak, in the way the larger market teams are run. Larger market teams have seen what clubs like Oakland and Minnesota have done by holding on to young talent in the farm system. In fact, the Yankee dynasty of the late 90's was built, for the most part, on home grown talent. It wasn't until they started overspending (not just in terms of money, but also trading away young talent) for all the big name free agents that they started to lose their grip on supremecy in the AL. Further, going out and giving huge, long term contracts to ageing pitching stars got them into a bit of a pickle. If it weren't for all their great young pitchers coming up right now, the Yankee rotation would be in the toilet. I think we'll see more teams making a better effort to cultivate strong farm systems in order to compete. They'll still be able to go out and sign big name free agents to go along with them. Look for the Cincinnati Reds to be very good in a few years. They've built up a great stockpile of young talent that will be coming up soon.
The deal is expected to be in 6 years @ 20 mil range. The Twins could have kept him, and paid his salary 3 times over with the money handed to him by the big dogs of MLB. So let me get this straight. The Twins' thought process was something like this: "We'll unload our ace, and let our CF walk. We just missed the postseason last year, and have no intentions of playing in October this year, or any other until these guy develop. IF they develop."
You're looking at it from the perspective of the owner, not from the perspective of the people who run the team (i.e. Terry Ryan and whoever the new GM is). If Carl Pohlad refuses to spend whatever they are receiving in revenue sharing, then there's nothing they can do about. They must run the team according to the budget they are allowed. To be honest, I'm surprised Santana's contract is only going to be for $20 mil (or around there). I expected it to be closer to $25 mil.
hence the deal is stupid. you dont ever start your offseason by building for next year when you have studs already in place. thats the entire point. all gm jobs are lost on prospects. load of crap sold to the twinkie loyal fanbase. completely disagree. none of these will likely be half the stud johan is ever and hes currently in his prime and a proven leader in the clubhouse. a once in a decade ace you hold onto at all costs. this trade is going to end up like the astros' when they let nolan ryan go due to this same logic. its the logic of losers. of course you keep some base to your farm system yet you keep the studs who are the proven foundation of your team as well as the proven leaders. Oakland has won how many world titles with their strategy? your argument is a huge fallacy. Spending money is not bad and is the ticket to winning in the long run if you can evaluate talent. Spending money on terrible free agents on washed up arms like the yankees do spells doom for your team. You can do both. thats the ticket to being successful. having johan for 10 yrs is better than any 2 prospects in any farm system anywhere. Hunter likely as well also. youve bought into the cheap owner's bs about overspending. they simply want to offer you a substandard product while giving you their woe is me spin. Me pointing out who the richest owner is in baseball shot their theory all to hell and they should be embarrassed by overtly robbing the fanbase. its all monopoly money and semantics. they all have money with each 9 dollar beer and 6 dollar hot dog. possibly the worst managed team in baseball. zero shot at winning the title as long as it remains in place.
If you're going to dismiss the Reds chances at competing because of past incompetence by management, then it would seem you would give a little more credit to the move made by the Twins--a team that has been run as well as any in baseball in recent years. The Twins were never going to extend Santana. They weren't willing to do it. It's not that they don't have the money (their owner has more money than God), but that it doesn't fit within their business philosophy. Not every move has to be made to make your team better the next year. It's possible to take a step back in order to take two steps forward (or in order to preserve the position you were standing in for a longer period of time). Would the Twins rather Johan Santana than a bunch of prospects? Of course; they're not stupid. But the question is at what cost? They were not going to shell out 20-25 million a year. We've seen the Florida Marlins employ a similar strategy over the last decade. Build around young talent and hope to win while the talent is still young and cheap. When the time comes where the contracts will soon be up, trade the stars off for more young talent. Rinse and repeat. I don't think the situation is exactly the same in Minnesota, but it's close and a fair enough comparison.
