2007-08 Baseball Offseason

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Julio Franco
Alan Trammel
Lou Whitaker
Willie Davis
Barry Larkin
Buddy Bell
Ken Griffey Sr
Bret Butler
Kenny Lofton (one can make a decent argument for him)
Vada Pinson

Atocep has done a great job of expressing the points I would make. Some of these guys, I'm just shaking my head you'd even mention - Griffey Sr? Bell? Pinson? Davis?

Many people have seriously under-valued Tim Raines, and apparently you're one of them.

[oykib]

I think the loser in the Santana Sweepstakes will probably go hard in after Sheets.

Sheets might actually be the better buy.

And Raines and Larkin are definite first-ballot HOFers. It's not an opinion. That's a fact. Larkin is one of the top 10 at his position in MLB history. Raines was one of the best leadoff men in history and a plus-defender who was productive into his 40s.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Ditto here.. I understand fully that his career prime was shorter than most considered for the Hall of Fame, and it was tragic to me when one day he suddenly couldn't hit a low outside pitch anymore...

but growing up as a kid, there was only one other player I watched regularly that compared to Murphy at that time (Andre Dawson). Since before cable, the only time we saw American League teams was the occasional NBC game of the week..

Dale Murphy was everything that was right about baseball back in the 80s.. Unfortunately the hall of fame isn't about good guys getting in, which is why Bonds has a better shot than Murphy.. For 2-3 years though, there was no one better in baseball than Murphy.

My youngest bro converted to LDS a few years ago, and has met Murphy, who is devoutly Mormon, on a number of occasions. I think he even took in a game at Fenway with Murph. How about that, huh? I never thought to ask him if he saw the scoreboard flash Moonlight Graham's career stats.

I always liked Murph. That was back in the days when I didn't dislike the Braves.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Jeff Kent is expected in Spring Training for the Dodgers

Much to the disappointment of the Dodgers.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by oykib

And Raines and Larkin are definite first-ballot HOFers. It's not an opinion. That's a fact. Larkin is one of the top 10 at his position in MLB history. Raines was one of the best leadoff men in history and a plus-defender who was productive into his 40s.

Yeah - Larkin is perhaps the prime example of a guy who gets compared offensively to Jeter/A-rod/Nomar, even though he played in a far more offensively depressed environment at his peak - heck he was the best SS in baseball at times.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Julio Franco

Now that's what I'm talking about! He should make it just based on the fact that he's 100 years old and still playing.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I dislike the "they're all opinions, there's no right or wrong" attitude - its subjectivity when we have objective measures. Those measures can't capture everything and can be supplemented by subjective measures (and they should be), but they paint a lot better picture. I'm at work now, so I don't have access to more advanced numbers on Raines and co (and am thus somewhat guilty of not backing up my own arguement), but we fundementally disagree on the premise.

I

Everyone can have an opinion of who belongs in the Hall or not. Just because someone has a higher OPS or whatever shouldn't be the only criteria. I think if we let Raines in, we at least have to question guys like Bucc listed. Not just dismiss them because their OPS isn't as high as Raines. I remember a few years ago when OBP was suddenly a better measure of a player's value than AVG. What if in a few years there's something more accurate than OPS that takes into account clutch or something?

I didn't watch Raines play, so I don't think I can really make a yes/no comment on him, but if people say he's really close to Henderson, then to me that means he's in. Part of Henderson's appeal to me though was watching him play and being terrified of him on the bases. And then him joining the Blue Jays and winning a World Series. I don't have that with Raines.

As for subjectivity, to me someone like Roberto Alomar, John Olerud, and Joe Carter deserve the Hall. I'm a homer about these guys, and watched them play. Not sure what their OPS is or their chances at the Hall. But if I had a vote I would vote for them when the time came.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Everyone can have an opinion of who belongs in the Hall or not. Just because someone has a higher OPS or whatever shouldn't be the only criteria. I think if we let Raines in, we at least have to question guys like Bucc listed. Not just dismiss them because their OPS isn't as high as Raines. I remember a few years ago when OBP was suddenly a better measure of a player's value than AVG. What if in a few years there's something more accurate than OPS that takes into account clutch or something?

They already measure clutch by showing your OPS (or whatever measure you like) in clutch situations. Of course, alot of people don't believe in clutch, so they're not going to care about that.

That's fine for everyone to have an opinion, and if we're talking about guys that are similar or even close, then I could understand. But if a guy is way lower in almost every measurable category, then it's really hard to make that argument.

I could say that Bruce Benedict (71 OPS+, .320 OBP) deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and that would be my opinion, but I would be dead wrong.

You know what's funny, though? Bruce Benedict has a higher OBP than at least one person on Bucc's list and only 7 points lower than another. Heh.

[korme]

I am loving all of this positive Barry Larkin talk. It seems when he retired people were very lukewarm on his chances to make the Hall. Go foggy memory!

[Alan T]

I keep wanting to post to this thread and keep deleting my responses.. I think I am getting frustrated and don't even really know what I am frustrated about... I really think Raines was one of the better players in the NL during the 80s.. but he never came across as one of the top 3 to me pre-1987 when all hell broke loose statistically. I just think I am really frustrated that people keep saying the best hitters of my era, the guys I looked up to the most just aren't worthy Hall of famers.. Dawson, Pedro Guerrero, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark, etc all aren't deservant of the Hall of Fame, but we let in people like Gary Carter?


I understand that the Hall of Fame needs to be selective and letting in everyone would diminish that... I just think the Hall voters have just been unjust to alot of the early-mid 1980s hitters. Even those that did get in like Molitor, Winfield, Murray had some doubt whether they would get chosen as well.. Bah.. it just frustrates me

[molson]

Settle down Alan.

Good points though. Guys like Murphy, Dawson, and even Mattingly were defintitely considered future hall-of-famers during their career. Are all HOF voters less than 30 years old?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Much to the disappointment of the Dodgers.

I'd rather have him then have the Dodgers waste money on an FA that won't do anything, or them trade away prospects for someone that won't do anything. We at least know what we will get from Kent.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Dawson, Pedro Guerrero, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark, etc all aren't deservant of the Hall of Fame, but we let in people like Gary Carter?

Yeah, but Gary Carter was a CATCHER!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

I am loving all of this positive Barry Larkin talk. It seems when he retired people were very lukewarm on his chances to make the Hall. Go foggy memory!

Seriously. I love you guys.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Yeah, but Gary Carter was a CATCHER!

I am going to start up the Ted Simmons for HoF campaign immediately!

[MikeVic]

I think Adam Dunn should make the Hall.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am going to start up the Ted Simmons for HoF campaign immediately!

I've already got the Bruce Benedict one going.

[mckerney]

Twins rumored to be sending Matt Garza to Tampa and getting Delmon Young in return. With Santana likely to be dealt soon I can't say I like this trade with giving up a 24 year old who would be their best returning starting pitcher to pick up a headcase like Young.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Seriously. I love you guys.

Hey, Larkin was great - the evidence bears it out. You shouldn't love us for being consistent on it.

Now, Jack Morris fans are my particular bugaboo.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Twins rumored to be sending Matt Garza to Tampa and getting Delmon Young in return. With Santana likely to be dealt soon I can't say I like this trade with giving up a 24 year old who would be their best returning starting pitcher to pick up a headcase like Young.

You'd also be getting another OF prospect in the trade as well, plus Cubs cast off Brendan Harris. I think Jason Bartlett and Jaun Rincon going in the deal as well. It's actually not a bad trade and will probably change trade talks for Johan with teams, since now you really won't need an OF and will probably need a ML ready arm.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dervack

You'd also be getting another OF prospect in the trade as well, plus Cubs cast off Brendan Harris. I think Jason Bartlett and Jaun Rincon going in the deal as well. It's actually not a bad trade and will probably change trade talks for Johan with teams, since now you really won't need an OF and will probably need a ML ready arm.

If the Twins don't get back both the OF they need and an ML ready arm for Santana, they have failed. Trading Garza shouldn't be a part of that process.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Logan

If the Twins don't get back both the OF they need and an ML ready arm for Santana, they have failed. Trading Garza shouldn't be a part of that process.

I'm not so sure. They really don't need another OF right now. Sure, it would be nice to get it, but not a need. They need a ML arm and possibly a 3B.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dervack

I'm not so sure. They really don't need another OF right now. Sure, it would be nice to get it, but not a need. They need a ML arm and possibly a 3B.

So why are they (potentially) trading Garza, a very good young pitcher, for Delmon Young? That was my point.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

As for subjectivity, to me someone like Roberto Alomar, John Olerud, and Joe Carter deserve the Hall. I'm a homer about these guys, and watched them play. Not sure what their OPS is or their chances at the Hall. But if I had a vote I would vote for them when the time came.

Fellow Blue Jays fan here. Alomar is the only one of the three. Neither Olerud or Carter was ever the best at their position, though Olerud was as sweet a swinger as their was. He was only a two-time all-star though and save for that insane 1993 year when he, Molitor and Alomar finished 1-2-3 in the batting race.

Olerud only had 2200 hits, but he had more home runs than I thought for his career (255) and was a career .295 hitter.

He was great to watch, but....he wasn't really 'great' at anything. He was just a nice classy guy.

Joe Carter will always be remembered for what he did in '93. To me, he's our Kirk Gibson, Mr. October and everything rolled into one. Because was the coolest, best feeling ever to watch that.

But..Hall of Famer? 'fraid not.

Robby Alomar reinvented the position at second base and he'll be recognized for it, even his later years were marred by what happened in Baltimore with John Hirshbeck (And they later reconciled and became friends) and his over the hill days in New York.

But those old Blue Jays teams were so much fun to watch during their height, because you just knew they'd do something special. It wasn't a particularly long run, but...really from about 1987 to 1993 were great times and I was just getting baseball enough to appreciate it and it's on the strength of that, that I'm still a fan of the team today, despite their constant missteps over the past decade.

[Crapshoot]

Alomar is one of the top 5 2b of all time. The others - not so much.

[Buccaneer]

Alright, I went and looked it up and found this for Tim Raines:

HOF Standards: Batting - 46.8 (91) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 90.0 (175) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Just slightly below an average HOF, which as I said earlier, where you will find many players, whether similar to Raines or similar to Murphy, Rice, Dawson or Mattingly.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Alomar is one of the top 5 2b of all time. The others - not so much.

I would agree with that, which was why I didn't put him on the list.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Alright, I went and looked it up and found this for Tim Raines:

HOF Standards: Batting - 46.8 (91) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 90.0 (175) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Just slightly below an average HOF, which as I said earlier, where you will find many players, whether similar to Raines or similar to Murphy, Rice, Dawson or Mattingly.

Except that doesn't count his 800 SB. And, as has been said before, neither of those stats are era neutral.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by oykib

Except that doesn't count his 800 SB. And, as has been said before, neither of those stats are era neutral.

Understood. Would Win Shares work better, which I don't see?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Understood. Would Win Shares work better, which I don't see?

Win Shares would work better. I don't have my book handy. But according to his Wiki page:

Tim has possibly been the most overlooked player of the 1980s. From 1983-1987, Total Baseball rated Rock as one of the NL's five best players each season. He is also listed as the 40th greatest non-pitcher in major-league history according to Bill James's win shares formula, one place ahead of Mark McGwire.

From a different blog:

Bill James has outlined a number of "qualifications" for potential members of the Hall of Fame -- His Black Ink Test, Grey Ink Test and the like. But perhaps the most simple and accurate test is the player's Total Win Shares for his career.

In his book "Win Shares" Bill James lists 44 players with career "Total Win Shares" of 400 or more. 39 of this group are already in the Hall of Fame -- and four of the other five are stars who who should be elected on their first HOF ballot:
Barry Bonds 572 (thru 2002)
Rickey Henderson 530
Cal Ripken, Jr. 427
Paul Molitor 414
Of course, the fifth player over 400 is Pete Rose (547 WS)

IMO there should be no question on the HOF qualifications of anyone with 400+ Win Shares. In fact, most eligible players with 350 WS or more are already in the Hall of Fame.

The most contraversial members seem to be players with less than 300 career Win Shares (Luis Apparico 293? Kiki Cuyler 292? George Sisler 292? Kirby Puckett 281? Bill Terry 278? Ed Walsh 265? Lloyd Waner 245?) Players with fewer than 300 Win Shares may still belong because of a few great seasons, but anyone over 400 should be almost automatic.

If only 44 players have so far achieved the 400 WS standard, then a few about to be voted on should be easy choices: Bonds, Henderson, Ripken and Molitor are over 400 (as listed above) --plus Tony Gwynn 398 and Wade Boggs 394. Any argument on these six candidates?

Of the top 110 players (career Win Shares 334 or higher) I find only 14 eligible players who have so far been passed over by the Hall: Tony Mullane 399 (1881-94); Bill Dahlen 394 (1891-1911); Darrell Evans 363 (1969-89); Rusty Staub 358 (1963-85); Sherry Magee 354 (1904-19); Lou Whitaker 351 (1977-95); Dwight Evans 347 (1972-91); Ryne Sandberg 346 (1981-97); George Van Haltren 344 (1887-1903); Dick Allen 342; Bert Blyleven 339; Jimmy Sheckard 339; Bob Caruthers 337; and JIm McCormick 334.

To these we can add active players and others who have not yet appeared on the HOF ballot: Pete Rose 547, Rickey Henderson 530, Cal Ripken Jr. 427, Paul Molitor 414, Tony Gwynn 398, Wade Boggs 394, Tim Raines 390, Roger Clemens 352, Roberto Alomar 345, Craig Biggio 342, Mark McGwire 342, and Rafael Palmeiro 334.

Most "borderline" players in the HOF have fewer than 300 career Win Shares.

[JS19]

As a Mets fan, that Garza/Young trade would suck, being that the only real chips they have in a potential Santana deal are OFers.

How good is this Garza guy supposed to be? I'll admit that I wasn't able to follow this season as I would have liked, but I never remember hearing about him in the way that I remember hearing about a Mark Prior type. I know Young has had his problems, but from what I recall, he is still supposed to be a solid ball player.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Logan

So why are they (potentially) trading Garza, a very good young pitcher, for Delmon Young? That was my point.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. After trading Garza for Young, they wouldn't need another OF. If they don't make that trade, then they do still need an OF.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by oykib

Win Shares would work better. I don't have my book handy. But according to his Wiki page:

Tim has possibly been the most overlooked player of the 1980s. From 1983-1987, Total Baseball rated Rock as one of the NL's five best players each season. He is also listed as the 40th greatest non-pitcher in major-league history according to Bill James's win shares formula, one place ahead of Mark McGwire.

From a different blog:

Bill James has outlined a number of "qualifications" for potential members of the Hall of Fame -- His Black Ink Test, Grey Ink Test and the like. But perhaps the most simple and accurate test is the player's Total Win Shares for his career.

In his book "Win Shares" Bill James lists 44 players with career "Total Win Shares" of 400 or more. 39 of this group are already in the Hall of Fame -- and four of the other five are stars who who should be elected on their first HOF ballot:
Barry Bonds 572 (thru 2002)
Rickey Henderson 530
Cal Ripken, Jr. 427
Paul Molitor 414
Of course, the fifth player over 400 is Pete Rose (547 WS)

IMO there should be no question on the HOF qualifications of anyone with 400+ Win Shares. In fact, most eligible players with 350 WS or more are already in the Hall of Fame.

The most contraversial members seem to be players with less than 300 career Win Shares (Luis Apparico 293? Kiki Cuyler 292? George Sisler 292? Kirby Puckett 281? Bill Terry 278? Ed Walsh 265? Lloyd Waner 245?) Players with fewer than 300 Win Shares may still belong because of a few great seasons, but anyone over 400 should be almost automatic.

If only 44 players have so far achieved the 400 WS standard, then a few about to be voted on should be easy choices: Bonds, Henderson, Ripken and Molitor are over 400 (as listed above) --plus Tony Gwynn 398 and Wade Boggs 394. Any argument on these six candidates?

Of the top 110 players (career Win Shares 334 or higher) I find only 14 eligible players who have so far been passed over by the Hall: Tony Mullane 399 (1881-94); Bill Dahlen 394 (1891-1911); Darrell Evans 363 (1969-89); Rusty Staub 358 (1963-85); Sherry Magee 354 (1904-19); Lou Whitaker 351 (1977-95); Dwight Evans 347 (1972-91); Ryne Sandberg 346 (1981-97); George Van Haltren 344 (1887-1903); Dick Allen 342; Bert Blyleven 339; Jimmy Sheckard 339; Bob Caruthers 337; and JIm McCormick 334.

To these we can add active players and others who have not yet appeared on the HOF ballot: Pete Rose 547, Rickey Henderson 530, Cal Ripken Jr. 427, Paul Molitor 414, Tony Gwynn 398, Wade Boggs 394, Tim Raines 390, Roger Clemens 352, Roberto Alomar 345, Craig Biggio 342, Mark McGwire 342, and Rafael Palmeiro 334.

Most "borderline" players in the HOF have fewer than 300 career Win Shares.

I think this post sums it all up

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dangarion

I'd rather have him then have the Dodgers waste money on an FA that won't do anything, or them trade away prospects for someone that won't do anything. We at least know what we will get from Kent.

You mean, like Jason Schmidt? Or Brad Penny before this past season?

Seriously, though, Kent tore your team apart last year. Sometimes, no matter what numbers he puts up, it ain't worth it. Consider Guillen with the Angels after the 2004 season. No way he comes back, and who cares if only Vlad had better numbers.

[ISiddiqui]

I have my Win Shares book in front of me. Raines, at 390 Career Win Shares, is 53rd all time. Higher than Joe Dimaggio (56th, believe it or not).

Dale Murphy, whose career was unfortunately cut short by injury, finishes at tied for 181st, with 294 WS. Rice is tied for 213th, with 282 WS. Dawson is 100th with 340 WS. Mattingly is tied for 266th, with 263 WS.

So, it's quite a gap, with the possible exception of Andre Dawson.

In the Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James rates Raines as the 8th best Left Fielder of All Time.

[Buccaneer]

Persuasive.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You mean, like Jason Schmidt? Or Brad Penny before this past season?

Seriously, though, Kent tore your team apart last year. Sometimes, no matter what numbers he puts up, it ain't worth it. Consider Guillen with the Angels after the 2004 season. No way he comes back, and who cares if only Vlad had better numbers.

I guarantee you that $47 million on Jason Schmidt was a better value even now that $126 million on Barry Zito. I'd make that deal right now if the Dodgers were interested. Not that I'm bitter over the zen-bastard or anything.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I guarantee you that $47 million on Jason Schmidt was a better value even now that $126 million on Barry Zito. I'd make that deal right now if the Dodgers were interested. Not that I'm bitter over the zen-bastard or anything.

I guarantee you both deals suck, lol.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I have my Win Shares book in front of me. Raines, at 390 Career Win Shares, is 53rd all time. Higher than Joe Dimaggio (56th, believe it or not).

Dale Murphy, whose career was unfortunately cut short by injury, finishes at tied for 181st, with 294 WS. Rice is tied for 213th, with 282 WS. Dawson is 100th with 340 WS. Mattingly is tied for 266th, with 263 WS.

So, it's quite a gap, with the possible exception of Andre Dawson.

In the Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James rates Raines as the 8th best Left Fielder of All Time.

I guess I just don't care what anyone says.. growing up... Dale Murphy was everything that was right about sports and baseball. If baseball was filled with players who wanted to be like Dale Murphy rather than players who want to be like Barry Bonds that would be just fine with me.

Others make their case for why players such as Kirby Puckett "deserve" to be in the hall of fame, I can make the same case for Dale Murphy. I fully understand win shares, I fully understand that Dale Murphy was no Babe Ruth or even Mike Schmidt as far as the calibre of his play... but no one will ever convince me that there was many players that much better than Murphy before he ran into the center field wall. I can think of a very small handful who played at the same time who I would consider possibly better.

So all of you can have your Barry Bonds and his 700+ home runs.. If I had a son (I have 3 girls), I would tell him why Dale Murphy was a better person (along with being one of the best players of his era).

[Chief Rum]

Interesting...Moreno has basically come out and accused the Marlins' front office of manipulating the Cabrera situation, seemingly close to agreeing to deals only to switch out players or demand new additions at the last moment. He said he thought the Angels had a deal with Florida on two separate occasions, only to have it fall apart at the last second. He also said the rumored Dodgers deal for Cabrera had been in place as well, and the Marlins pulled the same stunt with them.

Florida chose not to comment (and neither did Reagins; he knows Moreno gets free reign as an owner, but he doesn't get that).

The Angels fan in me says, Yeah, Arte, lay it on 'em! But the pragmatic baseball fan in me can't really dispute the Marlins have every right to demand whatever they want for a player they still control for another two years. Of course, if it's true they are being a bit sneaky and underhanded, I think that's shitty, and the Angels should just tell them to F off. But then, with the interest Cabrera is getting from various teams, I don't see the Marlins being hurt too much if the Angels pull out.

Tbh, as much as I like Cabrera, his weight issues, questions about attitude, and the fact he's two years from free agency lessens his value to me, such that I would almost rather keep tremendous talents like Kendrick and Wood here in SoCal. There are other options and we have the pieces to deal.

Just, please, don't overpay for freakin' Tejada.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I guess I just don't care what anyone says.. growing up... Dale Murphy was everything that was right about sports and baseball. If baseball was filled with players who wanted to be like Dale Murphy rather than players who want to be like Barry Bonds that would be just fine with me.

Others make their case for why players such as Kirby Puckett "deserve" to be in the hall of fame, I can make the same case for Dale Murphy. I fully understand win shares, I fully understand that Dale Murphy was no Babe Ruth or even Mike Schmidt as far as the calibre of his play... but no one will ever convince me that there was many players that much better than Murphy before he ran into the center field wall. I can think of a very small handful who played at the same time who I would consider possibly better.

So all of you can have your Barry Bonds and his 700+ home runs.. If I had a son (I have 3 girls), I would tell him why Dale Murphy was a better person (along with being one of the best players of his era).

Ugh, I know you have good intentions, but ugh. Value-wise, Murphy is not a HOF for me, albeit a very very good player. When making objective judgements, you have to acknowledge your sympathies and account for them.

As for "character"- I like Bonds, and think Murphy borders more than slightly on the sanctimonius, to say the least. Don't dislike Murphy, just not a fan of the pious attitude. Different strokes on this one.

[Chief Rum]

Well, to be fair, you're a Giants fan (when it comes to Bonds). Alan is of course biased about Murphy for the same reason.

I have no bone in this one, and I think Bonds is a dick, and Murphy largely a good guy. And, FWIW, I think the general public sees it that way, too.

[dervack]

Meh, Ace and I have a long history of disagreeing on Bonds, but I think that he's more right on this one than anything. I guess being a bit younger and midwestern, I didn't see Murphy play a whole lot. I think he's a good player, but not HOF worthy. If Dawson can't make it yet, I don't think Murphy should ever.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Well, to be fair, you're a Giants fan (when it comes to Bonds). Alan is of course biased about Murphy for the same reason.

I have no bone in this one, and I think Bonds is a dick, and Murphy largely a good guy. And, FWIW, I think the general public sees it that way, too.

Eh, I liked Bonds in the burgh, and I would like him if he played for the Dodgers/A's. I'm pretty clear on that.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JS19

As a Mets fan, that Garza/Young trade would suck, being that the only real chips they have in a potential Santana deal are OFers.

How good is this Garza guy supposed to be? I'll admit that I wasn't able to follow this season as I would have liked, but I never remember hearing about him in the way that I remember hearing about a Mark Prior type. I know Young has had his problems, but from what I recall, he is still supposed to be a solid ball player.

I don't know a ton about him, and I think I've only seen him pitch once...from what I remember, he was considered a very good prospect, but not the phenom Prior was so the hype wasn't the same. Twins fans can correct me if I'm wrong. Either way though, he's 24 and put up some solid numbers in his first couple stints in the majors.

BTW, now that Garza's been traded you'll probably hear some talk from other Mets fans about how Minaya was offered Garza straight up for Gomez and he turned it down, but that never happened. Basically one reporter misinterpreted what some dude said on ESPN and ran with it.

Anyway, when it comes to Santana, it looks like we won't get it done if Reyes isn't included in the deal, and apparently the last offer the twins made still had him in it. I know Reyes has some issues and Santana is a stud, but I don't think I would do it so I'd stand behind Minaya's refusal to part with him. We'd be left with two massive holes (SS and leadoff) with no viable replacements at this time. I don't know if we'd be any better off with that deal.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Logan

Anyway, when it comes to Santana, it looks like we won't get it done if Reyes isn't included in the deal, and apparently the last offer the twins made still had him in it. I know Reyes has some issues and Santana is a stud, but I don't think I would do it so I'd stand behind Minaya's refusal to part with him. We'd be left with two massive holes (SS and leadoff) with no viable replacements at this time. I don't know if we'd be any better off with that deal.

Abosolutely not. Reyes has a reasonable contract that runs through '10 I believe.

I could live with the Mets parting with Pelfrey and Gomez, which won't get a deal for Santana done. Pelfrey still hasn't shown any secondary pitches and no matter how good his fastball is, that alone won't get it done as a starter and I'm just not that big of a Carlos Gomez fan. A lot of his potential comes from projecting his power and he's shown close to zero so far.

Martinez and Milledge aren't worth giving up. Martinez just had what would be considered a fantastic year for an 18 year old playing in AA with his home games in an extreme pitcher's park. Milledge is going to be cost-controlled the next several years and is ready to step in and be an above average corner outfielder at age 23.

Santana is easily the best pitcher in baseball, but I can't see a team giving up what the Twins are asking for him. They're wanting a couple of ML ready starters and a couple of prospects. If Santana weren't in the last year of his contract I could possibly see it, but giving up so many controlled years to get a guy that you're going to have to hand a contract for $20 million per to isn't worth it. In the Mets case they'd end up with a higher payroll, more holes than they started with, and a gutted farm system.

[ISiddiqui]

Sometimes I wonder if the Twins are aware Santana is in the last year of his contract. What they are asking for makes it seem like he's signed up to a 10 year contract below his market value.

[Logan]

Agreed Atocep. Someone made the connection in a column yesterday -- Haren obviously isn't the pitcher Santana is (no one is, and only a couple guys even come close) but he's an ace also, and could be obtained with a package that seems reasonable for both teams.

[Logan]

Honestly, if the Twins are really going to take Coco Crisp, Lester, and two non-elite prospects for Santana, they should be contracted.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3133598

[Young Drachma]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3133712