Might Have Beens

by jscape2000 on Jun 14, 2009 11:09 AM EDT in New York Yankees Analysis

The Yankees could have had Johan Santana, couldn't they?

I live in North Carolina and even this far from the WFAN echo chamber, when I meet a Yankees fan, eventually the topic comes up.

According to Cot's, Santana is earning just under $23M until 2013; A.J. Burnett is earning $16.5M until 2013. So the difference between having A.J. Burnett on the staff and having Johan Santana is about $6M.

That's the price of the 2009 Andy Pettitte, and the price there has been too high.

Or it's the price of Nick Swisher, who was a redundant player when he was acquired, even if he did help provide the cover that the Yanks weren't in on Mark Teixeira.

Or it's a little less than the price of Damaso Marte. Do you remember who he is? That he's on the 40-man? That Brian Cashman once called Marte "one of the better left-handed relievers in the game." Stupid Brian Cashman.

Which is what the whole argument boils down to in the end: Stupid Brian Cashman.

I was reading the argument again, this time over at WasWatching, a blog I usually enjoy, and I marvel a little. The idea that

Brian Cashman took a team that was a three-peat World Champion and turned them into a team that would finish first and then lose in the LDS…and then into a team that would no longer finish first but would win a Wildcard (and lose in the LDS)…and then into a team that would not make the post-season at all

Yes, in hindsight, I might have traded Melky Cabrera, IPK, Phil Hughes and whatever additional pieces the Twins eventually demanded for Santana, and then signed him to the richest deal in Major League history. But that abandons the moment; it ignores the hole that would open in centerfield for the last few seasons. And it send Phil Hughes, still only 23, to Minnesota to learn to pitch there while Santana's decline continues.

His hits per nine have gone up in each of the last 3 seasons, as have BB/9, while his K/9 have gone down. So far, this year he has rebounded, but I'm waiting for the full season numbers to account for park factor before I declare the crisis over for $23M 30-year old.

And I still think Hughes will be a more valuable pitcher before Santana's deal is up.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

His decline?

Johan had the best ERA of his career last year, and is besting that pace again. He led the league in starts last year and is near the top in Ks. Again. While Phil Hughes serves as an awesome middle reliever, and Melky, in a normal ballpark, might have a home run. If he was lucky.

Delusional Yankee fans.

NittanyWhiteOut.com. Arguably the second best Penn State blog I know of.

by Devon Edwards on Jun 14, 2009 11:23 AM EDT reply actions

everything was fine

until you made a generalized, stereotypical attack. please dont do it anymore.

re: ERA – you do realize that ERA cant be compared across teams and leagues, yes? every ballpark affects offense/defense, as well as the league one plays in. it’s easier to pitch in the NL bc pitchers hit. it’s also easier to pitch in Shea and Citi (so far) than it is a bandbox, because it decreases offense.

ERA+ is better bc it adjusts for league and home park. Santana was still great in that dept. last year (166), but that was a bit misleading, bc his WHIP was at its highest since 2003. his K rate was the lowest since 2001. his K/BB was its lowest since 2002. and just imagine if he wasnt in a pitchers park in a pitchers league.

he’s still a great pitcher, but i doubt he’ll ever be as good as 04-06.

by Travis G on Jun 14, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

Cano is a Pimp

by yankeechaser on Jun 14, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions

his FIP

was far from the best of his career . (it was still good though)

with a situation like this, you need a long time to really tell.

Either way though. the Mets win, they traded away a bunch of garbage for a great pitcher. the question of weether the Yanks win or not though takes time to tell.

In reality though, we weren’t in the trade talks, we have no idea if the Twins were actually serious in trading Johan in the AL at all or were they just flirting with the Yanks / Sox with the intention of driving up the price.

by RollingWave on Jun 15, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions

I still kinda like the idea of what the Yanks did

Santana is arguably the best pitcher in baseball. Top 3 is not even arguable, its a fact.

That Santana had the best ERA of his career is irrelevant, cuz he’s in the NL. He would have similar stats should he have ended up on the Yanks that he did on the Twins, maybe worse cuz teams like the Sux and those pesky Orioles like to kick the crap out of the Yanks pitching.

I think Hughes MAY have the chance to be a top of the line starter. But if really that’s all you give up for at least 5 years of one of the top 3 pitchers in the game?

I mean IPK is ass right now. He may end up being a servicable starter, but more than likely a few years from now when he learns how to throw more junk. Melky is very good defensively, and he has been the Yanks most clutch player this season. But still with guys like Brett Gardner and eventually bringing up Austin Jackson, he could be let go no problem.

Still, I don’t really like ‘giving up’ on prospects like Hughes, even for a guy like Santana. Johan was never near the prospect Hughes is. Johan was in the pen for the start of his career, and really came out of nowhere to be the starter he was when he was 25.

So to say that Hughes can’t be as good as Johan is false, it COULD happen. Not likely, but Hughes has the talent.

I wonder if the Yanks would go after CC when they undoubtedly would have signed Johan for a gigantic contract.

I could imagine CC and Johan at the top of teh rotation tho….

by FreeBradshaw on Jun 14, 2009 11:39 AM EDT reply actions

Most entertaining of all...

…is the “sponsor” of Santana’s Baseball-Reference page. Somebody from PhilliesNation got really, really lucky with that one.

"Even Napoleon had his Watergate." —Yogi Berra. Quite true.

by dzawaki on Jun 14, 2009 8:29 PM EDT reply actions

i cant believe

they allow people to write anything in the name of ‘sponsorship.’

obviously, the non-trade doesnt look too good right now. Hughes has been mostly solid this year, IPK’s been hurt, and Melky’s been surprisingly good. but again, its still too early to judge.

i also dont think we can assume that if they got Santana, they would’ve also signed Sabathia. i still believe Hughes will be at least as good as Santana within four years, and he’ll only be 27. we also dont know if Santana will stay healthy. there was already an elbow scare in ST.

by Travis G on Jun 14, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions

i still believe Hughes will be at least as good as Santana within four years

Man you sure do like to think positive. I hate to disagree. I believe Hughes can be a damn fine number 2 or 3. But his stuff doesn’t warrant a comparison to Johan. Johan is the elite of the elite. To try and and say you think ANY 23 year old will be at LEAST as good as Santana is craaaazy.

by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Jun 14, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions

i never said

he’ll reach Santana’s peak level, just that Santana will continue to decline while Hughes will improve, and Hughes will match or surpass Santana in the next four years.

by Travis G on Jun 15, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions

who is IPK?

i live in minnesota now and can’t follow as much as i would like to so please allow me some latitude here. But who is IPK?

chandler knight

by ae2cdk on Jun 14, 2009 11:48 PM EDT reply actions

Ian Kennedy

by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Jun 14, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Ian Patrick Kennedy.

Here’s his player page in all of its underwhelming glory. I don’t blame you at all for not knowing for he is; most of us wish we didn’t, either.

"Even Napoleon had his Watergate." —Yogi Berra. Quite true.

by dzawaki on Jun 15, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions

thanks

thanks guys

chandler knight

by ae2cdk on Jun 15, 2009 1:52 AM EDT reply actions

I think the argument, then and now, went something like this...

Santana could have been had for 3 of your better young players plus a $130-$140 million contract extension.

~~-OR~~-

You could wait one year for CC Sabathia to hit the free agent market. Sabathia is more of a workhorse than Santana, is a year younger, less far removed from his peak season, and would probably command a contract of $150-$160 million, but you’d keep your prospects.

I know it was easy to pan the non-deal last year when the team missed the playoffs, but the odds are, they would have missed them regardless. Hughes/Kennedy/Melky need to put up about $20 million of value over the next few years to make the non-deal look like the right move in hindsight, and I think chances are they will.

by 3460kuri on Jun 15, 2009 8:57 AM EDT reply actions

It made sense then

and it makes sense now, mainly because of his injury concerns and if they get CC and still kept Hughes, that would be better in the long run than merely having the Johan on the team.

I still think Santana’s the better pitcher, but I don’t like the idea of his elbow barking at him even back when the trade happened. He didn’t show much of it then, but it seems its acting up again (of course they’ll say that when he’s gotten tagged in his last 5 starts.)

I doubt they would have been able to grab CC if they had Johan, even if you take away Burnett’s contract that’s still a big difference. You could take away Pettite, but that’s another spot where who would pitch there?

by FreeBradshaw on Jun 15, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions