Rolling on Day Three

by Jesse on Dec 5, 2007 12:07 PM EST in News

Right Side of Jesse's Brain: Gee willikers, it's been awfully quiet this morning!

Left Side of Jesse's Brain: A little too quiet. WHAT THE F**K IS GOING ON?!?

From everything I've read this morning, there have been no new discussions regarding our favorite starting pitcher and his potential suitors. Or suitor. As things sit right now Johan is still a Twin, and no matter what certain media outlets may tell you this isn't a bad thing.

If the Twins aren't happy with a package offered for Santana, they shouldn't feel compelled to bite. Being under contract for one more year gives the Twins a lot of time to re-up their situation, whether this means biding their time until a better offer comes along or if it means swallowing a little pride and giving Johan the money and years he's asking for on a contract extension. In fact, extending Johan would put the Twins in a better negotiating position if they feel they'd want to deal him in the future.

It's been a quiet morning, so be sure to check back regularly for updates. Also be sure to post your own musings and latest updates here.

[11:30 am CST: Peter Gammons Update] Gammons has reported that the Twins will likely leave the Winter Meetings with Johan Santana still on the roster. This could be a very quiet day after all, in spite of that "quiet before the storm" environment that was happening earlier. Turns out the "quiet before the storm" was just "nothing is happening".

[Noon Update] MLB Trade Rumors and DallasNews.com are reporting that the Twins have expressed interest in the availability of Rangers third baseman Hank Blalock.

[3:30 pm CST Update] Here's a transcript of a press interview with Ron Gardenhire. Meanwhile, La Velle hears rumblings that the Mariners and Mets want to sneak into the Santana blah blah blah. Oh, and then there's this which doesn't seem realistic: Couresy of MLBTradeRumors.com

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

totally

While the suspense has made me want to pull hair out at times, I can be quite content having Santana still on our team. And I share your position on re-signing him. He doesn't seem to be demanding a no-trade clause for an extension, so that can significantly mitigate the risks involved in that big of contract.

If we decide we can no-longer afford him, just deal him. The worst case would be he underperforms and we are forced to eat some salary and get very little in return. But, in fact, I would be willing to bet against that happening.

One significant thing I see as a possible issue: how much would it cost per year to insure his contract against injury? A million? (Total stab in the dark.)

But anyway, like you way, having him already signed to an extension also immediately puts us in a better position in trade negotiations.

Unfortunately, I'd be pretty shocked if things turn out this way...

by adam @ Twinkie Town on Dec 5, 2007 12:52 PM EST reply actions

I suspect the train has left the station

on extending him, but even if it hasn't, there will be no extension without a no-trade clause. Why would he do that?

I've said that Smith needs to be able to walk away if he doesn't get an offer he can likes, but since I'm not a GM, merely a fan, I can say that I think it would be very damaging not to trade him.

The draft picks have some value, but not that much value. He really needs to find a deal that works, even if it isn't ideal.

by Eric in Madison on Dec 5, 2007 12:58 PM EST up reply actions

why would he do that?

I guess you may have a point, but I question whether we can be sure, one way or another, whether he would or would not absolutely demand a no-trade clause.

If omitting one is what it takes for the team to offer him the years and $$ he wants, then maybe he can live without one.

He has given the team his blessing to go ahead and explore a trade at this time, so he is at least not totally opposed to the idea.

by adam @ Twinkie Town on Dec 5, 2007 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

insurance

It would be way, way more than a million. Pitchers get injured all the time.

by by jiminy on Dec 5, 2007 1:31 PM EST up reply actions

insurance

I agree, insurance would be WAY more than $1m. Put it this way, if the contract is $100m, is there less than 1% chance that he gets injured (and that doesn't account for insurance company profit).

I have no idea what these contracts cost, but they're very expensive, and have very specific limits on when coverage kicks in. I.e. his shoulder gets messed up, but he stills plays (poorly) and the twins probably don't recover any money.

by snolls on Dec 5, 2007 2:20 PM EST reply actions

No Trade and Insurance

Well, Insurance might even be as high 20 or 30% of the contract each season. Like Pohlad, insurance companies want to make sure that they won't pay out more than they get back, except in rare occasions.

No-trade will come with the territory, but there's always room for discussion. Throw anotehr $5 million on the table and the hopes of making the playoffs, and a guy will happily move on. It's when you have to send the guy to a team with a check in his back pocket for the otehr team (why the Rangers ever did this to the Yankees) that makes it tough.

Baseball is a strange world:

(1) On big contrats, does the team match SS payments, withholding taxes and such, or does the guys agent handle all that. That an add a hefty chunck above and beyond set payroll costs each year.

(2) I guess players aren't covered by workmen's comp insurance. Is that a union thing...what your dues help pay?

(3) How much are clubhouse dues. Of course, we also much realize that players get free rooms and meal money on the road. Hell, with what players get paid in "expense" money they can easily stay in a hotel when in-town for home games.

(4) The team has doctors and such. I always wondered what a baseball player's health benefits are like. Who pays for those MRIs, physicals (that's what the team docs are for), quick trips to the medical center and such.

(5) re: contract insurance...you have to spell out every nick and cut, I'm sure. Slipped in the bathtub and broke his arm...eh, no cover. Snapping towels in the locker room and sprained his shoulder...eh, no...but the welt the other guy got on his butt is covered.

(2)

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Dec 5, 2007 2:21 PM EST reply actions

SS/MED

I can't say for certain if they have to pay SS on player payroll. It would be minor if they did. SS is capped at like 6%. 20 mil = 6120. On the other hand Medicare is 1.65%, uncapped, so 20 mil = 330,000.

by GACTwinFan on Dec 5, 2007 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

Social Security

SS is (I think) 7.3% each, from the employer and employee, but only applies to the first $85,000 (or so) in any given year. So social security is capped at about $12k. Medicare might not be capped, so that might really be $300k, but it might be capped, i'm not sure.

by snolls on Dec 5, 2007 6:56 PM EST up reply actions

Keeping Santana...

I want to know why it seems like the Twins aren't interested in keeping Santana right now. Why don't we hear about possible offers to extend Santana? Is is because the national media (coughespncough) is in love with the idea of Santana being traded to the Yankeesox beast?

I may just be a fan, but I think there are worse options here then giving Johan a 6-year $110+ million contract. Yes, it would be expensive as hell. Yes, it would tie our hands financially until the revenue from the new ballpark rolls in. -But I could live with 5 more years of Johan on the hill every 5th day.

It appears that right now, Boston is controlling negotiations because they are the only real option. Why aren't the Twins a possible team that Johan might be playing for for the forseeable future? To me, a trade like this has to knock your socks off. IMO, we'd have to get A TON back for him to make this worthwhile. We basically have to be forced to make the trade because it would be ridicules not to for what they're offering.

Right now, I don't see any packages that compel Bill Smith to make a trade. If I were him, I'd leave the winter meetings with Johan still on my roster and begin negotiations on an extension. The Twins aren't in a good position to make the trade right now. Maybe after someone else takes Haren off the market the offers will improve. Who knows? -But now doesn't feel like the right time to make this kind of trade.

-Flip

by Flip27 on Dec 5, 2007 2:23 PM EST reply actions

The Twins made their offer

$90/million, 6 years, beginning in 2008. Santana turned it down and demanded 7 years for more than Zito's $126 million. Rumor has it, he's looking for a six year extension at $23.5 million, which would mean 7 years and $150 million. He will not sign for less. And why would he? He will get that next winter if the Twins decide to keep him.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Dec 5, 2007 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

WOAH - 3 way deal!?!!

mlbtraderumors.com has been my trusted source and ear to the ground throughout the last 4 weeks. They just posted that a very trusted source is hearing this rumor. It's too crazy to take seriously, but it's fun to ponder.

Mets send Jose Reyes and Kevin Mulvey to the A's
Mets send Hector Pellot to Twins
A's send Bobby Crosby and Dan Johnson to Mets
A's send Dan Haren to Twins
Twins send Johan Santana to Mets

Mets get Johan Santana, Bobby Crosby and Dan Johnson
A's get Jose Reyes and Kevin Mulvey
Twins get Dan Haren and Hector Pellot

Pellot seems like a throw-in, but can you imagine?

by TheMattWilke on Dec 5, 2007 5:02 PM EST reply actions

I cannot

This deal is crap. Santana for Haren and a nobody?

by diehardtwinsfan on Dec 5, 2007 5:12 PM EST up reply actions

2 cheaper years of Haren

It's actually a pretty good deal. The Twins go right back in the same bidding war next year for Haren next year because he'd be in the same spot Johan is in this year. It's deferring the problem one year.

by TheMattWilke on Dec 5, 2007 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

exactly

its a poor temporary solution. I'd rather them trade him for straight up lester and lowrie.

by wildblueyonder on Dec 5, 2007 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

and to clarify...

lester+lowrie=bad deal
just 1 year of haren= worse deal

by wildblueyonder on Dec 5, 2007 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

A middle rotation SP and a prospect

Over a year of Dan Haren before he's good trade bait? Really? I guess we disagree....

by TheMattWilke on Dec 5, 2007 5:45 PM EST up reply actions

i dont know

its not a terrible idea i guess, but personally id rather see them just hold onto johan and get the compensation picks instead of switch down to haren.

by wildblueyonder on Dec 5, 2007 5:47 PM EST up reply actions

Mets latest.......

The Tigers flipping Willis (great idea) and sending along Rodriguez. But for what, to the Mets. Really.......................

check out Twinkies autograph collection at www.TwinsCards.com

by twintown on Dec 5, 2007 7:29 PM EST up reply actions

if it was true

i think it would be better than any multiple player deals offered so far, and Santana goes to the National League, plus I think that the prospect of a 3 team big time trade could actually make more sense and could get more teams involved in the mix and could get the Twins someone who can contribute right away. Worth looking into anyway for BS

by cedab03 on Dec 5, 2007 5:25 PM EST reply actions

Not that it will happen, but

I don't know if I would trade Santana straight up for Bedard or Haren, but only because its an ego shot. They are the next level of pitcher, and they are cheaper and locked up for more years.

I would gladly trade Santana for Haren or Bedard, plus any prospect with "upside" (as in, might surprise people and be a good starting MLB player some day). In fact, where I smart and able to get over my ego, I would trade Santana for those guys without the prospect.

by snolls on Dec 5, 2007 5:43 PM EST reply actions

That deal works in my mind...

IF they throw in Gomez too.

The Mets don't "need" Gomez. He gives us a CF and we get to see how our pitchers develop for a year or 2, then get to spin Haren for a big package anyway.

Heck, maybe we could even spin Haren right away to a team like the Dodgers that doesn't want to shell out $150 M on a pitcher. He'd fit there, and he's an LA guy (fellow Pdine alum of this poster).

If you could get Gomez and Haren, then the only holes left are SS and 3b. And you'd still have Nathan/Rincon/LOTS of money (almost $45 M left) to make those happen.

Heck, sign Lamb and swing a deal for a SS (Hu from the Dodgers?) and you're all set.

by djskilbr on Dec 5, 2007 6:02 PM EST reply actions

I'd consider it if Gomez was included

But I'd be then inclined to flip Haren right away, maybe even for the non-ellsbury Red Sox package, getting Lester and Lowrie+, and even taking Crisp to let Gomez develop as he was clearly rushed.

I bet the Red Sox would do that, and there might even be some better offers. Still, what do I know? I'd have to know what the Haren market looked like.

Here's why I would flip him now: he's valuable because he's cheap and under control, but my feeling is that last year may very well have been an outlier, and given that a) you aren't likely to really compete next year even with him, and b) his value can only go down going forward as he pitches worse and his cheap deal gets shorter, I wouldn't keep him.

by Eric in Madison on Dec 5, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

Here's how it would work for me

Twins get:
Haren (From A's)
Fernando Martinez (from Mets)
Hector Pellot (from Mets)

Mets get:
Santana (from Twins)
Crosby (From A's)
Johnson (From A's)

A's get:
Reyes (From Mets)
Rincon (from Twins)
Kevin Mulvey (from Mets)

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Dec 5, 2007 10:44 PM EST up reply actions

frame work

I think that is a good frame work for a deal. I agree that the Twins nedd something else to balance the trade a little as it seems the mets are getting a lot. Could we not just include Harris or Tolbert or even Plouffe instead and get Reyes + for ourselves. Just Brainstorming.

by doofus04 on Dec 5, 2007 6:14 PM EST reply actions

reyes?

i'm not buying it. if the mets won't include reyes in a deal with the twins for santana, i don't understand how the extra step makes them more likely.

by dctwin on Dec 5, 2007 6:16 PM EST reply actions

While I agree this is nuts

For a few reasons, it makes some sense for the Mets, since they get a shortstop back for Reyes--a former ROY who is viewed as someone with talent, but injury prone, plus a hitter to hedge against a Delgado injury/decline, instead of just getting Santana.

by Eric in Madison on Dec 5, 2007 6:52 PM EST up reply actions

That deal

That deal was definitely proposed by a NY sportwriter, it wasn't any good for either the A's or Twins.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Dec 5, 2007 7:08 PM EST reply actions

I agree........

Unless we were getting the Mets shortstop, I would just as soon take Hughes, who has an upside comparable to haren, plus Melkey for cneter, plus a lamo shortstop who has to be equal to filling in for Pollet or whatever his name is. Twins get nothng. Even if they flip Haren, they absically get Lester, Crisp, and a prospect or two from the Red Sox, which they already have on the table for Johan.

Question is will someone cave. Will the Yanks give the Twins Kennedy and Hughes. Will the Sox give the Twins Buchholz or Lester and Ellsbury? That's what the Twins are holding out for on both fronts. And maybe what they have to do to sweeten the pot....wish Rincon was worth something.