The Johan Trade: Revisited
by Jeff Rueter on Jun 5, 2009 8:53 PM EDT
53 comments
In a post about Joe Crede being Bill Smith's best deal with the Twins' organization, and I started to think Johan trade once again.
You know, I’m not too sure how to react to the deal quite yet..
We all knew Johan would be as much of an ace as ever, and he hasn’t failed to disappoint, seeing as we knew he had occasional gopherball troubles.
But what have we gotten?
For the first 2-3 months of 2008, Carlos Gomez alone made it seem like this was a great trade. From his opening day hustling against LAA to his cycle, “Go-Go” Gomez became a fan favorite. As soon as his bat cooled down and Denard Span’s heated up, things started to shift. It was Span, the kid brought up slowly in the organization, and not Gomez who was a Topps “All-Rookie Team” Outfielder choice, despite only half a season of work. All-in-all, Gomez has settled into a Michael Bourn-type, a speed demon with a mediocre OPS.
Humber has not been sensational whatsoever at the MLB level. He never showed good control over his pitches, and his ERA suffered from it.
Kevin Mulvey hasn’t been in a high level of the organization, but he is a top-flight pitching prospect. He’s back in AAA with signs of a possible late-season call up.
Deolis Guerra is still in high-A ball, but he does show promise for the future.
Jury’s out, ladies and gentlemen. Let the opinions fly.
0 recs |
53 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Well its easily the Mets...
But this trade isn’t as bad as the Matt Garza Jason Barlett trade for Young and Harris
I never wanted that trade to happen
The Johan trade though was a formality in some way shape or form it had to happen.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 6, 2009 3:08 AM EDT reply actions
See, this is revisionist thinking, in my opinion
One of the things we talked about when it was happening was that Smith needed to have the guts to walk away if he couldn’t get the deal he wanted. Instead, he made a poor trade. The problem with the trade was the lack of any remotely sure thing. There was nobody in that trade that was definitively going to be even an average major leaguer—it was a trade with too much risk.
I like Gomez, but he may never hit even OK. Humber seems to have topped out in AAA. Mulvey…might be a back end guy, or he might wind up a guy who spends most of his career in AAA cities. Guerra—who the hell knows what he’ll be. He’s pitching better this year, but it’s his third year in the FSL and he still isn’t missing a ton of bats.
The question isn’t who got the better of the trade. the question should be: would the Twins have been better served not making the trade at all? One more year of Santana and 2 draft picks, or the package they got? I think I would have preferred they not make the trade. Very good chance they make the post-season last year with Santana, and who knows? Flags fly forever.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 6, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Further wondering
I wonder whether the Twins would’ve made the Garza trade if they hadn’t already planned on trading Santana. It seemed to me that Garza was more polished than Delmon at the time of the trade (not sure if that was the conventional wisdom, just my perspective), and I wonder if that was another part of the plan to load up a bit for ‘09-’10 and submit to mediocrity for ‘08. If they’d kept Santana, there’d have been more pressure not to waste his last season in Minnesota, and Garza probably gave them a better chance to win in ‘08 than Delmon would’ve, even without the benefit of hindsight.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I tie the Garza trade to Torii Hunter
and not Johan. We lost our CF and arguably our best RH bat, so we traded for a RH hitting OF with high upside.
by Adam Peterson on Jun 10, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point
Also, I remember there being some comments thrown around about how Delmon could also play some center field.
Excuse me, I need to vomit.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I don't know, Delmon in CF would mean the Twins would make SC every night
as the worst play of the night.
I remember people saying Delmon would at least be part time CF and maybe only hit 5 to 10 HRs less than Torii to start but could be just as good w/ the bat in time.
You have to keep in mind
The trade was for only the 2008 season of Johan and first dibs to sign him long term.
Having Johan would have meant no Livan Hernandez and rolling the dice on Denard Span and his awful minor league numbers going into 2008. Then a lot of Jason Pridie as Michael Cuddyer went through his injuries. Would this have meant more than 88 wins? Most likely. Could the scenario have gotten the Twins past the Rays or the Red Sox in October, much more questionable.
I believe the Yankees and Red Sox were more interested in keeping him off the other team that giving up serious value for him. So the question becomes was this haul from the Mets worth more than 2 draft picks and a probable quick playoff exit in 2008. If Mulvey turns out to be a quality starting pitcher, I’d say the answer is probably yes.
We will never really know what Boston or NY offered
We heard a bunch of possibilities. What gets me is that the rumored (emphasis on rumored) Lester-Masterson-Lowrie-Bowden package would have looked VERY good right about now…
Which means it was probably never really on the table.
by Adam Peterson on Jun 10, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Discussions but no offers
According to execs in Boston and NY, they had discussions but never made concrete offers. THe Mets came forward with an offer that the Twins initially passed on, hoping some of the discussions turned into offers. They never did. SO the Twins had to accept the Mets’ offer.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
No, they didn't
They did not have to accept the Mets’ offer. I always come back to this. They absolutely could have walked away.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 10, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Right
I meant, it was the only offer they had. They could have walked away.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Yes
they could have walked away and kept an unhappy Santana in 2008. Based on how we did last year, there’s a good chance this puts us into the playoffs.
It all comes down to whether that one year of Santana would be more valuable than Gomez-Mulvey-Humber-Guerra.
by Adam Peterson on Jun 11, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I would say it's a year of Santana
Against Gomez and Guerra alone. Mulvey and Humber is about the return you would expect from draft compensation, judging from the Hunter deal.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
really
We would have gotten a 1st and a sandwich pick. It seems like Gomez and Guerra are the two best prospects of the group. Do you think that an average 1st round pick would be worse than each?
I’d say we would get something close to two Guerras, 2 good prospects, but at low levels.
Guerra is rated about on par with Gutierrez
Gutierrez has the shorter runway. Guerra has the higher upside. So, maybe you get one Guerra with a late-first-round draft pick. Then something like a Mulvey (who was a second-round pick). Gomez is similar to Hicks (he was just rushed, which means he’s less likely to reach his upside than Hicks). But Hicks is a better prospect than you could get with a late first rounder. You can never get a mid-to-early first rounder because those are protected (e.g. Juan Cruz only yielded a sandwich pick and a second rounder because he was signed by the Royals).
Lets just say that it’s one year of Santana vs. Gomez and Humber. I’d take Gomez alone instead of that one year, unless it’s a championship year. My sense is Santana would have gotten us to the playoffs, but not to the championship. Counter-factual conditionals are inherently tricky, though.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
CC trade
How do you think it compares to the prospects in the CC trade? I.e. if the Twins had waited and traded Johan later in the season?
remind me
Did Captain Cheeseburger have a no trade clause that he was flaunting and claiming that there were only certain teams he would go to? Also Santana was claiming that he would not approve a mid season trade.
You can compare the players, sure, but it doesnt mean much given the difference in circumstances.
by guinness junky on Jun 7, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Once you toss in the fact that
…Santana was highly unlikely to ever sign with the Twins, the trade takes on a different look. The Twins had a huge offer on the table for him, and he was not the least bit interested. Jo wanted bright lights, big city.
Bloggin' the bloggers since 1938.
It is also my impression
that he specifically wanted to go to the Mets, which created a bigger bind for the Twins. The Mets offer big lights, $$$, lots of superstar players around him, AND he gets to pitch in the NL. I think he saw all this and put the Twins in the position where they had to trade him to the Mets or let him walk as a FA.
by guinness junky on Jun 7, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The NL...
…of course, gives you no DH. Much nicer.
You will hear some pitchers – Jack and Bert to name two – who complain about the NL because they bat for you in tight games. (Blyleven has a legitmate bitch here – he had 20 no-d’s in ‘79 alone, and for a frustrated man who has been denied Hall of Fame induction and is 13 wins from the alleged magical number of 300 wins, I suspect those 41 career no-D’s he got with the Pirates loom large in his mind.)
But Santana never seemed to care if he completed games – and ironically in his first season with the Mets he matched his single-season high of three complete games that season. So far, being in the NL hasn’t affected his no-decison totals – his highest in a season came with the Twins. He had to assume the Mets would have a good bullpen going into that deal, too. It most likely came up in any discussions before he agreed to a deal.
Bloggin' the bloggers since 1938.
Sure, though in Bert's case, I wonder how many times he K'd a pitcher...
by guinness junky on Jun 7, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Best. Website. Ever.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
41 NDs trumps 157 Ks.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Quick California math
103 NL starts, Figure an average of 3 times through the lineup to see the pitchers’ spot and the max opportunity was roughly 310 chances to fan a pitcher. Let’s say he fanned 150 pitchers – which is probably a high guess. He struck out 3,701 in his career. So it’s not many.
In addition, they count the pitchers struck out by all pitchers- it’s not as if it’s a separate category – so I don’t see how this pertains.
Bloggin' the bloggers since 1938.
point is
Bert likely benefited from being in the NL just as much if not more than it “harmed” him.
I am curious, since you seem to have knowledge of the situation, how many of those 41 NDs were the restult of him being pulled for a pinch hitter?
by guinness junky on Jun 7, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Dunno
Again, when you figure he threw about 1/7 as many NL innings as AL innings you have to concede that compared to, say, Steve Carlton, Blyleven didn’t benefit by his relatively brief stay in the NL. Hall of Fame voters don’t take that into account, of course. For example, a strikeout is a strikeout, whether you made Ray Oyler or Hank Aaron carry his bat back to the rack. You accumulate a few thousand of those and voters start to notice, regardless of how often you struck out a pitcher.
Not sure where you’re going with this, but if the intent is to suggest pitching in the NL makes Blyleven less of a HOF candidate then all NL pitchers in the DH era are diminished. I presume that isn’t where you’re going with it, but if you are, it’s a big swing and a miss.
I have no idea how many times he was lifted for a pinch hitter. Baseball-reference.com would have all the game play-by-plays if you’re interested. I’m not that interested.
Blyleven had an ERA better than league average the year he had 20 no-decisions, which could strongly suggest – emphasize could strongly suggest – that he wasn’t being lifted too often because he was in trouble.
The Pirates won more than 90 games that year AND they had a damned good bullpen. Their relievers had a lot of decisions.
Toss in the fact that the manager, Chuck Tanner, was not known for his patience with starters and I’m going to take this information and conclude that Blyleven was lifted with more enthusiasm than was necessary.
The play-by-plays would confirm or refute this, but I’m not eager to review them. In the absence of that information I’m content to conclude that during at least that season Blyleven lost some wins because of Tanner and the NL approach to strategy. Of course, we can play “what-if” all day on some other aspect of his career, too. His record is what it is, and it’s a Hall of Fame record.
Bloggin' the bloggers since 1938.
by Johnny Safron on Jun 8, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you have to compare it to the two other deals that went on that same off season
The Dan Haren trade and the Erik Bedard trade. What did those teams get for their aces compared to the Twins, and then you have a metric to compare it to. Remember that at the time, Santana was expected to bring the biggest bounty of the three.
To Arizona:
RHP Dan Haren
To Oakland:
CF Carlos Gonzalez
LHP Brett Anderson
1B Chris Carter
CF Aaron Cunningham
LHP Dana Eveland
LHP Greg Smith
To Seattle:
LHP Erik Bedard
To Baltimore:
CF Adam Jones
RHP Chris Tillman
LHP George Sherrill
RHP Kam Mickolio
LHP Tony Butler
Did the Twins get equal value to what the Athletics and Orioles recieved from their trades?
You can even go back and look at other past Ace trades;
To STL: Mark Mulder
To OAK: Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, Daric Barton
To ATL: Tim Hudson
To OAK: Dan Meyer, Juan Cruz, Charles Thomas
To BOS: Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, Guillermo Mota
To FLA: Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Jesus Delgado and Harvey Garcia
Don't believe in yourself.
Believe in Me who believes in You.
I would have to look into the older trades
but the bedard trade and haren trade were under very different circumstances, since I believe haren was locked up for 3 years and bedard for 2. Santana was set to become a FA and be the most sought after free agent pitcher. Also, I dont think either had a no trade clause they could exercise.
by guinness junky on Jun 7, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither is comparable
due to the number of years Haren (3) and Bedard (2) were locked up.
by Adam Peterson on Jun 10, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Question is not quite fair
The Twins were in a no-win situation. Santana wouldn’t sign for what the Twins were offering (five years, $100 million plus a $20 million option). And his no-trade provision basically meant he could force the Twins to trade him to an East Coast team. When the Yankees and Red Sox heard what he was turning down to leave Minnesota, they backed off, leaving one team and one team only. So the choice was between one more year of Santana and two draft picks, or to take what the Mets offered—four players on par with the kind of guys they could expect to draft but much farther along. GIven that choice, I think they made the right call. But, as soo as there was no competition for Santana, there was never a sense that going to win this trade.
Unlike other trades that they have won (Viola, Knoblauch, Piezinski), they were not willingly trading him. The Mets and Santana were in control. Under the circumstances, the Twins did well. But the Mets clearly won.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
actually did the Mets win (I don't mean in the long term here)
The Mets commit all that money and years to Santana, suffer another late season collapse and miss the post season.
The Twins lose one of their key players and watch a season where young unknowns (to the average fan) fight an almost season long battle for the division and take it to an extra game.
Granted, this is how I look at it but from my seat the Mets didn’t win out at all (last year at least). Which is all that matters b/c if the Twins wouldn’t have traded Santana, he’d still be gone this year as a FA.
Santana is a cornerstone player
A recent survey of GMs, referenced by the Shooter, asked the following question: If you could choose one player to build your team around, who would it be? Santana was sixth on the list (following Pujols, Greinke, Longoria, Mauer, and Hanley Ramirez.) These kinds of players are not easy to get. The Mets gave away four players, two of whom are replacement level and two have a higher upside. But none are cornerstone players in the making. So, almost by definition, the Mets won.
The other criterion I would use is how other teams did. Take the Bedard trade: The Orioles got much more value for a far inferior pitcher. Why? Because the Mariners could not compete for Santana—they were not on his list. Relative to the market, the Twins should have gotten much more in return. They should have gotten the top five guys at the level of Gomez and Guerra, judging from the Bedard trade. So the Mets got a lot in return for a little, relative to the market.
All that said, the Twins did well considering they could not get teams to compete for Santana.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
yeah
Its too bad too
because I’d take Just CF Adam Jones over the foursome of Mulvey, Gomez, Guerra and Humber
Btw, I’d also take Just CF Jacoby Ellsbury over the same foursome
The players the A’s received for Dan Haren is incredible: Chris Carter, Greg Smith, Cunningham, Brett Anderson, Carlos Gonzalez, Dana Eveland.
But, Bedard and Haren are/were signed for more than 1 season and at a much cheaper price then Santana, (yep Market value) so thats partially why they got more to go along with the competition that C-Math eluded to.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 8, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Ya
I wish the poll had a third option for who won the trade: The Boston Red Sox. If we’d have gotten some of those players they offered, this would have been a sweet trade for us: Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterson? Am very glad we at least passed on the Yankees.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Something I think no one mentioned
We could have had Santana for 2008. We were one win short of a post-season berth. Could 2008 have been the Twins’ year if they’d had Santana? We’ll never know but you add Bartlett and Garza back into the equation and maybe it would have been us instead of the Rays playing the Phillies. To me, that would have been worth not getting anything back for Santana except draft picks.
"I don't care about feelings." - Lou Piniella
Santana-Garza-Slowey-Baker-Liriano
With Perkins and maybe Blackburn in the pen? That’s not a daydream, that was what would have happened if Bill Smith hadn’t done anything.
"I don't care about feelings." - Lou Piniella
by natetheskate on Jun 10, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I keep telling my boss that, but he doesn't believe me
Seriously, I think Smith learned his lesson. No he won’t make any trades.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Gotta take our pill
How long have Twins fans complained that the Twins never did anything to improve? Now that they did something, it figures that we’re lamenting not having stayed put. (I overemphasize a bit, but you get my point).
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Unlikely.
I really don’t think we would’ve had that five-some.
Changes of scenery seem to do youngsters some good. So I don’t know if Garza would’ve been the same.
Liriano was pretty attrocious the first part of 2008. Not too sure having Johan and Matt back would’ve changed that.
Would Span have done as well everyday? And besides, Gomez had the best fielding-range of any centerfielder last year. Just saying..
CF
But then we would have been stuck with Cuddyer in CF. Ughhhhh! Basically, this is all Gardy’s fault for threatening Smith with “get me a CF or I’ll put Cuddles there”.
Kubel/Span/Cuddyer
With Jones at DH. Of course, when Kubel and Cuddyer broke down, we’d be going down and getting Dustin Martin and David Winfree from AA. More likely, we would have signed a couple of the replacement-level outfielders available last year, such as Kenny Lofton and David Delucci.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
haha
I’m just joking about Gardy’s suggestion in the offseason that he’s probably put Cuddyer there, based on his options. I think at the time this indicated no confidence in Tyner, Span or Pridie. We all know that, in reality, he would have put Punto there. That guy’s a gamer.
You're prophetic
Two starts for Cuddyer in center after you wrote this. Can you write: Joe Mauer will hit .400 and the Twins will sign him to a 10-year contract?
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
The Twins got desroyed in that trade.
However it would look better now if you still had Matt Garza.
As good as Gomez ‘can’ be the trade was still way less than they should have got.
thats why I will Never understand why we Traded Garza
it was like saying, "yeah the Johan Santana trade has ALREADY worked out well:
but it hadn’t yet, and still hasn’t and very very very well may never pan out enough.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 18, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Cry havoc, R.A. Dickey, and let slip the dancin' knuckler
- Jeff Passan talks trade deadline, A-Rod's 600th and Dr. Claw
- Create-a-Caption: Buck Showalter ponders the challenge ahead
- Finally: Roy Oswalt to the Phillies is a done deal
- Rangers still owe A-Rod, Mickey Tettleton and others some cash
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
