Santana's Fortune: Three Down, One to Go

by Jesse on Jul 15, 2009 6:15 PM EDT in News Comment 12 comments

With the arrival of Kevin Mulvey, the Twins are about to get a glimpse of the third of the four players the team received in return for the best southpaw in baseball, Johan Santana.

Anytime you make a trade it's easy to rush to judgment on which team won. Ultimately only history can tell the tale, but it's really no secret what most people would answer if asked who won the Johan swap: the Mets. Is it any wonder?

Carlos Gomez	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	K	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG
Minnesota Twins	230	764	107	193	35	10	9	77	39	181	40	15	.253	.295	.360

Philip Humber	W-L	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	BS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	WHIP
Minnesota Twins Rochester Red Wings	0-0 14-14	9 46	0 37	0 3	0 0	0 0	0 0	16.0 210	22 231	12 127	12 117	5 31	8 79	10 165	6.75 5.01	1.88 1.51

Kevin Mulvey	W-L	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	BS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	WHIP
Rochester Red Wings	10-15	44	44	3	1	0	0	241	261	132	107	22	86	202	4.00	1.38

Deolis Guerra	W-L	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	BS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	WHIP
Fort Myers Miracle New Britain Rock Cats	17-17 1-0	42 2	40 1	1 0	1 0	0 0	0 0	216.1 9.2	233 13	137 7	124 6	18 0	96 3	128 8	5.16 5.59	1.52 1.66

Not the most glowing stat lines by any stretch of the imagination. I'm looking foward to seeing what Mulvey can do for this bullpen's consistency, and with Gomez (23) and Guerra (20) being so young you can't write them off, the final chapter on this deal still hasn't been written.

Which is a good thing, because here's how Johan's performed as a Met.

Johan Santana	W-L	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	BS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	WHIP
New York Mets	26-14	52	52	3	2	0	0	350.2	309	123	106	38	100	318	2.72	1.17

The good news for the organization is that people are already so disappointed with the outcome of this deal (the immediate satisfaction crowd is disproportionately large compared to those who prefer the long-term view) that even if none of these guys turn into bonafide stars, the worst of the reaction has already come and gone. From where I'm standing, the review of this swap has nowhere to go but up. Hopefully.

In a comment earlier today I mentioned that Mulvey is getting this call because he's been one of Rochester's most consistent pitchers since coming over from the Mets. After doing my homework I've come to see that's not exactly true, but in spite of ups and downs it's the body of work that still stands out. He has a 3.50 minor league ERA, and over his last ten triple-A starts has pitched 68.1 innings with 50 strikeouts and 19 walks, and a more than acceptable 3.82 ERA. His FIP is even lower, at 3.55.

Good strikeout rates and mediocre walk rates point to Mulvey having the potential to be something more than a replacement-level arm, especially if he can continue inducing ground balls as he has this season (52% GB rate). But just like all of the available parts from Rochester, this is a spot he has to earn. If he struggles, the upside isn't there to entice the organization to keep him up in the hope that he comes around.

Best of luck, Mr. Mulvey.

Poll

Look into your magic 8-ball. Did the Twins win the Johan Santana trade?

Very doubtful (Or, The Mets Won...duh)

173 votes

You may rely on it (Or, Yes)

16 votes

Reply hazy, try again (Or, come back in a few years and ask again)

134 votes

323 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 12 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If you consider salary, this probably gets more even of a trade...

considering it probably will help us afford to keep our 3 All-Stars.

"You should enter a ballpark like you enter a church." - Bill "Spaceman" Lee

by Dr. Yogi on Jul 15, 2009 6:36 PM EDT reply actions

This is true.

I like that this community doesn’t take things at face value and can read into things like this. One of the many reasons I love this place.

by Jesse on Jul 15, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe true, (or partly true)

If money were the only issue I might be willing to bite.

But what were the comments from Hunter and Santana before they left (right or wrong)? They don’t have confidence that the ownership and management are committed to winning, or spending the money to get the players to win. And what was Morneau recently quoted as saying in regards to some concern/frustration about getting in players to help the three all stars win? Wasn’t it something like: “Hell, we already got more money than we need!”

But would Morneau be grumbling if we still had a legit ace in Santana anchoring the rotation? Or if the org had gone out and traded for someone like Matt Holliday instead of Delmon Young?

Not saying that analysis based on frustration is a correct analysis, but I would argue that if that is the way the players feel within this org. then this trade may have helped the org. “afford” our 3 all stars but not necessarily “keep” our 3 all stars.

by montanatwinsfan on Jul 15, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yes

I don’t think I’ve blamed the org for the trade itself much past the beginning. The problem is the org put itself in a position where it was so obnoxious to these players it pissed away leverage. I feel the way Morneau feels. They have Mauer, they have Morneau, they have Nathan and then they don’t care about anything else. They want to be just GOOD ENOUGh to tantalize fans so they can pay the bills but this pisses off the stars. I was glad when KG left because he went to an organization who had the desire and ability to win and he would never have gotten that chance in Minnesota.

And I feel very similarly about the Twins.

Frankly, I look at the organization as generally being the George Bush administration of baseball organizations, nepotastic, unaccountable internally, and with a flamingly stupid foreign policy (trading with other teams).

Dear Firpo, looks like my stock is fine.

by MNPundit on Jul 16, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions

To be fair, Johan's totals should be 2008 only

The trade was for Johan’s last year of non-free-agency.

If we don’t make the trade, we lose him last winter anyways.

by DavidRF on Jul 15, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions

Fair point.

Although that would make his numbers look even better.

by Jesse on Jul 15, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions

By rate...

by DavidRF on Jul 15, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think you can say who won the Santana trade until the end of Johan’s contract. If Santana continues to pitch at his current level for the length of the contract, then the Mets won no matter what the production of the four players the Twins received. I think we all agree that none of the pieces the Twins received are going to be bona fide superstars. If Santana’s production drops significantly or he misses significant playing time due to injury, then the Mets would be the losers.

by dklien on Jul 16, 2009 10:10 AM EDT reply actions

Gomez is a human highlight reel. If he can ever get his average up to the .270-290 range he could be a super star. Torii Hunter went through some of the same stuff until he was able to get his average up consistently…right before he left.

This organization better start putting more effort into winning by the time they’re in the new stadium because the fans are on to their little tease and they won’t be too forgiving for long. We front that kind of money to get these guys a stadium they better give us a product worth watching.

by Cobra312004 on Jul 17, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Best player usually wins the trade

And the Mets definitely got the best player. The Twins missed out on the playoffs by making the deal which really hurts.

I wonder if Santana is all that thrilled with his decision to go to a “winner” in the Mets.

by DJL44 on Jul 16, 2009 10:26 AM EDT reply actions

Mets did get the better deal...

but that was Santanna’s doing. By basically dictating where he was going to go, he negated any leverage the Twins had.

by guinness junky on Jul 16, 2009 11:59 AM EDT reply actions

For me, the jury is out

You have to look at a trade like this from a long term value perspective. First, I think you have to focus on the trade itself, not a “decision” by the Twins not to sign Johan to a long term contract. This means you look at Johan’s (very good) 2008 year versus what our four guys provide overall. Obviously you have to take into consideration that 3 wins of value added in 2008 is worth more in the trade than 3 wins in 2009 or 1.5 the two years, but how to get to an apples to apples comparison is pretty difficult here.

Using fangraphs win values, Santana provided 45.2 runs above replacement (RAR) in 2008, compared to Gomez’ 23.6 RAR, mostly due to defense. So far in 2009, he’s at +3.0 runs as his UZR is at 0.0, which tells me a lot about how wild this metric can swing…

Looking solely at 2008, we lost the deal to the tune of a little over 20 runs (2 wins). However, IF we were able to get around 25 RAR from Gomez over the next six years (understanding he’s not on track for that kind of production so far in 2009), I’d have to argue we win the deal even if we never get a single run of production from Mulvey, Humber or Guerra.

Then, as Dr. Yogi pointed out, you should also consider any production we got by spending the money saved from Santana. However, you can only do this for 2008 contracts, meaning Nathan and possibly Livan.

by Adam Peterson on Jul 19, 2009 9:58 AM EDT reply actions