I've been listening to and reading a lot of the national Santana reaction -- even the local Vegas sports radio guys are up in arms about it, because about half of them are from the Midwest.
The recurring theme, of course, is that the Twins got screwed and they deserve to get ripped left and right for making a "panic move." Well, I'm not going to defend the Twins here, because that's not my job, but I will point out a couple of interesting reactions to the hysteria.
1. The most common attack comes in the form of, "They had better packages on the table from the Red Sox and Yankees in December and should have taken them." Yet after a few minutes of ranting, these same people almost always say, "Well, we don't know for sure that those names were all on the table. The Yankees and Red Sox were basically trying to keep Santana away from the other team and were never really interested in giving up too much for a guy headed to free agency and asking for $140 million over six years."
So which is it -- they had better offers on the table, or we don't know what they had on the table and it was likely that when push came to shove, those big names wouldn't have been included? I guess only Billy Smith, Theo Esptein and Brian Cashman know for sure, and they're not talking.
2. Everybody seems to be going crazy that the Twins didn't get this Martinez kid, who is the Mets' No. 1 prospect according to Baseball America, and that the Twins should be getting ripped because they don't know if Gomez or any of the pitchers are going to pan out. But, if they had received Martinez in the trade, wouldn't it have been just as logical to say they don't know if Martinez will pan out? I also hear that the Mets have a weak farm system, so getting four of the top seven prospects from their minor leagues isn't really saying much. Again, wouldn't that same logic apply to the magical Martinez? Either way, it's a crap shoot.
3. The other bit of prevailing wisdom from the "experts" is that the Twins should have hung onto Santana until the trade deadline if this is all they could get for him. Yet it's pretty clear that Santana and his agent said that they'd invoke his no-trade clause and ride out the season, then split via free agency, leaving the Twins with two first-round draft picks instead of a package of prospects.
So, would you rather have this Mets' package, or let a cloud of negativity hover over the season, deal with the "Will Santana leave?" questions every fifth day, and get two late first-round picks (one a sandwich pick between the first two rounds, and the other from the team that signed him, which would probably be late in the first round since it would be the Yankees, Red Sox or Mets who would sign him)?
I think it's fair to scrutinize this trade and even conclude that it wasn't a great deal for the Twins, at least on the surface. But it's entirely unfair to only look at the negatives of the deal without considering the even-more-negative outcomes that likely would have occurred as well. A little balance -- is that too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
It is far too convenient and easy for the talking heads to instantly grade out this deal as a failure for the Twins. The Sports Guy's podcast this week was embarrassingly ridiculous in that regard. Give me a break.
You are absolutely correct in that we know next to nothing about these prospects and how they will all translate as major leaguers. Let's talk in a couple years; it is foolish to pretend we know anything about the value of these prospects until then. This is as bad as the day after the NFL draft.
And the classic proof in defense of the Twins scouting is the A-Jaysie trade. Even Joe Nathan was a question mark as the headliner in that deal because he had never been a closer before, never mind a couple prospects named Liriano and Boof.
Interestingly enough, Carlos Gomez earned one of the four hits given up by Santana in his classic shutout at Shea last season.
Man, I was boiling when I listened to SG -- that actually was the biggest inspiration for this post. When he said Billy Smith should be fired on the spot, I threw up in my mouth. Give me a break. Talk about reactionary! Again, take all the factors into consideration, AND give the trade three or four years to play out. That's the only fair way to examine it.
I expected better from Simmons -- usually he's a bit more level-headed. He must be so giddy at the prospect of a Red Sox-Pats-Celtics championship trifecta that he thinks he can say anything.
Post a Comment