PDA

View Full Version : Twins May be Interested in Hamilton for Santana



hippie07
11-11-2007, 01:38 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/11/yankees-may-req.html

Mlbtraderumors had the following this morning:

How about Ken Davidoff this winter? The Newsday reporter has been digging up some great hot stove rumors so far. Today, he has some new info about Johan Santana.

While Santana isn't up for bidding quite yet, he should be soon after the Twins make their token offer. The Yankees will certainly be in on him. Davidoff says a package of Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera, and a prospect wouldn't cut it, even though those players are very valuable. The Twins are one of few teams that actually feel good about their pitching, so the focus is on acquiring a star position player. With that in mind, they'd demand Robinson Cano from the Yankees. Cano is more expensive than a Hughes or Cabrera, but the Twins would free up $13MM by dealing Santana. Plus you have to think Cano would be better for public relations/damage control.

Random speculation on players the Twins might covet for Santana: Josh Hamilton, Chris Young of Arizona, Jacoby Ellsbury, Delmon Young, Carlos Gomez, or Garrett Atkins.

Screwball
11-11-2007, 01:58 PM
I think this is a testament to just how much stock Josh Hamilton has. I've been reading about how he's an injury risk and one relapse away from crashing and burning, etc. And while those things may be true, this is a guy who can become a bona fide superstar in this league. Speed, power, hit for average, has a phenomenal eye, and a rocket arm. He truly is a pleasure to watch.

Now having said all that, would I trade him for Johan Santana? If I could get more than 1 year of JS, of course. But let's not sell JH short. This is a guy who OPSed ~.930. His rookie season. After 4 years off. While battling nagging aches and pains. If you trade him, you better be bringing back top shelf pitching talent.

gedred69
11-11-2007, 02:26 PM
Twins would want more than Hamilton for a Santana. How far does anyone think WK should go? (Hypothetically of course).

Degenerate39
11-11-2007, 02:40 PM
I'd hate to trade away a guy like Hamilton for a season rental.

captainmorgan07
11-11-2007, 02:56 PM
if im wayne i do this deal and tell them one of the conditions is that the twins have to sign santana to an extension. We'd pay most of the extension when he got there and we'd send them hamilton.

ChatterRed
11-11-2007, 03:54 PM
If you can sign Santana longer term, I do that deal in a heartbeat. We have Griffey, Dunn, Phillips, Bruce, and an emerging Encarnacion and Votto for power.

It also makes me wonder if we could get Bedard or Kazmir for just Hamilton, if Hamilton's stock is that high.

Orenda
11-11-2007, 03:59 PM
If you can sign Santana longer term, I do that deal in a heartbeat. We have Griffey, Dunn, Phillips, Bruce, and an emerging Encarnacion and Votto for power.

It also makes me wonder if we could get Bedard or Kazmir for just Hamilton, if Hamilton's stock is that high.

I don't think Tampa Bay would get rid of one guy they've groomed in Kazmir, for a guy that already flamed out with them. Bedard might be a different story.

Screwball
11-11-2007, 03:59 PM
It also makes me wonder if we could get Bedard or Kazmir for just Hamilton, if Hamilton's stock is that high.

Well, my guess is it would take another significant piece (or two) to get pitchers like that, but I could see Hamilton being considered the centerpiece (from the Reds) of a blockbuster trade.

jmac
11-11-2007, 05:09 PM
If you can sign Santana longer term, I do that deal in a heartbeat. We have Griffey, Dunn, Phillips, Bruce, and an emerging Encarnacion and Votto for power.

It also makes me wonder if we could get Bedard or Kazmir for just Hamilton, if Hamilton's stock is that high.
I agree with the first part as far as doing a deal like that but two words that make me wonder in that story are "speculation" and "might".
I mean if a package of Hughes, Cabrera and a prospect wouldnt cut it then I imagine it would take quite a bit more than Hamilton.

Will M
11-11-2007, 05:54 PM
I agree with the first part as far as doing a deal like that but two words that make me wonder in that story are "speculation" and "might".
I mean if a package of Hughes, Cabrera and a prospect wouldnt cut it then I imagine it would take quite a bit more than Hamilton.

Yeh, something like Hamilton, EE & Bailey(orCueto).

hippie07
11-11-2007, 07:46 PM
Well, my guess is it would take another significant piece (or two) to get pitchers like that, but I could see Hamilton being considered the centerpiece (from the Reds) of a blockbuster trade.

Amen, Screwball. I've been saying this all along... people have been saying Hamilton for Garza, but I think this really sells Hamilton short - I mean we're desperate for pitching, but if we have to lose Hamilton - it better be in a package for an outstanding pitcher - Bedard, Kazmir, Peavey, Santana (if we can get an extension)... however, I've said this in about 6 different threads now, so I'll give it a rest ;)

GoReds33
11-11-2007, 09:18 PM
Yeh, something like Hamilton, EE & Bailey(orCueto).You may be right, but there is no way Krivsky makes this deal. Hamilton is alot to give for a rental, let alone Bailey, Cueto, or Edwin too.

AdamDunn
11-11-2007, 09:31 PM
You may be right, but there is no way Krivsky makes this deal. Hamilton is alot to give for a rental, let alone Bailey, Cueto, or Edwin too.

Bronson Arroyo, Josh Hamilton, and Edwin Encarnacion. Will everyone please leave Cueto, Bailey, Votto, and Bruce alone!

Will M
11-11-2007, 09:57 PM
I don't think the Reds SHOULD trade for Santana even if they could sign him to a LTC ( ie 7 years/$140M or so ).

The young, talented & CHEAP guys are the lifeblood of a small market team.

IMO 2008 is NOT the year. Why would it be? The Reds were bad last year. Get rid of the really old ( Jr, Stanton, etc ).
Keep the young kids like Hamilton, Bruce, Bailey, Votto, Cueto, EE, Phillips,etc. Try to add a couple under 30 pitchers to go with Harang/Arroyo/the pen. Guys like Kerry Wood, David Riske or a Japanese free agent. Try to pry away Heilman, Capuano,etc.

A trade for Santana that costs 3 great youngsters isn't what the Reds need. Keeping the three youngsters and spending the $20M on 3 decent pitchers is a better plan.

AdamDunn
11-11-2007, 10:37 PM
I don't think the Reds SHOULD trade for Santana even if they could sign him to a LTC ( ie 7 years/$140M or so ).

The young, talented & CHEAP guys are the lifeblood of a small market team.

IMO 2008 is NOT the year. Why would it be? The Reds were bad last year. Get rid of the really old ( Jr, Stanton, etc ).
Keep the young kids like Hamilton, Bruce, Bailey, Votto, Cueto, EE, Phillips,etc. Try to add a couple under 30 pitchers to go with Harang/Arroyo/the pen. Guys like Kerry Wood, David Riske or a Japanese free agent. Try to pry away Heilman, Capuano,etc.

A trade for Santana that costs 3 great youngsters isn't what the Reds need. Keeping the three youngsters and spending the $20M on 3 decent pitchers is a better plan.

Thank God there is someone smart on this board!

AmarilloRed
11-11-2007, 11:20 PM
It would be a 1 year rental, as the Reds would be unable to re-sign Santana. He would bring at least $20 million a year in free agency, and we simply cannot afford that at this time

mroby85
11-12-2007, 01:56 AM
for a guy like santana, we better afford it.

hippie07
11-12-2007, 02:28 AM
for a guy like santana, we better afford it.

I'm not sure Santana is the best choice for the Reds to target, but you gotta think.... by the time we'd need to be paying Santana 20mil per year, we'd likely have Dunn and Griffey off the books which would free up $25 mil right there, but I would just wait for him to hit free agency if I wanted him and not give up a plethora of young talent for just one year of his services.

Redhook
11-12-2007, 08:32 AM
for a guy like santana, we better afford it.

Yes.

Santana is the one guy that you would have to find a way to pay if you could possibly attain him. He would instantly make the Reds one of the best teams in the NL.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-12-2007, 02:00 PM
It would be a 1 year rental, as the Reds would be unable to re-sign Santana. He would bring at least $20 million a year in free agency, and we simply cannot afford that at this time
If he sold out the ballpark, got us to the playoffs for the next couple of years and sold some merchandise I think with that revenue boost we could afford him. I for one would want to be at every game he pitched and I'm sure I'm not alone.

mroby85
11-12-2007, 02:21 PM
If he sold out the ballpark, got us to the playoffs for the next couple of years and sold some merchandise I think with that revenue boost we could afford him. I for one would want to be at every game he pitched and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I hear that!

AmarilloRed
11-12-2007, 02:34 PM
If the Reds decided to go to a $100-120 million payroll I can see where it might make financial sense. Griffey could have his place taken by Bruce, but he has a $4 million buy-out and the rest of the money will be taken up with pay raises to Arroyo and Harang in 2009. Losing Dunn, Griffey and Hamilton from our offense would really hurt our ability to score runs, and we might end up being on the wrong side of a lot of 3-2 games. I would like nothing more than to see a rotation of Santana. Harang, Arroyo, Bailey and Cueto in 2009, but that nay not be enough to get us to the playoffs. A bad bullpen and awful offense might be enough to keep us out of the play-offs, even if we got Santana and managed to re-sign him.

jmble
11-12-2007, 05:25 PM
FYI - This sentence seemed to be left out of the story quoted at the top of the page... Although on mlbtraderumors, it follows right at the end...

"In contrast to all of this, Ken Rosenthal speculates that the Twins would want "elite pitching" in return for Santana."

By the way, I know some of you guys would rather have Garza, but I'm tired of pitching prospects that don't pan out. We are already going to be relying on a couple of prospects that haven't shown anything yet, I would like to have another body in the rotation that I know can pitch. I've seen him pitch and pitch well. I say if you have a shot to bring in Santana, you do it.

hippie07
11-12-2007, 07:45 PM
FYI - This sentence seemed to be left out of the story quoted at the top of the page... Although on mlbtraderumors, it follows right at the end...

"In contrast to all of this, Ken Rosenthal speculates that the Twins would want "elite pitching" in return for Santana."

By the way, I know some of you guys would rather have Garza, but I'm tired of pitching prospects that don't pan out. We are already going to be relying on a couple of prospects that haven't shown anything yet, I would like to have another body in the rotation that I know can pitch. I've seen him pitch and pitch well. I say if you have a shot to bring in Santana, you do it.

Sorry, the article must have been updated, that sentence wasn't there when I posted - I wouldn't intentionally keep anyone uninformed ;)

I would take a pitching prospect as long as is doesn't cost us anything that hurts ... if they wanted Freel, Hatteberg, and a lower lewel prospect w/ potential (wood/stubbs?) .. I would take Garza and hope he pans out.. we do need some competition for the 3-5 spots in the rotation... if the Twins aren't interested in our scraps, then fine... I don't trade any of our good prospects for Garza... especially not Hamilton- he's worth much more, IMO.

Redhook
11-12-2007, 09:30 PM
"In contrast to all of this, Ken Rosenthal speculates that the Twins would want "elite pitching" in return for Santana."



No problem. How about Bailey and Cueto for Santana? If the Reds could get Santana to sign a 4-5 year contract for $20+ million they should go for it. They would probably have to get rid of Griffey and Dunn, but getting the best pitcher in baseball would be worth it.

AmarilloRed
11-12-2007, 11:32 PM
No problem. How about Bailey and Cueto for Santana? If the Reds could get Santana to sign a 4-5 year contract for $20+ million they should go for it. They would probably have to get rid of Griffey and Dunn, but getting the best pitcher in baseball would be worth it.

I like Santana, but that is too high a price to pay. We would be giving up both of our very promising SP prospects(both who will be cheap for a long time) and removing the heart out of our offense by trading Griffey and Dunn. We would only have 3 legitimate starting pitchers, and no hope we would get further reinforcements from the minors for a long time. We still have not sorted out our bullpen issues, so Santana could expect the bullpen to lose as many games for him as it did for Harang and Arroyo. Bruce could replace Griffey, but who will replace Dunn? We need to get starting pitching, but we need to remember we should not weaken the overall club by doing so.

mroby85
11-13-2007, 12:13 AM
No problem. How about Bailey and Cueto for Santana? If the Reds could get Santana to sign a 4-5 year contract for $20+ million they should go for it. They would probably have to get rid of Griffey and Dunn, but getting the best pitcher in baseball would be worth it.

I would be all for it. To be honest i wasn't overly impressed with homer last season, i realize you will have some growing pains, but i didn't even think his stuff looked that electric.

I say you'd be lucky if 1/2 between cueto and bailey are good, and then i'd say you're extremely lucky if they're as good as santana. They won't be better.

thats at least my take on it.

not to mention you're trading 2 guys that had no impact on what this team did last year, and you're adding a guy thats a threat to win 20 games every year, and be a flamethrower between harang and arroyo.

Redhook
11-13-2007, 09:10 AM
We would only have 3 legitimate starting pitchers, and no hope we would get further reinforcements from the minors for a long time. We still have not sorted out our bullpen issues, so Santana could expect the bullpen to lose as many games for him as it did for Harang and Arroyo. Bruce could replace Griffey, but who will replace Dunn? We need to get starting pitching, but we need to remember we should not weaken the overall club by doing so.

Yes, it would be a lot to give up, but it's how teams win the world series. Having two studs, Santana and Harang, would make the Reds one of the front runners to win the N.L. Then, throw in Arroyo and you arguably have the best 1-3 in baseball. Belisle will still be the #4 and I could care less who was #5 if we added Santana.

I'm assuming Wayne will add one decent bullpen arm. The pen will be better next year. If anything else, it can't be worse.

About Griffey and Dunn. Griffey will be gone after 2008 anyway. Bruce should be able to cover his production. I would like to keep Dunn in 2008 and see what happens. Votto could replace part of Dunn's production as well if Dunn goes. The offense would take a hit, but I believe the pitching would overcome that. All I know is this team has never won with Dunn and Griffey. They need pitching. Realistically, I don't think Santana will come here, but if there's any chance I'd go for it even if it meant giving up Homer and Cueto.

podgejeff_
11-13-2007, 10:51 AM
To me this says "let's give away our future for a shot at right now because we're all tired of losing".

If either Bailey or Cueto live up to their hype doesn't that make us a bigtime contender as we'll then have a great 1/2/3 punch in Bailey/Cueto-Harang-Arroyo? Then of course we have the offense of Dunn, Hamilton, BP, EE, Votto, Bruce. That is a lineup to be feared combined with a legit 1-2-3 rotation. Upgrade that bullpen to league average and we'd be competing for the NL Central already.

jmble
11-13-2007, 02:23 PM
My question is this, if we contended and possibly even won a World Series this year, would anyone here be dissapointed if it meant we were going to lose the next five years?

It is true that there is no guarantee that if we traded for Santana, and made another couple of big moves that we would actually win. But my question is, if we did win, would you then be okay that we mortgaged the future?

I say yes. I'm willing to bet there are at least some here that agree with me. Even having Bailey, Cueto, and all the other young guys coming up is no guarantee that we will be competing for the next five to ten years.

I vote for win now. I'm tired of losing.

TheWalls
11-13-2007, 02:44 PM
If he sold out the ballpark, got us to the playoffs for the next couple of years and sold some merchandise I think with that revenue boost we could afford him. I for one would want to be at every game he pitched and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Stop making sense will ya?!

Slyder
11-13-2007, 02:49 PM
Johan Santana for Josh Hamilton? I'd do that in a heartbeat and not think twice.

Johan Santana for Josh Hamilton and Homer Bailey/Johnny Cueto... Santana has a contract extension signed I do it in a heartbeat.

Santana is 28 and still has likely 5-10 Great years left. He's been around and continually been among the elite pitchers in all of baseball. If they are interested in Hamilton and a pitcher, and maybe a lesser spect I wouldnt even let the ink dry on the offer before its on Selig's desk.

Santana may pitch once every five days but the media buzz around Cincinnati for pulling this deal would make up any money lost paying him his contract. Plus like others have said Putting him at the front of our rotation would rival any trio in baseball right now.

I dont think twice if the Twins want Hamilton and Cueto/Bailey for Santana with a contract extension and go into the season with Arroyo (31), Harang (almost 30), Bailey/Cueto, and headline with Santana (28) as my rotation for at least the next 3 years and Iknow I have the potential of winning at least 60% of the time through the rotation on the pitching alone.

AmarilloRed
11-13-2007, 03:38 PM
First off, starting pitching alone will not win us games. I know I am the lone voice advising caution but I will continue to do so. I expect it would have to be Bailey or Cueto, Hamilton, and another young position player for one year of Santana. There is simply no guarantee we would be able to re-sign him. I expect a team like the Yankees or Mets would be able to offer better terms when he became a free agent. Let's say we lost Hamilton and Edwin. We would have to replace that production(unless something changed) by counting on the likes of Keppinger and Hopper. They both can hit, but have limited power. We might be able to get a couple of proven relievers in the off-season, but we still would have to depend just as much on the likes of Salmon, Coutlangas, and McBeth to step up and become proven relievers. We might yet be able to trade for a Santana, but we might not be able to keep him.

gedred69
11-13-2007, 05:22 PM
First off, starting pitching alone will not win us games. I know I am the lone voice advising caution but I will continue to do so. I expect it would have to be Bailey or Cueto, Hamilton, and another young position player for one year of Santana. There is simply no guarantee we would be able to re-sign him. I expect a team like the Yankees or Mets would be able to offer better terms when he became a free agent. Let's say we lost Hamilton and Edwin. We would have to replace that production(unless something changed) by counting on the likes of Keppinger and Hopper. They both can hit, but have limited power. We might be able to get a couple of proven relievers in the off-season, but we still would have to depend just as much on the likes of Salmon, Coutlangas, and McBeth to step up and become proven relievers. We might yet be able to trade for a Santana, but we might not be able to keep him.

Others have advised caution, and I will sign up as well. Doubtful the Reds could keep Santana. while his name sounds nice in the rotation, not to mention it could mean 15 more W's and contention, the Reds would be trading potential longevity to make a run at the division for 1 season.

hippie07
11-13-2007, 05:34 PM
Am I crazy, but to me ... Hamilton for Bedard or Hamilton for Kazmir sounds much better than Hamilton for Santana. They are all dominant pitchers, if you look at their lines from last year they are remarkable similar, there's an argument that Santana is more dominant, but really how much would a neglible increase in "dominance" help a team win, I think Bedard & Kazmir have sufficient dominance. Santana,also, definitely has "star power" that maybe Bedard & Kazmir don't, but I'm fine w/ that, fans and media attention will show up when the wins do.

To me the only REAL difference is control .... Santana for 1yr., Bedard for 2, and Kazmir for 3. With the price of free agent pitching, its seems prudent to acquire players that are still under your control. If we scored Kazmir, for instance, started winning and drawing bigger crowds, by the time his 3rd year rolls around we might have the money to sign him to a long-term deal... and maybe keep Dunn too.

IMO, there would be no way we could have Dunn & Santana on the roster together in 2009...

hippie07
11-13-2007, 09:48 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071113&content_id=2299500&vkey=hotstove2007&fext=.jsp

I know this thread is about Santana, but we've had some Garza talk here, so rather than start a new thread..... The above link is a story about the Twins recent trade for Monroe.. seems they are desperate for offense... and we know their love for Hatteberg... maybe they would do Hatteberg, Freel, & filler for Garza.... what do you think?

AmarilloRed
11-13-2007, 10:01 PM
I have an open thread in this forum called "Twins open to trading Garza". We can have a Garza discussion on that thread. This thread is to discuss the possibility of trading Hamilton for Santana. I realize it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all the trade threads, however.:)

hippie07
11-13-2007, 10:07 PM
I have an open thread in this forum called "Twins open to trading Garza". We can have a Garza discussion on that thread. This thread is to discuss the possibility of trading Hamilton for Santana. I realize it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all the trade threads, however.:)

I can't figure out how to delete my post, Mods, Can you please move it to the Garza thread, thanks.

Thanks AmarilloRed, I forgot about the Garza thread. BTW, I opened this thread - I think I know what it's about.

AmarilloRed
11-13-2007, 10:19 PM
It's OK. I create so many threads I often lose track of them all. I probably assumed I created this thread too.;)

mroby85
11-13-2007, 10:37 PM
on 1530 they stated that santana would forego free agency in exchange for a 6 year deal. just thought i would throw that out there, thought you guys may find some interest in that.

Betterread
11-22-2007, 08:21 PM
The Twins cannot resign Santana for the money he wants - Barry Zito plus a lot more. I think this guy is as good a 5 year pitching investment as there has been in the last 10 years. I hope the Reds are trying to put together a competitive contract offer for him. I don't think it matters who we trade (as long as it isn't one of our top 5 players - Dunn, Harang, Bruce, Bailey, Griffey) as the Twins want to deal him this offseason and rebuild.

jmac
11-22-2007, 10:17 PM
Santana - Barry Zito plus a lot more.
As far as an investment for an established pitcher , yes, Santana is one of the ultimates.
The thought of Zito on GABP mound scared most. The thought of Santana would cause most to salivate.

ChatterRed
11-22-2007, 11:57 PM
We cannot afford him. But with Hunter now gone, the Twins need a competent and budding CFer to replace him, and Hamilton fills that bill.

AmarilloRed
11-23-2007, 01:56 AM
Do the math: Twins, Santana a long ways off

The team's five-year, $93 million offer this month fell well short of what the two-time Cy Young Award winner is seeking.

By Joe Christensen, Star Tribune

Last update: November 21, 2007 – 8:17 PM

The Twins have begun listening to trade talks involving Johan Santana after exchanging recent contract proposals with the two-time Cy Young Award winner and blinking at his asking price.

According to people familiar with the discussions, the Twins made Santana a five-year, $93 million offer this month, and Santana's camp countered with a request for about $126 million.

The Twins told Santana's agent, Peter Greenberg, they were willing to top the five-year, $91.5 million deal the Cubs gave pitcher Carlos Zambrano in August.

But Greenberg countered by citing the seven-year, $126 million deal the Giants handed Barry Zito last December.

The Twins insist all hope of signing Santana isn't lost, that a compromise could eventually be reached, but other teams have found he is no longer off limits in trade discussions.

On Wednesday, word of Santana's availability remained mostly a whisper in major league circles, but it's expected to become a roar before the winter meetings, Dec. 3-6.

The suitors could include the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Angels.

Earlier this month at the general managers' meetings, Twins GM Bill Smith repeatedly said the goal was to sign Santana, not trade him.

Asked Wednesday if that stance had changed, Smith said: "I'm not commenting on contracts or trades. There's no benefit to the club, the player, or the agent. So I take the fifth."

Greenberg also declined comment.

The Twins were not surprised by Santana's request.

Zito's contract, negotiated by agent Scott Boras, is the largest ever signed by a pitcher.

Santana, 28, is eligible for free agency after next season, and privately, the Twins acknowledge he is superior to Zito, 29, a fellow lefthander.

But if Santana is determined to become the highest-paid pitcher in baseball, trading him could prove difficult.

For the Twins to get the return they'd want -- likely three or four high-quality young players -- the other team would need assurances it could keep Santana beyond 2008.

With a complete no-trade clause, Santana would have serious leverage, but there is no guarantee any team would give him Zito-type money.

The Mets, for example, might have the burning need for a front-line starter. They might have young prospects to package for the Twins (including outfielders Carlos Gomez, Fernando Martinez and Lastings Milledge).

But even with a similar need for pitching last offseason, the Mets drew a line in the sand with Zito. Their best offer was for five years and $75 million.

The current free agent pitching market is thin, but Santana isn't the only pitcher on the trade market. Teams also have inquired about Baltimore's Erik Bedard, Florida's Dontrelle Willis and Oakland's Joe Blanton and Dan Haren.

Unlike Santana, none of those others can become a free agent after 2008.

Smith has said he isn't afraid to take Santana into the season with the contract issue unresolved. The Twins could pair Santana with All-Star lefthander Francisco Liriano, hoping to rekindle their magic of 2006.

And if they fall from contention, they could always move Santana at the trade deadline.

Either way, unless Santana lowers his asking price considerably, the chances he'll remain with the Twins in 2009 seem increasingly remote.

I know this was a long article, but I found it interesting. The fact that the Twins seem unlikely to re-sign Santana raises the possibilities that the Twins will trade Santana. It does seem unlikely that a team will give all those prospects to the Twins without having a long-term deal with Santana in hand.