WasWatching.com

But if any pitcher is worth it, he is.
No matter what you say or what your philosophy is, I think you make exceptions for "once in a generation" cases, and Santana may just be that type of pitcher.

I agree. Trading for Santana is neither desperate nor a free agent signing, it is taking advantage of an opportunity, akin to when the Red Sox traded for Pedro.
Every trade is a gamble, but a 28 year old left-handed starter coming off of "three" consecutive Cy Young seasons and still under contract for 2 years (because he should have won in 2005, not Colon) is as sure a thing as is available in MLB.
He is the best pitcher in baseball, hands down, and well worth $20M a year (if he is willing to be traded to the Yankees).

I think, for a team like the Yankees, it would be very much worth signing a guy like this to a 5 year $100 million contract. The guy has not been injury prone and if he plays 3 years on that contract at his level, its worth it. Maybe it won't work out but you are trying to lock up the best pitcher in the game v. some like Zito who clearly is not. Plus a 5 year deal is WAY different from a 7 year deal.

It's a no-brainer. He's the best pitcher in baseball. It is, really, the one time where you should absolutely not care about money.

As crazy as it sounds -- and this is verrrry crazy -- twenty million a year is going to be a steal for Santana. Zito got 18. Zambrano is going to get 20. Santana is on a different planet from those guys. Zambrano is good, but his lack of control keeps him out of the truly elite in my eyes.

Also, Matsuzaka is almost a 20-million-dollar pitcher (with the posting fee) and he's never pitched here.

Because pitching is so important, teams are going to overpay for it (as we've seen), so even at 20 million a year Santana will easily be worth it.

It also shows you how smart Cashman was to stockpile so many young pitchers.

The stars must be aligned...Unanimity in the WW world????? Steve, you are just not doing your job.

Only two pitchers in baseball warrant that kind of deal... Santana and Oswalt, and Santana gets a nod because he's proven it against the AL. Remember that saying about death and taxes? But, grab him if the chance arises. Now for the real question…Would you include Hughes in the deal?

OK, here's a question - how much better is Johan Santana than Roy Halladay? Check the stats and ages before you answer. If Halladay was a FA, would you sign him for 5 at $20 per year?

I have to lean towards what Steve is saying and I don't think he's questioning how good Yo-Han is, but whether it's the "RIGHT" move to make that kind of financial commitment to a pitcher, despite the fact that he's one of the best we've seen since Pedro (probably). Now, given the chance, this wouldn't be a Cashman move as much of a Yankee organization move. If Cashman were to get Yo-Han and he (Yo-Han) Kevin Browned the Yanks, then I don't think you can hold Cashman accountable for a move that the entire Yankee organization (from TOP to bottom) would have thought of as the only move AND the right move.

It's like the Dodgers asking the Yanks in the 60's if they wanted Sandy Koufax. Like duh!!!!

Halladay is good, but Santana is better -- markedly, in my opinion. Also, Santana doesn't end every year with some crazy injury (if Halladay isn't "tired" and shutting it down, he's having linedrives break his leg).

Hallday's 2002 and 2003 were insanely good years (239 and 266 IP with ERAs right around 3). But '04 and '05 were washouts and he was good but not great in '06 (I know he's not a strikeout pitcher, but his strikeouts were oddly down).

Having said that, I think Hallday is the second-best pitcher in the AL (even though the Red Sox hit him hard all the time) and while I wouldn't give him a five-year deal because he's so injury-prone, would it really be crazy to give him twenty million a year over three years? When you pay Kevin Brown fifteen million for sitting out a year, what does it matter? The Yankees, Red Sox and Mets are some of the few teams that can throw something like this against the wall and not care if it doesn't work out. If it doesn't, it's just money that they have. If it does, they're getting something incredibly valuable.

Also -- since #15 asked it -- no, no, no, no, NOOOOOOO effin' way do you include Phil Hughes to get Santana. Not even for him. Anyone else -- Tabata, whoever -- but not Hughes.

I honestly think part of Cashman stockpiling young arms is so that he can make a deal for Santana, and still not have to give up Hughes, and Tabata. Santana and Halladay are pretty even, until you look at health, then Santana blows him out of the water. Santana is definitly worth $20 million a year.

And don't trade Wang, either:

Santana Hughes Wang Igawa and replacement level pitcher sounds like a good rotation for the next few years

(Of course, assuming that Hughes and Igawa do pan out)

How much is Moose getting on his contract, consider that he's a number 2 starter and factor in both inflation and more money in baseball; I think $20 mill per is right in line for Santana.

This would be the easiest decision made by the Yankees. Do everything short of trading Hughes to get Santana.

Here are my reasons why:

1. Santana has been an excellent pitcher for the past five seasons(!).

2. Pitching wins championships. Especially good pitching.

3. Historically, Santana gets stronger as the season goes on. For example, every single year he's unstoppable from May to October.

4. Santana is a horse. He's averaged 231 innings and 249 strikeouts the last three years.

5. For the last three years his ERA has been about 2 runs better than league average, has an average ERA+ of 165 (Replacement Player/Average is around 100) and an average WHIP 0.963

6. He's 28 (born March 13, 1979, so he currently 27)!

7. He's a lefty.

8. He's this decade's version of Randy Johnson. Randy Johnson circa 1993-2002 of course.

9. He has exceptional control.

If Santana is going to be traded, the Yankees have to try as hard as possible to get him.

The idea of seeing Santana in pinstripes gets me all a-tingle just like you guys, but we have to consider something realistically: everybody would want this guy, and all big-market teams can pay him the money he wants. The Angels could put together an as-good-or-better offer of prospects and offer Santana 20 million a year. The Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs -- whoever -- could all also afford that. Even teams that don't normally spend a ton would probably get in on this deal.

So if this deal happens, the team who gets Santana is not only going to have to clear out their farm system, but maybe even go to an insane price for him (Santana might simply let the Twins choose among three teams with the best trade offer on the table and go to the team offering him the most money -- a bidding war for Santana would be truly nuts).

A couple of y'all are valuing Hughes, who hasn't pitched above AA (albeit very well and at a young age) over the most valuable player in baseball. I know that Hughes is 6.5 years younger and will make much less money initially. Santana is as close to a sure thing as there is, while Hughes' ceiling is Santana. I think there's a tendency to overvalue our own homegrown talent.

Ditto that.

They've come a long way since Frank Viola, eh? :)

Question: Does a package of Tabata, Clippard, and Sanchez get it done?

Ditto that.
-----------

Steve, your take on prospects is that they're not good until they're good, at which point you love them. It's like the "you need experience to get a job but can't gain experience because no one will give you a job so you can gain experience." You don't believe in minor leaguers until they come up in the bigs and perform -- but if it were up to you, you would trade away top prospects for anyone who could help the team now. Sometimes you need to have faith. Guys succeed and guys fail. That's life. But Hughes isn't some overhyped, run-of-the-mill prospect. He has a good chance of being a healthy Ben Sheets (the guy who dominated a few years ago). That's who I see when I watch Hughes -- a big guy with command of a 91-95 fastball who never walks anyone and has a filthy curveball.

On the other hand, you wouldn't trade Melky for Mike Gonzalez. Partly because Melky was a homegrown player.

If our faith is unreasonable, so it your pessimism.

>>"Question: Does a package of Tabata, Clippard, and Sanchez get it done?"<<

Depends on what Clippard and Sanchez do in AAA, and what sort of year Tabata has at the higher levels.

Joba, Kennedy, and the million other arms would have to be considered too. Since the Yankees wouldn't give up Hughes, I think there's little chance Tabata wouldn't have to be part of the deal.

~~~If our faith is unreasonable, so it your pessimism.~~~

Cool. Then all bases are covered!