Friday a.m. stuff

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 1, 2008 11:05 AM CST in News

Some Rangers stuff today...

Nolan Ryan says he's interested in the team president job, and that he's going to talk to Hicks about the position soon...

Kevin Sherrington, meanwhile, claims that this is just a sop to placate the fans, and goes on to say, in essence, the team sucks and Tom Hicks is cheap because they didn't get Johan Santana:

So where were the Rangers when the Twins made him available this winter?

Only the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox were considered players in the Santana sweepstakes. When the Yankees pulled out, so did the Red Sox. The Mets got him this week for four prospects, pending a new contract.

As it turns out, the Rangers did, indeed, pester Minnesota this winter. But the Twins worried that the Rangers couldn't finalize the deal by signing him, which, as the Mets are learning, won't be easy.

Still, Santana is worth it. He'd have been worth whatever the Rangers had to give up, too. No pitching prospect in the Rangers' system will rise to his level. Tom Hicks' payroll, one of the game's tightest, could have accommodated his asking price.

So, Sherrington says that the Twins didn't really get serious with the Rangers, despite the Rangers efforts. They had a guy with a no-trade clause who would only accept a deal to the right team, and who wanted an extension as part of the deal. Santana apparently wasn't interested in coming to Texas and being part of a rebuilding project, when he could go to the Mets or BoSox or Yankees.

That said...Santana would have really "been worth whatever the Rangers to give up" to get him?

If the cost is Saltalamacchia, Kinsler, Hurley, Andrus, and Feliz, is that worth it? Even if Santana would want, say, an 8 year $200 million extension, with opt out clauses after 3 and 5 years?

Look, I have been critical of Tom Hicks on spending. I think this team should have a payroll in the $80-90 million range, given its revenues. But I have a hard time with the idea that Santana would have been worth whatever it cost to bring him here, and that him ending up with the Mets is the result of penny-pinching or short-sightedness. Sherrington is usually better than this.

And T.R. Sullivan has his bloggy Friday notes up...

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sherrington, Ryan

If by "better than this" you mean he usually doesn't say anything really stupid while not saying anything particularly insightful either, I agree.

I don't see, however, any real point in Ryan becoming team president. It does seem like a PR move, and I can only think the Ryan is mostly interested in adding to his aura/legacy by latching on to a team that appears to be heading in the right direction. Any coincidence he'd be ditching the Astros about now given the shape that organization is in?

And, speaking of the Astros: If Ryan helped make any of the decisions they've made lately, keep him far away from Arlington please.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Feb 1, 2008 11:39 AM CST reply actions

Santana contract talks

Rosenthal says the Mets are offering $22-$22.5 per year for 5 years, plus perhaps a $13 signing bonus...Santana's agent wants 6 or 7 years. I'll be surprised if they can get him to sign for anything less than 6 years, risky. Link:
http://tinyurl.com/3aqef7

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Feb 1, 2008 12:14 PM CST up reply actions

Sherrington

NO ONE, is worth "whatever you have to give up", to get him. Sounds like Kevin was having a BAD day. He is way off base on this one. The signing would not make a playoff a cinch, much less a championship. It sure did not happen in Minnesota. Then the farm would be gutted, and they are back with another rebuilding session. Better the Mets, than the Rangers.

by VEGASbB on Feb 1, 2008 11:40 AM CST reply actions

We swapped email

Sherrington replied a little huffy about being termed "lazy", and claims Santana would have signed with Texas (albeit MN had doubts about extension). Here's the exchange:

(KS reply, my short note is below it)

I've got no problem with people disagreeing. But lazy? How's that? I did my due diligence on this column, and the word the Rangers got was that Santana would have, indeed, waived his no trade clause for Texas. But they still had to sign him. And the Twins didn't think the Rangers could pull it off.

I like everything Jon Daniels did with trades last year and re-stocking the farm system. That's certainly the way to build a team. But let's not get carried away. One of the reasons you build up prospects is to make good deals. There is no better pitcher than Santana, and none in the system capable of it. He's not a mistake, and the asking price had already come down from what it was before Christmas.

Once again, I'd always be wary about trading prospects. But you can't fall in love with them, either. I believe it was Mr. Newberg who championed the infamous DVD trio. How's that working for you?

Thanks for writing.

Kevin Sherrington

--------------------------------------------------

From: Ed Coffin
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:40 PM
To: Sherrington, Kevin
Subject: Column -Johan Santana

http://lonestarball.com/story/2008/1/31/225255/679

Pretty much says it all. In addition, of course, to Jamey Newberg's take via his newsletter

(repeated at http://newbergreport.com/ )

'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern

by Ed Coffin on Feb 1, 2008 12:02 PM CST up reply actions

I find it funny

that Sherrington champions the notion of building up the farm in order to make good deals for major league talent. But then he makes a snide comment towards Jamey for building up the DVD trio while ignorantly ignoring the fact that both Danks and Volquez were traded for major league talent.

I love it when local writers get their feelings hurt and resort to cheap and acutely ignorant statements in order to save face.

"heres to you brett for making me get all wet" -NYTXFAN

by jparks77 on Feb 1, 2008 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

Good point

if Hamilton were to somehow stay clean and healthy for a few years and fulfill his potential, he would make DVD worthwhile all by himself even if McCarthy bombs. Add in that McCarthy seems like a decent bet to be a mid-rotation guy for a while, and Diamond could still turn out to be something...

The odds of any 3 pitching prospects panning out are pretty damn slim. If you end up with Hamilton, McCarthy, and Diamond all contributing in any way you've beaten the odds.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Feb 1, 2008 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

Correction

You would have DEMOLISHED the odds.

I lack the required experience to be an intern.

by TheRupeIsOnFire on Feb 1, 2008 1:35 PM CST up reply actions

write him back

and make him apologize for being a jackass (but in nicer terms)

seriously, don't let him get away with that DVD comment. it doesn't even make sense. management didn't fall in love with their prospects, they traded them for major league value. clearly, they owuld be willing to do that in the right situation.

in certain situations i would be willing to let it go, but he needs to understand he can't just pander to the masses by championing a trade that by all accounts would have been terrible.

I really want the bedard trade to happen for people to see how much one of the games best pitchers can impact a team. maybe i'm wrong, but its not going to help as much as he thinks

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2008 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

by all accounts would have been terrible

gross exaggeration. but the issue is that he doesn't even know what the trade would be, he just wants it done and he doesn't know how much it costs, he just wants it done.

dumb

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions

I did reply

And nicely, in a way ignoring the DVD disdain.

'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern

by Ed Coffin on Feb 1, 2008 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Good to know...

Sherrington now hates Jamey and myself.

He still never addressed why exactly Santana would sign off on a deal to Texas, even if the Rangers had managed to bowl over the Twins with an amazing package of prospects.

Baseball Time in Arlington

by jamcadbury on Feb 1, 2008 11:15 PM CST up reply actions

Sherrington

What email address did you use? Standard DMN address?

by Jamey Newberg on Feb 4, 2008 7:04 AM CST up reply actions

I don't know

if we would have done "whatever it takes", but I would have been happy to go with an equivalent offer if we could have locked him up long term.

I just don't think Santana had much desire to sign a long term contract with a weak franchise.

"We should have bombed it (Auschwitz)"-President Bush

by DJCahill on Feb 1, 2008 11:44 AM CST reply actions

Spend money just to spend money

"I think this team should have a payroll in the $80-90 million range, given its revenues"

Ok Adam, tell us who Hicks should have spent the money on. The current payroll of rhis tream will allow Hicks to spend on FAs when the time is right.

I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it. ~Rogers Hornsby

by RangerMad on Feb 1, 2008 11:49 AM CST reply actions

x

Do you have any faith he will actually spend the money when the time is right? I do agree with you that there wan't alot out there this off season but I doubt Hicks earmarked any cash this off season for "when the time is right".

"They say some of my stars drink whiskey, but I have found that ones who drink milkshakes don't win many ball games." -Casey Stengel

by 1man5tools @ Lone Star Ball on Feb 1, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions

Hicks has shown in the past

That he is willing to spend when he "thinks" it is the right time.

It's just that in the past, he had bad advice in when and who to spend that money on.

I don't think Hicks potentially being cheap is the issue, the main concerns are:

Will it ever be the right time to spend for this team?
Are the people working for him, like JD, giving him good advice.

Personally, I think you can answer yes to both of those questions and expect them to make moves that are appropriate at the time.

by Dirk Diggler on Feb 1, 2008 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

Dunno

My point was less that it should be at that range now -- although the team should be willing to go to that level, if the right opportunity comes along -- and more than, in 2009 and 2010, when the team should be adding young talent and hitting its stride, the Rangers should be willing to be at that level of payroll.

I'm not advocating spending money for the sake of spending money on a rebuilding team.

I do think, though, that the idea that this team should be at $65 million in payroll a couple of years of now is flawed.

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 1, 2008 12:24 PM CST up reply actions

+ 1

well said Adam.

by HurleyHurley8 on Feb 1, 2008 1:43 PM CST up reply actions

My email

Not a lot of thought went into the views on Santana and the Rangers in my opinion. The Rangers would stand next to no chance for him to waive his no trade clause to come to Texas, and what would be the point in trading most of the top prospects in the organization when the Rangers are at least a couple of years away from possibly being competitive?

His Reply:

Actually, more than just thought went into it. I called around. He would have come, according to the Rangers. The problem, as I wrote, was that the Twins didn't think the Rangers could have gotten a contract done. The Mets are having enough problems as it is. And Johan Santana is not available every day. He'll be 29 in March. He'd still be an elite pitcher in 2009, when the Rangers should be much further along in their development.

Thanks for writing.

Kevin Sherrington

by B_Black on Feb 1, 2008 11:51 AM CST reply actions

Dang... Is he smug or what?

"I've learned that before I open my mouth, I should look both ways for midgets." - Denny Crain

by mtex on Feb 1, 2008 12:06 PM CST up reply actions

Why would Satana say no????

Of course he'd say Yes to the Rangers but it's not really a Yes. It's more like it would be a Yes if you blow me away from the 2nd place bidder (just like Arod's deal). You gotta at least listen to what offer you can get from teams instead of limiting it to 2.

by Coolbean04 on Feb 1, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions

Satana?

Lol

by juancarlosjackson on Feb 1, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

Seriously?

A typo made you laugh out loud?

Weak sauce.

The 40 (still) trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on Feb 1, 2008 2:31 PM CST up reply actions

Show me the Santana!

I agree with Ski-master, AJM.

These pro-writers hate no-name teams for obvious reasons. It's very hard to write great stories about players few people know much about. Elvis may be the second coming of ELVIS, but who can really see that value on February 1, 2008? LSB Bloggers that's who!

by 3Bagger on Feb 1, 2008 11:59 AM CST reply actions

This story is silly.

Why waste our time trying to get Santana when his NTC would never allow him to come here. There's no way in hell that he'd accept a deal to come here.

You exaggerate the story though. The deal is closer to 6 years and 150M and not 8 years 200M. That's a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Also, it would not take Salty, Kinsler, Hurley, Andrus and Feliz.

The Mets didn't trade one player in the majors. Gomez and Humber are close but they haven't had any significant time. So a deal could've been done without Kinsler in it.

Salty is more valuable than any of their players. I think a similar trade would be

Salty > Gomez
Harrison < Humber Not by much
Gabbard > Mulvey
Feliz = Guerra

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade Salty, Harrison, Gabbard and Feliz for Santana but that's a lot closer to the Mets deal than Salty, Kinsler, Hurley, Andrus, and Feliz.

by Coolbean04 on Feb 1, 2008 12:00 PM CST reply actions

He didn't day that is what it would actually take,

he was proving a point that it wouldn't be worth doing whatever it takes to get him. If that is what it took, it wouldn't be worth it.

by uthornfan on Feb 1, 2008 12:02 PM CST up reply actions

I agree

Not worth it.

by blue glove dooshy on Feb 1, 2008 12:28 PM CST up reply actions

Really?

You wouldn't trade Salty, Harrison, Gabbard and Feliz for Johan?

I'd do that in about a second, maybe less.

The 40 (still) trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on Feb 1, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions

think about that

if you had said at the beginning of 2007 that you could trade

Tex/Mahay/Gagne for Santana/Andrus/Beltre/Beau Jones/David Murphy

good gravy

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2008 2:40 PM CST up reply actions

but

Minn would not accept the ranger offer you put up there without a better Humber type prospect and a good OF prospect

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions

I know this is getting incredibly speculative

but if that's the case, you call the Mets who I'm pretty damn sure would trade Gomez and Humber for Salty and Gabbard.

Or maybe they wouldn't.

But I think Salty is more valuable than Gomez.

The 40 (still) trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on Feb 1, 2008 8:07 PM CST up reply actions

My reasoning

A deal like this hopefully will make more sense in 2-3 years....not this year.

by blue glove dooshy on Feb 1, 2008 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

you are close

but you are downplaying the insistence the twins had of getting back an OF stud. we don't have one of those

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2008 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

Salty

Twins probably would have very little interest in him. Mauer and Morneau, you know.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Feb 1, 2008 5:33 PM CST up reply actions

This discussion probably needs to stick to Adam's

point, given Sherrington's replies to Ed's and okrangerfan's emails above. Most of us seem to be assuming there is no way Santana would have come here, and Sherrington is clueless for not realizing that. If Sherrington says the Rangers believe Santana would have waived his NTC to come here, I believe him. Then, the discussion stays closer to Adam's point above.

Santana seems likely to get 6 or 7 years guaranteed, at about $20-22M per year. Plus you'd have given up several of the players you'd really like to have around him to have a competitive team. No, he's not quite worth any price.

I think Daniels might actually balk even at signing a FA that didn't cost anything more than a draft pick if it meant a guarantee of 7 years. That is damn risky for a pitcher, and much more of a problem than any dollar amount. If you throw in the cost of the prospects, it doesn't make sense to a team that A. isn't in win-now mode, B. can't afford nearly as many payroll risks for that many years as the Mets.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Feb 1, 2008 1:01 PM CST reply actions

Good Point

I don't think the team is close enough to winning that they should be selling everything to get a pitcher that likely wouldn't sign a long term deal to stay with texas. The rangers aren't 1 pitcher away.

However if he was a freeagent, i'd fully expect the team to go hard after signing him. But 7yrs at 20-22per is a pretty scary contract to give any pitcher

"When we're mad we'll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants." - Ralph Wiggum

by rentz on Feb 2, 2008 8:18 AM CST up reply actions

FA

If he was a free agent some crazy team would swoop in and offer him a ridiculous contract, like 7 or 8 years with options.

I feel sorry for Oswalt. He signed for too little with the wrong team.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Feb 2, 2008 8:11 PM CST up reply actions

Site Changes

This is humorous: http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/poll/1201892414_WrXQAnzU

What happened to the humor at LSB? Oh, right, Ben stopped contributing after 3 posts.

Obama - ??? 2008 : He's not Hillary

by RangerMoto on Feb 1, 2008 1:43 PM CST reply actions

When does SB Nation 2.0

come out?

by coolaid on Feb 1, 2008 2:47 PM CST reply actions

The dead line has passed

on the Mets working out a deal with Santana, although I'm sure there will be an extension. But what if they are unable to come to an agreement and the trade falls through? The level of talent the Twins were willing to take dropped from what they wanted earlier from Boston and the Yankees. Would his value in terms of prospects drop even more? If so, what kind of package would you be willing to offer. Looks like in terms of the extension, it would take 22-25 million/year over six years. Would you be willing to go there also?

by B_Black on Feb 1, 2008 4:15 PM CST reply actions