Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay?

Avatar

Posted: 10/5/2012 9:55 PM

Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay? 


Is it strictly because of the money?  I seem to recall Johan in the first half being more than serviceable with the no hitter being his highest point.  Very encouraged at that point considering he lost all of August 2010-all of 2011.

I think things turned for the worse in that Cubs start where his foot got stepped on.  I didn't think much of it at the time but he never had a quality start the rest of the way until he got shut down. 

Also watching Hakeem Nicks miss multiple games for the Giants since he got his foot stepped on coming off surgery reminded me of this.  I contend then that he should've been DL'ed as a precaution instead of making those starts. Harvey should've gotten those to be safe.

I just don't share the baseball albatross feeling toward Johan.  That's strictly Bay for me.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/5/2012 10:03 PM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


Johan had some good seasons.... nothing to the level prior to coming here. But, he has not been a bust like Bay has. He has had some moments at least. I think in terms of Albatross it is that both contracts expire at the same time and they are no longer players in the Mets future plans. They are in essence preventing us from improving our team and we are waiting their deals out.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/5/2012 10:06 PM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


Hmmm, let's see...he's going to earn $31 million if we count his buyout, despite coming off a poor year overall and he only made it through two-thirds of the season.

He's not as much of an albatross as Bay since Bay is completely useless and maybe Santana can actually be decent next season. There's still hope with him. Bay is hopeless. They should just get rid of him.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/5/2012 10:07 PM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 



xmulderx wrote: Johan had some good seasons.... nothing to the level prior to coming here. But, he has not been a bust like Bay has. He has had some moments at least. I think in terms of Albatross it is that both contracts expire at the same time and they are no longer players in the Mets future plans. They are in essence preventing us from improving our team and we are waiting their deals out.
OK.  The money is why.  I just shudder for him to be mentioned in a similar way as Bay.  Bay's on a lower level.

The way I see it, Johan will be 1 more year removed from his surgery+foot injury+ he's looking for one more big contract that this organization won't give him.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/5/2012 10:08 PM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


what is gonna drive many of us bonkers is when this money is freed up I don't expect it all to be put right back in the team for 2014. Maybe 35-40% of that money. just a guess though


Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/6/2012 7:13 AM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 


I don't think many fans consider Santana an albatross (and those who do don't believe he's on the level as Bay) because Santana is still viewed as a productive player, but he doesn't come at a good value ... it is the money.

I would be fine with Santana making 30+ starts with the Mets next year, but I would be happier with him playing for a contender next year with the team using the resources elsewhere.

RIP WIC 2005-2008

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/6/2012 7:51 AM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 



HadronsAtHome wrote: I don't think many fans consider Santana an albatross (and those who do don't believe he's on the level as Bay) because Santana is still viewed as a productive player, but he doesn't come at a good value ... it is the money.

I would be fine with Santana making 30+ starts with the Mets next year, but I would be happier with him playing for a contender next year with the team using the resources elsewhere.
I don't consider him an albatross. If used correctly, I expect him to start 27/28 games next year and pitch reasonably effectively. He will need an extra day here and there, and I would also strategically give him 2 weeks off somewhere with 'back spasms'. He will be another year removed from surgery.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/6/2012 11:30 AM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 


This is the problem with the thinking that they will free up $48 million after 2013.  I could give a rats derriere about what they spend.  Just because money is available doesn't mean you have to spend it.  

Yep, the can spend getting the next Jason Bay, Johan Santana, Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo, Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman.  

SPEND SPEND SPEND.  No thought on whether the money is spent with intelligence.  Oakland could win with a payroll of $59 million.  

I want the Mets to win, not lose spending money foolishly.  If after 2013, there is no one worth spending the money THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SPEND THE MONEY.  AND, WE WON'T GO THROUGH THESE RIDICULOUS PERIODS OF NOT WINNING WITH A $150 MILLION BUDGET.

Mets need to build slow (understand it takes time, you don't do by snapping your fingers), and you do it wisely.
"Friend Romans & Country Men Lend Me an Ear"  Hannibal Lecture in Florence.  Recipe from the Grand Dictionaire de Cuisine, (1873), Alexandre Dumas.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/6/2012 12:14 PM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 


^ Rational Thoughts!  Good Points!  Run for the hills!  tongue

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/6/2012 12:31 PM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


while it takes time to build... this is year 3... IMO no plan should take more than 5 years in this day and age if you do it right. The problem is we are not fully rebuilding nor are we trying to win. So we are caught somewhere in the middle and if we stay on this path we will be stuck in no mans land for another decade.

I think Sandy has to commit to one or the other A) sign Wright and Dickey and commit to winning or B) trade Wright and Dickey and commit to rebuilding.


Last edited 10/6/2012 12:35 PM by xmulderx

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/6/2012 12:51 PM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 



Alexandre62 wrote: This is the problem with the thinking that they will free up $48 million after 2013.  I could give a rats derriere about what they spend.  Just because money is available doesn't mean you have to spend it.  

Yep, the can spend getting the next Jason Bay, Johan Santana, Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo, Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman.  

SPEND SPEND SPEND.  No thought on whether the money is spent with intelligence.  Oakland could win with a payroll of $59 million.  

I want the Mets to win, not lose spending money foolishly.  If after 2013, there is no one worth spending the money THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SPEND THE MONEY.  AND, WE WON'T GO THROUGH THESE RIDICULOUS PERIODS OF NOT WINNING WITH A $150 MILLION BUDGET.

Mets need to build slow (understand it takes time, you don't do by snapping your fingers), and you do it wisely.
Or M. Cabrera, P. Fielder, A. Beltre, M. Holliday, Y. Darvish, Y. Cespedes...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/6/2012 1:37 PM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


I look at it this way-

Bay will get about $19M with the buyout; sure, he was putrid in every imaginable way in 2012, but if he can manage to match his vs LHP numbers from 2010-2011, he'd still serve as a tolerable platoon partner in LF. Lets say that is worth the league minimum, $490k-- then he is over-payed by about $18.5M

Santana was pretty good until he got hurt; 12 fWAR in 719 IP is pretty solid, an average of 3.3 fWAR per 200 IP -- solid #2 territory. The big problem being that for ace money you are hoping for 1100+ IP in five years.

If Santana rebounds to a ~180-200 IP 2-3 fWAR season, then he's worth around $12-18M and will be paid $31M, which has him over-payed by $13-19M, right in Bay's neighborhood.

So they are both albatrosses based on pay versus value, but Santana at least has value since he'll still likely be a decent #3-4 starter [something the team still needs], while it is less obvious that the team needs a vLHP platoon LFer.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/6/2012 4:14 PM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 



Gstacks177 wrote:
Alexandre62 wrote: This is the problem with the thinking that they will free up $48 million after 2013.  I could give a rats derriere about what they spend.  Just because money is available doesn't mean you have to spend it.  

Yep, the can spend getting the next Jason Bay, Johan Santana, Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo, Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman.  

SPEND SPEND SPEND.  No thought on whether the money is spent with intelligence.  Oakland could win with a payroll of $59 million.  

I want the Mets to win, not lose spending money foolishly.  If after 2013, there is no one worth spending the money THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SPEND THE MONEY.  AND, WE WON'T GO THROUGH THESE RIDICULOUS PERIODS OF NOT WINNING WITH A $150 MILLION BUDGET.

Mets need to build slow (understand it takes time, you don't do by snapping your fingers), and you do it wisely.
Or M. Cabrera, P. Fielder, A. Beltre, M. Holliday, Y. Darvish, Y. Cespedes...
Those are the ones that annoy me.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/6/2012 6:56 PM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 



danfran wrote:
Gstacks177 wrote:
Alexandre62 wrote: This is the problem with the thinking that they will free up $48 million after 2013.  I could give a rats derriere about what they spend.  Just because money is available doesn't mean you have to spend it.  

Yep, the can spend getting the next Jason Bay, Johan Santana, Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo, Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman.  

SPEND SPEND SPEND.  No thought on whether the money is spent with intelligence.  Oakland could win with a payroll of $59 million.  

I want the Mets to win, not lose spending money foolishly.  If after 2013, there is no one worth spending the money THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SPEND THE MONEY.  AND, WE WON'T GO THROUGH THESE RIDICULOUS PERIODS OF NOT WINNING WITH A $150 MILLION BUDGET.

Mets need to build slow (understand it takes time, you don't do by snapping your fingers), and you do it wisely.
Or M. Cabrera, P. Fielder, A. Beltre, M. Holliday, Y. Darvish, Y. Cespedes...
Those are the ones that annoy me.
Oh, I didn't really post those names in terms of the Mets missing out in signing them, although I was heavy on signing the ones you highlighted this past off-season. My point was more that it's very shortsighted, lazy, flawed or whatever other word you wanna use... to use the signing and outcomes of Bay, Perez, Santana, Castillo, Bonilla, Coleman... As exmp's of what could or is likely to happen when a Mets fan is clamoring or wants to sign a top tier free agent in a given off-season. 

That's more of the extreme exception, than the norm. Of course you're never gonna bat .1000 as a GM in signings top tier FA's... But it shouldn't be that hard as a competent GM to be correct on at least 2 of 3-- 4 of 6, etc...

Last edited 10/6/2012 6:59 PM by Gstacks177

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/7/2012 8:38 AM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 


Yes, it's just about the money.
If we could trade him for a good player (or two) and free up $25M in salary that's 3 more players...that's, let's say, 2 OF, a catcher and a reliever added.
And why would we need a $25M pitcher next year, in the final year of his contract, if we are not going to contend till 2014?




****************************************************************************************************

The best pitch is one that looks like a strike....................but it isn't.           Warren Spahn
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/7/2012 12:20 PM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 


Because they were both eaten by the same bird?

Is this a trick question?

Oh, and I agree with AD62.
I don't care how much they spend, just as long as they do it wisely.

Later
"You spend a good part of your life gripping the baseball, and in the end it turns out it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/7/2012 5:34 PM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 



danfran wrote:
Gstacks177 wrote:
Alexandre62 wrote: This is the problem with the thinking that they will free up $48 million after 2013.  I could give a rats derriere about what they spend.  Just because money is available doesn't mean you have to spend it.  

Yep, the can spend getting the next Jason Bay, Johan Santana, Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo, Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman.  

SPEND SPEND SPEND.  No thought on whether the money is spent with intelligence.  Oakland could win with a payroll of $59 million.  

I want the Mets to win, not lose spending money foolishly.  If after 2013, there is no one worth spending the money THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SPEND THE MONEY.  AND, WE WON'T GO THROUGH THESE RIDICULOUS PERIODS OF NOT WINNING WITH A $150 MILLION BUDGET.

Mets need to build slow (understand it takes time, you don't do by snapping your fingers), and you do it wisely.
Or M. Cabrera, P. Fielder, A. Beltre, M. Holliday, Y. Darvish, Y. Cespedes...
Those are the ones that annoy me.
Realistically, about half of the FA signings are bad.  Sometimes it's known immediately and sometimes it takes a year or two.  DiceK had 2 decent season before he sucked.

You overlooked Beckett, Crawford, Carlos Lee, Teixeira, ARod, Cliff Lee, etc.  About half are good and half are bad.  The jury on Prince Fielder is far from settled.  Let's give a couple of years.  So, every plan needs to include one or two bad contracts in it which is  why big money should be spent last rather than first.

Five years is reasonable if you don't have five bad contracts.  With no talent beneath that and no prospects ready to contribute.  The Mets had too many bad contracts and while Minaya left the farm system better than "the experts" gave him credit for, those prospects were basically 2-3 years away.  So, their rebuilding process is likely to take longer than 5 years.
"Friend Romans & Country Men Lend Me an Ear"  Hannibal Lecture in Florence.  Recipe from the Grand Dictionaire de Cuisine, (1873), Alexandre Dumas.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/8/2012 2:44 AM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


Again, you can't blame Alderson & Co for the Wilpons' financial issues or the payroll structure he inherited.
He inherited a solid but not strong farm system and basically has had to wait out contracts to come off the books.

What has made the challenge tougher has been the deteriorating budget. While SA was assuming it was going to be in 110 to 115 range for 2012 in summer of 2011, it ended up in 95 to 100 range eventually with operating losses mounting and the Picard lawsuit looming.

The picture has since cleared - but the Wilpons remain unable to supplement operating losses with fresh money.
And at the same time, a 60- win team will create far less revenue than an 80-win team. So a fire sale neither was or is a realistic option.
Yes, it sucks to have owners who actually mean well, I suppose, but just cannot afford this right now.
But that's basically the situation.
Starting in 2014, payroll will be at a manageable level again, so decisions will finally be made on-field first, finances second.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/9/2012 7:56 AM

Re: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as 


Santana an albatross?  No.  Overpaid by a country mile?  Hell Yeah.  I wish we could have gotten him back when he was pitching lights out as a Twin.  He's had a couple good seasons here, but I don't think he lived up to his contract due to injuries.  It's ashame I really like him.  I don't consider him on the same level of disappointment as Bay because at least Johan has produced here, just not enough to justify his contract.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/9/2012 8:49 AM

RE: Why is Johan Santana considered in the same albatross as Bay 


What's the difference exactly? What if Santana was due $40M or $100M next year? At what point would he go from 'overpaid by a country mile' to 'albatross'?
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >