Here’s a post that was inevitable.
From Joel Sherman (NY Post):
Who knows how matters might have played out if the Yankees had actually made their trade for Santana after the 2007 season. But more and more, GM Brian Cashman’s restraint then is being paid off now. Cashman philosophically could not advocate giving up significant prospects and handing Santana a state-of-the-art pitching contract. And the Yankees did have long-term concerns about how Santana would hold up physically.
They have similar worries with CC Sabathia. But with Sabathia, the Yanks gave up just a lot of money; and their plan at the moment they rejected overtures to obtain Santana was to wait a year and be the big bidder on Sabathia. A trade for Santana would have cost the Yanks Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera, Ian Kennedy and Jeff Marquez. Hughes has been a revelation as the Yanks’ eighth-inning man, Cabrera has delivered competence in center field and the Yanks used Marquez to acquire Nick Swisher.
I thought Cashman blew it by not being more aggressive in trying to land Santana, the kind of prime-time ace the team had craved for years. But where we sit today there is little doubt he made the right decision.
The Yankees made the right move in deciding not to trade for Johan Santana after 2007. It was the right move at the time and the non-move looks even better now. Imagine if the Yankees had actually given up Hughes, Kennedy, Marquez and Melky to the Twins so that they could call Santana their ace. Their stellar setup man would be sitting in a Minnesota dugout watching watching Melky Cabrera hit cycles alongside Denard Span. The price would have been costly from a financial point of view, but in retrospect, crucial cogs essential to the 2009 season would not be in Yankee uniforms had it not been for Cashman’s desire to simply wait it out and offer CC Sabathia a boatload of money. If the Yankees had Santana, they wouldn’t have Hughes, Melky, Swisher or CC (he would have ended up in LA, perhaps). Hell, they wouldn’t have Santana either given his elbow’s status.
It’s good to see Sherman admit that he was wrong regarding the Santana situation. He’s definitely not the only one. There are plenty of other folks that should praise Brian Cashman for his methodical and patient approach to fixing the team’s pitching problems. Many people wanted to give it all away for the best pitcher in baseball when a practical solution—CC Sabathia—was just a year away. And, as Sherman notes, while he’s expensive and comes with many of the same risks that Santana had, in the end, all he cost was money (lots of it) and a lengthy contract. That’s not great, but it’s not damning either. What do you think about Cashman’s plan and how it ultimately worked out? Are you happy with it? Were you a faithful supporter or are you in the same boat as Joel Sherman (it’s okay, it’s a big boat—believe me)?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
20 Responses to Cashman's triumph
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I never wanted Santana, much as I never wanted Rocket, Giambi, Brown and Johnson. However, it is way too soon for one side to be waving a white flag.
First, we don’t know what would have happened had Santana pitched for us. We might have let 27 walk away last season and not know it.
Second, its only our 1st year with CC. Mets got a good year from Johan, too. Injuries happen, and you can’t judge the contract until its run its course.
Third, the kids are performing for us now, but it doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have found alternatives elsewehere in the system, nor does it mean that they will still be in the conversation 5, 6 years down the road, when Johann may still be pitching well (or not).
Lastly, I think we’re stretching things a bit to bring Swish into this. He was someone the Sox were happy to get rid of, and if we didn’t have Marquez, the odds are we would have found a different match to make the deal.
I doubt we would have let 27 walk away last season. That team was significantly flawed. Besides that, even if we did let 27 walk away, would we have had a shot this year or next year with Santana on board but with no Phil Hughes, who will eventually start, and with no Melky (who has gave us clutch hits). I think you’re underestimating Hughes’ performance this year as a reliever (he’s a top-tier setup man). CC and Santana are hard to compare, too, because Johan’s fastball velocity has decreased with every year since 2007. There hasn’t been a warning sign like that with CC.
At this point, I doubt Santana will pitch well in 5-6 years—not after the injury floodgates have opened. I also don’t think it’s a reach to bring Nick Swisher into the conversation. I don’t think anyone is saying that it was all about Jeffrey Marquez in order to get Swisher. I think it’s that the Yankees were able to move the right piece to get him. They didn’t lose any depth on a Santana deal and they traded a guy who didn’t hurt them depth-wise for Swisher. They still have their main chips to play with. I do agree, though, in that we can’t fully judge the moves and non-moves by Brian Cashman until a few more years pass by.
Interesting.
I was 100% against the Santana deal, for all the logical, sane reasons that Cashman brought up at the time. It didn’t make sense then and it still doesn’t make sense now.
Might have let 27 walk away? Really? That pitching staff with Santana was going to win an World Series? Yeah, Santana pitched well last year, but it was in the NL East. That’s a far cry from the AL East. It’s amazing to me that people still overlook this. His stuff has been suffering a noticeable decline since that 2nd half of 2007. That wasn’t going to help him in the AL. Yes, he has pitched well in the AL in the past, but not with the stuff that he has now. Or the stuff that he had last year.
If you still really think that it’s possible that Cashman made a mistake in not having Santana instead of Sabathia, Hughes, Melky, Swisher and Kennedy, well, I just don’t know what to say.
Agreed. We would have Santana over CC today and that would be awful. Even if he didn’t have elbow problems, I would have wanted CC instead.
He’s younger and more durable with a much more likely chance of being an Ace in AL career, everyone wanted CC more some just didn’t think he would come here.
I was all for getting Santana if, we didn’t have to give up to much for him. The trade they wanted was way to much for a guy we had to give up all those players+cash+long term contract.
When I saw the people they wanted for one pitcher I said NO! No way in hell would that trade get done with Cashman calling the shots. So, yes…I was one of the guys supporting Cashmans decision all the way.
Considering that we would NOT have Hughes, Melky, CC and Swisher if the Santana deal was made, NOT making the Santana deal is defintiely a good move by Cashman, thus far.
Next year’s rotation could be CC, AJ, Andy, Joba ad Hughes, and the Yankees could spend their money on another reliever, or even a closer, to fill the set-up role.
Not making the Santana deal might be the best move in the long run.
If we could trade for Street this offseason than that rotation would be my A choice… Joba after his first full year starting with experience and Hughes as the 5 can’t go to wrong there.
A few of us at another site pretty much predicted this outcome. When you look at similar pitchers over MLB history, it’s remarkable how many similar pitchers (Smallish with their best pitch being an off-speed pitch) flamed out once they passed 30. When this was posted elsewhere, a lot of people said that none of those guys was as good as Santana. What they failed to realize is just how (justifiably) highly regarded a lot of those guys were. Adding that to the loss of velocity & stuff made it seem pretty obvious the gamble was far too large.
I was among those who doubted Santana’s durability; there were already warning signs. But I am surprised the injuries have already caught up to him — I thought he had at least two and likely three more good years in him.
I have lied CC better than Santana from the beggining I just wasn’t sure if we were going to be able to get CC (at the time the economy wasn’t as bad) I thought for sure the Dodgers or Angels would make a big enough offer to get him to go closer to home. I am much happier with the big lefty than having Santana, it seems obvious now but Sabathia has a much brighter future as an ace in the AL.
I have a hard time believing everyone on this site hated the idea of getting Santana… I have the stones to admit I wanted why wouldn’t you at the time, in fact the only hold up on my end is that I didn’t want to trade Phil Hughes and I didn’t want to do a deal that involved more than 3 players but I think it’s hard to say you didn’t want Sanatana even with the dip everyone thought he had at least 3 great years in him. That being said as I stated above I wanted CC over Santana but I just didn’t see anyway that was going to happen but I’, glad it did.
Is it really so hard to think that people didn’t want Santana because of the exact scenario that has played out? A lot of the people that I know realized that you don’t give up so many years of cost-controlled young players PLUS pay him like a free agent. And for a guy whose stuff had been noticeably dropping off. Of course, if you go by the WFAN and the older guys in the MSM crowd, they would want Santana because they’re a bunch of mental midgets.
Also, just because they might not have gotten CC does not mean that they should have automatically traded away all of those pieces for a declining Santana.
I have been onboard with Cashman’s “don’t pay twice” mantra from the start. I don’t know why it’s such a reach to think that people would agree with that.
I never said I was in favor of trading for Santana in the deal that was offered and I never said it had to be done because we might not have gotten CC, I just think a lot of you are lying and probably wanted Santana at the time but I forgot you all read minds and know the future so you all knew exactly what was happening the whole time. I’m not saying some people were against it from the beginning but I am also saying some people wanted him and aren’t admitting it now, even if you didn’t want him with the deal that would have been opffered you wanted him in some fashion.
Well, rest assured that I was 100% against the trade for Santana.
It didn’t make sense then and doesn’t make sense now.
If the Yanks got him for absolutely nothing? Yeah, then I would want Santana. And if the Queen had balls, she’d be the King.
I must have been reading different Yankee blogs, because the majority of fans who were on blogs, i.e. younger, saner, more big-picture oriented than the WFAN/MSM types, appreciated the big picture. And realized that giving up a ton of cost-controlled years for legit young guys AND the equivalent of a free agent contract wasn’t logical.
Well rest assure I don’t believe you! I don’t care what you say at the time he was available he was the best pitcher available and that’s not debatable not what is debatable is what would have had to been given up for him and the risk of a long term contract… Obviously it doesn’t make sense now that is why hind sight is 20/20… The fact that you care enough to actually try and make me believe you were against the trade makes me think you wanted it more than anyone. I’m not saying the trade should have been done if you had read you would already have known that but to act like Santana was a scrub at the time is just not true and I am pretty sure you didn’t call him having one good year and then having an elbow injury that needed surgery but no way to prove it or disprove it so it what it is… I really can’t believe you care but that proves something doesn’t it.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re looking for other people who were dumb enough to want that trade, good luck to you.
I don’t get what you’re looking for. Is it that you’re looking for others to join your club in the trade that didn’t make sense then or now? You were wrong. It was wrong in December 2007 and it still is. Lick your wounds and move on.
So you admit that you didn’t want to give up three players for him, and admit he maybe had 3 good years left even though he was asking for a 6-7 year deal, and you somehow find it hard to believe so many fans didn’t want the deal made? No one is saying they wouldn’t have made the deal if it was a straight up Marquez-for-Satana deal, just that they didn’t want him under the conditions offered.
My point is that you never know the outcome of the acts you didn’t do. Trading for Johann could have led to a cascade of other actions that would have given us different teams in 2008 and 2009. Maybe it wouldn’t have been Wang pitching that day in Houston. Maybe we would have been better, maybe worse. We’ll never know.
Therefore we are stuck evaluating the decision based on what did result, which is a poor season last year, and a good one this, but obviously we still don’t know this ends – we may not get a ring this season.
Santana still has 4(?) years on his deal, 6 for CC, and whole careers for the kids. Any definitive analysis at this point is premature. I won’t say Sherman is right just to vindicate my own position.
I’ll let you guys continue to try to make yourselves look smarter. Have a blast.