FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. When assessing the deal it is also important to note that Gomez played exceptional defense at a premium position. All the the value below replacement, and more, he gave up with his bat he made up for with his glove.

    Comment by centris — January 23, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

  2. One thing not discussed is that the Twins more than likely would have been better off keeping him (he was the difference between them making and not making the playoffs) and getting a first rounder/sammie pick as opposed to the floatsam and jetsam the Mets unloaded.

    Comment by Yazdog8 — January 23, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

  3. I don’t believe Johan Santana was the reason the Twins didn’t make the playoffs; it was bullpen woes that cost them the season; the young starters performed well. (After getting rid of Livan Hernandez, at least.)

    Comment by Jervill — January 23, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

  4. Yeah, but if you replace the worst Twins’ starter with Santana, they win that division outright; bullpen woes or not.

    Comment by Jason T — January 23, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

  5. Speaking from a Twins fan’s perspective, I think we come out on the plus side of this trade, potentially as early as next year.

    From a value wins perspective, three of the players involved in the trade saw time in the majors last year:

    Johan Santana: +4.8 value wins

    Carlos Gomez: +2.4 value wins
    Phil Humber: -0.1 value wins

    Santana was going to be a free agent after 2008, so we’d have a +4.8 win value plus two draft picks to show for him had we held on. Yes, I believe that we would have made the playoffs last year with Santana, but remember that CF was highly uncertain before last year started. Most viewed Denard Span as a bust, and Jason Pridie was a prospect and we didn’t really know what we had there either. Even if we made the playoffs last year, with the way Liriano and Morneau faded down the stretch, I doubt we would have made it past Tampa Bay in the first round. Of course, the playoffs are a crapshoot, but Minnesota was not at its strongest in September.

    Looking forward to 2009, I have to believe Gomez will provide at least the +2.4 value wins he gave us in 2008. Of course, it’s more valuable to get the value wins in one year versus spread over two, but I also think Humber and Mulvey will provide value next year (I’m guessing +0.5 to +1.0 value wins combined) at the major league level.

    Even if you consider Gomez’ 2008 as a baseline and he doesn’t improve over the next three years, I would rather have +2.4 value wins from my center fielder over the next four years, plus three prospects, over one year of +4.8 wins.

    Of course, I would have preferred to make a more serious run at extending Santana before the 2007 season than waiting until after the season. At that point, he was as good as gone. Here’s hoping the Twins don’t make the same mistake with Joe Mauer.

    Comment by Adam Peterson — January 23, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

  6. Smith sought more from the Yankees and Sox than he did from the Mets and is paying the price.

    Comment by Rich — January 23, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

  7. I don’t know what the Red Sox really offered and so its hard to say for sure the Twins should have traded Santana there. The Yankees offer was basically Phil Hughes, and how would that look now? I still like Hughes, but pitchers are risky.

    The Twins would have been better off keeping Santana for ’08. But they probably didn’t expect to contend, and only really did so thanks to fluky hitting with RISP.

    It will be a while before the trade that did happen can be weighed. Does Gomez turn into a decent hitter? Does Guerra get back on track? Is Mulvey more of a 3 or more of a 5? We’ll see.

    Comment by John — January 24, 2009 @ 2:58 am

  8. Wait. Just because Hughes was hurt last year, the trade would look bad? That’s a pretty short-sighted p.o.v., and it’s rebutted by the reality that the Twins clearly made the trade with the long view as the priority.

    My point was with regard to what the Twins requested (we don’t know that the Yankees actually offered Hughes). As such, it doesn’t matter what the Sox offered. According to numerous media reports, the Twins wanted Lester or Ellsbury included in any package. Obviously, Lester had a breakout season, but even if the trade had been centered around Ellsbury, who had a very disappointing 2008 season, it would have been a better trade for the Twins than the deal the Mets offered because Ellsbury will likely be a significantly better player than Gomez.

    (The reported supplemental assets that were requested from the Yankees and Sox were also better than those included in the Mets’ deal.)

    It seems apparent that the Twins took less from the Mets because they wanted Santana out of the AL.

    The Twins should have kept Santana, but that’s a separate issue.

    Comment by Rich — January 24, 2009 @ 8:54 am

  9. ellsbury is two years older than gomez though and was only more valuable last year because of his defensive versatility. i’d rather have gomez going forward myself. he could surpass ellsbury in value next year if his offense improves even incrementally.

    Comment by aaron — January 24, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

  10. Ellsbury’s mL OPS was .816, Gomez’s was .735.

    Ellsbury’s mL ISO D was .076., Gomez’s was .058.

    Elllsbury has more power and more plate discipline. I think Ellsbury will have a far better career.

    Comment by Rich — January 24, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

  11. gosh i like to read comments from 2 years ago sometimes

    Comment by adohaj — November 9, 2011 @ 2:02 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.234 Powered by WordPress