Comments on: Note: Minnesota’s View of Santana Trade

By: davidus1

davidus1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:53:25 +0000

Michael – I’d like to start by saying that I’m a fan of your work and effort. I think you are doing a nice job for this blog.

I generally agree with many of your points, but I will have to disagree on your analysis of this trade. While I’m sure you were expecting there to be opposition to your statements about the Twins success vs the Mets success, I will go ahead and play along by saying that the results of a trade can never be measured by the success of the team. Using that logic, if Johan Santana had been traded to the Pirate or Nationals, then obviously no matter what he does it would have been a terrible trade.

I understand what you are saying about the ultimate reasons for making a trade, but lets see what Johan can do next season when his team isnt either faced with the worst string of injuries in club history or quite possibly the worst bullpen he has ever had.

Let us judge the trade then.

By: gameball

gameball — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:48:02 +0000

Gomez may never be a viable starting player because of his abysmal bat, but the fact is that he’s one of the best 2 or 3 defensive CFs in baseball (source:http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/charts/voting2-09.gif).

Add in his proven basestealing ability, and it makes him a good guy to have on the roster.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:28:49 +0000

Baseball isn’t about being an athlete, it’s about being a ballplayer.

By: gameball

gameball — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:28:46 +0000

I think that Beane started at a higher level because of his perceived “maturity”–certainly no one considered the young Darryl Strawberry to be lacking in athleticism.

By: starz31

starz31 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:50:06 +0000

This sounds like Vernon Gholston, who is a freak of an athlete, but has no idea how to play football.

By: starz31

starz31 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:49:07 +0000

sounds exactly like Billy Beane the prospect, who although he was drafted just behind Strawberry, started pro-ball at a higher level because of his athleticism.

By: Tidewater

Tidewater — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:09:44 +0000

“with Gomez playing center field for them in 2009, the Twins rallied to win the American League Central and made the playoffs, whereas the Mets are still awaiting their playoff berth with Santana on their team…”

UGH!!!!!!!

This is such a YANKEE way to think. ONE PLAYER DOES NOT A CHAMPIONSHIP MAKE!!!! and especially not Carlos “can’t get on base” Gomez.

By ridiculous extension Rafael Santana (one ring) was a more valuable shortstop than Ernie Banks (0 rings)

I guess Brett Gardner is now more valuable, because he has his ring as an outfielder on the championship Yankees, than Willie “he must suck cuz he never won” McCovery.

I’m sorry to say this Baron, but i think you may not be even remotely intelligent.

By: Nate W.

Nate W. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:08:39 +0000

Gomez was more of part time player for the Twins this year. Spann really has taken over as their everyday CF. And rightfully so…

The problem with trading for Gomez’s potential is that he is one year away from arbitration and the Brewers cannot afford to wait out his development at the big league level. It saves them a few bucks in 2010, but they may need to sell him off in a year or two. This is a slick trade by the Twins trading off someone they have no use for and getting a reasonably priced everyday player in return.

By the time Gomez breaks out the Brewers probably won’t even have him anymore, and they will have lost out on productive years from Hardy.

By: Chan Ho Parking Lot

Chan Ho Parking Lot — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:07:58 +0000

I disagree to an extent Matt. Being very athletic is a plus, but I would prefer the player with good hand eye coordination and a solid swing who has a knack for putting the bat on the ball. Carlos Gomez is the fastest runner, probably the highest jumper, can do the most situps, pullups, etc., but he can’t hit a baseball. What good is that? Take someone like John Kruk for example. He could polish off 2 pizza pies all by himself and sleep on the couch all day with a bag of potato chips in his face, but the bottom line was that he could hit .300 with relative ease. In the game of baseball, that’s more important than being incredibly athletic.

By: Beltranmynewfavmet

Beltranmynewfavmet — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:00:14 +0000

“I always prefer athleticism over a player that is just good at a couple of things”.

What????

That isn’t even a debate. The debate would be “athleticism vs. actual on-field output”. Its much like “potential vs. actual production”

Some players are athletic freaks (Carlos Gomez); some have unbelievable “tools” (Alex Escobar, Paul Wilson); many of these players never produce anything in the major leagues because they can’t put it all together. Some players are slow and fat but put together a solid major league career because “they’re good at just a couple of things” (Matt Stairs, Cecil Fielder, etc. etc.)

Fact is, the players that produce are the players I want on my team. Does athleticism increase a player’s chance to produce? Sure. But oftentimes a player’s mental capacities/attitudes derail him from ever having a solid major league career.

Drafting a player based solely on his athleticism without taking into account his actual on-field performance is a higher risk/reward proposition than drafting a player who is less athletic, but who has actually produced. “Athletic” players often have an extremely difficult time getting on-base (Gomez, Jose Reyes early in his career). “Productive” players get on base constantly despite their alleged lack of athleticism (Jason Giambi and Jim Thome) come to mind.

The Mets don’t need athletic freaks with extremely high ceilings. They already have those (Beltran, Reyes, Johan). We need solid, lower-risk, major-league players. We need to start drafting players based less on risky athletic potential, and more based on proven talent and production in college.