Indians sign Santana to a steal of a deal

[David]

... RT @hoynsie: Carlos Santana deal worth 21 million for 5 yrs with club option. #Indians

[erik316wttn]

Wow. You're not lying with that thread title. That's highway robbery for the Indians.

[KingCubsFan]

I wonder if Castro would take that.

[OleMissCub]

Indians brass had ski masks on during negotiations.

 

That's a hell of a deal.

[SouthSideRyan]

I wonder if Castro would take that.

 

I'd give him twice that.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I wonder if Castro would take that.

 

I'd give him twice that.

 

He might prefer sign with The Marlins. I hear Ozzie thinks highly of him.

[rocket]

... RT @hoynsie: Carlos Santana deal worth 21 million for 5 yrs with club option. #Indians

 

he must have the same agent as longoria

[treebird]

the highway robbery took place when the owners and players agreed on a system allowing teams to pay players the league minimum for their first three seasons and then severely limit their salaries compared to they would receive on the open market the next three. this is just a logical result of that, not an additional theft.

[Guest]

Even considering the pre-free agency system in place, you have to think that Santana would have gotten 30-35 million(if not more) if he had played out the deal and not given up a year of free agency. It's still a pretty significant savings.

[SouthSideRyan]

It seems like the ballooning of free agent contracts has had little effect on the pre-arb extensions. I guess the thought process is to get your guarantee early, even at a discount because the FA contract after that will be the one that puts you in CC territory.

[Clem Fandango]

Swoon

[sneakypower]

wonder what Casey Blake is up to these days

[treebird]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/indians-get-no-discount-with-santana-extension/

[SouthSideRyan]

My God, what a terrible article.

 

Hey, here's how some guys were extended 5 years ago, this is relevant right?

[shnsajax]

Wow are they able to have him deported if he didn't sign?

[TruffleShuffle]

the highway robbery took place when the owners and players agreed on a system allowing teams to pay players the league minimum for their first three seasons and then severely limit their salaries compared to they would receive on the open market the next three. this is just a logical result of that, not an additional theft.

 

yeah, i read somewhere recently (i think on bp) an article explaining why guys are signing these team-friendly deals. matt moore was a 6th round pick and didn't get big signing money. i don't think santana did either. now they're stuck with making the major league minimum for 3 years, and things can go wrong during that time - either they bust or get injured and never really recover.

 

so to a guy like santana or moore, a guaranteed $20m looks pretty nice when you're making the major league minimum with no guarantee that you'll be making more than that. so they make better money in the short run and have a guaranteed payday later in their arbitration years, rather than "scraping by" at $350k or whatever for 3 years.

[El Duderino]

makes sense. guarantee yourself 20 million and if you get a career ending injury you don't have to go work at a car dealership.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even considering the pre-free agency system in place, you have to think that Santana would have gotten 30-35 million(if not more) if he had played out the deal and not given up a year of free agency. It's still a pretty significant savings.

 

If everything went well. You can't just ignore the fact that it's the first opportunity for financial security for any of these guys. It's risky as hell to just play out the deal on a year-to-year basis. Signing a "team friendly" deal very early in your major league career, several years before you will get an opportunity to make anything resembling a lifetime's security is the prudent choice.

[SouthSideRyan]

Even considering the pre-free agency system in place, you have to think that Santana would have gotten 30-35 million(if not more) if he had played out the deal and not given up a year of free agency. It's still a pretty significant savings.

 

If everything went well. You can't just ignore the fact that it's the first opportunity for financial security for any of these guys. It's risky as hell to just play out the deal on a year-to-year basis. Signing a "team friendly" deal very early in your major league career, several years before you will get an opportunity to make anything resembling a lifetime's security is the prudent choice.

 

I'd rather take less money and not give them the option year.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even considering the pre-free agency system in place, you have to think that Santana would have gotten 30-35 million(if not more) if he had played out the deal and not given up a year of free agency. It's still a pretty significant savings.

 

If everything went well. You can't just ignore the fact that it's the first opportunity for financial security for any of these guys. It's risky as hell to just play out the deal on a year-to-year basis. Signing a "team friendly" deal very early in your major league career, several years before you will get an opportunity to make anything resembling a lifetime's security is the prudent choice.

 

I'd rather take less money and not give them the option year.

 

I'm sure he would have preferred that as well, but the team wanted some upside to guaranteeing a lot of money long before they needed to. The point is there is plenty of room for negotiation on both sides of this type of situation. Player wants security, team wants cost certainty and a chance to lock-in potential for below market value production.

[Guest]

Even considering the pre-free agency system in place, you have to think that Santana would have gotten 30-35 million(if not more) if he had played out the deal and not given up a year of free agency. It's still a pretty significant savings.

 

If everything went well. You can't just ignore the fact that it's the first opportunity for financial security for any of these guys. It's risky as hell to just play out the deal on a year-to-year basis. Signing a "team friendly" deal very early in your major league career, several years before you will get an opportunity to make anything resembling a lifetime's security is the prudent choice.

 

I didn't say Santana was an idiot for taking the offer. There's obviously a give between security and future earnings. That said, Santana was worth the majority of the whole contract last year alone. The odds are real good that the Indians save a lot of cash by guaranteeing him for 5 years.

[Guest]

I think it's smart for both parties. I don't thinks it's a steal of any kind. Anything can happen.

[Guest]

I think it's smart for both parties. I don't thinks it's a steal of any kind. Anything can happen.

 

Like TT said, just last year's performance was enough to justify almost that entire contract. In that sense, it's a hell of a value.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think it's smart for both parties. I don't thinks it's a steal of any kind. Anything can happen.

 

Like TT said, just last year's performance was enough to justify almost that entire contract. In that sense, it's a hell of a value.

 

That's largely a pointless statement, because he isn't a free agent. You don't get paid what you are theoretically worth, you get paid what you can get.

[Guest]

Barring significant injury problems, Santana would make at least as much in his 3 arbitration years as he will over the entire 5 years of this deal if not more. It's essentially giving the Indians 1 free agent year of a 3-4 win player(if not more, he's only 26) for nothing, and there's a team option that would be below market value too.