Royals Trade for Ervin Santana

[davell]

I don't know about anything else, but I'd have happily sent the Angels $1MM+one of our junk relief prospect for Santana.

 

Why? We could do much better things with $13M.

 

Agreed. But I don't want to hate on the idea too hard because it'd be better than ending the offseason with our two new SPs being like Carlos Villanueva and someone else like that.

Villanueva could easily wind up as one of the 4-5 best FA SP going forward out of this class. If we wind up with Villanueva, Jin, and a young guy we traded for, I'll be very happy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Villanueva could easily wind up as one of the 4-5 best FA SP going forward out of this class. .

 

That's mighty bullish on a 29-year-old with 1.1 career fWAR/200 IP (and 0.96 this year).

[davell]

Villanueva could easily wind up as one of the 4-5 best FA SP going forward out of this class. .

 

That's mighty bullish on a 29-year-old with 1.1 career fWAR/200 IP (and 0.96 this year).

Less than an hour ago, in the thread directly below this one, you said WAR still isn't a good way to measure relievers. Villanueva has 56 starts out of 301 games.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Villanueva could easily wind up as one of the 4-5 best FA SP going forward out of this class. .

 

That's mighty bullish on a 29-year-old with 1.1 career fWAR/200 IP (and 0.96 this year).

Less than an hour ago, in the thread directly below this one, you said WAR still isn't a good way to measure relievers. Villanueva has 56 starts out of 301 games.

 

WAR is a bad way to measure the value of a reliever, because it ignores leverage. If you were asking me how valuable I thought Villanueva could be in a relief role, I wouldn't come back with "Well, here's his WAR/70 IP," because WAR isn't a good measure for his value as a reliever.

 

But we're not talking about his value as a reliever. We're talking about his value as a starter, so ignoring leverage is perfectly fine.

 

If you want to just focus on his 56 starts instead of his overall numbers, he actually looks quite a bit worse.

[Guest]

Why should this guy be an NRI after 1 bad season?

 

Because it was a really bad season and most recent performance is still a pretty good indicator of near-future performance.

Please apply this to your thoughts on Brandon League being worth his deal.

[davell]

56 starts scattered over half a decade isn't worth talking about and you know it. Many people thought he turned a corner this year once he was put into the rotation. His September was pathetic, partly due to giving up 10 homers in 26.2 innings. At any rate, to say he's got a shot at being better than most of a pitiful FA class doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Please apply this to your thoughts on Brandon League being worth his deal.

 

I never said any such thing.

 

Here's everything I said about that was directly League's market value and the Dodgers' pay level in that thread, emphasis added

 

They're overpaying the market

 

So in other words, he's not a bad player but they overpaid the market for him.

 

They overpaid for a good relief pitcher. ...

 

Yes, it's fun to laugh at overpays, and this is clearly an overpay.

 

How much of an overpay is it? ...They're overpaying by $2 million a year for three years.

[Guest]

Please apply this to your thoughts on Brandon League being worth his deal.

 

I never said any such thing.

 

Here's everything I said about that was directly League's market value and the Dodgers' pay level in that thread, emphasis added

 

They're overpaying the market

 

So in other words, he's not a bad player but they overpaid the market for him.

 

They overpaid for a good relief pitcher. ...

 

Yes, it's fun to laugh at overpays, and this is clearly an overpay.

 

How much of an overpay is it? ...They're overpaying by $2 million a year for three years.

Fine. I stand corrected.

 

Please apply these thoughts to your valuation of Brandon League in that thread.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

56 starts scattered over half a decade isn't worth talking about and you know it. Many people thought he turned a corner this year once he was put into the rotation. His September was pathetic, partly due to giving up 10 homers in 26.2 innings. At any rate, to say he's got a shot at being better than most of a pitiful FA class doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

 

So I can't look at all the innings, and I can't look at all the starts, and I can't look at all the starts this year.

 

So for the 12, 2012, non-September starts, he threw 62.1 innings, striking out 65 (9.4 K/9), walking 16 (2.3/9) and allowing 8 home runs (1.19/9). I guess the strikeouts are nice and the walks aren't bad. I guess I can kind of see it.

 

I have a pretty good feeling we're going to find out one way or the other. If I had to pick one player who I was most sure would be a new Cub after this offseason, it'd be him.

 

A soft-tossing right-hander with extreme fly-ball tendencies at Wrigley has some potential for ugliness, but maybe there's something in his repertoire that can combat this.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Please apply these thoughts to your valuation of Brandon League in that thread.

 

In his most recent season, League was a league-average reliever by xFIP. Paying $7 million/year for a reliably league-average reliever is an overpay, but probably not going to make the top 15 overpays of the offseason.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

[KingCubsFan]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

Guess we've been overvaluing Russell.

[davell]

Russell's hitting arb and has 3 years of control left. Beliveau would likely have more value than him too right now, just because of the extra control. Russell is competent, but not much else.

[Cubswin11]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

I wonder if the Cubs were requiring the Angels pay more of Santana's salary than what the Royals were?

[Little Slide Rooter]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

I wonder if the Cubs were requiring the Angels pay more of Santana's salary than what the Royals were?

 

My thoughts exactly. The Angels actually end up paying the same $ amount they would have if they'd declined the option. The reliever is basically gravy. The Angels only end up paying 1MM of the salary, which was the same as Santana's buyout. 12MM is pretty steep for a reclamation, and I can't imagine that Theo would have been willing to take on that much for him.

 

Haren's a different story. He's owed 15.5MM with a 3.5MM buyout. Perhaps we could swing a similar deal in which we end up paying around 12MM for him plus someone like Russell.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The insider in question didn't specify about money, but he implied that it was simply that the Angels preferred the player the KC player to Russell. Since the Angels were just looking for a free player for the option they wanted to decline, it doesn't make much sense to assume the Cubs were looking for the Angels to pick up more salary than the buyout.

[SouthSideRyan]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

 

Good Lord, that's awful

[SouthSideRyan]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

I wonder if the Cubs were requiring the Angels pay more of Santana's salary than what the Royals were?

 

Then the Cubs are idiots if they think the Angels were going to pay more than they were required to pay Santana

[Tracer Bullet]

ABTY says Cubs were offering Russell for Santana and the Angels just preferred the AAA guy the Royals sent.

I wonder if the Cubs were requiring the Angels pay more of Santana's salary than what the Royals were?

 

Then the Cubs are idiots if they think the Angels were going to pay more than they were required to pay Santana

 

Let's not give anyone any ammo. There's no credible suggestion that the Cubs asked the Angels to pay more money. This was probably just a matter of taking a flier on a prospect bc they were going to let Santana go anyway. The higher cost of Russell was probably more important.

[mookie]

Why in the farts were we trying to get Santana!?

 

ICKY

[Little Slide Rooter]

The insider in question didn't specify about money, but he implied that it was simply that the Angels preferred the player the KC player to Russell. Since the Angels were just looking for a free player for the option they wanted to decline, it doesn't make much sense to assume the Cubs were looking for the Angels to pick up more salary than the buyout.

 

What does make sense is if it's due mostly to Sisk not having any existing big league service time.