http://mngameday.blogspot.com/2007/12/gm-2-gm_09.html

Look, I’m not arguing that the Twins failed to extract maximum value from this deal. Hell, even if the Mets were the only team involved, they failed to get the guy who would have helped them the most in Martinez.

What I’m arguing is that the Twins had the leverage to pull off a much better deal. I mean, what were the Twins offering here? Santana had a blanket NTC; he made it clear he would use it; and he declined a long-term offer from the Twins that essentially announced what it would take to sign him. The Twins choices were hanging onto him for 2008 and getting 2 first-round draft picks, or taking the first concrete offer that trumps those 2 picks. The Mets, Yankees and Sox knew that and bid accordingly.

As you noted, the O’s have no such restrictions. They simply need to select the best package from any team who wants a top-of-rotation starter for 2 years at reasonable cost.

What I’m arguing is that the Santana trade somehow has a direct affect on what the O’s can expect from a trade of Bedard. To me, the situations are so different that there should be no comparison.

Peter Angelos? Is that you? McPhail maybe? Seriously . . . Bavasi?

The best offers the Twins received came from the Red Sox and Yankees. Johan’s NTC did not exclude either of those teams. So to say Johan’s NTC diminished the Twins leverage is wrong. The Twins had maximum leverage when they had the Red Sox and Yankees fighting over Johan. It was the Twins fault for not taking advantage of that situation.

Baltimore currently has leverage in the form of one team: Seattle. If the O’s are stalling on the offer, you can bet they are contacting the 28 other organizations to see anyone would care to match or beat the Jones deal. If not, oh well. They would still get an incredible haul from the Mariners. While it’s fun to picture Angelos pounding his fist on his desk, screaming obscenities at McPhail and dreaming of new ways to sabotage the deal (“I got it! Degenerative hip!”) he is probably just shopping for an 11th hour steal right now.

[quote]“The Mets are essentially trading for a negotiating window for Johan; the M’s are trading for the next 2 years of Bedard.”[/quote]

No. The Mets will either have Johan for 6 years or they will keep their prospects. The Mets get to decide if they like the contract or not. If the Mets can’t get a deal worked out, they keep their prospects. If they do get a deal worked out, they get Johan for 6 +/- years. Conversely, Seattle would get Bedard for 2 years. I would argue that Bedard has more control over his baseball fate because in 2 years, he can go wherever the hell he wants.

That’s an important distinction. It’s horrible to the players.

Yes, I totally agree. I should’ve made that clear when I was posting. For that post I was commenting on what is most fair from the team’s perspective.

The draft, of course, being the most fair to teams.

That’s an important distinction. It’s horrible to the players.

Hey, the players are playing a kid’s game for a job. They should just shut up and put in their 12 hour days, spend 9 months out of the year away from their families, wear out their bodies and quietly go away when they’re finally chucked onto the scrap heap in their mid thirties.

“I read this thread before stating/asking about something that’s been covered 20 times.”

Crud. That’s too long.

Bedard has value because he’s under club control for 2 years and he has a proven MLB pedigree. Jones has value because he’s under club control for 6 years. The other players being offered by the M’s have value because they are prospects or proven records and are also under club control.

Unfortunately the M’s are incapable of negotiating from a position of even strength. They’ve taken the stance of being the club in need and lost hand in the negotiation process. Under Bavasi have the M’s ever said “here’s a good player/prospect we’ll listen to offers on. Bring us your best deal and we’ll listen. If we don;t like any offers we’ll keep the player.”

Instead we always seem to be saying either “here’s a player we want to get rid of, we’ll take whatever you want to offer” or “We want your player, we really, REALLY want him. What will it take to pry him away from you?”

That’s an important distinction. It’s horrible to the players.