On the other hand, you could view it as getting a guy as good as the likes of Maddux, Glavine, Clemens, Perry, Palmer, etc.

The Braves signed Maddux for big money around this time in his career (little younger but similar service time), and that turned out okay. :-)

Put me in charge and I'm not parting with a bunch of prospects AND that much money for that many years. One or the other but not both.

Santana provided a ridiculously high return on investment over the past several years. He was acquired for next to nothing, made at or near the MLB minimum for a few years, and was signed to a very favorable (yet fair for the time) extension that bought out his arb-eligible seasons.

Johan's value as a player doesn't change due to his pending free agency but his value to a team inclusive of what he will cost is totally different than before. The Twins would be well served to get as much as they can for him before the season begins, especially if they are not going to sign him to another extension.

The Minnesota Twins have made it well known that for the right price, their superstar left-hander Johan Santana can be had.

No, they haven't. In fact, they have consistently denied it. Not to mention, that Santana has a complete no-trade agreement. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

Put me in charge and I'm not parting with a bunch of prospects AND that much money for that many years. One or the other but not both.

Then you probably aren't getting Santana. Because the Twins need to get a lot in return to justify giving up Santana for next season. And Santana is likely going to want a long-term contract in order to approve a trade. Not to mention, the team getting him will want a long-term agreement if they are going to give up a boatload of cheap, young talent that is ready produce for the Twins next year.

If the Twins decide they can't be competitive next year, you might see a fire sale that includes Santana, Nathan and maybe even some of their arbitration eligible guys. But that doesn't really look very likely. And short of that, it is hard to see how they deal Santana.

Pitchers and huge long-term contracts are usually a bad deal for teams that roll those dice.

TT - thanks for stopping by. For what it's worth, Santana is absolutely on the market. In fact, he is being shopped pretty aggressively.

Also, as addressed in the article, Santana will waive his no-trade for a long-term deal that meets his demands.

Is it fair to use Pedro as realistic near-worst-case comp for Santana? He was also at the top of the world at age 28, but $25 million/year for his 29-34 years would have been a disaster.

I don't see a problem with the length of the contract. If I'm a team owner and give prospects for Santana, I'd like to secure him for a long contract.
The problem is the prospects my team is losing.
I wouldn't do it.
Isn't it amazing what a great pitcher Maddux was until his 35 birthday? It compares favorably to everyone!
By the way, at age 35 Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens at a similar age. Then, suddenly Clemens gets better, A LOT better. Mmmm... strange.

Performance similar to Pedro age 29-34 would be a "disaster"? I wouldn't say so. During that time, he spent about 1 full season on the DL, but that still leaves you with 5 full seasons worth of pitching during which he went 81-36 with around a 150 ERA+.

That kind of production is still probably worth the $20mil+ contract Sanatana is likely to get, even if it wouldn't quite meet the 1200 innings threshold discussed in the article.

TT - thanks for stopping by. For what it's worth, Santana is absolutely on the market. In fact, he is being shopped pretty aggressively.

Yeh, on internet blogs. But not according to the Twins. They have said repeatedly that they are trying to sign him long term.

Now the reality is that Santana may price himself beyond what the Twins are willing to pay. But he may do that for anyone who wants to trade for him as well.

Santana will waive his no-trade for a long-term deal that meets his demands

And that is pure speculation as well. Santana may very well agree to a trade without a contract extension if he thinks it would give him a better chance at a World Series ring. And, now that the Twins have clearly lost Hunter, the Twins chances to be competitive next year took are dimming.

Of course, that doesn't mean any team is willing to deal for Santana without a long-term agreement. At least not at the price of young players the Twins are likely to want in any deal.

1-4 in the post season. I'll take Beckett any day of the week.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that top prospects plus $25 million/year is too much to pay. But I think we also may be underestimating the direction of salaries. A lot of us are still thinking in baseball salary terms from the early part of this decade. However, the steep incline in negotiated salaries for average, and even bad, starting pitchers over the last year might be telling us that our overall reaction to salary levels may be understating future costs. It may turn out that Santana only has to be an above average pitcher, not a great pitcher, during the latter years of his contract in order to justify the salary...in fact, maybe the contract is a bargain in the latter years as salaries continue to escalate. Of course, all of that depends on the future direction of baseball revenues and margins. But, right now, the revenue picture for baseball looks very good. And if the market is working properly, bulging profits should result in continued sharp escalation in free agent salaries.

TT:

Far be it from me to jump on a bandwagon because of one expert's "informed speculation". But when they're all doing it, and passing it as something closer to fact that speculation, I tend to let my bets ride on them. I don't think there's a major baseball writer in the country right now who doesn't believe the Twins are shopping Santana aggressively. Nor do I think there's a GM that doesn't believe the same.

George:

Beckett sure is a big game pitcher, but he also posted an ERA over 5.00 in 2006, has never been below 3.00 in a full season, and his career high IP mark is 204 (he's only cracked 200 twice). Santana's career worst ERA over a full season was this year's 3.33 mark, he's cracked 220 IP three times and 200 four times. Plus Beckett's career best ERA+ which was posted this year was 145, still below Santana's average over the last four seasons. In fact, this was the first time Beckett made more than 25 starts and had an ERA+ over Santana's four year low of 130. He also did it in 2003 in 23 starts (138 ERA+)

So unless your team is guaranteed a postseason spot on April 1, I take Santana.

Pedro getting $25M for the comparable seasons would have been bad, yes, but it's not really all that comparable.

A) 5 years ago, salaries were much lower.
B) Pedro had been spending 2 weeks on the DL in every season leading up to that.

$25M is a lot, but the question is, how much is it relative to the league and the money that the league pulls in?