This is a tricky question because the Twins most likely won't be able to keep Santana beyond his free agent years, thus what is the advantage to them if they groom him slowly???

That being said, the Twins still made the playoffs each of the last three years so I don't think their precautions hindered them in any way. Therefore I think the Twins did the right thing with how they used Santana.

I think the Twins are the winners. The history of rule 5 picks is not great, and it is best to break such players in carefully. Thereafter you run into the momentum problem. If Santana was put in the rotation to start one of those seasons at age 21 or 22, and if he pitched well, the manager would keep him in there and at the end of the year he might have had over 200 innings pitched.

Additionally managers want to win, and they will ride a young arm as long as they can. What about Mark Prior? Prior was supposed to have perfect mechanics and be immune to overwork, but that proved to be wrong.

Santana has turned into a great pitcher, and he has not had major arm surgery, yet. That is a win for the Twins.

I also assume that the Twins moved Santana into the rotation when they were ready, not as a response to the Free Santana movement. The free Santana movement would have wanted Santana in the rotation earlier which would have meant 228 innings at age 24.

I have no idea if this had been discussed here in the past, however does anyone have any idea/guess who the unnamed AL executive was???

My guess would be Brian Cashman.

http://www.hardballtimes.com
I think the thing people overlook in this "debate" is that this wasn't a case of the Twins waiting a year to stick him in the rotation. Santana first became a full-time member of the rotation in his FIFTH major-league season, at the age of 25.

I'm all for breaking someone in slowly, but five years isn't slowly.

Not to mention the fact that "if we put in the rotation, the manager would overuse him" is a pretty stupid reason to keep a potential front-of-the-line SP in the bullpen. If your manager is so disobedient that he'd wilfully ruin your best asset despite being told not to, find a less stupid manager.

Sorry, if we put HIM in the rotation.

It would have been pretty easy to simply put Santana on a pitch count. And anyway, doing it the way they did, they STILL let Santana set a career high in IP by [B]70 innings[/B] this year! No, that reasoning doesn't hold. The Twins were just dithering, like they have in several other aspects of their organization - I don't detect any grand plan behind the decision to let Justin Morneau pointlessly hammer minor-league pitching for so long, either.

I'm all for breaking someone in slowly, but five years isn't slowly.

I think it has more to do with age, than years of service.

Also, Santana was in the rotation for the playoffs when it counted in 2003.

Not to mention the fact that "if we put in the rotation, the manager would overuse him" is a pretty stupid reason to keep a potential front-of-the-line SP in the bullpen. If your manager is so disobedient that he'd wilfully ruin your best asset despite being told not to, find a less stupid manager.

So Bialo, by your reasoning the Cubs will be firing Dusty Baker any day now, Tony LaRussa and Lou Pinella should be fired next week.

Your comment does not survive real world events.

Just because some teams run their organization that way doesn't make it any less stupid to do so.

Aaron:

I cannot remember, how long did the Free Johan campaign run? Was it just in 2003, or had you started it in 2002?

At age 24 Santana pitched 158 innings. If he had been in the rotation from the start of the year he likely would have pitched close to this years total. Are you concerned about number of innings pitched by pitchers aged under 25?

Anyone else think that the A's are smoking something wacky for wanting to take on Jason Kendall's contract in return for Mark Redman and Arthur Rhodes? The small market A's would be taking on an extra $15 million in return for a lefty reliever and a lefty starter. And Redman's $4 million-plus yearly contract isn't that bad for a lefty capable of throwing 190-200 innings. A great number four pitcher and good number three guy. Kendall hits a pretty soft .300 for a guy making $10 million a season.

http://www.hardballtimes.com
I cannot remember, how long did the Free Johan campaign run? Was it just in 2003, or had you started it in 2002?

At age 24 Santana pitched 158 innings. If he had been in the rotation from the start of the year he likely would have pitched close to this years total. Are you concerned about number of innings pitched by pitchers aged under 25?

Well, my blog didn't debut until August of 2002, so there wasn't much time to campaign that year (although I certainly talked him up plenty). It was mostly 2003.

I'm not concerned about his innings. To me, 24 or 25 years old is not all that young for a pitcher. When I think of breaking someone in slowly, I think of a 21-year-old rookie or something, not a 24-year-old who is in his fourth season in the majors.

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, however here's the latest news on Delgado, Batista, etc. from the Toronto Sun.

I agree completely with the unnamed exec. Santana is where he is in large part because of the way the Twins developed him and brought him along. As for BP and other such so-called pundits looking "stupid", they do so more often than not at any rate IMO.

In the end, what the Twins lost was about 30 starts from Santana, versus 40 relief appearances. Call it 130 innings.

It's not a great loss, just a minor loss. Minnesota won both years, and Santana wasn't able to contribute effectively in the 2002 playoffs. It *might* be that the loss was greater - who knows if the Twins could have beaten the Angels with a different rotation? - but ultimately

I think Santana was brought along too slowly; thought so at the time and still do. Ultimately, the Twins made the right decision, which was to put him in the rotation. It could have ruined his career; it didn't. I'd give them a mulligan on the moderately bad decision, and instead give them credit for handling him well, since he's clearly responded.

As for the "unnamed AL executive", who I remember quoting Earl Weaver against the Prospectus line, I think he misunderstood Weaver on Strategy pretty badly. Yes, the best place for a rookie pitcher is in long relief, but Weaver didn't believe in leaving them there one second longer than it took for that pitcher to prove he belonged. In fact, no good young pitcher was ever left by Weaver in the long relief role for longer than a full season.

Okay, maybe I'm the only one who'd always thought of Santana as a product of the Twins' system before reading Gerry's comment and looking up the transactions:

December 13, 1999: Drafted by the Florida Marlins from the Houston Astros in the 1999 rule V draft.

December 13, 1999: Traded by the Florida Marlins to the Minnesota Twins for Jared Camp (minors) and cash.

Well done, Florida. (The Twins had taken Camp with the first pick, knowing the Marlins, drafting second, wanted Camp very badly). Wow... I hadn't realized any of this before today.

How long before Santana could be considered the best Rule Ver ever? (That'd still be George Bell, right?)

Anyways, I can't see how anyone could really answer the original question any other way than by saying that the Twins should feel vindicated because their handling of Santana obviously worked out very well. Any number of things could've happened if he'd been in the rotation earlier, but I find it pretty hard to think of a scenario better than one in which he becomes the best pitcher in the league...

Santana first became a full-time member of the rotation in his FIFTH major-league season, at the age of 25.

With all due respect, this makes it sound far worse than it was. First, he became a full-time member of the rotation during his fourth season, did he not? And that includes seasons he probably wouldn't have ordinarily been in the major leagues anyways if he wasn't a RuleV, no?

I agree with Craig and Aaron in spades. I'm a big fan of giving a young potential starter 1/2 a season to a full season in the pen, but Santana was 24 in 2003, had put in way more time than that and had already made a successful run at starting in 2002. It worked out okay, but actually dithering, as opposed to addressing problem areas, is a repeating problem for Twins' management.

I'd like to point out, as well, the falsity in the line of reasoning a few people here are using. "It worked out, so it was the right thing to do" is faulty logic. This isn't a drastic, bust-Roy-Halladay-down-to-A-ball makeover here. Did the Twins turn Santana into a great pitcher by taking him slowly? Well, his ERA in 2002 was 2.99, his ERA in 2003 was 3.07, his ERA last year was 2.61. He was already a very good pitcher in 2002 - the difference between his '02-'03 performance and '04 is really not that wide, when you consider that he was getting older and gaining more experience as well. I wouldn't say that he really needed "special treatment" to become something special - he was already something special.

If there were concerns about his workload, like I said above, all they had to do was put him on a pitch count. Space him out an extra day between starts, if they were concerned. But there was no point, at the beginning of 2003, in having your future ace, with 238 major league innings under his belt, continue to pitch out of the bullpen (with the different preparation and mindset required).

Back to ...
... today's question. Who should feel vindicated? The "Free Santana" folks, because Johan proved how valuable he can be immediately upon his insertion into the rotation? Or the Twins, for patiently easing Santana into the rotation and seeing their grooming come to fruition?

Both. The two are not mutually exclusive. Everyone wins. Hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Ya,' y'all.

How long before Santana could be considered the best Rule Ver ever? (That'd still be George Bell, right?)

As Andy Martin pointed out in another thread, Roberto Clemente is the best Rule 5er ever. It's way too early to even think about Johan's chances of being great for 10-15 years.

I'd like to point out, as well, the falsity in the line of reasoning a few people here are using. "It worked out, so it was the right thing to do" is faulty logic.

Faulty logic? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

If I walk up to a roulette wheel and bet my life savings on 24, and then see that number come up, there's no faulty logic in suggesting that, given how things worked out, it was absolutely the right thing to do. It might've been "advisable" to do things another way, but my strategy would've led to the most desirable outcome, so it would've been the right thing to do, regardless whether I'd do the same thing again.

(I'm not trying to suggest that the Twins made any sort of gamble with keeping Santana in the 'pen)

I wouldn't say that he really needed "special treatment" to become something special - he was already something special.

Strawman.

Simply put, what the Twins did may not have been the strategy most likely to wind up with Santana becoming the best pitcher in the league, but it happened. Who knows what would've happened if he'd been moved into the rotation in 2002? Any number of freak things could've happened.

It's one thing to say that Santana's performance proves he was always talented... it's quite another to suggest that it's evidence that the Twins handled him incorrectly. Again, how could it have possibly worked out better?

If there were concerns ...

"IF" there were concerns? If we don't know the "real" reason the Twins did keep him in the bullpen, isn't it a little unfair to criticize the decision? It may very well be that there's something they didn't "need" to discuss publicly...

G.T., I disagree with you.

It's always a poor decision to bet your life savings on the roulette wheel. It may have worked out, but that just means that sometimes bad decisions work out well.

I remember reading a story about DePodesta being at the casino. He sees a guy hit on 19, and the guys gets a 2 and wins. The point was, hitting on 19 is always a dumb decision, no matter how it turns out.

I can see the other point of view though.

G.T: You're using "there may have been a reason we don't know about" as an argument, and I'm setting up a strawman?
Just because something worked out doesn't make it a good decision. And yes, I do know what those words mean, but thanks.
It's certainly an argument in favor of the decision, but as I pointed out above, there's no reason to think that it helped Santana become a better pitcher - a guy who loses 0.38 off his ERA from age 23 to age 25 isn't exactly an amazing occurence. No one has ever put forth ANY health/workload-related reason other than speculation and generic "he was young" comments.

If you don't see betting your life's savings on one spin of a roulette wheel as a bad decision, then I'm actually quite impressed we're having this conversation, since I'm surprised you even know how to type.

G.T: You're using "there may have been a reason we don't know about" as an argument, and I'm setting up a strawman?

Saying "I wouldn't say that he really needed "special treatment" to become something special" is indeed setting up a straman because nobody ever suggested that he needed "special treatment".

And yes, I do know what those words mean, but thanks.

If only you knew what straman meant! :)

Straw Man Definition: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument"

(And I'll refrain from using lame movie references from here on. I guess that paraphrasing Inigo Montoya might sound kinda rude to someone not "getting" the reference. Sorry)

there's no reason to think that it helped Santana become a better pitcher

Again, nobody ever said that.

I'm surprised you even know how to type

Nice!

He did recieve special treatment. He spent an abnormally long time in the bullpen for someone who was obviously pitching well enough to be in the rotation. I've never seen anything to indicate that there were reasons to be concerned about his arm breaking down - I don't think he spent significant time on the DL (please correct me if I'm wrong there).
And of course things could have worked out better - he could have won the Cy Young in 2003, for one thing. He could have went on his astounding run at the beginning of 2004 instead of 1/3 of the way through. And he would have given the Twins 50 or 100 innings more of ace-quality pitching - better playoff seeding, better playoff performance, who knows.

In order to say that something was a good decision, you have to give a reason WHY it was better than the alternative, GIVEN WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME. We can't say it was good just because we assume the Twins knew something we don't. All we know is that Santana was good enough to pitch in the rotation, there were no special concerns about his arm, and that his arbitration clock was running. I've yet to see a reason why the Twins, without hindsight, were right to do what they did.

I've followed Santana closely since 2002. There was a strong movement at that time to get him in the rotation as he was clearly dominant. Moreover, he pitched 157 innings in 2002, the majority as a starter and the balance in 1+ inning stints. There are those that argue that this usage is more likely to result in injury than starting pitcher overuse. He did start 23 games in 2002 between AAA and the bigs and made 38 total appearances. For no explicable reason, Santana started fewer games in 2003, made more appearances and pitched the same number of innings.

The point is not whether things turned out well, but rather whether it turned out optimally. While there is no certain way to tell, it appears that Santana was ready to break out as a starter in his age 24 season, which would likely have allowed him to pitch more, higher leveraged innings on a more regular schedule.

I too, worry about overuse of young pitcher's, but a 24 year old with nearly 300 mlb innings under his belt and another 300 minor league innings is not young in that sense. Moreover, the evidence on pitcher abuse is inconclusive at this stage and the most recent studies suggest power pitchers who throw alot of innnigs early on actually age better.

In sum, I think it is more likely that starting Santana in 2003 would have been a more optimal use if Gardi showed restraint with pitch counts (which he did this year by the way)

The question posed was not whether it was the "right" decision at the time.

The question was "Who should feel vindicated?" You absolutely have to use hindsight to answer that question, and I can't believe that anyone would suggest the Twins should be regretting the decision. (Not that anyone has)

And of course things could have worked out better - he could have won the Cy Young in 2003, for one thing. He could have went on his astounding run at the beginning of 2004 instead of 1/3 of the way through.

None of those things would've significantly improved the Twins' situation, given that they easily won the division each season, and finished a combined 16 games out of the second seed in 2002/2003. The second is clearly a "strech", too.

And he would have given the Twins 50 or 100 innings more of ace-quality pitching - better playoff seeding, better playoff performance, who knows.

Yeah, and maybe Pudge Rodriguez would've been so impressed by Santana's 2002/2003 that he would've begged the Twins to sign him for $2.5 milllion, and with him instead of Blanco, they'd have won the World Series! Who knows?

Clearly, it's more likely that things would've turned out worse than that they'd have turned out better.

Let me take this a step further.

The idea that anyone can be "vindicated" by the end result in this instance is a 2000 year old logical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The reality of the matter is that Johan's performance in 2004 cannot prove that the course taken until then was the right course and consequently "vindicate" the party that supported that course of action.

The better and more accurate question is, "Did the Twins take the most optimal course to develop a young pitcher based on what we know today."

The argument made in support of the action was that they had more proven starters ahead of Santana who would likely outperform him such that it was not worth the injury risk to put him in the rotation. Considering that the likes of Eric Milton and Kyle Lohse (similarly young pitcher) were starting in front of him makes the first premise fanciful at best. The only pitcher they had capable of performing at or near Johan's level was Brad Radke. The second premise, the injury premise, is tenous at best as there is limited if any evidence to suggest that using Johan in 2003 in the same manner they used him in 2004 (the course of action urged by those of us in the "free Johan" movement), would have increased the injury risk in any manner. No lesser authority than Bill James has recently called into question the impact of high innings on young starters and there has been no comparison to mixed use pitchers such as Johan was. Moreover, it should be noted that Minnesota's use of Johan in 2003 did result in arm fatigue as evidenced by his forearm injury heading into the playoffs and during this off-season. I would even argue that there was a better argument for starting Johan in the pen this year (or in the minors) to give him a chance to build his arm strength. I believe this was a significant contribution to his poor performance the first couple months of this past season.

I close look at Johan's stats during his poor stretch at the beginning of the year showed he was tiring at 70-80 pitches or earlier and frequently giving up his runs at that point (plus the bullpen allowed a lot of inherited runners to score early in the year on Johan).

Once Johan was "stretched out" he displayed tremendous efficiency and through his extraordinary run, Gardi showed great restraint rarely allowing him to go over 100 pitches.

By most theories, Johan's age 24 season, 2003, should have been used to stretch him out from his age 23 season. Instead, he threw the same number of innings, but was used less as a starter. Used as a starter early in the year, it is fair to assume he would have pitched an additional 20-40 innings on a more regular schedule. Accordingly, he would have been better prepared ("stretched out") for the playoffs and less susceptible to the injury that may have been caused by his sudden and intensive use as a starter at the end of the 2003 season.

There is perhaps a better argument that Johan was not held back for any of the reasons put forward by the Twins either at the time or now. The simple fact of the matter is the Twins have an institutional history over the past several years of taking things absurdly slow with some young players (perhaps an overreaction to Milton's injuries and underperformance - he still pitched over 900 innings by age 27 and probably wasn't as good as they thought, 172 innings with 32 starts in his age 23 season). Sticking with Rivas and Jones over Cuddyer, keeping Morneau in the minors in favor of the Matt LeCroys, Doug Mientkiewics, and worse of the world. In short, the cause appears to have been inertia and a preference for veteran pitchers, ie. Kenny Rogers, and Kyle Lohse, not injury concern. A better argument might also be that they wanted a second lefty in their pen to go with Romero and throw long relief.

If this was the right way to handle Santana, why wasn't it the right way to handle Lohse who has been starting full time in the majors since his age 23 season despite poorer performance? Same team, same philosophy? or arbitrary?

Again, neither side can be "vindicated" by Johan's performance, but the "free Johan" side, has a strong argument that Johan was not used optimally at the time and his current performance is an indicator of his potential value in that role. All the Twin supporter side can really argue is, at least we didn't mess him up too bad and we did well anyway.