I would do it in a heartbeat but they wouldnt they are rebuilding too remember. I think maybe we can squeak out a dempster deal. But johan if hes pitching good will go to a contender. With that said dempster might also. Iam just wishful thinking bro.

For the last time he is on an innings limit. Any team trading for a pitcher would eventually want him for a playoff push and to pitch in the playoffs, and if not that a player with tremendous upside (young) for future years.

<<Okay Santana and Pelfrey for Brett Jackson and Dempster>>

Sure. The Cubs are going to trade their TOP prospect for the opportunity to pay a pitcher 25 mill per year for the next 2 years who is coming off of an injury that most guys don't come back from.

Why would the Cubs who are rebuilding trade AWAY prospects for an aging oft-injured highly paid pitcher? Would you trade Harvey and Dickey for Zito and another guy the Giants were willing to give away? No? Then why would the Cubs do a similar deal? As much as I like Santana the Giants probably wouldn't trade Zito for Santana straight up right now.

as a METS fan would i trade two top prospects for a guy like santana? of course not. as a fan of a team that is one good pitcher away from a legitimate tite shot.....maybe. serious title shots are fleeting....you have to strike while the iron's hot. if santana pitches well through july, there will be teams looking to give up some decent talent for him.

Get real. There are quite a few things wrong with your proposal the first being that the Cubs aren't taking on Santanas salary and the second that the Mets aren't eating any of it.

I'd say for 3 top prospects.

"I'd trade him for a bucket of balls right now."

Glad you're not the GM.

"This isn't a knock on Santana but would you trade Harvey and Wheeler for a pitcher who lost 4-5 mph off his fastball making 25 mill per year, coming off of a career threatening injury JUST because he had a few good games?"

Hence the "if Santana gets hot" part of the question.

We might not get 2 top prospects, but we should do it even for one!!

At what cost to the season? If Santana gets hot, and pitches well, and the rest of the team pitches well this could seriously be a contending team. The Mets have fallen short the last few years because they had no pitching. The real question is, 'If Santana pitches great, and the Mets are still are bad, do you trade him?'.

I don't think we're going anywhere this year, and i think we'll ultimately end up with 75-80 wins.

Instead of going 78-84 and hanging onto Johan, i'd rather trade him, get a top prospect or two (loooong term planning), and win only 72-75 games.

You think keeping Johan is the difference between us winning a pennant and not winning one?

but one of the reasons to think the Mets are a .500 team is because they dont have the pitching to hold up over the year. Since this is all a 'what if' game, 'what if the pitching is actually good?' If that is the case they could be an 85 win team, which puts them in contention for the final WC spot.

If you want to not stack the cards as much in our favor for the next 10-15 years in hopes that a miracle would occur and this years Mets win a World Series, go for it. I think the Mets have less than a 1% chance of making the world series this year, let alone winning it.

And i want us to have a dynasty in 5-10 years. Long term planning is great.

trading for 2 prospects, even if you can get it, will not build a dynasty.

"I don't think we're going anywhere this year"

This drives me mad. The question posed by Dan is WHAT IF WE ARE? Do you trade for the sake of trading in the hopes of building a winner if it looks like you're already a winner, or is that a move backwards?

If Santana is hot, and the team is in the hunt, is trading him for players who will most likely not pan out (just going by statistics) in the hopes they will in a few years as smart as going for it?

I'd agree with you if we were not competing, but the question posed here is what if we are? Why build towards competing if you're already competing?

"This drives me mad. The question posed by Dan is WHAT IF WE ARE? Do you trade for the sake of trading in the hopes of building a winner if it looks like you're already a winner, or is that a move backwards?"

Fine, IF we are, then *of course* we don't unload our important players. But I'm dealing in likely scenarios, not remote possibilities. It's not likely we will be 10-15 games over at the all-star break. If we are, then this discussion is moot.

We'll most likely (meaning 90% chance) be a decent team that makes a *nice* run this year and entertains us a bit. If EVERYTHING goes right we make a miracle run. It would be borderline historic. Why can't we discuss probable scenarios instead of wishing upon a star?

Can we please stop with this "most prospects don't pan out" mentality? EVERY single star player in the league helping teams win was once a top prospect, besides 1 or 2 exceptions. You HAVE to get as many prospects as possible. Regardless or whether or not some don't pan out. Free agents signings don't pan out either. Should we never sign one???

Yeah, but you're guaranteed nothing either way. When is the last time we had a dynasty? The object of a team should be to win, always. That doesn't mean you're not smart about your decision making. It means we have to stop thinking in one extreme or the other.

If we are not winning I'd agree with a trade, but you don't just bust up a winning team in the hope you MIGHT compete 3 or 4 years down the road. You're already competing, why take a break?

We have to get out of this either/or mentality, and run the ball club more like the Cardinals, who assess each situation individually instead of applying blanket solutions to every problem.

Smart decision making requires the application of situational thinking, not just the application knee-jerk philosophies.

"Can we please stop with this "most prospects don't pan out" mentality? EVERY single star player in the league helping teams win was once a top prospect"

Yeah, because everyone who has ever played pro ball was once a prospect, even Roy Hobbes. What is not true is that most of them were "top" prospects. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

"Yeah, but you're guaranteed nothing either way."

Obviously

"When is the last time we had a dynasty?"

Never. Why is that remotely relevant for what we want to achieve in the future? Should I resign to us always being losers?

"The object of a team should be to win, always."

To a certain degree. If your ceiling is 80 wins (hypothetically) this season, and you have a chance to , even though it will make the team slightly worse this year, make the team much better for the next 10 years, that is CLEARLY the smarter move. Not debatable.

"That doesn't mean you're not smart about your decision making. It means we have to stop thinking in one extreme or the other."

The Mets are still mostly a mess. The quicker we forget about that, the longer we stay stuck in it. We're still not even CLOSE to being a serious ballclub. And we won't be for a couple of years.

"If we are not winning I'd agree with a trade, but you don't just bust up a winning team in the hope you MIGHT compete 3 or 4 years down the road. You're already competing, why take a break?"

Because i want REAL competing, not prayin this ragtag bunch pulls off a miracle.

"We have to get out of this either/or mentality, and run the ball club more like the Cardinals, who assess each situation individually instead of applying blanket solutions to every problem."

We're a rebuilding team, whether you like it or not. The front office may not tell you that to your face because they want you to buy tickets, but make no mistake.

"Smart decision making requires the application of situational thinking, not just the application knee-jerk philosophies. "

I appreciate the knee-jerk label. Thanks!