What's taking so long?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

They have fourteen whole minutes remaining.

You wouldn't need half that time to convince ME to take $130 million dollars.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I'm listening to Mike and the Mad Dog for the first time in I don't know when.

Francessa sez Mets have offered a total of $152M and Johan wants around $10M more. Also says Mets don't want to guarantee the last year.

[Fman99]

Fuck. I'm getting shpilkes here.

[Guest AG/DC]

This just in... fuck!

We'll have further details as they come become available.

[Willets Point]

Relax worryworts:

]Major League Baseball almost certainly would approve a request to extend the deadline if the two sides are unable to reach an agreement by 5 p.m.

Source

[Guest Mr. Zero]

2 hour extension granted. I can't possibly listen to M&MD for two more hours.

Seems like good news though.

[Benjamin Grimm]

SNY's Daily News Live is reporting that MLB has granted a two-hour extension.

[Guest themetfairy]

Here's a sure fire prediction - in two hours I'm going to have a friggin' ulcer!

[Guest KC]

If I can avert a stroke, you can avert an ulcer.

Start drinking. Have a glass of wine. A scotch. Couple of beers.

Hell, have all three .... it's FRIDAY!!!

[Guest themetfairy]

You know, I was just opening up a bottle of wine for dinner, and was seriously considering having a glass before D-Dad gets home.

If he comes home and I'm drunk, I'm telling him it's your fault

[bmfc1]

Metsblog reports that "supper" has been delivered. Chinese?

[Fman99]

bmfc1 wrote: Metsblog reports that "supper" has been delivered. Chinese?

No, he's from Venezuela I think.

[RealityChuck]

Frayed Knot wrote: ="RealityChuck"]Technically, the only thing they need to agree on is that Santana waive his no-trade clause. If he didn't have one, there wouldn't be an issue. Santana would be in orange and blue. The N-T clause is pretty much irrelevent by this point.

Well, at this point, yes. But when you made the point, not at all.

The no-trade clause is the reason why the Mets needed to negotiate with Santana. Until Santana says he's going to waive it, there is no deal.

Now, he used that to get a monster contract. But without the no-trade clause, he has far less leverage with the Mets (without the clause, they could use him as a one-year rental and see if they could resign in September).

]The Twins wouldn't get much back unless they agreed to allow this "window" for contract talks, the Mets weren't going to give up all that talent without getting him to sign long-term, and Santa Anna himself (by all reports) also wanted this to be a permanent move rather than one-year stopover.

All true, but the clause allows Santana to demand a long-term contract, and also requires that the Mets negotiate with him to agree to be traded.

]Once those parameters were in the mix, virtually any player has himself a no-trade deal since he can just kill the trade by making demands he know can't/won't be met.

Not without no-trade. Oh, he can say he wants a long-term contract, but the team getting him doesn't have to listen to him, and can factor the possibility that he may walk when offering prospects.

[Frayed Knot]

Well of course it's all moot now -- but let's speculate for a moment as to how this might have played out ift Santana did NOT have a no-trade clause:

- he could still make an 'extend me NOW!!!! or I'm going FA next year' demand to Minni mgmt, which is what got the ball rolling in the first place

- Said mgmt would, once he rejected their 5 x $20 attempt at getting him to stay, decide that they preferred dealing him to going play out the string and taking draft picks route

- they'd also still realize that they can get more for him if they grant the trading partner a negotiating window ... particularly since Johan himself made it known that he wanted a L-T contract now rather than later

- once that's all done, he effectively has N-T power simply by being able to reject any contract offer from a team he doesn't want.

The process is slightly different than having a veto stamp but the result would be essentially the same. Yeah the Mets could have kept him against his will without the veto power, but once they emptied the farm system for him they weren't going to finalize the deal unless they could keep him past the one year and he had the ability to make or break that whether he had veto power or not.
The only thing that N-T clause gave him was the ability to "pre-reject" teams by telling Minni, in advance, not to even bother talking to them. Reportedly he didn't want to go west which is why Seattle is neck-deep in Bedard talks but never even sniffed around Santana. Maybe Arizona went for Haren early (and gave up even more) for the same reason, although I suspect money probably had a lot to do with that too.

[RealityChuck]

But, ultimately, without a no-trade clause, he would have been a Met on Tuesday. He could make demands, but the Mets would still have him on the roster whether he liked it or not. The team could have said "We just need you for a year and wi'll see about working things out afterwards."

Now the Mets may have chosen to negotiate a new contract before the trade went through; that was the team's right and certainly it made sense. At the same time, they could have gotten Santana, then started negotiating an extension afterwards.

But the no-trade clause made it essential that they come to an agreement with Santana.

[Frayed Knot]

My point is that I don't think the Mets & Twins were going to ever reach an agreement except as a conditional one based on striking a long-term deal -- it seemed to be what all three sides wanted.
Then, once the deal was in place, ANY player could kill the deal just by making outrageous demands.

IOW, the existence of a N-T clause may have been partly responsible for directing him towards the Mets but once a deal was reached the N-T became irrelevant.