Ok - I promised that I was finished with this topic, but I couldn't resist. After the Star Tribune's Nick Coleman wrote a column lambasting the Twins for not re-signing Johan Santana, I sent the following e-mail to him ('cause I like to needle Coleman):
Dear Mr. Coleman: "The Associated Press reported Santana's new contract includes a $18.75 million option for 2014 with a $5.5 million buyout. The entire package could be worth $150.75 million over seven years." Do you still think the Twins (or any non-New York or non-Boston team) could have signed Johan Santana?
Regards (Classy, eh?)
Jeff Thompson
Here was his e-mail response to me today:
Yes, I do.The USA Today headline about the trade said it all: METS STEAL SANTANA.
Whoa - that was in the USA TODAY!? Forgive me - that must make it Gospel!
The USA Today? McPaper? This is really disappointing. Even though I disagree with virtually everything Coleman writes, I'd be the first to admit he seems to be an intelligent man and an excellent writer. But quoting from the USA Today headlines?
That's actually kind of sad.
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
First, he didn't even answer your question. The Twins may have gotten ripped off but that doesn't mean they could have signed him. Two unrelated notions.
Second, if you need more proof the Twins couldn't sign Santana, read the link below. You should share this article with little Nicky:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/02/07/verducci.santana/index.html
Jeff
Does Coleman ice-fish?
If he doesn't...he should.
Free - exactly. I never asked him if he thought it was a good trade.
Jase - I bet he doesn't, but we could certainly use somebody to drill those holes in the ice for us.
he is just fu..ing with you now...I think.
Post a Comment