Lannan Question?

Rumors are just rumors but there are a few teams being reported as John Lannan Suitors.

Since Washington just let him go. Can anyone think of a reason that Lannan wasn't someone that could have been included in the deal.

I think it's quite possible that a throw in in the Span/Meyer trade wasn't a consideration because I assume that Washington came up to Terry Ryan's price with Meyer. So someone like Lombardozzi was an impossible consideration.

But... Since Washington was just letting Lannan go. I fail to see a reason why Lannan couldn't have been thrown in. That way the Twins could have grabbed him and not had to go thru the FA process.

It was an Arb year correct? Did Terry Ryan not like Lannan or the assumed arbitration price? Any Guesses?

Probably didn't want to pay his arb price since he was going to get non-tendered. I'd stay away from Lannan anyway.

I'm not sure if I want him either but we do need arms and if other teams are going after him. I was just kinda thinking... This must mean that Terry has no interest or thought he could be signed cheaper through FA.

Yes, but it could also mean TR might want to sign better starters first and see what money he has left before filling out the bottom of the rotation. It would limit his options.

Lannon made 5 million in arbitration last year so his salary would have likely been close to the same this season. Way more than he is worth on the open market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig in MN

Yes, but it could also mean TR might want to sign better starters first and see what money he has left before filling out the bottom of the rotation. It would limit his options.

---

I didn't think of that.

Maybe Ryan isn't looking to decrease the already league worst K/9 rate.

I gotta bring this thread back to the top for a revisit. I've been reading more and more from different sources that the Twins are talking with Lannan... Levelle wrote about it... I believe I saw it on MLB trade rumors. Yes just rumors so it doesn't mean it's true... But if its true...

Why is this necessary... If they are interested in Lannan... Washington could have just included him in the Span trade since they released him anyway.

I don't know for sure but I think they are talking with Lannan. It alludes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

I gotta bring this thread back to the top for a revisit. I've been reading more and more from different sources that the Twins are talking with Lannan... Levelle wrote about it... I believe I saw it on MLB trade rumors. Yes just rumors so it doesn't mean it's true... But if its true...

Why is this necessary... If they are interested in Lannan... Washington could have just included him in the Span trade since they released him anyway.

I don't know for sure but I think they are talking with Lannan. It alludes me.

---

Knowing you as the wordsmith that you are, I know you meant that it "eludes" you, (unless you meant somehow, the deal was in some reference to you;)).
When in doubt, I always follow Jerry Maguire's lead and follow the money, I'm sure the answer to Ryan's thinking lies somewhere in that equation (right or wrong? IDK, it is a headscratcher, for sure).

Like Techmo said, the only way Washington would have owned his rights is if they offered arbitration. Otherwise he is a free agent and you obviously can't trade free agents. Arb would have been around 5.5 million and no one thinks he's worth that much. Best to re-negotiate with him for a more appropriate price. His ERAs are good, but he doesn't strike anyone out and walks a lot of batters. His WHIP is also terrible. I could really see him getting thrown around in the AL. I think he has Jason Marquis written all over him.

First off he was non tendered at least a week before the span trade happened.

Second off, as many people have stated they can get him quite a bit cheaper now then if they traded for him and gave him arb.

Who care if it would have been an "extra piece" back in the span trade, it wouldn't have made the trade better, and possibly even worse if the twins wouldn't have gone ahead and non tendered him.

Give me pelfrey as a potential #5 over him anyways

Seriously... That's how you spell Elude? lol... I've been spelling it allude my whole life and I love that word... I use it all the time and no one has ever corrected me... I spit my beer out of my nose laughing. So it seems that the spelling of Allude... ELUDES me... Too funny.

Lannan was non tendered a day after the Span trade I believe... I guess we will have to see if he goes cheaper. He might and I assume that was TRs thought... He might lose this dice roll tho.

P.S. Jokin... I purposely spell though wrong.

I could have sworn it was earlier then that, oops, maybe it was just being talked about a ton leading up to it.

I think teams rarely trade for a non-tender candidate. Odds are they will be cheaper on the open market. Remember David Ortiz?

One of the rare examples of a likely non-tender trade was Craig Monroe. Which further illustrates why such trades are generally a bad idea.

He is a guy that will sign for less. How much less...who knows. Marquis $3 million? Pavano is even looking for $3 mill w/incentives. Van he drop lower? One of those guys that might just end up with a minor league split contract, which would be to the Twins advantage. t some point, ALL 40-man roster spots will fill and there will be some bargains. The Twins still have two roster spots, so they can make decent offers to the alsorans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosterman

He is a guy that will sign for less. How much less...who knows. Marquis $3 million? Pavano is even looking for $3 mill w/incentives. Van he drop lower? One of those guys that might just end up with a minor league split contract, which would be to the Twins advantage. t some point, ALL 40-man roster spots will fill and there will be some bargains. The Twins still have two roster spots, so they can make decent offers to the alsorans.

---

That might of been his thought but Im not so sure after looking at Blantons deal.

Lannan is younger with better numbers with the numbers that matter anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Seriously... That's how you spell Elude? lol... I've been spelling it allude my whole life and I love that word... I use it all the time and no one has ever corrected me... I spit my beer out of my nose laughing. So it seems that the spelling of Allude... ELUDES me... Too funny.

Lannan was non tendered a day after the Span trade I believe... I guess we will have to see if he goes cheaper. He might and I assume that was TRs thought... He might lose this dice roll tho.

P.S. Jokin... I purposely spell though wrong.

---

al·lude
[ ə ld ]

• mention indirectly: to refer to something or somebody indirectly, without giving a precise name or explicit identification

Synonyms: refer, make reference, make allusion, mention, indicate, suggest, talk about, touch on, introduce, refer in passing, make a passing reference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Seriously... That's how you spell Elude? lol... I've been spelling it allude my whole life and I love that word... I use it all the time and no one has ever corrected me... I spit my beer out of my nose laughing. So it seems that the spelling of Allude... ELUDES me... Too funny.

Lannan was non tendered a day after the Span trade I believe... I guess we will have to see if he goes cheaper. He might and I assume that was TRs thought... He might lose this dice roll tho.

P.S. Jokin... I purposely spell though wrong.

---

al·lude
[ ə ld ]

• mention indirectly: to refer to something or somebody indirectly, without giving a precise name or explicit identification

Synonyms: refer, make reference, make allusion, mention, indicate, suggest, talk about, touch on, introduce, refer in passing, make a passing reference

---

lol... Thanks nurse... That's good stuff. All words should be explained just like that... If someone collected all the words and put them in a book with definitions. It would be a good book to have. Lots of folks would buy it.

Its probably too much work tho... So it's probably an unreasonable dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosterman

He is a guy that will sign for less. How much less...who knows. Marquis $3 million? Pavano is even looking for $3 mill w/incentives. Van he drop lower? One of those guys that might just end up with a minor league split contract, which would be to the Twins advantage. t some point, ALL 40-man roster spots will fill and there will be some bargains. The Twins still have two roster spots, so they can make decent offers to the alsorans.

---

Lannan is younger with better numbers with the numbers that matter anyway.

---

I dunno, Blanton can at least strike guys out.

I wouldn't want Lannan at 1 year 5.5-6 mil anyways (which is what he would have prob got) Again there is a good chance Hendriks would out preform him this year. The Twins need to be either:

1. Signing/trading for high upside guys.
2. If they are signing back of the rotation guys, spend no more then 1 year/2-3 mil a piece.
That might of been his thought but Im not so sure after looking at Blantons deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosterman

He is a guy that will sign for less. How much less...who knows. Marquis $3 million? Pavano is even looking for $3 mill w/incentives. Van he drop lower? One of those guys that might just end up with a minor league split contract, which would be to the Twins advantage. t some point, ALL 40-man roster spots will fill and there will be some bargains. The Twins still have two roster spots, so they can make decent offers to the alsorans.

---

Lannan is younger with better numbers with the numbers that matter anyway.

---

I dunno, Blanton can at least strike guys out.

I wouldn't want Lannan at 1 year 5.5-6 mil anyways (which is what he would have prob got) Again there is a good chance Hendriks would out preform him this year. The Twins need to be either:

1. Signing/trading for high upside guys.
2. If they are signing back of the rotation guys, spend no more then 1 year/2-3 mil a piece.
That might of been his thought but Im not so sure after looking at Blantons deal.

---

ill take Lannan if TR wants him because we need extra arms because someone or two is gonna get hurt. But yeah.. He ain't my fave.

The prices are nuts... It's looking like TR should have taken him in the Span trade... I guess we will see in time.