Last night was a perfect example of one way to determine effectiveness. Complete game, 2 runs allowed. Wins get you to the post season, and I'll bet he gets more than 3 wins next year, he's our best pitcher. Build a rotation around him. Trade any of the others in the rotation, either way, we will have to go after pitching in the off season. And it'll probably cost more than what we are paying Santana. Brooks says; At his age, he's walking a tight rope. At some point he's going to decline severely, and it often happens overnight. It could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 years, I don't know. Agree to disagree on the return. I actually think that if we paid almost all of his remaining contract, we could get a pretty solid return. I don't expect this team to compete next year, so to me the question is, do you expect him to be this good for another full year? I wouldn't take that bet. So Brooks is guessing that Santana could decline severely next year, and admits he doesn't expect the team to compete next year. Also that we could pay almost all of his remaining contract. Why would we do that when it'll cost us much more than that to not only replace him, but to add at least 2 more pitchers to the rotation? Make no sense to me. Who knows how this GM situation will play out, but the Twins very well could compete next year, they've got worse to first before. Getting rid of your best pitcher isn't the way to go about it. I think Antony is speaking what he believes.