I thought the tilt came from when he played little league.  C.C. would play first base and tilt his hat to make it look like he was paying attention when he was really talking to his friend down at second.  I swear I heard this during a broadcast once, but maybe C.C. was just BS'ing with the announcer.  

I seem to recall that he said the hat was in commemoration of his high school teammates.

yeah, i know.  i get what wins are, and why the stat is flawed.

my point is, over a long enough span of time, clemens will have a season with the opposite luck to cancel out that one.  and the fact that cc is the age he is with the wins he has isn't a complete fluke - the longer his career is, the more that's the case.

We've made three different investments in C.C., each with a huge return on investment.

First, when we drafted him, signed him with a bonus, and developed him (1998).  That gave us the rights to at least his first six major league seasons at low cost and risk.  We got all six years, and we got them quickly, which improves the ROI.  He made 185 starts and was at least average for all six seasons, well above average for two of them.  We also got a long, exclusive negotiating window for a future contract extension, which we fully leveraged.

Second, when we locked him up to a long-term deal at the start of 2002.  That $9.5 million locked in his cost but increased the risk.  He averaged 31 starts over the four guaranteed seasons, again, with average or better performance each year.

Third, when we extended his contract by three years at the start of 2005, for a total of $24.5 million.  He has been an elite pitcher for the first two years of that deal while being paid perhaps half the market rate for that performance.  We still have a third year of ROI to collect on that.

There can be no question, our ROI for C.C. has been absolutely enormous.  Now, you want to talk about asset management, that's a whole other question.

i do get that, i just feel like we need to do it if we can.  i can't tell if that's irrational or not.  when i was a kid it was always really important to me to own all the star wars action figures even though i was never interested in actually playing with them.  the idea of having miller, hughes and laffey all set and ready to contribute in 2008 just makes me drool.  with fisto honing his skills and sowers/lofgren in the wings, some perverted instict tells me that i would enjoy a year of miller/hughes/laffey anticipation even more than another cy young season out of cc.  it's probably a good thing i'm not in charge of running a baseball team.  

The truth is that if Carl Pohlad really wanted to pony up the money to extend Santana, he could afford it.  He's one of the richest guys in the world.  Those who think Dolan is Ebenezer Scrooge would have to come up with a new description of tightwaddery from another dimension to describe Pohlad.

That being said, I'm wondering if the Twins thought that they would be able to get the moon, stars, a leg, and a kidney for Santana and are now rethinking the whole trade thing in light of the offers they are reported to have received, especially since Pohlad has the means to extend Santana if he chooses well beyond the opening date of the new stadium, when the revenue will presumably pour in if they put a good product on the field.

The question for the Twins regarding Johan Santana should be whether signing him or trading him will put a better product on the field in 2010, with little consideration of 2008 and 2009.

Hughes, Tabata and Alan Horne. If it becomes clear CC won't sign, I could be swayed for that package.