posted at 12/5/2007 6:07 PM ESTActually more like Dom Dimaggio.
posted at 12/5/2007 6:44 PM ESTI agree with you. Block the Yankees.
posted at 12/5/2007 7:07 PM ESTUPDATE, 12-5-07 at 5:45pm: Billy Beane, who rarely comments on trade rumors, actually went out of his way to call mine below a "total fabrication." I guess I should be proud, right? It sounds like I was the victim ofan elaborate hoax/impersonated sportswriter. If so I apologize - notsure why someone would go to such lengths, but lesson learned.
posted at 12/5/2007 7:12 PM ESTYes, El Capitan. It's all hype. And NFL refs want the Patriots to go undefeated. And Oswald acted alone. And there were stockpiles of WMDs under Saddam Hussein's pillow.
The Twins cannot re-sign Santana. I have no doubt they'll hang on to him until the trade deadline, if necesary. But if they don't move him before then, they get nothing in return for the best pitcher in the game. They can afford to wait for the best deal, but only to a point. Somewhere along the line, they'll have to trade him and if they wait too long, they'll lose any leverage they have at the moment.
That said, whoever trades for Santana has to be able to lock him up for several years, otherwise he'll trigger his no-trade clause and void the deal. That's the whole point. It's now or never.
Giving up young players to acquire a player of Santana's caliber is hardly "squandering" talent. As much as I like Ellsbury, Lester and Bucholz, I'd trade any of them, in a heartbeat, for the most the most dominant pitcher in baseball.
posted at 12/5/2007 7:41 PM EST
The problem as I see it with a Johan Santana trade is that we begin to resemble the Yankees of the past decade. We begin to become (a) attached to long term, monster contracts, and (b) we deplete our farm system, meaning that (c) the only way to improve in the future is through expensive, chancy free-agency than through organizational development. Compound these tensions with the fact that Johan Santana, as special a player as he is, (a) had a down year which could presage a drop-off in his recent dominance, and (b) has terrible splits at Fenway. Some have argued on these pages that the splits don't matter as the Sox are a potent line-up and a hitter's park, but I think that is not entirely so. His era against the Sox at the Metrodome (2.7) is almost five 5 (FIVE) points lower than it is at Fenway (7.5), where power lefties have historically been less efficient. These two factors give me tremendous pause in the wisdom of acquiring a player which will force a 6 yr 150 mil. contract in order to waive his no trade clause.
Conversely, the Tigers have traded for Cabrera and Willis, giving them the deepest line-up in baseball, and the only way to beat great hitting is with great pitching and defense. So, are the Sox forced to pull the trigger on Santana? I still think the answer is "NO!" Again, as great as Santana is, this is not fantasy baseball, but real life. Great statistical players do not a champion make (see earlier Yankee's reference). Young players inject life into veteran teams which lag in August. They inject the fans with interest, they are fighting for their future livlihoods when the vet's already have it made in the shade. Furthermore, they are extremely valuable as fill-ins' for the inevitable injuries which occur during the 6 months of the year we all love so well (although I wonder if some of us aren't even more excited by the hotstove). My point is this: Without Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Papelbon and even Buchholz (whose no-hitter and bullpen work in August and early Sept. were HUGE!) the Sox don't win the Series... of course, they don't win if they don't trade Hanley Ramirez and Anibel Sanchez (no-hitter) to the Marlins for Beckett and Lowell. There are clearly two sides to the argument, but two years ago they refused to part with both Pedroia and Ramirez (good thing), this year they are refusing to part with both Ellsbury and Buchholz. After watching these two electric rooks and the impact they had on the team, I couldn't agree with that more. Buch looks like a future Cy Young winner and Jacoby looks like a guy who's going to make 5 all star teams in the next 10 years and will probably get 4 or 5 gold gloves while leading the American League in steals (if the Sox let him run free... YES he is faster than Granderson, sheeet, he makes Grandy look like he has cement shoes!).
If the sox have to make a trade, I submit Dan Haren as the proper piece. He's under control for 3 years at less than the price of 1 year of Santana (16.7mil/3 yrs). He's only 25, still improving! Will get better working with Schill and Farrelly. Is right handed (good for Fenway). Is also a power pitcher who gets into the 7th and 8th innings. Will get much higher value/win and will cost less in prospects (provided there is some way to get Oakland to take Coco... although working out a trade with Oakland is not a cinch, they would not try to get either Buch or Jacoby).
All that said, this is a subjective analysis by a fan who is biased toward youth and energy over age and potential injury and perceives these mammoth contracts as a problem rather than a salvation. I would rather watch the players develop than trade them away. And for anyone who makes Santana-Pedro analogies I have 2 things to say (1) Santana cannot hold Pedro's jock and (2) Brian Rose, Tony Armas, Jr. and Carl Pavano (the pieces considered for the Pedro trade) are NO WHERE CLOSE to the quality of Buch and Jacoby (blue-chippers) or even Lester (already a quality major league starter who is only starting to get back from CANCER!!!), so comparing the trades from that standpoint is just plain silly, so please don't do it anymore.
p.s. if they do trade for Santana we will get treated to the most electrifying stuff since Pedro in '98!
posted at 12/5/2007 7:58 PM EST
But as you mentioned correctly also.....what point in trading....ifSantana will not come to terms with a long (5 years for SURE) term dealwith the Sox ???....He is 29 now.....so Johan is in "prime territory"health permitting....the next 5 years easy
That's exactly the point. The trade ù whether it's with the Sox, Yankees, Mets or Yomuri Giants ù doesn't happen without a contract, beause Santana will refuse to waive his no trade clause. The Twins have no choice but to trade him this year since they can't re-sign him and won't make another Torii Hunter gaffe.
In other words, Santana will never make it to free agency. Hence, you can't wait to sign him in 2008 because he won't be available.
And not to pick nits, but Santana is 28 ù though he'll turn 29 before Opening Day.
posted at 12/5/2007 8:07 PM ESTIf the sox have to make a trade, I submit Dan Haren as the properpiece. He's under control for 3 years at less than the price of 1 yearof Santana (16.7mil/3 yrs). He's only 25, still improving! Will getbetter working with Schill and Farrelly. Is right handed (good forFenway). Is also a power pitcher who gets into the 7th and 8thinnings. Will get much higher value/win and will cost less in prospects(provided there is some way to get Oakland to take Coco... althoughworking out a trade with Oakland is not a cinch, they would not try toget either Buch or Jacoby).
Cost less in prospects??? I believe that is false .... oakland is wanting more for haren than minnesota is asking for santana .... I suppose its due to his lower salary, and being under contract for 3 years ... but he will certainly cost more in terms of prospects ...
posted at 12/5/2007 8:10 PM ESTI think the Red Sox are crazy to even think about trading for this guy. The signs of fatigue are all over the place.
His significant drop off in quality starts for 07 is 1. His 2nd half drop off is huge as well. He gave up over 30 home runs. His hits allowed per 9 innings have increased each year since 03.
He didn't throw his slider much at all, which is another sign of stress or some kind of discomfort in his arm. Other than a fastball, change-up, his secondary pitches are mediocre at best. If he loses velocity, ala Pedro, you know the end result, he'll get pounded.
As it is, hitters weren't nearly as fooled by his signature change up this season, jumping all over it, which is a terrible sign for him.
Also, look at the quality pitching arms as well as the potential quality everyday players that are involved. The players mentioned are mostly on the cusp of being part of the everyday roster within the next 2 years minumum.
The financially flexibility that major league ready prospects allow the Red Sox can't be understated. This isn't only for today, but the next 4-5 years as well, and I'm speaking about the players mentioned involved in the trade only.
A 125-150 million dollar investment, 20-25,mill per year, for a pitcher that could win maybe 20-22 games per year is Roger Clemens money but for 6 years. 1 million dollars or so per win? NAHHH
I'll take my chances with a few younger pitchers that will more than likely win the Red Sox 7 games each per year for the next 3-4 years and for the league minimum any day of the year.
Keep your money Boston. Plan for the replacing of Manny on the horizon. Keep pumping money into the draft
and building this awesome nest egg of talent so there really isn't a down time. The Red Sox have never been a healthier franchise than they are now. Good things..... now Great things.
posted at 12/5/2007 8:18 PM EST
BJMD, you must read more carefully, I wrote "the pieces CONSIDERED for the trade" not "the players traded". Meaning, the sox and expos were hashing out which 2 of the three were going to be involved, as Duquette refused to relinquish all three of them. I was here, I know the sox didn't trade Rose... too bad though...
Further, there is no contradiction in the thoughts, (a) "Santana can't hold Pedro's jock" and, (b) "if Santana comes to the sox we will see the most electrifying stuff since '98". The point, since I clearly must spell it out for you, is this: Santana is a special pitcher with tremendous stuff, Pedro in '98 was GOD visiting the Earth and playing some baseball. That season was one of the greatest in the history of the game, and the man won a championship here in 1918 land. He was one of the dynamic duo (+Schil) who broke the curse. The man is a HOF and can do no wrong (although his arm is about to fall off). Santana, as incredible and sometimes unhittable as he is, is merely a talented human being, not a deity (although I think also a future HOF). Apologies to RS fans of any religions whom I may have insulted with my sacrilegious ramblings.
Please take more care in reading before you decide to LASH OUT!
posted at 12/5/2007 8:21 PM EST
If the sox have to make a trade, I submit Dan Haren as the properpiece. He's under control for 3 years at less than the price of 1 yearof Santana (16.7mil/3 yrs). He's only 25, still improving!
First of all, Haren is 27, only one year younger than Santana, and has really only had one good year ù pitching in a pitcher's park. I'm not sure he'd even be the Sox fourth starter. Or their sixth, if they really go that route.
Second, the Sox don't need to make a trade. The only reason they're even considering it is because it's Johan Freaking Santana, otherwise known as "the best pitcher in baseball."
And for anyone who makes Santana-Pedro analogies I have 2 things to say(1) Santana cannot hold Pedro's jock and (2) Brian Rose, Tony Armas,Jr. and Carl Pavano (the pieces considered for the Pedro trade) are NOWHERE CLOSE to the quality of Buch and Jacoby (blue-chippers) or evenLester (already a quality major league starter who is only starting toget back from CANCER!!!), so comparing the trades from that standpointis just plain silly, so please don't do it anymore.
I wasn't comparing the trades ù which you got wrong ù I was comparing the players. Santana, like Pedro in the late 1990's, is the most dominating pitcher in the game. Period. To me, that's worth giving up "blue-chippers." Even Jacoby Ellsbury.
posted at 12/5/2007 8:33 PM EST
My fault for writing '25' instead of '27' for Haren, that was a slip-up. I agree with the other writer who said that he is an inferior pitcher comparably and that he pitches in a pitcher friendly park, but he looked great and had pretty gaudy stats on the road, in hitter's parks against great hitting teams this year. Check out his splits. They're not bad. See link:
Of the other former A's, Zito was never that good and Mulder was only marginally better. Hudson was and is a great pitcher. He is no Santana, but neither is Haren and NOBODY is making that argument. I merely posited that he is a significantly better value. If you could have them for the same price we wouldn't be having this conversation. And, I might be wrong, but I really doubt Beane expects as much for Haren as the other Billy (of the twins) expects for Santana, that contention fly's in the face of everything I've been hearing (doesn't mean the bilge I've been digesting from ESPN is accurate, merely indicitive of a position contrary to yous).
posted at 12/5/2007 8:46 PM EST
I submit that if we cannot land Santana, we do not need to trade for ANY pitcher. The main objective was to obtain an outstanding pitcher that would make Boston's staff the best in baseball AND to keep him away from the Yankees.
If the Yankees are still determined to enter the bidding at the last minute, and through the back door, we should continue to offer Lester, Coco, Lowrie, Masterson/ (or another minor league pitcher) and send along millons to defray some of Coco's contract. As a last resort, if it appears the Yankees have a better offer, then add Ellsbury to close the deal. At no cost, with the exception of Buch., should we allow the Yankees to get Santana.
If a non Eastern Conference team offers a better deal, than walk away with a smile on your face, because we have the best pitching rotation in our conference!
Use Coco to trade with Chicago or others for Pen help, backup or future catcher, or utlility help
posted at 12/5/2007 8:50 PM EST
we all love to speculate and disseminate our highly subjective opinions, but I think we should all take a moment to read Shillings blog re: this trade as he is a HOF player and has greater understanding of the game than the rest of us, even those of us who played A ball or summer league. Essentially, what he says is that there are pro's and con's to this deal, Santana is a stud, but don't discount Lester and Ellsbury, who are also studs.
interesting piece, enjoy fellow nut-jobs!
posted at 12/5/2007 9:11 PM ESTforget even thinking about giving all those young guys away for santana and then paying him over 20 m per season!
call the front desk at the oreyland hotel and ask what room the orioles are staying in. call the orioles to ask about bedard if the sox are drivin to trade for a good pitcher this winter.
posted at 12/5/2007 9:43 PM ESTWhile i agree that it's highly unlikely that O's would permit an in division trade but I am not sure one would rule it out completely. The O's have said more or less that The O's IMHO would have to be convinced that he got the "better" deal in terms of young prospects who could play right away and bring them close to a 500 ball club. The price for such a deal would probably be more than the Red Sox would be willing to pay, however.
posted at 12/5/2007 11:05 PM EST
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT NOT TRADE ELLSBURY FOR ANYONE--NOT EVEN ALEX RODRIQUEX, AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR SANTANNA.
SURE SANTANNA IS A GREAT PITCHER--BUT ELLSBURY IS A ONCE IN A GENERATION TALENT: HE HAS THE ABILITY TO BE A YASTRZEMSKI//GARCIAPARRA//LYNN ALL ROLLED INTO ONE--AND HE STEALS BASES!
IF THEO TRADES HIM FOR ANYONE, I SAY OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
THEO COULD NOT BE THAT DUMB--THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER CURSE OF THE BAMBINO:
THEO--THEY ALREADY TRADED BABE RUTH; DON'T BE AN IDIOT!!!
posted at 12/5/2007 11:11 PM EST
I respect your thinking, but the Red sox simply do not need Santanna.
Our young pitchng is superlative. Who in his right mind would trade either Buchholz, after his no-hitter, OR Ellsbury, after his sterling play in every category.
These are stars for the future--and not only for the far future. If not 2008, then in 2009 one could easily win the MVP and the other the Cy Young.
The Red Sox DO NOT NEED SANTANNA. Yes, he's tempting--but don't fall for it.
Have a little faith; and keep it.
posted at 12/5/2007 11:38 PM ESTThe Red Sox came back against Cleveland and swept the WS after Elsbery was put in the line up. The whole tenor of the (offensive( lineup changed after he was put in it as he got on base and made something happen. That in and of itself says a lot; at the very least he seems to be a money player, who obviously can handle the pressure. Based on the little I've seen of him, he just seems to have that very rare and special talent of getting on base, stirring it up and winning - like a Jeter or a Pete Rose. I think he is a very special player and it would be a big loss to the BoSox if he gets traded away.
posted at 12/6/2007 12:00 AM ESTAmen - here's what most people keep missing IMO - we won the East by mere 2 games; lost the season series to NY; don't currently have a true "shut down pitcher" that can stop the Yankees and is the guy you fully expect to win every 5 days - I love Beckett but c'mon, who doesn't wonder everytime he takes the ball if he's going to be the Beckett capable of pitching a no hitter or the Beckett who gets completely shelled in 4 innings - the fact is Santana has an ERA of under 2 AT Yankee Stadium and is truly a "shut down" pitcher. I'd hate to see Ellsbury go, but pitchers like Santana don't come around very often - pull the trigger Theo - sign him for us and to keep him out of pinstripes!
posted at 12/6/2007 12:21 AM EST
I'm sorry I didn't have the time to read all 42 pages of replies, But here is my opinion on this if anyone cares to hear it!
As top notch a pitcher that Santana is, I believed from the start, that this trade should not happen. If all the shifting back and forth over this trade, in the end, prevents the Yankees from getting him, then that's great. Then again the Yankees just might have taken themselves out of it.
Number one, trading so much young talent was way too much. Number two, a six year contract is way out of character for the current ownership. Number three, 25 million a year, which is almost twice what even Schill will be getting, just might cause some unspoken or unseen resentment in the clubhouse.
Trying to make a deal for someone else at a lesser cost in both money and players would have made much more sense to me.
posted at 12/6/2007 12:22 AM EST
GET IT DONE. GIVE UP ELLSBURY AND LESTER AND JUST BE DONE WITH IT.(2 for 1 rather than 4-1) JOCOBY IS A NICE PLAYER BUT FREE AGENT OUTFIELDERS ARE EASIER TO COME BY THEN ACE PITCHERS. I WANT SANTANA AND BECKETT BACK TO BACK FOR LIGHTS OUT NY YANKEES.
posted at 12/6/2007 12:26 AM EST
I DISAGREE WE WIN WS WITH BECKETT, NOT HANLEY RAMIREZ. GET R DONE>>>>>>>>
posted at 12/6/2007 12:28 AM EST
I think they will eventually package Lester and Ellsbury in the trade for Santana. This trade is truly a no brainer, assuming the Sox think they can sign him long term. I truly can't believe they won't pull the trigger on this one, despite the over the top hype of both Lester and Jacoby. I learned my less on "prospect" love in the early 1990's with one Phil Plantier. After the late season results he had when he first arrived, I thought we had a phenom, it is so laughable now. But, hey, I was 18 and stupid.
Do we need Santana. I say we do if he is available. Because...
Wakefield is getting old, and I personally never have confidense in him, despite the fact I like him.
Schilling is getting old and this is his final year.
Lester has trouble throwing strikes and I think he always will. Nolan Ryan walked a lot of people, but then Lester does not have the fastball or curve that Ryan had.
DiceK- I like him, but I still think his future is unclear. All his offspead stuff looks the same to me. No dominate "out" pitch and shaky control at times. I personally think that Clay's curve and change are better pitches than any DiceK has in his arsenal. I am being serious. If I was given the choice to magically have Dice's arsenal or Clay's, I would take Clay's without hesitation.
That being said, time to make the deal
posted at 12/6/2007 12:31 AM EST
Why to keep "the kid"
1) Ellsbury was the catalyst in winning the ACLS and WS last year; best batting average (Game 4 Box Score WS below)...he completely transformed this line up with his OBP and his speed (it kills - other teams)...2) his career (minor/major leagues) BA/OBP is about 300/380 the same as Jeter and Rose; two players that Ellsbury reminds me of.
BOSTON AB R H RBI BB SO LOB AVG
Ellsbury, CF-LF 4 1 2 0 0 1 2 .438
Pedroia, 2B 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 .278
Ortiz, 1B 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 .333
Crisp, PR-CF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .500
Ramirez, LF 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 .250
Okajima, P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
Papelbon, P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
Lowell, 3B 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 .400
Drew, RF 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 .333
Varitek, C 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 .333
Lugo, SS 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 .385
Lester, P 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 .000
Delcarmen, P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
Timlin, P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
a-Kielty, PH 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1.000
Youkilis, 1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .222
Totals 33 4 9 4 1 4 10
posted at 12/6/2007 12:35 AM EST
OK NOW PUT SANTANA'S K #S UP>>