I didn't RTA but Kennedy is a righthander.

Sure, Jim Callis and John Manuel are some of the most respected people at Baseball America, an organization dedicated to Minor League Baseball and prospects, but their opinion is worthless when Hank comes out and says that the Yankees have the best offer on the table.

Ian Kennedy is the Rodney Dangerfield of pitching prospects. It’s really ####### ridiculous. Never has a first round pick with his minor league track record been dismissed so cavalierly. Kennedy's change couldn't be further from fringy. He's going to neuter left-handed hitters with that change. He needs a better breaking ball to be dominant against right-handers, but his ability to locate is a major point in his favor. Major. Not that I'm taking this personally, or anything. Nope, not at all.

Manuel said he and scouts question if the lefty has one above-average major league pitch

Maybe the stupidest sentence in the history of American sports journalism. For today, I mean. It's only 7:54 AM on the east coast, after all.

i really respect a story that starts out not knowing which hand the ball comes out of a pitcher's hand....incidentally, if kennedy were a lefty, with his current stuff, and track record, what kind of prospect would he look like right now?

To Jim Callis, if you're reading this: surely you don't think Coco Crisp is an important part of a "package" from the Red Sox, rather than just a salary dump, do you? Crisp will start the season keeping the bench warm for the Red Sox if he isn't traded by April 1.

Who's calling Kennedy a lefthander here?

Looks like its the writer adding that in, not one of the BA guys.

How is a Mets package that includes Martinez, Guerra, and Gomez not better than anything else offered?

I'm know Callis and Manuel are factoring in the Twins' specific needs, but I'm still surprised that they don't think a package that includes Hughes and Kennedy is better than the current Sox offer.

Instead of the big contract for Crisp, can't they find a really good defender who can't hit in the independent league or something? Seems like a lot to pay for a guy who might as well leave his bat in the dugout when he is at the plate.

So, I read the article. and they like Lester because they believe Lester can be a middle of the rotation starter, but they don't like Marquez, because projects no better than a 3-4 (middle of the rotation) starter.

I just want the deal done. I want Santana on the Sox, I'll take my lumps in 08, and the Yanks will be back in 09.

Crisp is a weird case. If a team accquiring him is of the belief--and this is a reasonable one--that whatever it was that made him forget how to hit is here to stay than he's basically a toss-in at that contract level.

On the other hand, if a team thinks Crisp is going to become once more the hitter he was with the Indians, than he's a quality player signed to a reasonable contract.

But since his value to the Red Sox is pretty much nil in either case (unless Crisp really discovers something and starts outhitting Ellsbury by a fair margin) than Crisp's trade value is all tied up in what the team accquiring him thinks, rather than--as usual--some combination of what the team dealing and the team accquiring thinks.

Are they basically saying that Kennedy projects to be the same kind of starter Marquez does in the majors? I just don't see how adding Kennedy (in place of Marquez) is not a significant upgrade. Furthermore, I think the Twins probably view the addition of Kennedy to the Yanks package as a deal that gets it done.

How is a Mets package that includes Martinez, Guerra, and Gomez not better than anything else offered?

It is, and according to at least one report, the Twins would take a deal that included both F-Mart and Gomez (and the pitchers). But the Mets haven't offered that, and I sincerely hope the Mets don't offer that.

He needs a better breaking ball to be dominant against right-handers, but his ability to locate is a major point in his favor.

This got me to thinking about possible major league comps for Kennedy. Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location?

Radke?

Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location?

Jon Lieber comes to mind, although maybe he has a plus pitch I'm not thinking of. Post-surgery Tommy John is another. Late career David Wells, I suppose.

Did David Wells have above average "stuff"?

This got me to thinking about possible major league comps for Kennedy. Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location?

I don't know a lot about Ian Kennedy but when you said "a good-to-maybe-even-great pitcher that succeeded without 'above-average stuff'" Brad Radke jumped to mind for me. He put up an ERA+ of 112 in a 12 year career with 5.4 k/9 and 1.2 hr/9. Those two numbers would doom most pitchers but Radke made it work with pinpoint control - he limited hitters to 1.6 bb/9.

Another Yankees-Red Sox pissing contest. Gotta love it.

I miss the good old days when both the Yankees and Red Sox prospects were crap.

What is this "big contract" you speak of for Crisp. Compare his contract to Gary Matthews and Juan Pierre, two players he's better than, and he's a bargain.

I believe in the purported Yankees and Red Sox offers as much as I believe in Big Foot and Nessie. Unfortunately, the Mets offer, I fear, is very, very real.

Instead of the big contract for Crisp, can't they find a really good defender who can't hit in the independent league or something? Seems like a lot to pay for a guy who might as well leave his bat in the dugout when he is at the plate.

coco had an 83 ops+ last year. that's bad, but it isn't "might as well leave his bat in the dugout". maybe they could get a gold glove defender who can't it ... but what would you expect from him? i think even a 50 ops+ would be a stretch.

Did David Wells have above average "stuff"?

his curveball was well above average.

What is Coco really worth when Corey Patterson is still available as a free agent and Mike Cameron just signed a 1 year $7M deal?

and Mike Cameron just signed a 1 year $7M deal?

he'd probably be below 100 ops+ in the american league east (although still a better hitter than crisp). he's also going to miss some games this year b/c of the suspension. and coco's a much better defender at this point (15 runs over the course of the season?). i dunno ... i'd probably take crisp if i had the choice.

odd, but if you watched the Yankees in September, you would have thought that Kennedy is a more polished prospect than Hughes. Small sample size aside, Kennedy definitely looked like he had enough to be a no. 4 starter on control alone. I don't get the rejection either.

"Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location?"

Depending how stringent you are about the "pinpoint" thing, would John Tudor work?

Crisp's trade value isn't what the Twins think he's worth to them, it's what they think other teams will pay to get him. He's essentially valueless to the Red Sox, who if they don't trade him will be paying $5mm for a bad pinch hitter and occasional defensive replacement for Manny. Therefore, the hurdle to acquire him from them should be very low.

Available evidence indicates that Crisp isn't very highly valued by teams in need of a CF, either. The Padres went with Milton Bradley. The Brewers signed Mike Cameron. The Braves even traded for Mark F'in Kotsay. If those teams won't pay even a modest price (and I would call Joey Devine and Jamie Richmond "modest", despite what other Braves fans may believe), why should the Twins? Who exactly is going to outbid them in the Crisp Sweepstakes?

Finally, I don't believe Crisp is a "GG CF" though he may have played like one last year. Defensive performance has a modest but not incredibly strong year-to-year correlation. Crisp's performance spike followed a year where he was rated below average by UZR. A projection of +8 per 150 is as high as I'd go - that's good, but not great, especially when he projects to hit 270/333/410 in a hitter's park.

The Braves seem like they would have been a good fit. Would the Sox have done Coco and $5mm over two years for Joey Devine and Jamie Richmond?

How is a Mets package that includes Martinez, Guerra, and Gomez not better than anything else offered?

Fanboy
Ellsbury > Martinez
Hughes >>> Guerra
Lowrie > Gomez
Lester >> Guerra
Lester >> Mulvey
Lester >> Humber
Kennedy > Humber

The best players offered by both the Yankees and Mets is better than the best player the Mets CAN offer

The Mets best guy is FMart- but he is years away and requires a lot of projection- Ellsbuy is already a good MLB caliber player
Lowrie is MLB ready
Lester is MLB ready
the other guy the Sox have offered, Masterson is at least as good as Humber or Mulvey

Melky is only 8 months older than Gomez and has outplayed Gomez at every age and every level- who cares if Gomez allegedly has higher upside- it means squat until he actually outplays Melky.

Well, sure, but Adrian Beltre's 2004 improvement was "real" too - he stopped swinging at low and away breaking balls and crushed all the good pitches he saw. It's just that the improvement didn't carry over completely into 2005.

There's a reason we use regression to the mean and more than one season of data when we project hitting performance. We should do the same with defensive performance. Calling Crisp a +8 CF is generous, IMHO, given that he was roughly +11 last year and -10 the year before.

Well, sure, but Adrian Beltre's 2004 improvement was "real" too - he stopped swinging at low and away breaking balls and crushed all the good pitches he saw. It's just that the improvement didn't carry over completely into 2005.

The bizarre thing about this is that a lot of people attributed this progression to him playing hurt that season… and not being able to swing at every single pitch he wanted to. And just throwing this out there, I wasn’t trying to insult the analysts quoted in the article here, even though I disagree with them on Kennedy. My beef is with the writer of the piece. Just bad times all around with this one. File this under deconstructive criticism, maybe.

Kennedy is a righthander.

ROTF! I make the same mistake myself. He's a righthander who throws like a finesse lefty.

I miss the good old days when both the Yankees and Red Sox prospects were crap.

I won't have you disparaging Wilton Veras and Steve Lomasney! Not now, not ever!

The only word worth noting in # 33 is "fanboy." Major-league ready isn't everything, especially for a team that is trading away Johan Santana and in doing so is in effect conceding that it won't be contending in 2008.

Lester is better than Guerra? Maybe so; I'd say all he is is more ready. But even if he is better, he's certainly not more valuable than Guerra, Humber, and Mulvey combined. Remember, the rumored Mets' offer would be -- much as I oppose it -- Gomez and F-Mart and all three pitchers.

Look, if the Mets really were willing to offer the package the Twins want, it would blow the Yankees and Red Sox packages away. True, it would not have the one guy who is both major-league ready and as sure-fire as Twins might ideally like (Ellsbury, Hughes), because Gomez is more toolsy and projection and the others are further away. But in terms of pure depth, the Mets would be offering three extremely high-ceiling guys in Gomez, Guerra, and F-Mart, and that is much more than anything coming from the AL titans. Then you add in both Mulvey and Humber, who project to be decent back of the rotation guys, and it really isn't close.

But it's all kind of a moot issue. The fact is that -- to date -- the Mets have remained sane and are refusing to include both Martinez and Gomez. I readily concede that without Martinez, their package is short of what the Yankees and the Sox are offering.

IMHO, the Sox have the best offer on the table. The Twins haven't taken it, for reasons known only to them. In my ideal world, it's because Santana has privately informed them he'll accept a trade only to the Mets and they are holding out for the best deal they can get from Omar. Omar, however, is playing it smart and won't give in, and will make a good solid trade, believing he has the leverage here.

A guy can dream, can't he?

Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location?

Rick Reed.

kevin, you MAY be correct about Crisp, but it is a CONCLUSION, not an explanation. WHY do you think the improvement is real?

The Braves seem like they would have been a good fit. Would the Sox have done Coco and $5mm over two years for Joey Devine and Jamie Richmond?

The Red Sox aren't the A's - they don't have any need to dump salary. Right now, Crisp is their 4th outfielder/defensive replacement/injury insurance, and his salary isn't that high. I'm sure they're willing to part with him, but they don't need to dump him just to save a couple of bucks.

I'm with Kevin on his defense - he was pretty obviously improved out there, and while he may not be gold glove worthy, I see no reason to think he won't be above average defensively.

At the risk of topping myself for "tupidest sentence in the history of American sports journalism," I think Mike Silverman (who I'll email) misquoted me. I just wrote up our Yankees Top 10 prospects (and Top 30 for the 2008 Prospect Handbook, plug plug) . . . and the Kennedy scouting report cites a plus changeup. I wrote that he does have a plus pitch and told Mike that. At his best, according to scouts, he has one plus pitch, the changeup, and three solid-average major league pitches (FB, slider, curve), and above-average command. That's why he's good, and he's quite good. I think highly of Kennedy. If I had to choose, I would take Lester because he's similar in terms of stuff and lefthanded, but they are quite similar in terms of ceiling. This also has nothing to do with my personal observations of Kennedy; it's what scouts tell me about Kennedy. As I told Mike, I'm not a scout and I don't try to play one on TV or at baseballamerica.com. I just try to report what the scouts are telling me. Thanks to Mike though for asking my opinion.

Calling Crisp a +8 CF is generous, IMHO, given that he was roughly +11 last year and -10 the year before.

Well, he was also something like a +20 LF in 2005, which should be taken into account. Crisp has been an excellent defender his entire career, except for 2006. His problems in 2006 were greatly in poor reads and routes, based I think on unfamiliarity with CF, and which familiarity seems to have solved in 2007. I'm pretty confident he'll be very good in CF going forward, to the degree that he can retain his speed.

kevin, you MAY be correct about Crisp, but it is a CONCLUSION, not an explanation. WHY do you think the improvement is real?

Watching him play a lot in 2006 and 2007, it was clear that he was getting much better reads on the ball last year. It appeared that he learned how to play the position. Its not a guarantee, but I would expect him to keep that knowledge.

Ian Kennedy is the Rodney Dangerfield of pitching prospects. It’s really ####### ridiculous. Never has a first round pick with his minor league track record been dismissed so cavalierly.

What does his being a first round pick really mean? Matt Bush was a first round pick, too. Kennedy was picked ahead of Joba, does that make him a better prospect than him?

Kennedy doesn't get any respect because he'd getting by with pedestrian stuff and needs his control to get hitters out. Even with plus command I don't think we're looking at a guy with "pinpoint command who can put the ball wherever he wants." (It's a semantic argument that I think we all into, but I think the scouting terms are being applied with our own definitions of those terms in mind, instead of what the people who actually applied those terms might think.Edit: and JM's post probably covers this much better than I did.)

He also doesn't have any real track record at any level. The Yankees pushed him through their farm system so quickly that no league had a chance to get a good look at him. IMO he profiles as a guy who that can work for (mature college pitcher with good control), but it could also be a recipe for someone who could suffer when he goes through the league a couple times. And the first time he's going to have to make that adjustment is against ML hitters.

Kennedy's change couldn't be further from fringy.

No, Buchholz's change is the furthest thing from "fringy." Kennedy's isn't even close to that.

Ellsbury > Martinez
Hughes >>> Guerra
Lowrie > Gomez
Lester >> Guerra
Lester >> Mulvey
Lester >> Humber
Kennedy > Humber

The best players offered by both the Yankees and Mets is better than the best player the Mets CAN offer

I don't want to get into a prospect pissing match, but I think one can very easily come to the conclusion that both Martinez and Gomez are better prospects than Ellsbury and Lowrie. Martinez has a higher upside than any other hitter being offered and Gomez probably has the second highest. And while I understand that we are supposed to worship all things Jacoby Ellsbury because he kicked ass in the majors at the end of last season, I can't help but completely discount the fact that, despite being two years younger, Carlos Gomez was better in AAA than Ellsbury in 2007 (caveat: major sample size issues) and very nearly as good in 2006 in AA as Ellsbury was in A+/AA. Now, I understand that Carlos Gomez is a Mets prospect, so he automatically is a guy whose performance doesn't match his tools and Jacoby Ellsbury is Red Sox prospect, so he is just a pure baseball player, but I thought I would take a shot at upsetting the narrative.

There's a reason we use regression to the mean and more than one season of data when we project hitting performance. We should do the same with defensive performance. Calling Crisp a +8 CF is generous, IMHO, given that he was roughly +11 last year and -10 the year before.

Good point, Kyle. I still do think Crisp is slightly above average, and calling him +8 isn't *totally* unreasonable, given the error bars on even a couple of years of data (a 5/3/2 average of his last 3 years in CF is roughly +3), and maybe the improvement last year will stick - but we won't know that until next year, will we?

The Red Sox aren't the A's - they don't have any need to dump salary. Right now, Crisp is their 4th outfielder/defensive replacement/injury insurance, and his salary isn't that high. I'm sure they're willing to part with him, but they don't need to dump him just to save a couple of bucks.

The A's don't really need to dump salary either ... and basically didn't, they're still paying 3/4 of Kotsay's. But the other thing is that Kotsay pretty much sucks now, so whatever you can get is enough, and Crisp is still useful.

The Twins haven't taken it, for reasons known only to them.

Here are the likely reasons: the guys the Red Sox are offering aren't really worth all that much, the Twins have an outside shot at being in the race, they likely don't want to hand an AL competitor a guy as good as Santana without getting some real quality back, and they may know/believe that Santana will waive the NTC mid-season if it comes to that.

WRT Crisp's D, Bill James has popped off a lot about how good Crisp is out there and he shows up pretty well in the metrics. Even so, he is a useful piece but no more than that. As I said before, if Epstein won't put Ellsbury in the trade (and I would let the Red Sox keep Jon Lester since that seems to be a deal breaker) I don't blame Smith for not taking it.

Small side note: most of the examples of right handers that throw like finesse lefties (Radke, Tewksbury and Reed) pitched for the Twins. Is "Yield No Walks" an anagram for Tom Kelly?

billyshears, how is Gomez on defense?

Literally half of Ellsbury's value is from the expectation that he will play a GG centerfield. Comparing offensive stats is pretty pointless, since there are a ton of guys out there who could hit better than .350/.400 in the majors.

At the risk of topping myself for "tupidest sentence in the history of American sports journalism," I think Mike Silverman (who I'll email) misquoted me.

Yeah man, I totally took it over the top there. These things happen though. No disrespect intended.

No, Buchholz's change is the furthest thing from "fringy." Kennedy's isn't even close to that.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

I don't want to get into a prospect pissing match

Too late.

Seriously though, isn't it all in what you want? The packages are pretty comparable - the Red Sox has the most certainty (a minimum of three guys who could take on starting roles in the majors right now - the Mets offer no one who could likely be a quailty ML contributor immediately), the Mets offer has more upside (Martinez has a higher ceiling than any of the Red Sox hitters, Gomez has tools up the wazoo), and the Yankees can offer a nice mix of upside and major league readiness (assuming Hughes/Melky/Kennedy, that's the highest upside pitcher among the three teams, a ML caliber CF, albeit a relatively low upside one in Cabrera, and a ML average starter in Kennedy).

I like the Mets offer the least, but that's more a matter of my own proclivities (in general, I'd take the guys who are closest to major league ready, please - too much can happen on the way to the dance). If I'm a GM, and my scouts are sure that Gomez is going to be a .290/.350/.450 hitter in 2-3 years and not the new Endy Chavez, then maybe I would go for the Mets deal after all. There's no need for pissing - it's just going to come down to what the Twins like (or don't).

What is the common thread between Rick Reed, Brad Radke and Bob Tewksbury? They all played for the Twins. The Twins love this kind of pitcher, no wonder they want Kennedy.

is your ideal world named Oz, Sam? Or Wonderland?

Well, Oz of course. Friend of Dorothy, and all that.

billyshears, how is Gomez on defense?

Outstanding. It was by far the best thing he did when the Mets were forced by a slew of injuries to call him up prematurely last season. Great reads, used his speed very well (which he did not always do on the bases). His defense is way ahead of his bat.

Here are the likely reasons: the guys the Red Sox are offering aren't really worth all that much, the Twins have an outside shot at being in the race, they likely don't want to hand an AL competitor a guy as good as Santana without getting some real quality back, and they may know/believe that Santana will waive the NTC mid-season if it comes to that.

More likely still: they know the "best" offer -- whichever one they think it is -- will still be there closer to spring training, so why not see if they can do even better in the meantime? No need to rush into anything -- wait and see what, if anything, breaks. Including a pitcher on a contender's staff during spring training.

Literally half of Ellsbury's value is from the expectation that he will play a GG centerfield. Comparing offensive stats is pretty pointless, since there are a ton of guys out there who could hit better than .350/.400 in the majors.

Of course, that assumes that Ellsbury will max out at .350/.400, and a lot of people think his ceiling is a good bit higher than that, including me. The 2008 Bill James Handbook projects him at something like .370/.420 next year alone. I'm guessing the Red Sox are pretty high on his offensive future, which is why they are so reluctant to throw him in the offer.

I think the phrase "Experts agree Sox' talent better" is intentionally misleading and implies that there is some type of consensus among experts, which is incorrect.

What is the common thread between Rick Reed, Brad Radke and Bob Tewksbury? They all played for the Twins. The Twins love this kind of pitcher, no wonder they want Kennedy.

Carlos Silva and potentially Slowey as well.

This got me to thinking about possible major league comps for Kennedy. Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location?

Moyer, Glavine?

billyshears, how is Gomez on defense?

From what I saw of him in the majors last season and from various scouting reports that I have read, he is very good defensively. I couldn't compare Gomez to Ellsbury because I haven't seen enough of Ellsbury to make a judgment, but unless Ellsbury is Andruw Jones out there, I wouldn't think there is too much of a difference between the two defensively.

Some journalist recently wrote that both the Yankees and Red Sox are secretly hoping that they'll wake up one morning and find out Santana has been traded to the Mets. At the same time, both the Yankees and Red Sox know they can make a better offer for Santana than the Mets can.

I think both the Sox and Yankees feel they really don't need Santana, especially at the current cost (in talent and money) for him in a trade, given the Twins demands. But they also don't want Santana to end up with their division rival, which would make the rival an AL East favorite.

The Yankees and Red Sox thus have a fine balancing act here: a) supposedly have an offer on the table for Santana, and be flexible with it, to prevent the division rival from acquiring Santana for peanuts; and b) keep that offer low enough to either get Santana cheap or enable the Mets to match it (or better it) by completely going overboard with what they (the Mets) would offer.

I think that if the Mets offered both FMart and CGomez, plus 3 pitchers for Johan, neither the Yankees nor the Sox would jump up and down to beat that offer. Both teams will be happy to let the Mets overpay for Santana. But if the Yankees or Red Sox made a crazy move for Santana, the other team will have to match it... and that will leave the Mets in the dust.

Omar should just get this detente over with and overpay for Santana. Mets fans may cry wolf for months, but who cares about Mets fans anyhow. They are used to being screwed by the Mets GMs already. The Mets need Santana. Both the Sox and Yankees want the Mets to get Santana. Why Omar and Smith haven't hooked up yet in a Howard Johnson lobby is beyond me.

Adding to the Are there any examples of good-to-maybe-even-great pitchers who were able to succeed without "above-average stuff" (per scouts), but with amazing pinpoint location? parade:

Charlie Liebrandt. Mark Portugal. Paul Byrd. Danny Darwin.

[Crisp]'s reading the ball better and running better routes now.

If nothing else, we could use him in Minnesota to replace Troy Williamson.

Martinez has a higher upside than any other hitter being offered and Gomez probably has the second highest. And while I understand that we are supposed to worship all things Jacoby Ellsbury because he kicked ass in the majors at the end of last season, I can't help but completely discount the fact that, despite being two years younger, Carlos Gomez was better in AAA than Ellsbury in 2007 (caveat: major sample size issues) and very nearly as good in 2006 in AA as Ellsbury was in A+/AA. Now, I understand that Carlos Gomez is a Mets prospect,

I agree on Martinez, his possible upside as a hitter is higher than anyone else in any of the 3 systems - he's also pretty far away, and might never get close to that upside. I also have Martinez reserved as a farm pick in my NL only roto league so I'd prefer the Mets hold onto him.

I'm the rare Mets fan who is completely down on Gomez, I think it's more likely than not that he's never (except maybe for a year or two) going to be a league average hitter. He is very good defensively.

Gomez was younger in AA and AAA than Ellsbury, but Ellsbury was a better hitter, and specifically has better on base skills
In AAA Ellsbury hit .298/.354/.380 against a league average of .262/.328/.395
Gomez hit .286/.355/.414 against a league average of .279/.343/.437
Pawtucket is pretty neutral, New Orleans leans pitcher- but not enough to make Gomez better than Ellsbury relative to league + Ellsbury outhit Gomez by a huge margin in the MLB

Ellsbury hit .303/.382/.425 in 2006 and Gomez hit .281/.350/.423- again Gomez was younger but Ellsbury played in a less hitter friendly environment- I have Ellsbury's OPS+ (league and park adjusted) at 131 and Gomez' at 121.

I know there are others besides Met fans who love Gomez, but I'm with Callis on Gomez

On the other hand, if the goal is to use Gomez to get Santana what you or I think of Gomez doesn't matter, what the Twins do matters.

The Mets need Santana. Both the Sox and Yankees want the Mets to get Santana.

Yes, 10-11 months from now Omar needs to shovel bucketfuls of Wilpons' cash at Santana.

Omar should just get this detente over with and overpay for Santana.

You'll forgive me if I don't join you in wanting my GM to "overpay" for anyone, in any deal.

Maybe -- just maybe -- Omar recognizes many of the things you wrote, and realizes he doesn't have to go any further to be in this thing. Neither the Yankees nor the Sox are going to make an offer that Smith is willing to take, so he doesn't need to go any higher or further to get Santana. Santana will stay put in Minnesota until he hits free agency, or Smith will take a deal on terms the Twins don't like (because, unfortunately for the Twins, they aren't in a good position here; they are selling only one year of Santana, and there isn't that much of a market because there aren't that many teams that can afford him long-term). And the Mets can then get him for just $$$, without decimating the farm.

THAT'S why Omar and Bill haven't hooked up in the hotel lobby.

Yes, 10-11 months from now Omar needs to shovel bucketfuls of Wilpons' cash at Santana.

So if Santana stays with the Twins for 2008, and becomes a FA, given you'll have Red Sox/Yankees/Mets all bidding for him on the open market, what does he get? 6/180? 7/175? More? Less? It seems both Mets and Yankees fans here just assume that their team will sign him if he becomes a FA.

Think he would sign a 4 year deal?

If you were Johan, would you rather sign a 4/130 or a 6/180?

Think he would sign a 4 year deal?

Not unless everyone else was only offering three.

if Santana hits the open market, lot more teams than those 3 will be in on it. Angels, Braves, Dodgers, Cubs, Phillies et al.

JPWF13 - I really don't disagree with your analysis. Ellsbury has performed better than Gomez, though not by a great deal. Gomez is younger and has better tools. Which one any given team prefers depends entirely on how much they value the tools and age advantage. I just don't think it is a slam dunk case that Ellsbury is a better prospect.

In any case, IMO, so long as the Mets keep F-Mart out of the mix (which they should), the best prospect that anybody has offered is Phil Hughes.

If you were Johan, would you rather sign a 4/130 or a 6/180?

4/130 gives you a better chance to sign another mega-deal and makes you the game's highest paid player by alot, which has value to some people, don't know if Santana is one. 6/180 is 50 million dollars extra and you're making the same as A-rod. I'd probably take the 6/180 because I'm not very ambitious.

What if the spread wasn't that much. 4/140 vs. 6/170.

From a team perspective, is it worth vastly overpaying for a 4 year deal in order to get insurance on that deal

If you were Johan, would you rather sign a 4/130 or a 6/180?

I don't think he get get close to either of those.

I'm thinking $25M per on a 4 year deal, less the longer it goes.

I don't think he get get close to either of those.

I'm thinking $25M per on a 4 year deal, less the longer it goes.

If a 32 yo Torii Hunter can get 5/90...

If a 32 yo Torii Hunter can get 5/90...

And A-Rod got 10/275-300

I just don't see anyone paying more per year than A-Rod got.

I would think 21-22M per is the likely floor, 27M the ceiling.

If Santana wants a long deal, 6-7 years, I think he gets <25 per.

Pitchers are just so much riskier.

Santana will stay put in Minnesota until he hits free agency, or Smith will take a deal on terms the Twins don't like (because, unfortunately for the Twins, they aren't in a good position here

I think Billy-boy stands an excellent chance of losing his job if this plays out poorly for Minnesota. The expectation, which is most likely unfair, is that Santana should yield a talent windfall like those given out for Miguel Cabrera or at least Dan Haren, and that simply isn't going to materialize. If he settles for a package that underperforms, or if Santana isn't moved, the Twins fail to contend, and they are left holding mere draft picks, he might need a monster year from Delmon Young to keep his job.

I still can't believe the Mets spun off Lastings Milledge for next to nothing when he'd be an ideal component of a Santana trade replacing Martinez for the Mets. A Milledge/Gomez/Delmon Young outfield for the Twins would have been an enormous upgrade over what they've been trotting out for the last few years, and possibly the best young outfield in the game by 2010.

If the Twins can get the Mets to change the deal from Gomez, Guerra, Mulvey and Humber to Martinez, Guerra, Mulvey and Humber does that trump the Yankees and Red Sox deals or do they really need both Gomez and Martinez? I don't know enough about the prospects and I haven't seen someone comment on this.

I think the phrase "Experts agree Sox' talent better" is intentionally misleading and implies that there is some type of consensus among experts, which is incorrect.

Compared to the headlines the Herald usually prints, this one is a model of accuracy and restraint.

It sounds like everyone agrees, the Yankees and Red Sox will each trade a playter to the Mets so that the Mets can acquire Santana. Everyone wins!

The Twins haven't ever fired a General Manager. MacPhail left on his own and Howard Fox moved up to be an executive. I think Bill Smith is going to have a long grace period to say the least.

Omar should just get this detente over with and overpay for Santana.

Why not wait and see what happens with Bedard? If the Mariners deal falls through, Omar would be better off 'overpaying' to get Bedard. As an O's fan, I'd rather see Bedard traded to the Mariners or Reds, but I'd rather him go to the Mets (for those 5) than remain the ace of a 5th place team.

It seems both Mets and Yankees fans here just assume that their team will sign him if he becomes a FA.

I think both sets of fans are pretty confident that their respective franchises will make a very favorable offer. If Santana signs somewhere other than the Mets, he'll either be grossly overpaid (because the Mets will be willing to merely overpay a little for him), or he'll simply disfavor the Mets over another club. The former is something Met fans prefer their GM not do anyway (grossly overpaying is pretty much always a mistake), and the latter is something that the Mets have no control over (and lessens the chance that Santana would want to sign a long extension if traded) so it's not worth worrying about.

Yankee fans could make the same argument. Although I think the Mets will be more willing to overpay, and overpay more, for Santana because they need him more than the Yankees.

In a FA situation, I think the Mets have a very strong argument for the favorite team for a bunch of reasons:

1) They are desperate for a championship. There's been tons of disappointment. They "need" a player of Santana's star power more than any other team that will be competing for his services.
2) They want to open the new stadium with a bang.
3) They are probably the wealthiest non-Yankee/non-Red Sox team in baseball, considering the network and the new stadium coming in 2009.
4) The park, league, and the number of quality defensive players are attractive to a FA pitcher.
5) The Wilpons and Minaya are willing to set the market for superstars (Pedro, Beltran)

Santana is in the discussion of the best pitchers in baseball. Of course every team with money will be heavily involved in the bidding.

The Twins haven't ever fired a General Manager. MacPhail left on his own and Howard Fox moved up to be an executive. I think Bill Smith is going to have a long grace period to say the least.

To be fair, this is a pretty drastic situation to be dropped into for your first few months on the job. Isn't Terry Ryan still around as an exec? I have a hard time believing that Bill Smith is all alone trying to decide this without input from ownership and the executive level.

BPro gave Jacoby an "untranslated" 273 EQA in AAA this year, Gomez an "untranslated" 274 EQA also in AAA this year. Park adjusted, league adjusted, but not difficulty adjusted.

In any case, IMO, so long as the Mets keep F-Mart out of the mix (which they should), the best prospect that anybody has offered is Phil Hughes.

Yeah, but the Yankees are out of it! Hank said so!

"Isn't Terry Ryan still around as an exec?"

Yes. And Howard Fox. And Tom Kelly. Mike Radcliff and Rob Antony (and virtually everyone else) were also retained from Terry Ryan's front office. The Twins hire for life once you get above a certain threshold (and Ron Gardenhire is above that threshold).

BPro gave Jacoby an "untranslated" 273 EQA in AAA this year, Gomez an "untranslated" 274 EQA a

Ok let's use BPRo's translated #s

Gomez: .254 EQA in 157 PAs (AAA) + .182 EQA in 15 PAs (A+) + .227 EQA in 139 PAs (MLB)
Ellsbury: .251 EQA in 401 PAs (AAA) + .317 EQA in 83 PAs(AA) +.307 EQA in 127 PAs (MLB)

Survey says:
Gomez: 311 PAs, EQA: .238
Ellsbury: 611 PAs, EQA: .272

Ellsbury was very much better than Gomez as a whole in 2007

#93

Yeah Ellsbury was much better than Gomez at MLB. My point simply was that Gomez and Ellsbury's seasons in AAA were comparable offensively, after adjusting for league and park, despite the OPS+ edge that Ellsbury has.

Also, if you look at their "peak" translations, where they account for age, Gomez looks better.

Peak translations:
Gomez: 276 EQA(AAA), 229 EQA(A+), 277 EQA(MLB)

Ellsbury: 259 EQA (AAA), 336 EQA(AA), 375 EQA(MLB)

rfloh, acceptthe post before your shows that they weren't close... in AA or AAA either.

Also, if you look at their "peak" translations, where they account for age, Gomez looks better.

No, even there Ellsbury does better
Gomez "peak" translation for the WHOLE year (AAA + MLB + A+, weighted by PAs at each) is approx .274
Ellsbury's is .294

Even if you knock Ellsbury's MLB peak translation down from .375 (obviously too high)* to .307 (his actual 2007 MLB performance) his projected peak is .279- still higher than Gomez (with the added benefit that he's already there, whereas Gomez may never reach his)

Gomez did SLIGHTLY better in 157 AAA PAs than Ellsbury did in 401.
Ellsbury's other 210 PAs (MLB + AA) completely blew away (no exaggeration either) Gomez' other 154 PAs.

My point simply was that Gomez and Ellsbury's seasons in AAA were comparable offensively, after adjusting for league and park, despite the OPS+ edge that Ellsbury has.

My point was that Gomez and Ellsbury's 2007 seasons really were not comparable, picking the best part of Gomez season (his time at AAA) so you can compare it with the worst part of Ellsbury's (his time at AAA), and declaring them comparable is cherrypicking to "prove" a point at its worst.

*although I'm sure Kevin will say it's just about right

in other words, comparing ellsbury's and gomez' AAA stats compare ellsbury's least impressive set of numbers to gomez' most impressive.

What do scouts think about Gomez's power potential? To me, he looks like a guy that will hit for much more power than a guy that weighs 105 pounds.

True, it would not have the one guy who is both major-league ready and as sure-fire as Twins might ideally like (Ellsbury, Hughes)

Do people really think Hughes and Ellsbury are even remotely close as prospects?

Do people really think Hughes and Ellsbury are even remotely close as prospects?

Yes.

I think the most worthwhile conclusion from the article is the following:

It’s no mystery why the Minnesota Twins have yet to trade Johan Santana.

None of the offers fielded is compelling enough to make the Twins trade the two-time Cy Young Award-winning left-hander.

Otherwise it's a little loopy. After they concede that Hughes is "the single-best talent being discussed," how the heck is

Lester, Crisp, Lowrie, Masterson

clearly greater than

Hughes, Cabrera, Kennedy/Marquez?

Hughes has to be considered better than Lester. All things considered, Crisp and Cabrera are probably even, and while one may believe Lowrie and Masterson may be better than the Yankee throw-ins, they are still essentially throw-ins themselves, therefore hardly contributing significant value to the package. Even with a strict "quantity over quality" approach, I doubt the addition of a guy like Lowrie on the back end of the deal can really compensate for sacrificing "the single-best talent" at the front.

Do people really think Hughes and Ellsbury are even remotely close as prospects?

Ellsbury is virtually certain to have a solid major-league career, and he fits the Twins' needs very well. They need a CF, they need CF d, they need OBP in front of Mauer/Morneau/Young. So, even if Ellsbury is on the low side of his reasonable projection range, he will help the Twins, cost-effectively, for the next few years.

Hughes, of course, could be a Cy Young-type pitcher, (and in spite of my respect for kevin's judgment about many issues, I do not think Ellsbury has a near-MVP-level-Sizemorish career ahead of him) but Hughes could also wind up winning 25 major league games and getting hurt. Look at Mark Prior. In addition, Hughes might very well just be "pretty good" instead of "awesome" as so many seem to anticipate.

So, it all depends on how you look at it if you are the Twins.

The two do not believe that Kennedy’s inclusion in a Yankees deal should be a difference-maker for the Twins.

Or for the Yankees. If they are willing to give up Hughes, IMO they should be willing to add Kennedy to get Santana.

Do people really think Hughes and Ellsbury are even remotely close as prospects?

Remotely close? Yes. Is Hughes still better? Yes.

More piss in kevin's lemonade:

Crasnick: Joba is better than Buchholz

Ellsbury is virtually certain to have a solid major-league career,

I'll take the under. He may more likely that not, but no one with less than 200 ML ABs can be called virtually certain to have a solid major league career.

Ellsbury is virtually certain to have a solid major-league career,

I'll take the under. He may more likely that not, but no one with less than 200 ML ABs can be called virtually certain to have a solid major league career.

I'd put it this way: Hughes has a better chance than Ellsbury of being a Hall of famer, and Ellsbury has a better shot than Hughes of having a solid major league career.

Or for the Yankees. If they are willing to give up Hughes, IMO they should be willing to add Kennedy to get Santana.

The problem is the Yankees need Kennedy, now. If you take Hughes and Kennedy off the team, the backend of the rotation could well be awful.

He may more likely that not, but no one with less than 200 ML ABs can be called virtually certain to have a solid major league career.

I disagree with this, in this case and in many. The guy has always been a polished, but somewhat low-ceiling, prospect. He is a college guy, a first round pick of a strong organization, and his speed and defense markers separate him from guys like Jody Gerut. All indicators are he will not have the OBP issues of Corey Patterson or Juan Pierre. There is really nothing to indicate Ellsbury will not be at least a league-average CF and if he continues to show/shows/develops some XBH power he could be an All-Star type player.

I believe the scale is 20-80, kevin.