Damn slow posting. Darren, as risky as deals are for top pitchers, it seems like if you gave a big deal to the top pitchers in the league, let's say, pitchers who had won a Cy Young by 28, for 6 years at the top of the market price, you'd usually walk away a very happy person right?

Btw, what are the chances that Johan Santana makes it to free agency?

Just like to hear the odds on that.

I don't like the Cy Young as a qualifier. Look at Pecota, it's basically doing what you're trying to do. It finds other guys like Johan and sees how they do going forward. Generally, they have a large attrition rate, according to what others here have said. Looking at his (meaningless BBRef) comps, I see a couple guys who look like similar pitchers to Johan. Tim Hudson, Kevin Appier, and Mike Mussina had ERA+s between 129 and 136. They were all durable for several years into their age 28 season. Mussina remained really good and durable for the next 6, but Hudson and Appier dropped off.

Timmy Hudson is back. He had a very good 2007

Wow, I forgot how good Kevin Appier was in the early 90s. He should not have lost the 93 Cy Young to Jack McDowell (or Randy Johnson, for that matter, who was better than Jack McDowell that year). Also, RJ and McDowell (sounds like an 80s buddy PI show) pitched 255 and 257 innings that year! Appier threw 239, and was considerably better.

You're only looking at 1 year though. Santana's ERA+ for 2005-2007: 155, 161, 130. His top 3 comparables on PECOTA coming into last year: Koufax, Seaver, Carlton.

I'd like to see a Dan Z. 5-years ZiPS for Santana.

I ran a report that shows the top pitchers for ERA+ from ages 25-28 with 700+ IP in years 1950-2007. You can decide for yourself if you would want to have paid them 150m for ages 29-34.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/shareit/Eatx

That Pedro Martinez line is just otherworldly. Unreal.

That works too, thanks Sean.

For my argument, I guess that list gives some real support for it, but does make me worry about the length more than I had. On the one hand, Johan has been amazingly good over the past 4 years. Not just top in his league for the last 4 years, but tops all time good. On the other hand, a lot of those names really did flame out.

Papelbon weighs in: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=688

"I think that a lot of fans are making it more complicated than it really is. It's a matter of us having to give up prospects to win now, or saving prospects to win later. So what do you do? I think we can (win now), but that's not my decision. Really, I think it's the whole, 'New York wants him, so we better go get him -- blah, blah, blah; whatever.' But I think a big key in this situation is that you know what you're going to get out of Santana. He's a proven winner and a Cy Young Award winner. Sometimes you think a minor league prospect has a ton of potential, but you don't know what his potential really is until he gets there. That's the biggest thing -- you know exactly what you're going to get out of Santana."

The Yankees are now apparently going to include Hughes. Smart by them, I think.

As for my little comp list, it was stupid and incomplete so not worth discussing I guess. Just want to note that it wasn't based on 1 year, but his comps through age 28.

Sean's list leaves me as confused as ever over this. Some of those guys were great for 6 years, some saw a big dropoff, some burned out entirely. I think it underscores the high risk/high reward nature of great pitchers.

(Sidenote: The more I hear out of Pap the more I think Rickey Bobby was based on him.)

They have been quite clear on Ellsbury, Lester, and Lowrie that those upper-limit tools are lacking. These are guys who will not peak as high as Santana already is.

And I've seen the same thing said about many a prospect whom the scouts insisted would just be "ordinary", but who turned out to be more than that. Maybe Jed won't even be Hall of the Merely Good, but he doesn't need to be to have significant value (tho the name "Trammell" keeps popping into my head whenever I think of Jed, for some reason).

My main point is pretty simple: I'm just skeptical that Santana is worth 4 of our top prospects (even if Jake and Clay aren't part of it), because they each have a pretty good chance of being solid above-average ML regulars for a number of years, and a somewhat small but significant chance of being

really

good. I will say that since Jed & Jake are going into their age 24 seasons that the amount of future growth they have is less than for say Melky (even if they are better, now, than he is).

Darren, Sean's list really did exactly the same for me. My eyes sort of lit up when I saw the other names on it, land then my stomach sank when I thought of him being done in 3 years.

On your sidenote, basically, yeah. The thing is, he's insane, and ridiculous, but basically likeable. Stupid and obnoxious sure, but seems genuine enough that I can forgive it. Also seems like that friend we all have that's nice, relaxed, relatively loud but not crazy, then you get him drunk or amped up in anyway, and you just want to stay out of his way.

Oh I still like him Joel. He just seems pretty hilariously goofy.

Here's what our pal SG has projected for Johan. Not very pretty beyond year 2. And I think he's got it right that Johan's new deal will be a 6-year extension on his one year deal, meaning that we're talking about a 7-year, $163 mil. commitment.

Basically, I think you're giving up prospects for the right overpay Santana and go over the luxury tax limit. That may or may not be acceptable

If we're talking about Ellsbury being in the deal, I think his defense has to be part of the equation. Is he a top defender like his minor league numbers and scouting reports say? Or is he merely good? Same questions apply to his baserunning. Those could really tip the scales toward him being very good or very average.

That's certainly true Darren.

Looking at SGs projections, it seems like his component stats stay quite good throughout the deal, the real question is how durable he'd be. I think I'm becoming more content with the idea that if the Yankees throw Hughes, Melky, and X to the Twins, well, that's OK. Still, in the short term (next two years) it'll be pretty awful facing the Yankees. Though seeing Damon unable to chase down a number of balls in center would make up for their pitching gain a bit...

Spot-checking a few of the names on Sean's list, I get the sense that Santana is likely to remain a very good pitcher -- whenever he is healthy enough to take the mound. He might be expected to miss 30% to 50% of his starts over the next seven years (wish I could be more precise). Worth it? Pedro's doing roughly that with the Mets, and they seem to think he was a good signing. (As a Red Sox fan I'm happy with Buchholz, so maybe both clubs "won" this move.)

Latest rumor has the Yankees offering Hughes, Cabrera, *and* Kennedy. That's a pretty solid package and not one I'd really want the Red Sox to try to top.

Looking at SGs projections, it seems like his component stats stay quite good throughout the deal, the real question is how durable he'd be.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. It's not that Santana will not continue to be effective, it's that pitchers entering their 30s tend to pitch fewer innings. So even if the quality remains pretty constant, you're looking at a high attrition rate.

That's not to say that is what will happen with Santana, but it's what I'd forecast right now. Of course forecasting pitchers sucks, so who the hell really knows...

A very critical component of this decision is knowing/predicting what free agent pitchers will be avialable next year. If there's a very good, but not Santana guy out there you can, just for example, overpay him by giving him what Santana will get (150/5), to ensure you get him. Now, you've spent the same, and you have your prospects, and you have "really good mystery pitcher". So the real question is, is the difference between Santana, and the next best available pitcher you can get with those funds, worth giving up the prospects. This is obviously unclear, because you can't be sure you can sign the guy, but not paying Santana puts the Red Sox in position to land whoever they want given their finances. So, let's start hearing about who will be available next off season and the difference in value between Johan and those players.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/neal/?p=279

The Red Sox want to offer Coco Crisp as part of a multi-player package, but the Twins aren’t interested. The Twins are at the point now where they won’t accept anything less than their demands and are prepared to go elsewhere if they don’t get what they want.

Wasn't somebody saying they expected Sabathia to test the market? He may not be Santana, but he's not that far off.

Latest rumor has the Yankees offering Hughes, Cabrera, *and* Kennedy. That's a pretty solid package and not one I'd really want the Red Sox to try to top.

No it's not. The latest rumor is the Twins *want* Kennedy included with Hughes and the Yankees have said it's not happening.

I'm not as high on Kennedy as most of the media and Yankees fans are, but I don't know if they can afford to trade him and Hughes, especially since it looks like Pettitte is going to retire. And since the Red Sox don't appear to really want Santana, I don't think there's any reason to cave to the demands.

Hughes, Melky, and another prospect is a hell of a lot better than two draft picks, and Santana's value goes down if you try to trade him midseason.

Wasn't somebody saying they expected Sabathia to test the market? He may not be Santana, but he's not that far off.

Someone in one of the Santana threads said he's talking extension with the Indians but they're really far apart.

I was surprised at the ERA's in SG's projection, so I looked up Santana's FIP...2004-2007 xFIP look very similar to SG's projections but Santana's ERA's were lower all 4 years, from .2 to .6 r/g.

The durability/7 yr deal question remains, but does this discrepancy say anything interesting about Santana'a abilities? If xFIP has higher ERA's, does this mean Santana has a much lower HR rate/flyball than would be expected?

I guess this could hurt in Fenway vs. righties.

I'm pretty sure Fenway depresses HR/FB for righties...yep http://firstinning.com/pf/?type=rhh&lg=AL&season=2007

Depresses them for lefties too. I think mostly it's just not a good HR park, but an amazing doubles park.

Rosenthal's latest http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7512024

The Twins are expected to speak again with the Red Sox today about trading ace lefthander Johan Santana, according to sources, but the Red Sox have been unwilling to include center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury in the same package as lefthander Jon Lester, and their position is not likely to change.

If the Red Sox are unable to satisfy Minnesota's trade demands, the Yankees are poised to pounce. They decided Friday night to include pitcher Phil Hughes in a possible package with center fielder Melky Cabrera in an effort to land Santana, according to multiple reports.

The sticking point now is the third player in the deal, according to sources. The Yankees are adamant that they do not want to include another top prospect, but the Twins are asking for players such as Class AAA shortstop Alberto Gonzalez and Class AA right-hander Alan Horne.

The Twins reportedly informed the Yankees they were prepared to deal Santana to the Red Sox unless the 21-year-old Hughes was part of the deal. Fearing Santana would join Josh Beckett to give their rivals two aces, the Yankees decided to put Hughes on the table.

After hearing from the Yankees, the Twins asked the Red Sox for pitching prospect Clay Buchholz, but the Red Sox refused to part with Buchholz, according to the New York Post.

Alberto Gonzalez is a sticking point?

Btw, I wonder what Sam has to say about the fact the Twins are going to accept Melky for Santana.

Alberto Gonzalez is a sticking point?

I am certain that's not true. I don't know even one Yankees fan that thinks Gonzalez is a good prospect.

Alberto Gonzalez is a sticking point?

I don't recall

how far apart are Phil Hughes and Jon Lester.

Why do you think he's miles behind? Age? Stuff?


CHONES 08 projections - Hughes 4.24, Lester 5.05.

In addition a cursory analysis of how they've pitched so far gives a very healthy edge to Hughes.

Hughes is two years younger and probably healthier.

Until some better information comes along, I'll use this as a guide.

Phil Hughes has better stats, stuff, and control than Lester. He throws with an inferior arm, but other than that, he's got Lester beat.

I'm not sure Hughes is any healthier than Lester. Lester through 150 total innings last year, and his innings were very pitch filled. Lester has obviously had health problems, but they're clearly not pitching related. Hughes however had injury to his hamstring. While hamstring injuries aren't as bad as arm injuries, they can persist.

On the other hand, as far as Red Sox fan boys go, I've always found myself rather down on Lester. Frankly, he's always walked way too many hitters. His best year was in Portland in 2005, and even then he was walking 3.5/9IP. He's always had good stuff, and he was very good at keeping the ball in the park in the minor leagues (though this year in the majors he was much more homer prone).

So with Lester I think you're getting, right now a league average guy with good stuff, who has control problems but keeps the ball in the park, and who we may not have seen the best of because we don't know how much strength he's lost.

AJ Burnett seems like a good buy-low guy. For some reason the team hates him

I can guarantee you, that this is not true. JP is in love with him, as is Arnsberg the pitching coach.

And what makes you think he is a buy-low guy? He's not even on the market, but may be on the free-agent market after the 08 season.

If we're talking about Ellsbury being in the deal, I think his defense has to be part of the equation. Is he a top defender like his minor league numbers and scouting reports say? Or is he merely good? Same questions apply to his baserunning. Those could really tip the scales toward him being very good or very average.

IIRC the minor league defensive numbers that were released (around mid-season?) had Jacoby as being otherworldly good in the OF. He didn't quite pull off that trick in the majors, but mostly because he seemed to have problems with the Walls in Fenway. Of course the ML defensive numbers are SSS. Bill James had him as a +13 baserunner this season, in 54 times on base. To compare, Jose Reyes, who was the best baserunner, in MLB (according to BJ) was +70 in 285 times on base. I don't know if it's necessarily appropriate to divide the score by times on base to make that a rate stat, but Jacoby winds up in the same neighborhood as Reyes.

FWIW the Sox did name him both their minor league baserunner and defensive player of the year.

Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie and Lars Anderson..Anderson's name hasnt been tossed out there and I don't know much about him but the Twins do need position player prospects with some power.

Olney has an update that is more mysterious than illuminating:

Sources: Boston brings new mix to table in Santana talks

<i>"With the Yankees' offer now upgraded to include top young pitcher Phil Hughes, the Twins spoke again with the Red Sox late Saturday afternoon, sources say, and Boston generated a few new ideas for its proposed offer.

The Red Sox had been reluctant to include either outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury or pitcher Clay Buchholz in the deal....

Boston's offer on the table before Saturday's talks included pitcher Jon Lester, center fielder Coco Crisp and minor league infielder Jed Lowrie. A fourth player -- a minor league pitcher -- is to be determined. The Twins have wanted the Red Sox to add either Ellsbury or Buchholz to the deal, and there are indications that if the Red Sox add Buchholz or Ellsbury, theirs is the offer that Minnesota would prefer."

Olney doesn't state what the changes in the Red Sox offer are.

I don't understand the Red Sox reluctance to include Ellsbury in place of Crisp. The difference does not seem that great to be the difference between getting Santana or not. Refusing to include Buchholz instead of Lester, I would agree with.

And what makes you think he is a buy-low guy? He's not even on the market,

Wasn't AJ Burnett being openly trashed by management just earlier?

Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie and Lars Anderson..Anderson's name hasnt been tossed out there and I don't know much about him but the Twins do need position player prospects with some power.

Well so do the Sox; Boston has plenty of extra starting pitcher prospects, but few guys like Lars, so I don't think he's going anywhere.

If Ellsbury is the difference between getting Santana and having the Yankees get him, well, that's not acceptable. It's downright ridiculous, in fact.

I don't understand the Red Sox reluctance to include Ellsbury in place of Crisp. The difference does not seem that great to be the difference between getting Santana or not. Refusing to include Buchholz instead of Lester, I would agree with.

This is why I don't think the Sox are that interested in getting Santana.

I still don't understand the love affair with Ellsbury from the Twins' POV. He's a good prospect, but I wouldn't put him in the Buccholz, Joba, Hughes, Cano class like the Twins apparently are.

The Twins need a CF bad and a leadoff hitter. Ellsbury looks more valuable to them for those reasons in my opinion. He isn't in the class of those guys but I'd rather have Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie, Bowden than Hughers, Melky, 3rd prospect. I just don't see Melky ever being anything more than an average centerfielder and if he puts on some weight a below average corner outfielder. Hughes would have the highest upside of any player offered (assuming no Bucholz or Joba) but the rest of the yankee package is subpar in my opinion.

Heyman also says that the Red Sox may consider including Jacoby Ellsbury in a deal with the Twins if Minnesota was willing to include another player or two. He goes on to write, "Boston and Minnesota have remained in contact, but it's believed the

Who else would the Red Sox want that the Twins would actually part with? Punto?

On the other hand, as far as Red Sox fan boys go, I've always found myself rather down on Lester. Frankly, he's always walked way too many hitters. His best year was in Portland in 2005, and even then he was walking 3.5/9IP. He's always had good stuff, and he was very good at keeping the ball in the park in the minor leagues (though this year in the majors he was much more homer prone).

A young lefty with good stuff but questionable command. Sounds like a comparable to RJ to me. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying that Lester is going to be anywhere near as good as Johnson. Just pointing out that he's a young kid with tons of upside and it's not out of the question for him to figure it out in few years time.

Btw... kind of OT, but the bullpen is pretty much set for next season:

Papelbon/Okajima/Delcarmen/Timlin/Donnelly/Tavarez

It could only get worse, because Eric Gagne might accept arbitration.

I don't understand the Red Sox reluctance to include Ellsbury in place of Crisp. The difference does not seem that great to be the difference between getting Santana or not.

Yeah, this doesn't make sense at all to me. I think Ellsbury is going to be a very good player. Johan Santana is THE BEST PITCHER IN BASEBALL. You're really going to refuse to include Ellsbury to get him? Really?

How much service time does Lester have? He's made 27 MLB appearances (26 starts) and I don't remember him spending any time on the roster when he wasn't pitching, so it seems like he should be just under one year. Cot's lists him as having 0.114 years going into 2007 which doesn't really make any sense, seeing as he made 15 starts last year. If he's got less than one, the Sox (or the Twins, or whomever) would control him for 2008 thru 2013, if I understand the rules correctly. He'll certainly be eligible for arbitration after 2009, whether as a super two or a third year guy, but it's at least somewhat important to know if you're getting him for five years or six.

Who else would the Red Sox want that the Twins would actually part with?

Neshek. Oh, that the Twins would actually give up? They might have a high-A pitcher the Sox like. I think the whole "if we include Ellsbury, we'll need a piece coming back" thing is a way to to hedge their bets a little and still keep the Twins talking.

I wonder if the Sox aren't going to try to make this a bit too complicated. Maybe some sort of offer contingent on how much they have to pay Santana (if we can sign him for below $x you get package A, if not you get package B).

Btw... kind of OT, but the bullpen is pretty much set for next season:

Papelbon/Okajima/Delcarmen/Timlin/Donnelly/Tavarez

Donnelly is probably going to be non-tendered shortly. Also with the pitching market set the way it is, they can probably trade Tavarez without too much fuss.

I don't understand the Red Sox reluctance to include Ellsbury in place of Crisp. The difference does not seem that great to be the difference between getting Santana or not.

Between having to reset the market to sign Santana and all the Ellsbury = Grady Sizemore talk from earlier in this thread, the reluctance of the FO to include Ellsbury has me very confused. I think I'm starting to buy into the hype. I think I see unnatural stress being placed on Santana's elbow in the internet video's of him pitching. I think I may need an intervention.

Donnelly is probably going to be non-tendered shortly.

He can be very useful as a short guy. He's surpringly old, yet he has still has one year of control. I'd like to give him a shot as the #5 guy in the pen, should Timlin falter.

Also with the pitching market set the way it is, they can probably trade Tavarez without too much fuss.

We picked up his option at 3.85 million right? I wonder how much we'll have to eat to get anything usefulb ack.

Ellsbury = Grady Sizemore

Except without the power or the plate discipline, end of last season notwithstanding.

I think I may need an intervention.

Top Ellsbury Pecota comparables: Chris Duffy, Josh Andersen

That's unfair, of course; I think Ellsbury is closer to, but possibly even better than No. 6 comparable Willy Taveras, and Pecota does give him a fair chance of developing into a star. But I'd still take my chances with Johan, because barring injury the payoff is incomparably greater.

He can be very useful as a short guy. He's surpringly old, yet he has still has one year of control. I'd like to give him a shot as the #5 guy in the pen, should Timlin falter.

Donnelly is out for most of next year following TJ surgery.

Donnelly is out for most of next year following TJ surgery.

I thought he was coming back for ST next year. Ah screw it then.

Except without the power or the plate discipline, end of last season notwithstanding.

Both have significant room for improvement.

Ellsbury for Santana? Is that all they want? Sure, do it!

Oh, wait. You mean they want Lester, Lowrie, Masterson, **and** Ellsbury? You gotta be joking.

Ellsbury is a +5 WARP player working for the major league minimum over the next three years. That's $10-$15M of savings in each of the next three years with additional savings in years four through six. Similar value for Lester. Lowrie and Masterson are a step below that, but hardly without value. All of this for the privilege of paying Santana $150M/6yrs? This is a "posting fee" that would rival that of Matsuzaka, and without the associated cost savings on the contract. Again, you gotta be joking.

Besides, take a quick look at the Red Sox contracts/prospects for 2010. What is their greatest need? Something so pressing that they should spend a sixth of their budget to address this need preemptively? Did you say "starting pitching"? One more time, all together now... "YOU GOTTA BE JOKING!!!"

I think the chances of Tacoby turning into a Grady are significantly lower than those of Santana getting hurt. Not that I'd want to stake my life on that.

That's $10-$15M of savings in each of the next three years with additional savings in years four through six.

Except that the Sox can have Crisp for $11M, total, over the next two years. And if you tell me that maybe they could turn him into value at another position, I'll respectfully disagree with your estimate of Ellsbury's production value. I would also point out that if you seek out value at too many positions you end up fielding a mediocre roster, frequently, just given the normal variability of performance with non-elite guys. Other than Buchholz, Santana is the only pitcher in this discussion with extraordinary skill worth acquiring at almost any price that can be afforded, if winning is the goal. But if the point is to win with intellectually satisfying thrift, then by all means you keep Ellsbury, Lester and Lowrie (which is what it would take) and hope for the best.

If we can trade Coco Crisp+eat his salary + another prospect for good value somewhere, I say we just forget the Johan Santana deal.

I like Joe Nathan...

Lester is, objectively, a very solid pitcher right now.

Objectively speaking, no he's not. He's still very much a developing pitcher and he's yet to have any long period of major league consistency to be considered a solid pitcher, right now.

As for Buchholz or any other top pitching prospect getting shot down as unlikely to ever approach Santana's level, I don't buy this. Of course the chances aren't great and one doesn't want to ignore history and lose one's head guaranteeing greatness for a young pitcher, but Johan has not pitched at a level that is impossible to reach. To say a young pitcher will approach the level of 1999/2000 Pedro or nineties-era Maddux, or Clemens or Randy Johnson, pitchers who are in the top 10 of all-time, now that is a bit much, but Johan's level--ERA+ in the 150-160 range, 200 plus innings--is reachable, if only for one year at least. It wouldn't surprise me if over the next several years, Cole Hamels, Felix Hernandez, Scott Kazmir, Jake Peavy and a few others duplicate or exceed what Santana's done. Which is to say, Santana is not an impossible standard. It's a very high level but given a choice between Santana at 150 million plus from ages 30-36 and an elite prospect like Buchholz, I'd gamble on the latter.

Santana is the only pitcher in this discussion with extraordinary skill worth acquiring at almost any price that can be afforded

Why are you restricting this to pitchers? Project forward a few years and we might be looking at:

SP: Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Lester, Masterson, Bowden, Bard
RP: Papelbon, Okajima, Delcarmen
OF: ???, Ellsbury, ???
IF: ???, ???, Pedroia, ???
DH: ???
C: ???

Unlikely that all of our pitching prospects will pan out (or that all of our current pitchers will stay healthy), but it seems likely that we will be able to put together a solid four or five starters. Likely the bullpen will be bolstered by some of the guys who don't make it in the rotation. Do you see this as a long term weakness? Offensively, how many players do you expect to be above-average performers in 2010-2011? Ellsbury, Pedroia, maybe Lowrie (if he can stick at shortstop), and who else? David Ortiz, if we are lucky? Anybody else is a long shot.

I've got the perfect solution! Let's strip our system of all advanced position prospects so we can sink all of our resources into another starting pitcher. We can rename the team the "Boston Athletics" and fight our way to a mediocre finish year after year after year! Or we can rename them the "Boston Yankees" and spend $250M annually to buy free agent players to fill every position in the lineup.

But if the point is to win with intellectually satisfying thrift

One of us is being intellectually dishonest, but it ain't me! I just don't see a way to stretch a $150M budget to fill the entire lineup with above-average free agents. Can you please explain how that is possible in an environment where even average players get $50M/5yr contracts? Either you are shooting for a $250M budget like the Yankees or you are arguing that offense is irrelevant or you don't really care about winning. Care to elaborate?

All I'm saying is that a couple cost-controlled players can go a long way. Ellsbury and Lowrie aren't going to lead the team in offense, but if they can provide average production for a few years then we can concentrate the budget at other positions. And that budget will have much more room if we aren't blowing $25M/year on Santana.

I still don't understand the love affair with Ellsbury from the Twins' POV. He's a good prospect, but I wouldn't put him in the Buccholz, Joba, Hughes, Cano class like the Twins apparently are.

TINSTAAPP? Maybe the Twins give pitchers an automatic deduction just for being, you know, pitchers.

Maybe they're giving Hughes et al. an automatic deduction for being Yankee prospects and hence presumptively overhyped.

Maybe the Twins feel they have adequate pitching depth, and hence undervalue additional pitching depths.

Or maybe the Twins over-value postseason performance.

I'm not saying any of these possibilities are necessarily a good attitude to have, but it's not inexplicable to me that the Twins might move Jacoby "World Series Star" Ellsbury up a notch vis-a-vis Phil "Hamstring" Hughes and Joba "Bug Game" Chamberlain.

Phil "Hamstring" Hughes and Joba "Bug Game" Chamberlain.


Those are some of the worst derisive nicknames I've ever heard. At least call him Joba "His Dad is a Polio Cripple" Chamberlain.

Those are some of the worst derisive nicknames I've ever heard.

That's probably because they aren't meant to be derisive nicknames.

One of us is being intellectually dishonest, but it ain't me! I just don't see a way to stretch a $150M budget to fill the entire lineup with above-average free agents. Can you please explain how that is possible in an environment where even average players get $50M/5yr contracts? Either you are shooting for a $250M budget like the Yankees or you are arguing that offense is irrelevant or you don't really care about winning. Care to elaborate?

Sure -- there's nothing wrong with the Red Sox spending $200 MM a year -- they can break even on that even before considering that they're not on a fixed budget at all, or what winning does for franchise values. The notion that you can always redeploy savings from cheap regulars elsewhere whenever is foolhardy -- when guys like Santana become available you grab them first and rework your roster around them later; in many years there's no such guy available at SP or any other position, so that all your savings are for naught, or spent on mediocrity du jour. I don't really have any interest in saving Henry's money or helping to level the playing field for Ricciardi, et al. What I know is that Santana significantly improves Sox' chances of winning for the next several years, that they can afford him and that the farm system's losses can be replenished with a few judicious above-slot picks. That's the new Red Sox/Yankees way. Get used to it.

the farm system's losses can be replenished with a few judicious above-slot picks.

And when they're not judicious you end up with Jason Place and Daniel Bard.

And when they're not judicious you end up with Jason Place and Daniel Bard.

So what? That's just the nature of the business, not an argument against arbitraging the relatively low cost of amateur drafts. You also end up with Lars Anderson, Ryan Kalish, Tejeda and Reddick, not to mention Buchholz, Lester, Lowrie and Masterson. And I wouldn't throw Place or Bard overboard just yet. They were both always going to take awhile to develop.

Maybe they're giving Hughes et al. an automatic deduction for being Yankee prospects and hence presumptively overhyped.

And Boston's prospects are just as (over)hyped.

Of course lately both team's prospects have turned out pretty damn good, with hype and without.

I'm a fan of "Joba the Hutt" myself.

Valentine, consider:

SP: Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Lester, Masterson, Bowden, Hagadone
RP: Papelbon, Okajima, Delcarmen, Johnson, Bard, with maybe Cox or Hansen able to pull their heads out of their asses.
OF: Moss/Mailman, Kalish/Che-Hsuan Lin , Place
IF: Middlebrooks, Oscar Tejeda, Pedroia/Ryan Dent, Lars Andersen.
DH: Actually not so hard to find (in the Frank Thomas mold) or put one of the lesser defenders here.
C: Kottars/Egan/ Weeden.

Now, I'll readily admit that a lot of the names you don't recognize are going to flame out, but as you say looking forward so far to 2010-11 is going to make it look grim for any team. If you do this exercise with most teams it looks good for maybe 5-8 of them? Look at what positions the Sox have locked up for the near future (barring injury):

SP: #1-4 (regardless of trading for Johan or not)
RP: top 3
OF: RF, CF (regardless of trading for Johan or not), LF on option
IF: all
C: the biggest question mark.

Worrying about how many players they'll be able to bring up out of the farm is kind of a chicken little approach. Perhaps including Ellsbury allows them to take Lowrie out of the deal and trade for Santana with JE, Lester, Masterson/Bowden, and a minor prospect. The real issue is Santana's health and contract demands IMO...

Edit: If you want to talk about over-hyped prospects the discussion starts with the Halos.

Sure -- there's nothing wrong with the Red Sox spending $200 MM a year

I've got nothing against that myself. If you truly think the Red Sox are willing to stay this route, then I agree that it makes sense to sign Santana. He is definitely an upgrade as long as you are willing to spend to replace the prospects given up. The Red Sox could probably get Rowand for $50M-$60M/5yrs, for example, and not miss Ellsbury. So if money is no option then this is the route to take.

I'll readily admit that a lot of the names you don't recognize are going to flame out

All two of them? I'd be surprised if all of the names I *do* recognize actually make the majors, especially since most of them have spent little/no time above A-ball. Projecting Jason Place right now sounds like wishcasting to me. Still, you've got a point. We have most of our needs covered for 2008-2009 and that 2010-2011 time frame is still off in the distance. If our rotation is well established we may be able to break in a half-dozen rookies all at once without feeling the pain.

I'm still more worried about the lineup long-term than about the rotation. Would prefer to trade that package of prospects for a stud position player instead of another stud pitcher.

Sorry, V, I assumed you were a "no prospect" guy, and that if you knew about someone they would've made your list. I didn't mean to be insulting. (Just out of curiosity, who didn't you recognize?)

I'm still more worried about the lineup long-term than about the rotation. Would prefer to trade that package of prospects for a stud position player instead of another stud pitcher.

The issue with this for me is that the one area of need, Catcher, has one player that really seems to be worth the major talent investment (Salty), and he's not available. I could see going after Miguel Cabrera, but locking up Lowell seems to put that idea paid. The upgrade within the AL East race between the Sox/Yanks that Santana represents is significant enough to engage the rescources, IMO.

Didn't recognize Weeden and Mailman. Will watch for their names in the future. Thanks for the heads up!

I tried to stick to guys who are "projectable" to major league starting roles -- guys who have demonstrated success in the high minors or outstanding promise in upper levels of A-ball. Probably shouldn't have included Bard on the list, maybe should have included Lars Anderson. :-) I tried to avoid guys like Moss who currently project as bench players, but there is plenty of room for disagreement on the specific names. If you ask me when I'm in an optimistic mood, I'll be willing to write Tejeda, Kalish, and Anderson into the 2010 lineup. That requires a hefty dose of Kool-Aid first...

If the Red Sox get Santana, do you pursue Andruw Jones or Aaron Rowand? Or settle for a few more years of Crisp?

Agreed that Salty is likely not available, but I'd be happy with Teagarden if we could pry him loose. Last I heard his arm was doing okay...

And Boston's prospects are just as (over)hyped.

I think New York prospects are somewhat more overhyped, though I do think Boston prospects get more hype than they warrant.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? And you would say that, wouldn't you? So all I can really point out is that it's possible that the Twins agree with me, and that's why they rate Ellsbury higher. If you think that explanation makes the Twins stupid, I don't know that I disagree with you.

Angels prospects have the worst hype to performance ratio of anyone.

V: Using your criteria I wouldn't get too excited about either Weeden or Mailman. Of your list the only one I thought you left out who was glaring was Hagadone. My counter list to you wasn't necessarily guys who could be starting in 2010, but guys who could be getting close to the majors then. Many will flame out and a few will pop up as if out of nowhere, but even if they do trade for Johan they will have a pretty deep farm system in the mean time.

I also remain pretty high on Place. I like his tools and he was expected to be a project, so I'm willing to give him a lot of time. Even if he doesn't make it, both Lin and Kalish could also play RF if necessary.

Yes, neglected Hagadone. Glad you still have faith in Place. Sometimes you have to trust the scouts for a few years before the numbers show up. :-) Still, I'll be happy if Place/Lin/Kalish/Reddick produce even one above-average ML starter. Am I being too pessimistic?

The latest deal includes Ellsbury but not Lester, and would leave the Red Sox with a clear excess of SP. (I know, you can never have too much pitching.) Could this be followed by Lester <-> Salty? Or is that my inner fanboy talking?

I suspect at the end of all this we'll have Haren for a package similar to the original one to the Twins (Lester, Crisp, Masterson + someone else) and have driven up the price enough for the Yankees to give up Hughes + Cabrera + another prospect or two for Santana. And I'd be fine with that.

I'm not saying any of these possibilities are necessarily a good attitude to have, but it's not inexplicable to me that the Twins might move Jacoby "World Series Star" Ellsbury up a notch vis-a-vis Phil "Hamstring" Hughes and Joba "Bug Game" Chamberlain.

Okay, Mr. Feet-Attached-to-Legs!

Haren is available. I'd like him on the Red Sox.

I'd much rather have Bedard but the Orioles might take another decade to escape a general state of disarray and admit that they should rebuild.

Ellsbury for Santana? Is that all they want? Sure, do it!

Oh, wait. You mean they want Lester, Lowrie, Masterson, **and** Ellsbury? You gotta be joking.

Ellsbury is a +5 WARP player working for the major league minimum over the next three years. That's $10-$15M of savings in each of the next three years with additional savings in years four through six. Similar value for Lester. Lowrie and Masterson are a step below that, but hardly without value. All of this for the privilege of paying Santana $150M/6yrs? This is a "posting fee" that would rival that of Matsuzaka, and without the associated cost savings on the contract. Again, you gotta be joking.

On just an on-the-field analysis, a quick-and-dirty comparison of Santana to Lester comes out at +30-40 runs. However I project Ellsbury and Lowrie as being 10-20 runs each (offense & defense) better than Coco and Lugo respectively; this assumes no wildly optimistic projections, but pegging each at 100-105 OPS+ (Pedroia was at 112). Ends up looking pretty even huh? But then we have to part with a fourth guy of the quality of a Masterson or Bowden? And then consider the possibilities of outstanding growth on the part of one/some/most/all of the kids and Santana undergoing a slow (or fast) decline? And then consider the cost difference, and the fact that Jake and Jed can take over for our two weakest hitters? Then I don't do it.

I've seen the "team full of mediocrities" argument before, but we have seen many World Series winning teams which win despite holes, as we indeed just witnessed this past season; I prefer the "Okay we have a bunch of average guys, NOW we can add in a few stars and we are on our way." I like depth, and I like depth in the form of young players who may surprise you, in a good way, and become those stars. Yeah they might surprise in a bad way too, but so might the veteran you're overpaying for. Minnesota is obviously getting greedy and the Sox to their credit aren't falling for it (too much, at least I hope).

And the fun-loving fan in me just wants to see what all these kids can do-in a Boston uniform. I never had as much fun as a baseball fan as I did this past season watching Dustin and Jake develop in front of my eyes-yes I was more excited when Clay pitched his no-no than I was when Papelbon got the last out in the WS.

Bold prediction: Hagadone will be a better prospect than Bowden or Masterson next year if he stays a starter.

Why are we interested in Ben Sheets?

I never had as much fun as a baseball fan as I did this past season watching Dustin and Jake develop in front of my eyes-yes I was more excited when Clay pitched his no-no than I was when Papelbon got the last out in the WS.

I went crazy after the no-no as well.

I'm also with JohndiFool and just ain't sold on Johan at this stage. It must be the World Series and the fact that I get mini orgasms when Jacoby, Pedroia, Clay and Paplebon do well on occasions...

On just an on-the-field analysis, a quick-and-dirty comparison of Santana to Lester comes out at +30-40 runs. However I project Ellsbury and Lowrie as being 10-20 runs each (offense & defense) better than Coco and Lugo respectively; this assumes no wildly optimistic projections, but pegging each at 100-105 OPS+ (Pedroia was at 112). Ends up looking pretty even huh? But then we have to part with a fourth guy of the quality of a Masterson or Bowden? And then consider the possibilities of outstanding growth on the part of one/some/most/all of the kids and Santana undergoing a slow (or fast) decline? And then consider the cost difference, and the fact that Jake and Jed can take over for our two weakest hitters? Then I don't do it.

Except that roster spots are also scarce. If you can get four guys' worth of above-averageness concentrated in ONE guy, you should do it if you're a big market team, because you have the resources to fill the other spots with slightly above avg. players -- those aren't too hard to acquire for big money teams, and come out ahead overall.

I was more excited when Clay pitched his no-no than I was when Papelbon got the last out in the WS.

Same here, mostly due to the fact that I was asleep when they won the Series. (I was in London.) But I was far more keyed up during the last couple innings of Buchholz's no-hitter than at any point during the playoffs. That was definitely the highlight of the year for me.

Except that roster spots are also scarce. If you can get four guys' worth of above-averageness concentrated in ONE guy, you should do it if you're a big market team, because you have the resources to fill the other spots with slightly above avg. players -- those aren't too hard to acquire for big money teams, and come out ahead overall.

This might be true in the abstract, but I don't see how exactly it applies to the 2008 Sox.

I never had as much fun as a baseball fan as I did this past season watching Dustin and Jake develop in front of my eyes-yes I was more excited when Clay pitched his no-no than I was when Papelbon got the last out in the WS.

I was on an island off the coast of New Hampshire, with no access to TV, radio, or the internet, for Clay's no-hitter. In fact I sold off my tickets for that very game because I was planning to be away. For the second time this decade, I had tickets to a no-hitter (Derek Lowe's being the other) and had sold off my seats for some other occasion.

So let's just say I was a lot happier with the WS win.

And just to try to derail the thread: The Boston Red Sox roster, Simpsonized! How many can you name?

I think the chances of Tacoby turning into a Grady are significantly lower than those of Santana getting hurt.

He's already turned into Sizemore.

Or didn't you watch the post-season?

And this one is just off-the-wall:

Except without the power or the plate discipline, end of last season notwithstanding.

Ellsbury already has better plate discipline.

Beckett, Haren, DiceK, Schilling, Wakefield, Tavarez as spot starter.

Make it happen. Then, they can go to war with the Yankees' Santana, Wang and whoever.

Beckett, Haren, DiceK, Schilling, Wakefield, Tavarez as spot starter.

What's wrong with: Beckett, Buchholz, DiceK, Schilling, Lester, Wakefield?

Your version also leaves the Red Sox with: Beckett, Haren, DiceK, scrub, scrub, scrub for 2009. Not pretty.

I don't think Haren will cost the Red Sox Buchholz.

Cool. Then write him into your rotation and we'll be all set to go! :-)

Our lips to Theo's and Billy Beane's ears.

"ESPN the Magazine's Buster Olney reported early Tuesday that the Twins asked the Red Sox for permission to review the medical records of pitcher Jon Lester, amid indications a Red Sox-Twins trade could go down sometime during the early-morning hours.

If the Twins were satisfied with Lester's medicals, it's believed they would accept a swap of him, Coco Crisp, shortstop prospect Jed Lowrie and either highly regarded pitching prospect Justin Masterson or another player.

Or if the Twins reversed field and decided they wanted center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury instead, it's believed that would be a 3-for-1 trade -- with only Ellsbury, Masterson and Lowrie going to Minnesota."

I'd be very happy with either of those frankly. I'd miss getting to watch Jacoby though.

I will miss Lester. Thanks.

I will be sort of pissed if Masterson becomes really good, becuase I was hoping he'd be our future young Mike Timlin.

Oh well, Johan is Johan.

Or if the Twins reversed field and decided they wanted center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury instead, it's believed that would be a 3-for-1 trade -- with only Ellsbury, Masterson and Lowrie going to Minnesota."

That part doens't make any sense. Because we'd have like a billion starters.

I rarely comment on nonconsummated deals (Hey, I'm still trying to breakdown the Jeff Frye, Brian Rose, John Wasdin, and Jeff Taglienti/Rolando Arrojo, Rich Croushore, Mike Lansing, and cash deal.), but here goes...

I'm also with JohndiFool and just ain't sold on Johan at this stage. It must be the World Series and the fact that I get mini orgasms when Jacoby, Pedroia, Clay and Paplebon do well on occasions...

I can dig these sentiments. While Santana is great, the Sox are a team that's roughly a 100 win team as it is. I can see blocking NYY from getting him (and it looka like that's not going to happen), but there's not much marginal benefit from winning games 104 games as opposed to winning 100, is there? Or am I wearing kevin's glasses and overestimating team strength?

The Sox have already pissed off alot of non-RS fans. They were darlings in '04, but there's been some blowback, why make it worse?

The Sox have already pissed off alot of non-RS fans. They were darlings in '04, but there's been some blowback, why make it worse?

Are you suggesting that the Red Sox should manage their roster based on how fans of other teams might percieve them?

Are you suggesting that the Red Sox should manage their roster based on how fans of other teams might percieve them?


No, they shouldn't, but allow me to vent. I'm sick of non Red Sox fans here giving Red Sox fans #### just because they are popular. I don't think that there's any bandwagonjumpers here. My dad turned me on to this team back in '75. What do the non-Therapists here want me to do? Renounce them? If I didn't around 2000, I sure as hell ain't gonna renounce them now.

I dunno, maybe the perception of the Sox would be better if they built from within; which, I suspect, is what Epstein would prefer. I'm no Mnookin-like insider, but I suspect this deal is more Lucchino's baby. Just a wild ass guess, btw. Please don't pillory for not following this friggin's thin with the intensity of a talmusic scholar. Like I alluded to, I usually don't follow these thing iuntil they're consummated.

I figured that a place where lawyers, scientists, professors, and other intelligent folks would be above that great. I guess that I'm fringgin' naive.

All good points, GGC. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I can see blocking NYY from getting him (and it looka like that's not going to happen), but there's not much marginal benefit from winning games 104 games as opposed to winning 100, is there? Or am I wearing kevin's glasses and overestimating team strength?

There's a marginal benefit to me as a fan. I want a great Red Sox team, i.e. one of the greatest teams ever. 105+ wins, and not pythag wins, real wins. I want people to talk about how great they are. I think the Red Sox could have that great of a team with a Johan, Beckett, Schilling, Buccholz, Dice-K rotation. God just looking at that is unreal. And frankly, I like other people hating us. Loveable losers and loathable winners. I'd rather be the latter.

I'm not so sure this is a Lucchino/Epstein split so much. Theo doesn't have to give up two of his three best prospects it would appear. He already graduated some of the players he's drafted. Even making this trade, next year's team will have Lester or Ellsbury (most likely Ellsbury), Buccholz, Papelbon, Pedroia, and Moss maybe. It's not like they haven't grown from within.

Jeez. You have to go some to piss Daly off.

flip