If you take Hughes and Kennedy off the team, the backend of the rotation could well be awful.

I think that is unlikely, and even if it is true, they will have options and of course money. They supposedly have a lot of good pitching prospects even behind the Hypelets--Horne, Betances etc.

Meanwhile, Santana would be at the FRONT END of the rotation, backed up by Wang, Pettitte and Chamberlain.

While I think Joba throws harder and has better overall stuff, I would rank Buchholz's change as an 80. It's one of the best changes I've seen in a while and throwing a lot of changes mitigates some the concern about his arm slot.

I think Keith Law said that the only 80 change in baseball right now is Santana's. Edwar's was rated as a 70 and he struck out a ton of guys without a major league fastball.

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.

I can agree with this.

Not Mickey mantle or Willie Mays or Derek Jeter?

Are you comparing Mickey Mantle to Jacoby Ellsbury?

I think that is unlikely, and even if it is true, they will have options and of course money. They supposedly have a lot of good pitching prospects even behind the Hypelets--Horne, Betances etc.

Meanwhile, Santana would be at the FRONT END of the rotation, backed up by Wang, Pettitte and Chamberlain.

I think Chamberlain is liekly to be limited to 140-160 IP. Mussina is your 5 in that situation. I think Horne et al are not considered ready. Given normal injury expectations, and the likelihood that Mussina is done, it's just too risky.

No real point in spending $150M in upgrading Hughes' 4.50 ERA to Santana's 3.00, if you're also replacing Kennedy's 4.50 with the 6.50 of Rasner, Karstens & co.

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 wors

I didn't say that their 2007 seasons were comparable. I posted their EQAs in AAA in response to this

"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
"

I still think virtually certain, which to me means 99% chance, is too strong of a phrase to use for anyone with less than 200 ML ABs, including Mickey Mantle.

No real point in spending $150M in upgrading Hughes' 4.50 ERA to Santana's 3.00, if you're also replacing Kennedy's 4.50 with the 6.50 of Rasner, Karstens & co.

No real point--until October. And you are making several assumptions that are debatable--Mussina is done, Rasner and Karstens & co will have 6.50 ERAs and then if they did would be continue to be allowed to pitch, Kennedy and Hughes will pitch often enough and well enough to help.

I said about a month ago that it is very obvious that neither the front offices of the two Northeast Corridor Behemoths nor the BTF loyalists and bloggers of the two teams want Johan Santana right now, given their love affairs with their prospects and the fact that Santana may be an FA after the 2008 season. I even wrote a "Green Eggs and Ham" parody about it on another Santana thread a couple of weeks ago. I remember how happy all the BTF Red Sox and Yankees fans were down the stretch in 2007, talking up their young guys.

All of which is fine with me. But I have yet to be convinced that acquiring Santana right now is not a good idea for a big-money contender given what is apparently being asked for him. Some people have just said, straight out, "I'd rather have the prospects because that is cooler" and I think that about sums it up.

EDIT: Also, to reiterate, if Hankan Cashenbrenner just said "We are not moving Hughes or Chamberlain, period", OK. But I would not hold it up over Ian Kennedy.

No real point--until October. And you are making several assumptions that are debatable--Mussina is done, Rasner and Karstens & co will have 6.50 ERAs and then if they did would be continue to be allowed to pitch, Kennedy and Hughes will pitch often enough and well enough to help.

That's right. I think if the Yankees were guaranteed to make the playoffs the move would make a lot more sense.
But given last year's experience with the backend pitchers, and the strength of Bos, Cle and Det, I don't think this can be assumed.

Some people have just said, straight out, "I'd rather have the prospects because that is cooler" and I think that about sums it up.

Probably true. I, for one, have enjoyed the Yankees less since they went totally mercenary after 2001. I've seen enough Championships in the recent past that I'd rather go with a more balanced/homegrown approach rather than sign the biggest fish every year. I think it's more fun, and will make you better in the long run to go with the kids.

I think Keith Law said that the only 80 change in baseball right now is Santana's. Edwar's was rated as a 70 and he struck out a ton of guys without a major league fastball.

well, keith law might think that the only 80 change in baseball belongs to johan CP, but there are other opinions out there, this is from kevin goldstein's yankees top prospects writeup on Edwar over at BP:

There are a handful of scouts who grade Ramirez’s changeup as a perfect 80. It’s beyond a plus-plus offering, with a ton of deception due to Ramirez’ arm speed, as well as a late break that seemingly defies the laws of physics. His fastball is at least average at 89-91 mph, and can touch 94 at times

it really is a fantastic change, i really do hope he finds enough FB command to stick this year, watching him "Bugs Bunny" hitters with that thing was one of the highlights of last season for me.

I remember how happy all the BTF Red Sox and Yankees fans were down the stretch in 2007, talking up their young guys.

Its not just Red Sox and Yankee fans - virtually everyone likes to talk up their young guys. Its fun to see how good your prospects will be. They're your guys, while the established talent belongs to someone else.

That said, we don't get equally excited about all our young guys. Red Sox fans are especially excited about Ellsbury - probably more excited than about any young guy in the organization since Nomar. Its not just that Ellsbury put up some good numbers for a month or so. There have been lots of guys that have hit .350 or something for a month that I barely noticed, until I looked at the stats. Ellsbury looked unbelievably good - he did soemething that made you say "wow" almost every game. And that's why Sox fans are so excited about him - not his numbers for a month. We'd give up almost anyone else in a heartbeat. We'll give a boatload of prospects for Santana, just let us keep Ellsbury, and if we're wrong and we're overestimating him, than we're wrong.

Its not just Red Sox and Yankee fans - virtually everyone likes to talk up their young guys. Its fun to see how good your prospects will be. They're your guys, while the established talent belongs to someone else.

This is my whole beef with the Yankees' trade scenarios. I want to do more than win. I want to win with my guys. That's how I get the most enjoyment out of baseball.

ahem... *cough* (pedroia!) *cough*

and buchholz.

actually, i'm alot more excited about ellsbury than i was about pedroia. pedroia was a hot topic b/c so many people said that he sucked and wouldn't even make it in the majors ... or said that alberto callaspo was better or something stupid like that.

ahem... *cough* (pedroia!) *cough*

Not me. Not by a mile. Bucholz is closer, but I was thinking more of position players. Even then, I'm more excited at the prospect of watching Ellsbury every day than Bucholz every five.

he did soemething that made you say "wow" almost every game

i especially liked scoring from 2nd on a wild pitch.

ahem... *cough* (hanley ramirez, who's pretty much better than all of these guys put together!) *cough*

ahem... *cough* (hanley ramirez, who's pretty much better than all of these guys put together!) *cough*

Yeah, we all saw that coming after his .720 ops in AA in 2005. Kudos to Mr. Beinfest and his team on that one.

Would you rather have Ramirez? Or Beckett?

Ellsbury obviously.

alot of us had basically given up on hanley. he lit it up in A ball at a time when the red sox didn't have much of a farm system, so he was *something* to get excited about ... then he didn't do much for a couple years.

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

While this is true, I think it is also a particularly misleading way to phrase it. You could also say that you are comparing Gomez's performance at the level in which he spent the most time to Ellsbury's performance at the level in which he spent the most time. Which is also somewhat misleading.

I also can't help but doubt the predictive power of Ellsbury's and Gomez's first 100 or so MLB ABs. The fact that Gomez had a .600 OPS in his first brief stint in the majors and Ellsbury had a .900 OPS in his first brief stint surely means something, but it's such an unusual situation and those numbers are so out of line with each player's minor league track record that I can't help but discount their relevance significantly. Maybe I would think differently if I was a Red Sox fan.

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.

ZiPS projects Lowrie to perform around the level of a MLB-average SS, and Masterson around the level of a MLB-average starter, for the 2008 season. I know they're in the minors now, and it's just a projection... But they're not "throw-ins".

Are you comparing Mickey Mantle to Jacoby Ellsbury?

There is an insensitve racist alcoholic joke in this somewhere.

Oh, for god's sake. Would you rather have Ramirez? Or Beckett?

Ramirez, of course. He's a better, cheaper, younger player. It really isn't that difficult, is it?

2006
Ramirez: 54.9 VORP (salary: 327K)
Beckett: 19.9 VORP (salary: 4.325M)

2007
Ramirez: 89.5 VORP* (salary: 402K)
Beckett: 58.6 VORP (salary: 6.67M)

*second in all of baseball to A-Rod

Oh, so VORP is the gold standard?

Better think again.

It's not the gold standard, but it is A standard. And unlike the standards you seem to use (140 major league at-bats = Ellsbury is a great player), it has some objectivity.

Is there any real standard you could use that would show Beckett is the better player? I look forward to you posting it.

Is there any real standard you could use that would show Beckett is the better player?

Count the ringzizzles to the izzle, bizniatch!

side question: when counting da ringzz for mike lowell, do we get to count his 1998 one with the yankees (if they gave him one)?

.. and sox player that I'm most excited about for 2008: David Frickin Ortiz (enough of this mel kiper bullshanty)

There is an insensitve racist alcoholic joke in this somewhere.

And kudos to your newfound restraint in not finding it for us.

The fact that Gomez had a .600 OPS in his first brief stint in the majors and Ellsbury had a .900 OPS in his first brief stint surely means something, but it's such an unusual situation and those numbers are so out of line with each player's minor league track record that I can't help but discount their relevance significantly.

Well, the fact that Gomez's stint came when he was 21 and Ellsbury's when he was 23 certainly makes a very big difference.

Don't get me wrong -- if I were the Twins, I'd prefer Ellsbury, too. I think he's a surer thing, and even if you think Gomez's ceiling is higher (which I think it is, somewhat) it's not like Ellsbury doesn't have a pretty darned high ceiling himself. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Mets package in which Gomez is the position player centerpiece is as good as an Ellsbury-centered Red Sox deal. What would make the Mets deal better is that Gomez is a relatively comparable player -- and then if the Mets were to add Fernando Martinez, it would throw the balance decisively in the Mets' favor.

Except for the fact that it would be a terrible deal for the Mets to make, that is . . . .

Daily Santana update: Fans might not be happy with Santana trade

I'm sure he means Twins fans, but this probably applies to Mets fans here...

It's possible the Twins will trade Santana without landing one player who is universally recognized as a big help in 2008.

Lately, the Twins have seemed most intrigued with the Mets' offer.

The Mets are offering some combination of the following five players: Carlos Gomez, Fernando Martinez, Deolis Guerra, Philip Humber and Kevin Mulvey.

Gomez, 22, could step in immediately as the Twins' starting center fielder, but some scouts are skeptical about his bat.

The Twins are much higher on Martinez, 19, and Guerra, 18, even though they realize both might be in the minors until 2010.

As for Humber and Mulvey, neither projects as better than a No. 4 starter.

But if the Red Sox and Yankees don't improve their offers -- and the Twins have reason to believe they won't -- Santana could wind up with the Mets

Close the deal, Omar. Close the deal.

Lately, the Twins have seemed most intrigued with the Mets' offer.

The Mets are offering some combination of the following five players: Carlos Gomez, Fernando Martinez, Deolis Guerra, Philip Humber and Kevin Mulvey.

son
Let's see:
Pat Zachry
Steve Henderson
Dan Norman and
Doug Flynn

vs.
Carlos Gomez,
Fernando Martinez,
Deolis Guerra,
Philip Humber and
Kevin Mulvey.

Zachry had gone 14-7 with an ERA+ of 128 in his rookie year, was pitching terribly at the time of the trade, pitched respectably at times afterwards- career 69-67 ERA+ 102
If things go well for Mulvey or Humber they could have Zachry's career, likely their MLB careers will be worse.

Steve Henderson had a 3916 PA MLB career with an OPS+ of 113, I think it's more likely than not that Gomez does not match that, he could, he could even exceed it, but IMHO it's less than 50/50

Dan Norman is a guy I remember, seemingly every ST the Mets gave him PT, because, as the announcers said, they wanted to see if he was ready, ended up with 380 PAs and an OPS+ of 81 scattered over 5 seasons, his minor league numbers suggest he was better than that, but not that much better- had some power- discipline was pretty decent- Norman is likely FMart's downside- whereas FMart's upside as a hitter is probably something like Andruw Jones (hopefully better)

Doug Flynn almost made me switch from being a Met fan, oh how I hated and despised him- overrated both offensively and defensively. The MSM regarded him as a poor hitter, but acceptable for a glove man middle infielder- in truth he was an historically bad hitter for a starting player- has the 3rd lowest career OPS+ of any player with more than 3000 PAs since 1945- yes worse than St. Rey, worse than Neifi) He was a good fielder, but not great- but some announcers acted like he was the 2B equivalent of Ozzie Smith.
I became a James fan for good when he savaged Flynn in one of his Abstract Articles- explaining why the Expos couldn't win even with superstars like Carter and Dawson and Raines and Rogers- too much PT to guys like Flynn, who (paraphtrase alert) "did more to destroy the Expos' offense than Tim Raines did to build it"

Fans might not be happy with Santana trade

I'm sure he means Twins fans, but this probably applies to Mets fans here...

The devil's in the details, Levski. The devil's in the details . . . .

The Mets are offering some combination of the following five players: Carlos Gomez, Fernando Martinez, Deolis Guerra, Philip Humber and Kevin Mulvey.

Which "combo" we're talking about makes a big difference. If Omar supersizes it and includes all five, I'll throw a fit. The Mets are better off waiting, and taking their chances they can get Santana later for just the dollars. Call me crazy, or call me a traditionalist -- I just like having a farm system.

Plus, it appears that Omar may have hit the sweet spot with his offer: just enough to be better in the Twins' eyes than what the Yankees and Red Sox have on the table, which is enough to keep either of those teams from increasing THEIR offer to keep Santana from their arch-enemy. Since neither the Sox nor the Yankees has enough incentive to sweeten its offer, the Mets aren't forced to, either. Sure, Smith can just keep Santana, but as long as he stays with the Twins, that's fine -- he remains a possible FA target, which would be the optimal outcome: acquire him while keeping all the prospects.

If F-Mart is in the deal, I will be unhappy with it. I can live with almost any other iteration.

he remains a possible FA target, which would be the optimal outcome: acquire him while keeping all the prospects.

Then again, the chances of acquiring him as a FA, if he becomes one, are *at best* 1 in 3, and probably lower.