User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7469 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If the Twins are smart, they'd only take exceptional packages for trading Johan to an American League team, since that team could very well block their playoff aspirations, especially for the next few years since the Red Sox and Yankees can afford to lock him up. What they should do is find a taker in the NL, still get a great prospect package (I'm sure the Dodgers could part with something - they have so many chips), and go from there. I think the Red Sox are haggling over prospects too, all this "Ellsbury OR Lester" stuff. Who knows what prospects are really being thrown around but the deal has gotta have 1 premier prospect in their in the Hughes-Bucholz mold. I doubt the Red Sox get it done with a package of 5 very good to good ones.
Not only do you need the prospects to satisfy the Twins, you have to be willing to spend the $$ necessary retain to Santana. Not sure the Dodgers qualify there, although they (and others) certainly could afford to pay him the market rate. Santana would seem to have a lot of leverage over whatever team makes the deal.
Larry, do you think the Yankees are interested in upgrading CF?
Could you see them making a move on Andruw and using Melky to get some RP?
That seems to contradict what many have said previously, including Gammons.
So who knows?
EDIT: Or, of course, re-signing Santana...
A little late in the day to start being concerned about reports contradicting earlier reports?
Already seems pretty clear that the wealthiest owner in MLB isn't willing to go into Barry Zito territory, and it will take more than that to sign Santana, I would think. So it comes down to trying to get more for Santana in trade than you can get using the two extra picks yourself. By trading for other teams' prospects, Pohlad saves on paying out bonuses to the prospects he'd pick up if Santana went as a free agent, so he'll probably go that way. It's the cheapskate move.
Well if the wealthiest owner won't go there, maybe it won't take more than than.
I think Minn. should offer 6/120 with an opt-out after 3 years if there are five pitchers making more p.a.
OK, so maybe that guarantees that the Twins go for the Ellsbury all-prospect package. That's the proactive cheapskate way to go!
The problem is Ellsbury is not even a "maybe great". Hughes, Buchholz, even Lester (to a much lesser extent) have the upside of greatness. But Ellsbury's upside is only good.
Which is why I think Boston might relent and trade both Lester and Ellsbury.
Luckily most people who are informed on these matters disagree.
See Sept., 1998, Shane Spencer.
.320/.380/.450 or so, with GG defense in CF is probably Ellsbury's realistic upside - that's a great player, one of the top 10 in the league most years I suspect.
How does that benefit Minnesota? That's worse for them than just giving him 6/120.
The Twins' problem isn't the $$, they've already offered a 4 year $80M extension. Their problem is the years. My guess is the Twins would be perfectly willing to pay Johan Santana market value year-by-year for the next 6 years, they just don't want to be on the hook if he's unable to play.
However, I think Ellsbury could be better than that. Not saying he will, but I think he could.
An .830 OPS is what I think MELKY could be.
By getting him to accept, maybe?
yeah the point was to better the deal from Johan's perspective, as apparently 6/120 isnt enough to get it done.
No, I think he'd have to have an OPS of at least .850 in Fenway with really truly great defense to be a top-ten player. And I think that's possible.
Ok - how many of them with GG defense in CF?
Quick and dirty estimate is that .380/.450 from a GG defensive CF (+15) is worth about 52 runs above average - which is obviously a huge player. That's similar value to what David Ortiz provided for instance this year.
That's the upside of course. And yes - Melky might also have that kind of upside. I think he's a good deal less likely to reach it, both offensively and defensively, but it's certainly there.
As others have already said, the point is to sweeten the deal for Johan, w/o making it cost prohibitive to Minn.
He gets his security now, rather than waiting a year, and keeps some upside if salaries really go nuts.
I think he may too, but I was going with the "pessimistic upside" scenario there, to show that a .380/.450 GG center fielder is a great player already. If he has more upside - say Grady Sizemore, like one scout has been quoted as saying, then he's an MVP player. I'm not a scout, and I don't know much about swing mechanics, so I'm not going to speculate there however.
He doesn't even need the more upside to be great though. Just reaching the .380/.450 level would do it.
I'm happy to trade speculative upside(albeit high) for a proven commodity that has been the number one force in pitching in the last few years.
Santana is a real craftsman and I think, unbelievably so, that people are underestimating his work ethic towards that craft. We all know he can pitch incredibly well. From what I have read about this guy is that he is thorough, does his homework on every batter to the most minute detail and is always incredibly well prepared. He hasn't been pulled mid inning since 2006(I am quoting another blog here, I didn't check this), so he didn't fall apart enough last year(his so-called bad year) to get yanked mid-inning.
Its worth prospects and at this stage a slap hitting cf with gg capabilities with high upside.
I'm happy to trade speculative upside(albeit high) for a proven commodity that has been the number one force in pitching in the last few years.
Santana is a real craftsman and I think, unbelievably so, that people are underestimating his work ethic towards that craft. We all know he can pitch incredibly well. From what I have read about this guy is that he is thorough, does his homework on every batter to the most minute detail and is always incredibly well prepared. He hasn't been pulled mid inning since 2006(I am quoting another blog here, I didn't check this), so he didn't fall apart enough last year(his so-called bad year) to get yanked mid-inning.
Its worth prospects and at this stage a slap hitting cf with gg capabilities with high upside.
Not to be a [male private part], but why does it matter whether he's been pulled mid inning or whether he's "a real craftsman"?
If 6/120 gets it done, this deal does it. If his performance and the market dictates greater worth, he can get it 3 years in. If his arm falls off in year 2, he can still look forward to 80MM worth of the painkiller of his choice, that's 40MM better than a 4 year.
What I was trying to get at is that I think alot of fans just reckon he shows up and wheels away between that fastball and that wicked change with the slider thrown in occasionally.
From what I have read, he is quite studious(moreso then most other pitchers) not only on what he is doing physically and mentally to prepare for each game, but also does his homework most thoroughly on every batsman in the league.
So along with his incredibly gifted natural physical talents, Santana is a pitcher who can be successful even without his best stuff...a nice trait in a player who plays for your squad.
I thought the mid-inning thing was interesting as it just shows he never totally falls off the table. However, that may be a function of who's warm in the pen also...I just thought it was kind of unique.
Or maybe the manager thought that Santana at 50% has a better chance of getting an out than any pitcher in the bullpen? Great pitchers during their peak are rarely pulled midinning, me thinks.
I don't see any way Ellsbury's likely to become a star, so you shouldn't be that sad about it.
Mulvey's incredible nickname potential aside -- for all you other devotees of the Great Magnet, "The Junior Mint" is airing on TBS at this very moment -- I don't think I'd do that.
A trusted NY sportswriter who doesn't trust what he heard enough to run it under his own byline.
For the Mets this amounts to Santana, Crosby and Johnson for Reyes and Mulvey. Even though I'm sure that a lot of Mets fans would find ways to complain about this, Omar's not that smart.
EDIT: I take it back, Johnson doesn't hit as well as I thought, and he can't play anywhere but 1B. And Crosby apparently will never stay in a lineup long enough to be worth much. Still, he is Former Rookie of the Year Bobby Crosby, so there's that.
For his career and for the last two years:
Numbers vs. the ALE
Numbers vs. NYY
Numbers vs. BOS
Numbers vs. Tor
Numbers at NYY
Numbers at Fenway
Numbers at Toronto
Numbers vs. teams under .500
Numbers vs. teams over .500
Numbers vs. teams over .590 or .600 or whatever’s a good measure for a reasonably solid playoff team.
I'd do it if I knew how, but I've heard some surprising things.
Also, I'm sorry if this is already here somewhere.
I'm still trying to get a handle on this one... Is it silly to suggest that Ellsbury is one win better than Crisp? That's based on an expectation of .330 OBP from Crisp and .360 OBP from Ellsbury, assuming they are otherwise equal. The difference between Lester and Santana is arguably less than 1.5 runs of ERA and perhaps 20% more innings (assuming the health of both). Perhaps a three to four win difference there? Presumably less as Lester's workload increases and (perhaps) his performance improves.
Such a swap would perhaps improve the Red Sox by 2-3 wins in 2008, but at a cost of $25-$30M. I know that salary efficiency isn't everything, but isn't $10M/win a high price to pay?!? Unless I'm way off in my estimation, this isn't making sense from a financial standpoint. From a baseball standpoint it improves the 2008 club, but at the cost of resources which will be needed to upgrade the offense in a few years. Is this truly the most effective way to upgrade the team?
Of course, the same could have been said of Coco in 2006, and he made it happen. So maybe Ellsbury will, too. And maybe he'll beat that OBP projection besides.
Gun to my head - I take Crisp over Ellsbury for 2008. I'm more confident in Crisp's defense so far than Ellsbury's
For the two Red Sox offers, the Ellsbury deal is the better of the two, as I see him as a better bet to be a valuable player than Lester. Crisp doesn't do anything for the Twins. If they trade Santana they surrender any chance this year of competing with Indians and Tigers. So having Crisp instead of generic replacement level CF (Denard Span? Jason Tyner?) means they win 77 games instead of 74. At least they'd have Ellsbury for 6 years, Coco would only be there for 2. Maybe in 4-5 years they could build a decent team to go with Ellsbury and Young.
But I hope it doesn't come down to that, maybe the Mets will make a fair offer.
I'm not backtracking. I think Ellsbury has tremendous upside, but it's not yet clear he's actually going to be a GG level center fielder, nor that he's going to hit .380/.450 - certainly not clear he's going to do so in 2008.
(I used to know that...)
Thanks.
Everyone seems down on Met prospects these days and the Mets are going to give up Reyes or Wright. Santana ain't going to be a Met.
They don't have any chance of competing with the Indians and Tigers with Santana, unless they get themselves a CF and a couple of middle infielders who can put up OPS+ around 90 (each, not combined).
Curious - would you give up Reyes if Nathan were added to the package?
No, but that's because I think Reyes will be playing SS for the Mets 12 years from now. The Mets have the resources to make sure that he never comes close to being a free agent. Reyes has a legitimate chance to make the HOF. You don't give that up to pay a pitcher 25 million a year for at least 6 years.
Think about it this way. Would you have traded A-Rod for Pedro after 2000? Johan isn't 2000 Pedro and Reyes isn't 2000 A-Rod but I think you get my point. You don't trade a great, younger position player for a great, older pitcher.
Ok - I generally agree, but I wanted to get an idea of where Mets fans were at.
If you want a sense of how this would work, keep in mind that no TWINT fan that I can think of would hesitate even a microsecond before pulling the trigger on that deal. Getting one team's fans that excited is usually a sign that the other team is getting fleeced.
This is the coolest insight into Mets fans' minds that I've seen here. ;)
Meh, I think you deal Reyes (but not Wright) for Santana because the latter is genuinely spectacular, but I understand not doing it - homegrown players resonate with us locally. This whole Reyes is on a HOF path bit is more than a little optimistic.
Aye - would it be Willis and I-Rod for Schneider and other pieces? I wonder what else the Mets would have to give up (Pelfrey and Heilman perhaps?)
If you want a sense of how this would work, keep in mind that no TWINT fan that I can think of would hesitate even a microsecond before pulling the trigger on that deal.
Really? I'm a Twins fan and I would hesitate to package Santana and Nathan for Reyes, who I like very much. I appreciate the concept of quality over quantity, but this is a little extreme for me. Both major trade assets for one player? I don't think I could do that.
Here's what Reyes has averaged the last two seasons: .290/.354/.453, 16 hr, 33 2b, 15 3b, 65 walks, 71 SB, 193 H, 121 R. He has played an excellent defensive SS during that time in a tough hitter's park. If Reyes can do that for the next 10 years, he is going to be a first ballot HOFer. Sure, a million things can happen before that happens and that's why I didn't say he will be a HOFer but he has a chance. He will only be 25 next season.
Artist, for some reason, you don't think Met fans here are unable to be objective at all. A lot of the time you are right as Met fans may overrate their prospects. We aren't the only ones. But, Reyes has been a genuinely spectacular player the last two seasons and Met fans aren't the only people who think that.
Reyes has been just as good a player as Wright the last two seasons.
Kevin, Ellsbury hasn't proven anything in his 30+ games except that he's really fast. Let me put it to you in terms you might understand. In 31 games in 2006 Pedroia put up this line: 191/258/303. He followed that with his famous April 182/308/236. This did not prove he could not hit MLB pitching.
Robinson Cano got off to a horrid start,but he can hit MLB pitching.
It works the other way as well: Shane Spencer, Kevin Maas are examples most here might remember. For old-timers you can go back to Walt Dropo.
Sample size DOES matter esp for rookies who are more prone to wild swings early in their careers.
But let's look at Coco and compare his record to Ellsbury's. In July of 07 here are Coco's numbers: 323/391/505. Comparable to Ellsbury's month of 353/394/509, but not as BA dependent.
In AAA Ellsbury put up 298/360/380. Coco's career numbers are 280/329/409. OPS 740 to 738. Hard to say that Ellsbury's AAA numbers prove he'll do better than Coco's career AVERAGE Are you relying on one MLB month as proof?
Coco also has better defense. Ellsbury had trouble with the wall and the triangle.
that all having been said, I like Ellsbury more than Coco and I would roll the dice. But saying he's proven himself to be anything after a month in the bigs is like saying Kevin Maas proved himself to be the best slugger of all time because he was the quickest to 20 home runs. It's just silly.
And as for the A's/Mets/Twins three-way:
I'm looking at the track record of Mets fans pronunciations here, where Humber is still considered a star prospect, Maine > Philip Hughes, Pelfrey is apparently top 20, and Gomez is supposed to be the centerpiece of a Erik Bedard deal. Am I really wrong here?
I like Reyes, and I think he's a very good player, but Wright's offensive prowess is just so much larger, its ridiculous. VORP shows a 40 run difference, without even accounting for the much higher replacement value at 3b vs SS. Reyes is certainly better defensively, but 40 runs worth?
Artist - newsflash: you're a disagreeable #######.
Beane asked for Hughes and Chamberlain from the Yankees. He'll ask for Bucholz and Lester from the Red Sox.
There's a big difference between asking and getting. I'd counter with one of the two and 2 lesser prospects. Tell Beane we'll throw in Youkilis if we can have Swisher too
/ducks
Well, if he's going to every be GG quality (and indications are that he will), it'll probably be in 08. Isn't it usually the case that guys peak very early on defense?
Of course, why else would I want to make the trade :)
Yeah, but taking into acount The Emeigh Effect, I wouldn't expect TOO much in the early going.
Beane will want more. He has Haren signed for 3 years cheap. He has no need to move him now.
I would think Lester/Crisp/B-prospect gets you Blanton.
Ellsbury sucks, always will suck, and will make everyone around him suck. We all suck more for discussing him. And he'll only get worse.
Robinson Cano is the greatest player ever and will only get better. Eventually he'll hit 1.000/1.000/4.000 every year, and field every ball put into play, including balls that would otherwise be home runs. The Twins should be offering Santana, Liriano, Mauer, Morneau, Phil Hughes and Tim Lincecum for him. And then it's still an iffy proposition.
There, that better?
There are two issues here:
1. As 91 put it - the Emeigh effect plays a serious role here.
2. That his upside is GG level defense doesn't mean he's actually that good. It's possible he'll peak defensively in 2008, and not be GG level.
His minor league numbers and the scouting reports don't seem to be saying that's his upside. They seem to say that's his expected level of performance. His upside is more like Rowand/Cameron, from what I gather.
Gregg Jeffries says, "Hi."
Isn't that what the Sox are offering for Santana?
Why are the Twins still talking to them? I don't get it.
Even if they relent and give up Ellsbury + Lester(which seems unlikely) isn't Hughes + Melky still the better package?
I could see people going either way depending on their opinion of Ellsbury's defense, Melky's defense, and how much Lester's been affected by his cancer and treatment.
Hi Gregg. Do you know anything about Ellsbury's defense?
As for Hughes and Melky, the Yankees don't seem to want to part with Hughes anymore, so they're probably out of it. Thank God.
Why are the Twins still talking to them? I don't get it.
Even if they relent and give up Ellsbury + Lester(which seems unlikely) isn't Hughes + Melky still the better package?
Yes.
I don't know.
I think so.
IMHO the Sox are low balling the Twins, hoping they are desperate to move Johan for something better than draft picks.
Beane has no such deadline so can't really be lowballed.
Please explain. Never mind.
I hope you're right.
Emeigh was the first guy to notice that minor leaguers tend to struggle when entering the majors? Or did he do some comprehensive study?
I really shouldn't say anymore, I like my family.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main