Johan Santana

[redsoxrules]

tweaking is one thing

keeping johan santana out of the bronx is not tweaking

it is survival

he did have an off year but had the best whip in baseball as well as a huge year in ks and ip...

he was 15-13? something like that

i think that wrinkled old dead dick mother f***er carl pohlad may keep him until the race is decided in the central,if the twins are out on 7-30 he moves him

if theyre in it he may roll the dice.

 

johan didn't have a bad year, the only problem for johan this year was the long ball ,other than that he put great numbers . 3.33 ERA 235K 1.07WHIP. the reason he was only 15-13 was the lack of run support he got , if he would of been on a red sox uniform last year or a yankee uniform he would of won 20 games

[Mr Crunchy]

agreed

and if you put the 28 yr old beck and 27 yr old santana on the same staff then the rest of baseball will have puckered *******s for a long long time.

buckholz maybe a 20 game winner and a cy young candidate some day.

santana has those qualities now.

if ny gets him and his 220ip theyre immediatley back in the hunt.

[cam780]

Kevin Youkilis isn't going to be moved. He is the poster boy for plate discipline which is high on the Sox priority list. From the Yanks they wanted Cabrera, Chamberlain or Hughes and Robinson Cano. So I'm thinking something Lester/Buccholz - Pedroia - Ellsbury which I'm not certain of I'd deal either Ellsbury or Buchholz but not both and preferably Buchholz over Ellsbury but I'm wondering if a Buchholz, Crisp, Pedroia, Oscar Tejeda deal would do it. Bowden, Hagadone, and Masterson are in the pipeline and should be in the show within the next two years and by adding Santana there's only one free spot in the rotation so it would be hard to be a disappointment as the 5th guy in the rotation. Lowrie appears to be a Youkilis clone and can replace Pedroia so the damage isn't great. Tejeda seems like the type of player that the Twins would be after.

[BSN07]

Kevin Youkilis isn't going to be moved. He is the poster boy for plate discipline which is high on the Sox priority list. From the Yanks they wanted Cabrera' date=' Chamberlain or Hughes and Robinson Cano.[/b'] So I'm thinking something Lester/Buccholz - Pedroia - Ellsbury which I'm not certain of I'd deal either Ellsbury or Buchholz but not both and preferably Buchholz over Ellsbury but I'm wondering if a Buchholz, Crisp, Pedroia, Oscar Tejeda deal would do it. Bowden, Hagadone, and Masterson are in the pipeline and should be in the show within the next two years and by adding Santana there's only one free spot in the rotation so it would be hard to be a disappointment as the 5th guy in the rotation. Lowrie appears to be a Youkilis clone and can replace Pedroia so the damage isn't great. Tejeda seems like the type of player that the Twins would be after.

 

 

 

Thats not the point. Teams arent't parting with thre top couple prospects, so you have to look at who else could be offered. And the Sox have plenty of that. And the teams like the Mets that will part with top prospects aren't better then the Sox 2nd tier options. Milledge has Milton Bradley written all over him, and there other top prospects are middle relief pitching. LAA has plenty of pitching and will be looking to add miggy most likely, LAD are tring to add Miggy and hardly ever deal there young talent away. They just like to block the with over payed veterans. Who else is there? The Yanks? Like I said earlier our 2nd tier options( not really great term but I mean not top 2-3 prospects) are better then theres.

 

I honestly think that if the Yanks want Santana they will hve to part with 1 of 3 top prospects, I think we can make a very valuable deal without our top 2 in the deal.

[das11209]

You would deal Buchholz above Ellsbury?

 

Yes absolutely for Santana. Proven pitching is better than unproven pitching. Clay's value is as high as it will ever be and what happens if he regresses? Remember Drew Hansen and what was his value 2 years back?

 

Just to make it clear - I am not saying that Clay should be traded. All I am saying is he should not be untouchable if it comes to Santana or Haren. Ellsbury is close to untouchable in my book.

 

And any trade will be encouraged only if there is a gurranted extension.

[BoSox21]

Remember Drew Hansen and what was his value 2 years back?

 

Craig.

[das11209]

Craig.

 

Thanks.

[jacksonianmarch]

This is going to be an interesting game of chicken on both sides of the fence with Santana. The thing about the sox is that they have excess parts they could move for Santana, while the guys we'd be dealing would already be in our rotation/lineup.

 

Think about it, who would be hurt more...

If Hughes, Joba, Kennedy, Melky, or Cano went down with an injury vs...

Buchholz, , Lester, Ellsbury, or Pedroia

 

To the sox, Buchholz may be "the future", but he is a spare part for 08 and not someone who's loss will be felt if Santana comes about. Pedroia has Lowrie in the wings, Ellsbury would still have Coco backing him up (for now).

 

For us, losing Hughes/Joba/Kennedy means Mussina is in the rotation plus another rookie or s***** starter (see DeSalvo, Rasner, Karstens) would need to take the bump every 5th day. In terms of the other two, Betemit could play 2b and Damon can play CF. Not a terrific dropoff, but a big enough one to make their loss hurt.

 

This is why I think the sox, if they really wanted to, could net Santana with a solid package while not hurting their team's chances of a repeat in the process. Whereas, dealing for Santana from our perspective, takes players that are already filling needs and would create holes.

 

In the end, though, Minny doesnt care who they deal him to. They only care who they get in return. So if the sox want to gut the youth movement, while keeping their 08 chances alive, actually enhancing them, then so be it. And if the yankees want to gut their youth movement and fill the holes with putty later on, then so be it. It should be interesting to see.

[example1]

Yes absolutely for Santana. Proven pitching is better than unproven pitching. Clay's value is as high as it will ever be and what happens if he regresses? Remember Drew Hansen and what was his value 2 years back?

 

Just to make it clear - I am not saying that Clay should be traded. All I am saying is he should not be untouchable if it comes to Santana or Haren. Ellsbury is close to untouchable in my book.

 

And any trade will be encouraged only if there is a gurranted extension.

 

Buchholz is more valuable than Ellsbury. A potential ace starting pitcher (those words were never used about Papelbon or Lester) is more valuable than a high-OBP speedster with limited power. They're both very valuable, but Buchholz is better.

 

To say that Buchholz's value is as high as it will ever be is simply silly. Was Josh Beckett's value as high as it ever was when he was getting ready to come into the league? No. His value is higher now than it has been in the past. If Buchholz continues to produce at the relative level (i.e., continues to be as much better than hitters in his league as he has been) then his value will increase exponentially over the next year or two.

 

 

Papelbon's value is higher now than it has ever been too, and it wouldn't have been fair to say that his value in 2005 was "higher than it will ever be again".

[Jayhawk Bill]

To say that Buchholz's value is as high as it will ever be is simply silly. Was Josh Beckett's value as high as it ever was when he was getting ready to come into the league? No. His value is higher now than it has been in the past. If Buchholz continues to produce at the relative level (i.e., continues to be as much better than hitters in his league as he has been) then his value will increase exponentially over the next year or two.

 

 

Papelbon's value is higher now than it has ever been too, and it wouldn't have been fair to say that his value in 2005 was "higher than it will ever be again".

 

Example1, I'm not sure that I'd agree with that.

 

A player's value is the value of his expected contributions over the duration of his contract less the value of the money he'll have to be paid. The value of expected contributions goes up once a player is established in MLB, but so does the salary that he'll have to be paid.

 

Let's look at your example, Josh Beckett. Beckett has just come off two consecutive 200+ IP seasons, and he's past his 26th birthday. Both of these data points suggest that the questions regarding his durability in his youth are pretty much answered. His ERA was always good; it's still good. Toss in the renewed reputation as a "big game" pitcher, and Beckett's expected contributions per year over the duration of his contract are higher than they've ever been.

 

Nonetheless, I'd consider Beckett's value lower than it was in, say, November 2003, for two reasons:

 

1) Beckett is only obligated for three more years right now. After 2003 he was obligated for four more years.

 

2) Beckett will be paid $32 million over the next three years, plus $1.5 million amortized signing bonus. He was paid only a shade under $15 million for the four years 2004-2007, roughly half as much as he'll make in the next three years.

 

For most players (NOT, IMO, Beckett, for reasons I described above) there's also an increased risk of injury with age, even for players as young as their late 20's and early 30's. That's another big factor reducing the value of older players...but the years of obligated service and the lower price of pre-arb years and arb years in contrast to free agency years are the primary reasons that I often see greater value in younger players.

 

***

 

Let's try to apply this to Johan Santana.

 

First, I see no reason to discount the pre-season PECOTA projections for Santana one iota given his past season. His HR/FB was up a little; his IFFB% was down; his K/BB ratio was just a little bit down. To me, Santana looks to be the same pitcher that he was in November 2006. Accordingly, I'm taking his 2007 PECOTA as his new 2008 projection, his 2008 projection as his new 2009 projection, and so on, right through taking his 2011 projection as his new 2012-2014 projection.

 

By that, how much is Santana worth?

 

Year	WARP	MORP
2008	8.1	$28,075,000 
2009	7.1	$24,950,000 
2010	6.2	$21,800,000 
2011	5.0	$17,375,000 
2012	5.0	$18,925,000 
2013	5.0	$20,439,000 
2014	5.0	$22,074,120 
41.4	$153,638,120 

 

He's worth about $154 million.

 

The word on the street (http://www.startribune.com/twins/story/1566916.html) is that Santana wants something along the lines of Zito's 7/126 contract. If true, that means that Johan Santana has about $30 million in trade value, assuming that a ballclub has the cash flow and risk tolerance to sign him to a 7/126 deal.

 

How much do the Twins want? Again, the word on the street (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1046361) is that a realistic package would be Coco Crisp, Lester or Buchholz, another "proven MLB talent" and another prospect.

 

There's big variance on what Coco Crisp is worth, just as there are questions regarding Lester. Let's do what we did with Santana and take their straight 2007 PECOTA projections as if they were current, i.e. displacing everything by one year:

 

Jon Lester

 

Year	WARP	MORP
2008	2.2	$4,200,000 
2009	2.1	$4,250,000 
2010	2.1	$4,625,000 
2011	2.2	$5,300,000 
2012	1.9	$4,750,000 
10.5	$23,125,000 

 

Coco Crisp

 

Year	WARP	MORP
2008	4.9	$13,425,000 
2009	4.7	$13,725,000 
2010	4.2	$12,600,000 
13.8	$39,750,000 

 

Jon Lester will be paid about $800,000 the next two years and about $9 million in salary through his arb years if he does as well as projected...call it $10 million total. Coco is due $18.5 million through three years if his 2010 option is exercised, as it probably will be.

 

Rounding, Coco and Lester are worth about $35 million.

 

An established MLB player could be Alex Cora or Julian Tavarez, both worth roughly their contract value. An unnamed prospect would probably not be a top ten name: call it a player worth one or two million. It's still roughly the same calculus: Minnesota ends up winning the four-for-one trade.

 

Except...

 

Four names occupy four roster slots, and, frankly, replacement level talent for Boston should be a little bit higher than replacement-level talent for Minnesota.* If we assume that the replacement-level player for the other slots made available by this trade are really 1.0 WARP players, guys who earn one more win for their team than an average AAA call-up over the course of 162 games, then Boston "wins" the trade, too.

 

I'd make the trade. YMMV.

 

 

 

 

* Those of you still suffering mental anguish and paying therapists by the hour as a result of the 2005 bullpen, the 2006 starting rotation, and Matt Clement's career in Boston should understand that "should be" is not necessarily equivalent to "is."

[a700hitter]

It doesn't matter to me what the dollar values are of the players'. As a fan, and that's all that I am, I'd like to add a second shut down stopper to the rotation. If Dice K progresses like Beckett did in his second year, then we'd have three shut down type starters. I'd have to believe that would equate to a couple of more championships. Bucholz is a hot prospect, but most hot prospects don't become Santana, and the the one who do take a few years to get there. I'd love to see three studs at the top of the rotation. There would be very very little chance of a prolonged slump. It would also make them the favorites in a short post season series. Also, and probably most importantly, if the Yanks get Santana, the balance of power will shift back towards them for the next few years.

[Jayhawk Bill]

It doesn't matter to me what the dollar values are of the players'.

 

Would it make a difference if I used the win values of both players and salaries?

 

Payroll dollars can buy more wins. I'm putting everything into dollar figures for comparison...I could denominate what I'm saying in wins, instead.

 

Either way it's roughly a breakeven, once you consider the added value of concentration of talent, and it might tilt in Boston's favor given that star players are exceptionally valuable to teams that can afford higher payrolls.

 

Our position doesn't differ much, just our methods and perspectives.

[redsoxrules]

If we have a chance to get Santana for lets say, Clay Buchholz, Coco Crisp and Jed Lowrie.

we have to make that deal . pitching wins period , thats why we won the WS . imagine santana and beckett as your 1-2 punch in the post season . I would hate giving up clay but its not like we would give him away for nothing .

[a700hitter]

If we have a chance to get Santana for lets say, Clay Buchholz, Coco Crisp and Jed Lowrie.

we have to make that deal . pitching wins period , thats why we won the WS . imagine santana and beckett as your 1-2 punch in the post season . I would hate giving up clay but its not like we would give him away for nothing .

With Dice K and Schilling to back them up in 2008. That would kill a lot of batting averages in opposing lineups.

[example1]

Example1, I'm not sure that I'd agree with that.

 

A player's value is the value of his expected contributions over the duration of his contract less the value of the money he'll have to be paid. The value of expected contributions goes up once a player is established in MLB, but so does the salary that he'll have to be paid.

 

Let's look at your example, Josh Beckett. Beckett has just come off two consecutive 200+ IP seasons, and he's past his 26th birthday. Both of these data points suggest that the questions regarding his durability in his youth are pretty much answered. His ERA was always good; it's still good. Toss in the renewed reputation as a "big game" pitcher, and Beckett's expected contributions per year over the duration of his contract are higher than they've ever been.

 

Nonetheless, I'd consider Beckett's value lower than it was in, say, November 2003, for two reasons:

 

1) Beckett is only obligated for three more years right now. After 2003 he was obligated for four more years.

 

2) Beckett will be paid $32 million over the next three years, plus $1.5 million amortized signing bonus. He was paid only a shade under $15 million for the four years 2004-2007, roughly half as much as he'll make in the next three years.

 

For most players (NOT, IMO, Beckett, for reasons I described above) there's also an increased risk of injury with age, even for players as young as their late 20's and early 30's. That's another big factor reducing the value of older players...but the years of obligated service and the lower price of pre-arb years and arb years in contrast to free agency years are the primary reasons that I often see greater value in younger players.

 

***

 

Let's try to apply this to Johan Santana.

 

First, I see no reason to discount the pre-season PECOTA projections for Santana one iota given his past season. His HR/FB was up a little; his IFFB% was down; his K/BB ratio was just a little bit down. To me, Santana looks to be the same pitcher that he was in November 2006. Accordingly, I'm taking his 2007 PECOTA as his new 2008 projection, his 2008 projection as his new 2009 projection, and so on, right through taking his 2011 projection as his new 2012-2014 projection.

 

By that, how much is Santana worth?

 

Year	WARP	MORP
2008	8.1	$28,075,000 
2009	7.1	$24,950,000 
2010	6.2	$21,800,000 
2011	5.0	$17,375,000 
2012	5.0	$18,925,000 
2013	5.0	$20,439,000 
2014	5.0	$22,074,120 
41.4	$153,638,120 

 

He's worth about $154 million.

 

The word on the street (http://www.startribune.com/twins/story/1566916.html) is that Santana wants something along the lines of Zito's 7/126 contract. If true, that means that Johan Santana has about $30 million in trade value, assuming that a ballclub has the cash flow and risk tolerance to sign him to a 7/126 deal.

 

How much do the Twins want? Again, the word on the street (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1046361) is that a realistic package would be Coco Crisp, Lester or Buchholz, another "proven MLB talent" and another prospect.

 

There's big variance on what Coco Crisp is worth, just as there are questions regarding Lester. Let's do what we did with Santana and take their straight 2007 PECOTA projections as if they were current, i.e. displacing everything by one year:

 

Jon Lester

 

Year	WARP	MORP
2008	2.2	$4,200,000 
2009	2.1	$4,250,000 
2010	2.1	$4,625,000 
2011	2.2	$5,300,000 
2012	1.9	$4,750,000 
10.5	$23,125,000 

 

Coco Crisp

 

Year	WARP	MORP
2008	4.9	$13,425,000 
2009	4.7	$13,725,000 
2010	4.2	$12,600,000 
13.8	$39,750,000 

 

Jon Lester will be paid about $800,000 the next two years and about $9 million in salary through his arb years if he does as well as projected...call it $10 million total. Coco is due $18.5 million through three years if his 2010 option is exercised, as it probably will be.

 

Rounding, Coco and Lester are worth about $35 million.

 

An established MLB player could be Alex Cora or Julian Tavarez, both worth roughly their contract value. An unnamed prospect would probably not be a top ten name: call it a player worth one or two million. It's still roughly the same calculus: Minnesota ends up winning the four-for-one trade.

 

Except...

 

Four names occupy four roster slots, and, frankly, replacement level talent for Boston should be a little bit higher than replacement-level talent for Minnesota.* If we assume that the replacement-level player for the other slots made available by this trade are really 1.0 WARP players, guys who earn one more win for their team than an average AAA call-up over the course of 162 games, then Boston "wins" the trade, too.

 

I'd make the trade. YMMV.

 

 

 

 

* Those of you still suffering mental anguish and paying therapists by the hour as a result of the 2005 bullpen, the 2006 starting rotation, and Matt Clement's career in Boston should understand that "should be" is not necessarily equivalent to "is."

 

JHB, I wish I had a little more time instead of running to work because I would, in usual fashion, respond point by point to your well thought-out post. Bravo, again.

 

 

I understand your analysis, and I see your point. But, unfortunately, I don't think your point disproves what I was saying. If Beckett's value was highest in 2003, then we're talking about his value after he's thrown 273 IP in the majors. Beckett wasn't a rookie after the 2003 season, he had already thrown more than 100 IP in two consecutive seasons. So Beckett's high 2003 value is likely equivalent to Buchholz's value after this season or next.

 

The relevant question would be "was Beckett's value the highest after his 2001 season?" Or was it higher in 2003? I agree that in terms of financial value it was highest earlier on, but would the Red Sox have acquired a minor-league Josh beckett by dealing away a current SP when Beckett was 21? I don't think so. I think they would have waited for him to 'prove himself' through his 21-22 seasons before dealing away anything 'established' (I put quotes around things I don't necessarily agree with ).

 

I think that sometimes it is useful to reinvestigate the word "value" because there is sabermetric or financial value (i.e., looking at statistics and projections to predict how much money should be spent--relevant to teams that are hypersensitive to such 'objective' analysis). Then there is something that could be called "shock value" or "PR value" or something like that.

 

I believe the value that DAS was referring to was the later, due to Buchholz having had a tremendous minor league season and having thrown a no-hitter.

 

I think your analysis is really good, but I truly do not think that every team out there looks at deals that way. I think that if Buchholz were to come out and go 18-5 with a 3.40 ERA and 220Ks in 200 IP, then his sabermetric/financial value will be lower, as he's older, less cost controlled, etc., but his PR value would be enormous. Other teams would come after him very hard, making HIM the center of a trade deal rather than using him as one piece to land a more established star.

 

So, there were times in the past when Santana's financial value was higher than it is now. When he was younger, under cheapish contract for longer, etc., but his trade value is bolstered by his steady performance and dominance in a tough league, including last year.

 

My guess is that the Red Sox have to navigate between these varied types of value all the time, based on who they are negotiating with. I agree with you, JHB, that the type you discussed is the only one which should matter when they are talking about acquiring players, but it is not the only one which should matter when dealing players. The Sox should--and undoubtedly do--take advantage of 'hype' and 'mystique' when dealing with teams that--let's be honest here--do not have the financial ability or current PR standing that allows them to hold firm on popular players who may be demanding more money than they are actually worth. In other words, I think that after one MLB season this talk of dealing Buchholz + Crisp + Bowden + Youkilis for Santana would be more like Buchholz + Crisp for Santana, or at worst Buchholz + Crisp + Bowden. I really do. Right now other teams can use the "Buchholz isn't established" argument, in the face of any otherwise "rational" rationale you may bring my way. Next year they cannot.

 

I understand we're not talking about next year, and there is a time to pull the trigger, and that is now. But in terms of VALUE, in terms of being a central piece of a deal that will be acceptable to a team like Minn, Buchholz's value will progress even more. He will still be cheap, he will still be young, but he will have that all-important (to others) year of experience where they can watch him striking out a hitter per inning at the MLB level. It seems relevant to look at a player's ability to bring back other pieces in a trade as part of his value. If Buchholz + A + B + C lands you Santana now, and Buchholz + A lands you Santana now, and A, B, and C all stay the same, then Buchholz's value would have increased.

 

My guess is that the Sox don't think Buchholz's trade value is at its apex. Perhaps they are aware of how financially valuable he is as a cost controlled young pitcher, but they know that after a good season Buchholz's name will carry more weight with teams. Francisco Liriano--if not injured--would have been more valuable on the trade market after the 2006 season than he ever had been previously, even if "financially" he was less valuable.

 

It becomes a difference in words and usage, but it is a dichotomy that I think still exists. Most fans do not look at value in terms of WARP over the next few years. They just don't. They look at value in terms of "do I want to go see that guy play?" and Buchholz's value in that regard is not as high as it will be if he has a good year or two in the bigs.

 

I love Santana and would love him on this team. I would be ecstatic if they got him without dealing Buchholz (even for Lester would be okay), I just worry that they will be UNDERSELLING on Buchholz if he is only worth Santana with 3 other established players going along. He's worth more than that.

[a700hitter]

JayHawk and Example, props to both of you on your knowledge of baseball and stats. Adding Santana to this rotation (and keeping him away from the Yanks) is something that doesn't take a lot of analysis. It is pretty much a no brainer on all levels. Both of you seem to agree about getting him. The only difference of opinion is over what is included in the package. Hopefully, the FO knows best and will not get raped in the process. Me, I'd just start crossing the days off the calendar until opening day, because it would be a kick to see that rotation.

[cam780]

Thats not the point. Teams arent't parting with thre top couple prospects, so you have to look at who else could be offered. And the Sox have plenty of that. And the teams like the Mets that will part with top prospects aren't better then the Sox 2nd tier options. Milledge has Milton Bradley written all over him, and there other top prospects are middle relief pitching. LAA has plenty of pitching and will be looking to add miggy most likely, LAD are tring to add Miggy and hardly ever deal there young talent away. They just like to block the with over payed veterans. Who else is there? The Yanks? Like I said earlier our 2nd tier options( not really great term but I mean not top 2-3 prospects) are better then theres.

 

I honestly think that if the Yanks want Santana they will hve to part with 1 of 3 top prospects, I think we can make a very valuable deal without our top 2 in the deal.

 

I agree teams don't want to move top prospects but that will affect the Marlins and Miggy as a position player more than the Twins dangling the best pitcher in baseball. But its more to do with what the Twins want and are willing to do than what the teams are offering. Here's my example:

 

Twins want major league ready players that are relatively cheap and have an emphasis on position players over pitchers because they're happy with their rotation.

 

Yankees offer Hughes, Cabrera and Cano

Red Sox offer Lester, Lowrie, Youkilis, Masterson, and Crisp

Hughes has less service time than Lester and a higher ceiling.

Cabrera is cheaper and younger than Crisp although Crisp is much better defensively.

Cano and Youkilis are equivalents however Cano is younger and Youkilis is arbitration eligible this offseason and has only three years until he hits free agency. That plus you're also going to be giving Morneau a considerable raise because he too is arbitration eligible.

Masterson is a good add in and who knows could be the Liriano deal

 

Considering these two offers - I feel that the what the Yankees have to offer is better in this case but admittedly I don't see the Yanks including Cano and I don't see the Sox including Youkilis.

 

There's a chance that the Yanks won't give up one of Chamberlain or Hughes and in that case a deal similar to the one that was proposed may get it done but I don't think it would ever be offered.

 

I think the Angels are positioning themselves to be in a better position for a Miggy trade and I think the Dodgers are waiting to pull the trigger to see if Santana is put on the block.

 

If you have Santana, you'd already have three young players with ace potential (Beckett, Santana, and Matsuzaka) and this is another spot where I agree with you - even if the Yanks deal for Santana they would still need the young pitchers to compete so it would be trading 6 of one for a half dozen of the other.

 

At the end of the day though, if he's dealt, I think Santana plays in Boston for Buchholz, Crisp, and Lester/or Lowrie and Tejeda

[scaffolds]

If Youkilis is a deal maker or breaker he is gone, that's a non brainer, now i have been hearing that the Twins have not interest in Lowrie. If it comes to a package that may include Youkilis, Ellsbury and Buchholz, the only one that's no tradeable is Buchholz.

[example1]

If Youkilis is a deal maker or breaker he is gone' date=' that's a non brainer, now i have been hearing that the Twins have not interest in Lowrie. If it comes to a package that may include Youkilis, Ellsbury and Buchholz, the only one that's no tradeable is Buchholz.[/quote']

 

Since you're making the same argument as me, in many fewer words, I would like for you to elaborate a bit. Why is Buchholz not trade-able, even for current MLB pitching-God Santana?

 

Again, I agree, but apparently haven't convinced too many of my view. Perhaps you can give it a shot?

[example1]

JayHawk and Example' date=' props to both of you on your knowledge of baseball and stats. Adding Santana to this rotation (and keeping him away from the Yanks) is something that doesn't take a lot of analysis. It is pretty much a no brainer on all levels. Both of you seem to agree about getting him. The only difference of opinion is over what is included in the package. Hopefully, the FO knows best and will not get raped in the process. Me, I'd just start crossing the days off the calendar until opening day, because it would be a kick to see that rotation.[/quote']

 

I agree, but I think you're under-estimating how good a rotation of Beckett, Matsuzaka, Schilling, Lester and Buchholz can be.

 

You know I love Buchholz, so I won't belabor the point. All I need to say is that this guy isn't just a pitcher who has a knack for getting guys out--which is what defines a "good" MLB pitcher. He ha sa knack for getting guys out without guys making contact off him. That is what defines a "great" MLB pitcher.

 

If we KNEW, beyond a doubt, that Buchholz was the next Roger Clemens, Josh Beckett, Roy Oswalt or Jake Peavy, would we trade him for Santana? Would we trade him for Santana if it also took Crisp, Youkilis and Lowrie? I don't know the answer to that, only the FO does.

 

I wouldn't be devastated if the Sox had to give up Buchholz for Santana. I would be ecstatic about getting Santana and would quickly forget Buchholz. People like to accuse me of being crazy, but honestly I just really think Buchholz is the real deal. I think he's MORE of a real deal than anyone else I've said was a "real deal" in the past, including Ellsbury, Pedroia and Papelbon (all of whom I was a big fan of before even joining the big-sox... not that that makes me unique).

 

Six things I really, really like about Buchholz:

 

1. Frame. 6'3, 190. The kid is a bean pole. He will fill out and this should add to his durability, stamina and ability to stay injury free. He doesn't use steroids or HGH, or if he does he needs a new dealer. Reassuring in this day and age.

 

2. Athleticism. Supposedly he can keep up in a race with Ellsbury. Don't know what that means but to even be mentioned in that discussion is really, really impressive for a pitcher.

 

3. Mentality. Kid was a criminal in HS, stealing computers. Winning pedigree? Not someone I want to bring home to mom (if I were a buxom young lass, which I'm not). However, it tells me he's not overly worried about what other people think about him and he likely has what is advertised and obvious in observation: "ice water" in the veins. He is cocky, which is SO much better than being humble for a top of the line pitcher. No fear about his mentality. If anything he has a chip on his shoulder because he didn't get to play in the playoffs.

 

4. Cost. Kid's cheap as hell. I mean, seriously, the Sox spend more on supplying the park with Fenway Franks for a season than they will on Buchholz over the next few years.

 

5. Experience. He doesn't have a lot. Not a lot of miles on the arm, but a whole lot of learning to do. The learning curve has proved to be a good one for him, as he has been successful despite his lack of knowledge.

 

6. Change-up. The most dangerous pitch in baseball, and probably the most underrated too. 99% of big-league pitchers (I'm serious about that) would literally go Jim Abbot to have his change-up. I'm predicting right now that it will immediately be one of the best 3 changes in the AL East next year, and one of the best in baseball. What is remarkable about it is the LACK of movement. Whereas Pedro threw that nasty down-and-away circle change that moved away from lefties, Buchholz has one of the straighter changes I've seen in awhile. It has a nasty dip, but otherwise is absolutely the same as his FB. His changeup is not just good, it is Hall of Fame worthy. I may be speaking in superlatives, but let's check in this time next year and see what people think.

 

Worth trading for Santana? Absolutely. Again, if it happens then hey, no complaints from me. However, I truly believe the Sox see Buchholz's value as very high. They don't see him as a prospect because--as I've said numerous times--if Buchholz had been on 80% of other teams he would have started all year last year. He would have "proven" himself and would be the central piece of a deal for Santana, not one of 4 throw-ins including 2 every-day starters from this years WS team (if Youk and Crisp get moved).

 

I'd be interested to know how the 'value' works out on a deal involving Crisp, Buchholz and Youkilis for Santana. I get the sense that most here would do that deal in a heart beat, but I wonder what the net-loss or net-gain would be in WARP or some other metric. I worry about the downgrade from Youkils to Carter (or whoever else plays 1B), simply in terms of filling that position for the longterm. I don't worry about it enough to keep from pulling the trigger on, say, Youkilis + Crisp + Lester for Santana, but I still worry.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I wouldn't be devastated if the Sox had to give up Buchholz for Santana. I would be ecstatic about getting Santana and would quickly forget Buchholz. People like to accuse me of being crazy, but honestly I just really think Buchholz is the real deal. I think he's MORE of a real deal than anyone else I've said was a "real deal" in the past, including Ellsbury, Pedroia and Papelbon (all of whom I was a big fan of before even joining the big-sox... not that that makes me unique).

 

I may have misunderstood your point earlier.

 

If your point is that MLB GMs may be underestimating Buchholz's value, you may be correct. Note that I threw him out of my analysis.

 

If I'd included Buchholz, he alone would be worth more than seven years of Johan Santana.

 

I'll give you the whole sequence of MLE computations if you want, but Clay Buchholz comes out to something around a 50 VORP pitcher in 2007 if you count his MiLB time at the appropriate discounted value. That's roughly the value of Roy Halladay. But Roy Halladay is old, and Buchholz is young; Roy Halladay is expensive, and Clay Buchholz practically plays for free by Boston payroll standards.

 

I'll say what you haven't said: in a Santana trade, unless Boston knows something about Buchholz's health that we don't, Buchholz should be untouchable. As good as Santana is, has been, and will be, I'll take Buchholz at $400,000 over Santana at $18 million.

[example1]

I may have misunderstood your point earlier.

 

If your point is that MLB GMs may be underestimating Buchholz's value, you may be correct. Note that I threw him out of my analysis.

 

If I'd included Buchholz, he alone would be worth more than seven years of Johan Santana.

 

I'll give you the whole sequence of MLE computations if you want, but Clay Buchholz comes out to something around a 50 VORP pitcher in 2007 if you count his MiLB time at the appropriate discounted value. That's roughly the value of Roy Halladay. But Roy Halladay is old, and Buchholz is young; Roy Halladay is expensive, and Clay Buchholz practically plays for free by Boston payroll standards.

 

I'll say what you haven't said: in a Santana trade, unless Boston knows something about Buchholz's health that we don't, Buchholz should be untouchable. As good as Santana is, has been, and will be, I'll take Buchholz at $400,000 over Santana at $18 million.

 

I'm ready to open a beer and hand it to you through the computer, my friend. Seriously, a NW Microbrew? Shot of whiskey? Guinness? Whiskey? Name it! I actually have said that, but not in this thread. I said it initially when the idea of trading for Santana and Miguel Cabrera came out. I have backed off somewhat because, frankly, upon further introspection, I wouldn't wake up angry if the Santana for Buchholz trade happened tonight. I would be happy, and probably slightly happier going into next year and the year after. The year after that I would be longing for Buchholz, and since, at that time, Buchholz will be 25, I suspect I would be longing for him for a long time after.

 

I DID notice that you took Buchholz out of the equation, but I figured you did so because there were no solid PECOTA projections, for either 2007 or moving forward given his small sample size, and it was therefore hard to predict with any quantitative certainty how good he will be. So how did you come up with his value relative to Roy Halladay?

 

If it is too complicated or not necessarily pertinent to this thread, feel free to send me a PM. Its the kind of analysis I've been wanting for a long time (namely, how to determine the value of a player in some form, be it WARP or VORP or PRAA, or whatever, if they don't play in that league). I don't need a long tutorial, but a simple explanation would be great.

 

The closest I could come was to show that Buchholz's minor league numbers were better than those of Oswalt, Santana and Peavy:

 

Minor league career statistics:

Oswalt:

526 IP, (34 IP at AAA)

9.12 K/9

2.51 BB/9

 

Buchholz

285.2 IP (38 IP at AAA)

11.24 K/9

2.44 BB/9

 

Santana

343 IP (49 at AAA, 0 at AA)

9.16 K/9

3.41 BB/9

 

Peavy

437 IP (none above AA)

11.28 K/9

3.17 BB/9

 

In terms of controlling WHIP (which is largely indicative of low ERAs) Buchholz makes more hitters swing and miss, and walks about the same amount as Roy Oswalt did at his age and is better than Santana was in both categories in his minor league career. Peavy struck out about as many at a younger age, but walked a few more (and racked up 437 IP before he was 23!!).

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox/9925-theo-we-like-mike-5.html#post304748

 

Wish I had used VORP!!

 

 

People were saying that Ellsbury + Buchholz for Cabrera or Santana was a "no brainer".

[a700hitter]

While it is fun to speculate about getting Santana, I think the Twins will go the extra mile to sign their franchise pitcher. They have always been built around pitching and defense. They let Tori Hunter walk, and they have reportedly made a substantial $80 million 4 year offer to Santana. I think they are intent upon keeping him.

[example1]

While it is fun to speculate about getting Santana' date=' I think the Twins will go the extra mile to sign their franchise pitcher. They have always been built around pitching and defense. They let Tori Hunter walk, and they have reportedly made a substantial $80 million 4 year offer to Santana. I think they are intent upon keeping him.[/quote']

 

As they should be. With Santana and Liriano and the rest of their young pitching, they should at least be in contention in a very strong AL Central over the next few years. They should do everything they can to retain Santana, Morneau and Mauer. That is a core that should be just about as good as Sabathia, Hafner and Victor Martinez. Its time some of these mid-market teams start spending money to keep these guys. I don't WANT Santana to have to change teams, unless it is a nice deal with the Sox, but even then I'm a bigger proponent of players staying with their teams. The twins are a fairly popular team in MN, especially when they're good. They're building a new ballpark and baseball is hot right now.

 

The Twins are a good franchise, and Minneapolis-St. Paul is a nice area. Teams like that should be able to field competitive offers for elite players. :thumbsup:

[jacksonianmarch]

I'm ready to open a beer and hand it to you through the computer, my friend. Seriously, a NW Microbrew? Shot of whiskey? Guinness? Whiskey? Name it! I actually have said that, but not in this thread. I said it initially when the idea of trading for Santana and Miguel Cabrera came out. I have backed off somewhat because, frankly, upon further introspection, I wouldn't wake up angry if the Santana for Buchholz trade happened tonight. I would be happy, and probably slightly happier going into next year and the year after. The year after that I would be longing for Buchholz, and since, at that time, Buchholz will be 25, I suspect I would be longing for him for a long time after.

 

I DID notice that you took Buchholz out of the equation, but I figured you did so because there were no solid PECOTA projections, for either 2007 or moving forward given his small sample size, and it was therefore hard to predict with any quantitative certainty how good he will be. So how did you come up with his value relative to Roy Halladay?

 

If it is too complicated or not necessarily pertinent to this thread, feel free to send me a PM. Its the kind of analysis I've been wanting for a long time (namely, how to determine the value of a player in some form, be it WARP or VORP or PRAA, or whatever, if they don't play in that league). I don't need a long tutorial, but a simple explanation would be great.

 

The closest I could come was to show that Buchholz's minor league numbers were better than those of Oswalt, Santana and Peavy:

 

 

 

Wish I had used VORP!!

 

 

People were saying that Ellsbury + Buchholz for Cabrera or Santana was a "no brainer".

 

There is a difference here, though. Santana was a late bloomer and Peavy just had one of the best seasons for a pitcher in league history. It isnt comparable if you ask me.

[scaffolds]

Since you're making the same argument as me, in many fewer words, I would like for you to elaborate a bit. Why is Buchholz not trade-able, even for current MLB pitching-God Santana?

 

Again, I agree, but apparently haven't convinced too many of my view. Perhaps you can give it a shot?

 

Well, First of all I believe that the Red Sox can put a package to trade for Santana that doesn't have to include Buchholz, there isn't a question that Santana is a stud and that the Red Sox needs to do anything possible to keep him away from the yankees, having said that Buchholz is one of the very few minor league pitchers that potentially is a #1, an Ace of a staff and ML readyas a 23 yrs, whose arm hasn't been abused, a fresh arm. The quality of his pitches has been talked about enough, there's a big difference between Buchholz and the next pitching prospect (Bowden) a pitcher like Buchholz doesn't come along very often. The Red Sox can replace Youkilis and to a lesser extend Ellsbury, because Crisp can hold the fort until one of Che-Hsuang Lin, Ryan Kalish. Reid Engel or even Ryan Dent is ready.

[das11209]

Well' date=' First of all I believe that the Red Sox can put a package to trade for Santana that doesn't have to include Buchholz, there isn't a question that Santana is a stud and that the Red Sox needs to do anything possible to keep him away from the yankees, having said that Buchholz is one of the very few minor league pitchers that potentially is a #1, an Ace of a staff and ML readyas a 23 yrs, whose arm hasn't been abused, a fresh arm. The quality of his pitches has been talked about enough, there's a big difference between Buchholz and the next pitching prospect (Bowden) a pitcher like Buchholz doesn't come along very often. The Red Sox can replace Youkilis and to a lesser extend Ellsbury, because Crisp can hold the forte until one of Che-Hsuang Lin, Ryan Kalish. Reid Engel or even Ryan Dent is ready.[/quote']

I am not sure Crisp can hold the fort for the entire season. I wonder if we trade Ellsbury - should we get Andrew Jones if the price is right( big if considering who his agnet is). Maybe together Crisp and Jones can hold the fort.

[jacksonianmarch]

Crisp held the fort for the entire season this yr and for most of the postseason.

[jacksonianmarch]

Well' date=' First of all I believe that the Red Sox can put a package to trade for Santana that doesn't have to include Buchholz, there isn't a question that Santana is a stud and that the Red Sox needs to do anything possible to keep him away from the yankees, having said that Buchholz is one of the very few minor league pitchers that potentially is a #1, an Ace of a staff and ML readyas a 23 yrs, whose arm hasn't been abused, a fresh arm. The quality of his pitches has been talked about enough, there's a big difference between Buchholz and the next pitching prospect (Bowden) a pitcher like Buchholz doesn't come along very often. The Red Sox can replace Youkilis and to a lesser extend Ellsbury, because Crisp can hold the forte until one of Che-Hsuang Lin, Ryan Kalish. Reid Engel or even Ryan Dent is ready.[/quote']

 

scaff, therein lies the problem. The sox have 2 entrenched, young power arms who are going nowhere (as in nobody is dealing them) in Beckett and DMats. The rest, who knows. Buchholz is the big chip. You dont have a trio of top prospects like we do, you have a great pitching prospect then a huge dropoff. So you cannot expect to make a deal for Santana without him being included. At the same time, you put Santana/Beckett/DMats together for the next 5 or so yrs and you have a 3 headed monster like nobody has seen since the late 90s yankees (Clemens, Pettitte, Duque/Cone)

[riverside sluggers]

******** that Crisp held the fort for most of the postseason.

 

6 for 33 (.182 avg) Double, 2 RBIs, 3 Runs, Walk, 9 Ks, 2 SBs