Johan Santana

[TheKilo]

Lol, you're assuming he is going to tire severely after 180 IP.

 

In all likelihood he starts the season in AAA. The only problem I have with this is it means someone gets the 5th starter job temporarily because there is about zero chance clay spends the whole year in AAA, thats wasteful, and it means you have to "demote" someone like Wakefield to the 'pen. I'd like him up at the get-go but I think that will probably only happen under extenuating circumstances due to injury or what have you. So, he comes up in may after having thrown well under 250 pitches. Thats pretty much nothing goes on to finish the year at ~180 IP. You'll have to keep an eye on him going into the playoffs anyways, move him to the 'pen maybe unless he proves to be in good shape at the finish of the season.

 

SO, by saying he'll start the season at AAA, you're actually agreeing with what I'm saying.

 

It's not that tough. Start him in AAA, monitor his innings, work him into the rotation mid-season. This way, his innings limit will not come into play during the stretch run and hopefully the playoffs.

 

When we shut him down this year it was more out of luxury than anything else. We were pretty much assured a spot in the playoffs, he had six innings left before he was going to be shut down anyways. He missed one start. :'( .

 

Or, it's because he was complaining of shoulder fatigue.

 

Red Sox manager Terry Francona announced Friday that Clay Buchholz will not be considered for the club's postseason roster after a series of tests detected mild fatigue in his throwing arm.

 

^^Rotoworld

[ACL BoSox]

Could someone post Melky, Ellsbury, and Crisps stats?

 

I know Crisp wasn't much this year, but why are the twins so high on Melky? Ellsbury clearly has the edge over both of them but if it were betweeen Kennedy/Hughes and Melky, or Buccholz/Lester and Crisp, I don't see a large disparity in value.

[ksushi]

SO, by saying he'll start the season at AAA, you're actually agreeing with what I'm saying.

 

No, you're talking a mid-season big league '08 debut, I'm talking at the latest May. You can only handle 'em with kid gloves for so long then its time to take big steps. Whether they're in AAA for half the season or the bigs, they're going to be throwing pitches. With his talent, he should be throwing pitches in the major leagues. I think the most likely scenario has him in the rotation on opening day, but, if they take a more conservative approach a maximum of a month in AAA wouldn't be too much. A mid-season insertion into the rotation is pretty unlikely I think.

[jacksonianmarch]

Could someone post Melky, Ellsbury, and Crisps stats?

 

I know Crisp wasn't much this year, but why are the twins so high on Melky? Ellsbury clearly has the edge over both of them but if it were betweeen Kennedy/Hughes and Melky, or Buccholz/Lester and Crisp, I don't see a large disparity in value.

 

2007

Melky- .273 8HR 73RBI .327OBP .391SLG

 

Crisp- .268 6HR 60RBI .330OBP .380SLG

 

Crisp has the edge in range, Melky has the edge in arm. Melky is 23, Crisp is 28. Melky is under control for 4 more yrs, Crisp for 2. I think the thing about Melky that was so intriguing is that when he finally was given the starting job, he batted .314 for 4 months with a .810+OPS only to see it all go crashing down in September when he went 18 for 100. And he is 23, so he has some more room to grow than Crisp does.

[TheKilo]

No' date=' you're talking a mid-season big league '08 debut, I'm talking at the latest May. You can only handle 'em with kid gloves for so long then its time to take big steps. Whether they're in AAA for half the season or the bigs, they're going to be throwing pitches. With his talent, he should be throwing pitches in the major leagues. I think the most likely scenario has him in the rotation on opening day, but, if they take a more conservative approach a maximum of a month in AAA wouldn't be too much. A mid-season insertion into the rotation is pretty unlikely I think.[/quote']

 

So we're talking a month difference. Which, coincidentally, may be the amount of pitching he needs to do in the playoffs.

 

Gotcha.

[ksushi]

So you're supposing he should spend a month in AAA lounging and maybe doing some crossword puzzles?

 

Gotcha.

 

Pitching is pitching. Whether hes doing it in AAA or MLB he is still putting the same amount of stress on that shoulder of his your so terribly worried about. I'd rather see him logging innings in the majors where he'll actually have an impact, rather than wasting innings in AAA.

[riverside sluggers]

I see Yankees as the clear favorites to get Johan, considering they are willing to deal Hughes, Cabrera and a top prospect. I heard on weei on my drive home that the Sox have told Minn that Ellsbury is off limits and Buchholz would also be hard to pry away.

[example1]

So we're talking a month difference. Which, coincidentally, may be the amount of pitching he needs to do in the playoffs.

 

Gotcha.

 

Another (not so) wise man once said:

"You're being glib, Matt"

 

He would also say "you're being glib, theKilo"

 

It's funny. You spend all this time worrying about Buchholz being able to stand the longhaul, but then you come back with:

 

So what you want, is a six man rotation, where we don't give Josh Beckett as many starts as possible next season.

 

Carry on...

 

You're laughable sometimes.

 

Do I need to post links to where it is clear that the Sox are considering a six man rotation?

 

Or do I need to post more Buchholz stats to show how utterly stupid it is to think that him throwing IPs in AAA is somehow better for him than at MLB?

 

Or, should I prove to you that Buchholz shouldn't be traded for Santana again?

 

Or, Should I document the other 23 year olds who have been fine at that age?

 

Or should I mention that the ONLY REASON the Sox found the ''Weakened shoulder" is because they, unlike all the teams that give you nightmares for their past pitcher usage, are HYPERVIGALENT about shoulder strength. His shoulder was tired. yes, that happens sometimes to pitchers in September.

 

The fact that the Red Sox are better at recognizing it than other teams is not an indication that he is WORSE than most pitchers after that many innings. It just isn't, and it is a logical fallacy for you to make that the basis of your argument.

 

Just like the fact that the Red Sox having had the depth to keep Buchholz from HAVING to start at the age of 22 does NOT mean that he isn't worthy of a spot at his age.

 

Which direction do I go with this one theKilo?

 

Yes, I am advocating that Josh Beckett not throw as many innings as humanly possible next year. You are too. I haven't heard you say "Josh Beckett should throw on 4 days rest every day". Nor have I heard you say "I would happily skip Dice-K's starts so Josh Beckett can get "as many starts as possible next season". You demand precision and accuracy from statements in others, but then you come out with this rude glibiosity, to someone who you know has actually put some thought into it.

 

A good team has the flexability to NOT start their best pitcher every time they need a win. A good team has the ability to thrown two, three, four, or (gasp) five other pitchers who are effective.

 

I forget, were you one of the people advocating for Beckett to start game 4 of the ALCS? I know I wasn't, but I wonder whether you were. If you didn't advocate for it, then why not? I mean, you want him to start any time your palms get a little sweaty because he is SO MUCH better than every other pitcher the Sox have, right?

 

What I propose is this: Use a six man rotation. When there are days off or whatever, use those as part of the equation and skip a start from one of your lower pitchers (I would propose that be Wakefield, regularly). You obviously didn't read my earlier posts where I said that as the season goes on you can give rests to guys like Schilling and Buchholz, and that is where Dice-K and Wakefield and Beckett will make up their innings and approach 200.

 

You want to use Beckett like a rented mule though, so I don't know how to counter that. Personally, I thought it was a sign of a bountiful team and good management that Beckett did not end up having to throw 230 IP last year like Sabathia did. Apparently you would rather than he throws every five days, because you're so concerned with THIS game, and the NEXT game that you aren't able to take a long-term perspective.

 

It's just funny, you're so protective of Clay Buchholz but Beckett should go out and throw every time he is able. Hmmm. I guess he doesn't need protecting any more and his future isn't as important to the Sox as Buchholz's is. I know, I know, Becket is more developed, stronger, more mature, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that both of them are phenomenal pitchers. you are treating one like he is made of porcilin, and the other like he is made of steel, when, in fact, the truth lies somewhere in between for both of them.

 

The irony is that Beckett, not Buchholz, is the one with an injury history. I don't hear you mentioning any "shoulder fatigue" that was diagnosed earlier for Beckett, nor any mention of blister issues. Its like Beckett doesn't have ANY history of it, and Buchholz does. Truth is, there have probably been 3-4 seasons where, if Beckett were with the Sox, he would have sat at the end of the year to "rest" a "tired" shoulder. Look where he is now.

 

Again, the sox being hypervigalent should be taken as a sign of strength, not a sign of overwhelming concern. Nobody is saying "buchholz is injured" and with the passion with which this FO appears to be hanging on to him, I would say that your theory that the shoulder fatigue was somehow "clinical" is pretty off base. If he was an injury risk beyond the risk of ANY OTHER PITCHER, he would be traded in a heartbeat.

 

My bet is that Beckett would LOVE the idea of pitching less frequently, because he sees the pitcers they have. If they sucked, or if it didn't work then they can change course.

 

The Sox won't be starting John Burkett every 6th day. Their weakest pitchers will be Lester and Wakefield.

 

So YOU carry on... :harhar:

[example1]

So you're supposing he should spend a month in AAA lounging and maybe doing some crossword puzzles?

 

Gotcha.

 

Pitching is pitching. Whether hes doing it in AAA or MLB he is still putting the same amount of stress on that shoulder of his your so terribly worried about. I'd rather see him logging innings in the majors where he'll actually have an impact, rather than wasting innings in AAA.

 

Buchholz, like Mrs Slowsky the Turtle in the Comcast Commercials, is a Sudduko Maniac. He can't get enough. He also enjoys Ma Jong and cognac.

[example1]

So we're talking a month difference. Which, coincidentally, may be the amount of pitching he needs to do in the playoffs.

 

Gotcha.

 

Still haven't heard a good argument against 6 x 175 IP, with wiggle room for more or less depending on the pitcher... I still don't see how Buchholz throwing even one inning at AAA is better than having MORE innings of Wakefield for the Big Club. If you're not planning on sitting Buchholz at AAA, and you're hoping to have a rested pitching staff down the stretch (as you've made abundantly clear you are) then the most logical answer is to limit pitch counts (and IP) by spreading out the starts among your talented and mature pitchers (all SIX of them). Just sayin....

[jacksonianmarch]

Here is why you send Buchholz to the minors.

 

A. The MiLB season starts 2 weeks after the MLB season does. That is 3 starts, or roughly 20 innings saved.

 

B. You can have him throw how ever many innings you want and pull him regardless of the in-game situation thus maximizing his effectiveness when he eventually ascends to the majors.

 

and probably the most important

 

C. You have 5 effective MLB starters. Who are you gonna bench? Not Beckett or DiceK. You just signed Schill, and he is no reliever. Lester? The kid who battled back from cancer, finished solid and is ready now. Or Wake, the ever present pitcher who won 17 games last yr? You have a plethora of pitching right now. 2 guys are antiques. This means that Buch will get his chance. Until then, the 5 you have is nice enough.

[jacksonianmarch]

I see Yankees as the clear favorites to get Johan' date=' considering they are willing to deal Hughes, Cabrera and a top prospect. I heard on weei on my drive home that the Sox have told Minn that Ellsbury is off limits and Buchholz would also be hard to pry away.[/quote']

 

The rumors continue to swirl. The twins obviously want Hughes. The Yankees obviously want to deal Kennedy. The Twins want both Jackson and Melky while the yankees are willing to offer Melky and Tabata. Regardless, Kennedy coming back in the deal elevates the game a bit and forces the sox to offer either Ellsbury or Buchholz to trump it, which they wont. Hence why I think the sox are not in this thing at all. Like I said before, Beckett is a playoff ace who will be asking for Santana money next season. Having 2 guys locked into a rotation for 50 mil a season is a risky proposition. The proposition that I have seen most often from "insiders" (consider the source obviously, ie a s***** one) is..

 

Kennedy, Melky and Tabata.

 

Melky gives them a solid defensive CFer with the capability to hit over .300. Tabata gives them the shorter range RF prospect who has talent to spare. And Kennedy gives them a mid rotation ceiling, safe pitcher who could be in their rotation for yrs to come. Unless someone steps up to try and match the yankees, I dont think the twins get more than this.

 

For another "source", I listened to Mike and the Maddog today, and Francessa stated that his sources said that Santana wouldnt accept a deal to the sox anyway (ie he wont sign an extension). This is all kinda brewing into our favor. We'll see how it rolls.

[example1]

Here is why you send Buchholz to the minors.

 

A. The MiLB season starts 2 weeks after the MLB season does. That is 3 starts, or roughly 20 innings saved.

 

B. You can have him throw how ever many innings you want and pull him regardless of the in-game situation thus maximizing his effectiveness when he eventually ascends to the majors.

 

and probably the most important

 

C. You have 5 effective MLB starters. Who are you gonna bench? Not Beckett or DiceK. You just signed Schill, and he is no reliever. Lester? The kid who battled back from cancer, finished solid and is ready now. Or Wake, the ever present pitcher who won 17 games last yr? You have a plethora of pitching right now. 2 guys are antiques. This means that Buch will get his chance. Until then, the 5 you have is nice enough.

 

a) So he doesn't go to spring training? Or does he stay in florida and enjoy the warm weather? No to A

 

He's not going to pitch 2 innings here, one inning there, 3 innings there. If this were the middle of the season (or anywhere CLOSE to the season) everyone would be talking about "routine" and how he has to get "conditioned" for longer outings. Keeping him in AAA and whetting his appetite for more with 1 and 3 inning stints would go against conditioning practices and ultimately not have him in game-shape when he comes up. No to b.

 

c) "and probably the most important"? "You have 5 effective MLB starters. Who are you going to bench?"

 

I just don't remember when they said that 5 starters was a rule, which means that benching a pitcher isn't necessary. I proposed using 6 last year in the beginning of the year, and can make a much stronger case for it now. Two groups of three pitchers (Beckett, Schilling, Lester)(Dice, Wake, Buchholz) that could be either 1-3 or 2-4 pitchers on nearly any other club. A team that has an offense that can carry it, and pitching that can carry it. A team that stands to make a great run at the postseason again, with the depth to keep almost all of its starters under 200 IP if it wants to, or to limit the total pitches of those who need it.

 

 

It is only a problem if you refuse to look outside the box at the most obvious solution. The only decent come-back to the 6-man rotation is that Beckett wouldn't pitch every 5th day, which really just doesn't matter. He should pitch BETTER every 6th day, as should every other pitcher in the rotation, which means that they will have a better chance to win each of those individual nights.

 

I don't know. I know I'm the only one seeing it this way, but it seems like the most obvious solution and one that the Sox have already acknowledged exploring.

 

Personally, I'd be willing to bet that Dice-K and Schilling will both pitch better with more rest, and the difference in their performance plus the production from Buchholz will be close to what Santana would give you.

[ksushi]

Still haven't heard a good argument against 6 x 175 IP' date=' with wiggle room for more or less depending on the pitcher... Just sayin....[/quote']

 

Talkin' bout a six man?

 

"We've discussed that concept, the concept of a six-man rotation," Epstein said. "I think it's premature to commit to any usage pattern, but certainly we're in a bit of a unique situation where you'd say a number of our starters might benefit from something like that in one way or another. But there's just so much attrition in baseball that the minute we start counting on having a six-man rotation or give it serious consideration, that's when we lose a pitcher or two in Spring Training and we look for someone to step up."

 

Adding more fuel to the speculation now is the return of Schilling for 2008, giving the Red Sox, at least on paper, six starters heading into the season in Beckett, Matsuzaka, Schilling, Tim Wakefield, Jon Lester and possibly Clay Buchholz.

 

"I'm sure that topic will come up in our internal discussions between now and Spring Training. It's an interesting concept, given the personnel we have, but not something we've fully explored yet," Epstein said.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071106&content_id=2294391&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[cam780]

cashman has no idea what hes doing...really nj,the man is completely rudderless or powerless or both.

hes the man who paid roger clemens 28M last may.

he gave kei igawa pavano money

he gave pavano 40m and jarrett wright 20M

steve karsay??

i still cant get over this clemens thing.

anybody who made that jerk off the highest paid player in the game needs to be evaluated more closely'

anybody who put together that rotation while having a 200M payroll isnt qualified to draft a little league team

As a Sox fan I disagree, alot of the issues with NY have to do with Steinbrenner. For every Roger Clemens there's a JD Drew, for every Kei Igawa there's a Matt Clement. For every Jarrett Wright there's an Edgar Renteria. The biggest issue with the Yankees now is all of the bloated deals that were given out years ago that are un-moveable.

 

As far as Santana goes, I tend to agree with Lugo that if the Dodgers want in Kemp, Kershaw and Loney are better than anything that the Sox or Yanks can offer but the Dodgers typically don't get involved in these things and they still need a bat so I think Cabrera is their biggest priority. Its early yet and within 5 minutes of each other I read one piece that said that Cashman is more hesitant than Epstein to give up his pitching prospects and another that said the reverse.

 

One thing that I keep on going over in my mind is back in 2005 when the Rangers were supposedly the frontrunners to get Beckett from the Marlins and the deal actually wound up being made with the Sox for untouchable uber-prospect Hanley Ramirez. I would prefer the Sox to work around Buchholz and Ellsbury but if they had to give up one of the two I think they're going with including Ellsbury.

 

The talk about the financial commitment that will come along with the trade isn't going to impact the Sox because their rotation is filled out with pitchers on below market deals. Today if you remove Lester and add Santana to the rotation the total payroll on starters would be $50 million and considering that you have two legit cy young contenders and a third who could be thats a steal. Assuming that you're paying Santana 25 million in three years when Beckett hits the market and you sign him to the same type deal you're still only talking about $60-$65 million if Schill and Wake's spots are taken by kids.

[TheKilo]

I don't have the time nor the patience to go through that long post but I never said anything about beating Beckett like a rented mule (he pitched 200 innings this season, and your 6 man plan would drop him is total by 25....3 or 4 starts worth).

 

If you can't see the difference between Beckett throwing comparable innings next season that he did this season at 27, as opposed to Buchholz throwing 30+ more innings than he's ever thrown at age 23, then that's your prerogative and not mine.

 

All I said was if he was going to hit his pitching limit, why not maintain roster flexibility as often as possible and slide him into the rotation after a month or two?

 

If he's making four inning starts in April the bullpen sees a lot of action. Ask the Yankees how that one worked out this season.

[TheKilo]

Talkin' bout a six man?

 

 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071106&content_id=2294391&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

Your quote says he's thought about it but never discussed it.

 

And also

 

But there's just so much attrition in baseball that the minute we start counting on having a six-man rotation or give it serious consideration, that's when we lose a pitcher or two in Spring Training and we look for someone to step up.

 

Which is why starting Buchholz is AAA makes a lot of sense.

[TheKilo]

The Red Sox [team stats] are actively engaged in trade talks with the Minnesota Twins about Johan Santana and plan to aggressively pursue the two-time Cy Young Award winner, a baseball source said yesterday.

 

 

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1047493

 

One person familiar with the situation, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak for the teams involved, said he expects the competition for Santana to come down to the Yankees and Red Sox. The Red Sox, he said, might be willing to meet Minnesota's need for a young center fielder with Jacoby Ellsbury but are not willing to move pitcher Clay Buchholz.

 

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/119622919654690.xml&coll=1

[jacksonianmarch]

As a Sox fan I disagree, alot of the issues with NY have to do with Steinbrenner. For every Roger Clemens there's a JD Drew, for every Kei Igawa there's a Matt Clement. For every Jarrett Wright there's an Edgar Renteria. The biggest issue with the Yankees now is all of the bloated deals that were given out years ago that are un-moveable.

 

As far as Santana goes, I tend to agree with Lugo that if the Dodgers want in Kemp, Kershaw and Loney are better than anything that the Sox or Yanks can offer but the Dodgers typically don't get involved in these things and they still need a bat so I think Cabrera is their biggest priority. Its early yet and within 5 minutes of each other I read one piece that said that Cashman is more hesitant than Epstein to give up his pitching prospects and another that said the reverse.

 

One thing that I keep on going over in my mind is back in 2005 when the Rangers were supposedly the frontrunners to get Beckett from the Marlins and the deal actually wound up being made with the Sox for untouchable uber-prospect Hanley Ramirez. I would prefer the Sox to work around Buchholz and Ellsbury but if they had to give up one of the two I think they're going with including Ellsbury.

 

The talk about the financial commitment that will come along with the trade isn't going to impact the Sox because their rotation is filled out with pitchers on below market deals. Today if you remove Lester and add Santana to the rotation the total payroll on starters would be $50 million and considering that you have two legit cy young contenders and a third who could be thats a steal. Assuming that you're paying Santana 25 million in three years when Beckett hits the market and you sign him to the same type deal you're still only talking about $60-$65 million if Schill and Wake's spots are taken by kids.

 

The point would still remain that you would have 50 mil locked up in 2 pitchers. And, one thing theo has always been able to do is get an edge in negotiations. He's been burned before trying to get that edge, but look around at your team. Becks resigned when he was sucking, now looks like a damn bargain. Lowell signed to below market because theo knows A. He wants to stay and B. Fenway made him last season. But there is ZERO way to gain an edge with Santana. If the sox deal for him and they try to negotiate, what angle will they use? They can't DiceK him and say sign this or you wont be a major leaguer next yr. They cannot definitively say, sign this or you'll be stuck in Minnesota next yr. They cannot do anything. Santana has all the leverage in the world. If he doesnt get exactly what he wants, he'll wait out the season and be a FA and then get exactly what he wants. And when you have 1 bona fide ace, another guy who could be in DiceK, a solid vet foundation and then 2 kids who look pretty good, the need is in question.

[Mr Crunchy]

i think if they move on santana the negotiations on a new contract are done

see the pedro martinez deal for an example

[cam780]

The point would still remain that you would have 50 mil locked up in 2 pitchers. And' date=' one thing theo has always been able to do is get an edge in negotiations. He's been burned before trying to get that edge, but look around at your team. Becks resigned when he was sucking, now looks like a damn bargain. Lowell signed to below market because theo knows A. He wants to stay and B. Fenway made him last season. But there is ZERO way to gain an edge with Santana. If the sox deal for him and they try to negotiate, what angle will they use? They can't DiceK him and say sign this or you wont be a major leaguer next yr. They cannot definitively say, sign this or you'll be stuck in Minnesota next yr. They cannot do anything. Santana has all the leverage in the world. If he doesnt get exactly what he wants, he'll wait out the season and be a FA and then get exactly what he wants. And when you have 1 bona fide ace, another guy who could be in DiceK, a solid vet foundation and then 2 kids who look pretty good, the need is in question.[/quote']

 

I actually agree 100% but I don't think money will be the issue here. If the Sox are willing to spend $100 million on an unproven Japanese ace in his prime then I think they'd be willing to spend the $125 million on the best established pitcher in baseball. $50 million dollars is alot to spend on two players but Theo places value on players and right now if there are two players with a similar value it would be those two and at the end of the day in 2010 when this counts Santana's contract with whomever it is is going to come into play into what the Sox pay him.

 

Also, it makes sense to pull the trigger even though you don't need him now - as much as any team in the league can do without the best pitcher in baseball - you may be looking at a Yankees rotation in 2010 that has Santana, Peavy, Chamberlain, Wang and Kennedy.

 

Side note: doesn't the Young for Garza deal sort of shift the deal toward the Sox strengths of being in the position to offer two young pitchers and takes the Yanks strength of Cabrera out of the equation?

[example1]

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=MLB&id=2993&line=226720&spln=1

 

Twins insist on Ellsbury as part of the deal.

 

If they're pushing for Ellsbury it likely means a) Buchholz is off the table and the Twins understand and accept it and the Twins see some value in Jon Lester as a replacement for Santana.

 

I'm still not doing it. The financial flexibility this team will have going into next year will be great, because they'll spend the money anyway but have Ellsbury to boot.

[Jayhawk Bill]

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=MLB&id=2993&line=226720&spln=1

 

Twins insist on Ellsbury as part of the deal.

 

If they're pushing for Ellsbury it likely means a) Buchholz is off the table and the Twins understand and accept it and the Twins see some value in Jon Lester as a replacement for Santana.

 

I'm still not doing it. The financial flexibility this team will have going into next year will be great, because they'll spend the money anyway but have Ellsbury to boot.

 

I'd consider Ellsbury for Santana, straight up, if Santana then signed a 7/128 contract (which it's rumored is his actual demand to sign with the Twins).

 

I would not do Ellsbury-for-Santana if Santana wants a 5/125 deal. I wouldn't trade both Ellsbury and Lester for Santana.

 

Frankly, I think that Johan Santana's career will look like Mike Mussina's from here on out. Mussina is a marginal HOF candidate, but Santana is being regarded as a future HOF lock by many. I don't think that he's that good.

 

***

 

A six-man rotation has three obvious drawbacks:

 

1) Underuse of Josh Beckett;

 

2) A requirement that Terry Francona count higher than the fingers on one hand; and

 

3) The use of an extra roster spot.

 

That last one is the big one.

 

Conversely, it saves all of the starting pitchers' innings counts down, and it would be very likely to help both Daisuke Matsuzaka and Tim Wakefield (check his 2007 splits).

[TheKilo]

JHB, normally I don't take issues with your way of thinking, but on what planet is Santana not a good pitcher and an HoF lock?

 

ERA+ since 2002:

 

Santana - 149, 148, 182, 155, 161, 130

Mussina - 109, 129, 98, 96, 129, 87

 

If Santana is "not that good", who is?

[cam780]

JHB, normally I don't take issues with your way of thinking, but on what planet is Santana not a good pitcher and an HoF lock?

 

ERA+ since 2002:

 

Santana - 149, 148, 182, 155, 161, 130

Mussina - 109, 129, 98, 96, 129, 87

 

If Santana is "not that good", who is?

 

I agree with Kilo here. I don't think there is a comparison here and I fear this may be a case of the last memory you have a player affecting the perception of his career. In Mussina's age 28 year he was 19-11 with a mediocre mid 4 era in the twelve seasons (incl that year) he has had 7 -15 win or better seasons and 7 seasons with a mid to high - 3 era. I'd give up today's Jacoby Ellsbury for Mussina in his prime. If you believe that Santana is prone to the same decline than that decline probably won't be happening until after this next deal for Santana (even if it is for 7 years). My personal opinion is if the Twins are willing to accept a deal that includes Ellsbury and Lester, we should take it. Mediocre starters on the market are making 11-13 million per and its easy to back yourself into a bad deal. A trade for Santana without Buchholz ultimately saves you from entering that market for the next three years and not to minimize Ellsbury's contributions in the WS but we made it to the dance with Crisp for 90% of the year and we have a bunch of options from free agents to in house candidates that may not be 100% of what he is but that could be 80%.

[ksushi]

"There have been gains from a physical standpoint,” said pitching coach John Farrell of Buchholz. “In retrospect, looking back to what did take place, it was certainly the right decision to deactivate him, for lack of a better term, at the time. He is making progress. He’s still got some work to do, particularly as we project 180-185 innings for him next year. There’s still some work to be done to build that foundation, to endure that load.”

 

Just to put that to rest.

 

Moving on...

[TheKilo]

Just to put that to rest.

 

Moving on...

 

SO they project 180 innings from him, but without knowing how he responds to the offseason training program or the increased workload. Basically, they're speculating.

 

Moving on...

[jacksonianmarch]

I actually agree 100% but I don't think money will be the issue here. If the Sox are willing to spend $100 million on an unproven Japanese ace in his prime then I think they'd be willing to spend the $125 million on the best established pitcher in baseball. $50 million dollars is alot to spend on two players but Theo places value on players and right now if there are two players with a similar value it would be those two and at the end of the day in 2010 when this counts Santana's contract with whomever it is is going to come into play into what the Sox pay him.

 

Also, it makes sense to pull the trigger even though you don't need him now - as much as any team in the league can do without the best pitcher in baseball - you may be looking at a Yankees rotation in 2010 that has Santana, Peavy, Chamberlain, Wang and Kennedy.

 

Side note: doesn't the Young for Garza deal sort of shift the deal toward the Sox strengths of being in the position to offer two young pitchers and takes the Yanks strength of Cabrera out of the equation?

 

 

Young does nothing for their CF spot, though. And if you figure that the sox had Jacoby to offer while the yankees had Melky, I think that position is a potential strength for the sox in negotiations. When you talk about pitching, I dont think the sox have the opportunity to match up.

[ksushi]

SO they project 180 innings from him, but without knowing how he responds to the offseason training program or the increased workload. Basically, they're speculating.

 

Moving on...

 

So hold up...

 

I don't know how you feel about Clay as a prospect. I've been assuming this whole time that you are as high on him as most, but I detect some skepticism?

 

If you don't think he can carry the workload of a SP, do you think it would be worth it to package him in a trade? I mean, all I know is that you're pretty unimpressed by most of the speculation flying around.

 

I think his frame is much less questionable than people think. He is listed at 6'3 190lbs, its not unrealistic to anticipate him coming into camp at around 200 lbs. Either way, he should be able to handle the workload of a close to full major league season unless theres something I'm missing.

[example1]

I'd consider Ellsbury for Santana' date=' straight up, if Santana then signed a 7/128 contract (which it's rumored is his actual demand to sign with the Twins). [/quote']

 

Yes, straight up would be something worth looking into. However, I still think that a few years later I might be wondering 'what if' about Ellsbury, similar to Hanley, except that Hanley gave the Sox something that, practically and aesthetically was enormously important for them (ace level, shut-down SP in his prime). They viewed that situation the same way the Yankees view the Santana situation. They would REALLY help themselves by getting him, if at least for the short term.

 

I would never say you can have too much of those #1 guys, but they signed Dice-K for that reason as well, and after his first season I think there is plenty of reason to suspect that he will be able to handle a #2 spot. Lester was likely projected a few years back as having #3 stuff, and as a hard throwing 23 year old lefty I think he still does. To the Sox's benefit, they developed another 23 year old SP who was better. Buchholz will ultimately challenge Dice-K for the #2 spot.

 

In short, the Sox do not need to get Santana and they could have a Hanley Ramirez type player on their team currently, ready to start in CF and leadoff against righties. Either way, it's a victory as far as I'm concerned if its a 1:1.