Johan Santana

[example1]

This is all nauseating to me. Let the Yankees get Santana by trading Dwight Gooden. I really don't care. Hughes is going to be a phenomenal pitcher, so is Buchholz. If I were in control both would be untouchable and the Twins could eat s***. Santana is a great pitcher, a GREAT pitcher, I simply don't see him as being more valuable than the careers of the entire AAAA team we're talking about trading for him.

 

One arm injury in the next 6 years and this would become a disasterous move. The risk is mitigated significantly if these "can't miss" guys are not included.

[TheKilo]

What a foolish set of posts TheKilo. Again, trying to make my position seem naive by misrepresenting them. When did I say I didn't want Santana?

 

So, the Red Sox Ellsbury fanboyism is what is keeping the deal from happening, right? Because so far all I've done is explain why--it appears--the FO isn't willing to move Ellsbury. You clearly don't think the FO is capable of evaluating talent and don't give a damn what people like Bill James have to say about the situation. I guess in TheKingdom none of that matters. Just accusing people of being 'fanboys' despite the enormous amount of numbers that person has put out to justify the position.

 

And all you've done is say getting Santana isn't worth the risk. You haven't acknowledged the risk that comes with assuming Ellsbury will succeed.

 

The "fanboy" comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry I offended you but it seems I struck a cord.

 

Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we?

 

228, 231.2, 233.2, 219 - IP for Santana since 2004

2.61, 2.87, 2.77, 3.33 - Santana ERA since 2004

182, 155, 161, 130 - Santana ERA+ since 2004

 

While the risk for a pitcher is always big, Santana is as close to a sure thing as you can get.

 

Ellsbury is far from that.

 

 

I'm SURE Beane would do the same thing. I don't see Angelos doing it, but I was merely referring to someone's comments above. Beane would jump at the idea of having free pick of the Sox farm system for a pitcher whom he acquired for trading Mark Mulder to St. Louis, especially if he gets a comparable arm in Lester, plus Masterson, plus Crisp, plus Lowrie. He's not dumb.

 

So we want to offer the same package we would Santana for a lesser pitcher.

 

But here's the thing. Haren's availability means more teams will get involved. Simple economics tells us that increased demand causes the price for something to go up. So, it's entirely possible you're looking at dealing Ellsbury to attain Haren as well.

 

Although in that instance I would just rather have the Sox hold onto Ellsbury.

 

That said, I'm actually content with the starting staff as it is now but won't mind the flexibility afforded the team when they next look to acquire a SP.

 

We agree here.

 

 

I have said that I would consider a straight-up trade, or even one with some other minor-leaguers thrown in. I think when you start talking about Lester and Ellsbury (and Masterson and Lowrie) you are REALLY pushing the envelope, and doing so without much regard for the potential for most of those players. The easiest one to write about potential wise is Ellsbury. But it would be just as easy to write about Jon Lester's potential, and Masterson's potential, and Lowrie's as well. With Masterson in particular, I wrote above about his potential trade value for years to come.

 

It's easy to say you could trade Santana for Ellsbury heads up. But it's completely unreasonable and a shining example of overvaluing a prospect.

 

 

 

I know you take it TheKilo, and honestly that's cool with me. What would be the fun of this board if we didn't disagree sometimes?

 

That said, I still disagree with you. Six years is a really long time for a pitcher. He would be with the Red Sox in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, (just to visualize it) probably at 20 million for each of those years. If he's amenable to a shorter deal, then I'm less concerned.

 

Question - If Santana continues to pitch in a similar manner he has been, how many years wouldhe have to do it for you to say it would be a good deal? 3? 4? All 6?

 

Note: my level of concern about the ensuing contract, and my desire to trade a particular player for Santana are two completely different subjects. When I say "I open up the entire farm system to the Twins" I mean it. Hold Ellsbury, hold Buchholz, and notice how all the holes on the team get filled, cost controlled, for years and years.

 

Again, you assume a level of performance for these prospects that may not be reasonable. Like I said, if you can get it done without Ellsbury/Buchholz, do it. But with the Yank's inclusion of Hughes, they have the better offer.

 

Honestly, if Ellsbury nets us Santana, then the Sox should be able to replace Masterson with Bowden.

 

Would you make the deal if it was Ellsbury/Bowden/Lester/Lowrie?

 

 

Why do they have to get Santana? Do you really not think it is possible that the Red Sox have other ways to spend 120 million dollars in the next few years?

 

Who would they spend the money on, especially with Schilling and possibly Manny coming off the books next season, especially since more teams are locking up their free agents?

 

 

Do you really think it makes the Yankees unbeatable? It doesn't change the fact that the Sox need to win 95 games to get to the playoffs, and in the playoffs they should have a formidable staff of Beckett, DiceK, Schilling and Buchholz/Lester/Wake. It doesn't change the fact that this team was built to win that many games last year and it succeeded, and it will improve this year with the addition of Buchholz and Ellsbury to the starting lineup.

 

Getting Santana makes winning 95 games easier.

Getting Santana makes the frontline of the rotation better.

Getting Santana makes the team better.

 

That's what I care about.

 

 

 

Yeah, god forbid we talk about players that are similar. God forbid we actually take a solid look at the statistics, THUS REPLACING HOPE, to make a point. I'm not hoping they're going to be similar. I believe they are going to be similar BECAUSE... (everything I wrote above).

 

And then you used Ellsbury's charisma to try to make a point. OK.

 

If I was being unrealistic wouldn't I have compared Ellsbury to someone a little more prominent than Pedroia? Instead, I showed his numbers according to one of the Red Sox top analysts, and compared it to other players. Unsurprisingly Pedroia was high on that list too. His talents were grossly underestimated and unperceived when he was ready to come into the league, except that pesky FO and people like you who kept believing he was something pretty good.

 

The difference is Pedroia had a track record in all levels of the minors, when Ellsbury struggled at AAA. Big difference.

 

You seem to have this preconception of what a winning team is, and your need to fit that mold perhaps makes you miss the point. The team we had in 07 won. We won the World Series TheKilo. We were the best team in baseball, for much of the season. We had tremendous pitching, and that pitching stands to improve considerably with the addition of Buchholz. Agreed? The offense last year was solid, but there were some pretty big holes in Drew, Crisp and Lugo. Ellsbury, if able to produce all-around like Pedroia has (with those stupid SBs) that would eliminate one of the holes. So the offense improves. How much? It's hard to say, but I would bet that it will be a substantial upgrade.

 

What do you expect out of Buchholz next season? You think an older Schilling, Wakefield, and a new corps of Lester and Buchholz equates to an improvement?

 

Is it not possible to expect regressions from Okajima, Wakefield, Schilling, and Timlin?

 

In terms of offense...expect a regression from Lowell, Varitek, and Pedroia. Who's going to improve on the offense, and do you think the upgrade from Ellsbury to Crisp is really all that great, especially when you can add a guy like Santana to the rotation?

 

Meanwhile, by the FO not flinching, the Yankees are now prepared to trade a guy who EVERYONE previously would have acknowledged as untouchable, what, 2 days ago. So while they would be picking up Santana, it will be at tremendous expense both financially and talent wise (assuming they're trading other pieces as well). Trading Hughes is like trading Buchholz, and you said Buchholz is untouchable. The Sox consider trading Buchholz + was too much as well, which means that they likely think trading Hughes + is too much, and thus a victory for the Twins. It doesn't make life easier for the Red Sox, but during the primes of guys like Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lester, Papelbon, and Pedroia (starting in, say, 2 or 3 years) the Red Sox will be in much better shape.

 

Can't argue. Ellsbury should not be considered an untouchable.

 

 

C'mon man. This would be like me saying "you are actively trying to get rid of Ellsbury because you think he sucks."

 

I DO want the best pitcher in baseball. I just don't want to use your ridiculous notion that "best pitcher in baseball" doesn't have an objective value. Your argument is basically "With Santana this team will never lose, but without him the Yankees will win for 6 years".

 

My argument is that there are objective ways of measuring player values.

 

I saw you using Win Shares earlier. Why don't you back up your statements with a full trade analysis? I've done a lot of that digging, but you don't seem to buy it. Do better.

 

Next six years: Win Shares:

Santana vs. Ellsbury, Lester, Masterson, Lowrie.

 

Go ahead and do it, or some other thorough study. Something more than "I'm smart, you're a fanboy", which is just an attack on me and not my arguments.

 

 

Hey, maybe the Sox will work out something for Santana involving Ellsbury. I certainly wouldn't be upset, but I understand why they wouldn't deal him and won't be upset if they aren't willing to budge. When you're talking about moving talent like this I think it's a win-win situation.

 

That's fine. I guess I struck a nerve with the fanboy comment.

 

The "next six years" argument holds no weight with me because if the Sox do trade their prospects, then you'd have to consider those who play in their positions.

 

Santana, Crisp, Lugo, random pitcher X vs. Ellsbury, Lowrie, Lester, and Masterson.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm not seeing it.

 

.273/.327/.391 over a full year in '07

.280/.360/.391 in his big sample in '06

.275/.322/.411 in his big sample in '05 at AA

.288/.341/.438 in '04 at A+

 

He's once shown the type of IsoD you predict. This is typically not a skill one learns. Those with patience and pitch recognition show it early. He's played two full seasons worth of ball at the ultimate level and shown little to no progression. He is what he is, IMO. While he will ultimately develop more power than Ellsbury, the rest of his game will lag behind, and his body type will necessitate a move to corner without possessing the bat to be of significant value there.

.

 

Perhaps your belief that IsoD is not typically a skill which one learns is influenced by the normal career progression where players usually develop in college for a few years, MiLB for a few years, and arrive in MLB at around age 25. Melky Cabrera is barely 23 years old: he's still developing his core skills, even if he's already good enough to have reached MLB.

 

But let's look at players who ARE similar to Melky Cabrera, players who reach MLB while young. Going to Baseball Reference and taking the ten players most similar to Melky through age 22, and then taking the average batting line of those ten from age 23 through the end of their careers, one gets this batting line:

 

.295/.365/.435

 

Which is exactly what I'd posted below as a reasonable expectation for Melky.

 

Let's look at PECOTA comparables for a double-check. Melky's top comparable coming into 2007 was Rick Manning. Rick Manning didn't develop IsoD. The next four comparables were Carlos Beltran, Roberto Alomar, Richie Ashburn and Pete Rose, all of whom certainly DID develop IsoD. Many of the other 15 comparables did so as well, with what seems at a glance to be a correlation between developing their power hitting and developing IsoD.

 

FWIW, 30% of the players on both the BR comparables list and the BP comparables list were HOF-caliber players. There are a few who washed out, but it's more likely that Melky will be voted to the HOF than it's likely that he'll wash out as you describe. A most-likely scenario has him developing into an All Star outfielder...and All Star outfielders are valuable players.

[Jayhawk Bill]

And all you've done is say getting Santana isn't worth the risk. You haven't acknowledged the risk that comes with assuming Ellsbury will succeed.

 

The "fanboy" comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry I offended you but it seems I struck a cord.

 

Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we?

 

228, 231.2, 233.2, 219 - IP for Santana since 2004

2.61, 2.87, 2.77, 3.33 - Santana ERA since 2004

182, 155, 161, 130 - Santana ERA+ since 2004

 

While the risk for a pitcher is always big, Santana is as close to a sure thing as you can get.

 

Ellsbury is far from that.

 

 

 

 

So we want to offer the same package we would Santana for a lesser pitcher.

 

But here's the thing. Haren's availability means more teams will get involved. Simple economics tells us that increased demand causes the price for something to go up. So, it's entirely possible you're looking at dealing Ellsbury to attain Haren as well.

 

Although in that instance I would just rather have the Sox hold onto Ellsbury.

 

 

 

We agree here.

 

 

 

 

It's easy to say you could trade Santana for Ellsbury heads up. But it's completely unreasonable and a shining example of overvaluing a prospect.

 

 

 

 

 

Question - If Santana continues to pitch in a similar manner he has been, how many years wouldhe have to do it for you to say it would be a good deal? 3? 4? All 6?

 

 

 

Again, you assume a level of performance for these prospects that may not be reasonable. Like I said, if you can get it done without Ellsbury/Buchholz, do it. But with the Yank's inclusion of Hughes, they have the better offer.

 

Honestly, if Ellsbury nets us Santana, then the Sox should be able to replace Masterson with Bowden.

 

Would you make the deal if it was Ellsbury/Bowden/Lester/Lowrie?

 

 

 

 

Who would they spend the money on, especially with Schilling and possibly Manny coming off the books next season, especially since more teams are locking up their free agents?

 

 

 

 

Getting Santana makes winning 95 games easier.

Getting Santana makes the frontline of the rotation better.

Getting Santana makes the team better.

 

That's what I care about.

 

 

 

 

 

And then you used Ellsbury's charisma to try to make a point. OK.

 

 

 

The difference is Pedroia had a track record in all levels of the minors, when Ellsbury struggled at AAA. Big difference.

 

 

 

What do you expect out of Buchholz next season? You think an older Schilling, Wakefield, and a new corps of Lester and Buchholz equates to an improvement?

 

Is it not possible to expect regressions from Okajima, Wakefield, Schilling, and Timlin?

 

In terms of offense...expect a regression from Lowell, Varitek, and Pedroia. Who's going to improve on the offense, and do you think the upgrade from Ellsbury to Crisp is really all that great, especially when you can add a guy like Santana to the rotation?

 

 

 

Can't argue. Ellsbury should not be considered an untouchable.

 

 

 

 

That's fine. I guess I struck a nerve with the fanboy comment.

 

The "next six years" argument holds no weight with me because if the Sox do trade their prospects, then you'd have to consider those who play in their positions.

 

Santana, Crisp, Lugo, random pitcher X vs. Ellsbury, Lowrie, Lester, and Masterson.

 

Where in all of this do you consider these two points:

 

1) Johan Santana will cost $18 million or more per year, while Ellsbury is almost free; and

 

2) Santana's salary will be guaranteed for 5-7 years, but he's roughly 15% likely in each year to have a career-altering/ending injury?

 

Considering those factors, I'd request that you'd explain again why Santana is significantly more valuable than Ellsbury. I think that you and example1 both make good points, but I think that you're seriously undervaluing Ellsbury.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

There are a few who washed out' date=' but it's more likely that Melky will be voted to the HOF than it's likely that he'll wash out as you describe. A most-likely scenario has him developing into an All Star outfielder...and All Star outfielders are valuable players.[/quote']

 

Melky Cabrera is going to be an All Star-Hall of Fame player?? Stop...just stop

[Jayhawk Bill]

Melky Cabrera is going to be an All Star-Hall of Fame player?? Stop...just stop

 

Melky Cabrera is most likely to develop into an All Star. He has a significant chance, albeit certainly not a probability, of being in the Hall of Fame.

 

That doesn't mean that his work at ages 21 or 22 has been All Star caliber. But most All Stars aren't All Stars as 22-year-old rookies, they're in the minor leagues. Melky Cabrera has been in MLB for two years already and he's still a year younger than Ellsbury. That suggests very significant talent.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Melky Cabrera is most likely to develop into an All Star. He has a significant chance, albeit certainly not a probability, of being in the Hall of Fame.

 

That doesn't mean that his work at ages 21 or 22 has been All Star caliber. But most All Stars aren't All Stars as 22-year-old rookies, they're in the minor leagues. Melky Cabrera has been in MLB for two years already and he's still a year younger than Ellsbury. That suggests very significant talent.

 

Again I have to say Melky Cabrera was bumped up to the MLB level based on a need from the Yankees standpoint. When he first came up he looked lost and confused at CF. He has managed to grow at the MLB level but I don't think he necessarily earned the position. The Red Sox and Yankees have a complete different approach when dealing with youngsters.

 

He is also surrounded by a team of excellent hitters. What if Caberera were to go to a weak offense such as the Twins? Isn't it fair to say his numbers have a better chance of dropping?

 

I have the same issues with people claiming Ian Kennedy is further along than Justin Masterson or Michael Bowden. Why..because he is in the majors? Big deal..Chase Wright, Matt DeSalvo, and Jeff Karstens were also in the MLB last season with the Yankees. When dealing with the amount of service time in the MLB between Cabrera and Ellsbury it means little to me when I really believe, after everything I've seen, Jacoby Ellsbury is a much better player.

[riverside sluggers]

Ok so things we've learned

 

-- The Beckett trade will damage the Sox in terms of talent for years to come

 

-- Johan Santana isnt Hall of Fame worthy

 

-- But Melky Cabrera is

[Jayhawk Bill]

I have the same issues with people claiming Ian Kennedy is further along than Justin Masterson or Michael Bowden. Why..because he is in the majors? Big deal..Chase Wright' date=' Matt DeSalvo, and Jeff Karstens were also in the MLB last season with the Yankees.[/quote']

 

Melky Cabrera was in MLB AND he was posting stats very similar to those posted by HOF players at the same ages. Nobody considered Matt DeSalvo worthy of any baseball-related Hall of Fame...c'mon.

 

Ian Kennedy? I've already explained why I don't think that he'll amount to much despite superb college stats and good early MLB stats. There are lots of young pitchers who come up for a few good starts. There are very few good center fielders who hit .275 over two seasons when they're 21 and 22.

 

Again I have to say Melky Cabrera was bumped up to the MLB level based on a need from the Yankees standpoint. When he first came up he looked lost and confused at CF.

 

First came up...do you mean the 49 innings at AGE 20??? Were the nine games in 2005 that memorable???

 

See, in 2006 Melky was primarily a left fielder. He was the best qualifying left fielder in the AL by RZR, posting a .915 to lead his league. (For contrast, Manny was at .643, missing roughly four times as many fly balls as Melky.) In 2007 he was a center fielder, and by RZR he was second in the AL, at .910 a mere 11 points behind Curtis Granderson.

 

Melky has played outstanding defense for two years. "Looked lost and confused???" Not with those stats.

 

He has managed to grow at the MLB level but I don't think he necessarily earned the position. The Red Sox and Yankees have a complete different approach when dealing with youngsters.

 

He's hitting .275 over two years and he's as good defensively as Coco Crisp, who's hit about ten points lower than Melky with equivalent power. How has he not earned his position--he's played as well as the CF on the World Champion Boston Red Sox?

 

He is also surrounded by a team of excellent hitters. What if Caberera were to go to a weak offense such as the Twins? Isn't is fair to say his numbers have a better chance of dropping?

 

No. Lineup protection may change the type of offensive production from walks to hits, but there no study that shows that being surrounded by better hitters makes a difference in offensive value.

 

When dealing with the amount of service time in the MLB between Cabrera and Ellsbury it means little to me when I really believe, after everything I've seen, Jacoby Ellsbury is a much better player.

 

Two points:

 

1) Ellsbury's MLB sample size is quite a bit smaller than Melky Cabrera's, and he's a year older; and

 

2) I wasn't discussing Cabrera vs. Ellsbury, I was discussing Melky's likely value based upon career path.

[ORS]

Melky Cabrera is most likely to develop into an All Star. He has a significant chance, albeit certainly not a probability, of being in the Hall of Fame.

 

That doesn't mean that his work at ages 21 or 22 has been All Star caliber. But most All Stars aren't All Stars as 22-year-old rookies, they're in the minor leagues. Melky Cabrera has been in MLB for two years already and he's still a year younger than Ellsbury. That suggests very significant talent.

But he's done nothing in terms of progression in a two year time frame. Zero, zip, zilch.

 

His list of B-R comps only shows three HOF'ers, with two playing in the deadball era up to the age 22. Whoopidedoo.

 

More importantly, those comps are fun to look at, but their predictive value is very limited. Had I faith in them, I'd be waiting for Dustin Pedroia to turn into Gary Sheffield at some point.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Ok so things we've learned

 

-- The Beckett trade will damage the Sox in terms of talent for years to come

 

Yup. As I posted, though, we still won.

 

-- Johan Santana isnt Hall of Fame worthy

 

-- But Melky Cabrera is

 

Quote me or retract your post. You're changing meanings for the purpose of ridicule...you're better than that.

 

Or at least I'd thought so...:dunno:

[example1]

And all you've done is say getting Santana isn't worth the risk. You haven't acknowledged the risk that comes with assuming Ellsbury will succeed.

 

Every player has risk. Pitchers are considerably riskier than fielders, especially when one makes 300,000 and the other makes 20,000,000. The difference in their production is not going to warrant the difference in salary.

 

The "fanboy" comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry I offended you but it seems I struck a cord.

 

You struck a chord because I spent a lot of time providing statistical reasons for my beliefs and you could only respond with 'your fanboyism is your problem' without responding to me with numbers, which are the objective medium we should use to talk about such things.

 

Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we?

 

228, 231.2, 233.2, 219 - IP for Santana since 2004

2.61, 2.87, 2.77, 3.33 - Santana ERA since 2004

182, 155, 161, 130 - Santana ERA+ since 2004

 

While the risk for a pitcher is always big, Santana is as close to a sure thing as you can get.

 

I don't doubt this at all man. Believe me, part of me creams my pants every time I think about Santana in this rotation. Then another part of me thinks that dealing the majority of our top-tier young players for ONE YEAR worth of Santana is too much. Don't skewer me for it, it is a realistic problem.

 

Ellsbury is far from that.

 

It's true. You were able to cite a recent history of MLB success for one player, and were not able to do it for the other. That does not, however, prove that Ellsbury is not going to be a tremendous player. It just means that your primary way of measuring such things DOES NOT APPLY to him yet. But here they are. They are both in the major leagues now, and Ellsbury will start putting up his numbers from this point forward. It is a tenuous juncture in his career, because he doesn't have much MLB experience but will start gathering it very soon. It's an unfair expectation of Ellsbury.

 

By your logic, a 23 year old Ted Williams would be a huge risk compared to an established pitcher, but that doesn't speak to the talent that is obviously under the surface.

 

 

So we want to offer the same package we would offer Santana for a lesser pitcher.

 

Yes because, remember, my package doesn't include Ellsbury or Buchholz, so it is MY Package, not your package. Haren is going to cost 16.25 million for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Santana is going to cost 13.25 million next year, and then presumably 20m each season after that.

 

So, financiallly, that comes down to 13.25 for 3 years vs 53.25 for 3 years. Is the difference between Santana and Haren REALLY 13 million per season?

 

But here's the thing. Haren's availability means more teams will get involved. Simple economics tells us that increased demand causes the price for something to go up. So, it's entirely possible you're looking at dealing Ellsbury to attain Haren as well.

 

At which point I say, "thanks anyway Billy Beane, if you don't want free reign of our farm system except for 2 players then we'll go somewhere else." Of course, do you really see Billy Beane as being incapable of coming up with some combination of OTHER players who can equal Ellsbury's talent? I do. That's his MO.

 

It's easy to say you could trade Santana for Ellsbury heads up. But it's completely unreasonable and a shining example of overvaluing a prospect.

 

And being willing to send what will turn into an everyday MLB team for one pitcher is overvaluing that pitcher too.

 

The value of a player to a particular team is directly proportional to the number of marginal wins that player will get for your team (i.e., the number of wins above the squirming horde of other teams wrapped up in the 70-85 win-per-season mass). Players are most valuable to teams for whom making the playoffs and putting fans in seats will represent a marked contrast to how things would be otherwise. More precisely, players are most valuable to teams that are a few wins away from making the playoffs. Colorado sells out its games when they are good. When they suck they don't. The same is true for most teams. As a team's foundation gets better from that middle point, the impact of any one player on that team is financially less.

 

The Red Sox will sell out every game for the foreseeable future. They are currently built to win at least 95 games. They have 2 WS in the past 4 years, and couldn't be more popular or financially viable than they are right now. Adding Santana wouldn't change that. Adding Santana could be like the Yankees adding A-Rod at the expense of Alfonso Soriano, talent wise it was a no-brainer, but it didn't change the success of the team or the financial albatross that the team represented. If anything it just cost them more money.

 

 

Question - If Santana continues to pitch in a similar manner he has been, how many years wouldhe have to do it for you to say it would be a good deal? 3? 4? All 6?

 

That's a big question that just begs for some speculation...

 

If the Red Sox win the World Series for the next 4 years either way, would you make the deal?

 

Do you think the Red Sox are, as currently constructed, contenders for the World Series?

 

I do. So then the question turns to what I would want them to look like 3-4 years down the road. Theo consistently talks about how they have to be looking that far down the road, because otherwise your overvaluing now for the entire future.

 

Again, you assume a level of performance for these prospects that may not be reasonable. Like I said, if you can get it done without Ellsbury/Buchholz, do it. But with the Yank's inclusion of Hughes, they have the better offer.

 

Yes, they do. And they would be spending a SHITLOAD of talent to get Santana. I'm fine with that. I don't think it would noticably improve the franchise. It may improve the team for a short period, but Hughes should pretty quickly be able to approach Santana's value.

 

Honestly, if Ellsbury nets us Santana, then the Sox should be able to replace Masterson with Bowden.

 

In the rotation, or in the trade? Bowden and Masterson are both sort of in the Clay Buchholz spot before the 07 season. They both have solid reputations, but are both young and haven't stepped up to the just-under MLB level yet. I can't tell you who is going to have the better career.

 

Would you make the deal if it was Ellsbury/Bowden/Lester/Lowrie?

 

No. Bowden and Masterson are interchangeable in my mind at this point. I would likely make the deal if it was Ellsbury/Bowden/Lester/Lowrie for Santana and another cheaper nice piece. Nesheck for instance. You HAVE TO MITIGATE THE RISK IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

 

 

Who would they spend the money on, especially with Schilling and possibly Manny coming off the books next season, especially since more teams are locking up their free agents?

 

Is it hard to find guys you would want to have on your team? Resigning Papelbon and Beckett to a long term deal would be a nice place to start.

 

Getting Santana makes winning 95 games easier.

Getting Santana makes the frontline of the rotation better.

Getting Santana makes the team better.

 

 

That's what I care about.

 

He clearly makes them a better team for the time being. If the team is currently built to win 95 games and win a WS then it ends up being money (20m per year) and prospects thrown down the drain. For ONE arm.

 

And then you used Ellsbury's charisma to try to make a point. OK.

 

Yeah, leadership doesn't matter when you're talking about the minutia of an ENORMOUS deal. I should just keep letting you say that Crisp and Ellsbury are basically going to be the same player, even if there are personality differences and atheletic differences that will ultimately skew the equation.

 

The difference is Pedroia had a track record in all levels of the minors, when Ellsbury struggled at AAA. Big difference.

 

Ellsbury sure looked overwhelmed with his .298 AVG and .360 OBP at AAA.

 

Pedroia's .810 OPS at AAA is enough to convince you that he's a sure thing over Ellsbury? It seems weird, because their minor league careers were essentially the same. Pedroia came up and struggled, Ellsbury came up and could have legitimately been called WS MVP, and you're saying Ellsbury should go back and prove himself at AAA, passing GO on the way and collecting his $200.

 

In 1155 MiLB Career PA's: Ellsbury--188 Runs Created

In 1207 MiLB Career PA's: Pedroia--190 Runs Created

 

Their AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS and Runs Created are almost the same, in similar amounts of PA, including a few hundred each at AAA (where both basically hit .300). I think you're grasping at straws, to be honest, if your point is that Pedroia was obviously a better bet before transitioning into MLB than Ellsbury is. Weak argument.

 

I'm not making s*** up. Their numbers are eerily similar. I didn't say "I'll fudge their numbers to make them look the same". I keep looking at the numbers and they are very, very similar. Ellsbury creates more runs per PA than Pedroia. But who cares, right? You don't think he's likely to do it in the majors. Wonder why the Twins feel so sure?

 

What do you expect out of Buchholz next season?

 

I don't know. It will be fun to see though.

 

You think an older Schilling, Wakefield, and a new corps of Lester and Buchholz equates to an improvement?

 

Do you really need to ask? An 'older' Schilling? He was 'old' last year. He wasn't the focus of our SP staff, neither was Wakefield.

 

Julian Tavarez started 23 games for the Red Sox last year. You're asking me if I think Buchholz with 23 starts would be better than Tavarez. Yes, yes I do.

 

Is it not possible to expect regressions from Okajima, Wakefield, Schilling, and Timlin?

 

In terms of offense...expect a regression from Lowell, Varitek, and Pedroia. Who's going to improve on the offense, and do you think the upgrade from Ellsbury to Crisp is really all that great, especially when you can add a guy like Santana to the rotation?

 

Should we not expect Dice-K and Buchholz and Lester to all do better (i.e., contribute more) than they did last year? Given that Buchholz hardly pitched last year, and neither did Lester, I would say they look pretty good.

 

 

The "next six years" argument holds no weight with me because if the Sox do trade their prospects, then you'd have to consider those who play in their positions.

 

Right, just like you would need to compare the WS for Phil Hughes over the next 6 years with the Win Shares of Santana over the next 6.

 

Santana, Crisp, Lugo, random pitcher X vs. Ellsbury, Lowrie, Lester, and Masterson.

 

Unless you know who you're talking about this isn't a very useful exercise.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

2) I wasn't discussing Cabrera vs. Ellsbury' date=' I was discussing Melky's likely value based upon career path.[/quote']

 

and somehow you came to the conclusion that Melky Cabrera will be a All-Star / Hall of Famer.

[ORS]

He's hitting .275 over two years and he's as good defensively as Coco Crisp' date=' who's hit about ten points lower than Melky with equivalent power. How has he not earned his position--he's played as well as the CF on the World Champion Boston Red Sox?.[/quote']

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the defensive side of this statement is being made by someone who follows modern statistical analysis. Crisp was 15 runs better by FRAA, 40 better by the fielding bible, much better by PMR. I think you are cherry picking.

 

EDIT: 15 better by FRAA, still over 1 win better

[Jayhawk Bill]

But he's done nothing in terms of progression in a two year time frame. Zero, zip, zilch.

 

His list of B-R comps only shows three HOF'ers, with two playing in the deadball era up to the age 22. Whoopidedoo.

 

More importantly, those comps are fun to look at, but their predictive value is very limited. Had I faith in them, I'd be waiting for Dustin Pedroia to turn into Gary Sheffield at some point.

 

What does have predictive value? You're obviously basing your words on something...what is it that's better than comparable players?

 

And, FWIW, from age 22 to 23 Dustin Pedroia raised his BA from .191 to .317, while Gary Sheffield raised his from .194 to .330 at the same ages. I know that you're referring to Sheffield because he's the 20th of 20 comparable players on Pedroia's 2007 PECOTA Card with intent to ridicule, and you, I and the audience know that expecting 100% parallel development to every comparable is impossible--but it's striking how your example, chosen for humor, was actually a case where PECOTA captured a surprising jump by both players.

[example1]

Again I have to say Melky Cabrera was bumped up to the MLB level based on a need from the Yankees standpoint. When he first came up he looked lost and confused at CF. He has managed to grow at the MLB level but I don't think he necessarily earned the position. The Red Sox and Yankees have a complete different approach when dealing with youngsters.

 

He is also surrounded by a team of excellent hitters. What if Caberera were to go to a weak offense such as the Twins? Isn't it fair to say his numbers have a better chance of dropping?

 

Not if you look at the right numbers. There are stats that are adjusted for the team one plays on, the park you play in, etc., That is the EXACT reason why things like RBI and AVG are not good statistics. They do not correlate with winning. The point is to isolate all of the actions a player can do that should contribute to a win, and total them up throughout the season. If Santana allows one run and K's 10, but loses 1-0, he has done as much for the team to win as possible. With stats like Win Shares he gets credit for them.

 

The HOF voters don't tend to look at those numbers (some of the writers do, I suppose), but PECOTA is not going to care whose name pops up when running a comparison. If it appears that Melky uses his skills to do things that help his team win, and PECOTA thinks that similar players at his age ended up being in the HOF, doesn't it really come down to your perception of the situation vs. what the statistical trends have said? If that is the case I would trust the numbers every time, as they 'observe' the early careers of guys like Pete Rose and Roberto Alomar.

 

I have the same issues with people claiming Ian Kennedy is further along than Justin Masterson or Michael Bowden. Why..because he is in the majors? Big deal..Chase Wright, Matt DeSalvo, and Jeff Karstens were also in the MLB last season with the Yankees. When dealing with the amount of service time in the MLB between Cabrera and Ellsbury it means little to me when I really believe, after everything I've seen, Jacoby Ellsbury is a much better player.

 

Both will be productive MLB players, but Ellsbury looks very comfortable and has tools (namely speed) that can't be developed.

 

You're right about guys getting to the MLB based on the MLB club's health/depth. Buchholz and Ellsbury would have played last year for a number of MLB teams, and if they had I think there would be little chance they would be being discussed (along with a number of other Sox players in what amounts to a HUGE package for a 1 year rental).

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Just read a report on roto saying the Yankees have increased the offer to Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and Melky Cabrera for Johan Santana.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the defensive side of this statement is being made by someone who follows modern statistical analysis. Crisp was 15 runs better by FRAA, 40 better by the fielding bible, much better by PMR. I think you are cherry picking.

 

EDIT: 15 better by FRAA, still over 1 win better

 

Do you know what RZR is and what it measures?

 

FRAA makes assumptions regarding the pattern of balls in play given the pitching staff. RZR counts balls in play exactly.

 

If you want to find a way Coco is better, you can check OOZ plays--he had 25 more than Melky in just 144 more innings. We don't know how close those were to his zone, though: we know that Coco's CF OOZ rate was barely better than Cabrera's in 2006, and that his stats from LF in 2005 look, at face value, significantly worse than Melky's LF stats in 2006 (.697 RZR vs. .915 RZR).

 

Regarding The Fielding Bible, it uses three-year stats, something that I strongly question except when two players both in their primes, with no injuries, playing the same position each year, are being compared. That applies to neither Crisp nor Cabrera.

 

***

 

The OOZ plays are the reason for the difference several systems cite between Crisp and Cabrera. If there were a multi-year pattern where Coco handled OOZ balls so frequently, I'd see your point better, but as it is we're talking a couple dozen balls caught in one year.

 

Speaking of cherry-picking, though, the bit about Coco vs. Melky was part of a very long post from me. I take it that you concur with the rest?

 

Or are you cherry picking?

[ORS]

What does have predictive value? You're obviously basing your words on something...what is it that's better than comparable players?

 

And, FWIW, from age 22 to 23 Dustin Pedroia raised his BA from .191 to .317, while Gary Sheffield raised his from .194 to .330 at the same ages. I know that you're referring to Sheffield because he's the 20th of 20 comparable players on Pedroia's 2007 PECOTA Card with intent to ridicule, and you, I and the audience know that expecting 100% parallel development to every comparable is impossible--but it's striking how your example, chosen for humor, was actually a case where PECOTA captured a surprising jump by both players.

I guess that minor parallel gives you a minor degree of vindication.

 

I don't know what has more predictive value ulitmately, only what I've seen from comp players lists and the amount of chuckles they have initiated. I certainly feel taking notice of Melky's lack of progression, which you conveniently ignored, and observation of same with my eyes tells me more than coincidental statistical similarity.

[RobZombie]

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.

 

Jayhawk Bill-

 

I think you are missing two important points here. First, you need to factor in the risk that the player never reaches his potential, second you need to factor in the element of time. Third, certain players are more valuable to different teams.

 

In Beckett's case, his value maybe much higher today than it was in November 2003. Though he's being paid more and is closer to retirement, he's much more likely to have a great season in 08 than he was in 04 and is much riskier. He's also less likely to get injured as well.

[Jayhawk Bill]

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.

 

Jayhawk Bill-

 

I think you are missing two important points here. First, you need to factor in the risk that the player never reaches his potential, second you need to factor in the element of time. Third, certain players are more valuable to different teams.

 

In Beckett's case, his value maybe much higher today than it was in November 2003. Though he's being paid more and is closer to retirement, he's much more likely to have a great season in 08 than he was in 04 and is much riskier. He's also less likely to get injured as well.

 

WRT your first point, once you've got a few years of MiLB/MLB stats you've got a very good idea of the career projection, even better if you add a bit of scouting and phenotype information. Your second and third points I certainly understand.

 

In Beckett's case, his expected performance next year is higher than it was at any previous point in his career. His period of future obligation is less, though, and his salary, while reasonable, is significant.

 

Look back at my quote that you cited. It's not just the expected wins the next year.

[a700hitter]

Melky Cabrera was in MLB AND he was posting stats very similar to those posted by HOF players at the same ages.

For all of your good researched posts and analysis, it is statements like this that make your credibility slip. Comparing players against their contemporaries using stats has a lot of validity although there are certain intangible qualities that don't equate or translate well to stats. Comparing across eras and generations using stats is very unreliable. The game has changed. Middle infieders used to weigh 150-160 lbs 40 years ago. Today many of them are tipping the scales at around 200 lbs and hitting 1 handed HRs. Pitchers don't throw complete games and bullpen specialties are still developing. ...and on and on.

 

Comparing Melky at this point in his career to HOF's like Yaz and Rose among others is ludicrous. I saw those guys come up. Yaz was an icon on Long Island in two sports by time he signed with the Red Sox. His basketball career scoring average record held up for about 40 years. The guy won a batting tite by age 23, his third year in the league. If Melky wins a Batting title this year or in 2009, then a comparison might be valid. By Melky's age, Yaz was already considered a star player in a major leagues that had only 10 teams in each league. Melky is not even considered a star on his own team. Rose was a consistent .300 hitter 200+ hit man from age 24 in an era when the league average was around .250. He was an All Star by age 24 on a team that had Frank Robinson and Vada Pinson in their primes and a young Tony Perez and two 20 game winners.

[riverside sluggers]

Just read a report on roto saying the Yankees have increased the offer to Phil Hughes' date=' Ian Kennedy, and Melky Cabrera for Johan Santana.[/quote']

 

If thats the case, they should start printing out Santana pinstriped jerseys

 

If Pettitte retires:

 

Johan Santana

Chien-Ming Wang

Joba Chamberlain

Mike Mussina

Kei Igawa

 

If the Sox dont get Johan and the Yankees do with this reported package, then kudos to the Sox at least driving the price up

[RobZombie]

Jayhawk Bill Says-

 

"I'd understand your trying to close debate if you'd found a quote from Minnesota's Front Office to that effect.

 

Given that you haven't, and that the foundation for my analysis regarding Crisp plus Lester plus two others is a published Boston Herald article (previously linked), I don't see any immediate reason to cease considering my posts as reasonable. I'll certainly agree that Boston might give either Buchholz or Ellsbury to Minnesota for Santana. I wouldn't support either move, though, unless it were Ellsbury and little else of value for a seven-year commitment from Santana."

 

 

It is my personal opinion that Minnesota is a rational actor. It just wouldn't make sense for them to trade a guy who maybe the best player in Baseball while just getting Coco Crisp, Lester and a couple B prospects. What is the value there?

 

If you are Minnesota, to trade the most valuable asset you have, you need to get at least one top prospect in return. Take a look at what the Braves gave up for Texiera, and Santana is a more valuable player.

 

"Peter Gammons made his reputation when I was young through having the best connections and doing the best research. In recent years he's taken to pontificating without regard for the possibility of harming his reputation were he proven wrong, maybe because he's already enshrined in Cooperstown. He's not citing sources here, and his opinions seem badly out of line with current player values. In any case, I disagree with Gammons here."

 

Peter Gammons STILL has better contacts in the industry than you do. If he says its going to take around $20-$25M to extend Santana, I think its safe to believe that's a real number and he's not just "pontificating" as you say.

 

Regarding the "need" to redo Beckett, you are right, technically, Beckett is under contract and doesn't "need" to be redone no matter the circumstances. Yet Beckett signed what looks like now a below market deal, and has become a top AL pitcher. He finished ahead of Santana in the Cy Young voting this year, and oh yeah, led his team to the World Series, something Santana has never done. Yet extending Santana proposes that the Sox pay him possibly twice as much as Beckett. Technically they could just tell their best pitcher who just led them to a World championship to go jump in the lake, but its probably not the best way to do business. Hence, they would have no choice but to be fair to Beckett and give him at least a similar salary to Santana.

[example1]

All of this is kind of masking the point that there is a very two-sided argument going on here, and it has to do with player evaluation.

 

I feel that there is a big group here who are saying "Of course you deal any non-established, potential big-leaguer for an established multi-cy young winner", and there is a group saying "woah, let's slow down a bit and analyze it".

 

In terms of analysis, only the second group has done anything more than say "Look how great Santana has been" or "You can't prove that Ellsbury will ever be better than Crisp" or "no matter HOW good Ellsbury is he won't be as good as Santana".

 

I've started from the ground up on multiple occasions, talking about realistic projections for each of the players involved in this trade, usually working from the assumption that it would be:

 

Ellsbury + Lester + Lowrie + Masterson for 3 million total

 

vs.

 

Santana (for 13.5 and then 20 for 5-6 years)

 

Nobody on the "look how great Santana is" side has been able to articulate what the potential loss of 20m per year, coupled with the entire careers of that group means in terms of wins for the Red Sox.

 

I'm sensing that there are a bunch of people out there who just "feel" like this is a no-brainer, but who can't prove it in terms of team wins and financial stability over the next few years. At best I've read TheKilo ask what they would do with all that money, especially when Manny leaves, as if that is a problem. I haven't heard ANYONE say "If the Yankees get Santana for Hughes, Kennedy and Melky they are guaranteed to beat the Red Sox". We watched the 2003 Yankees acquire Alex Rodgriguez after having beaten the Sox, and everyone said they were unbeatable.

 

I get the sense, (and again, this is just from reading post after post) that the people on the pro-Santana side are aware of the inherent risk in any deal like this and don't feel comfortable making huge proclamations about it. I don't think it is wise to give up talent that may match Santana for 6 years in production, for a promised ONE year of Santana.

 

I don't hate the idea of getting Santana. He's great, but how people can just jump to "Of COURSE you do it, you're dumb if you think otherwise" without looking at the numbers of financial implications is beyond me.

 

There is no DOUBT that the FO is doing that type of valuation, how come we have to be reduced to a newspaper's level of analysis when there are such good baseball minds here.

 

 

ORS: funny point about comparables. Two things:

1) When you asked me what I projected for Ellsbury, I'm curious what you thought about those predictions (James') and why you asked in the first place.

2) I generally take your opinion/view to be pretty well balanced. Am I correct in sensing that you'll be okay with this deal if it goes with Santana or without him, or are you leaning one way or the other?

[Jayhawk Bill]

I guess that minor parallel gives you a minor degree of vindication.

 

Minor? Hey, you picked it, ORS, not me...

 

I don't know what has more predictive value ulitmately, only what I've seen from comp players lists and the amount of chuckles they have initiated. I certainly feel taking notice of Melky's lack of progression, which you conveniently ignored, and observation of same with my eyes tells me more than coincidental statistical similarity.

 

A whole lot of established pundits have pooh-poohed forecasting by studying comparable players for years. What they don't do is to make their own forecasts to prove that they're better.

 

Most years BP does a post-season study of how PECOTA ranked among the major forecasting methods. It's almost always at or near the top. The study was in BP Unfiltered this year if you want to check it out. The moral is that forecasting by comparables does work...at least as long as one looks at most-likely possibilities, not for exact certainties.

 

And lack of progression...progression is rarely linear for any player, and Melky's September strongly looks as if it was affected by an unreported injury. He was hitting .296/.347/.426 before the slump, and .116/.192/.145 after September 8. That's not a slump: there's a one-in-2,800+ chance of a slump that bad (using binomial theorem baed upon BA). Something changed...it could've been illness, injury, or other factors, but Melky isn't a .116 hitter. I'm wondering if it's a cold-weather issue--his September was bad in 2006, too, except for a series with Boston played in comparatively warm weather, IIRC.

 

But if I trust forecasting more than your own two eyes, let's agree to differ.

[ORS]

I feel that there is a big group here who are saying "Of course you deal any non-established' date=' potential big-leaguer for an established multi-cy young winner", and there is a group saying "woah, let's slow down a bit and analyze it".[/quote']

Up until now, it's been pretty civil, but this is a blantant indictment of those in favor of the trade being devoid of thought on it. Two can play that game, so f*** you, you pom pom waving douche. There's been analysis from both sides.

[ORS]

Minor? Hey, you picked it, ORS, not me...

 

 

 

A whole lot of established pundits have pooh-poohed forecasting by studying comparable players for years. What they don't do is to make their own forecasts to prove that they're better.

 

Most years BP does a post-season study of how PECOTA ranked among the major forecasting methods. It's almost always at or near the top. The study was in BP Unfiltered this year if you want to check it out. The moral is that forecasting by comparables does work...at least as long as one looks at most-likely possibilities, not for exact certainties.

 

And lack of progression...progression is rarely linear for any player, and Melky's September strongly looks as if it was affected by an unreported injury. He was hitting .296/.347/.426 before the slump, and .116/.192/.145 after September 8. That's not a slump: there's a one-in-2,800+ chance of a slump that bad (using binomial theorem baed upon BA). Something changed...it could've been illness, injury, or other factors, but Melky isn't a .116 hitter. I'm wondering if it's a cold-weather issue--his September was bad in 2006, too, except for a series with Boston played in comparatively warm weather, IIRC.

 

But if I trust forecasting more than your own two eyes, let's agree to differ.

I'm well aware of the fact that PECOTA is the most reliable system out there. I'm also aware of the fact that some of the comps and predictions I've seen for performance make it tough to assign any confidence to anything it tells me.

 

Sure, we differ. Tell you what, if by chance we ever meet, I'll buy you a beer if Melky ever makes an All-Star game.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

If that deals goes through the Yankees rotation appears as:

 

1. Johan Santana

2. Chein Ming Wang

3. Andy Pettite

4. Mike Mussina

5. Joba Chamberlain

 

...that puts them back in contention and I have Pettite penciled in because if he sees a hole open in that rotation he will join in. I wonder if its possible the Red Sox can push the offer a little more on the Yankees. Or better yet...turn around and somehow get Dan Haren without including Buchholz or Ellsbury.

[example1]

Not to segue too blatently, but:

 

Has anyone actually thought about whether the Red Sox would be WILLING to pay Santana 20 million a year? I mean, seriously, this FO is going to be very reluctant to spend that kind of money on anyone. They have shown a tremendous reluctance to do so in the past.

 

The reasons it might make sense to investigate acquiring such an enormous money pit here are probably:

 

1) it would be another double whammy like Matsuzaka, stealing a guy the Yankees want and would be willing to spend ungodly amounts of money at. It allows them to thrown money DIRECTLY at the the Yankees. (This would be maxamized, by the way, if it simultaneously doesn't hurt the Sox core group moving forward, hence no Ellsbury or Buchholz)

 

2) To drive up the cost to the Yankees. In order to speed up the inevitable signing of Johan Santana by the Yankees, the Yankees have to spend a pitcher with Buchholz's upside.

 

That is not just big, that is HUGE. It is taking your payoff now, instead of later. The Red Sox are fine, as long as a guy like Hughes goes the other way. If it were done without Hughes that would be the rough equivalent of getting Santana for Crisp/Lester/Lowrie/Masterson. A nice package that helps now and in the future. Hughes makes it a nice package that helps for now.