Johan Santana

example1 · December 3, 2007

I agree that this is likely a lot of Sox posturing.

Theo was definitely against trading Sanchez and Hanley to get Lowell and Beckett. It happened while he was out of the GM position. Beckett was a playoff-proven, young, cost-controlled SP. Santana is almost assured to cost the Sox 17-22 million a year.

KeepTheFaith1229 · December 3, 2007

no thanks on Jones...getting fatter by the minute and Ks a lot. if Ellsbury goes' date=' Coco is our guy.[/quote']

You can pencil in Jones for 40 HR with the monster and I wouldn't be surprised if he took a shorter deal to rebuild his value.

Gom · December 3, 2007

If I actually had faith that they would stick to the deadline, I'd be overjoyed by this statement.

Johan's statement about emphasizing his NT clause during the season would be even more important IMO. This means that the Twins lose all leverage.

I have an eery feeling that there is someone else in this mix that nobody talks about. On one end, the yankees dont leak anything, they just flat out tell the media. On the sox end, they control leaks very well, so one would assume that all of their "negotations" are going public to make the yankees pay through the nose. I have said all along that I dont think the sox are serious in this chase unless they can get him for much less than they are comfortable with.

Just remember the deals...
Texas was supposed to end up with Beckett. Boston was only a speculated destination. Then, the "leak" was that they had agreed on a trade.

Curt Schilling was supposed to go to the yankees. Then you hear about the sox and dbacks agreeing to a deal and the whole thanksgiving stuff to try and get him to drop his NT.

DiceK was giftwrapped to NY. Then 51.1mil later, the sox won the bidding.

They dont leak things until they happen. This speculation has me speculating that this is all a hoax to raise the price.

Dude, you are all over the place. The truth is, with the asking price in prospects, Santana's no-trade clause, and his salary demands, only the big market clubs are in. That means that the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, and possibly the Angels can have all three parameters.

Remember, you have to give up the prospects, and sign him, while not weakening your team overall.

The Dodgers have the most talent, but rightfully so, realize they are about a year away from making a serious run. Acquiring a big name player at the expense of their loaded young talent is a bad move. My verdict: OUT

The Angels have the pieces to make the deal, and the financial ability to add Santana. However, their pitching is decent, and seeing how poorly they fared against the Red Sox on offense, have set their sights on Cabrera of the Marlins. If Cabrera ends up with the Dodgers, they can get back in, but I doubt that this will happen before the Santana thing ends one way or the other. My verdict: OUT

The Mets...the most confusing, and dumbest team in the mix. I think Omar Minaya is one of the worst GM's in the game today. First of all, he gets rid of LoDuca, who is no worse [or better] than what's out there. The guy may not have the greatest skill set, but would have loved to come back and would have taken a short term deal. Instead he deals Milledge for spare parts, and refuses to part with Reyes. A package of Reyes and Milledge would trump both what the Yankees and Red Sox are offering, giving them the bona fide ace they need in a pitcher's park in the NL. Santana would probably have an ERA in the high one's. Considering that the Mets could find a suitable shortstop, possibly Eckstein, they can easily get this done. Verdict: Should be leading the pack here, but due to GM's stupidity, OUT

The Red Sox. The smartest team in the mix. Realizing that they don't need Santana, and that in my opinion, Danny Haren is a better fit for the Red Sox, they have caused the Yankees to blink first by staying in the derby. Haren had as good a year as Santana last year, is under control for longer, and won't cost as much in both picks and salary. I would be surprised if they didn't go get Haren after this is resolved. They have driven the price up as high as they can at this point. I doubt the Sox's sincerity in actually making this deal happen, but they have already succeeded regardless of the outcome in making the Yankees up their offer. The only negative is something they can't control. If the Twins pull Santana off the table, then the Yankees and Sox go head to head for Haren. They've done their part to make sure it does happen by upping the ante. Who knows, they may even pull it off. Verdict: IN...and can't lose either way

The Yankees. The most desperate team in the mix. Santana to the Red Sox is their worst nightmare. Due to their desperation, and being in the unfamiliar role of chasing the Red Sox, the Yankees have already blinked. Some would rather the Yankees lose and play for Haren, but the Santana move is the headline grabber. Still, with Santana, the post-season is a lock, but as all know, that means literally nothing in guaranteeing advancement. Verdict: IN and wish the Red Sox weren't.

See Red · December 3, 2007

I actually kind of agree with Gom.

Hmm... fascinating.

yankeessuck013 · December 3, 2007

Call me crazy but I think Theo gets this done at the meetings. The writing is on the wall because multiple sources have said that Smith values Ellsbury over Clay and Hughes and now Ellsbury is on the table. So I think the only thing holding this deal up is Lester and right now Theo is giving the Yanks a chance to counter offer by sticking in Horne or Jackson. So I don't think Theo is going to let Lester get in the way of acquiring the best pitcher in the league, when there is no spot for Lester with Santana. At the last second of the window the Yankees gave the Twins, Theo is going to offer Lester Ellsbury and Lowrie, and since Smith values Ellsbury so highl, we should be able to get Santana without giving up Clay.

example1 · December 3, 2007

I am reading a lot of "it isn't likely that Ellsbury will have a career like Santana, who is a HOF pitcher". I looked into it a bit using Win Shares, which rightly tends to credit hitters with more wins due to their greater involvement in each game over the course of a season.

Johan Santana has 123 career Win Shares in 1308.7 IP, for .09398 WS/IP. Multiply that by 1000 and you can get a useful number, 93.980 WS/1000 IP. That rates him 22nd among active pitchers in career win shares, and possibly first in WS/1000. The list of top pitchers is a class in recent HOF-level pitchers:

[table] player | Win Shares | IP | WS/1000IP |

Clemens | 440 | 4916.7 | 89.49|

Maddux | 389 | 4814.3 | 80.80|

Johnson | 315 | 3855.3 | 81.71|

Glavine | 314 | 4350.0 | 72.18|

Smoltz | 285 | 3367.0 | 84.65|

Mussina | 256 | 3362.3 | 76.13|

Schilling |254 | 3262.0 | 77.86|

Pedro | 250 | 2673.7 | 93.50|

[/table]

So, in his relatively brief career, Santana has pitched at a higher level than the overall level of those listed above.

Santana is bound to slow down. Let's speculate that through the rest of his career he will be able to produce 1.5 times what he has already, and let's just suppose the Sox have him for that duration. That would give him a career 307.5 WS total in 3271.7; or, roughly the career success of Tom Glavine or Randy Johnson in the amount of innings that Schilling has pitched. A very, very nice career and I think it is a generous assessment of his future for making any ellsbury comparison... (which most of you undoubtedly know is inevitable at this point )

That is a pretty fair assessment, right?

What the Red Sox are concerned about are those 184.5 Win Shares that they would get from Santana once they own him.

If you believe in Win Shares as a fair evaluation (or at least consistent) of player talent across positions, then it seems to me it is pretty easy to justify thinking that Ellsbury can match Santana's remaining 184.5 Win Shares in his career, which is really what matters.

In other words, it is fair to say Ellsbury probably won't match Santana's career achievements. Santana has been more dominant in terms of WS/IP than any of those pitchers listed above (albeit in 1/2 to 1/3 the innings). In his prime, Pedro accumulated WS more quickly, but his production has somewhat fallen off since then--at least has dropped back down to earth, and below Santana's level. That is likely what will happen with Santana as his career goes on.

Who are current players who have had 185 career WS?

Renteria: 200

Conine: 196

Ichiro: 192

Floyd: 188

Valentin: 186

Mo Rivera: 184

Pettitte: 180

D Lee: 180

Loretta: 175

Grudzielanek: 174

Flash Gordon: 174

Clearly, it does not take a HOF everyday player to get to 185 career WS, which is a generous guess about how many Santana would have left in him.

FWIW, these are the players who have career WS between 290 and 325. If Santana keeps up his current pace for 1963 more innings (1.5 his current career) he will have a career WS total of 308 WS (or between Glavine and Smoltz overall), so these are guys whose careers are roughly equal to Santana's by that time.

325: Sammy Sosa

316: Luis Gonzalez

315: Randy Johnson

314: Tom Glavine

312: Ivan Rodriguez

302: Derek Jeter

298: Steve Finley

290: Jim Edmonds

290: Jason Giambi

286: Kenny Lofton

285: John Smoltz

So, unless my reasoning is totally wrong, Kenny Lofton's career--in terms of producing winning--is almost exactly the same as Smoltz's career, and is somewhat less than if Johan Santana were able to produce at his current level for 1.5 times longer than he already has.

Kenny Lofton is a comparable for Ellsbury. By this logic, if Ellsbury "only" has Lofton's career, his career WS will nearly match those of one of the greatest pitchers of the generation. If he produces 60% of Lofton's career, then he will have produced 172 WS, or roughly what we can predict for the rest of Santana's career.

It seems that there is a chance that Ellsbury is able to match the career impact of Johan Santana, if he plays for a decade plus, and it CERTAINLY seems possible that Ellsbury can produce the same amount as Santana from here forward. Careers can be long, and Ellsbury has his entire career in front of him.

*I know a lot of people are sick of reading about this stuff. I'm sure that's a common sentiment. Sorry.

I think it is a really useful discussion though, and one which we rarely get the time to break down. Top flight offensive prospect + 2 other top 5 Sox 'specs, vs. mid-way of his career Ace who will ultimately cost 20m.

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

You can pencil in Jones for 40 HR with the monster and I wouldn't be surprised if he took a shorter deal to rebuild his value.

You do realize Turner Field is an easier park to hit HR in right?

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

Player A:

[table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO

21|A|.306|.368|.423|.791|530|37|52|64

22|AA|.306|.367|.429|.796|408|29|39|61

23|AAA|.360|.426|.511|.937|225|26|26|24

|Career|.316|.379|.442|.821|1163|92|117|149[/table]

Player B:

[table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO

21|A-|.317|.418|.432|.850|139|9|24|20

22|A+/AA|.303|.382|.425|.807|442|32|49|53

23|AAA|.323|.387|.424|.811|436|33|38|54

|Career|.314|.381|.426|.807|1017|74|111|127[/table]

Hint - Both play on the Red Sox now. Player B is the uber-prospect, and Player A can't hold his jockstrap, according to some here.

The investment argument against acquiring Santana I buy. The fact that Ellsbury is an untouchable stud I cannot.

example1 · December 3, 2007

First of all, how is having a cost-controlled 20 WS player for 6 years not part of the Santana investment discussion? Just curious... okay...

Player A:

[table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO
21|A|.306|.368|.423|.791|530|37|52|64
22|AA|.306|.367|.429|.796|408|29|39|61
23|AAA|.360|.426|.511|.937|225|26|26|24

|Career|.316|.379|.442|.821|1163|92|117|149[/table]

Player B:

[table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO
21|A-|.317|.418|.432|.850|139|9|24|20
22|A+/AA|.303|.382|.425|.807|442|32|49|53
23|AAA|.323|.387|.424|.811|436|33|38|54

|Career|.314|.381|.426|.807|1017|74|111|127[/table]

Hint - Both play on the Red Sox now. Player B is the uber-prospect, and Player A can't hold his jockstrap, according to some here.

The investment argument against acquiring Santana I buy. The fact that Ellsbury is an untouchable stud I cannot.

Should we look at their 18-20 years too? One of them was a first team All American and Pac-10 co-player of the year, the other had two consecutive seasons of .258 and .254 ball. In terms of challenge, Ellsbury hasn't really seen one yet. Even when he is unproductive he makes things happen.

Career MiLB numbers (because it all counts in terms of track record and potential viability of a prospect):

[table] player | G | AB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | SB | % |

Crisp | 424 | 1627 | .299 | .372 | .411 | .783 | 149 | 75% |

Ellsbury | 250 | 1017 | .314 | .390 | .426 | .816 | 105 | 80% |

[/table]

One of them is highly touted because he doesn't seem to have been phased at all coming out of college. He handled the minors as well as anyone could ask of him (and better than Coco Crisp, even with the convenient forgetting of Coco's early years).

He's not untouchable, but he shouldn't just be haphazardly thrown in with Jon Lester. Combined they are going to produce a lot of wins in their career and we don't need to wait for them to develop any more. They're ready now.

Straw men are fun, aren't they TheKilo. I told you before Ellsbury isn't untouchable, but that it would need to be much closer to a 1:1 for me to think about it. I consider Ellsbury + Lowrie to be much closer to a 1:1 than Ellsbury + Lester + Masterson + Lowrie was. If the Twins bite at Ellsbury + Lowrie (or possibly even Masterson) then that means we will have saved two of the 4 players that you would have happily given away.

Just trying to explain why some restraint is in order.

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

First of all' date=' how is having a cost-controlled 20 WS player for 6 years not part of the Santana investment discussion? Just curious... okay...[/quote']

Um, what? Read what I posted.

I can understand the trepidation in tying up $20 million+ per year for Santana, especially if it comes with the investment of the package mentioned.

Didn't think I had to be so clear.

Should we look at their 18-20 years too? One of them was a first team All American and Pac-10 co-player of the year, the other had two consecutive seasons of .258 and .254 ball. In terms of challenge, Ellsbury hasn't really seen one yet. Even when he is unproductive he makes things happen.

Depends on how far back you want to look. Could you not also make the argument that Crisp was playing against better competition than Ellsbury was, or was more coveted when he came out of High School and played professional ball right away?

Do you really think college numbers for Ellsbury have much relevance to this debate? If so, could we use high school numbers too?

Career MiLB numbers (because it all counts in terms of track record and potential viability of a prospect):

[table] player | G | AB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | SB | % |
Crisp | 424 | 1627 | .299 | .372 | .411 | .783 | 149 | 75% |
Ellsbury | 250 | 1017 | .314 | .390 | .426 | .816 | 105 | 80% |
[/table]

One of them is highly touted because he doesn't seem to have been phased at all coming out of college. He handled the minors as well as anyone could ask of him (and better than Coco Crisp, even with the convenient forgetting of Coco's early years).

So basically, what you are telling me, is that we should look as to how Ellsbury played in college to further evidence how he will play in the major leagues?

I was simply offering the comparison between two players, at the same age level with their minor league numbers because (a) that's all we have to go off of with Ellsbury and ( that's what a lot of people had made their claims about.

Now the last part is pretty funny to me. Crisp starts out at a higher level than Ellsbury both when he was 21 and 22, and was promoted to the major leagues faster than Ellsbury the season he began the year in AAA.

And if I "conveniently forget" Crisp's two seasons when he was 19 and 20 (though I have trouble seeing the relevance here - especially when people say things like 'Tabata is a long ways away from the majors because he is 19'), Crisp's seasons from 21-23 trump Ellsbury's. Or at the very least are equivalent.

Is it wrong to suggest Crisp as a comp for Ellsbury based off of those numbers?

He's not untouchable, but he shouldn't just be haphazardly thrown in with Jon Lester. Combined they are going to produce a lot of wins in their career and we don't need to wait for them to develop any more. They're ready now.

I agree, which is why the Sox have said they will deal one of Ellsbury/Lester/Buchholz and not any combination of the two.

I have said that I have re-thought my opinion on the value of the package we send. Not necessarily on the components of the package itself.

Straw men are fun, aren't they TheKilo. I told you before Ellsbury isn't untouchable, but that it would need to be much closer to a 1:1 for me to think about it. I consider Ellsbury + Lowrie to be much closer to a 1:1 than Ellsbury + Lester + Masterson + Lowrie was. If the Twins bite at Ellsbury + Lowrie (or possibly even Masterson) then that means we will have saved two of the 4 players that you would have happily given away.

Just trying to explain why some restraint is in order.

Fair enough. I have a question for you though.

If the offer was Lester/Masterson/Lowrie for Santana, would you be raising so much commotion about how the investment was too high, or we lose out on cost-controlled, WS players?

Or is what Lester has done at the big league level not equivalent to what Ellsbury did at Oregon State?

example1 · December 3, 2007

Um, what? Read what I posted.

I can understand the trepidation in tying up $20 million+ per year for Santana, especially if it comes with the investment of the package mentioned.

Didn't think I had to be so clear.

Ellsbury is a key piece of how much that is worth. If he averages, say, 23 WS over that period and Crisp gets 16, the difference in value is enormous. Anyway...

Depends on how far back you want to look. Could you not also make the argument that Crisp was playing against better competition than Ellsbury was, or was more coveted when he came out of High School and played professional ball right away?

Do you really think college numbers for Ellsbury have much relevance to this debate? If so, could we use high school numbers too?

So basically, what you are telling me, is that we should look as to how Ellsbury played in college to further evidence how he will play in the major leagues?

Briefly, yes, and I generally agree with you.

However, what we are talking about are two guys who do have similar skill sets and similar developments. You can certainly use Crisp as a comp for Ellsbury, the question is which one of these two is going to top out at the potential that Crisp had. I think Ellsbury has a better chance of continuing to achieve at the level that he always has, whereas I think that Crisp has shown signs of it but has not put it together and certainly has looked over matched at times offensively.

Everyone makes a big deal about his defense, but don't you think it--like everything else that is good--will regress to a more normal level? I think that is to be expected, and if that were the case--say back to 11-12 WS--Crisp would quickly become questionably valuable to a lineup as good as the Sox, especially if Lowell, Varitek and Pedroia all regress as you predicted they would (a view that I can't really argue with). We need to have offensive production out of the CF spot. Crisp's superb season in CF defensively made him somewhat valuable, but not significantly so.

I was simply offering the comparison between two players, at the same age level with their minor league numbers because (a) that's all we have to go off of with Ellsbury and ( that's what a lot of people had made their claims about.

I dispute (a) because I don't think a player should be penalized for going to a Div I university, playing 3 years and being named one of the top players in the country. Yeah, he might have struggled had he decided to play in single A, who knows. He never struggled anywhere in his life, but I suppose it is possible that he would have ground to a halt in A ball.

Now the last part is pretty funny to me. Crisp starts out at a higher level than Ellsbury both when he was 21 and 22, and was promoted to the major leagues faster than Ellsbury the season he began the year in AAA.

And if I "conveniently forget" Crisp's two seasons when he was 19 and 20 (though I have trouble seeing the relevance here - especially when people say things like 'Tabata is a long ways away from the majors because he is 19'), Crisp's seasons from 21-23 trump Ellsbury's. Or at the very least are equivalent.

Is it wrong to suggest Crisp as a comp for Ellsbury based off of those numbers?

No, certainly not based off of those numbers. But look at Crisp since. Is he going to be a 25 or 26 WS guy ever in his career? How high do you think he will get, realistically?

If the offer was Lester/Masterson/Lowrie for Santana, would you be raising so much commotion about how the investment was too high, or we lose out on cost-controlled, WS players?

Or is what Lester has done at the big league level not equivalent to what Ellsbury did at Oregon State?

No, it is because this team would have an absurd pitching staff and one of the sickest lineups around, cemented in place for a few years. Replace Lester with Santana, leave Ellsbury at the top of the order and everything is solid.

It is all about what the team needs, and right now they don't need pitching. They can deal a good young pitcher like lester, because they have already decided that Buchholz has the higher ceiling and they would be getting Santana.

Personally, I think objectively Lester would be the more valuable commodity, just given how valuable pitching can be on the market (i.e., MN could trade Lester when he's 26 and get quite a bit back). Lester has great stuff and will be a fine MLB pitcher. If that is for the Red Sox, then great. If Johan Santana takes the ball instead, that's fine too.

----------

I know you think I'm dodging around some hidden "love" for Ellsbury because I defend him so strongly. I defended Youkilis and Pedroia as strongly, as I'm sure you remember, but do not defend every prospect. I can admit that I see in all three of them something I don't see in a lot of other players around the league and it is hard to quantify. Part of it, I think, is plate discipline... which is something the Sox draft to and have been very impressed about all 3. It is also approach, the hitters have a philosophy when they are up and rarely get cheated out of ABs.

We've watched Coco try to adjust to that style of hitting. The Sox certainly looked at his MiLB record and OBPs with CLE and figured he was as good a candidate as any to give a shot, particularly at such a cheap cost. Ellsbury clearly has a better eye, I don't think there is much argument there. If the inclusion of Ellsbury rather than Crisp is the sticking point, there is a reason for it. The Red Sox clearly do not think the difference between them is insignificant, if they did Ellsbury/Lester/Masterson and Lowrie would be headed to MN right now. What do you know that they do not?

I think the Sox are in a win-win situation here. I think that Hughes is more valuable than Ellsbury, and that the Yankees currently trail the Red Sox in pitching by quite a bit. Getting Santana will help that, but not for very long. Hughes is a once in a generation talent for a franchise.

It is very hard to work hard to not get overly attached to players. That's what all the numbers do, they allow you to back up and (try to) be more objective. I have tried to do that with Ellsbury, but I can't promise that I'm perfect about it. I think that older generations of baseball fans had a good deal when they had players that they could attach to for more than a year or two. Every once in awhile there is a player who a team develops who is good enough to merit sticking, even with a superior team like the Red Sox. I think I have shown using Win Shares and other comparisons that Ellsbury would be more than worthy in this lineup, extremely cheap, fine on defense, and all that stuff.

Part of me definitely wants the red sox to stick with a player who will be exciting and who, if things work out the way they appear to be heading, could be one of the premier leadoff hitters and run scorers in all of baseball. I get killed for not wanting to give up just two special home-grown players to bring in a guy who, though tremendous, I have no attachment to and have concerns about his past workload and 20m salary.

I would hate to see this tremendously built franchise be buried under the salary of a pitcher who throws out his arm and is owed 20m to sit on the bench, or to return only to subject us all to the inevitable "reinvention" of himself into a finesse pitcher when his FB dips from the mid-90's to the low 90s. We have the chance to not have to see any deterioration at all.

One of the things about baseball is how players eke out niches for themselves. We can all speculate about who Ellsbury could turn out to be by comparing him to other players with similar skill sets. But that can range from Juan Pierre to Rickey Henderson, from Willie McGee to Chili Davis. It is too broad. There are plenty of great players within that genre, as value can be found in many places.

I imagine the potential for 20-25 WS from Ellsbury at MLB minimum is hugely enticing, for both sides. I don't wonder why the mets refuse to part with Jose Reyes, and I don't wonder why the Sox won't part with Ellsbury unless the offer is sweetend beyond the one-year rental that it currently is.

jacksonianmarch · December 3, 2007

I dont think win shares are a terribly important stat. If you were a small market team trying to build around a small core of players, than it may have some utility. But as a large market team with marquee players at nearly every position, getting a player that will considerably add to playoff dominance is more important than deciding which guy will help you go from 95 wins to 100.

BSN07 · December 3, 2007

Kilo I've been saying for a couple days now that this is what the Red Sox could do. Now I see Gom has jumped on board:D The Sox have made the Yanks throw in there top pitching prospect and will have to shell out 150M or so to sign him. With Yanks out of the way, the only other 2 teams that are in the wa for Haren I would have to guess are the LA teams.

Oaklands not trading to LAA, especially there best pitcher, LAA is deep in pitching and looking for a bat. LAD have the prospects to get this deal done, its all in who they are willing to part with. They I think would be our only big time opponent for Haren. The Mets could try and sneak in but they reall don't have the prospects for the deal.

cam780 · December 3, 2007

You do realize Turner Field is an easier park to hit HR in right?

Not by much. In 07, righties hit 10 more Hr's at Turner. From 05-06 that difference is just 7.

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

Not by much. In 07' date=' righties hit 10 more Hr's at Turner. From 05-06 that difference is just 7.[/quote']

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

HR:

Turner Field - .955
Fenway Park - .876

das11209 · December 3, 2007

Countdown to Hank Steinberner deadline - almost 14.5 hours to go.

Once the clock expires - he will just hit the snooze button.

BSN07 · December 3, 2007

Turner field is rough on RH as well.

BSN07 · December 3, 2007

If I'm Theo I wait on the deadline. If Minny buckles to the Yanks and deal before deadline, try to get Haren from Oakland. If Minny doesn't deal him, take Ellsbury deal off table and leave the 4 player package of Crisp,Lester,Lowrie, Masterson/Bowden and make them take it or leave it.

Hank might have given the Sox a bargining chip unintentionally... Usually this stand could be taken seiously, but after Arod thing and the fact they put Hughes in and Minny trying to bend them over for more, the Yanks FO looks kind of soft...

BudLight · December 3, 2007

Billy Beane is happy as a pig in s*** right now! He just sits back, waits for the Santana auction to end, then swoops in and gets more than he should for Haren. The one-ups manship by the Yanks and Sox in the Santana bidding can come back and bite the loser of that auction in the ass. Beane will surely want a Santana like package for Haren and the best part, he doesn't have to deal him, he controls him for the next three years at a bargain basement price. The Twins however have to deal Santana now or end up with virtually nothing for him next Winter. The winner in all of this, Billy Beane and the Oakland A's. Also, keep in mind the Mets are very interested in Haren and so far this off-season, Minaya has proven he will take the short end of a deal.

mosox · December 3, 2007

I would feel good about getting Haren. This Santana business is getting silly.

Mr Crunchy · December 3, 2007

not that it matters how i feel but you can take those win shares and stick em up roger clemens ass.

john smoltz is 1 of the best money pitchers in MLB history and they have him tied in with kenny lofton and behind roger""my groin i mean my elbow i mean my hammy"" clemens?

does anyone watch baseball anymore or is the average fan just pulling stats off msn.com to determine who value is higher?

this isnt a dig at anyone on board here as much as it is to this new system of deciding who can play and who cant.

we need a good night of book burnings mass arrests and random beatings to get everyone back to the mindset that pitching, above all,including hope prayer and dogma,wins in the post season and there are only a handful of john smoltz's josh becketts and chin mein wangs(LOL) out there..

aces

those of you who played at a level that goes beyond hitting off a tee understand that when you bring a legit ace to the mound you have a certain swagger,a certain sense of confidence that says to the other team to basically stay home,you got no chance.

that said

danny haren is a good pitcher,however that oakland park is a cavernous hell hole for hitters.i have a bit of anxiety regarding santana in fenway but hes a better pitcher than haren.

id be much hotter for santana if john lester didnt have balls like a gorilla and now the success that went with his efforts only reaffirms this kids value.

f*** phil hughes and melky cabrerra

the yanks need johan santana a lot more than we do

considering they are coming to play with wang(confidence in the shitter,may get deported by steinbrenner)mussina(deep thinker,poor pitcher) and a cast of question marks the yanks must sell their souls and get this guy.

if they get him theyre back in the fold as their offense wins them 80 games a year

if they dont and truly want to rebuild?

they will have some growing pains but will still be competetive based on offense alone,post season aspirations would be attainable but advancement unlikely

rician blast · December 3, 2007

Hank might have given the Sox a bargining chip unintentionally... Usually this stand could be taken seiously' date=' but after Arod thing and the fact they put Hughes in and Minny trying to bend them over for more, the Yanks FO looks kind of soft...[/quote']

could be. but he also could be throwing this out there intentionally to get the Sox to reduce or pull their offer, then come back in with another take it or leave it offer and try to bang something out quick.

He Hate Me · December 3, 2007

not that it matters how i feel but you can take those win shares and stick em up roger clemens ass.
john smoltz is 1 of the best money pitchers in MLB history and they have him tied in with kenny lofton and behind roger""my groin i mean my elbow i mean my hammy"" clemens?
does anyone watch baseball anymore or is the average fan just pulling stats off msn.com to determine who value is higher?
this isnt a dig at anyone on board here as much as it is to this new system of deciding who can play and who cant.
we need a good night of book burnings mass arrests and random beatings to get everyone back to the mindset that pitching, above all,including hope prayer and dogma,wins in the post season and there are only a handful of john smoltz's josh becketts and chin mein wangs(LOL) out there..

aces
those of you who played at a level that goes beyond hitting off a tee understand that when you bring a legit ace to the mound you have a certain swagger,a certain sense of confidence that says to the other team to basically stay home,you got no chance.
that said
danny haren is a good pitcher,however that oakland park is a cavernous hell hole for hitters.i have a bit of anxiety regarding santana in fenway but hes a better pitcher than haren.
id be much hotter for santana if john lester didnt have balls like a gorilla and now the success that went with his efforts only reaffirms this kids value.
f*** phil hughes and melky cabrerra
the yanks need johan santana a lot more than we do
considering they are coming to play with wang(confidence in the shitter,may get deported by steinbrenner)mussina(deep thinker,poor pitcher) and a cast of question marks the yanks must sell their souls and get this guy.
if they get him theyre back in the fold as their offense wins them 80 games a year
if they dont and truly want to rebuild?
they will have some growing pains but will still be competetive based on offense alone,post season aspirations would be attainable but advancement unlikely

Well said. 100% agreed with you. I also tire of the 50k stats and new formulas that pop up every year. Not a dig at the guys who go by that, but it tends to get a bit silly after a while. It's like trying to analyze why you like sex so much. I'm sure you could come up with 50,000 fancy stat formulas like body fluid share or on body percentage, but sometimes you need to just relax and enjoy the game.

das11209 · December 3, 2007

Santana says he will waive no trade clause for only Yankees and Red Sox.

In addition to telling the Twins that he won't accept an in-season trade, Johan Santana informed the team he's only willing to waive his no-trade clause to go to the Yankees or Red Sox, the Providence Journal reports.

Santana apparently is as frustrated as the Yankees about how long this is taking and would like a resolution soon. If it's true that he's ruling out a trade to 27 of the 30 teams, it probably doesn't change much in the current negotiations. If any other team was in the same ballpark with an offer for the left-hander, it's done a great job of keeping it quiet.

He Hate Me · December 3, 2007

I'd like to take the Twins GM and Owner and hang them by their toes from the Metrodome. This is seriously just getting stupid.

Mr Crunchy · December 3, 2007

carl pohlad should be ass raped by patrick ewing moses malone and the dallas cowboys front 4 just because hes the richest man in sports and treats his fans in a similar way.

He Hate Me · December 3, 2007

carl pohlad should be ass raped by patrick ewing moses malone and the dallas cowboys front 4 just because hes the richest man in sports and treats his fans in a similar way.

it's disgusting how he's able to get a $400M taxpayer subsidized stadium. I mean has he even put in $400M into his own product in the last 10 years???

Mr Crunchy · December 3, 2007

id bet under 400m

cam780 · December 3, 2007

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

HR:

Turner Field - .955
Fenway Park - .876

I stand corrected as I was looking solely at home team stats. The total stats are greater but the difference is approximately 30 home runs over the course of a year but again as I've said before the difference in the average for right handed hitters is incredible Turner vs. Fenway and I think its moot point anyway because I think we can both agree that #1 - Jones will produce more home runs than Crisp or Ellsbury and probably Crisp and Ellsbury combined, and #2 the Sox will never in a million years sign Jones because of the long term financial commitment with a very cheap, at the least serviceable center fielder already in the fold. Although I do think that they may explore other options at center as well - I'd put them in on Jason Bay, Pat Burrell that type of player that doesn't have a long term commitment and is a strong OBP guy.

cam780 · December 3, 2007

Turner field is rough on RH as well.

Technically its worse on lefties but the park is considerably worse than Fenway to hit for average.

Sign In

Johan Santana

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates