Johan Santana

[TheKilo]

Coco Crisp sucks - a season full of coco the monkey? Jones is off the market - we will probably have to go for Rowand or something...

 

Edit - I am shocked some of the love Coco gets - dude could not even get a bunt down in the playoffs. We might as well put up a 8 man line-up. The only way he helps the offense is by pinch running. He is not a base stealing threat - because he will never get on base.

 

With Coco the monkey patrolling CF this season, the team won 96 games. Don't tell me "he didn't do anything", either. I can recite the stats if you'd like.

 

Question - How many more games do the Sox win next year if Ellsbury is in CF all season long?

[TheKilo]

Ah. It looks like Coco's dad is back.

 

 

 

As far as Crisp goes, I don't think there are any absolutes and that goes for everyone - look at Wakefield, Manny, Okajima, Andruw Jones, Carlos Pena etc. I would say there's a good chance that Crisp comes back and plays spectacular defense again but I have to say that some of the plays he made were almost superhuman and I don't think he gets all of them next year but that being said I also don't think you can rule out an offensive resurgence either. The only real question is has the trade talk worn the relationship out much like the Nomar situation.

 

So what you're telling me, is that Coco's defensive worth is based off of

 

I'll ask again. Barring injury, what reasons do you have that Crisp will regress defensively?

[das11209]

With Coco the monkey patrolling CF this season, the team won 96 games. Don't tell me "he didn't do anything", either. I can recite the stats if you'd like.

 

Question - How many more games do the Sox win next year if Ellsbury is in CF all season long?

 

I told you before - I like your post, your sarcasm and your sense of humor. But sometime - I find you too inflexible to see the obvious - and I have almost never seen you changing your viewpoint. I am not talking about his defense at all. If you think that he should be in the line-up based on his offense last year - we must have been watching different games. I know that we have been so stats happy recently - but as Rician Blast has put it so nicely - there are some of us who actually watched almost all the games every season. By the year-end - Coco's confidence was so shot - he could hardly hold the bat. This is not about Coco vs Ellsbury - its about Coco only. I will be happy if he turns it aorund - but after watching him for 2 seasons in Cleveland and now 2 seasons in Boston - he is a late defensive pinch running replacement in my opinion. I never get into arguments with the other posters because I respect individual opinions unlike some others and also think it is not fair to other forum members to see arguments thrown back and forth in these threads. If you want to disagree - I respect your opinion. I am confident that I am not alone in thinking that no way we give Coco the starting CF job next year. If he can reclaim it by playing well - I will applaud him.

[Mr Crunchy]

crisp is a good center fielder who could possibly hit 290 if he develops some patience and could lay off the splitter..hes our man if elsbury gets moved to minneapplolis

[TheKilo]

I told you before - I like your post' date=' your sarcasm and your sense of humor. But sometime - I find you too inflexible to see the obvious - and I have almost never seen you changing your viewpoint. [b']I am not talking about his defense at all.[/b]

 

That's a shame, seeing as it's half the game. You don't think having a guy like Crisp out there with FB pitchers like Schilling, DiceK, and Wakefield makes any bit of difference?

 

If you think that he should be in the line-up based on his offense last year - we must have been watching different games. I know that we have been so stats happy recently - but as Rician Blast has put it so nicely - there are some of us who actually watched almost all the games every season.

 

You got me. I never watch the games, just take all of the stats that come of them and run computer simulations with them 24/7. Stat geeks never watch any games for fear their numbers, which are the result of games played on the field, will not agree with what people's "eyes" tell them.

 

I despise this argument. Statistics are not the be-all and end-all. But they are a valuable tool and should be used in addition to observation.

 

Unfortunately, I have no observations because I don't watch the games as often as some people.

 

By the year-end - Coco's confidence was so shot - he could hardly hold the bat. This is not about Coco vs Ellsbury - its about Coco only. I will be happy if he turns it aorund - but after watching him for 2 seasons in Cleveland and now 2 seasons in Boston - he is a late defensive pinch running replacement in my opinion.

 

So watching him after his 2005 season, you felt this way?

After 2006, when he broke his hand?

 

You're making personnel decisions based off a ridiculously small sample size, while completely ignoring Crisp's biggest strength. No wonder you don't like him.

 

 

I never get into arguments with the other posters because I respect individual opinions unlike some others and also think it is not fair to other forum members to see arguments thrown back and forth in these threads. If you want to disagree - I respect your opinion. I am confident that I am not alone in thinking that no way we give Coco the starting CF job next year. If he can reclaim it by playing well - I will applaud him.

 

It's not about disrespecting someone's opinion. It's about formulating good, solid discussion because that's what this message board's purpose is. It won't hurt my feelings if you offer a counter-argument, believe me. If there was no discussion, no debate, this place would be awfully boring.

[das11209]

TheKilo - I like your response. I just have one question for you - and this is a honest question( I am not being smart-ass). I don't think Coco will regress defensively. Looks like you think he will do well in offence - I would like to know your reasoning on how you would come to that conclusion.

[He Hate Me]

so if you score 100 on a test , you dont think you can do it again ?

 

if crisp is healthy there's no doubt that he will put up similar defensive numbers

 

you odn't think there will be an adjustment period playing underneath that white ceiling?

[He Hate Me]

is the goal to win titles or produce as many all-stars as possible?

 

i think that's his point.

[TheKilo]

you odn't think there will be an adjustment period playing underneath that white ceiling?

 

Referring to Fenway.

[TheKilo]

TheKilo - I like your response. I just have one question for you - and this is a honest question( I am not being smart-ass). I don't think Coco will regress defensively. Looks like you think he will do well in offence - I would like to know your reasoning on how you would come to that conclusion.

 

Coco doesn't have to have a resurgence on offense. His total game, offense and defense, made him, arguably, a more valuable player than Manny Ramirez last season.

 

Is it wrong to expect a moderate upward trend? Maybe a line of .280/.340/.400? It seems predicting a moderate increase in production is a safer bet than your claim he will fall off the earth completely.

 

If Crisp hits .275 with his GG defense, for his contract, would you not argue he gives the Sox tremendous value? Again, this isn't a Crisp v. Ellsbury debate, right?

[das11209]

If Crisp hits .275 with his GG defense, for his contract, would you not argue he gives the Sox tremendous value? Again, this isn't a Crisp v. Ellsbury debate, right?

 

Yes - it's about Crisp only.

 

I don't think the other teams see great value with Coco's total package - and they are not calling Theo up for a trade for Coco. I think that Coco's balanced package would have been nice in a team like 2003-2005 Red Sox. 2007 team was actually light on offence and we did get by because the Yankees were slacking in the first half and because of our pitching but we should not push our luck. I remember lot of games where the piching was light's out but the offence really let us down( Dice-k suffered most if my memory serves me right). And - we do have the same questions with 2008 team as basically they are the same team( Manny's being Manny, Ortiz's injury, Lowell's effectiveness, Drew/Lugo's/Youk's consistency, Varitek's ineffectiveness etc.). That's why Ellsbury made a difference last year - because he was a spraking plug in the tepid offence ( the bottom part of the line-up before Jacoby was downright aweful). I would argue that he might have helped some other players like Youk and Lugo to get their form back by taking pressure off and he always kept pressure on opposing pitcher and defense. Now - is he replacable ? - absolutely specially for someone like Sanatana. But being already light in offence and seeing what I saw last year - I think we do need an upgrade to make the play-offs. That's why - for this team - I do not think Coco's total package is enough for this team to repeat.

 

Hopefully I have made my opinion clear. Now - if we trade Jacoby we might have to settle for Coco for next year at least for the lack of better alternatives. But - I will not be exactly happy about that.

[He Hate Me]

Referring to Fenway.

 

ah in that case i agree with you. the only way i see him not perfoming as well is if he gets a nagging injury of some sort (which judging by the way he plays, he's due for a few)

[ORS]

Yes - it's about Crisp only.

 

I don't think the other teams see great value with Coco's total package - and they are not calling Theo up for a trade for Coco. I think that Coco's balanced package would have been nice in a team like 2003-2005 Red Sox. 2007 team was actually light on offence and we did get by because the Yankees were slacking in the first half and because of our pitching but we should not push our luck. I remember lot of games where the piching was light's out but the offence really let us down( Dice-k suffered most if my memory serves me right). And - we do have the same questions with 2008 team as basically they are the same team( Manny's being Manny, Ortiz's injury, Lowell's effectiveness, Drew/Lugo's/Youk's consistency, Varitek's ineffectiveness etc.). That's why Ellsbury made a difference last year - because he was a spraking plug in the tepid offence ( the bottom part of the line-up before Jacoby was downright aweful). I would argue that he might have helped some other players like Youk and Lugo to get their form back by taking pressure off and he always kept pressure on opposing pitcher and defense. Now - is he replacable ? - absolutely specially for someone like Sanatana. But being already light in offence and seeing what I saw last year - I think we do need an upgrade to make the play-offs. That's why - for this team - I do not think Coco's total package is enough for this team to repeat.

 

Hopefully I have made my opinion clear. Now - if we trade Jacoby we might have to settle for Coco for next year at least for the lack of better alternatives. But - I will not be exactly happy about that.

You are really missing the big point here. Ellsbury is the upgrade over Coco. He doesn't get traded, the job is his. Coco is only playing if they trade Ellsbury in the package for Santana. Thus, Santana is the upgrade. You don't think they make the playoffs with Santana added to the rotation and Crisp in CF?

[das11209]

You are really missing the big point here. Ellsbury is the upgrade over Coco. He doesn't get traded' date=' the job is his. Coco is only playing if they trade Ellsbury in the package for Santana. Thus, Santana is the upgrade. You don't think they make the playoffs with Santana added to the rotation and Crisp in CF?[/quote']

 

I do get the point - as I said before Coco will likely be in CF in Ellsbury is traded and I will not be happy. I understand Ellsbury is better - I doubt if Coco is enough.

 

And for the above mentioned points( I do not want to repeat again) - being stuck with Coco in the CF(meaning having no alternative) may be a problem for us to repeat ( we may still make the play-offs) if Coco continues to his current aweful offensive form irrespective of we do/do not get Santana. Lots of 'if' are involved and my view is opinionated not backed by statistics - so that was the disclaimer. Hey if I am wrong and Crisp becomes an all star or a batting champion - I will happily eat as much crow you guys give me.

[ORS]

So, let me get this straight, in regards to their chances to repeat, you think the benefit lost in Ellsbury over Crisp is greater than the benefit gained in Santana over the 5th starter?

 

Nutshell, that is your argument. I can't take that seriously.

 

EDIT: If this is a total value discussion, I can see room for point/counterpoint. But you brought up "chances to repeat" and "making the playoffs". So, we are talking about next year only.

[das11209]

So, let me get this straight, in regards to their chances to repeat, you think the benefit lost in Ellsbury over Crisp is greater than the benefit gained in Santana over the 5th starter?

 

Nutshell, that is your argument. I can't take that seriously.

 

I am not sure where I am confusing you - let's start over. I am ready to offer Ellsbury for Santana - so clearly I see benifit gained by Sanatana and loosing Ellsbury. After that - I think we are better off with an upgrade in the CF or a good back-up to challenge Coco(unlikely to happen). I think if we flat out give the CF job to Coco and he does not improve at all - then the chances for us to repeat will be less next year(even with Sanatana abroad). I am not happy about that scenario - but I can somehow live with it if we get Santana for Ellsbury and Crisp in CF for 2008. That is because I think Crisp will be surely gone by 2008 season end if he has another poor season. Getting Santana long term might set us up for multiple championship if Santana does not get hurt or losses his stuff. Long term view - I love Santana trade. For the next season - having Crisp might hurt our chances if he does not clean up his act( and I am not sure he will improve in his offence).

[ORS]

Ok, I see. Yet, I don't think it's a dire situation.

 

They lead wire to wire and won the whole thing with the following occuring:

 

Pedroia - Avg year, in line with MiLB performance

Youk - Above avg or avg? Don't know, just hitting prime with moderate improvement each year

Ortiz - Slightly above avg year, BA drove up OBP and SLG

Manny - Worst career year by .070 OPS points

Lowell - Best career year (similar OPS years, but more games, higher BA/OBP this year)

Drew - 2nd worst career year, missed career avg OPS by .096

Varitek - Slightly above average year, lower than career averages, but consider catchers/age

Crisp - Don't know what to call it, Jeckyl/Hyde since coming back from knuckle injury, looked like and up and comer before

Lugo - Horrendous year, worst full season OPS by .050 points

 

I see more reason to expect improvement rather than regression from that group going into next year. Three players at or around all-time career lows. Even if the bounce is moderate and they don't get back to norms, it's still a better team offensively.

 

With Coco on the payroll, there is absolutely no need to go after another commitment in CF.

[das11209]

With Coco on the payroll' date=' there is absolutely no need to go after another commitment in CF.[/quote']

 

I think that's what will happen. I would have loved to see Coco being challenged by someone from the minors( like Jacoby did last year). I don't think Kalish is ready to do that yet - may be Moss can if he improves.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Hi Bill.

 

Hi, RB.

 

Characterization of the passage "I'm not convinced that he won't improve defensively" as being a "criticism of others' points" is off base.

 

How so?

 

I wasn't challenging anything that you had written. I wrote that Chris Carter wouldn't improve defensively. You chose to respond to my point regarding Carter: that's a criticism. You didn't say "He probably won't get better, but he might," or any such words to soften the point. You didn't ask why I thought that. You flat-out challenged my point. You then used the example of Wade Boggs, who was my favorite player through the 1980's and a player whose career I'm pretty familiar with, to back up your challenge of my point.

 

From where I'm coming from, you challenged me on a player I've attempted to study, and you made the tactical error of choosing a player whose defense worsened while his reputation improved.

 

As for my previously unreferenced remarks regarding Boggs:

 

Comments by a variety of individuals in the Sox organization:

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20050104&content_id=927388&vkey=pr_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

 

Boggs HOF speech, brief blurb on fielding:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121545

 

Sporting News article regarding Boggs fielding:

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/Bugs%20and%20Cranks

 

Let's check those out, one at a time.

 

For the Red Sox remarks, it's almost all a bunch of old-timers, almost all of whom knew Boggs in the minors or as a rookie, praising his work ethic on defense. Well, heck, what's Johnny Pesky gonna say? You speak well of the guy being honored, and you personally hit him 150 ground balls every day. Are you going to say that it didn't matter?

 

There's something that a lot of those guys are referring to that you might be missing, though, if you knew Boggs only as an MLB player. Most of those quoted knew Boggs in his minor league days. Up until his rookie year Boggs was really bad defensively. Boggs is the only pro guy I ever saw do the Little League run-in-a-circle-around-where-the-fly-is-gonna-land-and-then-drop-it, back when he was playing AAA in 1980 or 1981 (I think that it was 1981.) Yes, he got much better in MiLB, and he worked hard to do that, but he pretty much peaked at age 24/25 with his arrival in MLB despite continuing his aggressive work on his fielding.

 

Full AA/AAA basic fielding stats for Boggs can be found here:

 

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/wade-boggs.shtml

 

Check how his range at 3B peaked in 1982, his rookie year, as I'm describing. For grins, check out his fielding stats at SS and 2B in AA.

 

Moving on to Boggs's speech, he thanks Johnny Pesky for improving his fielding. Again, what's he going to say? That Pesky didn't help? That the voting for his Gold Gloves was a farce, and that Yankees get an absurd edge in the system? He's got to say what he did. That's what you do if you're lucky enough to be enshrined: you thank those who got you there. Ignoring living legend Johnny Pesky would've been unthinkable.

 

Finally, from the Sporting News blog link:

 

Wade Boggs — Saying that Wade struggled his first couple of years at the hot corner would be a bit of an understatement. With 27 errors in ‘83 and 20 more in ‘84, Red Sox Nation had seen about enough of Boggs’ bumbling at third base. Boggs worked tirelessly with Johnny Pesky taking ground balls to improve his fielding. The notoriously superstitious Boggs took exactly 150 grounders in practice and used the same glove, “Elephant Ear”, throughout his entire career. The tireless work paid off for Boggs as he rebounded to win two Gold Gloves (as a Yankee!) and, of course, proudly finished his career on third base as a Devil Ray. Winning his first Gold Glove in his 13th season, he was the oldest first-time winner (non-pitcher). Though he’ll always be known for his hitting, my memory of Boggs will be of a guy who worked hard to turn his shortcomings into strengths.

 

Adam Godson evaluates fielding at third base by errors, not range; he considers Gold Gloves to be meaningful; he recites the work with Pesky anecdote as proof of meaningful result. It may not surprise one to learn that, although he's a free-lance writer regarding sports (especially Chicago sports), he's been in human resources as a profession. FWIW, he graduated college three years after Boggs retired: his memory of Boggs is that of a casual teenaged fan who knew him more for his national moments in the 1990's, not as an insider or a long-time Boston fan.

 

FYI, according to Baseball Prospectus:

 

Tony Perez achieved his highest FRAR ratings in 1975, 1976 and 1977...his 11th, 12th and 13th seasons in MLB.

 

George Scott's 4 highest FRAR seasons were seasons 9-12, at ages 29-32.

 

Pujols, in his 6th and 7th major league seasons, has recorded his highest FRARs.

 

Tony Perez peaked in FRAR at age 26 in his second full-time MLB season. His next-highest season was at age 27. The seasons you cite were after he converted from third base to first base, went through another learning curve, and established his second peak as a fielder.

 

George Scott had his peak as a Red Sox player in his rookie year of 1966 with 23 FRAR. His highest four seasons were all with Milwaukee. That could be a result of his having to guard the line more at Fenway or bad infield grooming, as well as with his use at both first and third base...the double peak is interesting, though.

 

Pujols, like Perez, was a converted first baseman. He played mostly LF/3B until 2004, and he then had a learning curve.

 

Chris Carter is a first baseman. I have commented that his loss of two seasons at first in college might be a factor to consider, but except for the experiment to see if he was as bad in LF as he was at 1B (he was), Carter's been a first baseman throughout his career.

 

I know, this is one measure, and just a few players. Does that make it The Rule? No, but it does open doors to the possibility that a player can improve his statistically measured 'D' during his MLB career.

 

There are exceptions to almost every rule. It is even possible for individuals who are not athletes to play in MLB (Tony Fossas is the exception to that rule ). Still, two of three exceptions you managed to find were guys who converted their defensive positions, and the third was a guy who had split time at two positions, one of which he really couldn't play, in what should've been his peak as a fielder.

 

As a side-note, there are those who caution how these stats are used...just 2 quick examples:

 

The Illusion of Range Factor

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/espn9809.htm

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2387

 

The BP article discusses Range Factor only in passing. The Diamond Mind Article is marketing for "Adjusted Range Factors," something one could buy from Diamond Mind in 1998.

 

But there are three factors from the Diamond Mind article that bear mention: GB/FB ratio, LHP/RHP Team IP, and strikeouts. Each of these can influence the number of plays a third baseman would have a chance to make. The point is that they can each make a difference of maybe 10% at the extreme. In Boggs's case, he didn't go from a perfect storm as a rookie to progressively worse situations right through his last year with Tampa Bay: his Yankees teams achieved more strikeouts than his early Red Sox teams, but only enough to result in 140-odd fewer balls in play for ALL fielders over the course of a season. (1983 vs 1995 teams) That might be 15-20 plays a year at third base, tops, and Boggs had dropped by over 150 plays from his days with Boston. The moral: yes, there are factors that influence Range Factor, just as there are factors influencing batting, but we needn't throw out the stat, especially when we're looking at fielding in the days before ZR-based stats.

 

As an aside, FRAA and FRAR address all three of those points cited.

 

As I stated earlier, your analysis is a fine one, and has validity. But are all of these individuals wrong? Is there perhaps a weakness in the numbers? And does your analysis necessarily translate to Carter and prove that he can not and will not improve defensively? What is interesting here is I've made no claim about Carter's future whatsoever...just that I am not convinced that he can not improve fielding-wise.

 

...

 

Do I mean to imply stats have no use? Absolutely not. I've acknowledged the usefullness of your analysis and am aware that the Bill James-types have proven their worth in organizations league wide. However, I think there is a tendency to rely on them too heavily in an effort to shoot down another's expressed opinion, and I'm not quite sure why that is the case.

 

See, I guess that it's a matter of perception. From my chair, I was posting something and you were "shooting down" my idea. We had no difference until you raised a concern with my position.

 

You claim to be concerned that I phrased my position as an absolute. Well, let's reflect for a moment: do you challenge every statement posted as an absolute? I look at the vernacular here and I see tons of things posted in the absolute that go unchallenged. Yet you thought it important enough to split hairs on, of all things, my passing comment regarding Carter's defense. Furthermore, before you resorted to actual research to support your cause, you'd already resorted to name-calling, regarded by some as the last bastion of the intellectually bankrupt.

 

Do I see the future with perfect clarity? No; no, but I'm pretty sure of some things. Regarding Carter, I'll rephrase: I'm roughly 95% certain that there won't be an improvement from his complete value at first base, range and hands, that's significantly different at the 99% level from his established MiLB level. That's not much change from what I posted; I don't think that any other poster would've been challenged too much for saying what I'd said in a tangent to the Santana trade issue.

 

Thank you, however, for coming through with actual research, and thank you for returning to the issues and ceasing the name-calling. I've tried to address your points.

[He Hate Me]

Bill, I love how much work you put into these things but you've got to take a class on editing and learning how to say more with less.

[Paradisecity]

I don't know JHB...despite the name calling I still think you should change your name to Lord Kelvin.

 

It has a good ring to it.

[rician blast]

Hi, RB.

 

You didn't say "He probably won't get better, but he might," or any such words to soften the point. You didn't ask why I thought that. You flat-out challenged my point.

 

Challenged? "I'm not convinced" doesn't seem so harsh. Kind of sounds like "maybe he will". Anyway, sorry if I offended you.

 

 

you made the tactical error

 

Interesting word choice which perhaps illuminates your view of this forum...it isn't for light-hearted exchanges or, heaven forbid, opinion, its for argument...and winning arguments is the goal...not everyone shares the same desire, or need, to constantly prove to people they don't even know that they are right and others are wrong. I don't view any of this as "tactical" - - - for me "tactical" processes are more likely utilized in business, in school, in negotiating contracts...you know, stuff that matters. This is a Sox forum...those overtly employing "tactics" here, well, would kind of scare me.

 

As for your dismissal of other players comments and some of the remainder of your post, you are essentially confirming that subjectivity is inherent in all of this...that we can all offer alternative interpretations to statements and even find a number of means to refute statistical measures...you know, ifs and buts and such. Maybe, ultimately, it comes down to who cares more...certain folks seem to take this stuff way, way more seriously than others...I could conjure up a guess as to why, but that would be speculation and without being able to substantiate my hypothesis I'd likely come under fire.

 

Thank you, however, for coming through with actual research, and thank you for returning to the issues and ceasing the name-calling. I've tried to address your points.

 

OK, we'll go on the assumption that the above is not condescending and truly represents a sincere thought...so you are welcome.

[example1]

Does anyone not think this is a win-win situation?

 

I think Crisp will regress in his fielding and do a little better offensively. I'm skeptical of the numbers in this case, not because he isn't a good fielder or because he didn't make great plays (he is and did) but because the FRAA and FRAR he put up last year were UNGODLY!! They completely and absolutely carried his production. If I knew he could replicate that this year then I would have fewer reservations.

 

To me, I see a guy who got a lot of good jumps on a lot of balls that happened to be catchable. I think that Ellsbury will be JUST as productive defensively during his career and a signficant upgrade offensively. I'm not downplaying his defense (as it made him a 17 WS guy... I think, without checking to verify... while he played (offensively) like a much worse player), I just don't trust it. That said, I do trust HIM to make the plays, so what I am actually worried about is that evil Regression to the Mean Monster that always seems to lurk about in this game.

 

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the Red Sox would be an absolute MONSTER if they added Santana, none. That would last for a few years and they would be in really, really, really good shape. I think I can (and have) show that Ellsbury and Santana will likely have pretty similar production from here on out, and that given how cheap Ellsbury is he would be the one I prefer to have around long-term.

 

Truth be told, as many of you know, I will miss Ellsbury and feel that he will be a very productive member of this lineup for years. However, it isn't a form of disrespect to him to trade him for the best pitcher on the planet. Actually, if the deal is Ellsbury + Masterson + Lowrie + 4th random guy, it is quite an honor for Jacoby.

 

I will wake up happy in either case. If Santana gets injured or comes back to earth over the next few years then I will regret not having Ellsbury. But if the Sox hold onto Ellsbury and Santana continues being Santana then I will be wondering "what if" for the rest of my life, when, in actuallity, it would just be great to watch Santana mow-down Yankee hitters (and Tiger hitters, and Blue Jay hitters) with the rest of that sick rotation behind him.

 

Ellsbury is one of the few players to whom I've become attached and excited to see in a Sox uniform. I think the risk in trading him is much higher than most people here are acknowledging with visions of Santana dancing in their heads; however I understand the allure that Santana has.

 

Again, its a Win Win (especially if we're not dealing Lester).

 

There is NOTHING that says the Sox can't turn around and make a package out of Lester + Crisp + to land another CF that will be more exciting and offensively minded that Crisp. No, TheKilo, I'm not downplaying his defense, but I can't think of another play that has had such a reliance on his defense to make him valuable. Hopefully Crisp will become the hitter that we all hope he can be (.285/.355/.430), but to me he looks slow and overwhelmed at the plate and I just don't see it happening.

 

In either case, I love it that the Santana discussion has started again. It's my favorite.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Bill' date=' I love how much work you put into these things but you've got to take a class on editing and learning how to say more with less. [/quote']

 

 

RB took the time to research at least eight separate points; IMO, he deserved the courtesy of attention to each one.

 

And bandwidth is free to posters.

 

Besides, my posts ARE the edited versions. You should see the rough drafts.

 

Interesting word choice...

 

Interesting amount of time spent discussing semantics regarding my choice of words for a light-hearted forum.

 

Regarding why we care--and many here do care very much about their chosen baseball team and their opinions regarding their team, not just those who favor statistics--I'd speculate that love for the Red Sox is tied into the sociology of New England, with all of that Protestant work ethic and the background story that the Puritans left England because, in essence, they thought that the Anglicans were just having too much fun. There's something about a region that instituted blue laws to prevent people from having fun fanatically supporting a team that specialized in artful heartbreak from roughly 1939 to 2003, with each generation of players and fans finding creative ways to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. The two-time World Champion Twenty-First Century Red Sox may become just another winning baseball team. The Red Sox of Williams, Yaz, Boggs, Clemens and Nomar were something special, something reflecting the determination of New Englanders, and the fans of those teams are still the foundation of Red Sox Nation.

 

IMVHO. YMMV.

 

*****************************************************************

 

I think Crisp will regress in his fielding and do a little better offensively. I'm skeptical of the numbers in this case, not because he isn't a good fielder or because he didn't make great plays (he is and did) but because the FRAA and FRAR he put up last year were UNGODLY!! They completely and absolutely carried his production. If I knew he could replicate that this year then I would have fewer reservations.

 

Example1, if I could get actual playing weights for Coco Crisp I'd be able to make a better guess. If one looks at his career, 2007 looks like an odd spike of FRAA. If he lost muscle weight, though--as his loss of power suggests--then he could be a faster and better CF. Add in the learning curve of switching from LF to CF and of learning Fenway's quirky outfield, and that spike might be sustainable.

 

Over their respective obligated years, Ellsbury >> Crisp in value. Over a year or two, salary aside, I've got to side with TheKilo when he writes that playing Crisp rather than Ellsbury shouldn't cost the Red Sox too many games, if any.

[example1]

 

Example1, if I could get actual playing weights for Coco Crisp I'd be able to make a better guess. If one looks at his career, 2007 looks like an odd spike of FRAA. If he lost muscle weight, though--as his loss of power suggests--then he could be a faster and better CF. Add in the learning curve of switching from LF to CF and of learning Fenway's quirky outfield, and that spike might be sustainable.

 

Over their respective obligated years, Ellsbury >> Crisp in value. Over a year or two, salary aside, I've got to side with TheKilo when he writes that playing Crisp rather than Ellsbury shouldn't cost the Red Sox too many games, if any.

 

I actually agree with TheKilo too, particularly if you add in the fact that they would be replacing a number of Julian Tavarez starts with Buchholz, and a number of other starts with the best pitcher in baseball. Like I said, I think it will be win-win. Ellsbury, to me, is a 'special' player, and not in the sense that "we are all special" or "that boy in the back of the class who keeps banging his head on the desk is 'special'" but in the sense of once-per-generation.

 

If we were talking about trading him for Barry Zito or Jeff Francis I would be upset, downright angry even. But Santana is not someone to worry about (if he's healthy, which is the case for any player) because he's amazing.

 

The idea I DIDN'T like was the one initially thrown around here that "whatever it takes" is what we should do, even if it was offering Ellsbury + Lester + Bowden + Lowrie + whoever else. I thought there was a point at which you are actually trading away more value.

 

This move, in my opinion, is going to be the centerpiece of reproducing MANNY'S production in a year or two. They are pretty confident that they aren't going to be able to bank on landing a Matt Holliday or Miguel Cabrera to replace that LF HOF bat we currently have, so what is the best way to make sure you rrun differential stays the same or gets better? Getting the hands-down best pitcher in baseball is the obvious (but counterintuitive) answer. They will still need to upgrade their offense this year or next, as Manny, Lowell, Varitek etc., will start to slow down.

 

However, the idea of having Santana pitch with a tremendous defense behind him (or at least one with guys like Varitek, Lowell, Crisp, Pedroia, Youkilis on it) is appealing.

 

Long story short, I'm resigned to losing Ellsbury if need be, and am satisfied that the Sox will haggle to the point that they are not overpaying beyond Ellsbury. Walking away from a deal to get Santana with names like Buchholz, Lester and Bowden still on your roster (and Kalish too, now that I think of it) is really a nice coup for a team with as much loot as the Sox.

[cam780]

So what you're telling me, is that Coco's defensive worth is based off of

 

I'll ask again. Barring injury, what reasons do you have that Crisp will regress defensively?

 

Ugh. I was basically agreeing with you. My point was that we don't know what next year brings. Coco is a great defender but so is Mike Lowell and he had a down year last year in that regard compared to what he normally brings to the table. The same COULD happen with Crisp. I am not saying that he will regress just that he could and he could also be better offensively.

 

Personally, I think that the entire package that is Coco Crisp is a an average to a slightly above average center fielder. The one thing that he does extremely well isn't overly sexy and doesn't draw alot of attention except for the nightly web gems.

 

I actually think that example made a spot on point. You need six starters - the Red Sox would have 7 with Santana and two guys in Tavarez and Snyder who could start if necessary. I think the Sox may explore other options if not in the offseason potentially at the deadline. I would think that guys like Shannon Stewart, Willy Taveras, Juan Pierre, Xavier Nady, Joey Gathright, Pat Burrell, and possibly Matt Kemp may be available to some extent for varying cost. I'm not arguing any of those guys value vs Coco but with the pitcher surplus its a possibility.

[redsoxrules]

Lowell didn't have an off year at 3rd, if you look at 2004 and 2005, his stats are right around that ..in 2006 was his best defensive year

[cam780]

Lowell didn't have an off year at 3rd' date=' if you look at 2004 and 2005, his stats are right around that ..in 2006 was his best defensive year[/quote']

 

Lowell had an off year defensively if I wasn't clear - 15 errors. The most of his career. He had a .961 fielding percentage - the worst in his career. Range? Worst in his career. I don't post the long stats but I do check them before I make a point. If I'm using incorrect numbers feel free to give me the link.

[redsoxrules]

Lowell had an off year defensively if I wasn't clear - 15 errors. The most of his career. He had a .961 fielding percentage - the worst in his career. Range? Worst in his career. I don't post the long stats but I do check them before I make a point. If I'm using incorrect numbers feel free to give me the link.

 

his ZR was 778 his 3rd best of his career , wich i find is the best way to determine someone's defense, most of lowell's error came early in the season , also errors isnt the best way to determin someones defense

 

Zone rating. The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone,"

 

brandon inge is the only one in the AL who had a better ZR than lowell in 2007 at 803

[example1]

I actually think that example made a spot on point. You need six starters - the Red Sox would have 7 with Santana and two guys in Tavarez and Snyder who could start if necessary. I think the Sox may explore other options if not in the offseason potentially at the deadline. I would think that guys like Shannon Stewart, Willy Taveras, Juan Pierre, Xavier Nady, Joey Gathright, Pat Burrell, and possibly Matt Kemp may be available to some extent for varying cost. I'm not arguing any of those guys value vs Coco but with the pitcher surplus its a possibility.

 

It gets annoying to have to argue little points, doesn't it? I've been there. :thumbsup:

 

As for your list of potential trades, I know your list was just off the top of your head, but I actually think Coco is a better play than just about all of the guys you listed, except Matt Kemp and maybe Burrell (if he has a decent season). They also largely aren't CFs. Again, I know your list wasn't meant to be definitive by any stretch, but it brings up an interesting point, namely, that Crisp is basically a "B+" CF Option on a team filled with A's and A-s. Nothing to scoff at, actually, and he would have been upgraded to an A- (in my opinion) with Ellsbury, but Santana is such a great pitcher that that upgrade doesn't hold enough weight if the Sox deal is accepted.

 

I can't think of CFs that I would want instead of Crisp if Ellsbury leaves.

 

Note: If Ellsbury leaves we will immediately be ushering in the era of Ryan Kalish on this site. Kid is a really nice prospect, as is Lin. They're both very young, but the Sox are likely willing to deal Ellsbury because they feel that they actually have solid minor-league depth at CF. He has great speed like Ellsbury does, but apparently his name doesn't excite the Twins like Ellsbury. C'est la vie.