Johan Santana

[Jayhawk Bill]

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.

 

I had tried to avoid pointing out what you just did: I was several days ahead of the actual Crisp + Lester + Lowrie + Masterson/Bowden offer when I was suggesting Crisp + Lester + two, and I don't recall any of the posters who were ridiculing me at the time stepping up to say they were wrong.

 

Regarding the contract, let's use a parallel from the Red Sox: did they increase Papi's salary to match Manny's? No--even after renegotiation, Papi's salary isn't even similar to Manny's, even though he's now the better hitter. He still makes only roughly two-thirds of what Manny does--he even makes less than JD Drew, who platooned with Bobby Kielty.

 

If Santana makes more money than Beckett, Beckett can renegotiate for a raise by offering more years (as Big Papi did). He won't just receive a pay raise.

 

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

 

a700hitter, why should my credibility slip before the time passes to prove me right or wrong?

 

If you look at what I'm saying years later and it doesn't make sense, fine. But what you're saying here is that you disagree with me, so my credibility should suffer. That's far different.

 

That would be defined as "prejudice."

[das11209]

The Santana circus continues:

 

The Minneapolis Star Tribune's Lavelle E. Neal III believes the Yankees are now offering Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera and Ian Kennedy in return for Johan Santana.

 

He also says the Twins are no longer interested in a Red Sox package that includes Coco Crisp rather than Jacoby Ellsbury. If both of his beliefs are true, then it would seem as though the a trade between the Twins and Yankees would get done any day now. However, Neal goes on to say that he thinks the Mets are backing down on not offering Jose Reyes and that Santana might prefer the NL to the AL. Color us skeptical about everything presented here.

 

[BoSox21]

nothing will get done before the GM meetings and then it's anyone's guess as to what happens. I don't think anything is imminent

[example1]

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.

 

Disappointing.

 

Sorry if I offended you, because you--as I noted at the bottom of that post--are one who tends to have a solid perspective...

 

You have used numbers, as usual; like when you posted this:

 

Here's the thing, though. The difference btw a 4.75 and 6.3 RC/G is about 25-30 runs depending on playing time. Let's call it 30 for your sake. A reasonable prediction for Lester would be about league average at a 4.50 ERA. Over 180 IP, that's 90 runs, and it's a wash if Santana pitches to a 3.33. Both numbers are probably high, but it shows the value gained is easily erased on the pitching end.

 

But that's not it. Santana typically pitches about 220 IP, so you need to fill the void with more league average or worse pitching, which tips the scale in favor having Santana and Crisp over Ellsbury and Lester.

 

Also, keep in mind, that James predictions are blind to situation. It's a plug and play formula. I'm much more confident that Crisp can improve and return to a level he's previously hit at than I am that Ellsbury can come up and be a run producer like Jeter is for a whole season.

 

I appreciate the numbers, but it doesn't incorporate the other two pieces of the deal, nor the difference in expense, and what the money can be used for otherwise, and whether those purchases + the pieces saved in the trade could possibly earn the Red Sox more wins over the next few years, it doesn't offer an alternative to James' player projection and it doesn't acknowledge that this likely represents the most cutting edge analysis the Red Sox know about.

 

My point above was to say that NOBODY would be upset if we got Santana, but it becomes a much more even deal by including Ellsbury, given what the Sox are hoping to get from him, his development in the Sox system, his cost, etc.,

 

I think Crisp + Lester + Lowrie + Masterson is a really strong package and I have no problems with the Red Sox establishing a value for Santana and not overpaying for him.

 

You said this about that very offer:

 

That's a strong offer' date=' no matter what the Yankee spin-meister here says. It's a perfect fit for them in terms of what they need and just dealt away. What trumps the Yankee deal is the fact that they just traded away their SS, and the Yankees don't have a MIF with a projectable bat to offer. The '05 draft might have increased dividends. Nice.[/quote']

 

You advocate, apparentlly, for the Sox to raise their offer now that Hughes has been thrown in, I advocate for them to hold fast with the offer they truly see as equal. The Red Sox do not have to overpay for Santana, but the Yankees probably do.

 

Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I'll try to be more careful.

[a700hitter]

a700hitter, why should my credibility slip before the time passes to prove me right or wrong?

 

If you look at what I'm saying years later and it doesn't make sense, fine. But what you're saying here is that you disagree with me, so my credibility should suffer. That's far different.

 

That would be defined as "prejudice."

It suffers because you are comparing a guy that is an average OF --4th OF type player to Hall of Famers. Based on that reasoning, you could compare many average 4th OF types to Hall of Famers. I just don't think such comparisons have much validity, not even enough to wait and see.

[Jayhawk Bill]

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.

 

But it's better than the others...it's better than Marcels...it's far better than just accepting the previous year's performance as the likely next year's perfrmance.

 

Most here are assuming that Cabrera (and Santana) will never change. That's very unlikely. Young position players improve with age; pitchers already in their primes decline.

 

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.

 

:thumbsup:

 

I knew that you knew baseball--I hadn't realized that you were a diplomat!

[example1]

It suffers because you are comparing a guy that is an average OF --4th OF type player to Hall of Famers. Based on that reasoning' date=' you could compare many average 4th OF types to Hall of Famers.[/b'] I just don't think such comparisons have much validity, not even enough to wait and see.

 

Isn't the comparison based on his age and particular skill set/stats rather than whether or not he is a "4th OF type player" at 22 on the most expensive team in the world?

 

Isn't this kind of like saying that because a top RB recruit at USC didn't start at RB as a freshman that he won't make it to the NFL Pro-Bowl?

[a700hitter]

Isn't the comparison based on his age and particular skill set/stats rather than whether or not he is a "4th OF type player" at 22 on the most expensive team in the world?

 

Isn't this kind of like saying that because a top RB recruit at USC didn't start at RB as a freshman that he won't make it to the NFL Pro-Bowl?

I don't have a problem with the comparison spanning a shorter time frame, but not across 40 years when the changes in the game have been huge. Like I said, Yaz and Rose were All Stars by their 3rd years and Yaz was a batting champ. Melky has to step up his game big time this year for him to be compared to those guys.

[example1]

I don't have a problem with the comparison spanning a shorter time frame' date=' but not across 40 years when the changes in the game have been huge. Like I said, Yaz and Rose were All Stars by their 3rd years and Yaz was a batting champ. Melky has to step up his game big time this year for him to be compared to those guys.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but stepping up his game big time is the exact type of thing a player at his age and with his tools tends to do, which is why I think, JHB was indicating that it isn't an absurd thing to see Melky doing just that. I'm not Melky's biggest fan by any stretch, but I wouldn't write many kids his age with his experience already in the league off either.

[example1]

Another update:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7512024

 

The Twins reportedly informed the Yankees they were prepared to deal Santana to the Red Sox unless the 21-year-old Hughes was part of the deal. Fearing Santana would join Josh Beckett to give their rivals two aces, the Yankees decided to put Hughes on the table.

 

This indicates to me that the Twins were possibly going to bite on Crisp/Lester/Masterson/Lowrie.

[a700hitter]

Yeah' date=' but stepping up his game big time is the exact type of thing a player at his age and with his tools tends to do, which is why I think, JHB was indicating that it isn't an absurd thing to see Melky doing just that. I'm not Melky's biggest fan by any stretch, but I wouldn't write many kids his age with his experience already in the league off either.[/quote']But his stats at this age are not an indicator of any probability that he will step it up. Those who step it up at this age become stars and the guys that don't stay average players. Right now there is nothing in his game that strongly indicates future stardom. Even if he does step it up, he'd have to play consistently at that high level for another 10 to 15 years. It's a stretch, and the comparison to those guys at this point is not valid.

 

It's kind of like Dan Quayle speaking about his youth and experience by comparing himself to JFK at the same age. Quayle had more accomplishments and experience at a younger age than JFK, but we all remember what Lloyd Bentsen said in response. Well Melky is not more accomplished than Rose or yaz at the same age. To paraphrase Bentsen, I knew Yaz and Rose and JayHawk, Melky is no Yaz or Rose.

[example1]

But his stats at this age are not an indicator of any probability that he will step it up. Those who step it up at this age become stars and the guys that don't stay average players. Right now there is nothing in his game that strongly indicates future stardom. Even if he does step it up, he'd have to play consistently at that high level for another 10 to 15 years. It's a stretch, and the comparison to those guys at this point is not valid.

 

It's kind of like Dan Quayle speaking about his youth and experience by comparing himself to JFK at the same age. Quayle had more accomplishments and experience at a younger age than JFK, but we all remember what Lloyd Bentsen said in response. Well Melky is not more accomplished than Rose or yaz at the same age. To paraphrase Bentsen, I knew Yaz and Rose and JayHawk, Melky is no Yaz or Rose.

 

Classic!

 

I suspect, however, that you haven't actually looked all all of Melky's numbers to see how he compares, or done regression analysis to see which variables are most important to predicting future success (is it P/PA or OBP or SLG or RC or WS or...). I haven't looked that deeply into it either, but the people who have seem to think he's got a particular tool set that will ultimately lead to a fair amount of success. I don't know about All-Star or HOF potential, because I simply don't know. But I wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand based on the few games that I have seen Melky play or base it solely on the first few years of his very young career.

[Jayhawk Bill]

It suffers because you are comparing a guy that is an average OF --4th OF type player to Hall of Famers. Based on that reasoning' date=' you could compare many average 4th OF types to Hall of Famers.[/quote']

 

OK, let's look at recent outfielders inducted into the Hall of Fame to see how they were doing at ages 21 and 22. I'll go down the list at BR in reverse order, starting with the most recent inductee outfielder, Tony Gwynn, going back as far as 1960:

 

Tony Gwynn: .289/.337/.389 in 190 AB at age 22 (Melky's 11th-best PECOTA comp)

 

Dave Winfield: .277/.331/.383 in 141 AB at age 21; .265/.318/.438 in 498 AB at age 22

 

Kirby Puckett: reached MLB at age 24

 

Robin Yount: .288/.333/.377 in 605 AB at age 21; .293/.323/.428 in 502 AB at age 22

 

Richie Ashburn: .333/.410/.400 in 463 AB at age 21; .284/.343/.349 in 662 AB at age 22 (Melky's 4th-best PECOTA comp)

 

Reggie Jackson: .178/.269/.305 in 118 AB at age 21; .250/.316/.452 in 553 AB at age 22

 

Carl Yastrzemski: .266/.324/.396 in 583 AB at age 21; .296/.363/.469 in 646 AB at age 22 (Melky's 15th-best PECOTA comp)

 

Willie Stargell: .290/.353/.452 in 31 AB at age 22

 

Billy Williams: .152/.176/.212 in 33 AB at age 21; .277/.346/.489 in 47 AB at age 22

 

Lou Brock: .091/.167/.091 in 11 AB at age 22

 

and, for contrast:

 

Melky Cabrera: .280/.360/.391 in 460 AB at age 21; .273/.327/.391 in 545 AB at age 22

 

:dunno:

 

The reverse of this would be choosing players with seasons most like Melky Cabrera's by age. That's what PECOTA does: it takes all post-WWII comparables by age. Three of Melky's best comparables are listed above. Three others are Pete Rose, Roberto Alomar and Derek Jeter. Others include Carlos Beltran, Reggie Smith and Lee Mazzilli. These were some pretty good players.

 

Melky isn't a "fourth outfielder." At age 21 and age 22 he was a starting outfielder for the highest-payroll team in MLB, amassing over 1,000 AB in those two years. That is unusual and significant.

 

I just don't think such comparisons have much validity, not even enough to wait and see.

 

And that's why I used the word "prejudice" to refer to your perspective. You've made up your mind that Melky is a fourth outfielder, and you don't care about how he stacks up historically. Your opinion is that the comparisons don't "have much validity." You're not going to wait until a few years pass to make up your mind: you're sure.

 

It does not trouble me that my opinion differs from that of a prejudiced individual.

[yankeessuck013]

Another update:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7512024

 

 

 

This indicates to me that the Twins were possibly going to bite on Crisp/Lester/Masterson/Lowrie.

 

IMO, I think it was jsut a negotiation ploy.

[a700hitter]

Classic!

 

I suspect, however, that you haven't actually looked all all of Melky's numbers to see how he compares, or done regression analysis to see which variables are most important to predicting future success (is it P/PA or OBP or SLG or RC or WS or...). I haven't looked that deeply into it either, but the people who have seem to think he's got a particular tool set that will ultimately lead to a fair amount of success. I don't know about All-Star or HOF potential, because I simply don't know. But I wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand based on the few games that I have seen Melky play or base it solely on the first few years of his very young career.

I am not saying to dismiss him. He may have a long and productive career, but to compare him at this stage to the greats of the game has little validity. Compare him to first or secon yera guys in the last couple or three years that's fine, but HOF ers. Sorry, but it doesn't resonate.

[a700hitter]

OK, let's look at recent outfielders inducted into the Hall of Fame to see how they were doing at ages 21 and 22. I'll go down the list at BR in reverse order, starting with the most recent inductee outfielder, Tony Gwynn, going back as far as 1960:

 

Tony Gwynn: .289/.337/.389 in 190 AB at age 22 (Melky's 11th-best PECOTA comp)

 

Dave Winfield: .277/.331/.383 in 141 AB at age 21; .265/.318/.438 in 498 AB at age 22

 

Kirby Puckett: reached MLB at age 24

 

Robin Yount: .288/.333/.377 in 605 AB at age 21; .293/.323/.428 in 502 AB at age 22

 

Richie Ashburn: .333/.410/.400 in 463 AB at age 21; .284/.343/.349 in 662 AB at age 22 (Melky's 4th-best PECOTA comp)

 

Reggie Jackson: .178/.269/.305 in 118 AB at age 21; .250/.316/.452 in 553 AB at age 22

 

Carl Yastrzemski: .266/.324/.396 in 583 AB at age 21; .296/.363/.469 in 646 AB at age 22 (Melky's 15th-best PECOTA comp)

 

Willie Stargell: .290/.353/.452 in 31 AB at age 22

 

Billy Williams: .152/.176/.212 in 33 AB at age 21; .277/.346/.489 in 47 AB at age 22

 

Lou Brock: .091/.167/.091 in 11 AB at age 22

 

and, for contrast:

 

Melky Cabrera: .280/.360/.391 in 460 AB at age 21; .273/.327/.391 in 545 AB at age 22

 

:dunno:

 

The reverse of this would be choosing players with seasons most like Melky Cabrera's by age. That's what PECOTA does: it takes all post-WWII comparables by age. Three of Melky's best comparables are listed above. Three others are Pete Rose, Roberto Alomar and Derek Jeter. Others include Carlos Beltran, Reggie Smith and Lee Mazzilli. These were some pretty good players.

 

Melky isn't a "fourth outfielder." At age 21 and age 22 he was a starting outfielder for the highest-payroll team in MLB, amassing over 1,000 AB in those two years. That is unusual and significant.

 

 

 

And that's why I used the word "prejudice" to refer to your perspective. You've made up your mind that Melky is a fourth outfielder, and you don't care about how he stacks up historically. Your opinion is that the comparisons don't "have much validity." You're not going to wait until a few years pass to make up your mind: you're sure.

 

It does not trouble me that my opinion differs from that of a prejudiced individual.

JAyHAwk, sometimes you just have to give up. Your argument doesn't hold up no matter what kind of numbers you look at. Give it up on this and move on to your usually insightful posts about the issues of the day.

[yankeessuck013]

I gotta agree with a700 here, you can't compare melky by looking at numbers of past players. The game is everchanging and players need to make adjustments in order to be successful in this day and age. Comparing Melky to Yaz is assinine IMO.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

roto:

 

The Minneapolis Star Tribune's Lavelle E. Neal III essentially admitted he was guessing when he reported the Yankees were offering Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera and Ian Kennedy to the Twins for Johan Santana.

 

Neal apparently had no inside info here, so there's still no reason to think the Yankees are willing to part with both Hughes and Kennedy. FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal said this afternoon that the Twins are targeting right-hander Alan Horne or defensive-minded shortstop Alberto Gonzalez as the third player along with Hughes and Cabrera. In his latest blog, ESPN's Peter Gammons seems to think it's almost a given that the trade will be completed

 

Well this sucks. maybe we can get Dan Haren.

[ORS]

Disappointing.

 

Sorry if I offended you, because you--as I noted at the bottom of that post--are one who tends to have a solid perspective...

 

You have used numbers, as usual; like when you posted this:

 

I appreciate the numbers, but it doesn't incorporate the other two pieces of the deal, nor the difference in expense, and what the money can be used for otherwise, and whether those purchases + the pieces saved in the trade could possibly earn the Red Sox more wins over the next few years, it doesn't offer an alternative to James' player projection and it doesn't acknowledge that this likely represents the most cutting edge analysis the Red Sox know about.

 

My point above was to say that NOBODY would be upset if we got Santana, but it becomes a much more even deal by including Ellsbury, given what the Sox are hoping to get from him, his development in the Sox system, his cost, etc.,

 

I think Crisp + Lester + Lowrie + Masterson is a really strong package and I have no problems with the Red Sox establishing a value for Santana and not overpaying for him.

 

You said this about that very offer:

 

You advocate, apparentlly, for the Sox to raise their offer now that Hughes has been thrown in, I advocate for them to hold fast with the offer they truly see as equal. The Red Sox do not have to overpay for Santana, but the Yankees probably do.

 

Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I'll try to be more careful.

I overreacted and flew off the handle. Upthread in your post it seemed as if you were saying only those opposed to including Ellsbury were "thinking" about the issue. My apologies.

 

I didn't consider the other two players because there are only 9 lineup slots and 5 rotation slots. Unused talent won't be contributing, and those two are unlikely to contribute in the immediate future (barring injury), unless Lugo is moved with some financial backing, which antithetical to the point you are espousing.

 

I still think the original offer is strong, but as you can tell, I think the replacement of Crisp with Ellsbury is marginal enough to not be a sticking point.

[yankeessuck013]

I was listening to the Baseball Show on WFAN with Ed Randall. And they are reporting that Jon Heyman of SI was on the show and he told Randall that the Twins are not as interested in Hughes, and would take the deal with the Red Sox if it includes either Buchholz OR Ellsbury, and they are talking deal.

 

I can't speak to its reliability, just reporting what i heard on the WFAN in NY

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

I was listening to the Baseball Show on WFAN with Ed Randall. And they are reporting that Jon Heyman of SI was on the show and he told Randall that the Twins are not as interested in Hughes, and would take the deal with the Red Sox if it includes either Buchholz OR Ellsbury, and they are talking deal.

 

I can't speak to its reliability, just reporting what i heard on the WFAN in NY

 

I do know the Red Sox and Twins were supposed to talk this afternoon. I haven't seen a single report from the Red Sox side, only that the Yankees are willing to include Hughes.

 

Will be interesting if we see a report tonight

[Rdsxmbnt]

I was listening to the Baseball Show on WFAN with Ed Randall. And they are reporting that Jon Heyman of SI was on the show and he told Randall that the Twins are not as interested in Hughes, and would take the deal with the Red Sox if it includes either Buchholz OR Ellsbury, and they are talking deal.

 

I can't speak to its reliability, just reporting what i heard on the WFAN in NY

 

Did you yourself hear it or going by the post on sosh?

[yankeessuck013]

both

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

If Jacoby Ellsbury goes into the deal I would hope it doesn't include Lester, Masterson, AND Lowrie. Perhaps if the Twins could throw in another player.

[example1]

I overreacted and flew off the handle. Upthread in your post it seemed as if you were saying only those opposed to including Ellsbury were "thinking" about the issue. My apologies.

 

I didn't consider the other two players because there are only 9 lineup slots and 5 rotation slots. Unused talent won't be contributing, and those two are unlikely to contribute in the immediate future (barring injury), unless Lugo is moved with some financial backing, which antithetical to the point you are espousing.

 

The way that Bill James conceived of using Win Shares (which is, of course, only one of many possible methods) to evaluate trades was to look at the actual win shares, but also the win shares of the players who replace that player (i.e., if the Red Sox use Masterson to acquire someone else later). I understand that there isn't really a spot for him, and even if he has a great year he won't get time, probably not next year either. But that's why it matters that he is under their control for such little money for such a long time. There's no telling what he may turn into, but chances are it will be a MLB caliber pitcher somewhere. I'm not comfortable just discounting that fact. I would be if it weren't the Sox #3 prospect. If it were Tommy Hottovy or Blake Maxwell I would just not care, but Masterson has SP potential or RP potential, at 6-6 245. Even if he becomes a 'good' MRP he deserves a few Wins here and there, and while he will take up a roster spot in a few years, it is one that would be otherwise filled by a guy like Timlin.

 

I still think the original offer is strong, but as you can tell, I think the replacement of Crisp with Ellsbury is marginal enough to not be a sticking point.

 

Fair enough.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Red Sox have possibly upped their offer:

 

The Twins may have reached the point where they have the best offers they are going to get from the Yankees and Red Sox for pitcher Johan Santana.

 

With the Yankees' offer now upgraded to include top young pitcher Phil Hughes, the Twins spoke again with the Red Sox late Saturday afternoon, sources say, and Boston generated a few new ideas for its proposed offer.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3136495

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Red Sox have possibly upped their offer:

 

 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3136495

 

Wow great now we can speculate what they came up with.

My first guess, Jacoby Ellsbury.

My second guess, a third team involved.

[ksushi]

Perhaps we are in for some news here one way or the other in the next 24ish hours...

[das11209]

Wake me up when something happens - this soap opera is worse than A-Rod's.

[yankeessuck013]

my bet is that buchholz is involved, not jacoby.

but i do wonder if the twins made any new additions to the deal like the sox wanted.