Johan Santana

[schillingouttheks]

I agree with everything except where Santana will be pitching.

 

I don't want to f*** with the chemistry of this team...Beckett is still the #1.

 

I disagree that it would affect anything if Santana became the #1 for two reasons:

 

1) Johan Santana is pretty much the best pitcher on earth right now

2) I don't believe in chemistry, let alone that it would have a large enough effect to affect on-field performance

 

It's interesting to think about. Who would be the opening day starter? I gotta say it would be Beckett with Santana following the next day.

 

The truth is though, with this rotation, you can't assign 1's, 2's or 3's. They're all just damn good pitchers.

[Cocos Disciples]

14-8 for Josh Beckett?? I remember this guy projecting 12 wins for Beckett last year. I dont really take much stock in the these predictions but it is certainly interesting.

 

I don't take stock into the W-L, because its so dependent on team performance and luck.

[rician blast]

First, Jacksonian went out of his way to ridicule example1 for mentioning Kalish at all, so he's nowhere near vindicated--he's wrong.

 

Second, if the final deal is Lester, Masterson and Kalish, not a five-for-one, example1 is completely vindicated. The rumors are going both ways right now--and some of us did take the time to point out that the Twins covet A-level prospects.

 

OK, let's just recap and then put this thing to rest. From Example's QUOTE OF HIMSELF, he posted:

 

 

Here's what I offer for Santana:

Lester, Kalish and Bowden or Masterson.

 

According to Example, Jacksonian's reply was:

 

" that gets a couple snickers and a dial tone when you propose that to Minny."

 

Sarcasm aside, Jacksonian thought it would take more.

 

The deal allegedly on the table, and this was referred to by Example, was Crisp, Lester, Kalish, Lowrie and Masterson. Under the assumption that those were the players being offered, per Examples own post, I disagreed with Example that he'd predicted correctly, on the basis that:

 

Lester, Kalish and EITHER Bowden or Masterson

 

I further stated that based on that list of players (from Example's post) Jacksonian was more accurate...it would take much more than Lester, Kalish, and one of Bowden/Masterson to get Santana.

 

While your support of Example1 is commendable I think its pretty clear that his original prediction fell short of what even he had heard was the pending deal, yet he felt it necessary to toot his own horn.

 

I gave credit where credit was due, but not where it wasn't warranted. If the deal ultimately turns out to be more in line with Examples original prediction, then let me say, in advance, kudos.

[god is a redsox FAN]

14-8 for Josh Beckett?? I remember this guy projecting 12 wins for Beckett last year. I dont really take much stock in the these predictions but it is certainly interesting.

Yea, Santana would have a good year, but not a better year then Beckett. This team is Beckett's team now, and he knows that, and he knows he's the leader. With the mind set, I predict he will be more dominate then last year. I say Beckett will be Cy young next year, and Santana will win like 16 or 17 games, which isn't bad at all!

[schillingouttheks]

Yea' date=' Santana would have a good year, but not a better year then Beckett. This team is Beckett's team now, and he knows that, and he knows he's the leader. With the mind set, I predict he will be more dominate then last year. I say Beckett will be Cy young next year, and Santana will win like 16 or 17 games, which isn't bad at all![/quote']

 

So Beckett will have a better year because it's "his team" now?

 

And how the hell can you get any MORE dominant than what Beckett did last year? You realize how unlikely that is, right? Maybe he'll repeat it, but be even MORE dominant?

[Cocos Disciples]

Beckett will have a slight decline next year. It's basically a tossup between him and Santana for who will have a better year. And if they produce like they're expected to, it doesn't matter.

[schillingouttheks]

While your support of Example1 is commendable I think its pretty clear that his original prediction fell short of what even he had heard was the pending deal, yet he felt it necessary to toot his own horn.

 

I gave credit where credit was due, but not where it wasn't warranted. If the deal ultimately turns out to be more in line with Examples original prediction, then let me say, in advance, kudos.

 

Hmm....

 

McAdam reported on Sports Tonight that the Sox package is Lester' date=' Masterson, and Kalish. No Crisp, No Ellsbury.[/quote']

 

That's exactly the package that Example predicted. This is the most recent rumored package I've heard of.

 

I'm not trying to get into the argument, but I'm just sayin' ....

 

For the record, I understand that at the time of this exchange, the package included more.

[YAZMAN]

Here is the Sox rotation with this deal, with projected stats from the Bill James handbook, just for fun.

 

Johan Santana: 16-8, 3.00 ERA, 228 K, 58 BB

Josh Beckett: 14-8, 3.50 ERA, 187 K, 64 BB

Daisuke Matsuzaka: 14-8, 3.54 ERA, 188 K, 64 BB

Curt Schilling: 11-7, 3.54 ERA, 150 K, 25 BB

Tim Wakefield: 11-9, 4.03 ERA, 123 K, 63 BB

 

Buchholz is not projected. The Santana numbers are obviously assuming hes a Twin, since they were made previously.

Excuse me, I have to go clean that up.

 

66-40. So the pen is on record for 56 games? He's 15 decisions short for the starters, with all his numbers and formulas he has he should try to get a little closer than that. Unless they're not as valid as he'd like people to believe.

[yankeessuck013]

sox went to dinner, will presume talks in their suite at midnight...ugh.

[example1]

Sorry we didn't read your mind regarding those you didn't mention, but all we can do is look at what you posted and compare it to the deal that the Sox have proposed...and they are not close in terms of overall value.

 

I commend you on nailing some of the individuals involved, though, that was heads up.

 

However I think Jacksonian has actually been vindicated as your proposal, AS STATED in your post, would not have come close to landing Santana...well maybe Carlos Santana...but not Johan.

 

 

 

That wouldnt get it done. Crisp's value is not terribly high' date=' both because of his regression on the offensive side of the ball and due to Boston's lack of need for him. You can quote all the defensive bibles in the game, nothing changes the fact that he is a light hitting, no armed, solid range CFer. Lester is a #3 starter at his best and continues to prove that he puts too many baserunners on to be a top of the rotation guy. And while Youkilis would be a desirable, he is still not a highly rated 1b due to his lack of power and the fact that he has now been away from 3b for 2 yrs makes it highly unlikely that he'd make a smooth transition back (although a move to third significantly increases his value). As has been stated before, a CFer would be a must. Also, a top rated prospect/major leaguer will need to go to the Twins as well. As I have said before, the yankees deal needs to start with either Hughes, Chamberlain or Cano and include Melky. [b']Your deal needs to start with Pedroia, Buchholz or Papelbon (not likely) and also include Ellsbury or Crisp depending on who else is going the other way. No discounts will be had here. And knowing that the yankees and sox are involved, this one could go rather high in terms of talent going back to Minny.[/b]

 

Here's the viewpoint you're defending. I was right. If I had thrown Place's name, or Lin's name or any other CF name in there I would still have been more right, because, as it appears now, the deal does not require Ellsbury or Buchholz, which was my original point.

 

The Red Sox are, shocking as it may be, capable of making a deal using lower-level guys who have tremendous upside, and the Twins are smart enough--as so many here apparently didn't think they were--to know talent when they see it, and VALUE when they see it.

 

It doesn't take a genius to know that the Sox aren't going to give away all of their top talent for a one-year rental. THey also aren't going to overpay just to prevent the Yankees from doing something.

 

Originally I said Lester + Kalish + Bowden or Masterson. By "Bowden or Masterson" I actually meant "Bowden or Masterson" and I have said many times that I think they are very close in value right now, MN can take their pick (I like both). Bowden is clearly a SP, he doesn't maver Masterson's build or sinker, but he does have more polish as a pitcher and, with his increased repetoire, may have more upside if he can produce. Masterson may only be a MR, or may PROJECT to best fit as a MR. He may be closer to the bigs and may fill a role that MN needs (a role that ALL teams need is effective MR). If we get to keep Bowden then GREAT. If we get to keep Masterson then GREAT.

 

I don't have the same ambivalence between Coco and Ellsbury and Kalish. I want Ellsbury out of that group significantly more than the other two.

 

Now, that said, I would still be surprised if this deal went down without Coco. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, as Kalish isn't going to fill CF immediately. Of course, they recently acquired an OF in a trade with TB, so perhaps they feel fulfilled in CF. I don't know

[Cocos Disciples]

First off, Bill James didn't make the pitcher projections, he never does. Second, the # of innings for Schilling and Wakefield were pretty low, like around 150-160. Injury is considered a factor.

[example1]

sox went to dinner' date=' will presume talks in their suite at midnight...ugh.[/quote']

 

Aside from reduced Sox coverage, the west coast is the best for sports coverage. Wake up on weekends and football or college basketball or baseball is on the television, get off of work and the Sox are on (thank god for Ti-Vo, DVR). No waiting up to watch games, it is quite convenient.

 

I still miss the east coast though.

[example1]

First off' date=' Bill James didn't make the pitcher projections, he never does. Second, the # of innings for Schilling and Wakefield were pretty low, like around 150-160. Injury is considered a factor.[/quote']

 

I don't have much to add to your usual good posting. I think it is just important to reiterate that, really, Wins and Losses are the last thing we should be looking at.

 

I bet we would be hard pressed to find ANY projection system (aside from Steve Phillips) who has EVER predicted 20 wins for a pitcher. Too much luck and secondary factors involved.

[yankeessuck013]

It doesn't take a genius to know that the Sox aren't going to give away all of their top talent for a one-year rental.

 

One Year Rental?

 

We're going to have to give JS about 23+ a year for 5 years or hes going to use his NTC

[example1]

One Year Rental?

 

We're going to have to give JS about 23+ a year for 5 years or hes going to use his NTC

 

No we aren't. I bet we give him a high-teens contract with incentives. Just guessing.

 

And yeah, as far as all negotiations without extension go, this is a one year rental. They will need to sign him to an extension, but that is not impacted by the package they are giving away.

[jacksonianmarch]

a high teens contract doesnt get him. I have been wrong before, but this time, we arent dealing with a moron GM. We are dealing with an agent. Santana will make 23-25 mil a season on the open market. There is no way he settles for less.

[arbitrary]

I was pretty sure the final trade is contingent on the sox signing him to an extension.

 

Yeah it's not a one year rental:

 

Any team that strikes a deal for Santana will request a 72-hour window to discuss a contract extension, with Santana believed to be looking for at least $25 million a year.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/12/04/sox_twins_may_be_close/

[TheKilo]

Couple quick points -

 

Gammons said the deal is no longer 5-for-1. Thats' probably clear by the new offers that have come about in this thread, but it's not 5-for-1.

 

I don't see how the deal gets done w/o Crisp or Ellsbury. The Twins need a CF, and while Kalish is a decent prospect, he doesn't fill that positional need. Crisp would be the perfect stopgap until Revere is ready for them.

 

Lastly, is it possible to think the negotiations right now are for a new contract? All major players except the Sox are done, so maybe they're working on the particulars of an extension.

 

Just a thought.

[example1]

a high teens contract doesnt get him. I have been wrong before' date=' but this time, we arent dealing with a moron GM. We are dealing with an agent. Santana will make 23-25 mil a season on the open market. There is no way he settles for less.[/quote']

 

Thanks for admitting you've been wrong before. We all have.

 

He may very well make that much every year. That likely is what the market would pay. Chances are, the Sox figure that Manny's contract can go into Santana and it will be a good reinvestment of money.

 

It's a unique way of getting something to start replacing Manny's value, if necessary, when he leaves.

 

I was pretty sure the final trade is contingent on the sox signing him to an extension.

 

Yeah it's not a one year rental:

 

Any team that strikes a deal for Santana will request a 72-hour window to discuss a contract extension, with Santana believed to be looking for at least $25 million a year.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/12/04/sox_twins_may_be_close/

 

As far as the Twins are concerned, they are demanding players for the one guaranteed year of Santana. If a team comes along and pays 100m or 10$ they don't care. The Sox get him one year earlier than they might have otherwise for the same amount in cash, but in order to have the opportunity to get access to him (supposedly to pay free-agent salary) they have to give up talent.

 

I call it a one-year rental because the value of the players exchanged is to make Santana available a year earlier, STILL to a huge contract that the Twins will pay NONE of.

 

I would imagine that anyone demanding 23m a year in a limited negotiating window will have a tough negotiation with the Red Sox FO, no matter how many Cy Youngs they may have. I'm betting the deal is more reasonable, or perhaps front loaded with significant incentives built in for Cy Youngs, All-Star games, etc.,

[example1]

Couple quick points -

 

Gammons said the deal is no longer 5-for-1. Thats' probably clear by the new offers that have come about in this thread, but it's not 5-for-1.

 

I don't see how the deal gets done w/o Crisp or Ellsbury. The Twins need a CF, and while Kalish is a decent prospect, he doesn't fill that positional need. Crisp would be the perfect stopgap until Revere is ready for them.

 

I don't really get it either. The discussion of Kalish + Lester + Masterson seems crazy, not because of their solid value--which they have--but given that there was awhile there when it was Lester + Ellsbury + Masterson + Lowrie was being discussed.

 

I think Crisp is involved, and there may be another piece from MN (per reports that I saw above someplace). Crisp makes so much sense.

 

Lastly, is it possible to think the negotiations right now are for a new contract? All major players except the Sox are done, so maybe they're working on the particulars of an extension.

 

Just a thought.

 

Oh yeah, that's definitely what could be happening. Sox brass go to dinner after having agreed in principle, only to negotiate a contract in the evening?? We can hope, right?

A long evening indeed.

[arbitrary]

I completely understand what you are saying, but you're changing the meaning of a word/phrase. The English language doesn't really allow people to change meanings as they see fit. Words lost meanings that way. A one year rental is for one year and then its gone. This would be more like a 5 or so year rental. The Twins wouldn't consider it a one year rental either. To them its a trade and they know they can get more value from Santana if he signs an extension. Once the trade is all over, he will be locked up for more than one year (unless the FO has an extra chromosome).

[example1]

I completely understand what you are saying' date='[/b'] but you're changing the meaning of a word/phrase. The English language doesn't really allow people to change meanings as they see fit. Words lost meanings that way. A one year rental is for one year and then its gone. This would be more like a 5 or so year rental. The Twins wouldn't consider it a one year rental either. To them its a trade and they know they can get more value from Santana if he signs an extension. Once the trade is all over, he will be locked up for more than one year (unless the FO has an extra chromosome).

 

Do you think U-Haul and Avis are getting ready to sue me for misuse of the word "rental"?

 

You clearly knew what I was talking about which is, pragmatically, the purpose of all language.

 

What would you call the price they have to pay to get access to FA Santana a year early? I made the grave mistake of calling it a rental; would TAX be more appropriate? Posting fee? Ticket? who cares?

[arbitrary]

I don't care that you misused a word and implied your own meaning. But it tends to make you look like an idiot when you do. I thought you were another yahoo who didn't understand that this trade isn't made unless Santana's contract gets extended. They are all rentals, but one year is far different than 5.

 

I realized what the hell you were talking about after you specifically said what you meant.

 

Actually, its a trade contingent on an extension.

[a700hitter]

Any word on whether the Sox and the Twins resumed talks after dinner? Is it possible that Sox officials are already negotiating with Santana's agent, or would there be a separate announcement in that regard after the trade is agreed upon?

[god is a redsox FAN]

so if the twins and Red Sox come to an agreement, the Sox have to go to the commissioner and ask for the 72 hour period to talk to Santana?

[example1]

I don't care that you misused a word and implied your own meaning. But it tends to make you look like an idiot when you do.

 

I realized what the hell you were talking about after you specifically said what you meant.

 

Actually, its a trade contingent on an extension.

 

 

I type thousands and thousands of words on this site, and all you can do is criticize my usage of the word 'rental', saying it makes me look like an idiot. Pretty unimpressive analysis.

[arbitrary]

I type thousands and thousands of words on this site' date=' and all you can do is criticize my usage of the word 'rental', saying it makes me look like an idiot. Pretty unimpressive analysis.[/quote']

 

Yeap. Idiot. Now whenever you post something I'll have to make sure you understand what you say. Again, not 'rental', but quantity of years we're actually getting from Santana.

 

Maybe 'lease' is a better term.

All in good fun, lover. :harhar:

[TheKilo]

I don't really get it either. The discussion of Kalish + Lester + Masterson seems crazy, not because of their solid value--which they have--but given that there was awhile there when it was Lester + Ellsbury + Masterson + Lowrie was being discussed.

 

I think Crisp is involved, and there may be another piece from MN (per reports that I saw above someplace). Crisp makes so much sense.

 

Yeah, definitely don't see the deal happening w/o a CF.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, that's definitely what could be happening. Sox brass go to dinner after having agreed in principle, only to negotiate a contract in the evening?? We can hope, right?

A long evening indeed.

 

Hope so. Then again I could be completely wrong.

 

If the Sox are the only bidders, why is it taking so long? They aren't bidding against anyone. The Angels say they're out of it, as do the Yanks. It's certainly reasonable to think the longer this drags out, the chances of landing him lessen.

 

Besides, I wouldn't put it past Hank to sweep in and nab Santana in the 11th hour from the Sox, completely ignoring that the deadline was his creation.

[yankeessuck013]

If the Sox do not trade for Johan Santana, an outcome last night as plausible as a deal going down, it may stem in part from some ambivalence on the part of club officials on whether they really want to do it. Theo Epstein and Co. enjoy watching the kids develop and win--going out and signing Santana makes them more like the Yankees. And surprisingly, there might be a greater willingness, at least on the part of some on the baseball ops side, to let Jacoby Ellsbury go in a Santana deal, and hold onto Lester, the belief being that 1) Ellsbury's value will never be higher and 2) Lester may have a higher upside than he's given credit for. At the same time, the Sox are well aware of the attachment many fans already have developed to Ellsbury. On the other hand, how do you pass up the chance to acquire Santana, a pitcher as special as Pedro Martinez was a decade ago?

 

These are the thoughts that get kicked around while waiting to see if anything develops at the midnight gathering of the Sox brass, development people and scouts.

 

Boston.com

[god is a redsox FAN]

so that's nothing official Yankee? That's just one man's opinion?