Johan Santana

[Cityofchampions33]

I just do not want the Yankees to get Santana, makes them a hell of a lot better. I don't understand why people want them to trade away Hughes for the pitcher every Yankee fans HOPE he will develop into.

[TheKilo]

I just do not want the Yankees to get Santana' date=' makes them a hell of a lot better. I don't understand why people want them to trade away Hughes for the pitcher every Yankee fans HOPE he will develop into.[/quote']

 

Because you can make the case Hughes at the league minimum is more valuable than Santana at $20 million.

[jacksonianmarch]

If the yankees use Hughes to get Santana, the effects wont be felt for another 3-4 yrs. The problem is, by the time Santana starts to slide a bit, Hughes will have been the best pitcher in the game and we'll be talking about dealing more kids to get Hughes from Minnesota. Dont do it.

[das11209]

The problem is' date=' by the time Santana starts to slide a bit,[b'] Hughes will have been the best pitcher in the game[/b].

 

That is not a given by any means - you are completely speculating here. He may be out of the league also by that time.

[jacksonianmarch]

so might Santana

[das11209]

so might Santana

 

Agreed - but chances are that you might get 3-4 good years and 1-2 championship before that happens.

 

I am just disputing your proclamation that Hughes will be the best pitcher in baseball in 4 years. In principle if I were a Yankee fan - I will not give up my prospects + $20 million per year for Santana. As a Red Sox fan - however I am hoping that Hank will do just that.

[TheKilo]

If the yankees use Hughes to get Santana' date=' the effects wont be felt for another 3-4 yrs. The problem is, by the time Santana starts to slide a bit, Hughes will have been the best pitcher in the game and we'll be talking about dealing more kids to get Hughes from Minnesota. Dont do it.[/quote']

 

How's the Kool-Aid taste today?

[Cityofchampions33]

Because you can make the case Hughes at the league minimum is more valuable than Santana at $20 million.

 

To a team in which money is no object?

[TheKilo]

To a team in which money is no object?

 

What difference does that make? The investment is risky, putting $20 million per into a pitcher. I personally happen to think it'd be worth it but if something happens to the guy it's Pavano redux.

 

Even if "money is no object", the investment carries a lot of risk and should be considered.

[a700hitter]

What difference does that make? The investment is risky, putting $20 million per into a pitcher. I personally happen to think it'd be worth it but if something happens to the guy it's Pavano redux.

 

Even if "money is no object", the investment carries a lot of risk and should be considered.

Except that Pavano was a much riskier propostion. He had had only one good year, and he'd had a history of arm ailments.

 

BTW: Where do you think Pavano lands this year?

[Cityofchampions33]

What difference does that make? The investment is risky, putting $20 million per into a pitcher. I personally happen to think it'd be worth it but if something happens to the guy it's Pavano redux.

 

Even if "money is no object", the investment carries a lot of risk and should be considered.

 

Of course, my point is just that your essentially trading your unprovenblue chip prospect for the ace you hope he develops somewhere close to. And if the Pinstripes do get Santana, as I mentioned, they immediately are improved, if not for just the first year of Johan's stay. And you cannot compare this to the Pavano situation, even if Santana does bust. The risk is a lot less, and Santana is far more proven and a much better pitcher than Pavano was. But, understood, there is some, while I think you might be overestimating it, risk involved.

[TheKilo]

Of course' date=' my point is just that your essentially trading your unprovenblue chip prospect for the ace you hope he develops somewhere close to. And if the Pinstripes do get Santana, as I mentioned, they immediately are improved, if not for just the first year of Johan's stay. And you cannot compare this to the Pavano situation, even if Santana does bust. The risk is a lot less, and Santana is far more proven and a much better pitcher than Pavano was. But, understood, there is some, while I think you might be overestimating it, risk involved.[/quote']

 

You don't think committing that kind of money to a pitcher is a serious risk? And if Santana busts, why can't I compare it to Pavano?

[Cityofchampions33]

You don't think committing that kind of money to a pitcher is a serious risk? And if Santana busts' date=' why can't I compare it to Pavano?[/quote']

 

Commiting that money/years to ANY player is a risk, but if your going to give it to any pitcher it, it might as well be Santana. And you can't compare it to Pavano, because it is clear the talkent difference going into the commitment. Pavano had one good year, Santana has had 4 with 30+ starts a year and good overall stats.

[TheKilo]

Commiting that money/years to ANY player is a risk' date=' but if your going to give it to any pitcher it, it might as well be Santana. And you can't compare it to Pavano, because it is clear the talkent difference going into the commitment. Pavano had one good year, Santana has had 4 with 30+ starts a year and good overall stats.[/quote']

 

Pavano also didn't command $20 million for seven years.

[Cityofchampions33]

Pavano also didn't command $20 million for seven years.

 

inflation in the market, difference in talent have to do with that, but point taken.

[TheKilo]

inflation in the market' date=' difference in talent have to do with that, but point taken.[/quote']

 

I think people would be lining up to sign Santana for a 3 or 4 year deal. Seven? Not so much.

[jacksonianmarch]

It isnt the money that is the issue here. If Santana was a FA, I'd be all about the financial committment. It is the fact that you are sending over 2 major leaguers and probably two minor leaguers with good upside for a pitcher. If that pitcher gets hurt and is rendered average, then you get 4 reminders every time you face the twins of how stupid you were to make that move.

[example1]

It isnt the money that is the issue here. If Santana was a FA' date=' I'd be all about the financial committment. It is the fact that you are sending over 2 major leaguers and probably two minor leaguers with good upside for a pitcher. If that pitcher gets hurt and is rendered average, then you get 4 reminders every time you face the twins of how stupid you were to make that move.[/quote']

 

Yep.

 

Also, regardless of difference in talent level between Santana and Pavano, the fact is that Santana will be demanding a salary not of a GOOD MLB pitcher, not even of an All-Star MLB pitcher, but of the BEST MLB pitcher, hands down, nobody within 5 million a year good. I don't think it is the case that he will retain that level of quality for 7 years. I'd be shocked if he did it for 5.

 

If he becomes even just "good" (like, say, we hope Matsuzaka will become) then he will be overpayed by a magnitude of 7 or 8 million a year.

 

Another way to look at it is that you will pay Santana in a week roughly what you would pay Lester or Masterson for a whole year. The difference in performance cannot be simply an upgrade, it would be need to be an ENORMOUS upgrade. It may be and may not be, but Lester, as a starting point, being upgraded ENORMOUSLY, would be very hard to do indeed.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Also, regardless of difference in talent level between Santana and Pavano, the fact is that Santana will be demanding a salary not of a GOOD MLB pitcher, not even of an All-Star MLB pitcher, but of the BEST MLB pitcher, hands down, nobody within 5 million a year good. I don't think it is the case that he will retain that level of quality for 7 years. I'd be shocked if he did it for 5.

 

If he becomes even just "good" (like, say, we hope Matsuzaka will become) then he will be overpayed by a magnitude of 7 or 8 million a year.

 

I think that we're overestimating the chance that Santana will perform up to expectations. Let's look at the pitchers included on the USA Today Top 25 MLB salaries list for 2007, adding Roger Clemens because he would've been included had he signed before Opening Day:

 

[table] Player | Pitcher WARP

Pettitte, Andy | 6.0

Clemens, Roger | 2.8

Martinez, Pedro J. | 0.9

Colon, Bartolo | 0.6

Schmidt, Jason | 0.2

Hampton, Mike | 0.0[/table]

 

Let's set a 5.0 WARP as the minimum expectation for such a pitcher. For reference, on the 2007 Red Sox Josh Beckett (8.4), Jon Papelbon (6.6) and Daisuke Matsuzaka (6.5) would all have made that cut; Tim Wakefield (4.7) and Curt Schilling (4.6) would've just missed the threshold expected for these premier pitchers.

 

As you can see, five out of six of the highest-paid pitchers disappointed by even this modest standard. More to the point, five out of these six pitchers sucked--Roger Clemens had a journeyman year, and the other four were all bested by Javier Lopez.

 

Let's look back further to gain some historical perspective. First, 2000, a year with some outstanding pitching performances by superstar post-free agency pitchers:

 

[table] Player | Pitcher WARP

Martinez, Pedro J. | 14.6

Maddux, Greg | 11.5

Johnson, Randy | 10.4

Glavine, Tom | 9.1

Brown, Kevin J. | 8.1

Finley, Chuck | 7.7

Martinez, Ramon J. | 1.9

Cone, David | 1.2

Alvarez, Wilson | 0.0

Smoltz, John | 0.0[/table]

 

Six out of ten of the high-priced pitchers didn't disappoint. Four of ten did.

 

Let's look back another ten years to 1990:

 

[table] Player | Pitcher WARP

Clemens, Roger | 12.6

Higuera, Teddy | 4.7

Browning, Tom | 3.2

Valenzuela, Fernando | 3.1

Morris, Jack | 2.8

Gubicza, Mark | 2.2

Davis, Mark | 1.1[/table]

 

Six out of seven disappointed.

 

Over these three seasons, 15 out of 23 pitchers didn't live up to the modest 5.0 WARP threshold. Dropping the threshold to 4.0--worse than either Schilling or Wakefield last season--leaves 14 disappointing pitchers.

 

Example1, you're discussing whether or not Santana would be the best starting pitcher for five more years. These numbers suggest that he'd be as good as or better than our current fourth starter for only two or three years--all of the pitchers in this quick study were considered to be among the few best in the game when they inked their contracts, and roughly two-thirds dropped to journeyman performance levels in the years included in the data set.

[example1]

I think that we're overestimating the chance that Santana will perform up to expectations.

 

No, you think that I'm overestimating the chance that he will perform up to expectations. I like how you say "we" so it doesn't offend me so much. Just kidding man. I love your posts and like when you respond directly to what I'm saying.

 

I think that this post is a lot like one from about a month or two back, when you said that I was overestimating what he could do. In both cases I give the upper end of possibilities, virtually GRANTING the assumption that this guy is the best pitcher on the face of the earth and will never be bad (which those of the 'no brainer' crowd appear to believe). I grant the assumption, though I would not make it myself. Even IF he were the best pitcher in baseball for a few more years, his contract would not necessarily be justified.

 

Let's look at the pitchers included on the USA Today Top 25 MLB salaries list for 2007, adding Roger Clemens because he would've been included had he signed before Opening Day:

 

[table] Player | Pitcher WARP

Pettitte, Andy | 6.0

Clemens, Roger | 2.8

Martinez, Pedro J. | 0.9

Colon, Bartolo | 0.6

Schmidt, Jason | 0.2

Hampton, Mike | 0.0[/table]

 

Let's set a 5.0 WARP as the minimum expectation for such a pitcher. For reference, on the 2007 Red Sox Josh Beckett (8.4), Jon Papelbon (6.6) and Daisuke Matsuzaka (6.5) would all have made that cut; Tim Wakefield (4.7) and Curt Schilling (4.6) would've just missed the threshold expected for these premier pitchers.

 

As you can see, five out of six of the highest-paid pitchers disappointed by even this modest standard. More to the point, five out of these six pitchers sucked--Roger Clemens had a journeyman year, and the other four were all bested by Javier Lopez.

 

Let's look back further to gain some historical perspective. First, 2000, a year with some outstanding pitching performances by superstar post-free agency pitchers:

 

[table] Player | Pitcher WARP

Martinez, Pedro J. | 14.6

Maddux, Greg | 11.5

Johnson, Randy | 10.4

Glavine, Tom | 9.1

Brown, Kevin J. | 8.1

Finley, Chuck | 7.7

Martinez, Ramon J. | 1.9

Cone, David | 1.2

Alvarez, Wilson | 0.0

Smoltz, John | 0.0[/table]

 

Six out of ten of the high-priced pitchers didn't disappoint. Four of ten did.

 

Let's look back another ten years to 1990:

 

[table] Player | Pitcher WARP

Clemens, Roger | 12.6

Higuera, Teddy | 4.7

Browning, Tom | 3.2

Valenzuela, Fernando | 3.1

Morris, Jack | 2.8

Gubicza, Mark | 2.2

Davis, Mark | 1.1[/table]

 

Six out of seven disappointed.

 

Over these three seasons, 15 out of 23 pitchers didn't live up to the modest 5.0 WARP threshold. Dropping the threshold to 4.0--worse than either Schilling or Wakefield last season--leaves 14 disappointing pitchers.

 

 

Interesting lists, though I think you would be the first to admit that the factor we're trying to isolate here isn't "high price" necessarily. In other words, we're not saying that being paid a lot of money is the independent variable on the dependant variable "performance" and that there is a strong correlation between high price and bad performance, are we?

 

How much a player is paid seems much more reflective of the franchise that purchases his services and not the player's ability to live up to those performances. If all teams approached available talent the way the Sox tend to, I think you would see that a lot of those names listed above wouldn't be on this list.

 

There are probably factors that GOOD teams can look for before paying for expensive FAs/Trades, factors that will isolate what it is about those pitchers that makes them a better risk over the long term. In fact, that list seems to be filled with players who, in retrospect at least, all seem to have flaws that make them more hittable.

 

Santana isn't any of those players listed above. Few of those guys above had 3 Cy-Young caliber seasons in a 4 year stretch immediately before being moved. It seems more fair to talk about the average WARP over the 7 years at the ages we're talking about: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (assuming a seven-year contract). The pitchers who I think are comparable (in terms of dominance) to Santana in the above list are Pedro, Clemens, RJ, and Maddux. I would take Santana over anyone else for sure.

 

If I'm looking at this right, Pedro's WARP this year has to be seen as the possible WARP for Santana in the last year of his contract. Pedro's WARPs with the previous 6 seasons included:

 

2001 (29): 5.8

2002 (30): 9.9

2003 (31): 10.2

2004 (32): 8.4

2005 (33): 7.8

2006 (34): 2.5

2007 (35): .9

 

His 7 year average was about 6.5. That's a number that would justify him being among the top paid pitchers in baseball, no? Pedro was very special, Santana won't match those numbers most likely. But he could. His career high is 11.8, and he has averaged around 10 the past 4 years. Pedro had a four year period (immediately before his age 29 season, above) where he averaged about 12.3. (yet another "wow Pedro" moment).

 

Santana will probably not match Pedro's single season production in those years (14.6 WARP in 2000, for instance). However, it wouldn't be unbelievable if he put up, say, three 10 WARP seasons and two 9 WARP seasons over the next 6, with a lower 4 or so in there someplace. It would mean basically he pitched at a higher level than Pedro was able to later in his career, but not able to match Pedro's best years. Santana's had a nice workload the past few years. Lots of innings but few pitches given the IPs.

 

So, here's what I see when I look at it that way:

 

Between his age 29 and age 35 seasons, Roger Clemens averaged 9.3 WARP.

 

Between his age 29 and age 35 seasons, Greg Maddux averaged 9.03 WARP

 

Between his age 29 and age 35 seasons, Randy Johnson averaged 9.07 WARP

 

Just for fun:

 

John Smoltz: 6.16 WARP average between 29 and 35

 

David Cone: 7.36 WARP average between 29 and 35 (with a mysterious jump during his third season in NY in 1997, doubling his WARP for the next three seasons from a steady 3.7ish to roughly 7 for the next 3 :dunno: )

 

Jack Morris: 5.73 WARP average between 29 and 35

 

ALL all those players averaged more than a 5 WHIP. This brings up a seperate discussion about whether or not "average WARP" is a valid statistic. I think it is, as the point of the contract is to win games. I would ideally like a player to spread his WARP over the length of a contract, but it seems invalid to look only at the last year of the contract to evaluate its worth in wins.

 

Example1, you're discussing whether or not Santana would be the best starting pitcher for five more years. These numbers suggest that he'd be as good as or better than our current fourth starter for only two or three years--all of the pitchers in this quick study were considered to be among the few best in the game when they inked their contracts, and roughly two-thirds dropped to journeyman performance levels in the years included in the data set.

 

They droped to journeyman performance in the final year of their contracts, in your snapshot. The average of at least a few of them was above 5 during the years that we should talk most about, and most of them above by a lot.

 

You're a comparison kind of guy, so I'm sure you agree that it matters how old the player is when they sign a contract--especially if we're looking for a way to predict how a specific 29 year old will produce during a 7 year period.

 

It is certainly possible that Johan Santana will average more than 5 WARP during a 7 year contract.

 

That said, I don't think a 5 WARP should justify being the highest paid pitcher in baseball. The above was more a comment on method than the specifics of this deal. I'm pretty sure that both of us share the common concern about the Sox being extremely vulnerable to overpaying for Santana. Very few pitchers are worth the amount we're talking about here, even if theyre the best pitchers around for a few years during that contract.

[Cityofchampions33]

Yep.

 

Also, regardless of difference in talent level between Santana and Pavano, the fact is that Santana will be demanding a salary not of a GOOD MLB pitcher, not even of an All-Star MLB pitcher, but of the BEST MLB pitcher, hands down, nobody within 5 million a year good. I don't think it is the case that he will retain that level of quality for 7 years. I'd be shocked if he did it for 5.

 

If he becomes even just "good" (like, say, we hope Matsuzaka will become) then he will be overpayed by a magnitude of 7 or 8 million a year.

 

Another way to look at it is that you will pay Santana in a week roughly what you would pay Lester or Masterson for a whole year. The difference in performance cannot be simply an upgrade, it would be need to be an ENORMOUS upgrade. It may be and may not be, but Lester, as a starting point, being upgraded ENORMOUSLY, would be very hard to do indeed.

 

Very good point, I never looked at it from this perspective.

[BSN07]

Yep.

 

Also, regardless of difference in talent level between Santana and Pavano, the fact is that Santana will be demanding a salary not of a GOOD MLB pitcher, not even of an All-Star MLB pitcher, but of the BEST MLB pitcher, hands down, nobody within 5 million a year good. I don't think it is the case that he will retain that level of quality for 7 years. I'd be shocked if he did it for 5.

 

If he becomes even just "good" (like, say, we hope Matsuzaka will become) then he will be overpayed by a magnitude of 7 or 8 million a year.

 

Another way to look at it is that you will pay Santana in a week roughly what you would pay Lester or Masterson for a whole year. The difference in performance cannot be simply an upgrade, it would be need to be an ENORMOUS upgrade. It may be and may not be, but Lester, as a starting point, being upgraded ENORMOUSLY, would be very hard to do indeed.

 

This is along the same lines of what I was thinking. You gave it a really good perspective that I couldn't get from my brain to my post!LOL

[Paradisecity]

Lester pitched well in a world series game. Good work by him.

 

What was his season ERA? 4.57?

 

Look at the teams he did it against too. TB and Baltimore made up half his starts and he had no starts against the yanks.

 

I'm pretty sure Santana IS an enormous upgrade. But then again, I've never been that high on Lester so I may be biased.

[Mr Crunchy]

johan santana has a 1.2 era in the bronx?

 

thats an upgrade

thats an upgrade over everyone not named jesus christ...or juan pena

[das11209]

At this point - I can't take any of these reports seriously any longer.

 

According to the New York Times, the Twins have lessened their demands for Johan Santana and are no longer asking for Ian Kennedy along with Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera.

 

Instead, the newspaper reports that Minnesota is willing accept Jeffrey Marquez in place of Kennedy. Marquez isn't in Kennedy's class as a prospect, but he's still a solid young arm with good upside and if the Twins trade Santana to the Yankees they'd be doing so primarily in order to get their hands on Hughes.

 

The Minneapolis Star Tribune believes that Kei Igawa's name has come up in some discussions between the Twins and Yankees regarding Johan Santana.

 

There have been plenty of mixed messages about whether the Twins are interested in taking back any salary in a Santana deal or not. Judging from what they've spent to land Mike Lamb and Adam Everett, they seem to be open to picking up $3 million-$5 million players, and Igawa is right in that range if the Yankees are willing to give up on him. Still, the Twins probably wouldn't look at him as a major part of a deal. There's been nothing to suggest the teams have talked at all so far this week. LaVelle E. Neal III only says the Twins checked in with the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets before the holiday break.

 

ESPN's Jayson Stark says the Twins are telling teams that they're willing to hold on to Johan Santana into spring training as they attempt to get the package of players they want.

 

No one really has any new info on the Santana talks, but that's not going to stop them from posting stories. Stark mentions the Mariners as still being in contact with the Twins, but he doesn't think they're a serious suitor because of Santana's desire to play on the East Coast. Similar to what others have reported, he believes the Mets offered Carlos Gomez, two of their top young pitchers and a fourth prospect for Santana. However, the Twins are holding out for getting both Gomez and Fernando Martinez in the same package.

 

According to the New York Post, the Red Sox remain "the strong favorite" to acquire Johan Santana.

 

The newspaper speculates that both "New York teams remain interested," but the Yankees "have become more entrenched in their unwillingness to pay the price" that includes Phil Hughes and a huge contract extension. The Yankees reportedly "have not seriously discussed players with the Twins" since the winter meetings.

[Jayhawk Bill]

No' date=' you think that [b']I'm[/b] overestimating the chance that he will perform up to expectations. I like how you say "we" so it doesn't offend me so much. Just kidding man. I love your posts and like when you respond directly to what I'm saying.

 

Too kind. Thank you and back at you.

 

That said, I'll continue to disagree with some aspects of your position.

 

Interesting lists, though I think you would be the first to admit that the factor we're trying to isolate here isn't "high price" necessarily. In other words, we're not saying that being paid a lot of money is the independent variable on the dependant variable "performance" and that there is a strong correlation between high price and bad performance, are we?

 

How much a player is paid seems much more reflective of the franchise that purchases his services and not the player's ability to live up to those performances. If all teams approached available talent the way the Sox tend to, I think you would see that a lot of those names listed above wouldn't be on this list.

 

Yes, but we've made the case regarding comparable players as viewed from evaluation of their performance (and I'm sure that we'll return to that again). This is another metric, equally valid, perhaps even more valid from the perspective of baseball economists. There's a free market for free agent talent. Whatever value the market assigns to these pitchers is their true value with respect to others playing in MLB at the same time, every factor considered. The contract figures we're discussing for Santana would put him in the top 25 best-paid baseball players for several years to come. That's a distinct set of players whose performance can be evaluated, and that's why I did it.

 

It takes several minutes to do each set: I grabbed the top 25 from last year, and then I randomly grabbed two previous years separated from each other far enough that contracts wouldn't recur, even if players did. I didn't try to grab last years of contracts, as you suggested: I grabbed two years far enough back that I didn't know how the numbers would turn out.

 

I assure you that I'd forgotten that Teddy Higuera was ever once one of the 25 best-paid players in MLB; I'd also forgotten that he became a free agent after his 4.7 WARP season in 1990, and that over the next four seasons he'd make just over $13 million--in an era where the very top players made only around $4 million per year--to post a combined 5-10 W-L record. Higuera was being paid for his peak years from ages 26-29 when he signed his free agent contract after age 31, and he never regained his form.

 

There are probably factors that GOOD teams can look for before paying for expensive FAs/Trades, factors that will isolate what it is about those pitchers that makes them a better risk over the long term. In fact, that list seems to be filled with players who, in retrospect at least, all seem to have flaws that make them more hittable.

 

I wonder if Santana, in retrospect, will be considered to have flaws, too? After all, PECOTA heavily regresses to the mean, and Santana missed his 2007 PECOTA-projected ERA.

 

Santana isn't any of those players listed above. Few of those guys above had 3 Cy-Young caliber seasons in a 4 year stretch immediately before being moved. It seems more fair to talk about the average WARP over the 7 years at the ages we're talking about: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (assuming a seven-year contract). The pitchers who I think are comparable (in terms of dominance) to Santana in the above list are Pedro, Clemens, RJ, and Maddux. I would take Santana over anyone else for sure.

 

If I'm looking at this right, Pedro's WARP this year has to be seen as the possible WARP for Santana in the last year of his contract.

 

Pardon, but you're not looking at this right. I suspect that you're picking the most dominant pitchers from my lists because you consider Santana to be so dominant. As they say in investments, past performance does not determine future earnings. You can't pick the players most dominant in their 30's: you've got to pick lists of pitchers comparably dominant in their 20's.

 

Pedro Martinez doesn't show up on Johan Santana's PECOTA player list or his BR similar players list as a comparable. FWIW, Santana doesn't show up on Pedro's list at the same age, either. Pedro's BR list through age 28 has five HOF pitchers, Roger Clemens, Smokey Joe Wood, and three guys whose careers were ruined. Santana's list has ZERO HOF pitchers and just one HOF contender (Mike Mussina).

 

Evaluated just on his past three seasons before 2007, though, as PECOTA does, Santana certainly did have some HOF comparables--but he had others, too.

 

HOF:

 

1 Sandy Koufax 1964

2 Tom Seaver 1973

3 Steve Carlton 1973

7 Don Sutton 1973

9 Fergie Jenkins 1971

10 Juan Marichal 1966

12 Hal Newhouser 1949

17 Jim Bunning 1960

 

He also had one guy considered an excellent HOF candidate just three weeks ago:

 

6 Roger Clemens 1990

 

But he also had these comparable players, all of whom had trouble, mostly in their early 30's, that precluded or will preclude their reaching the HOF:

 

4 Mario Soto 1984

5 Camilo Pascual 1962

8 Kevin Appier 1996

11 Jose Rijo 1993

13 Luis Tiant 1969

14 Carl Erskine 1955

15 Billy Pierce 1955

16 Floyd Bannister 1983

18 David Cone 1991

19 Sam McDowell 1971

20 Javier Vazquez 2004

 

But let's remember that Santana missed his 2007 projection for ERA: he's possibly performing more like the bottom half of these pitchers than like the top half.

 

Santana will probably not match Pedro's single season production in those years (14.6 WARP in 2000, for instance). However, it wouldn't be unbelievable if he put up, say, three 10 WARP seasons and two 9 WARP seasons over the next 6, with a lower 4 or so in there someplace.

 

I'd be in complete amazement. Through what should have been his peak years, Santana broke 10 WARP twice and 9 WARP twice more. Expecting him to do that five out of six years through the decline of his skills in his 30's is very optimistic.

 

For the next four years, here are Santana's 2007 PECOTA-projected WARP scores:

 

[table] Year | WARP

2008 | 7.1

2009 | 6.2

2010 | 5.0

2011 | 5.0[/table]

 

The 2008 projections should be out next month--let's see how those figures change, given Santana's dip in performance in 2007. But expecting even three of those four to be 9.0 or higher seems excessive, let alone five of the next six.

 

It is certainly possible that Johan Santana will average more than 5 WARP during a 7 year contract.

 

True. It is also possible that Santana will suffer a serious arm injury in any year. I previously quoted Nate Silver's 15% estimate per year for successful MLB starting pitchers. As another metric, 2007 BP PECOTA assigned Johan Santana a Collapse Rate of 23%.

 

I'm pretty sure that both of us share the common concern about the Sox being extremely vulnerable to overpaying for Santana. Very few pitchers are worth the amount we're talking about here, even if theyre the best pitchers around for a few years during that contract.

 

And all of this understood, I'd still pay Santana $17-$20 million for 5-7 years. It's just that, if one takes a long-term perspective, giving up too much talent for the chance to pay him so much may be counterproductive.

[ksushi]

I mean, I don't know if you can complain if Johan comes here and performs like Cone or Tiant. Those are pretty impressive names to have on the not-so-impressive half of your comps. To quote manny, thats when you know you are a bad man.

[example1]

Lester pitched well in a world series game. Good work by him.

 

What was his season ERA? 4.57?

 

Look at the teams he did it against too. TB and Baltimore made up half his starts and he had no starts against the yanks.

 

I'm pretty sure Santana IS an enormous upgrade. But then again, I've never been that high on Lester so I may be biased.

 

He's younger than Jacoby Ellsbury and 8 months older than Buchholz. Give him some time. For a big hard throwing lefty control will be his biggest barrier, and that is something he can develop. I think we can all see that this kid can be a very productive MLB pitcher for years.

 

Think about it this way: we could sign him to a TWELVE YEAR deal today and he would finish it when he was 36--still pitchable years left.

[BoSox21]

Lester pitched well in a world series game. Good work by him.

 

What was his season ERA? 4.57?

 

Look at the teams he did it against too. TB and Baltimore made up half his starts and he had no starts against the yanks.

 

I'm pretty sure Santana IS an enormous upgrade. But then again, I've never been that high on Lester so I may be biased.

 

do you even bother factoring in the fact that he was recovering from cancer up through spring training?

[TheKilo]

He's younger than Jacoby Ellsbury and 8 months older than Buchholz. Give him some time. For a big hard throwing lefty control will be his biggest barrier, and that is something he can develop. I think we can all see that this kid can be a very productive MLB pitcher for years.

 

Think about it this way: we could sign him to a TWELVE YEAR deal today and he would finish it when he was 36--still pitchable years left.

 

I wouldn't call Lester a hard throwing lefty.