example1

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.

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. 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. 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.

From Yahoo! Sports: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-luxurytax&prov=ap&type=lgns Sox will pay 6.06 in Luxury Tax this year. Yankees will pay 22.83 million. Since the LT began four years ago: Red Sox: 13.86m Yankees: 121.6 m Don't believe what some people here say folks: The Red Sox and the Yankees, even WITH the Sox recent big-money spending, are largely different beasts. They both spend aggressively, but one of them seems to do it with reference to the luxury tax and the other doesn't. Merry Christmas.

Jayhawk Bill wrote a lot, among which I found: I think that Bay would be an excellent option. I'm sure that through all this stuff with Santana the Sox are thinking about guys like Masterson, Bowden, Lowrie, Lester, etc., as possible pieces for a guy like Bay and hence they don't just throw everything at Santana. What the hell happened to Bay last year though? He lost more than 2 RC/G off his career average... Even so, he has a career .890 OPS after his disappointing 07. An outfield of Jason Bay, Jacoby Ellsbury, and JD Drew would be pretty formidable as well. It wouldn't be as explosive offensively as Manny, but Bay and Drew both have excellent plate discipline and make very difficult outs. I've liked Bay for a long time but again, what the hell happened?

As a bullpen coach? Terry Francona's personal Don Zimmer barrier? I'm not so sure about Manny, actually. First of all, if they aren't going to keep Manny then there will be the inevitable push to trade him and I can't see how someone like him wouldn't have value. So he should be traded. Otherwise, he'll still be a productive bat worth holding on to.

The Yankees seem to be all over the place right now. NewStein and Cash can't agree on whether or not they're willing to move Hughes for Santana? Waffling? Chamberlain is in the pen, no, he's in the rotation. A-Rod? no-A-Rod. A-rod. For all the s*** the Sox FO got the past few years for their various decisions, I can't see how this scenario is any better. Especially with a new manager coming on board.

Willis is a pretty good sign. He's a GOOD back of the rotation starter, in a good rotation. He has his warts, for sure, but he's got pretty good stuff when he can throw strikes. Whose career will be better: Dontrelle Willis or Jon Lester?

I am getting impatient. If it really is the case that the Twins are sitting around to see if the Yankees are going to raise their offer--essentially playing the Sox-Yanks rivalry against them--then the Sox should just say "you have till the end of the month, after that we're going to look elsewhere". Generally I'm against deadlines, but if thisi s a game of cat and mouse it is one the Sox don't need to play into. The prevailing feeling is that the Twins are in the drivers seat, as they have the player everyone wants. However, the truth is that the Twins stand to gain more from this deal than any other team. They can solidifiy potentially 2 positions out of 14 starting positions with a single move, for the next 6 years or so. It seems like they have the most to lose if the Sox pull out or reduce their offer and stand FIRMLY by a deadline. Of course, I like it that Theo and Co are so patient, but I'm not as patient and I don't particularly love the idea of the Twins sitting around on a good offer waiting for our chief rivals to step in and make a better one.

Any package the Yankees offer with Hughes in it is a weight off all of our backs, as he's a stud, and young. But I think the Sox would have the best chance of winning in the short and long term with the deal involving Crisp and Lester and Masterson and Lowrie/4th player. That would give them the basis of a rotation for four years (say) with Beckett, Santana, Dice-K and Buchholz and a 5th. That four would be tremendous. Add a Schilling here, a Wakefield there and a little touch of Bowden or Free Agent, PLUS Ellsbury patrolling CF and you're looking at a potential dynasty.

Is it really hard for people to see what the difference is and why the difference is significant? Bonds lied under oath and faces jail time. The fact that he lied has been clear for quite awhile now, basically since the Game of Shadows came out in which Bonds was depicted as a power/attention hungry jerk who was willing to go to all measures to beat everyone else. The stories about him spending time with Sheffield--admittedly, from sheffield himself, I believe--were just bizarre. The guy was a narcisistic, drug crazed maniac. They described his rigorous usage schedule, and his use of multiple synthetic drugs, including stimulants usually prescribed to narcoleptics, during his amazing home run stretch. The dude stumbled and bumbled his way into looking like an ******* at each and every turn. Clemens has only done that for the past week. Bonds may end up in jail, Roger still has a chance not to, and probably will not end up there--unless things get really bizarre. It may sound like a defense of Clemens, but it is not. It is just a statement about how it seems everyone has forgot what Bonds really got all of his attention for: it wasn't simply USING performance enhancing drugs, it was using them so professionally and hungrily, with the specific intent of breaking the HR records, then lying (often viciously) to the media and fans, then lying (often viciously) on the stand, while his friends go to jail. The difference is, overall, minor, but within the framework of the "how bad is player X" discussion, it is essential. That said, Roger is a clown. He wants his 25 years of public life to give him the "benefit of the doubt". Isn't that the same "benefit of the doubt" we are supposed to give guys who are paid 30m a year because of their "clean, old, hero" appeal? Who wouldn't pump themselves full of something to get a few more prorated 30m paychecks? Jesus Roger, don't insult our intelligence! We begrudge you enough for the absurd amounts of money and the multiple Cy Youngs after you left the Sox, but to accuse us, the public, of possibly doubting you--despite all the tell-tale signs and the credibility of the man putting forth the report--is a slap in the face. At least take the approach of the "classy" Andy Pettitte, instead of so-obviously taking the advice of your crack legal team.

How does that prove that his season was BETTER? The numbers were fine, because you're right, Santana's worst season lately was worse than Beckett's best, but to convince people that Santana is a better PITCHER than Beckett tanking when the team falls out of the race won't do it. If anything Beckett is a "gamer"; dude's ferocious. Here's some interesting numbers: [table] |Santana vs.| IP | ERA | K | BB | OBP | SLG | |CLE | 39 | 4.38 | 43 | 9 | .288 | .463 | |CHW| 29 | 3.41 | 37 | 7 | .246 | .393 | |DET | 37 | 3.65 | 36 | 12 | .288 | .397 | [/table] These are the teams he faced the most this year, and those numbers look a lot like Beckett's do, and are probably about what we would see if he had to face the Yankees four times and the Devil Rays and the Orioles and Jays. He's obviously not pedestrian, by any stretch, but my guess is that we would be about as happy with Santana as we have been with Beckett this season. He would have mostly good games, some VERY good games--with higher strikeouts than Beckett--and one or two pretty bad starts. Overall he would be a deadly-good pitcher to have on this team, but he wouldn't be far and away better than Beckett and he wouldn't be Pedro from 1999.

If Beckett had one year left on his contract and was financially too expensive to resign, then Maybin and MIller would be a fine return for him, wouldn't they?

Bullpens are fickle guys. Latroy Hawkins could be a fine addition, it's really hard to tell. There are very few "middle relief stars" out there, and given that Hawkins has at least made a name for himself that is something. He'll be good occasionally, and suck occasionally. He won't be the difference but he won't be their downfall either. Kind of a non-story, really.

Depressing steroid talk aside, the team who I think need to make the Santana move is the Mets. They have the money and the talent to make a run. I don't know how they haven't been the NL champs the past few years. Santana would give them a better-than-peavy option, and Peavy has carried his team to the playoffs/playdowns a few times.

I guess I kind of felt like everyone was implicated. Do you REALLY think Pujols is clean? He's an enormous power hitter who is putting up numbers that are roughly equivalent to the best hitters of all time. Which players do NOT warrant speculation at this point? MAYBE Manny, but otherwise I just can't think of many who have put up huge numbers without looking like roid users. Ortiz? He's basically admitted to it. A-Rod, probably. Everyone has the telltale signs of HGH usage. They're all bigger in all areas and with HGH you grow but do not lose the size gained. I think everyone was implicated by yesterday's revelation and nobody was exonerated. Maybe, but Buchholz isn't going anywhere so it just doesn't matter. If the Yankees want to deal Hughes to get santana then more power to them.

How does one not impact the other? I presume that you wouldn't do the Lester/Ellsbury trade with NO extension? So if he is demanding 20+ for 7 years you would NOT make the Lester/Ellsbury trade, right?

I think you just prove my point even more, but you know that. 7 years is more than 6 years, and unless that extra year is LAST year, the chances of him being super-productive at that time (and worth 20m) are pretty low.

Seems unlikely to me that this is for real. If it is true, then the sox should turn around and come back with deals involving players not named Ellsbury OR Buchholz. If they want to raise the standards on a whim then the Sox should do the same as a subtle reminder to the Twins to not overplay their hand. The Twins need to make this deal, and the sox are the only ones--it seems--who have the combination of MLB ready talent and the $ to pay Santana for a contract (thus making it worth giving up the talent). The Sox--again, it seems--have been courteous and professional in negotiations and have not called out the Twins FO for being unreasonable (like Steiny did). I hope they still have the dignity to walk away and have the Twins have to come back and become reasonable again.

Okay, I'm just going to say it: I hate this deal more and more as I read and sleep on it. I would love Santana on the Sox, but really, 20 million a season for 6 years? C'mon. Let him go to the NL someplace. It's like an insult to have to throw in a player as talented as Ellsbury, PLUS be asked to include a Lester or Buchholz, PLUS have to include one to two other players with great upside (Masterson, say), PLUS have to turn around and shell out 20m a year for the privlege of Santana pitching for the Sox. If the Twins see Crisp + Lester Also, I have been watching the 07 postseason and other classic games from the 07 season (Buchholz's no-hitter in particular) and have been rekindled in my admiration for Ellsbury. The guy is absolutely an exciting player and is SO young, but SO talented. He's primed for success right now. His entire hometown came out to celebrate his WS parade, all of them wearing Red Sox red in the desert of mid-eastern Oregon. The move sits poorly with me. It's like trading a Hanley Ramirez that we are attached to. My own sentiment aside--because I know it isn't really valid--it's the 20million thing that really scares me. There is no wiggle room for injury there, and just looking at Santana's bodytype and the IPs he has had over the past 5 years I think it would be only a steroid-ers baseball fan who could possibly expect him to keep it up. The Sox can control a lot of things, but they cannot control a pitcher's injury beyond limiting pitch counts and IPs etc., and if they are limiting IPs and Pitch counts then is Santana worth 20m a year? I mean, that 20m a year is based on his having throw 220 IP every year. On this team he won't throw that much. I think if Santana falls back to earth he will look a lot like Matsuzaka. His FB currently sits in the 93 range, so any loss there brings him into the high-80's. His stuff is electric and decieving (delivery, LHP) but the man is human. In this era where the non-human type of performance tends to come from those on PEDs, I am hesitant to sell the farm. Ellsbury will be one of the best CFs in baseball shortly. I don't know how that compares to Santana, who will likely still be one of the best pitchers in baseball, but I do know that a franchise CF (say Grady Sizemore) is extremely valuable, particularly if he gets 500-600 productive PAs a year and plays + defense. Let the chastizing begin. I've waffled on this--thanks to some solid arguments against me--but I'm back in the "don't trade Ellsbury unless he is the only significant piece" camp. There MUST be a way to overload a deal involving Crisp and Lester, if Crisp is really as valuable as many here make him out to be. Otherwise, I say we stand pat, and enjoy the careers of Ellsbury, Masterson, Lester and whoever we can get by moving Crisp, who is coveted by other teams. Ellsbury + Masterson + Lester + RP acquired for Crisp > Santana It's time for the Twins to realize they are dealing a guy for one year, and that the majority of the expense for the team signing him is in the TWENTY MILLION dollars, NOT in the package to get him. If the Yankees need to deal Hughes and Cabrera, and leave themselves without a viable CF option to get Santana then fine, let them have him. The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for the Sox to move all of these players to get Santana, and have him return to earth by "only" putting up a high-3 or 4 ERA. I truly think that if the Sox hold firm they can get him without having to part with Ellsbury. Pay all of Crisp's contract, still deal Masterson and Lester, and throw in other important pieces. If that's not what the Twins want then so be it. Chances are there are only 1 or 2 teams out there who would sign him at 20m a year anyway, Sox, Yanks. It should also include the Mets, Angels, Cleveland, Dodgers, but likely will not (they should think about it because they are all very close to elite level teams and would be bolstered significantly by it). The market for Santana is small, so don't overpay.

All the records are tainted. Personally, I think the records thing is a side-bar discussion. Bonds has been a douche. He has disrespected a lot of people, has lied openly and accused people of being *******s for even QUESTIONING his integrity. he slandered the guys who wrote the book and he has shown no remorse. Instead of just shutting up and going quietly he turned around and lashed out as if he had been attacked unnecessarily. The guy hit, what, 73 HRs or something in a season, unabashedly basking in the glow of his achievement, and then cried foul when people looked at this record--which many held dear--carefully to make sure it was official. Clemens is a jerk too, but at least he just shuts up about it. Now is his chance to F-it all up.