example1

I am reading a lot of "it isn't likely that Ellsbury will have a career like Santana, who is a HOF pitcher". I looked into it a bit using Win Shares, which rightly tends to credit hitters with more wins due to their greater involvement in each game over the course of a season. Johan Santana has 123 career Win Shares in 1308.7 IP, for .09398 WS/IP. Multiply that by 1000 and you can get a useful number, 93.980 WS/1000 IP. That rates him 22nd among active pitchers in career win shares, and possibly first in WS/1000. The list of top pitchers is a class in recent HOF-level pitchers: [table] player | Win Shares | IP | WS/1000IP | Clemens | 440 | 4916.7 | 89.49| Maddux | 389 | 4814.3 | 80.80| Johnson | 315 | 3855.3 | 81.71| Glavine | 314 | 4350.0 | 72.18| Smoltz | 285 | 3367.0 | 84.65| Mussina | 256 | 3362.3 | 76.13| Schilling |254 | 3262.0 | 77.86| Pedro | 250 | 2673.7 | 93.50| [/table] So, in his relatively brief career, Santana has pitched at a higher level than the overall level of those listed above. Santana is bound to slow down. Let's speculate that through the rest of his career he will be able to produce 1.5 times what he has already, and let's just suppose the Sox have him for that duration. That would give him a career 307.5 WS total in 3271.7; or, roughly the career success of Tom Glavine or Randy Johnson in the amount of innings that Schilling has pitched. A very, very nice career and I think it is a generous assessment of his future for making any ellsbury comparison... (which most of you undoubtedly know is inevitable at this point ) That is a pretty fair assessment, right? What the Red Sox are concerned about are those 184.5 Win Shares that they would get from Santana once they own him. If you believe in Win Shares as a fair evaluation (or at least consistent) of player talent across positions, then it seems to me it is pretty easy to justify thinking that Ellsbury can match Santana's remaining 184.5 Win Shares in his career, which is really what matters. In other words, it is fair to say Ellsbury probably won't match Santana's career achievements. Santana has been more dominant in terms of WS/IP than any of those pitchers listed above (albeit in 1/2 to 1/3 the innings). In his prime, Pedro accumulated WS more quickly, but his production has somewhat fallen off since then--at least has dropped back down to earth, and below Santana's level. That is likely what will happen with Santana as his career goes on. Who are current players who have had 185 career WS? Renteria: 200 Conine: 196 Ichiro: 192 Floyd: 188 Valentin: 186 Mo Rivera: 184 Pettitte: 180 D Lee: 180 Loretta: 175 Grudzielanek: 174 Flash Gordon: 174 Clearly, it does not take a HOF everyday player to get to 185 career WS, which is a generous guess about how many Santana would have left in him. FWIW, these are the players who have career WS between 290 and 325. If Santana keeps up his current pace for 1963 more innings (1.5 his current career) he will have a career WS total of 308 WS (or between Glavine and Smoltz overall), so these are guys whose careers are roughly equal to Santana's by that time. 325: Sammy Sosa 316: Luis Gonzalez 315: Randy Johnson 314: Tom Glavine 312: Ivan Rodriguez 302: Derek Jeter 298: Steve Finley 290: Jim Edmonds 290: Jason Giambi 286: Kenny Lofton 285: John Smoltz So, unless my reasoning is totally wrong, Kenny Lofton's career--in terms of producing winning--is almost exactly the same as Smoltz's career, and is somewhat less than if Johan Santana were able to produce at his current level for 1.5 times longer than he already has. Kenny Lofton is a comparable for Ellsbury. By this logic, if Ellsbury "only" has Lofton's career, his career WS will nearly match those of one of the greatest pitchers of the generation. If he produces 60% of Lofton's career, then he will have produced 172 WS, or roughly what we can predict for the rest of Santana's career. It seems that there is a chance that Ellsbury is able to match the career impact of Johan Santana, if he plays for a decade plus, and it CERTAINLY seems possible that Ellsbury can produce the same amount as Santana from here forward. Careers can be long, and Ellsbury has his entire career in front of him. *I know a lot of people are sick of reading about this stuff. I'm sure that's a common sentiment. Sorry. I think it is a really useful discussion though, and one which we rarely get the time to break down. Top flight offensive prospect + 2 other top 5 Sox 'specs, vs. mid-way of his career Ace who will ultimately cost 20m.

I agree that this is likely a lot of Sox posturing. Theo was definitely against trading Sanchez and Hanley to get Lowell and Beckett. It happened while he was out of the GM position. Beckett was a playoff-proven, young, cost-controlled SP. Santana is almost assured to cost the Sox 17-22 million a year.

Cameron Maybin is one of the top prospects in baseball. Unless we're willing to deal huge he's not going anywhere. Crisp and Ellsbury will be equals defensively. I am pretty certain that Crisp will not reproduce his defensive production from this season again. He was and is a great outfielder defensively, but the difference between them will not be noticeable.

You're right, usually the names aren't discussed, but somehow these are getting out. Probably because it is in the Red Sox best interest for the Yankees to be aware of the Sox offers. Also, I don't think there's much risk of current Sox players (Coco aside) being offended by discussions about being traded for the best pitcher in baseball. If anything it has to be an ego boost.

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. Fair enough.

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.

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.

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?

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:

Not to segue too blatently, but: Has anyone actually thought about whether the Red Sox would be WILLING to pay Santana 20 million a year? I mean, seriously, this FO is going to be very reluctant to spend that kind of money on anyone. They have shown a tremendous reluctance to do so in the past. The reasons it might make sense to investigate acquiring such an enormous money pit here are probably: 1) it would be another double whammy like Matsuzaka, stealing a guy the Yankees want and would be willing to spend ungodly amounts of money at. It allows them to thrown money DIRECTLY at the the Yankees. (This would be maxamized, by the way, if it simultaneously doesn't hurt the Sox core group moving forward, hence no Ellsbury or Buchholz) 2) To drive up the cost to the Yankees. In order to speed up the inevitable signing of Johan Santana by the Yankees, the Yankees have to spend a pitcher with Buchholz's upside. That is not just big, that is HUGE. It is taking your payoff now, instead of later. The Red Sox are fine, as long as a guy like Hughes goes the other way. If it were done without Hughes that would be the rough equivalent of getting Santana for Crisp/Lester/Lowrie/Masterson. A nice package that helps now and in the future. Hughes makes it a nice package that helps for now.

All of this is kind of masking the point that there is a very two-sided argument going on here, and it has to do with player evaluation. I feel that there is a big group here who are saying "Of course you deal any non-established, potential big-leaguer for an established multi-cy young winner", and there is a group saying "woah, let's slow down a bit and analyze it". In terms of analysis, only the second group has done anything more than say "Look how great Santana has been" or "You can't prove that Ellsbury will ever be better than Crisp" or "no matter HOW good Ellsbury is he won't be as good as Santana". I've started from the ground up on multiple occasions, talking about realistic projections for each of the players involved in this trade, usually working from the assumption that it would be: Ellsbury + Lester + Lowrie + Masterson for 3 million total vs. Santana (for 13.5 and then 20 for 5-6 years) Nobody on the "look how great Santana is" side has been able to articulate what the potential loss of 20m per year, coupled with the entire careers of that group means in terms of wins for the Red Sox. I'm sensing that there are a bunch of people out there who just "feel" like this is a no-brainer, but who can't prove it in terms of team wins and financial stability over the next few years. At best I've read TheKilo ask what they would do with all that money, especially when Manny leaves, as if that is a problem. I haven't heard ANYONE say "If the Yankees get Santana for Hughes, Kennedy and Melky they are guaranteed to beat the Red Sox". We watched the 2003 Yankees acquire Alex Rodgriguez after having beaten the Sox, and everyone said they were unbeatable. I get the sense, (and again, this is just from reading post after post) that the people on the pro-Santana side are aware of the inherent risk in any deal like this and don't feel comfortable making huge proclamations about it. I don't think it is wise to give up talent that may match Santana for 6 years in production, for a promised ONE year of Santana. I don't hate the idea of getting Santana. He's great, but how people can just jump to "Of COURSE you do it, you're dumb if you think otherwise" without looking at the numbers of financial implications is beyond me. There is no DOUBT that the FO is doing that type of valuation, how come we have to be reduced to a newspaper's level of analysis when there are such good baseball minds here. ORS: funny point about comparables. Two things: 1) When you asked me what I projected for Ellsbury, I'm curious what you thought about those predictions (James') and why you asked in the first place. 2) I generally take your opinion/view to be pretty well balanced. Am I correct in sensing that you'll be okay with this deal if it goes with Santana or without him, or are you leaning one way or the other?

Not if you look at the right numbers. There are stats that are adjusted for the team one plays on, the park you play in, etc., That is the EXACT reason why things like RBI and AVG are not good statistics. They do not correlate with winning. The point is to isolate all of the actions a player can do that should contribute to a win, and total them up throughout the season. If Santana allows one run and K's 10, but loses 1-0, he has done as much for the team to win as possible. With stats like Win Shares he gets credit for them. The HOF voters don't tend to look at those numbers (some of the writers do, I suppose), but PECOTA is not going to care whose name pops up when running a comparison. If it appears that Melky uses his skills to do things that help his team win, and PECOTA thinks that similar players at his age ended up being in the HOF, doesn't it really come down to your perception of the situation vs. what the statistical trends have said? If that is the case I would trust the numbers every time, as they 'observe' the early careers of guys like Pete Rose and Roberto Alomar. Both will be productive MLB players, but Ellsbury looks very comfortable and has tools (namely speed) that can't be developed. You're right about guys getting to the MLB based on the MLB club's health/depth. Buchholz and Ellsbury would have played last year for a number of MLB teams, and if they had I think there would be little chance they would be being discussed (along with a number of other Sox players in what amounts to a HUGE package for a 1 year rental).

Every player has risk. Pitchers are considerably riskier than fielders, especially when one makes 300,000 and the other makes 20,000,000. The difference in their production is not going to warrant the difference in salary. You struck a chord because I spent a lot of time providing statistical reasons for my beliefs and you could only respond with 'your fanboyism is your problem' without responding to me with numbers, which are the objective medium we should use to talk about such things. I don't doubt this at all man. Believe me, part of me creams my pants every time I think about Santana in this rotation. Then another part of me thinks that dealing the majority of our top-tier young players for ONE YEAR worth of Santana is too much. Don't skewer me for it, it is a realistic problem. Yes because, remember, my package doesn't include Ellsbury or Buchholz, so it is MY Package, not your package. Haren is going to cost 16.25 million for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Santana is going to cost 13.25 million next year, and then presumably 20m each season after that. So, financiallly, that comes down to 13.25 for 3 years vs 53.25 for 3 years. Is the difference between Santana and Haren REALLY 13 million per season? At which point I say, "thanks anyway Billy Beane, if you don't want free reign of our farm system except for 2 players then we'll go somewhere else." Of course, do you really see Billy Beane as being incapable of coming up with some combination of OTHER players who can equal Ellsbury's talent? I do. That's his MO. And being willing to send what will turn into an everyday MLB team for one pitcher is overvaluing that pitcher too. The value of a player to a particular team is directly proportional to the number of marginal wins that player will get for your team (i.e., the number of wins above the squirming horde of other teams wrapped up in the 70-85 win-per-season mass). Players are most valuable to teams for whom making the playoffs and putting fans in seats will represent a marked contrast to how things would be otherwise. More precisely, players are most valuable to teams that are a few wins away from making the playoffs. Colorado sells out its games when they are good. When they suck they don't. The same is true for most teams. As a team's foundation gets better from that middle point, the impact of any one player on that team is financially less. The Red Sox will sell out every game for the foreseeable future. They are currently built to win at least 95 games. They have 2 WS in the past 4 years, and couldn't be more popular or financially viable than they are right now. Adding Santana wouldn't change that. Adding Santana could be like the Yankees adding A-Rod at the expense of Alfonso Soriano, talent wise it was a no-brainer, but it didn't change the success of the team or the financial albatross that the team represented. If anything it just cost them more money. That's a big question that just begs for some speculation... If the Red Sox win the World Series for the next 4 years either way, would you make the deal? Do you think the Red Sox are, as currently constructed, contenders for the World Series? I do. So then the question turns to what I would want them to look like 3-4 years down the road. Theo consistently talks about how they have to be looking that far down the road, because otherwise your overvaluing now for the entire future. Yes, they do. And they would be spending a SHITLOAD of talent to get Santana. I'm fine with that. I don't think it would noticably improve the franchise. It may improve the team for a short period, but Hughes should pretty quickly be able to approach Santana's value. In the rotation, or in the trade? Bowden and Masterson are both sort of in the Clay Buchholz spot before the 07 season. They both have solid reputations, but are both young and haven't stepped up to the just-under MLB level yet. I can't tell you who is going to have the better career. No. Bowden and Masterson are interchangeable in my mind at this point. I would likely make the deal if it was Ellsbury/Bowden/Lester/Lowrie for Santana and another cheaper nice piece. Nesheck for instance. You HAVE TO MITIGATE THE RISK IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. Is it hard to find guys you would want to have on your team? Resigning Papelbon and Beckett to a long term deal would be a nice place to start. He clearly makes them a better team for the time being. If the team is currently built to win 95 games and win a WS then it ends up being money (20m per year) and prospects thrown down the drain. For ONE arm. Yeah, leadership doesn't matter when you're talking about the minutia of an ENORMOUS deal. I should just keep letting you say that Crisp and Ellsbury are basically going to be the same player, even if there are personality differences and atheletic differences that will ultimately skew the equation. Ellsbury sure looked overwhelmed with his .298 AVG and .360 OBP at AAA. Pedroia's .810 OPS at AAA is enough to convince you that he's a sure thing over Ellsbury? It seems weird, because their minor league careers were essentially the same. Pedroia came up and struggled, Ellsbury came up and could have legitimately been called WS MVP, and you're saying Ellsbury should go back and prove himself at AAA, passing GO on the way and collecting his $200. In 1155 MiLB Career PA's: Ellsbury--188 Runs Created In 1207 MiLB Career PA's: Pedroia--190 Runs Created Their AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS and Runs Created are almost the same, in similar amounts of PA, including a few hundred each at AAA (where both basically hit .300). I think you're grasping at straws, to be honest, if your point is that Pedroia was obviously a better bet before transitioning into MLB than Ellsbury is. Weak argument. I'm not making s*** up. Their numbers are eerily similar. I didn't say "I'll fudge their numbers to make them look the same". I keep looking at the numbers and they are very, very similar. Ellsbury creates more runs per PA than Pedroia. But who cares, right? You don't think he's likely to do it in the majors. Wonder why the Twins feel so sure? Do you really need to ask? An 'older' Schilling? He was 'old' last year. He wasn't the focus of our SP staff, neither was Wakefield. Julian Tavarez started 23 games for the Red Sox last year. You're asking me if I think Buchholz with 23 starts would be better than Tavarez. Yes, yes I do. Should we not expect Dice-K and Buchholz and Lester to all do better (i.e., contribute more) than they did last year? Given that Buchholz hardly pitched last year, and neither did Lester, I would say they look pretty good. Right, just like you would need to compare the WS for Phil Hughes over the next 6 years with the Win Shares of Santana over the next 6. Unless you know who you're talking about this isn't a very useful exercise.

This is all nauseating to me. Let the Yankees get Santana by trading Dwight Gooden. I really don't care. Hughes is going to be a phenomenal pitcher, so is Buchholz. If I were in control both would be untouchable and the Twins could eat s***. Santana is a great pitcher, a GREAT pitcher, I simply don't see him as being more valuable than the careers of the entire AAAA team we're talking about trading for him. One arm injury in the next 6 years and this would become a disasterous move. The risk is mitigated significantly if these "can't miss" guys are not included.

I can't help but smile just a little bit when I think that the Yankees are going to end up paying Santana close to what he would get on the market. Instead of doing it next year, like so many of us assumed they would, they want to get started right away by dealing their top prospect. What makes me smile even more? Well, this: http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/8584-yankees-minor-league-notes-5.html Your predictions were good, Jacko, in that you thought the Yankees would make a serious run at him at this point. But I don't think you ever imagined that Hughes would enter the conversation.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2607 Joe Sheehan says 75%. That was much easier than responding to your longer one. In 104 games last year he was at 85%. Bill James is predicting 81% (42 of 52). So, yeah, I realize it and I wrote about it anyway because I understand that SBs are usually an unproductive proposition. however, because I know what I'm talking about I decided to talk about SBs as being something Ellsbury can add, in the same way that other ELITE base stealers have done.

What a foolish set of posts TheKilo. Again, trying to make my position seem naive by misrepresenting them. When did I say I didn't want Santana? So, the Red Sox Ellsbury fanboyism is what is keeping the deal from happening, right? Because so far all I've done is explain why--it appears--the FO isn't willing to move Ellsbury. You clearly don't think the FO is capable of evaluating talent and don't give a damn what people like Bill James have to say about the situation. I guess in TheKingdom none of that matters. Just accusing people of being 'fanboys' despite the enormous amount of numbers that person has put out to justify the position. I'm SURE Beane would do the same thing. I don't see Angelos doing it, but I was merely referring to someone's comments above. Beane would jump at the idea of having free pick of the Sox farm system for a pitcher whom he acquired for trading Mark Mulder to St. Louis, especially if he gets a comparable arm in Lester, plus Masterson, plus Crisp, plus Lowrie. He's not dumb. That said, I'm actually content with the starting staff as it is now but won't mind the flexibility afforded the team when they next look to acquire a SP. All of what you say is true. I understand each and everything there. I have said that I would consider a straight-up trade, or even one with some other minor-leaguers thrown in. I think when you start talking about Lester and Ellsbury (and Masterson and Lowrie) you are REALLY pushing the envelope, and doing so without much regard for the potential for most of those players. The easiest one to write about potential wise is Ellsbury. But it would be just as easy to write about Jon Lester's potential, and Masterson's potential, and Lowrie's as well. With Masterson in particular, I wrote above about his potential trade value for years to come. I know you take it TheKilo, and honestly that's cool with me. What would be the fun of this board if we didn't disagree sometimes? That said, I still disagree with you. Six years is a really long time for a pitcher. He would be with the Red Sox in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, (just to visualize it) probably at 20 million for each of those years. If he's amenable to a shorter deal, then I'm less concerned. Note: my level of concern about the ensuing contract, and my desire to trade a particular player for Santana are two completely different subjects. When I say "I open up the entire farm system to the Twins" I mean it. Hold Ellsbury, hold Buchholz, and notice how all the holes on the team get filled, cost controlled, for years and years. Why do they have to get Santana? Do you really not think it is possible that the Red Sox have other ways to spend 120 million dollars in the next few years? Do you really think it makes the Yankees unbeatable? It doesn't change the fact that the Sox need to win 95 games to get to the playoffs, and in the playoffs they should have a formidable staff of Beckett, DiceK, Schilling and Buchholz/Lester/Wake. It doesn't change the fact that this team was built to win that many games last year and it succeeded, and it will improve this year with the addition of Buchholz and Ellsbury to the starting lineup. Yeah, god forbid we talk about players that are similar. God forbid we actually take a solid look at the statistics, THUS REPLACING HOPE, to make a point. I'm not hoping they're going to be similar. I believe they are going to be similar BECAUSE... (everything I wrote above). If I was being unrealistic wouldn't I have compared Ellsbury to someone a little more prominent than Pedroia? Instead, I showed his numbers according to one of the Red Sox top analysts, and compared it to other players. Unsurprisingly Pedroia was high on that list too. His talents were grossly underestimated and unperceived when he was ready to come into the league, except that pesky FO and people like you who kept believing he was something pretty good. You seem to have this preconception of what a winning team is, and your need to fit that mold perhaps makes you miss the point. The team we had in 07 won. We won the World Series TheKilo. We were the best team in baseball, for much of the season. We had tremendous pitching, and that pitching stands to improve considerably with the addition of Buchholz. Agreed? The offense last year was solid, but there were some pretty big holes in Drew, Crisp and Lugo. Ellsbury, if able to produce all-around like Pedroia has (with those stupid SBs) that would eliminate one of the holes. So the offense improves. How much? It's hard to say, but I would bet that it will be a substantial upgrade. Meanwhile, by the FO not flinching, the Yankees are now prepared to trade a guy who EVERYONE previously would have acknowledged as untouchable, what, 2 days ago. So while they would be picking up Santana, it will be at tremendous expense both financially and talent wise (assuming they're trading other pieces as well). Trading Hughes is like trading Buchholz, and you said Buchholz is untouchable. The Sox consider trading Buchholz + was too much as well, which means that they likely think trading Hughes + is too much, and thus a victory for the Twins. It doesn't make life easier for the Red Sox, but during the primes of guys like Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lester, Papelbon, and Pedroia (starting in, say, 2 or 3 years) the Red Sox will be in much better shape. C'mon man. This would be like me saying "you are actively trying to get rid of Ellsbury because you think he sucks." I DO want the best pitcher in baseball. I just don't want to use your ridiculous notion that "best pitcher in baseball" doesn't have an objective value. Your argument is basically "With Santana this team will never lose, but without him the Yankees will win for 6 years". My argument is that there are objective ways of measuring player values. I saw you using Win Shares earlier. Why don't you back up your statements with a full trade analysis? I've done a lot of that digging, but you don't seem to buy it. Do better. Next six years: Win Shares: Santana vs. Ellsbury, Lester, Masterson, Lowrie. Go ahead and do it, or some other thorough study. Something more than "I'm smart, you're a fanboy", which is just an attack on me and not my arguments. Hey, maybe the Sox will work out something for Santana involving Ellsbury. I certainly wouldn't be upset, but I understand why they wouldn't deal him and won't be upset if they aren't willing to budge. When you're talking about moving talent like this I think it's a win-win situation.

lol @ blatent disregard for something that can have an impact on the game if accomplished successfully. Also, lol for not being able to say anything else.

Honestly, them giving up Hughes means to blinked to me. They didn't want to. They weren't comfortable with it, but they grew more comfortable with it as MN held fast, apparently. I would put Hughes in my top 10 pitchers in baseball, combining age, stuff, build and cost control. The kid is sick, and not having to see him pitch for the Yankees, replacing a home-grown, home-town-hero potential player for another import repeats a pattern we've seen before. This would be the biggest prospect/home-grown player the Yankees moved to get an established star. I think Hughes will be more valuable than Soriano was when they moved him.

They may fill the void with guys like Masterson and Bowden. Or they could offer the same "we're not giving up our best pieces but you can take your pick otherwise" package--as mentioned by someone else above--for a guy like Bedard or Haren. :dunno: There are SO many options when you have the pieces that others want. The myopic view that Santana is infinitely better than all the other options is what is getting under my skin, not the potential value that Santana will offer, which is plentiful. I think Santana's value, as a one-year rental then Manny-type contract, is risky for a pitcher with lots of IPs under his belt and a handful of our top prospects and value-positive mlb near-regulars. When do we get to compare Santana and Crisp vs. Ellsbury, Lester, Masterson and Lowrie, which is the offer if substituting Ellsbury? I think the Sox are pretty sure that Masterson is, at best, a very solid 2-3 type pitcher, and at worst--with this FO--a valuable mid-season trade kind of guy. His frame and tendency toward ground balls, combined with his essentially being FREE, will be attractive to somebody if the Sox feel the need. Are you worried that Pedroia is going to come crashing back to earth too, or do you feel reassured that he's here to stay? From everything I've seen, read and intuited, Ellsbury is like Pedroia both in performance and in attitude. He's been a leader on every team he's played on. He was an outstanding player at Oregon State, leading them to the college WS. The fans will absolutely love him, which is not entirely important but certainly preferable to them NOT loving him. He has a charisma that others do not have. Again, it isn't statistically noteworthy, but it is a factor that separates the superstars from the decent-stars. EDIT: As for James' theory being a 'plug and play' you're right, in a manner of speaking. But any function or repeatable statistical analysis is a plug and play to some degree. It promises greater reliability, and I think James has put a lot of work to increase the validity of the analytical tool. Of course it isn't perfect, and of course it is made to analyze every player, but in retrospect it appears that he predicts pretty well. I don't just dismiss it. If there is anyone whose projections will carry some weight with me, in terms of what the Sox are likely to do, it would be Bill James, a Red Sox employee. I'm sure he's attempted to be as accurate as possible.