example1

:lol: f***ing GREAT!!! I Love it!! Bye bye Phil Hughes. They blinked.

More runs, fewer ABs, better AVG, exact same OBP, lower SLG. Overall, very similar. I will, however, defer to Bill James, who has done more work in this area. His prediction? [table] name | G | AB | 2B | 3B | HR |R | RBI | BB | K | SB | CS | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS Ellsbury | 125 | 463| 29 | 5 | 5 | 78 | 46 | 39 | 55 | 42 | 10 | .320 | .374 | .436 | .810 [/table] The most striking thing there is the AVG, but I don't actually care about that. I will, per usual, look at the OBP and SLG. Also, notice the fewer number of games. I'd say that's a pretty solid rookie season. James' Crisp prediction: 125 G,458 AB, 26 2B, 3 3B, 8 HR, 67 R, 48 RBI, 39 BB, 69 K, 19 SB, 7 CS .276/.335/.400 /.735 Both can be found here, just type in the names. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1572&position=OF Is it gospel? No, not at all. Is it likely right along the lines of what the Red Sox are most likely thinking? Yep. James' simplified 08 prediction for Pedroia: .299/.369/.436/.805 James predicts that Ellsbury will rack up 6.32 RC/27, (down from 8.66 in 2007's short stint). Does that dissuade me? No. A 6.32 RC/27 in a full 2007 season would have put him right here on the leaderboard: 6.66 Manny Ramirez 6.64 Frank Thomas 6.61 Brian Roberts 6.60 Dustin Pedroia 6.60 Gary Sheffield 6.58 Adrian Gonzalez 6.57 Jeff Kent 6.53 Garrett Atkins 6.51 Rickie Weeks 6.41 Kelly Johnson 6.34 Nick Swisher 6.34 Derek Jeter 6.32 Travis Hafner/Jacoby Ellsbury (projected 08) 6.28 Carl Crawford 6.26 Josh Willingham 6.26 Ryan Garko 6.24 Russell Martin 6.24 Carlos Guillen 6.20 Eric Byrnes 6.19 Bobby Abreu 6.14 Carlos Lee 6.12 Nick Markakis 6.08 Edwin Encarnacion 6.07 Troy Tulowitzki 6.07 Raul Ibanez 5.93 Robinson Cano FWIW, James predicts that Crisp will have a 4.76 RC/27 (up from last year's 4.50) and Pedroia to have a 5.85. 4.76 puts Crisp, offensively, in this group (without numbers, because I just don't feel like typing them! ): 5.00: Brendan Harris Jason Bay Ryan ZImmerman Chris Young Shannon Stewart David Dejesus Jose Bautista Mark Teahen Coco Crisp 2008 Gary Matthews Jr Jason Bartlett Khalil Greene Brian McCann Mark Loretta Melvin Mora Bill Hall Coco Crisp (07) Now, that's a pretty good list, but is there a single name on that list that belongs with the group above with Jeter, Hafner, Lee, Abreu, etc.? I don't think so. Chris Young will probably have a better year, although he was very good anyway. James predicts that Ellsbury will be better in 08 than Young was in 07. I am pretty sure that RC doesn't do a good job of incorporating defense, but I'm also pretty sure that Crisp isn't that much better a defender than Ellsbury. If you look at their FRAA from 07, and pro-rate it, Ellsbury approaches Crisp's totals. I just don't see them as being that close. I think many people have a hard time imagining a player who does NOT hit a lot of HR or get a lot of RBI actually being extremely useful for a team on offense. In this day of steroids and HGH, I would love for the Sox to load up on guys who, in another era, would have been MVP candidates. People are so skewed by the last 15 years of HRs and RBIs that they are undervaluing guys who still produce a shitload of runs at MLB minimum.

I showed that there are some players who consistently have a high BABIP, and used Ichiro as one example. I think it is fueled by his tremendous speed. Bill James predicts a BABIP of .350 for Ellsbury this year, which indicates that he thinks there may be factors that influence BABIP. Chances are Ellsbury will never be below average in BABIP. It's funny, your argument against Ellsbury is that he had a number of 'soft' hits, and that much of his production was lucky. What I saw was that a lot of the soft hits fell in, and a lot of his other BIPs were hard hit but right at guys. Sounds a lot like Pedroia. If you knew that Ellsbury was going to be as important to this team in 08 and beyond as Pedroia was in 2007 would you be saying that he's only a 'little' better than Crisp? At 23 years old I would say that player would be CONSIDERABLY better than Crisp. For awhile, Robinson Cano was only a little better than Miguel Cairo, but now there is no comparison. Can Crisp sustain playing CF like a HOF? I find that even more doubtful. If Crisp's defense regresses to even close to league average then we're talking about a pretty awful CF option for a team that is supposed to compete consistently. For whatever reason, Crisp had a defensive explosion last year. He's a great defender, but the difference in offense between Ellsbury and Crisp VASTLY outweighs their differences in defense. Ellsbury, at his age, has a reputation as a better defensive outfielder than Crisp did and we've already seen it many times. In my book, the chances of Ellsbury keeping a higher than average BABIP is higher than the chance that Crisp will be as good defensively as he was this year. If you throw in Masterson's career and Lowrie's career along with Ellsbury then this is a definite Yes! Even at face value I think the difference is significant in both cases. Add to that the 20m a year that Santana will get paid and it quickly becomes obvious that comparing the difference between this small set of players is insufficient for guaging this potential trade. You have to consider cost, and the type of players the Sox would likely go after with that 20 million dollars. I think you think they will go after a crappy player at too much money, while I assume they will invest that 20m intelligently, whether to a great pitcher like Santana, or another good young player. Are we counting on that? I didn't think Ellsbury was supposed to carry the offense. At 300K+ I thought he was supposed to be a solid leadoff hitter/role player for the next few years. Working at-bats, playing above average defense, stealing 40+ bases and scoring a shitload of runs in front of this lineup. the Guardians of the mid-90s sure didn't rely on Kenny Lofton to carry the offense. Thome, Belle and Manny played a part in that. Lofton just happened to be one of the many players who made the offense absolutely devistating top to bottom. Ellsbury will be the same way (as indicated by his OBP). Crisp will not (as indicated by his OBP). Again, there are other pitchers like Santana. You're assuming there is a vast lack of talent out there, which is simply false, given how much talent we already have in our own farm system. Find me another CF with Ellsbury's potential for Ellsbury's cost. Go ahead. Think the Tigers will give us Cameron Maybin for nothing? Maybe we can get Hunter Pence from the Astros because we want him. Buchholz is much closer to Santana than many here will give him credit for, until, of course, he proves it on the field, at which point eveyrone will say 'of course its a no-brainer that you keep Buchholz for years and years at MLB minimum instead of trading him for a reasonable facsimile at 20 million more a year.' Ellsbury is closer to tradeable, but he shouldn't be moved.

Are you serious? Enamored? No, they made a logical deal to fill a hole in CF after Damon left. He was a good-enough replacement, but they certainly weren't enamored with him except for the fact that he would be cheap and moderately productive. He has been both. But he is not a potential superstar. If the Yankees are going to throw Hughes in there then give them Santana. Hughes is half a tick behind Buchholz in my opinion, and only because he had an injury last year. When he was composed and throwing well at the beginning of the year he was destroying people. He was 21 this year for crying out loud. People who assume that others are naively judging the potential of a player based on 100 ABs instead of a career's worth of statistics and scouting reports Just out of curiosity would you say the same of a young Kenny Lofton or Grady Sizemore? How do you judge the difference between those guys. If it is Hughes for Santana straight up then I consider doing Ellsbury for Santana straight up, or with something small thrown in. I'm not sure I'd do it though. I think Hughes for Santana, over 6 years, will be statistically similar but financially very different pitchers. Same reason I wouldn't recommend dealing Buchholz.

Or so we hope with Santana too. We're not dealing from a position of weakness from pitching or from CF. We have adequate amounts of MLB ready talent so there is no point in throwing it out there so we are absolutely committed to paying Santana 20 million dollars for 6 years. I think the chances of Ellsbury having game winning talent over the next 6 years are as good or better than Santana going that entire period as a 200+ IP, 2.90 ERA pitcher--which is roughly what he would need to be to justify 20m. If by year 3 we're paying Santana 20 million dollars and he's putting up the same numbers as a current "good but not great pitcher", and we've dealt Jon Lester and Justin Masterson then what? Don't let his numbers blind. There are other good pitchers out there. The Red Sox currently have 3 of the best arms in baseball lined up and ready to go in Beckett, Dice-K and in my opinion, Buchholz. Schilling should be a solid contributer, as should Wake. We know what we're going to get from both if healthy. I think Lester has shown what he's capable of and he's only 23 himself. Adding Santana would be great, the cream on the peaches. But the starting rotation, as is, is good enough to win a world series. Even against the Yankees with Santana (minus presumably Hughes and/or Kennedy plus really good younger players). We know this is a good Sox team. Ellsbury at the top of this lineup is also cream on the peaches. He and Pedroia will be a terror for the next 3-5 years and it should be fun to watch. They can make a Crisp trade work, they just have to throw in something else to make it better. s***, take your pick as far as I'm concerned. What the hell will we need from the minor leagues if we get santana without dealing Buchholz or Ellsbury? I'm not unrealistic about Ellsbury. I think it is reasonable to expect that he'll be about as productive at the plate as Pedroia, with added speed and slightly less plate control. He will be as good in the field as Pedroia is too. For years and years and years and years at MLB minimum. Coco is a great fielder but is it really possible to pull himself off the edge of the cliff of unproductivity with another tremendous fielding season? Seems like a lot to bank on when you have his obvious replacement standing in CF. They will keep their eyes on the prize, which is a deal without losing either of them, IMO.

It's not as logical as you think though. Yeah, Ellsbury isn't worth Santana, but Ellsbury's next 6 years + Lester's next 5 years + Masterson's next 6 years + Lowrie's next 6 years is going to have value. The only reason the Twins would pull the trigger is if they thought those guys were close to impact ready. We all know they're close to impact ready. I think that there is sufficient wiggle-room between Crisp and Ellsbury that Crisp + prospect can be equal to Ellsbury. The Sox don't have to deal Ellsbury, he just represents one form of talent that, fortunately, the Sox can replicate in a similar player but with whom they are less enamored. Crisp, Lester, Masterson and Lowrie is a nice collection of talent for one man, especially if the sox pay for Crisp's salary this year or something (while Santana is still relatively cheap). Ellsbury won't be a deal breaker, because the Sox aren't going to deal him and the Twins know that. They're still talking. Coco has more pull than many are giving him credit for, though Ellsbury will be the much better player throughout his career.

If we're talksing about guys who would be nice additions but who are out of the realm of possibility here's my addition to that list of desireable pitchers: King Felix (pretty sure he'll be the best pitcher in the league in a year or three) Matt Cain Eric Bedard Cole Hamels but I digress... Beckett, Matsuzaka and Buchholz would top my list if they weren't Red Sox

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=MLB&id=2993&line=226720&spln=1 Twins insist on Ellsbury as part of the deal. If they're pushing for Ellsbury it likely means a) Buchholz is off the table and the Twins understand and accept it and the Twins see some value in Jon Lester as a replacement for Santana. I'm still not doing it. The financial flexibility this team will have going into next year will be great, because they'll spend the money anyway but have Ellsbury to boot.

Another factor, in addition to the good ones I've seen above, is mentioned in the article and quoted by TheKilo. The General Manager position requires a "general" view (i.e., all the references to 'macro' and 'philosophy', the tendency to see things from a long-term or global perspective, etc.,) as well as the ability to "manage". Theo has been a leader by showing nothing but the utmost respect in nearly ALL of his media appearances, quotes and public actions (remember the respect he showed Dice-K, Schilling, parting-ways with Damon, resigning Mike Lowell, etc.,), but he has also surrounded himself with the best LIKE-MINDED group of sub-managers, coaches, scouts, etc., available and has refused to settle for anything less. Talk about undervalued talent!! He was able to use the mystique of the Red Sox, coupled with an early WS title, to turn Boston one of a small-number of baseball magnet. He isn't responsible for every move over the past few years, and he isn't responsible for a lot of the financial success of the Sox, but he puts the product on the field, handles difficult negotiations at a world-class level, and regularly conveys calmness in the face of a very passionate fan base. Add to that the fact that he's young and ridiculously articulate about baseball--and the nuances of baseball management--and you have the recipe for someone who is easily one of the best in the world at what they do. Obviously every GM is different, and coming up with a 'best' is impossible. However, I think the influence of Epstein is akin to the influence of Bill Belichick. Epstein spends comparably more time behind the scenes; you can learn what he does by reading into sabermetrics and the cutting edge analysis. Belichick spends more time in front of the camera, pacing the sidelines; so you can learn about what he does by analyzing game film and watching the games. They both have a particular type of "guy", they both have benefited from having some of the best players of this generation on their team. My point is that Theo can be called the "best" GM in the same sense that Belichick can be called the "best" coach. Neither is objectively true, but for people who watch and pay attention to these things it sure feels that way. Lengthy post summarized: who else would you want?

I'm not going to go easy on giving credit to Theor for Bill James, because what I was saying is not just hiring bill james, but taking the sabermetric approach and running with it. Show me another team that has done it as well. Oakland is the closest that I can think of, but nobody has done it through-and through (with the purchasing power that the Sox have).

It depends, how many do you think would have hired Bill James and followed through with sabermetric analysis all the way, including hiring a manager based on it, acquiring and losing players based on it, etc., The thing Theo brings is a willingness to stick to an unorthodox philosophy that--James argues--should have been orthodox for decades at this point. Beane is of the same bent, and there are a few others, but I think Theo's best strength is sticking with that philosophy when 'conventional' wisdom would force others to do otherwise. That, and he has a shitload of money to work with.

a) So he doesn't go to spring training? Or does he stay in florida and enjoy the warm weather? No to A He's not going to pitch 2 innings here, one inning there, 3 innings there. If this were the middle of the season (or anywhere CLOSE to the season) everyone would be talking about "routine" and how he has to get "conditioned" for longer outings. Keeping him in AAA and whetting his appetite for more with 1 and 3 inning stints would go against conditioning practices and ultimately not have him in game-shape when he comes up. No to b. c) "and probably the most important"? "You have 5 effective MLB starters. Who are you going to bench?" I just don't remember when they said that 5 starters was a rule, which means that benching a pitcher isn't necessary. I proposed using 6 last year in the beginning of the year, and can make a much stronger case for it now. Two groups of three pitchers (Beckett, Schilling, Lester)(Dice, Wake, Buchholz) that could be either 1-3 or 2-4 pitchers on nearly any other club. A team that has an offense that can carry it, and pitching that can carry it. A team that stands to make a great run at the postseason again, with the depth to keep almost all of its starters under 200 IP if it wants to, or to limit the total pitches of those who need it. It is only a problem if you refuse to look outside the box at the most obvious solution. The only decent come-back to the 6-man rotation is that Beckett wouldn't pitch every 5th day, which really just doesn't matter. He should pitch BETTER every 6th day, as should every other pitcher in the rotation, which means that they will have a better chance to win each of those individual nights. I don't know. I know I'm the only one seeing it this way, but it seems like the most obvious solution and one that the Sox have already acknowledged exploring. Personally, I'd be willing to bet that Dice-K and Schilling will both pitch better with more rest, and the difference in their performance plus the production from Buchholz will be close to what Santana would give you.

Still haven't heard a good argument against 6 x 175 IP, with wiggle room for more or less depending on the pitcher... I still don't see how Buchholz throwing even one inning at AAA is better than having MORE innings of Wakefield for the Big Club. If you're not planning on sitting Buchholz at AAA, and you're hoping to have a rested pitching staff down the stretch (as you've made abundantly clear you are) then the most logical answer is to limit pitch counts (and IP) by spreading out the starts among your talented and mature pitchers (all SIX of them). Just sayin....

Buchholz, like Mrs Slowsky the Turtle in the Comcast Commercials, is a Sudduko Maniac. He can't get enough. He also enjoys Ma Jong and cognac.

Another (not so) wise man once said: "You're being glib, Matt" He would also say "you're being glib, theKilo" It's funny. You spend all this time worrying about Buchholz being able to stand the longhaul, but then you come back with: You're laughable sometimes. Do I need to post links to where it is clear that the Sox are considering a six man rotation? Or do I need to post more Buchholz stats to show how utterly stupid it is to think that him throwing IPs in AAA is somehow better for him than at MLB? Or, should I prove to you that Buchholz shouldn't be traded for Santana again? Or, Should I document the other 23 year olds who have been fine at that age? Or should I mention that the ONLY REASON the Sox found the ''Weakened shoulder" is because they, unlike all the teams that give you nightmares for their past pitcher usage, are HYPERVIGALENT about shoulder strength. His shoulder was tired. yes, that happens sometimes to pitchers in September. The fact that the Red Sox are better at recognizing it than other teams is not an indication that he is WORSE than most pitchers after that many innings. It just isn't, and it is a logical fallacy for you to make that the basis of your argument. Just like the fact that the Red Sox having had the depth to keep Buchholz from HAVING to start at the age of 22 does NOT mean that he isn't worthy of a spot at his age. Which direction do I go with this one theKilo? Yes, I am advocating that Josh Beckett not throw as many innings as humanly possible next year. You are too. I haven't heard you say "Josh Beckett should throw on 4 days rest every day". Nor have I heard you say "I would happily skip Dice-K's starts so Josh Beckett can get "as many starts as possible next season". You demand precision and accuracy from statements in others, but then you come out with this rude glibiosity, to someone who you know has actually put some thought into it. A good team has the flexability to NOT start their best pitcher every time they need a win. A good team has the ability to thrown two, three, four, or (gasp) five other pitchers who are effective. I forget, were you one of the people advocating for Beckett to start game 4 of the ALCS? I know I wasn't, but I wonder whether you were. If you didn't advocate for it, then why not? I mean, you want him to start any time your palms get a little sweaty because he is SO MUCH better than every other pitcher the Sox have, right? What I propose is this: Use a six man rotation. When there are days off or whatever, use those as part of the equation and skip a start from one of your lower pitchers (I would propose that be Wakefield, regularly). You obviously didn't read my earlier posts where I said that as the season goes on you can give rests to guys like Schilling and Buchholz, and that is where Dice-K and Wakefield and Beckett will make up their innings and approach 200. You want to use Beckett like a rented mule though, so I don't know how to counter that. Personally, I thought it was a sign of a bountiful team and good management that Beckett did not end up having to throw 230 IP last year like Sabathia did. Apparently you would rather than he throws every five days, because you're so concerned with THIS game, and the NEXT game that you aren't able to take a long-term perspective. It's just funny, you're so protective of Clay Buchholz but Beckett should go out and throw every time he is able. Hmmm. I guess he doesn't need protecting any more and his future isn't as important to the Sox as Buchholz's is. I know, I know, Becket is more developed, stronger, more mature, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that both of them are phenomenal pitchers. you are treating one like he is made of porcilin, and the other like he is made of steel, when, in fact, the truth lies somewhere in between for both of them. The irony is that Beckett, not Buchholz, is the one with an injury history. I don't hear you mentioning any "shoulder fatigue" that was diagnosed earlier for Beckett, nor any mention of blister issues. Its like Beckett doesn't have ANY history of it, and Buchholz does. Truth is, there have probably been 3-4 seasons where, if Beckett were with the Sox, he would have sat at the end of the year to "rest" a "tired" shoulder. Look where he is now. Again, the sox being hypervigalent should be taken as a sign of strength, not a sign of overwhelming concern. Nobody is saying "buchholz is injured" and with the passion with which this FO appears to be hanging on to him, I would say that your theory that the shoulder fatigue was somehow "clinical" is pretty off base. If he was an injury risk beyond the risk of ANY OTHER PITCHER, he would be traded in a heartbeat. My bet is that Beckett would LOVE the idea of pitching less frequently, because he sees the pitcers they have. If they sucked, or if it didn't work then they can change course. The Sox won't be starting John Burkett every 6th day. Their weakest pitchers will be Lester and Wakefield. So YOU carry on... :harhar:

A great man once said: Six-man rotation. Only possible drawback (that I've heard): the potential for hissyfits by cognitively rigid Red Sox pitchers (none of whom have actually complained about it) who are paid millions of dollars to do what they do. They will shut up and get over it, or NOT shut up because they aren't complaining in the first place. Your boss says "look, everyone will get paid the same, but I'm asking you to take a 3 day weekend instead of 2, you don't have to make up the hours, but when I really need you I expect you to be at work"... Okay. Can do. Where do I sign up. Schilling and Beckett and the rest of the crew will be saying the same thing. Unfortunately, he was too verbose and it was buried in the middle of a long, ranting post that had a number of other good points, which were trees being lost for the forest. Discuss...

23 is the absolute athletic prime for a player. Their baseball prime starts at 27, because baseball is a 'thinking man's' game, and it takes time to get to doing the little things right on a consistent basis. a 23 year old in the NBA or NFL is a multi-year veteran. In the MLB they're treated--by some--as junior high schoolers.

The saving grace for the Red Sox was that they had a great start this season. Don't dis April!! :harhar: I understand the tendency/inclination to move Buchholz along slowly, but that doesn't mean that when it is baseball time and Buchholz is baseball ready that they're going to have him pitch in Pawtucket if he could be on the mound in Boston. Logically it makes much more sense to go to a six-man rotation than to have 6 above average pitchers with one pitching in the minors. If you're really proposing that Buchholz save his innings, how do you propose doing that? An inning at AAA is going to cost the same as an inning in the MLB; or he could just sit on his ass in Florida wondering why a 23 year old pitcher with almost 3 years of utter dominance in the minors, a major-league no-hitter and almost a K per inning in the 'bigs, has to wait, while pitchers like Jeremy Bonderman, Justin Verlander, Scott Kazmir, Cole Hamels, Tim Lincecum, Jake Peavy, Jeff Weaver, Matt Cain, Josh Beckett, Dwight Gooden, Roger Clemens, and Felix Hernandez (who is still only 21, for what it's worth) all were able to start racking up wins and K's for their career. Usually I'm on the conservative side in baseball. I like to be patient and am largely risk-averse. You won't hear me advocating for trading our best prospects (though that would not have been the case a five years ago, when those prospects were not nearly as good as they are now) and I would never, EVER advocate resting the entire season on the shoulders of a 23 year old kid. If it comes down to Buchholz carrying this team then I say we fold it in, and try again next year. But it won't come down to that. At most Buchholz is going to be a 5th starter. 27 starts at 6.5 IP per start is 175.5 IP. 27 starts is also 162 divided by 6. In other words, a six-man rotation nets each pitcher roughly 175 IP. Add in the likelihood of injuries or someone else needing to pitch a start or two (Tavarez), and you have the makings of a well-rested rotation heading down the stretch, with one of your better pitchers being able to contribute starts from the beginning of the season on through. You may even rest a guy like Buchholz and/or Schilling in September, if you have a lead or are in strong contention for a WC spot, and guys like Beckett and DiceK and Wake can pick up closer to 200. There are plenty of pitchers who are Buchholz's age and who have thrown a considerable amount of innings already in the big leagues. I'm not saying the Sox should just let him run wild, like I suspect others have with their young guns. Bonderman and Verlander were both 23 in the 2006 season where Verlander won ROY and they led the team to the WS. Scott Kazmir is 23. There are things you can do to make sure a pitcher has the best chance of staying healthy. A shoulder strengthening program and pitch counts are huge in that regard. We're talking about a 23 year old in the prime of his athletic career here*. He has proven everything one could possibly ask for him. If anything Lester should be in a spot in AAA, wasting HIS innings down there. Buchholz is the better pitcher at this point. Lester in AAA would be silly too. I think this talk of a six-man rotation that was sort of hushed a few weeks back could be a real possibility. It makes the best use of their players: Schilling: Aging, will like the rest Dice-K: It's what he's used to Beckett: being at 190 IP at the end of September would be really nice, and make him more effective with each of his starts Wakefield: He could pitch every day if we asked him to (or at least every 3rd...) (the man is a horse). Wake is pretty unconventional himself, so I doubt he would have a problem with it. Lester: will benefit and be happy to have a job Buchholz: will benefit and be happy to have a job. The sox regularly think outside the box on important issues like this.

That is an excellent point about MN's tendencies in trades, because it is true. In the moneyball type approach, MN is viewing A-level prospects who are presently 20-22 years old as an undervalued asset, particularly with teams who are close to competing. A team like the Red Sox would (rightly, I think) give up a number of promising young prospects in order to solidify the current MLB club for 5-7 years. MN could ultimately structure it so they come out on top in the long run, while their trading partner appears to have 'won' the deal initially.

JHB, I understand why people are critical of your proposal. It's funny how it takes months and months to convince people that Buchholz and Ellsbury are any good (this time last year you would have been accused of trusting 'unproven' talent when you wouldn't trade both for Dontrelle Willis ), and suddenly they are SO good that no other combination of prospects could possibly come close to either of them. The Twins are likely looking at this situation licking their chops at the number of 2nd tier (see: younger) prospects they could get from teams, as a 'make it happen' throw-in for Santana. I initially proposed: Lester, Kalish and Bowden or Masterson but I think you're right that they're looking for batting talent. s***, replace Kalish with Crisp, and offer Crisp and Lester (and Cora, why not?) with a choice of Anderson, Bowden, Kalish, Tejada, Moss, Lowrie, or Cora. Lester is still a very nice prospect. He's had some growing pains (literally) but he has really handled it nicely, and he's a hard-throwing strikeout lefty. He's 24. My guess is that, unlike many here, the Red Sox would be weary about just throwing names into a deal for Santana. As you pointed out, injuries are a huge risk, he's not signed long term and when he is it will be at 20m on, if not the down-side of his career, at least the apex of his career. The Sox will look at guys like Bowden not as 2007 Bowden, or 2007 Anderson, but 2010 Bowden and 2010 Anderson, and the 2010 Red Sox. The hopeful thing for me is that I think a deal can get done without Buchholz or Ellsbury. I think that Crisp is the right substitute for Ellsbury if MN really wants a CF and the Sox won't part with Jacoby, and that the farm system is deep enough to absorb some loss for the greater (GREATER!!) good of the team. A 2009 rotation of Beckett Santana Dice-K Buchholz Wakefield would be absurd (assuming that Wake can make it that long)... he's replaceable anyway. If it can be done then couldn't that border on the greatest pitching staff of all time? In terms of power arms I would be willing to bet it would be.