TheKilo

Yeah my bad.

Depends on how far back you want to look. Could you not also make the argument that Crisp was playing against better competition than Ellsbury was, or was more coveted when he came out of High School and played professional ball right away? Do you really think college numbers for Ellsbury have much relevance to this debate? If so, could we use high school numbers too? So basically, what you are telling me, is that we should look as to how Ellsbury played in college to further evidence how he will play in the major leagues? I was simply offering the comparison between two players, at the same age level with their minor league numbers because (a) that's all we have to go off of with Ellsbury and ( that's what a lot of people had made their claims about. Now the last part is pretty funny to me. Crisp starts out at a higher level than Ellsbury both when he was 21 and 22, and was promoted to the major leagues faster than Ellsbury the season he began the year in AAA. And if I "conveniently forget" Crisp's two seasons when he was 19 and 20 (though I have trouble seeing the relevance here - especially when people say things like 'Tabata is a long ways away from the majors because he is 19'), Crisp's seasons from 21-23 trump Ellsbury's. Or at the very least are equivalent. Is it wrong to suggest Crisp as a comp for Ellsbury based off of those numbers? I agree, which is why the Sox have said they will deal one of Ellsbury/Lester/Buchholz and not any combination of the two. I have said that I have re-thought my opinion on the value of the package we send. Not necessarily on the components of the package itself. Fair enough. I have a question for you though. If the offer was Lester/Masterson/Lowrie for Santana, would you be raising so much commotion about how the investment was too high, or we lose out on cost-controlled, WS players? Or is what Lester has done at the big league level not equivalent to what Ellsbury did at Oregon State?

IMO, if Dorsey's healthy, the LSU defense is much, much better than the Florida defense if last season. I'm wondering how tOSU is gonna put points on the board against that team.

Conspiracy maybe?

Player A: [table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO 21|A|.306|.368|.423|.791|530|37|52|64 22|AA|.306|.367|.429|.796|408|29|39|61 23|AAA|.360|.426|.511|.937|225|26|26|24 |Career|.316|.379|.442|.821|1163|92|117|149[/table] Player B: [table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO 21|A-|.317|.418|.432|.850|139|9|24|20 22|A+/AA|.303|.382|.425|.807|442|32|49|53 23|AAA|.323|.387|.424|.811|436|33|38|54 |Career|.314|.381|.426|.807|1017|74|111|127[/table] Hint - Both play on the Red Sox now. Player B is the uber-prospect, and Player A can't hold his jockstrap, according to some here. The investment argument against acquiring Santana I buy. The fact that Ellsbury is an untouchable stud I cannot.

You do realize Turner Field is an easier park to hit HR in right?

I'm sorry, but this is the year that broke the camel's back in terms of the BCS. Not because they didn't get the two teams right (they did, IMO) who would be playing for the National Championship, but because of the fact that I don't think anyone can honestly say that this game will definitively decide the champion of football for the NCAA. Ohio State - 1 loss in a BCS conference. If not for the loss to Illinois, there would be no complaints from anyone that they deserve to be in the NC game. I don't think there should be complaints from anyone as is, though. Illinois obviously proved their mettle by getting into a BCS game (more on this later), so penalizing tOSU too much for being in the NC game seems foolish. That being said, right now I would take at least five other teams in the top 10 of the BCS right now to beat them on a neutral field: LSU Oklahoma Georgia Missouri USC You could even make the case for WVU (if White was healthy) and Virginia Tech (as some posters noted in the other thread, they have improved over the course of the season. My issue with no playoff is legitimately, any of these teams could say they deserved a shot at the National Championship. What are each team's "best wins" all season? Ohio State - @ Michigan, 14-3 LSU - beat Virginia Tech, 41-7 Virginia Tech - BC 30-16 in the ACCCG Oklahoma - Missouri 38-17 in the B12CG Georgia - @ Florida, 42-30 Missouri - 40-34 @ Illinois USC - 44-24 @ Arizona State Kansas - 30-24 @ KSU WVU - 28-23 @ Cincinnati Hawaii - 35-28 vs. Washington These teams had some tough losses, too though. Really murked up the BCS picture. tOSU - Illinois LSU - Arkansas VT - LSU, BC (in hindsight) Oklahoma - Texas Tech, Colorado Georgia - 3 touchdowns to Tennessee Missouri - Oklahoma by double digits twice USC - Stanford Kansas - Missouri WVU - Pitt Hawaii - ...... There's gotta be some other way to definitively have the two teams most deserving to play for the National Championship game, without any questions or doubts. VT can say they deserve a shot...because their worst loss was to a team playing for the NC. Oklahoma could say they had a shot based off of how they manhandled the # 1 team in the country last night. Arguments could be made against the two teams in the game as well. LSU lost to the mediocre teams of Arkansas and Kentucky. Ohio State, aside from Michigan and Illinois, really didn't play anybody. Here's what I think needs to have happen. 16 team playoff. Have the winners of all BCS conferences earn auto-bids. In this case: ACC - VT Big 12 - Oklahoma Big East - WVU Big Ten - tOSU Pac10 - USC SEC - LSU That leaves ten (10) at large bids for other teams. Think of it like the NCAA tourney with their bubble teams. IMO, the ten other teams to gain selection into the tournament would be: Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Kansas Arizona State Missouri Tennessee Boston College BYU You could then use BCS to rank the teams based off poll position, record, strength of schedule, etc. In my opinion, these are how the teams would be ranked for my scenario this season: 1. LSU 2. Oklahoma 3. Virginia Tech 4. tOSU 5. Georgia 6. Missouri 7. USC 8. WVU 9. Florida 10. Illinois 11. Hawaii 12. Kansas 13. Tennessee 14. Arizona State 15. Boston College 16. BYU The first round games would then be decided at the corresponding team's home fields. For the final three rounds (7 games), you could rotate the four major bowls and include three other prestigious bowls (ex. Cotton Bowl, Holiday Bowl, etc.) and hold the games in those sites. Bracket for this method: LSU/BYU WVU/Florida tOSU/Tennessee Georgia/Kansas Virginia/Arizona State Missouri/Hawaii USC/Illinois Oklahoma/BC I firmly believe, by the end of such a tournament, you'd know for sure who was the deserving national champion.

Signing Papelbon to any sort of long term contract is not a prudent business move right now, IMO. Let him prove his shoulder is healthy for more than one season. Besides, he's gotta play by the rules for the way salaries are set up.

In a word, no. LSU lost two 3-OT games. They beat VT by 40.

Hawaii down two scores in the second quarter. It'll be OSU vs. LSU in the National Championship, and LSU will win by 10+ points. Oh well, I'll turn to some of the other matchups that could be really good in the BCS.

Villone sucks.

I should probably put this thread on ignore until something actually happens....but the more I think about it the more I may have over-reacted myself. I acknowlege the fact Santana comes with a lot of risk, but if added to this team he would make them WS contenders, like WS favorites, for the next 3-5 years and will help the transition of the Sox rotation when Wakefield and Schilling leave. The packeage as currently constructed is a lot to give up for the best pitcher in baseball. But it's for the best pitcher in baseball. I'd love to add him. But who knows what it will take. And if the Yanks are including Hughes, I might have to say to the Sox that they should hold pat. They did what they needed to do in driving the price of the negotiation to the point where they had to include Hughes or Chamberlain. I still think Ellsbury is being overvalued by a lot of people here, but as it stands right now I'd be very excited to watch him in CF next season. This is my last post in the thread until something substantial happens.

And all you've done is say getting Santana isn't worth the risk. You haven't acknowledged the risk that comes with assuming Ellsbury will succeed. The "fanboy" comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry I offended you but it seems I struck a cord. Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we? 228, 231.2, 233.2, 219 - IP for Santana since 2004 2.61, 2.87, 2.77, 3.33 - Santana ERA since 2004 182, 155, 161, 130 - Santana ERA+ since 2004 While the risk for a pitcher is always big, Santana is as close to a sure thing as you can get. Ellsbury is far from that. So we want to offer the same package we would Santana for a lesser pitcher. But here's the thing. Haren's availability means more teams will get involved. Simple economics tells us that increased demand causes the price for something to go up. So, it's entirely possible you're looking at dealing Ellsbury to attain Haren as well. Although in that instance I would just rather have the Sox hold onto Ellsbury. We agree here. It's easy to say you could trade Santana for Ellsbury heads up. But it's completely unreasonable and a shining example of overvaluing a prospect. Question - If Santana continues to pitch in a similar manner he has been, how many years wouldhe have to do it for you to say it would be a good deal? 3? 4? All 6? Again, you assume a level of performance for these prospects that may not be reasonable. Like I said, if you can get it done without Ellsbury/Buchholz, do it. But with the Yank's inclusion of Hughes, they have the better offer. Honestly, if Ellsbury nets us Santana, then the Sox should be able to replace Masterson with Bowden. Would you make the deal if it was Ellsbury/Bowden/Lester/Lowrie? Who would they spend the money on, especially with Schilling and possibly Manny coming off the books next season, especially since more teams are locking up their free agents? Getting Santana makes winning 95 games easier. Getting Santana makes the frontline of the rotation better. Getting Santana makes the team better. That's what I care about. And then you used Ellsbury's charisma to try to make a point. OK. The difference is Pedroia had a track record in all levels of the minors, when Ellsbury struggled at AAA. Big difference. What do you expect out of Buchholz next season? You think an older Schilling, Wakefield, and a new corps of Lester and Buchholz equates to an improvement? Is it not possible to expect regressions from Okajima, Wakefield, Schilling, and Timlin? In terms of offense...expect a regression from Lowell, Varitek, and Pedroia. Who's going to improve on the offense, and do you think the upgrade from Ellsbury to Crisp is really all that great, especially when you can add a guy like Santana to the rotation? Can't argue. Ellsbury should not be considered an untouchable. That's fine. I guess I struck a nerve with the fanboy comment. The "next six years" argument holds no weight with me because if the Sox do trade their prospects, then you'd have to consider those who play in their positions. Santana, Crisp, Lugo, random pitcher X vs. Ellsbury, Lowrie, Lester, and Masterson.

Good signing, especially if Tito uses Timlin sparingly like he did towards the end of last season.

Nah. His second half of '06 really clouds my judgment though.

You think Angelos, etc. will deal Bedard within the same division for anything less than Ellsbury or Buchholz? You think Beane will do the same thing? You make me laugh. What don't you understand that Santana is a proven commodity in this game, a bona fide ace who, by the way, is only one year older than Pedro was when we traded for him? The view that Ellsbury will be worth the difference Santana brings to the table, especially when compared to Crisp, is getting under my skin. I like Ellsbury a lot but you deem him untouchable, He's not, especially when you consider getting the best pitcher in baseball. Fair point, but six years? On the best pitcher in baseball entering his prime? I take that risk. If the Sox can get Snatana without giving up Buchholz or Ellsbury I'll do cartwheels. If the Yanks are including Hughes the Sox have to include Ellsbury to get Santana. Buchholz should be the only untouchable. I won't touch the "charisma" aspect except for the fact you are comparing two different players and hope they end up being similar. You don't want the best pitcher in baseball on the team because Ellsbury could be like Pedroia??

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT DEAL GETS US HAREN, WHEN THERE WILL BE MORE TEAMS BIDDING FOR HIS SERVICES??????

lol @ stolen bases.

Good. Glad range plays a bigger factor in defense in CF. So we're talking about a difference of .016 batting average points. I don't need to have you tell me how insignificant that number is. So wait. Coco hit .268 last season, but because he hit at Fenway, we should look at Andruw Jones' .222 average in Turner Field to be a superior offensive season? Of course he drives in more runs. He f***ing bats cleanup for the Braves. Very true. Jones is trending downward offensively. Why invest in that big of a risk? Not based off this past season. Fielding percentage may be the worst stat you could use to measure defense. Coco Crisp - 8.5 Win Shares defensively Andruw Jones - 7.5 Win Shares defensively Each were at 16 win shares last season. Who's the better deal? So a guy who strikes out 24% of the time strikes fear in the hearts of pitchers? A guy who hits 26 homers and still only puts up an OPS+ of 88? Manny Ramirez Win Shares - 15 Coco Crisp Win Shares - 16

I'm sure Loretta's a great guy. He's just a s***** baseball player.