RobZombie

Jayhawk- I think its unfortunate that you have reading comprehension issues. Either that or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You are aware of course that a player can have shoulder problems AND spend time on the disabled list and NOT suffer a major injury aren't you? In fact, in the past two years, Mike Timlin has had shoulder problems, and did spend time on the disabled list, yet did not suffer a major season ending injury. So which is it, are you illiterate or argumentative? I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

Jayhawk- Would you mind pointing me to the quote where predicted I that Timlin would suffer a major injury in 2008? Putting words in the mouth of other posters shows that you aren't responding to their arguments and are in fact, just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Dr. Craig Morgan Schilling's personal physician on WEEI yesterday. #1 Says that with surgery Schilling could be back after the all-star break. If they try to treat the problem medically there is ZERO chance that he will pitch again. #2 Schilling currently can't throw a ball five feet, lift arm above his head, or open a door without pain. I assume that he can't do range of motion exercises either. #3 Schillings MRI shows that his biceps tendon is hanging by a thread, he described it as "spaghetti strands". #4 Several other physicians concurred with Morgan's analysis of Schilling's MRI. #5 Even if Schilling has the surgery there is no guarantee that he can pitch again. The Sox, according to Morgan are wasting time by recommending that Schilling try to treat the problem medically and then "wait and see".

"At some point, though, there's a "survivor effect." Mike Timlin has a pitching motion that has endured for two-plus decades (three-plus counting Little League and similar stuff). I know that around age 40 aging curves shift for pitchers, and you get into the range of the Warren Spahns, Nolan Ryans and Jamie Moyers. Injuries actually diminish--the problem becomes the ability of a human body to endure as it progresses deeper into middle age. Such pitchers lose velocity and can't compete--they don't suffer, as a rule, career-ending injury." Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and putting words in my mouth. This is completely obnoxious but due to your history on this board I would accept nothing less. I never said at any point that Timlin would suffer a career-ending injury. I said that due to Timlin's age, and his recent injury history that he would likely be on the disabled list at some point this season just as he has been for the past two seasons. This point really isn't that all that controversial. Oh yes and Nolan Ryan DID suffer a career ending elbow injury.

Though Mike Timlin has in the past been among the most durable Red Sox his appearances and innings pitched have fallen the past two years as he has spent time on the disabled list with shoulder problems. Last season Timlin pitched fewer innings than he had in any non-strike year since 1992. Given that he is now 42 years old its likely Timlin will likely once again have shoulder problems and have to spend time on the disabled list. It is also likely that his appearances and innings pitched will fall for a third year in a row. Pitchers who are 42 tend to get hurt more than pitchers who are 29, its not a criticism its just a fact of life. The Red Sox will likely need a reliever to replace Timlin for a spell at some point during the season quite possibly at the beginning. This does not mean that Timlin will be unable to help the Red Sox in 2008, or that he was a poor signing. It just means he is what he is. A declining but still effective 42 year old middle reliever who will likely be injured for part of the season.

Getting back to Aardsma, one thing to keep in mind is that since the Sox start in Japan and sure as heck won't need five starters until they get back to the States, they can option out John Lester to start the season. That means the Sox can keep 8 relievers on the roster, and you know that someone ALWAYS gets hurt....(Timlin cough), so there will probably be another spot open on top of that. That would make a bullpen to start with four locks (Timlin, Okajima, Delcarman, Paps) And a scrum for the four remaining spots (Lopez, Breslow, Corey, Aardsma, Tavarez, Snyder)

I believe that the catalyst to Crisp being traded will be the Eric Bedard deal. If Adam Jones is included in that deal as rumored, the Mariners will have a clear need for another OF. Neither Luis Gonzalez nor Brad Wilkerson, both rumored to be possible M's if the deal goes through, has the kind of value that Crisp has. The player I'd be interested in is Jeff Clement. Clement is not without his flaws. According to Keith Law he's a poor defensive catcher and might not stick there. He also has possible bone chips in his elbow. However he's a very valuable left handed bat with power and strong plate discipline numbers in the minors. I think they might be able to work with him in the minors to make him a passable defensive catcher who could play in 09. The Sox could also use the deal to aquire a backup CF. Jeremy Reed is still with the Mariners and could definitely help the Sox in this regard. The Mariners with George Sherrill gone in the Bedard deal might be interested in a LOOGY like Javy Lopez. So it would be Crisp and Lopez for Clement and Reed. Then you sign Brad Wilkerson and voila, we are ready for the A's and Japan. You have a full roster too.

Jayhawk Bill Says- "I'd understand your trying to close debate if you'd found a quote from Minnesota's Front Office to that effect. Given that you haven't, and that the foundation for my analysis regarding Crisp plus Lester plus two others is a published Boston Herald article (previously linked), I don't see any immediate reason to cease considering my posts as reasonable. I'll certainly agree that Boston might give either Buchholz or Ellsbury to Minnesota for Santana. I wouldn't support either move, though, unless it were Ellsbury and little else of value for a seven-year commitment from Santana." It is my personal opinion that Minnesota is a rational actor. It just wouldn't make sense for them to trade a guy who maybe the best player in Baseball while just getting Coco Crisp, Lester and a couple B prospects. What is the value there? If you are Minnesota, to trade the most valuable asset you have, you need to get at least one top prospect in return. Take a look at what the Braves gave up for Texiera, and Santana is a more valuable player. "Peter Gammons made his reputation when I was young through having the best connections and doing the best research. In recent years he's taken to pontificating without regard for the possibility of harming his reputation were he proven wrong, maybe because he's already enshrined in Cooperstown. He's not citing sources here, and his opinions seem badly out of line with current player values. In any case, I disagree with Gammons here." Peter Gammons STILL has better contacts in the industry than you do. If he says its going to take around $20-$25M to extend Santana, I think its safe to believe that's a real number and he's not just "pontificating" as you say. Regarding the "need" to redo Beckett, you are right, technically, Beckett is under contract and doesn't "need" to be redone no matter the circumstances. Yet Beckett signed what looks like now a below market deal, and has become a top AL pitcher. He finished ahead of Santana in the Cy Young voting this year, and oh yeah, led his team to the World Series, something Santana has never done. Yet extending Santana proposes that the Sox pay him possibly twice as much as Beckett. Technically they could just tell their best pitcher who just led them to a World championship to go jump in the lake, but its probably not the best way to do business. Hence, they would have no choice but to be fair to Beckett and give him at least a similar salary to Santana.

Regarding the defensive metrics, Lowell made a lot of errors early in the year but corrected that mostly later in the year. Even with offensive metrics, seven extra hits can greatly skew your numbers. With defensive statistics, there are fewer chances so seven errors may skew the numbers even more. From what I've noticed, his range is not oustanding but his instincts, and hands are great.

Some of the deals I am seeing here for Crisp seem very low. Crisp has value, he's a very good defensive player and baserunner which has been mentioned. He's not old and he's cheap. If he returns to anything resembling the player he was in Cleveland, he's going to be quite a valuable player for the next two years. Laird and Littleton really isn't a fair deal for the Sox. Littleton, seems like a soft-tosser, and, Laird is a career backup. I'd love to do Teagarden and Beltre, but I don't think that's going to happen. If they can't get an attractive deal for Crisp, I would keep him around. They have a rookie CF who may have to be spelled, and a LF that is aging and missed a month two years in a row. He's not being paid a ton, so the Sox don't have to dump him. I'd be looking for a young catcher and young bullpen arm.

The Twins aren't trading Santana unless they get either Clay or Jacoby in return, end of story. Secondly, Gammons made a good point about Santana when he was on the radio last week. Santanna is not going to accept a discount, which means he's going to want $20-$25M a year. If you do that, you may have to redo Beckett's contract to the same amount. Tieing up $45-$50M a year in two players, never mind pitchers, is something that the Red Sox aren't going to do. Gammons thought that Santana to MFY for Cabrerra, Hughes, and Tabata made more sense because they don't have a comparable player to Beckett. He thought the MFY could just sign Hunter to play CF, but obviously now they aren't going to do that. They could sign Jones to play CF.

This talk that the Yanks are interested in Lowell doesn't make sense. Damon is unable to play CF anymore so Cabrerra or someone else has to play CF. That leaves three guys, Abreau Matsui, and Damon for the two other OF spots and DH. If the Yankees signed Lowell for 1B they would have to put either Damon, Matsui, or Giambi on the bench. Why sign a 34 year old 3B comming off a career year, who by the way has never played 1B before to a massive contract and put another massive contract on the bench?

Lets be clear. The Red Sox are not trading Coco Crisp for Jarrod Saltalamacchia. Salty is a young stud catcher and you don't trade those for mediocre offensive veteran CFs no matter how good their defense is.

Making an obvious statement doesn't make you smart. Its like telling me that rich people have a lot of money as if you have found a great social equalizer. Its no better than making a statement that is obviously wrong, like saying that the Sox have "production problems" at 1st base when they do not.

A couple of issues here. Santanna fell off during the final month of the season not the entire second half. Up until September 1st he had an ERA under 3.00. During the final month Santana was pitching in meaningless games for the first time and had openinly expressed his displeasure in doing so. Sure Santana might be a free agent again, but if the Twins trade him, its likely he will not be. Plus, in the free agent market, Santana will cost you a lot more than he will during the four day negotiating window.

It doesn't mean much to me at all. There is nothing in Santana's minor league statistics that tells you he was a future ace. When did Santana develop his change up? He certainly became an ace in a very unique fashion.

Yes I am assuming that Santanna won't have growing pains. He's already pitching well in the AL. Matsusaka and Beckett did not pitch in the AL prior to arriving in Boston. Keep in mind that Santanna had a sub 3.00 ERA and was on-par as far as all the other stats through August. I don't know if he had an injury or not, or just wasn't as competitive in games that were basically meaningless. Nothing is guaranteed, but I'd bet on Satanna having a sub 3 ERA if he pitches in Boston next year.

"With Boston having some production issues at first base, i wouldn't be surprised if Carter makes the ML team in 2008." Its quotes like this that lead people to believe that you aren't really who you claim to be and that you don't work in baseball. The Red Sox DO NOT have production issues at 1st base. Chris Carter IS NOT going to replace Kevin Youkilis at 1B. Carter's main problem is that though he can hit, he's basically a DH.

Scaffolds- In general you have a right to your opinion as this is an open forum after all. However you shouldn't dismiss the opinion of others on the basis that you have special knowledge that other posters don't have. If I don't agree that a player not being called up in September has anything to do with the chances that he will be added to the 40 man roster, and your response is that you have special industry knowledge, expect to be challenged on that. I personally don't believe that you have special industry knowledge.

First off there is NO guarantee that you have a chance at any of these guys. Since they are on the open market, they might cost more than Santanna in terms of money too. Also, I'd rather have Santanna the other guys you mentioned. Peavy is a good pitcher but most of his career has been in the NL in an extreme pitchers park. Harden and Sheets have serious injury issues, and Sabbathia was good this year but doesn't have nearly the long-term track record that Santanna does. I'm sure many were saying the same thing about Pedro Martinez or Josh Beckett before they were traded to Boston. Why trade prospects when we can get something a little less for no more than money? With Pedro, the prospects turned out to be mediocre players and with Beckett, well you can see how valuable a dominant pitcher is in the playoffs. Where would the Sox be today had they signed Burnett and not traded for Beckett? Jorge DelaRosa looked pretty good before he was traded for a 37 year old pitcher and where is he today?