Santana to the Mets

January 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM

71 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

Johan goes to the National League and we can keep our prospects.

In the end, it��s entirely possible the Red Sox simply backed off when they learned the Johan Santana sweepstakes would come down to either Boston or the New York Mets.

While the World Champs stand pat with their array of talented prospects, the best pitcher in baseball is headed to the National League. The trade agreed to today and confirmed by multiple Twins sources would send outfield prospect Carlos Gomez along with pitchers Deolis Guerra, Kevin Mulvey and Phil Humber, to the Mets for the ace pitcher. Santana comes to the Mets with an impressive AL resume and will act as a prominent PR figure in the opening of their new ballpark in 2009, perhaps overshadowing the Yankees.

Many baseball analysts who know the prospects both teams were offering are left scratching their heads. The Mets offer is headlined by Gomez, a high-potential high-risk outfielder who is about 50/50 to pan out in the majors and lacks the proper plate discipline to be a top-of-the-order mainstay. Guerra is only 18 and may not sniff the big leagues until 2010 and has no true breaking pitch. Most scouts say Mulvey and Humber are most likely #4 starters, especially in the AL.

So what were the Twins thinking?

Isn��t a package headlined by a gem like Phil Hughes much more attractive? Hughes has the clear ability to be a #1 and looks like a sure bet developing in the Big Show, why wouldn��t a small market team like the Twins be looking into that scenario as more favorable than the risks of the Mets prospects? Isn��t a package headed by Jacoby Ellsbury, with Jed Lowrie, Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden to boot, much, MUCH more enticing?

Maybe I��m undervaluing the Mets prospects and overvaluing the Red Sox prospects. Still, I can��t help but feel the Mets did phenomenally in this trade and the Twins could have received a ton more for the future of their team.

So could it be that Theo let the Mets be the only horse left in the race, and with Johan demanding a deal by the end of the week, the Twins had no choice but to deal him to New York? Once the team from the Bronx was officially out of the hunt, were the Queens boys the only ones left standing? It seems to me the Twins could have had a much better deal consummated if they had pulled the trigger in December.

What does this mean for the Sox? For one, we keep our farm system. Jon Lester remains, likely filling out a very capable rotation, and still has the prime ability to mold into a #2 or #3 starter under the tutelage of John Farrell. The sparkplug centerfield heartthrob, one whose future is likely going to feature a few All-Star appearances, Jacoby Ellsbury, is now the centerfielder of the future. Coco Crisp will now likely be traded before spring training.

As for the guys who we haven��t seen in Fenway quite yet: Jed Lowrie remains a backup option in case the Julio Lugo experiment continues to rear its ugly head and could end up being a Dustin Pedroia clone, Justin Masterson may make a 2008 contribution out of the bullpen and, if he continues to improve, can be a #3 or #4 for the Red Sox, and Michael Bowden will get more furnishing at the minor league level.

The Mets undoubtedly entrenched their team into the thick of the NL race with this move, even as the favorite in some eyes. Their rotation of Santana, Martinez, Perez, Maine and Hernandez with Pelfrey as insurance surely looks formidable. Will Johan perform under the pressure of New York, and will his slight 2007 decline prove an anomaly or a sign of things to come? We will see how it plays out.

Either the Twins made a huge blunder accepting the Mets deal over Boston��s, or Theo was truly never in the race until the end after all.

Categories: Johan Santana

PREVIOUS: The long and short of it: Jon Lester and Jacoby Ellsbury

NEXT: Santana Aftermath: Red Sox and Yankees debate their fate

Discussion

71 Comments on "Santana to the Mets"

Posted by Jaredk, January 29, 2008 4:32 PM

Sweet...now lets get some bench players.

Anyone here wonder if the Twins should have waited to July? The consensus is that he has more value now which would seem to be true but you basically had one team bidding against themselves. If they waited until July and packaged him along with UFA Nathan (who is not likely to be resigned)....that is arguably the best pitcher and closer in baseball. If you have 8-10 teams in the race and that package is floating out there and you are thinking a team you might need to go through is in the mix... and the team that gets them will get four first round picks if they do not resign....for instance, the Angels have a very good rotation but no true #1 and imagine if Nathan was paired with Franky Rodriguez...I wonder if the Twins could have got Wood/Adenhart/Sean Rodriguez for him. Fixes the left-side of the infield and gives them a #2...the Angels get the best pitcher/closer in baseball and four first round picks when they leave. Dodgers...Laroche/Hu/Elbert/Meloan or something along those lines. I guarantee if the Twins were out of it at the deadline Santana would rather spend his last few months of the season playing for a world series and would not hold up a trade.

Anyways a coup for the Mets if it is really just Gomez/Guerra/Mulvey/Humber

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 4:40 PM

Dammit. Masterson better pan out, because it was essentially going to be a future 4th starter in Lester, Masterson, our fourth outfielder and a middle infielder we'll never get to use for Santana, and a guarantee of repeating as world champs.

Can't believe the Twins took that offer, since even with the paucity of our offer, it's gotta be better than theirs. Still regret not giving up Ellsbury, since now we flip our 8 WARP fourth outfielder for a 1 WARP backup, with Theo once again losing on a deal. Hooray.

Posted by Zach Hayes, January 29, 2008 5:04 PM

This is all assuming they get an extension completed.

Posted by Sam, January 29, 2008 5:09 PM

Dissappointing ... but terribly so... you're right Sean O Johan was easily worth more than we were offering ... But think of it this way ... the ridiculously huge chunk of change we wouldve had to drop on Santana can now be used to bring in a big bat next year ... I dunno ... IMO we played it right but Ive still got a mixed response to this

But as excited as I am to finally hear a possible end to this Hot Stove nightmare ... I'm gonna try and wait and see until this seriously goes down ... Ive learned my lesson when it comes to analyzing anything Johan related lol

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 5:16 PM

But Sam, we're not going to bring in a big bat, because we prefer signing crap like Drew and Lowell for more than they're worth. I really want to know if the twins were stuck with only this pathetic offer, or if the Wonderboy dropped our offer so we can keep our crappy prospects. Fourth outfielder we're going to trade for a backup C, fourth starter, future reliever and an infielder we can't use. bra-vo.

Posted by Dave B., January 29, 2008 5:26 PM

I am so happy right now. The Mets can have fun paying a pitcher 20M a year for 6 years. Good luck with that one.

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 5:29 PM

Why are people happy about this? We weren't giving up anything. We could've had Santana for Juan Pierre and a #4 starter in jacoby and lester, and instead we have, well, nothing. We weren't giving up anything of value to us, at all.

Posted by Sam, January 29, 2008 5:39 PM

I agree with you on the fact Santana was worth alot more then the package we offered (I value the package a little more of course) ... but that is alot of money to put into one player ... a pitcher at that ... that is what made me a little nervous about the whole thing from the begginning ... but now that things have played out IMO we worked it brilliantly...

Theo kept Santana away from our rivals by just barely topping their original offer ... we gave off the impression that we genuinely wanted Santana and forced them to up their offer to a point where they were no longer comfortable ... leading them to basically drop out over time (and look like fools while doing it)

Then we stood alone for a looooong time basically with an offer we were comfortable with ... but when the Mets, who we could care less about competing with, came in we pretty much just allowed them to grab him off our plate

I dont know if Theo ever really wanted to pay that much for Santana but he gave off the impression he was ready to and he gave us a chance for a while to bring him in ... while it didnt work out we did keep him away from the Yankees and still kept our young guys and our money, giving us flexibilty to work the next couple offseasons with freedom ... I think we played it right

tho it sure wouldve been nice to have a Beckett/Santana thing ... its tough as a fan to let this go ... but I think its for the best

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 29, 2008 5:39 PM

Sean:

Jacoby isn't Juan Pierre. He'll be better, at least in the OBP department, and he has a much better arm.

I can't say I'm happy about this, but I'm not too upset. I still think Theo will make a significant trade before all is said and done, something that hasn't been rumored yet.

Honestly, I can't see us heading into Spring Training with Coco on the roster. I think he'll be traded, and we'll get at least one more bench player and hopefully a left-handed reliever.

If there's a bright side to this right now, it's that Theo's no longer handcuffed. Either way, I must say that he played this quite well.

#10

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 5:45 PM

Right, we're going to trade Coco for nothing, because nobody else values him like they should. Meanwhile people think Jacoby will be something more than overrated, when he'll actually be a .300 hitter with zero power. Which of these should we trade?

Should've given up Ellsbury and Lester. I officially change my earlier position; we should've done it in november.

#11

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 29, 2008 5:54 PM

If the Twins would've traded him to us for Ellsbury and Lester, 2-for-1, then I might've done that. But if it had to be 3- or 4-for-1 even with both Jacoby and Lester, then I would've let the Mets have him.

Just for the record, if the Brewers don't extend him, I want Ben Sheets next offseason (I doubt Hanky will be out-bid for Sabathia, if he hits the market).

Oh, and Sean, would you really have been content with...

1. Pedroia

2. Youkilis

3. Papi

4. Manny

5. Drew

6. Lowell

7. Varitek

8. Crisp

9. Lugo

...next year, even with Santana-Beckett-Schilling-Buchholz-Wakefield?

#12

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 29, 2008 5:55 PM

er, that should've said Santana-Beckett-DiceK-Buchholz/Wakefield-Schilling

#13

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 5:57 PM

Yes DR. Instead, we have:

1). Juan Pierre

2). Dustin

3). Ortiz

4). Aging Manny Ramirez

5). My least favorite player

6). One Grand Slam

7). Youkilis

8). catcher

9). Wifebeater

and some ** prospects. World Series, here we come!

#14

Posted by Sam, January 29, 2008 6:18 PM

I can understand your frustration SeanO ... I'm assuming it arizes from the fact we haven't seemed to improve our team much this offseason ... I would agree with you on that point as we are looking to enter next season with almost an identicle team which is rarely a good thing

But I can't say we didn't play the Santana situation right ... dissapointing for us as fans for sure ... but look on the bright side (yes I know who I'm talking to lol) our team just won the World Series in a season where several of our players underachieved all year ... plus we have some exciting young kids coming up who should contribute to the major league ballclub ... I think I'm safe in saying we have strong reason to believe our team will be even better this season and should go on to repeat as AL East champs (also remember our competition hasn't necessarily improved either)

of course if that's too optimistic for ya I understand ... it is for me too really lol ... I didnt even bring up injuries or the possibility that some of these aging players could decline alot ... but still this is a good team ... and missing out Santana is not the end of the world ... we're good enough to make the playoffs ... after that nobody knows

#15

Posted by JaredK, January 29, 2008 6:19 PM

Well, Ellsbury is better then Coco...I would have not minded that Lester/Lowrie/Masterson package but not broken up about it either way...we have a ton of pitching depth and now we still have Lowrie in case Lugo repeats 2007 (I think he may be marginally better but not good) and we have Masterson to slide into the pen in August if needed. Bucholz can start the season in Pawtucket and get his limited inning performances out of the way without taxing the pen and come up and replace Wake or whoever gets injured by late May. Trade Coco for a corner outfield prospect with some pop or say screw it and let him battle it out with Ellsbury and not move him until we have to.

#16

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 6:30 PM

I just don't see Ellsbury or Lester's upside. Ellsbury might peak to a .320/.380/.450 player, or an .830 OPS. That's it? Lester, maybe 4.3 ERA, 195 IP. And for this, we lost out on the best pitcher in baseball? Does anyone honest to god think Ellsbury will be an impact, .320/.400/.500 player, or Lester will have a string of sub-4 ERA years? We are genuinely looking at a total upside of maybe a few of Lofton's years, and a LAIMer.

#17

Posted by Gerry, January 29, 2008 8:13 PM

Sean, I just have to respond. The point is that Lester and Ellsbury have ALREADY made major impacts, at the end of last year's run, and right to the last game of the WS. For that, IMO, they deserve respect, and anticipation of more of the same. Their rookie #'s exceed their already good MiLB #'s, so which is the correct trend?

Wait 'till next year? The following "What If" scenario is reasonable. What if Lester wins 15 in 2008 as a 24 year old sophomore; and Ellsbury declines to .310./.380/.450 (comparable to Youk, Dustin and Manny last year) plus 35SB, as a 24 year old Rookie; and Santana wins 20 games in NY. We win that one. Add the possibility of Lowrie rescuing the SS position with similar #'s, or even doing an Ellsbury in September; and Masterson if we need him; and enough money and new MiLB trading chips to fill holes as they appear, and we would win big.

The likelihood is that most of the "What If" will happen; though in the NL, look for Johann to win 22 - 23 for a couple of years. Red State, Blue State. Wish we could agree. What a great game.

#18

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 29, 2008 10:01 PM

Sean:

Keep in mind that we would've lost the prospects AND $140 million that could be used next season to find a replacement for Manny and maybe even a stud starter. Santana might make a little more sense than Ellsbury and Lester right now, but what if the Sox use the saved money to ink, say, Ben Sheets next offseason?

I'd take Sheets, Ellsbury, Lester, and some leftover dough over seven years of Santana, who might decline midway through the deal, for $20 million per.

#19

Posted by Dave B., January 29, 2008 10:23 PM

It is simple why i am happy? He is going to cost WAY TOO MUCH. I wouldn't want to Sox to sign him as a FA. He has already turned down a 5/100M type deal. To sign ANY pitcher to more than 4 year is awful business. No matter who we would have given up i wouldn't have wanted him and a lot of great minds agree with this idea. No one please give the arguement that the Red Sox have the money. The Sox do not want to spend much more than 150M and they are already at that point. Their are a ton of other economic reasons why they can't afford a 6/140M contract from a pitcher but i'm too tired to list them. This is a GREAT day for the Sox. In three years EVERYONE will agree.

#20

Posted by Dave B., January 29, 2008 10:28 PM

LOL, .320/.380/.450? That is a bad thing? If he put up that he could be an 8-9 win player considering he is a stud on the base paths and defensively. I'm sorry, i am not a big Ellsbury fan but serious? Those numbers are great? Those are Grady Sizemore type numbers. Those are Ichiro type numbers. Hell, if he could put up Crisp numbers he is a 6 win player. What is better over the next 3 years, a 10 win type pitcher cost 60m+ or a 6 win type CF costing about 1.5M?

#21

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 10:54 PM

.320/.380/.450 is Grady Sizemore-type numbers? Sizemore is more like .285/.385/.500, while Ellsbury is Juan Pierre.

To everyone who is saying we can now spend this money on a hitter: we aren't going to do that, because Theo doesn't care about that. He only cares about getting mediocre players like Lowell instead of players who can actually make a difference. If Teixeira is on the market, we're not going to bother.

When are people going to realize that Theo is a wretched GM? We could've had the best pitcher in baseball for Juan Pierre and a fourth starter who will never have a sub 4.5 ERA, but now the ownership group gets to pocket te $20m they would've given to Santana, or even worse, make another idiotic personnel move.

He's 29 and the best pitcher in baseball. And we didn't want him. Now we have one power source in the lineup, one good starter (who will be out for at least a month with blister problems), 2 40+ pitchers, an underachieving import, and a lefty with a 5 ERA for our rotation. But it's ok, because we have some terrible prospects that we either can't use or will never develop into anything.

Can we please get any other GM, please?

#22

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 10:59 PM

And dave, I guarantee that after three straight sub-3 ERA seasons from Santana, while we collapse into abject mediocrity this season because of Theo's indifference, we will be wishing we had somebody who cared at the helm. January 29th, 2011, let's take a look at this.

#23

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 29, 2008 11:00 PM

Sean:

Are you suggesting we dump Theo and give the Yankees a massive "in your face" by bringing Cashman in next winter? :-)

I agree with you Dave...especially if we can lure Ben Sheets in next offseason (assuming the Brewers don't extend him).

#24

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 11:10 PM

Sure, I'd take Cashman instead, why not. He's done well when the Steinbrenners haven't Kevin Brown'd him, and he'd have to be better than the schmuck we have now.

#25

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 11:14 PM

Ok, help me out here, you don't want to pay $20m for Santana, who is good and healthy, but you will pay $15m (which is what Sheets will cost) for a guy who is constantly injured? I don't get it. Santana is a 100% sure thing, for 1 or 7 years, and we crapped it away.

our prospects aren't any good, and nobody seems worried. We have Buchholz, and nothing, and now we don't have as much major league value as we could've had. No good players make free agency any more, and we lost out on both cabrera and santana in this offseason.

How does this make any sense? Once the season starts, and ellsbury's hitting .275 without any power, and Lester goes back to sucking, we've lost our chance.

#26

Posted by Caroline, January 29, 2008 11:15 PM

Sean, I hesitate to make the totally obvious point, but the Sox have managed two world series championships under Theo's GMmership, plus two other playoff appearances. Once he stops bringing us shiny trophies every two-three years, that's when we'll stop thinking he actually might know how to do his job.

#27

Posted by Caroline, January 29, 2008 11:17 PM

Also, "Santana is a 100% sure thing, for 1 or 7 years, and we crapped it away."

Nobody is a 100 percent sure thing for seven years. I think you have a good argument, it might have been worth it to pull the trigger on this deal--but let's stay within the realm of the factual.

#28

Posted by Bob, January 29, 2008 11:28 PM

not that concerned. I wanted Santana, but I think Sean is overreacting as usual. Ellsbury may be a little overrated, but hell I'll take a .380 OBP from the leadoff spot any day, take him for what he is, a plus defender, a plus contact guy, and a plus plus baserunner. Not every spot in the order can be a power hitter and a .500+ slugging pct. is hardly necessary to be effective from the leadoff spot, what matter is OBP and Ellsbury has demonstrated the ability to get on base. As for Sox prospects being shit, I think it was Baseball America who rated the system 2nd best and I assume that they know what they're doing since it's basically all they do.

#29

Posted by Sean O, January 29, 2008 11:43 PM

Baseball America also overrates players like Ellsbury, who aren't actually valuable but seem to be. That .380 OBP is a mirage because of his empty batting average. If he has a single year where a few balls don't fall his way, we're looking at a .280/.330/.390 player. We have Buchholz, who I have all the faith in the world in, who provides most of our value. We can't use Lowrie because of Theo's Lugo mistake, and nobody knows what Bowden/Masterson will become.

Santana isn't a 100% sure thing, but of all the pitchers of the last 20 years, who would you rather take for a long term deal? At 29, Randy Johnson had been very good, but not for as long or as much as Santana. Pedro was an injury risk waiting to happen. So, Clemens I guess.

Santana did not wear out his arm during the injury nexus years, and is a fastballl changeup guy instead of a hard curve or slider guy. He has dominated the league ever since Pedro become human again. And, I reiterate, we could have replaced him while losing nothing on the major league club, spending money we'll just waste on substandard talent, and prevent throwing Coco away for 20 cents on the dollar as theo will do.

we're not getting teixeira, or harden, or street, or sheets, nor should we. There is no Pujols or Howard or Cabrera becoming available. Peavy, Fielder, Mauer and Holliday aren't making free agency. The best case scenario is spending the exact same on CC a year for now, so we can get a 300 lb fatass for a 5/130 deal. thanks wonderboy.

#30

Posted by Sam, January 29, 2008 11:47 PM

the more I think about this ... the happier I am I'm not a Twins fan ... Pohlad is destroying this team from the top and Bill Smith just proved he is no Terry Ryan

The Mets on the other hand got what they wanted ... a chance to forget last season's collapse ... Omar gets to keep his job and things look good for the other half of NY baseball ... I thought in the beginning that the Mets were the most likely team to go get Johan because they were the most desperate ... I figured the Mets would crack sooner or later and offer everyone they had ... but in the end they made the deal without giving up their tops chips ... amazing is an understatement IMO ... all in all a good day for Mets fans

We'll see what they think when the Mets are forced to sign Santana to whatever lucrative record contract that he demands to finish this deal off

I guess on our side of it I land somewhere in the middle of Dave B and Sean O's opinions ... I can't say I'm glad we let him go ... but I do think we played it right ... we gave ourselves a chance and it would've been nice to get him but I can live with the money and the young kids ... and of course the knowledge we kept him out of pinstripes

Now let's just get on to Spring Training already

#31

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 12:32 AM

Wait, so I'm a pink hat because I actually look at the numbers instead of foolishly assuming that a bad baseball player like Lowell will continue hitting 50 points over his career BABIP? I'd say sticking with popular crappy players is pretty pink hat.

Anyone who thinks standing pat will win us another world series is a fool, plain and simple. Beckett is due for a lengthy injury, 40% of our starting rotation is old, Buchholz is unproven, Lester sucks, and Matsuzaka may just be a LAIMer. Okajima won't repeat his magic act, ala, Mr. Zero a few years back, and there is no guarantee that Ramirez, Drew or Lugo get any better.

What if the Yankees don't flop for half a year, where are we then? What about the fact that our wonderful GM has no interest in obtaining any power, but would rather have a bunch of singles hitters in Youk, Pedroia and Ellsbury? What about not having any catchers next year?

Standing pat is not a solution, whether your team won 76 or 116 games. We have serious, long-term issues that Jon Lester, Justin Masterson and Jacoby Ellsbury can do nothing to solve. When you have a large budget and limited spaces like we do, you need to maximize the talent for each. Right now, we have mediocrity at a surprising number of positions, and no long term solutions for countless different parts.

We have depth, it is true, but mediocre depth isn't going to help much.

#32

Posted by Dave B., January 30, 2008 12:48 AM

Beckett is going to get hurt? Wow, if I had known that i would have been for the trade. Like, what do you base that off? His blister problems are a thing of the past. He has pretty good mechanics. I see no reason that he would get hurt.

Buchholz is unproven? OK, well so is Hughes, Joba, and Kennedy. So what makes our young pitcher a problem. The Yanks have 3 in the rotation. We have a our stud as the 6th starter.

Schilling and Wake are old? Well, we have Buchholz, Tavarez and Pauley waiting in the wings. While Tavarez and Pauley aren't extemely excting, they would be fine #5 or #6 pitchers, for us they are #7 and #8. Not to mention Bowden and Masterson are not too far off. Also, what is Petitite not old?

Yes, we stood pat but so did the Yanks. We had a better team than them last year, why would this year be different? They are older and have just as much question marks (probably more). The goal of a GM is to make the playoffs and this team is a playoff team. Hell, they are the WS favorites in Vegas.

By no trading for Santana we were able to keep our assets. Now we can flip those same assets for something we need, hitting. I would much rather us trade for a Salty or hell Hanley will probably be on the block in another year. We didn't need more starting pitching.

This matter is simple ecomomics. In 3 year, we would probably have 1/3 - 1/4 of our payroll locked up in two starting pitchers, (Beckett/Santana). No team and afford to have that much money invested in high risk players.

Think about it this way? Can Lester, Crisp, Masterson, and Lowrie combine to be an 11 win player? Well Crisp is a 5 win player so can the other three manage 6 wins? Probably, but for arguements sack it doesn't even matter, The 4 of those players would cost about 20M well than Santana. It would have been bad business, that simple.

#33

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 30, 2008 1:13 AM

Sean:

Yes, I would pay $15 million per year over four-ish years for Sheets (or a similar starter) because that way we keep Ellsbury, who is cost-controlled for several more years and don't have to pay a ton for a CFer and leadoff man. We also keep Lester, who is cheap for a few years as well. We also have Lowrie as insurance for "Wifebeater" and a couple of pitching prospects (Masterson, Bowden) in a system that otherwise would've been absolutely bare at the upper levels.

If we could have gotten Santana for 7/140 in the open market without giving up prospects, I'd be all for it. But not when we'd have to give up four players who could be quality contributors on the cheap for the next five years and then have to binge-spend to fill those spots.

Maybe Sheets isn't the best option. But at least it'll easier for the Sox to go after an Adam Dunn-type next winter because they saved $20M/year by not acquiring Santana.

#34

Posted by Jaredk, January 30, 2008 8:42 AM

I like our prospects, if Lugo sucks as bad as last year he can ride the bench and you play Lowrie. Masterson could be a very good reliever or a good # 3...Lars Anderson, Ryan Kalish, Josh Reddick, Anthony Rizzo, Oscar Tejeda, Michael Almanzar, Lin, David Mailman...all lower level guys but in 2-3 years we should have an idea of what we have with these guys. Bottom line is we just won a world series and should be in good shape to win the East in 2008 and people should stop being whiny/greedy little bitches and stop thinking about 2009/2010...there will be opportunities to improve the team and add players and dump players between now and then.

#35

Posted by Shane, January 30, 2008 9:20 AM

How is a proposed Ellsbury line of .320/.380/.450 comparable to Juan Pierre's career .301/.348 /.374?

I'm glad they didn't trade for Santana. The cost would be absurd for an extension. The Sox will do fine this season. I will eat my hat if Manny doesn't come back, and will be surprised if Drew and Lugo don't do better than last year.

And I'd wait until the end of this year to say Lester will be a #4 pitcher. He's walked a lot of people in the bigs, so I am worried, but it is not like he's gotten to play a full season. There is no reason to think he won't still live up to potential.

#36

Posted by jay, January 30, 2008 10:31 AM

does anyone think theo was more interested in dan haren then johan? while i'm grateful he did, i think ellsbury played way above his line in the last two months and will come back to earth. i know we want balance, but when did we need speed?

#37

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 30, 2008 10:36 AM

jay:

http://mvn.com/mlb-source/2007/12/01/is-epstein-using-johan-to-get-haren/

I had that feeling for awhile. I'm still not convinced that Theo was actually "in it to win it" on either of them.

#38

Posted by Joe, January 30, 2008 10:43 AM

"1). Juan Pierre

2). Dustin

3). Ortiz

4). Aging Manny Ramirez

5). My least favorite player

6). One Grand Slam

7). Youkilis

8). catcher

9). Wifebeater

and some ** prospects. World Series, here we come!"

You're right Sean O, World Series here we come, because that's basically the lineup that won it last year. God you cry more than anyone I've ever seen. I can't get over a "Red Sox Fan" who considers the World Series MVP his least favorite player ever. Buy yourself a pink hat.

#39

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 1:12 PM

It is never bad business to get the best pitcher in baseball. We were talking the difference between a 4.8 ERA Lester and a 3.5 (at worst) ERA in Santana. That is a gigantic difference. In turn, we would be stuck with a 6 win player in Ellsbury (who, luckily, will reach free agency before he totally craps out at age 30), instead of our 8 win player in Crisp who we otherwise can't get any value for.

In short, we have settled for more mediocrity. You say Salty and Hanley, but what makes you think we have any interest in these players? Theo has shown he doesn't care about getting stars, but would rather get mediocrity like Drew and Lowell that don't help us.

Bottom line: players like Santana and Cabrera rarely become available, and we decided we didn't want players that would help us long term. All of the best young players don't reach free agency, so you need to act while you can. What's theo going for here, CC next year? Does anyone on earth want fatass for 5 years or more?

#40

Posted by Me, January 30, 2008 2:05 PM

Yeah, that Lowell guy stink [rolls eyes]

#41

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 30, 2008 2:09 PM

KNBR in San Fran reports that "the Red Sox took both Jacoby Ellsbury and Jon Lester off the table when asked to submit a final offer for Santana, instead building a package around Coco Crisp and Justin Masterson.

I wonder if this means Theo never really wanted him in the first place...

#42

Posted by Dave B., January 30, 2008 2:20 PM

What are you talking about? Theo has brought in tons of "stars." Drew and Dice-K were top 4 FAs last year. He made the trade to bring in Beckett and Schilling. While Gagne did stink, he was the cream of the crop at the trade deadline. Yes, people haven't always panned out but to say Theo isn't trying to bring is stars is literally the dumbest thing i have ever heard of this site. He tries way to hard to bring in stars. That is his biggest problem. Seriously dude, what are you even getting at. You didn't like the Lowell signing, fine, but not trading for Santana was completely understandable. You really think you are smarter than the guys in both the Yanks and Sox FOs? I really hate naming calling but all this has gone way to far. You sound like a little girl whinning when their parents didn't get her a pony. You can't alwasy get the damn pony. Some times it is better just to take the barbie and shut up. You'll probably have more fun with the Barbie anyways.

#43

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Lowell isn't a star, and Drew isn't even close to a star. Saying he's a top 4 FA goes to show how bad the FA class is. We routinely go for the middling types (renteria, drew, lugo, lowell, hell even Damon) rather than those who will provide upper-echelon value. Beckett was the closest thing to a true star we got, and even that involved our top prospect.

We don't go for the superstars when they are available, but settle for Drew and Lowell, both of whom cost a ton and don't produce. It's frustrating, while never solving our problems.

#44

Posted by Shane, January 30, 2008 2:50 PM

But what "stars" (besides Cabrera and Santana) were available the past few years?

#45

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 3:39 PM

Cabrera, Santana, Teixeira (hell, even Salty all things considered), Haren, Bedard, just to name off the top of my head from the last year.

Also, a few other points:-

- I said that Ellsbury's absolute potential peak is that of the .320/..whatever line. More likely, I see him as Juan Pierre, with a sub -.400 SLG.

- Tavarez will not be on our team, unless they want a pissed off Sexy Lips. I wouldn't want to deal with a pissed off Tavarez.

- Beckett has a history of shoulder problems (remember Mota?), and I don't see how the blister problem is miraculously solved. How often do you hear of the Mother's Day issue happening with other players?

As long as we have 2 of the top 5 relievers in the AL, and Beckett hits 200 IPs of less than 3.5 ERA, and nobody else regresses, we have as good of a team as last year. But, the Indians and especially the Tigers are dramatically improved, and the Yankees essentially replaced Mike Mussina with Joba the Hut or Kennedy.

The WC will not be as easy as it would've been last year.

#46

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 30, 2008 4:58 PM

Sean:

Agreed, but the Yankees are also facing regressions from Posada and A-Rod, and have three inexperienced starters likely to see their first extended stints in a ML rotation. Toss in a bullpen whose top setup man is Kyle Farnsworth and whose closer might be over the hill, and the Yanks aren't exactly looking golden either.

Also: how, exactly, are the Indians "dramatically improved"? They're a very solid team, but it's not like they made any significant additions this offseason. The only improvement I see is an expected rebound from Pronk and maybe a marginal boost to the bullpen from adding Kobayashi.

If Drew's rebound comes close to equaling Lowell's regression, Ellsbury replacing Coco should give us equal offense to what we had last year even without an uptick from Wifebeater (who is replaceable with Lowrie, who by the way wouldn't be here if we had traded for Santana).

I'm probably one of the most pessimistic people on this site (I honestly thought the Sox would lose Game 7 of the ALCS when they had a huge lead heading into the 9th), but I'm pretty sure eight out of ten impartial people you ask will tell you that, barring major changes before the start of the season, this is the Sox's division in '08.

#47

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 5:04 PM

1). There is no way on god's green earth that Lowrie sees extensive time this year at short, regardless of Lugo's status. Cora would see 300 ABs before Lowrie does.

2). Indians are young at almost every position, and so Sizemore, Garko and Gutierrez will all be improved. Add the Indians taking the Sox to a 7 game ALCS with Hafner not being Hafner all year, and that's rough.

3). What Drew rebound? we simply cannot count on Drew and Ramirez rebounding, because if they don't, we are in deep trouble. You must always approach from a worst-case scenario, or else you realize you're screwed mid way.

We can't forget that Lowell, regardless of your thoughts on him, will hit his trademarked 2nd half collapse. Youkilis most likely will as well, if history is any indication. What do we do for offense then?

#48

Posted by Jaredk, January 30, 2008 5:28 PM

"What Drew rebound? we simply cannot count on Drew and Ramirez rebounding, because if they don��t, we are in deep trouble."

But we can count on Lowell's dramatic regression, Beckett hurting his shoulder, Youk hitting the wall...we can count on Lester having a 4.8 era, etc, etc.

#49

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 5:49 PM

1). Lowell hit 50 points over his BABIP, why shouldn't we count on a regression to the mean, or worse?

2). Beckett has had blister problems every year, so why would this year be any different? Hopefully he doesn't have any shoulder issues, but there was at least some (if insignificant) cause of worry for the Sox in '05.

3). Youk has hit the wall in both of his seasons so far, and is past his age-27.

4). Do you honestly believe Lester will dramatically improve past a 4.8 ERA when he walks everybody in sight?

You plan for the worst case, so you have backup options. When you hope that your team will produce like it did before, you have the scattered remains of plenty post-WS champs teams that finish third.

Here's a hypothetical: what the hell do we do if Ortiz's giant frame breaks down for even a month this year? What if our August (post ASB performances from Lowell and Youk included) lineup has Drew as our #3 hitter? Unless our pitching staff can have a 3 ERA month, we would be in deep trouble.

We have 0, and I mean 0, power outside of Ortiz and a rapidly aging Ramirez. And, instead of Santana to balance that risk out, we have Lester, and Masterson/Lowrie who provide us with no value, along with the .25 on the dollar return on Coco. This worries me.

#50

Posted by Dave B., January 30, 2008 5:59 PM

What are you even talking about at this point? I'm sorry Sean, i generally like you input but this is insane. You are just listing of 50 different "what if's". What if Santana got hurt in his early 30's like a ton of pitchers do? What if Cabrera kept eating and becomes Mo Vaughn not Albert Pujols.

You are talking about planning for the worst but you are doing the exact opposite. The way you plan for the worse is minimizing risk by spreading it out. If Papi goes down, we have the assets to acquire a Teixiera. If Beckett goes down we can bring up the best pitching prospect in baseball.

Oh wait, Theo doesn't like stars. I'm sorry man that is soooooooo dumb.You listed 5 stars. How many of those guys went to the Yankees? Indians? Angels? Those were the AL playoff teams weren't they? Hell, who did the Yanks, Halos, or Indians bring in last year? Nixon? Betemit? GMJ? Wow their GMs suck. Our GM sucks. I wish Omar was our GM.

I can't talk about this anymore. Not many things are beneath me but this is. I don't like a lot of what Theo does but this is literally the dumbest conversation i've had in years.

#51

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 6:09 PM

Dave, because we disagree doesn't mean you have to become condescending. I think Theo's moves are stupid, and I provide reasoning for it. You don't have to act like a jackass towards me, cool?

You don't minimize risk by spreading it out between mediocrity. if Ortiz goes down, he gets replaced by who, Chris Carter? We become a .500 team at that point. We have no backup when it comes to power, at all. And I am at least realistic in my what-ifs, as opposed to everyone else around here who thinks Lowell is a .900 OPS player instead of the .780 that he is in his career.

And we don't have the prospects to acquire someone like teixeira, because how often does someone like that become available? Players are open for either trade or FA far less frequently than a half decade ago, and so you need to strike while you can. Add this to the fact that Lester and Ellsbury's value will never, ever, ever be higher than they are right now, since Ellsbury had something like a .380 BABIP with much more power than he's ever shown, and Lester is the feel-good story of the decade who won a clinching game 4.

1). players don't become available very often. 2). impact players don't become available for the pathetic price the mets accepted. 3). our prospects are highly overvalued because of their past history (ellsbury has no power, for example, but slugged over .500 in MLB this year). 4). the people we are likely to trade (ala Coco) are undervalued. 5). our depth is mediocre (Cora, Moss) or unusable (Lowrie).

All of this, to me, means that we're not doing what we should. We're not trading for undervalued assets, we're holding onto overvalued assets while there are very clear indicators per past history that we could be in trouble.

#52

Posted by Devine, January 30, 2008 6:23 PM

Ah, whatever. I'm just gonna watch the damn games.

#53

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 30, 2008 6:32 PM

Sean:

If Papi gets hurt, we make a midseason deal for Adam Dunn if the Reds are looking to deal or maybe Juan Rivera if he's available.

I still think there's a significant trade coming before Spring Training, something we're not expecting.

#54

Posted by tom, January 30, 2008 7:21 PM

sean o

seriously you must me a smuck who has never played this sport or

any other sport in your life. you are rambling way to much and have too much time on your hands

as for theo, he is a smuck, but wait he brought us 2 rings

as for the crappy players, wait they were the ones that just brought us our 2nd ring.

regardless of what you think is best, its a good situation for the redsox that we dont have santana, if you want to put up an allstar team then go join the yanks, if you want a championship ring than shut up and let theo do what is best for us now and tomorrow. everyone is correct in saying that you never sign a pitcher to that kind of money. so quit your rambling and get a job

#55

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 7:41 PM

//sean o[sic]

seriously you must me [sic] a smuck [sic] who has never played this sport or

any other sport in your life. you are rambling way to [sic] much and have too much time on your hands [sic]

as for theo, he is a smuck, [sic] but wait he brought us 2 rings [sic]

as for the crappy players, wait they were the ones that just brought us our 2nd ring.

regardless of what you think is best, its [sic] a good situation for the redsox [sic] that we dont [sic] have santana, if you want to put up an allstar [sic] team then go join the yanks, if you want a championship ring than shut up and let theo do what is best for us now and tomorrow. everyone is correct in saying that you never sign a pitcher to that kind of money. so quit your rambling and get a job [sic]

If anyone who doesn't have the typing ability of a 3rd grader wants to make a point, I'll be happy to respond.

#56

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 7:55 PM

DR-

About a potential Dunn trade. First, in the weak NL central, the reds could be right in the thick of things all year. They're not a good team, but the division is horrible. One of my overarching points is that we cannot just assume that exactly the part we need will become available when we need it. Even if it does, do we honestly believe it will be for the trade price we could have used for Santana?

What are we going to spend the money on instead? CC? Do we really think Teix is hitting free agency, since the Braves gave up their uber-#1 prospect for him? I like Dunn, but he'll be $16-$18m a year, for one of the worst fielders in baseball with a .248 .381 .519 line in a hitter's park in the NL Central.

#57

Posted by Mostly Running., January 30, 2008 9:01 PM

I read this site for intelligent fan analysis and though I often disagree with him, Sean O contributes a hell of a lot more than "I hate him, he sucks." Reading his contributions has made me a lot more aware of the stats that I used to interpret by watching or listening to every single game.

Personally, I'm glad that we didn't get Johnan, but three years from now I will likely be kicking myself. If I lived in New England still I couldn't care less about these Ellsbury and Lester kids. Being in the Northwest, it's cool to have some "home grown talent" to root for with my buds at the bar.

I've taken some of the things SO says personally in the past, but seriously back off the schmuck comments. Dude knows what he's talking about, even if you disagree.

#58

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 9:03 PM

Thanks MR. Bottom line, I have some serious concerns over the long term direction, and success or not, I have to question their actions. At least somebody has to, right?

#59

Posted by Mostly Running., January 30, 2008 9:14 PM

Precisely.

#60

Posted by Bob, January 30, 2008 9:56 PM

Beckett's blister problem has been linked to a skin problem, ecsema, which is easily treated. I dealt with ecsema as a teenager so I know exactly how easy it is to correct, considering the Red Sox have a staff full of doctors and Beckett's commitment to pitching I don't see it as a problem. As for the shoulder issues, could it be that they developed from overcompensating of blisters, I know that when I played sports whether baseball, or swimming, or basketball, if something wasn't right I'd tend to do things differently to get by even though the technique wasn't necessarily correct.

I actually think that Cleveland has gotten weaker since last season, of course I actually thought that the Tigers were a better team than them last season, but just didn't get it done. With the improvements that Detroit has made I think it could be possible that Cleveland doesn't make the playoffs. As for the Yankees, they had a terrible 1st half, but they also had a beyond unbelievable 2nd half. In the end they finished with a record that I believe was indicative of the type of team they were. They're the same team next year essentially, except Posada will regress terribly, Mo looks over the hill, and A-rod will not be as good as last year.

For the record I wanted Johan, but the Red Sox have the deepest most-talented pitching staff in the league going in to next year and I still think we're contenders. The truth is that things will happen over a 162-game season, but it's unlikely that everything on Sean O's list will happen. This organization has proven that it is committed to winning, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, hell they've been the most successful franchise of the last decade, think about that, the Boston Red Sox and successful in the same sentence.

#61

Posted by Sean O, January 30, 2008 10:33 PM

I definitely don't expect everything on my list of bad stuff that could happen to actually happen, but unfortunately, you have to plan that way. 2006 was the perfect example that the worst thing can actually happen, as unlikely as it would seem.

For the near future, we know that we're facing a pretty imminent lack of power. To remedy this, what are our logical options? it seems like Teixeira is our #1 hope, especially since (theoretically) we will look to spend the $20m a year we would've spent on the best pitcher in baseball. If not, we either have to hope that a slugging player becomes available for trade, or we're going into the next few years without a lot of other options.

I wanted Cabrera, because that would have solved this mess. I don't see any way that he wouldn't take care of himself with these teammates and with this media attention. When this fell through with the Lowell signing, Santana would at least provide an unbelievable level of insurance, and one of the best 1/2 combinations for a 5 or 7 game series in baseball history.

I just don't understand what we're doing here. Either the front office honestly believes that Ellsbury is a 10 win a year star, Drew and Manny will bounce back, Lugo has something good to offer, and Lester will be a #2, or they're genuinely not concerned with helping the club. I just don't see a plan here, one that will benefit the club for years.

#62

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 30, 2008 11:56 PM

According to KNBR, "the Red Sox have recently shown interest in the A's Dan Johnson, while the A's have not completely cooled on Coco Crisp, despite having in-house options to play center-field."

They don't think anything is currently close, but do think that a deal is definitely still possible.

#63

Posted by Sean O, January 31, 2008 12:23 AM

Dan Johnson for Coco Crisp, I'm gonna assume for my own well being that's not going to happen, at least not one-for-one. If it is one for one....

#64

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 31, 2008 2:05 AM

I'm not extremely high on Johnson either, especially b/c I think we could accomplish the same thing by just signing Sean Casey (maybe sans some power).

That said, I want us to trade Coco because I think Kielty can be an immensely valuable bench bat against lefties if Drew struggles again.

#65

Posted by Sam, January 31, 2008 7:06 AM

MR is right on giving props to Sean O ... he dominates the boards here consistently and he always backs up what he says pretty well

While I disagree with his lack of optomism (and his at times inexplicable distrust of our GM) I agree with the way Sean O thinks alot of the time ... strive for the best but always prepare for the worst is a good philosophy ... just as long as you don't forget that as much as we like to analyze and scream what we think is wrong ... we're still just fans and our job is to cheer ... for every single one of the 25 ... even "wifebeater" and "your least favorite player"

aight that's enough of that stuff ... I'm getting dangerously close to team chemisty and the love of the game lol ... Im gonna be labeled as a sentamentalist who can't clearly analyze stuff cuz he loves all the players too much ... wutever ... I'm just trying to keep a balance ya know?

#66

Posted by Craig, January 31, 2008 9:13 AM

"I just don��t understand what we��re doing here. Either the front office honestly believes that Ellsbury is a 10 win a year star, Drew and Manny will bounce back, Lugo has something good to offer, and Lester will be a #2, or they��re genuinely not concerned with helping the club. I just don��t see a plan here, one that will benefit the club for years."

I think some of this has to do with the Front Office's (not necessarily Baseball Ops') desire to keep its fan base happy. Public relations are perceived to be pretty important over at Yawkey Way and let's face it - the majority of "fans" love Ellsbury, hold Lester in high regard for reasons that have little to do with talent and our enamored with Lowell. They don't see Ellsbury as a player with a good glove,nice wheels and the abililty to get on base, but who offers substandard OPS for the position he'll be playing. They don't see Lester for what he is - a #4 starter, #3 best case. They don't see Lowell for what he is - an aging third basemen who had a career year last year.

We should have pushed harder for Santana.

#67

Posted by Shane, January 31, 2008 9:49 AM

I know having Santana would help the pitching staff... But he wouldn't help us if Papi went down. We'd be down $20 mil a year that could be used to find more power.

#68

Posted by Jaredk, January 31, 2008 3:20 PM

What really sucks about the offense (I still believe we have a top 5 offense next year and a top 1-3 pitching staff) is imagine if we had come to terms with Pedro Alvarez and Matt Laporta when we drafted them? We would have a 3B and corner outfielder prospect (Laporta should be a DH, he sucks at 1b and of...another words would have been an option against picking up Manny's option) playing at a high level with outrageous power potential. I'm sure if the Sox upped their offers 300k - 400k we would be sitting pretty right now. Alvarez will go #1 or #2 in this years draft.

#69

Posted by Sean O, January 31, 2008 4:02 PM

Craig-

I agree with what you're saying, but that, to me, is an idiotic course of action. When you rely on the popular players instead of talent, you go from a WS in 05 like the Astros, to Biggio and Ausmus choking the team to death in '06/07.

Shane-

Obviously, the game is about run differential. Ortiz going down would lead to a total loss of power. Since we have no hope of getting any new sources of power, we would need a top-notch pitching staff. That's where Santana comes in.

#70

Posted by Shane, February 1, 2008 9:32 AM

Sean O,

I see how Santana would help solidify the pitching staff into a Juggernaut, but I'm more concerned about the following years. If we lost Papi, Santana would only be a band-aid on a very deep cut. Losing 6-2 is the same in the end as losing 2-1.

#71

Posted by Craig, February 2, 2008 6:54 AM

Absolutely agree Sean.

The FO needs to remain detached and should not allow the fan base to push it into bad personnel moves.

via RSS

Poll

Which former Red Sox would you most like to see on the team this year?(answers)

MVN: Most Valuable Network