Red Sox, Twins Discussing Deal for Santana

[IcyPatriot]

Sure Santana has won the Cy Young twice ... and sure he is a top of the line pitcher. In todays MLB true leadoff hitters are more rare than #1 pitchers.

Think about that for a minute ... take all the #1 pitchers in baseball ... add in the #2's that are #1 caliber and then compare that list to the leadoff hitters of all 32 teams.

Without doing the research my intuition tells me perhaps 1/2 of the pitchers are true #1's. Without doing the research my intuition tells me there are less than 5 elite leadoff hitters who can impact the batting order right through to the 5th or 6th hitter.

So why is Santana more valuable than Ellsbury?
In the playoffs ... perhaps but that's about it. Ellsbury can impact at least 20-30 games per year which is more wins than a tiring pitcher will get you.

Lester fine ... Masterson & Crisp fine ... 1 more player fine but no Ellsbury. He has top 10 player in the MLB potential.

 

[scout]

Sure Santana has won the Cy Young twice ... and sure he is a top of the line pitcher. In todays MLB true leadoff hitters are more rare than #1 pitchers.

Think about that for a minute ... take all the #1 pitchers in baseball ... add in the #2's that are #1 caliber and then compare that list to the leadoff hitters of all 32 teams.

Without doing the research my intuition tells me perhaps 1/2 of the pitchers are true #1's. Without doing the research my intuition tells me there are less than 5 elite leadoff hitters who can impact the batting order right through to the 5th or 6th hitter.

So why is Santana more valuable than Ellsbury?
In the playoffs ... perhaps but that's about it. Ellsbury can impact at least 20-30 games per year which is more wins than a tiring pitcher will get you.

Lester fine ... Masterson & Crisp fine ... 1 more player fine but no Ellsbury. He has top 10 player in the MLB potential.

I always thought the rule of thumb, was that an everyday player was worth more then a pitcher. Ad into the equation, an everyday player who (crystal ball) can reek havoc on an opposing team.

 

[Foley]

Lester fine ... Masterson & Crisp fine ... 1 more player fine but no Ellsbury. He has top 10 player in the MLB potential.

Funny. The only leadoff type hitters who may hold that distinction are ones like Jimmy Rollins or Hanley Ramirez, both of which are far better players than Ellsbury could ever hope to play like. Unless Ellsbury goes on the juice hes not going to hit for the 25-30HR power that elite leadoff hitters hit for regularly. He'll probably never hit more than 15, and be in the mold of a Brian Roberts or Chone Figgins.

And who would you rather have: an elite leadoff hitter like Hanley Ramirez, or an elite starter like Josh Beckett? Santana is better than Beckett, and Ellsbury isn't nearly as good as Ramirez, so to say Ellsbury is too much for Santana is to say that Ramirez for Beckett was a huge failure of a trade. Unless you believe that only one top of the rotation starter is necessary.

The pitcher vs. hitter argument is also missing a very important fact. At any given time a hitter is just one guy in the lineup, completely reliant on everyone else behind him. If Ellsbury goes 5-5 the team can still lose, and if he goes 0-5 the team can still win. A pitcher on the other hand is the only guy on the mound and he controls the whole game for the team. If he has a bad game the team is lucky to pull out a win, but if he has a great game the team needs to do little to secure a victory. How many times last year did Beckett pitch poorly and the team lost? 3?

Think of it this way: the Sox won 70% of Beckett's starts last year. If you add Santana in the mix and they are able to win 70% of both their starts (assuming 66 starts) they'll go 46-20, meaning they'll win 96 fames if they go .500 in everyone else's starts.

 

[scout]

.

The pitcher vs. hitter argument is also missing a very important fact. At any given time a hitter is just one guy in the lineup, completely reliant on everyone else behind him. If Ellsbury goes 5-5 the team can still lose, and if he goes 0-5 the team can still win. A pitcher on the other hand is the only guy on the mound and he controls the whole game for the team. If he has a bad game the team is lucky to pull out a win, but if he has a great game the team needs to do little to secure a victory. How many times last year did Beckett pitch poorly and the team lost? 3?

Think of it this way: the Sox won 70% of Beckett's starts last year. If you add Santana in the mix and they are able to win 70% of both their starts (assuming 66 starts) they'll go 46-20, meaning they'll win 96 fames if they go .500 in everyone else's starts.

A pitcher only pitches every 5th day, at best. I think that is the reason behind the rule of thumb.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Sure Santana has won the Cy Young twice ... and sure he is a top of the line pitcher. In todays MLB true leadoff hitters are more rare than #1 pitchers.

Think about that for a minute ... take all the #1 pitchers in baseball ... add in the #2's that are #1 caliber and then compare that list to the leadoff hitters of all 32 teams.

This might be true if you want to pigeonhole what a leadoff hitter is with the "true" designation. Youk is a fabulous leadoff hitter because he gets on base a lot. Pre-Boston Lugo was a good leadoff hitter because he could run and do the smallball crap while not being an awful hitter.

Is having a "true" leadoff hitter important in the first place? Guys like Sizemore and Rollins are valuable because they're good players, not because of where they hit. And they're not "true" leadoff hitters anyway because they have power (something Ellsbury lacks).

This also supposes that Ellsbury is a proven player, which he isn't. He might just end up being a patient slap hitter with no power. ML pitchers might adjust to him by throwing him all strikes under the theory that he has no power with which to hurt them, minimizing the usefulness of his patience. He could easily end up a .270/.320/.380 player.

I'm high on Ellsbury, but it's downright silly to think that he's more valuable than Santana. Santana has a track record as the best pitcher in baseball. Ellsbury isn't even a special prospect.

*edit* I also think you're being way too inclusive with #1 pitchers. Santana is an ace. That list isn't very long: Beckett?, Sabathia, Webb, Peavy?, Oswalt? Zambrano, Holliday? (is he still an ace? I don't think so)... am I missing any? Lots of guys have a great year, but not many can sustain it (which is why I put a question mark after Beckett).

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

A pitcher only pitches every 5th day, at best. I think that is the reason behind the rule of thumb.

But a hitter only gets 4 chances to effect each game, while pitchers have a great impact on each game they pitch.

Over the course of a season a hitter who plays in 150 games has a greater effect than someone who pitches in 30. That pitcher is extremely important in deciding his 30 games, though. Then come the playoffs, when each individual game becomes much more important.

 

[everlong]

The thing that concerns me about Santana is he's on a four year decline in ERA, WHIP, BB, BAA...... and he has a slight frame. I'm sure he'll still be a top pitcher for a few years but what if you trade away all of the picks and after two years you're looking at Pedro the Met years.

 

[scout]

But a hitter only gets 4 chances to effect each game, while pitchers have a great impact on each game they pitch.

Over the course of a season a hitter who plays in 150 games has a greater effect than someone who pitches in 30. That pitcher is extremely important in deciding his 30 games, though. Then come the playoffs, when each individual game becomes much more important.

I wouldn't hold up a Santana for Ellsbury trade. Its when you include other players which makes it debatable. People bring up Ellsbury's lack of power as a contributing factor in him not impacting a game. All Ellsbury has to do is get on base to impact a game. The Red Sox have never had a player with his speed, not Tommy Harper, not even Ricky Henderson. This guy is a freak. He may not be a proven player, but I'll take his late season credentials over any of next year's rookies and a lot of experienced major leagers.

 

[Foley]

I wouldn't hold up a Santana for Ellsbury trade. Its when you include other players which makes it debatable. People bring up Ellsbury's lack of power as a contributing factor in him not impacting a game. All Ellsbury has to do is get on base to impact a game. The Red Sox have never had a player with his speed, not Tommy Harper, not even Ricky Henderson. This guy is a freak. He may not be a proven player, but I'll take his late season credentials over any of next year's rookies and a lot of experienced major leagers.

I don't believe anyone has said Ellsbury's lack of power will prevent him from having a big impact on the game, just that his lack of power will prevent him from being an elite leadoff hitter like a Sizemore or a Rollins. He should still be a valuable leadoff hitter, just not elite one like those who do have power.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I wouldn't hold up a Santana for Ellsbury trade. Its when you include other players which makes it debatable. People bring up Ellsbury's lack of power as a contributing factor in him not impacting a game. All Ellsbury has to do is get on base to impact a game. The Red Sox have never had a player with his speed, not Tommy Harper, not even Ricky Henderson. This guy is a freak. He may not be a proven player, but I'll take his late season credentials over any of next year's rookies and a lot of experienced major leagers.

Except speed is no good if you don't get on base, and we have yet to see if he'll do that consistently in the major leagues.

His end-of-year performance is irrelevant to whether or not he'll succeed. His BABIP was something like .400. Pitchers haven't had an opportunity to adjust to him yet. Let's just leave it at "small sample size" and be done with it. Sam Horn would be in the Hall of Fame if early performance was all that mattered.

I'll take Evan Longoria over Ellsbury next year for rookies. It doesn't really matter, but the point is that Ellsbury isn't a special prospect.

 

[scout]

Except speed is no good if you don't get on base, and we have yet to see if he'll do that consistently in the major leagues.

His end-of-year performance is irrelevant to whether or not he'll succeed. His BABIP was something like .400. Pitchers haven't had an opportunity to adjust to him yet. Let's just leave it at "small sample size" and be done with it. Sam Horn would be in the Hall of Fame if early performance was all that mattered.

I'll take Evan Longoria over Ellsbury next year for rookies. It doesn't really matter, but the point is that Ellsbury isn't a special prospect.

Well, we agree to disagree. This guy is special and will get on base and cause havoc.

 

[Real World]

Lester fine ... Masterson & Crisp fine ... 1 more player fine but no Ellsbury. He has top 10 player in the MLB potential.

There is nothing more valuable than a certifiable #1 pitcher. The 30+ starts & 220+ innings of domination are worth more than any Arod, Pappi, or Ryan Howard. Pitching wins, especially in the playoffs. Think Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, Johnson, Clemens, etc. Guys like that are worth more than anything else. You trade an Ellsbury for Santana all day, everyday, if baseball were the only criteria. Today, finances & free agency tend to dictate policy. That's the only reason Santana hasn't been traded yet. Finances and free agency. Ellsbury is mostly compared to Johnny Damon. Ellsbury will be a pretty good player, but he won't ever be top 10 in baseball.

 

[Real World]

Funny. The only leadoff type hitters who may hold that distinction are ones like Jimmy Rollins or Hanley Ramirez, both of which are far better players than Ellsbury could ever hope to play like. Unless Ellsbury goes on the juice hes not going to hit for the 25-30HR power that elite leadoff hitters hit for regularly. He'll probably never hit more than 15, and be in the mold of a Brian Roberts or Chone Figgins.

And who would you rather have: an elite leadoff hitter like Hanley Ramirez, or an elite starter like Josh Beckett? Santana is better than Beckett, and Ellsbury isn't nearly as good as Ramirez, so to say Ellsbury is too much for Santana is to say that Ramirez for Beckett was a huge failure of a trade. Unless you believe that only one top of the rotation starter is necessary.

The pitcher vs. hitter argument is also missing a very important fact. At any given time a hitter is just one guy in the lineup, completely reliant on everyone else behind him. If Ellsbury goes 5-5 the team can still lose, and if he goes 0-5 the team can still win. A pitcher on the other hand is the only guy on the mound and he controls the whole game for the team. If he has a bad game the team is lucky to pull out a win, but if he has a great game the team needs to do little to secure a victory. How many times last year did Beckett pitch poorly and the team lost? 3?

Think of it this way: the Sox won 70% of Beckett's starts last year. If you add Santana in the mix and they are able to win 70% of both their starts (assuming 66 starts) they'll go 46-20, meaning they'll win 96 fames if they go .500 in everyone else's starts.

Amen. Exactly. Bingo. Right on.

 

[Real World]

A pitcher only pitches every 5th day, at best. I think that is the reason behind the rule of thumb.

Look at it this way, would you trade Arod for Beckett? Beckett for Pujols? Or how about Beckett for Ryan Howard?

Nope.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Well the rule of thumb is that good pitching is better than good hitting. But, you have to measure the costs. Santana is going to command a huge salary for over at least 5-6 years. Lester, Ellsbury, etc. are making rookie salaries over that same timespan. That 150M over 5-6 years can be allocated for free agents that could also improve your team. So there you have it in a nutshell. The Twins will push for more, but they are in no position to bully the Sox into accepting a lopsided deal. With the Yankees dropping out of contention, there's no urgency to finish. Oh, and the Red Sox already have an ace, his name is Josh Beckett.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Look at it this way, would you trade Arod for Beckett? Beckett for Pujols? Or how about Beckett for Ryan Howard?

Nope.

I've agreed with most of what you've said, but I'd trade Beckett for Pujols and wouldn't think twice about it. I'd then trade Ellsbury + Lester + whoever for Santana. I'd then watch Boston march to a championship.

Beckett is nice and all, but Pujols is the best player in baseball.

 

[Real World]

I've agreed with most of what you've said, but I'd trade Beckett for Pujols and wouldn't think twice about it. I'd then trade Ellsbury + Lester + whoever for Santana. I'd then watch Boston march to a championship.

Beckett is nice and all, but Pujols is the best player in baseball.

Well now you're diminishing Beckett's value by inserting Santana's availability into the equation. The point is would you trade Beckett for Pujols, and I think the answer is no. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Bigdogx]

I've agreed with most of what you've said, but I'd trade Beckett for Pujols and wouldn't think twice about it. I'd then trade Ellsbury + Lester + whoever for Santana. I'd then watch Boston march to a championship.

Beckett is nice and all, but Pujols is the best player in baseball.

Anyone who would trade a front line starter proven and most important battle tested, hell maybe one of the most dominate post season pitchers ever who is still in the prime years of his career for some over rated first baseman who plays in a @#@@ league and a @@#@ division is freakin borderline insane!

 

[BradyManny]

Minnesota has overplayed their hand. They don't realize that Santana's value is really hampered by the need for a huge extension and the fact that Santana will hit the open market next year.

I'd rather see Boston pay him something silly like 30M a year (which would presumably outbid NY) next year. Let's assume he'd cost 23M a year in an extension anyway. For an extra 7M a year over 5-6 years (35-42M) you just bought Lester, Lowrie, Coco, and Masterson. That's more than worth it if you ask me.

As I've said, I'd hesitate to sign Santana even if he were a FA simply b/c of the dollar and years required to sign him - there's too much risk, and you're tying too much money into one guy who plays a position that leads to lots of injuries. Signing a position player to one of these insane mega-contracts (Manny, ARod, etc.) is actually a much safer bet than signing a pitcher to similar dollars and years.

I'd say the possibility of the Twins letting Santana play this season and not trading him is slim, it would be a huge failure on their part, but it's not out of the question, they'd matter for one more season and in the end, they'd earn some serious value in comp pick(s) - does anyone know what they'd get if they let Santana walk and he goes and signs a mega-deal elsewhere?

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Well now you're diminishing Beckett's value by inserting Santana's availability into the equation. The point is would you trade Beckett for Pujols, and I think the answer is no. I certainly wouldn't.

Remove Santana's availability and I'd still do it. He's Albert-freaking-Pujols.

And some pitcher is always available. I'd then trade for Bedard or blow away SD with an offer for Peavy if I felt like I really needed another top starter. I'd trade Buchholz and Ellsbury for Pujols every day of the week, so why not trade Beckett for Pujols and Buch + Ells for a Beckett replacement? I'm not saying it's possible, just that Pujols would be worth it.

Anyone who would trade a front line starter proven and most important battle tested, hell maybe one of the most dominate post season pitchers ever who is still in the prime years of his career for some over rated first baseman who plays in a @#@@ league and a @@#@ division is freakin borderline insane!

You're horribly underselling Pujols while overrating Beckett. Look at Pujols's stats. I'd trade anyone in baseball for him (Papi included). Beckett has had two very good (though not really great) years, and just last year he was a major disappointment. I like projecting greatness too, but he hardly has a track record that makes him a sure thing (or as close as a pitcher gets to one) going forward.