Santana

someone on a different board brought up that

Santana's elbow may not be in the greatest shape. I don't buy that though at all.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 4, 2007 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

hmm...

I haven't heard anything about Santana and health issues, but....

it does highlight one thing. ANY PITCHER is open to injury. Everyone talks about getting the best player in the deal, and usually that is true. However, if you can have multiple players who are good, you spread out your risk as compared to one player who is great.

Just something to be considerd.

by dbimberg on Dec 4, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You should know better by now...

always cite your source when providing outlandish statements on boards like this.

Injury is always a possibility, but saying it the way you said it causes you to get ripped 9 out or 10 times..

"When Justin Upton faces Lincecum, I think Christ might appear in the heavens, and the world will end." -JakeFree

by JT12340 on Dec 4, 2007 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

I don't remember where, but I do remember hearing similar whispers last season. To that end, Will Carroll in a Feb 22, 2007 BP article said that Santana's mechanics were eerily similar to Liriano's, and that his twice-diagnosed bone chips in his elbow recurring was a "best case scenario". Carroll seemed very cautious in his evaluation.

I actually do happen to buy this as a possibility, especially in addition to reports his velocity wasn't always up to par (I don't remember where I heard this, but I want to say Baseball Tonight around June of this year). The rising home run rate...

I won't deny that Santana remains an excellent pitcher, and more often than not he's the best pitcher in baseball the day that he starts. However, I think this deal makes more sense for the Red Sox than the Yankees, as Santana could mean a dynasty, and they are essentially giving up all superfluous parts (esp. with Santana returning). However, there are signs that make me want to take caution...

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No offense but...

That's just BS. Santana's mechanics are no where near Liriano's. He has the smoothest delivery of any left hander in the league. And he works out harder than any pitcher I've ever seen. I watched every one of his starts last year and the only issues were a slight hamstring strain and a finger nail issue. Nothing to worry about. Move along.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

None taken.

I thank you for your input, and it is definitely enlightening. I don't know that I like Santana's mechanics better than any AL lefty's, but it is good to know that he doesn't have much in common with Liriano. I've only seen Liriano pitch once that I can remember. There's YouTube, but it doesn't offer too much.

I don't doubt Santana's durability, barring elbow woes. And, this definitely helps push me further in the "let's not doubt him until he's at least 30" pool.

by GuyinNY on Dec 4, 2007 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry but

The experts disagree...

Johan Santana Yellow light: Think anyone noticed that the same mechanics that cost Francisco Liriano a year of pitching are almost identical to Santana's? What makes Santana good also has given him bone chips twice, and their recurring is a best-case scenario. The Twins--or whoever he pitches for in the future--would do well to buy MRI time in bulk as a precaution.
That's from Will Carroll. now, if you want to quote someone else saying otherwise, that's fine, but I'd like to hear wat they say and who exactly they are.

Where's HuskerBob when you need him?

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't trust Caroll

I can paraphrase Rick Anderson when he was asked about their mechanics:

Their deliveries are not that similar. Liriano throws 3/4. Santana throws over the top. Liriano steps towards first and throws across his body. Santana steps towards the target. Liriano whips the ball through the release point. Santana uses his legs to gain his power. The only thing these deliveries have in common is they both come from the left side.

Also, Santana has only had bone chips once.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 5, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the Yankees don't jump back into this...

I'll eat my right arm. Actually, I might need that someday. I'll eat Joba Chamberlain's right arm. Yeah, that's better...

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Dec 4, 2007 10:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ha!

I was actually about to start a similar thread. No specific news, just assuming that people would want to talk about Santana.

Or for those who are "sick of hearing" about Santana, here's an opportunity for them to expose their foolishness in clicking on a thread, reading it, and letting everyone know that they are sick of reading about Johan.

Regardless.

Regarding the Crisp/Lester vs. Ellsbury deals, what I read is that the Twins really love Justin Masterson and the fact that neither Lester nor Masterson were in the Ellsbury offers make them prefer the Lester/Crisp/Masterson/Lowrie option.

I still find it highly improbable that the Yankees will prefer to let the Sox have Santana without touching their core just so that they can keep Ian Freaking Kennedy. Maybe it proves a point that Baby Hank can't be steamrolled in negotiations, but Johan, Beckett, and Dice K hand the Red Sox the AL East for the next three years, and make the m the prohibitive World Series favorites for the foreseeable future.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 10:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yanks and Santana - outside the box

I've heard spome folks say Haren is projected to be "as valuable" as Santana given price vs performance. if that's true, or at least defensably close, I'm wondering if the Yankees might be better served by jumping on him NOW, while Santana is still in play. Reasons being:

They almost certainly wouldn't have to part with Hughes or Joba, who they obviously are trying to keep;
If the Red Sox felt like they HAD to keep up and sign Santana, well, the Yanks have already offset that signing to some degree;
If the Red Sox felt they no longer had to sign Santana (some say they are only in it now to keep him away from NYY), then instantly the Yankees have reduced the amount the Red Sox are willing to pay. And, suddenly, it seems like offers from other teams be more competitive, thus keeping Santana out of Boston altogether.

Seems win-win for the Yankees, to me. Offer Kennedy, Ajax, and Horne for Haren, get your top-flight starter, and either insulate against Santana going to Boston or force him away altogether.

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 10:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Haren

If you think that package would get a deal for Haren done you are drastically underrating Haren's value. Given his cost controlled contract, he is very close to Johan in value, I cant see the A's moving him for Kennedy and co.

by flyby4553 on Dec 4, 2007 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

I'm not even that high on Haren and I don't think that would get a deal done.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The exact package

is not really the point - rather, my point is really that if they can avoid parting with Joba or Hughes. I shouldn't have listed those three guys, 'cause it was just inviting some nitpicking over the details instead of the larger issue.

But it sounds like you agree that Haren is close to Santana in value - so if the Yanks can get him without losing Joba or Hughes, then might this proactive approach serve them well?

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is

After Hughes, who do they have to offer that's going to be useful soon? The Yankee system isn't bad, but it's not as deep as Boston's when it comes to upper level talent. Hughes is almost certainly going to have to be part of the deal.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

I'm reading that Haren will come cheaper than Johan, which is what sparked my post. But perhaps the Yanks don't have enough to offer. Seems like Ian Kennedy and Austin Jackson would be fine pieces to catalyze a discussion, though.

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haren

will cost Hughes and Kennedy

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Beane is no fool

The fact that the As have no requirement to trade Haren (unlike the Twins who are faced with only getting draft picks if he walks), means that they will likely ask for more than what it would cost for Santana.

Especially since the Yankees will clearly be (even moreso) in full-on desperation mode once Johan goes to the Red Sox.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Desperation

yes, that's actually another reason for the Yanks to be proactive, but I didn't list it - once Boston signs Santana, the screws really tighten on the NYY, it seems.

I guess only Brian and Billy can really say whether Haren would come without Joba or Hughes....but if I were the Yanks, I'd sure be trying to find out.

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well if the Twins can teach Masterson

the changeup like they did to Santana, then he could be the Al version of Brandon Webb.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 4, 2007 10:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The MPLS. Star Tribune is reporting

That Santana will go to the Red Sox. It's just a question of finalizing paper work and the Sox making a deal that locks up Santana for the next seven years. It probably won't be announced until the contract done, but the teams have apparently agreed in principle.

I say "just", but those things are not trivial. Still, I doubt the Sox would get this involved without having some sense that they can fit this into their long-term budgets.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 10:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ian Kennedy

will be the most hated man in the Bronx if this is true.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Please

No more Santana threads!

On a serious note... a deal has to get done... because the anticipation is killing me.

by Darce on Dec 4, 2007 11:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yup

I've heard a lot of people wondering why the Twins prefer Lester over Ellsbury, or Lester over Phil Hughes. It's not Lester v. Ellsbury. It's Lester AND Crisp v. Ellsbury. In the Hughes deal, you can argue Lester and Crisp v. Hughes and Melky all day if you want, but the final garbage player the Yankees are tossing in there v. Masterson and Lowrie more than offsets ANY perceived edge on the high end of the deal.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lowrie

I think the Twins want to back fill for Bartlett and they couldn't do that with the Yankees deal unless they got Kennedy and flipped him for a shortstop. Just my $0.02.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yanks or Sox

I don't think the trade will consumate until early January. The Twins are waiting for Baseball America to publish the top 10 prospect lists for Boston (Jan 4) and New York (Jan 7) so they can get current scouting reports on the player involved.

by I Love Oakland As on Dec 4, 2007 11:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

probably

that an Slurve's Community ranking list.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You serious?

The Twins have the most extensive scouting department in baseball (not in terms of bodies but hours spent). They know these guys already. They know who they want: It's Lowrie and Masterson to go along with Crisp and Lester. And yes, they prefer Crisp and Lester over Hughes and Cabrera.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chill

He was very definitely joking.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not BA, BP

Since they can't have any of the Sox' 5 star prospects, looks like the Twins will grab all of Boston's 4 star prospects...

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6902

Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish.

by cooper7d7 on Dec 4, 2007 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Update

The Boston Herald reports that the Twins and Red Sox are expected to "resume serious negotiations" Tuesday morning, with Minnesota said to be deciding between two different trade packages for Johan Santana.
One package is reportedly Jon Lester, Coco Crisp, Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie, while the other is believed to be Jacoby Ellsbury, Lowrie and Masterson. The latter would be seem to be a better long-term fit for the Twins, but Minnesota apparently likes Lester an awful lot after being satisfied with his health following a Monday night look at his medical records.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't get it

On a team with so many holes, why would the Twins want Ellsbury over Lester + Ellsbury? Do they think Lester won't amount to more than a #4 pitcher? Is it the 4 years difference between the contracts of Crisp and Ellsbury? Do they think Ellsbury's real baseline is what he did in the majors rather than what he did in the minors? It really seems like a slam dunk to me to take Lester and Crisp over Ellsbury alone. If the Ellsbury deal would also involve another prospect or relief pitcher, then I can see it, otherwise it seems like there's so much more value over their current replacements to take Lester and Crisp.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

could it be marketing

Every female in Boston between the ages of 10 and 25 wants to marry Ellsbury right now.

It could be more marketing than talent on the field.

I'd absolutely prefer Crisp and Lester to Ellsbury from a talent perspective.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's it!

Ellsbury would replenish the the Twin Cities with a massive influx of young, single women from the east coast - park that load right over there, boys (beep, beep, beep - sound of truck backing up)!

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From

what I hear boston doesn't have many attractive women.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Dec 4, 2007 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lies

I met your mother in Boston. Plus we all know that Philadelphia has the ugliest chicks.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/10664037.html

by fartballs on Dec 4, 2007 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They are toolsy, though

lots of good keepers. They tend to do well in arbitration, unfortunately.

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is this where

somebody makes a "Service Time" joke?

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2007 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

The Twins were holding out for Ellsbury plus Lester. When the Red Sox wouldn't budge, they fell back on Crisp plus Lester. They needed to fill three holes with this deal, which is why the Yankees offer wouldn't work unless they added Kennedy to the Hughes/Cabrera offer.

The Twins are loaded with pitching prospects. What they need are good young major leaguers.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

But Lester's star has (undeservedly) faded. We live in a 60 second sound bite culture and people have long forgotten that lester was an amazing prospect, all they remember is that Ellsbury had a case for World Series MVP.
Smart GM's are aware of this and if they feel secure in their job, they'll not succumb to it and get what they need for their team. Sometimes though, the pressure can be intense enough that the GM makes the wrong move because of it.
Smith is considering both, for that I give him credit, I think he's really trying to do what's best for his team. I love the idea of keeping Ellsbury, don't get me wrong, but his perceived value is way over his actual value and if Boston can trade him for close to his PV and keep Superman in CF and Lester in the rotation... Santana, Beckett, Daisuke, Buchholz, Lester... that's pretty #&@^#(ing SWEET!

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MPLS Star link

Can I get a link to that article?

by ckenny30 on Dec 4, 2007 11:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's in my post

But here it is again.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Link

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/neal/

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

I never thought the Sox would be serious players. If they get Santana, I feel sorry for teams that are going to have to face Santana, Beckett, Dice-K, and Schilling/Buchy in the playoffs. They are going to be a juggernaut.

by Dfarth on Dec 4, 2007 11:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rumor of a 1 PM Boston press conference

according to Boston Radio.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 4, 2007 11:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Uh Oh...

might as well hand the championship over to boston next year. Thats if they are getting Santana.

by Darce on Dec 4, 2007 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

False

There is nothing in the media suggesting a press conference has been or will be called. No press conference would even be considered until an extension is agreed upon.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I for one

Am glad the Yanks held their ground.

by emac2 on Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+100000000000000000000000000

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am too

I'll believe this deal is real when I see it. The Twins aren't going to take .50 on the dollar for Santana.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 4, 2007 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The funny thing

Is Yankees fans who think the offer they had was so amazing and that was Boston is offering is $.50 on the dollar.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

was thinking the same thing as i read it

in fairness, though, i am amazed how small ALL the offers were for Santana. it really is proof that GMs won't move prospects anymore -- unless they're for each other (DY-Garza) or it's Omar Minaya at the helm.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

I was just commenting on another blog that the only offers were the Yankees, Red Sox or whomever signs him next offseason. If they got draft choices, they might get something like Masterson and Lowrie. That means the Sox are trading Lester and Crisp for one year of Santana.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Dec 4, 2007 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This

Isn't a sim league, if the Twins don't do a deal this offseason there's a high likelihood that Santana walks and they got squat (aside from a couple draft picks. Look at what was given up in the past for someone like Pedro. The Twins are doing well in this deal.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sure

i didn't tell the Twins "don't make a deal! this one's too small!"

given the market, this was clearly the best deal, and, as you say, they had to make a move.

what's SURPRISING is that this was the best deal, and that's reflective of a market in which people don't trade prospects.

the market isn't always set by one side having the power to trade whatever the smallest amount the other will accept. to the contrary, usually a player like Santana would draw everyone into the mix, so that each side bid the most they were willing to part with.

here, the most anyone was willing to part with was obviously quite little, since there were so few players (perhaps because of Santana's demands), and those players either bluffed wonderfully in pseudo-collusion, or else reflected how little GMs are willing to trade prospects any more. i imagine it's a combination of those two.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uhm

The market was defined by Santana's potential contract demands, what teams needed him and what teams have the talent to aquire him. Those three factors left pretty much just boston and NY.
Look at what has been netted historically when such a player has been dealt. To find it "SURPRISING" that this is what the Twins are getting suggests unrealistic expectations going into negotiations.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks, Crimson

now i understand everything much better.

of course, i mentioned the rumor of Santana limiting his options to NY and Boston. this is pretty relevant if true, and explains the lack of leverage/free-market competition the Twins had.

other teams had the talent and money to sign him, but didn't step up. did they really have "the need" LESS than the Sox, who already had a six-man rotation? of course not. anyone and everyone could use Johan Santana. so why didn't they bid? well, as said above, maybe Johan wouldn't accept a trade to them, but, otherwise, you have to believe that GMs capped what they would give up for Santana pretty damn low -- apparently, lower than any of the Sox or Yankees already modest offers.

as for "historical deals," i don't think this deal is impressive at all. definitely NOT unprecedentedly low, but that's not my standard for being "surprised."

if you don't think this offer is on the low side of what it normally costs for the unambiguously best pitcher in the game with two Cy Youngs to his name by the age of 28, then either you don't know your history, or else you're looking at YOUR Boston prospects a little two highly.

whether or not Boston "has the talent to acquire" Santana, they didn't give it up in this trade.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh

What did the Expos get for Pedro Martinez? That's almost certainly the most comparable deal.

As you've probably heard by now, Santana didn't limit the choices to Boston or NY. I didn't think that was what you were talking about because, frankly, I had never seen any source for such a rumor and as such gave it no validity or credence so it never crossed my mind.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 4, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My take

I think the Twins are still doing pretty well in this. We were all pretty confident of 2 things going in: the Yankees and Red Sox have really deep pockets, and the Twins' likely won't commit that kind of money/years for 1 player. This does not help their bargaining standpoint. It would be nice to get more, but the Sox and Yankees would be able to sign Johan 12 months from now anyway.

by mini tb on Dec 4, 2007 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Speak for yourself

I never said the proposed deal wasn't fair, just that I didn't want to do it.

And the deal isn't fair. If the Red Sox give up Kalish and Lars as rumored, then it makes sense.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 4, 2007 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take

I'd take Ellsbury over Lester/Crisp. Lowrie, Masterson is great as far as prospects, but Ellsbury gives them a bonafide CF for the next 6 years. Lester gives them maybe a #3 starter, and Crisp is a stopgap CF. He's great on defense, and bad on offense (though better than Melky, who's bad on offense and bad on defense)

by BaseballBrain on Dec 4, 2007 11:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Personally,

I think I would rather take Lester, Crisp, Lowrie, and Masterson... and wait for Ben Revere in a few years.

by Darce on Dec 4, 2007 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Revere might be better than Ellsbury soon

I think that's why the Twins might not want Ellsbury.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 4, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He might be

but that's a pretty big if at this point. And if Revere really does become that good, I'm sure Ellsbury would be a very valuable asset to trade by then.

by BaseballBrain on Dec 4, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you sell Lester short

Perhaps it's my Red Sox tinged glasses here, but I think people have been vastuly underselling Lester. I think a #3 starter is his most probable scenario, but he has the talent and stuff to develop into a #2 (and according to my calculations about a 2.73% chance of becoming a bona fide #1). The biggest issue with Lester that I can see is his control issues, and propensity to throw a lot of pitches early. If he can work on those, he'll be a heck of a pitcher.

No, I don't think he'll ever become comparable to Johan Santana, but realistically speaking there is no way for the Twins to trade for that type of pitcher, because Santana is in a league of his own.

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Dec 4, 2007 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WFAN update

Mike and the Mad Dog said that Gammons is reporting that a 5th player, Ryan Kalish, would be added to the package in addition to the previously mentioned 4.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Dec 4, 2007 3:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs