Hey Hank!!!!

Save Phil Hughes!!!

The Yankees absolutely cannot trade Phil Hughes to the Twins for Johan Santana. There is no conceivable way this deal makes sense to anyone with a brain, especially when (say it with me now) SANTANA WILL BE A FREE AGENT IN ONE YEAR. And if he gets traded somewhere else, who fucking cares? Let the Red Sox or the Mets unload all of their top prospects to get Santana. I’ll be more than happy as Joba, Hughes, Kennedy and Horne pitch us to many, many championships over the next decade-plus.

I love the Internet, where every fan has a voice.

137 comments… add one

  • I say trade him for Rick Rhoden.

    Nick-YF November 27, 2007, 10:19 pm
  • I say the double whammy of Pascual and Melido Perez.

    Mike YF November 27, 2007, 10:23 pm
  • Where in the world is Pascual Perez? Didn’t he go missing in the early 90′s?

    Nick-YF November 27, 2007, 10:28 pm
  • Really? What kind of world do we live in???

    Mike YF November 27, 2007, 10:34 pm
  • Except there is no way Johan allows the trade without the contract extension he is demanding, so it wouldn’t be a deal for a soon-to-be free agent. Besides, will Hughes be everything YFs think. Santana is a proven front of the staff superstar pitcher. Will Hughes become that? I don’t think so.

    JD November 27, 2007, 10:57 pm
  • YF: hear, hear.

    attackgerbil November 27, 2007, 11:07 pm
  • In other news, piratesaresickoflosing.blogspot.com reportedly thinks that it’s unfair that other teams beat the Pittsburgh Pirates all the time.

    Atheose November 27, 2007, 11:48 pm
  • the twoins are looking to snooker the front office of the redsox and the yanks
    trade santana, granted a VERY good p[itcher
    but the twins want fromt he sox:
    Lester, ellbury, and/or bucholz
    and they want hughes and/or joba along with an outfielder as well(probably melky)
    why trad away your PRIME young talent in hopes for a guy who is, granted GREAT, but who will be gone sooner than later. stay wiht yrou future guys, trading taco ellsbury and lester would drive me batshitcrazy. it’s one of those moments that you look and say…yeah winning once every 5 is nice, but an every day young outfielder who has nothing but upside and a young GOOD 4-5th rotaiton guy who is hard to come by…man that is just a BAD idea.
    give em dice-k :D

    TheTree1918 November 28, 2007, 12:34 am
  • TheTree, Santana won’t be gone sooner than later… a contract extension would surely go along with the trade.
    If the price is Lester and Ellsbury-or-Buchholz, you trade them in a heartbeat. Prime young talent is unproven (mostly) and unlikely to reach ace status of Santana’s calibre.
    If the Yankees want to get back in the AL East race, they NEED Santana. Hughes, Chamberlain and Kennedy are all very talented prospects but it is likely that only one of them will be very successful at the major league level.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 9:08 am
  • By the way, the Sox have stepped up talks with the Twins, built around Crisp and Buchholz and some other minor prospects.
    http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1047493
    Also in that article is an interview from Ortiz, who says that the knee surgery went well and he’ll be at 100% speed by January. Great news.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 9:15 am
  • By the way, I hope they don’t trade Ellsbury because rumour is that I’m getting an Ellsbury jersey for Christmas from my family. That would suck.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 9:19 am
  • Joba, Hughes, Kennedy and Horne pitch us to many, many championships over the next decade-plus.
    Or flame out in glorious fashion never, ever living up to the hype that has surrounded them for the last two years.
    I’d take my chances with Santana. At least you know he’s good, and aren’t hoping that is the end result. But you’re probably right. Who needs top notch pitching to help a few rookies out? Remind me again what happened in the playoffs to the Yankee “ace”?

    Brad November 28, 2007, 9:43 am
  • seriously, those guys are off the wall.

    Brad November 28, 2007, 9:44 am
  • I would LOVE to see the Yankees stick with Joba/Hughes/Kennedy, because they would be a weaker team than if they aquired Santana. Look at it from that perspective.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 9:53 am
  • keeping the young guys may hurt the yankees for the short run, but even if one of them lives up to the “hype” [hi brad], it will have been worth it…my worry is that we let the wrong one go in the trade, and keep a couple of duds…the yanks haven’t had a great track record with acquiring “sure things” via free agency or trade the past 10 years or so, so there’s something to be said for passing on santana…i’m not worried about him going to the sox because it appears that they are not serious with coco crisp being the cornerstone of their supposed offer, please…they don’t want to part with their [also] over-hyped youngsters either…they’re in a better position than the yanks having just won, and having a much better, more stable pitching staff already in place…their interest is probably token just to tweak the yanks and who knows maybe they can snooker the twins at the last minute, especially if the yanks can’t make the deal…

    dc November 28, 2007, 10:16 am
  • but even if one of them lives up to the “hype” [hi brad], it will have been worth it
    If one of the youngsters ends up being a #2 or #3 starter (the hype), that still won’t come close to Santana’s talent. At age 20 (his opening-day age) he’s still in his prime, and I would wager that he’ll win another Cy Young or two before he’s done.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 10:25 am
  • dc, I’m amazed at what little value you put on Coco, he’s easily a top 3 defensive CF and he’s got a serviceable bat, not to mention a ton of speed.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 10:28 am
  • Atheose, you mean age 30, not 20, right?
    For my part, I am still trying to figure out the tremendous ambivalence I feel as a result of the A-Rod merry-go-round (am I happy, depressed, both…?) so I don’t think I can rationally discuss prospective mega-trades involving multiple top young talent leaving right now, no matter who it is for. But yeah, a true ace would be nice to have.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 10:32 am
  • I love how the contract value, with milestone incentives, is now 305 million for Arod.
    Game. Set. Match. Boras.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 10:39 am
  • Whoops, I meant 29. Stupid keyboards and their 9-next-to-0 design!
    I don’t blame you, IH. Dealing with Manny’s tantrums over the years pales in comparison to the ARod soap opera.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 10:43 am
  • I have ambivalence about sending Hughes but a lot of that is connected to sentimentality and the idea that it would be cool to see him develop into a super star before our eyes. But realistically, I think you have to view this as similar to the Red Sox Beckett trade. The Sox ended up sending away a top-flight prospect who blossomed into a super star. And you know what?! They still made the right trade. Based on the economics of the game, teams like the Yanks and Sox have the luxury of paying for known talent. This talent is always more expensive than prospect talent. But the importance for teams like the Yanks and Sox controlling cheap young talent is just not the same as it is for other teams. It’s reasonable to think, based on previous work, that Johan, who is not old, will be an ace for a good part of the contract. Hughes looks like the real deal. The operative word is that he “looks” like one. The Yanks have the luxury, in this case because of their financial advantage, to not have to take a chance that he isn’t the real deal.

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 10:49 am
  • I agree with IH…my head is spinning too! It’s a tough call. The “big three” could be the foundation of another dynasty for sure, or they could all fizzle or just one, etc. Santana could come over and win a CY and lead us back to the WS, or he could get hurt, or he could just plain suck, etc.
    Now my head hurts again. I guess I’m just going to sit back and see how this plays out. I have bigger problems anyways…my Dolphins are on the road to 0-16!!!

    krueg November 28, 2007, 10:52 am
  • “dc, I’m amazed at what little value you put on Coco, he’s easily a top 3 defensive CF and he’s got a serviceable bat, not to mention a ton of speed.”
    no offense lockland, i understand why you like the guy, but i said way back when you got him that he would be less than advertised…he was supposed to be more than “serviceable” with the bat…while he’s redeemed himself somewhat this year, particularly on defense, many of you have been calling for him to be traded, benched for ellsbury, and worse since last year…his contribution to a winning season has mellowed feelings for him, but the only way he has a role on the sox other than 4th OF is if drew continues to be drew, or ellsbury fizzles or gets traded…
    “Game. Set. Match. Boras.”
    another gem…you spin it your way, we’ll spin it ours…boras got way less guaranteed money that he originally asked for because that market wasn’t there…it’s not an unreasonable contract considering his current compensation…he is the best player in baseball, and his pursuit of history is apparently of some value…if i’m uncomfortable with anything it’s the length of the contract…incentives are good for both sides because they require the player to actually accomplish something that may help the team…the yankees were the only team willing to talk to arod, and despite their huffing and puffing, they really wanted him back…they treated him fairly, while ignoring the ransom demands of his agent…to say this was some genius on boras’ part is uh, a stretch…

    dc November 28, 2007, 11:12 am
  • My god man, we basically have 2 Cocos right now, so using the older more expensive one in a trade is the right move. That doesn’t diminish the value of the player, it’s just lucky for the Red Sox.
    There was no way Boras ever thought he was actually going to get the 350+, that was just media grandstanding. In the end, Boras and Arod got exactly what they wanted and expected to get. Feel free to spin it any way you want.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 11:43 am
  • You Sox fans need to stop thinking that a deal with Coco Crisp is going to get Santana over to your side. You’re going to have to include Ellsbury in any trade.
    As for the Yankees, if they can land Santana without having to part with Chamberlain or Cano, then I say they have to go for it.
    This isn’t a situation where they are clamoring for a pitcher who’s 32-33 years old and expecting to tie him up until he’s 38-39. Santana will only be 29 at the start of next season. A six year extension will lock the guy up for the prime years of his career. We’re not talking about a number 2 or 3 pitcher here. We’re talking about a STUD number one starter and one of the best pitchers in the game. A lefty with his stuff pitching half his games at Yankees Stadium? Are you freaking kidding me?
    I wouldn’t trade away Kennedy, Hughes or Chamberlain for a position player. But letting Hughes go in a package to land Santana is a no brainer.

    Jay-YF November 28, 2007, 11:48 am
  • Lockland, stop it. Boras is not that smart. He was sure there was a market available to pay A-Rod a base salary of at least $30 million or more per year. Otherwise, he would have sat down at the table with the Yankees from the start. In the end, A-Rod gets $27.m per in base salary and shares in some revenues if he breaks home run records. Considering the Yankees will probably make 3-4 times as much A-Rod makes on those milestones, it was chump change.
    But please. Stop trying to spin this as some kind of svengali-like win for Scott Boras because it wasn’t.

    Jay-YF November 28, 2007, 11:53 am
  • I meant 27.5m per.

    Jay-YF November 28, 2007, 11:53 am
  • With A-Rod back, the Yankees don’t “NEED” Santana to get back into the AL East race; they’re already in it. Boston may be the favorites to win the East again, sure, but it’s not like this is the AL West, where you have the Angels and everyone else.
    Getting Santana would put the Yankees on top of the baseball world. Without him, they’re still a top-5 AL team. Minnesota is more desperate than the Yankees or any other team, and the return for Santana will not be as much as reporters are saying. Headlining trades never live up to expectations.

    AndrewYF November 28, 2007, 12:02 pm
  • The bottom line is that Coco Crisp has some value to certain teams but the Twins are really not one of those teams. There are 2 years left on his contract at $5 mil per year. This is not the type of player they want to build a future team around. They are blowing up their team this year if the trade Santana and having Crisp running around in the OF is not gonna fulfill their long term needs. Melky or Ellsbury do this much better. Crisp is not going to be a prime piece in a trade with the Twins. That said, I believe the Sox will land something nice for him say a B level prospect or a solid RP.
    As far as Boras and A-Rod go. This “debate” is really old at this point. I am going to rely on how the events were reported in the news from multiple sources to make a judgement on how things played out. If SFs would like to create some other narrative about how they view the events thats your prerogative but the constant baiting is really tiresome and unnecessary. The fact is that A-Rod got a $275 mil contract from the yankees, this is largely considered either at or under market value for a player of his skill. Sure there are more incentives he can earn. Lots of players have this arrangement (eg Curt Schilling) and we dont discuss their contract values in terms of what they may earn, etc. No matter what they pay him the yankees are the true winners here because they retain the services of the best hitter in baseball, spin that how you may.

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 12:05 pm
  • With A-Rod back, the Yankees don’t “NEED” Santana to get back into the AL East race; they’re already in it.
    With a possible rotation of Wang-Moose-Hughes-Chamberlain-Kennedy? The three youngsters have a ton of potential, but I certainly wouldn’t consider the Yankees as a top-5 AL team with that rotation.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • The Yankees were a top, sometimes the top, team in previous years with much worse rotations. Obviously Pettitte is a large factor, but the Yankees are very much still a top playoff contender for 2008.

    AndrewYF November 28, 2007, 12:08 pm
  • “…My god man, we basically have 2 Cocos right now, …”
    how many sox fans out there really think or hope that ellsbury is the next coco?…as a yank fan, i certainly hope it plays out that way…by the way, keep that a secret from the twins, or there’s no way they deal with you…
    “…In the end, Boras and Arod got exactly what they wanted and expected to get….”
    even more funny…how does one know “exactly” what boras and arod wanted…any possibility that the yankees got “exactly” what they wanted, or is that too much for a sox fan to swallow?…

    dc November 28, 2007, 12:11 pm
  • You Sox fans need to stop thinking that a deal with Coco Crisp is going to get Santana over to your side. You’re going to have to include Ellsbury in any trade.
    But you think Hughes and Melky will get it done, Jay? Hughes may have more potential than Buchholz, but Buchholz’ trade value right now is higher than his. If you were the Twins would you rather aquire a prospect who pitched a no-no in his 2nd start, or a pitcher who was injured for much of his first season and somewhat struggled?
    Also, let’s compare Coco Crisp to Torii Hunter. Coco’s OBP last season was .330, whereas Hunter’s lifetime OBP is only .324. Coco also provides slightly better defense than Hunter (gold glove be damned!) and is 5 years younger to boot. And compared to what they were willing to offer Hunter, Crisp’s contract is cheap.
    Throw in Lester (who will likely improve once he’s back up to pre-cancer strength) and you’ve got a very solid offer.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:14 pm
  • “Hughes may have more potential than Buchholz, but Buchholz’ trade value right now is higher than his.”
    Is this true?

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:17 pm
  • The Yankees were a top, sometimes the top, team in previous years with much worse rotations. Obviously Pettitte is a large factor, but the Yankees are very much still a top playoff contender for 2008.
    I agree that they are probably a playoff contender. But they NEED more pitching, whether they get it from Santana or Haren. If not for the regular season then the playoffs. We all learned that you won’t get far in October with Wang as your #1.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:17 pm
  • Boras got exactly what he wanted huh? So I assume you also think that he knew exactly how this all would play out? He told A-Rod to opt out from the team he wanted to go back to during the world series just to make everyone mad at him including the yankees. That way he knew he and his client could take a beating in the press for two weeks. He then knew that his client could pretend to come back to the Yankees and he could arrange 3rd parties ranging from Bankers to the 3rd richest man on the planet to help with this. He knew all this and the Yankees front office who have many years of experience in this same business were just a bunch of unwitting lambs that the all powerful Scott Boras led to the slaughter.
    If this is the case maybe we could ask him a few other things since he can see into the future. Who will be the next president? When will there be peace in the middle east?

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 12:17 pm
  • “”Hughes may have more potential than Buchholz, but Buchholz’ trade value right now is higher than his.”
    Is this true?”
    This is not true.

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 12:18 pm
  • Well Nick, considering Hughes spent much of his first season injured, and somewhat struggled when he was not, I would say so. Buchholz no-hitter is undoubtedly in the Twins’ minds, even if Hughes has more potential in the long run.
    I don’t necessarilly think this means Buchholz is a better player than Hughes because of the no-no (look at Anibal Sanchez–Ugh), but I do believe that right now his trade value is higher because of it.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:20 pm
  • This is not true.
    What’s your reasoning Sam?

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:21 pm
  • Atheose, you’re ignoring Hughes’ September and post-season when he was further along in his recovery and regained his arm strength. I could be wrong, but I think Hughes also had a longer period as a better prospect than Buccholz.

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:23 pm
  • I’m not trying to hate on Hughes, I just honestly believe that the no-hitter will weigh more in the Twins’ FA’s minds than Hughes’ performance against the Blue Jays, Orioles, Blue Jays and then Devil Rays in September. I did forget his playoff game though.
    At the very least can we say that, at this moment in time, Buchholz and Hughes are extremely close in trade value?

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:28 pm
  • I think the twins are gonna look at their Scouting reports over the last few years at Clay and Phil not at the tiny sample size they saw in the MLB last year when making their decision. Over this time Hughes has been more or less the top rated pitching prospect in the game.
    The no-hitter means basically nothing but if it did dont forget that Hughes was on his way to one himself. Hughes also got stronger has he recovered from his injuries this season including two good post-season appearances. Dont get me wrong the Twins scouting could like Clay better but to say unequivocally that he has more trade value than Hughes is not correct IMO.

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 12:28 pm
  • good question nick…not sure how we measure trade value of our respective players in the absence of actual trade details, and with players who have little mlb experience, so we use our hearts to assess value…i’m willing to admit that…but i’m also open-minded enough to admit it…how can i possibly claim that hughes is more valuable than buchholz?….on the other hand, the no-hitter isn’t enough evidence to give buck an edge…hughes nearly pitched one too until they had to remove him when his hammy tweaked…

    dc November 28, 2007, 12:29 pm
  • Atheose, the Twins front office is better at talent evaluation than to base their decision on a single september game against the O’s. No-hitters are really statistical anamoles. They are gonna look at the whole package of a pitcher not 1 of 4 starts he made last year.
    Roger Clemens never threw one, does this make Clay better than him?

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 12:32 pm
  • I think the twins are gonna look at their Scouting reports over the last few years at Clay and Phil not at the tiny sample size they saw in the MLB last year when making their decision. Over this time Hughes has been more or less the top rated pitching prospect in the game.
    By this logic, Hughes > Joba?

    Tyrel SF November 28, 2007, 12:35 pm
  • “By this logic, Hughes > Joba?”
    Hey, I’ve already said that I don’t understand why Joba is untouchable while Hughes isn’t.

    Anonymous November 28, 2007, 12:37 pm
  • that would be me.

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:38 pm
  • I agree that they are probably a playoff contender. But they NEED more pitching, whether they get it from Santana or Haren. If not for the regular season then the playoffs. We all learned that you won’t get far in October with Wang as your #1.
    If they’re a playoff contender, they don’t NEED anything. Get it? Cashman would LIKE to add more pitching, but he’s not DESPERATE to. We both feel that the Yankees can go in with the rotation you listed and make it to October, which is really all you can ask from the guy who constructed the team. So the Yankees would like to trade for Santana or Haren, but to think they NEED to is foolhardy.
    Giving up Phil Hughes, the most promising young pitcher to come out of the Yankee organization since Ron Guidry, just so you can pay Johan Santana $150 million over six years is unnecessary. The Twins have a lot less leverage than what is being written: three or four teams are all that are in the running for Santana (not 29), and Santana has a full NTC. If he doesn’t get what he wants, and he wants a deal that is better than Zito’s, he doesn’t have to waive it and the Twins get nothing, or have to crawl back to the other teams and accept a much less valuable package of prospects. So they have to make sure the team that’s offering the best package is also willing to give Santana a huge deal. The Dodgers won’t do it. The Red Sox don’t give out long-term deals. The Angels have Cabrera and Tejada as priorities right now. The Yankees or the Mets will give Santana whatever he wants, and unless the Mets give up Jose Reyes or Carlos Gomez+, they’re not going to be able to match up.

    AndrewYF November 28, 2007, 12:39 pm
  • You guys are acting like Buchholz has an incredibly inferior scouting report. Buchholz had better K/9 ratios in the minors, and his ERA wasn’t terribly worse (2.46 compared to 2.03).
    At the very least the two pitchers are very close in value right now. Everyone has been acting like Hughes is far-and-away a better bargaining chip.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:40 pm
  • If they’re a playoff contender, they don’t NEED anything.
    Raise your hand if you’re a Yankee fan and are satisfied with your starting rotation right now.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:41 pm
  • “Everyone has been acting like Hughes is far-and-away a better bargaining chip.”
    Who’s been saying that? You’re the one who asserted that Buccholz had more trade value. That was news to me, as I thought the advantage, however slight, went to Hughes.

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:42 pm
  • AndrewYF, then what would it take for the Yanks to get it done?

    Tyrel SF November 28, 2007, 12:42 pm
  • I still don’t think you’re getting the point, Atheose. Cashman is not going to do whatever he can to get Haren or Santana, because the Yankees can do without them. Yes, they would be amazing with them, but not at the price of a Prior-esque pitching prospect or the best 2B-man in the league.

    AndrewYF November 28, 2007, 12:45 pm
  • I’d say that Hughes/Buchholz is splitting hairs, for the simple fact that neither guy is probably the single thing that gets a deal done. They are both of tremendous value to a trading partner, no matter what. Hughes has more major league experience at this point and a stellar past, but he was hurt (teams DO consider that as a factor, I would think) and he pitched passably. Buchholz has a shorter track record but his minor league numbers (and the admittedly small sample at the ML level) were impeccable. Maybe Hughes has the edge to many people, but the only opinion that really matters is that of the beholder. In other words, if the Twins HAD to make a trade for only one of the two guys I have no idea who they would pick. Maybe they’d pick Hughes, maybe they’d pick Buchholz. I’d say it’s 60/40 in favor of Hughes based on his slightly longer history, but that’s my own opinion and nothing scientific. And it’s meaningless if someone in the Twins FO scouted and loves Clay no matter what the history of the two pitchers, and this is something which we simply do not know.
    I am on the record as saying that I think Santana, if traded, gets moved for far less than is being advertised by the Twins, the Yankees, the Sox, or any of the sources that are putting tags like “untouchable” on prospects or young players. To address Nick’s point about the Beckett deal, I think there is one significant difference in that Johan has a no-trade and is about to be a free agent; he’s not cost-controlled like Beckett was at the time of his acquisition by the Sox. Though Santana is a better pitcher now than Beckett was at that moment, I think that his contract status offsets these greater abilities to some extent, how much I do not know. Imagine if Beckett performed for the Marlins in ’05 the way he did this year but was also approaching free agency and was looking at $20-25M per year annually for five or six years minimum, would the Sox have traded Hanley and Sanchez for a guy in that situation? I think they might have shied away, frankly.
    I also personally don’t trust much of the reporting that is being done on this front, other than to recognize that yes, the Sox and Yankees are both interested in Johan: why wouldn’t they be?
    When a report says that a player is “untouchable” it means, to me, nothing. Nobody is untouchable. If the Yankees were offered Dan Haren for Joba straight up would Joba still be “untouchable”? Would any sane Yankee fan turn that deal down? Same with Clay and Sox fans. The right offer always trumps “untouchability”.

    SF November 28, 2007, 12:46 pm
  • Jay said above (or on the other thread?) that Crisp + Lester + Buchholz was no where near as good of an offer as Melky + Hughes. Since Melky > Crisp (obviously) I was trying to compare the other pieces. At the very least (like you say above) right now Buchholz and Hughes are very close.
    So throw in Lester and the two deals are similar, right? I think they are.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:47 pm
  • Crisp + Lester + Buchholz blows Melky + Hughes away, simply because Lester is one more young player. Add, say, Horne into the Yankee deal and you can start comparing.

    AndrewYF November 28, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • Ok, Atheose, Fair enough. I didn’t look earlier in the thread.
    “Imagine if Beckett performed for the Marlins in ’05 the way he did this year but was also approaching free agency and was looking at $20-25M per year annually for five or six years minimum, would the Sox have traded Hanley and Sanchez for a guy in that situation? I think they might have shied away, frankly.”
    I know you acknowledged this difference by pointing out that Santana is better than Beckett at the time, but I htink it actually makes up for the difference in salary concerns to a degree. My point is that cost-controlled contracts are nice for teams like the Yanks and Sox but they are not the end-all. The Sox were able to wrap Beckett up to a below-market great deal due in large part to luck. He sucked in 2005 and didn’t have bargaining leverage. Say he performed like he did in 2006 that year. Do you think he wouldn’t be making a significant amount more money? Do you think the Sox would really minded paying him that much?

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:53 pm
  • Ahh okay, thanks Nick.
    Having said everything, I hope neither side gets Santana. It’s going to be fun to see Buchholz, Lester, Hughes, Chamberlain and Kennedy grow and compete.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:55 pm
  • oops. I meant to say he sucked in his first year with the Sox.

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • Nick is a year behind. He meant 2006 and 2007, I think. But it wasn’t all luck, the Sox saw an opportune moment to lock up a player who they thought would be undervalued. They took a risk, and it paid off. Sure, it’s lucky Beckett made such a huge turnaround, but that was the payoff of the risk.
    Now David Ortiz turning out the way he did, that’s the equivalent of winning the baseball lottery.

    AndrewYF November 28, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • Also, Nick is right about the Beckett contract. Had Beckett put up 2007 numbers in 2006 he’d be making significantly more.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • I shouldn’t say luck. They made a great and smart move which they wouldn’t have been able to make if fortune had been different.

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • They were lucky that it worked out the way it did, but it was a smart move when you weigh the risks with the benefits.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 1:01 pm
  • My point is that cost-controlled contracts are nice for teams like the Yanks and Sox but they are not the end-all.
    No, they are not, you are right. But they add opportunity; for the Sox it might have been that Beckett’s low salary gave them more comfort in going after Drew or Dice-K, I don’t know.
    Santana ’07 and Beckett ’05 are obviously apples and oranges: Beckett was an injury risk with tremendous upside going to the AL, Santana is a mature CY winner entering what could be three or four years of tip-top productivity/dominance. But Santana’s contract status and no-trade clause diminish his value and therefore the Twins’ ability to extract value from a trade partner as far as I am concerned. This may be, from a value standpoint, from “insanely high and almost incomprehensible, perhaps sell most of the farm to get him high” to “damn high, but not as high as everyone is supposing, maybe sell a part of the farm to get him high”. But it diminishes Santana’s value nonetheless. If the Twins are able to get something like Cano/Melky/Hughes or Ellsbury/Buchholz/Bowden for Santana they will have done a masterful job and I will be very, very surprised.

    SF November 28, 2007, 1:02 pm
  • It’s true we never know how limiting dead-weight contracts are for teams like the Yanks and Sox. But as a follower of the Bombers, a team that constantly spends and spends even with players like Giambi and Mussina (now) on the roster, it seems the best thing is to always go for the best known player. Go for absolute value, not market/relative value (i am now talking out of my ass!).

    Nick-YF November 28, 2007, 1:12 pm
  • Since Melky > Crisp (obviously)
    How obvious is it?
    This guy – http://tinyurl.com/2pc8mw – says BP gives Melky a VORP of 9.8 and Coco an 11.9. (I’m too poor to Pay for a BP subscription, so I have to get their stats second hand…) I found this surprising, given that Melky had a slightly higher OPS (.718 to .712). Were Coco’s extra 15 SBs enough to give him that much more value?
    And then there’s Baseball Musings defensive ratings, where Coco is #1 and Melky is in the bottom 50%. http://tinyurl.com/3xfpbf
    Yes, Melky is younger, and has a decent chance to develop into something more. And anecdotally, I can’t stand watching Coco hit. But going by VORP and PMR, it looks like Coco is the better player.

    Tyrel SF November 28, 2007, 1:12 pm
  • Hmmm, good point Tyrel. Melky has a stronger arm and is still very young though.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 1:23 pm
  • And Melky is cheaper and under contract longer. I still agree that Melky > Coco (stats be damned), but I think the difference is slight.

    Tyrel SF November 28, 2007, 1:29 pm
  • Yeah, for some reason I thought Melky hit for better power, instead of just 8 HR in 150 games. I thought he hit for better average, too.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 1:36 pm
  • By most defensive measurements Coco is a FAR superior player in the field.
    Melky is younger, cost-controlled at a lower price-point than Crisp. Interestingly, we are talking about a few million here in a market where Torii Hunter just inked a $90M deal with a lower career OBP than Coco and perhaps diminishing defensive skills. Crisp is a deal in this market, whether you like him as a player or not.

    SF November 28, 2007, 1:36 pm
  • Boras over-reached with a weak-minded over-talented client who then had to ask daddy (in this case, Warren Buffett) how he should get out of the mess his agent put him in. Daddy told him to circumvent the agent and talk directly to the team. Boras looks – and was – stupid for how he handled this. The fact that he makes lots of money off it is a silly argument for him “winning” since he would have made that money no matter what – he certainly didn’t need to do it in a way that would once again hurt A-Rod’s reputation. I cite once again the unprecedented Peter Gammons anti-A-Rod tirades in the days – in fact weeks – after Boras’ mis-step during the WS. A-Rod is getting nothing more than he would have if he had negotiated with NY from the start. Game. Set. Match. No-one.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 1:37 pm
  • In response to Lockland’s assertion that Coco is clearly a top 3 CF’er, below are three CF’s I would take right now long before Coco and would suspect any SF who wouldn’t admit the same:
    1) Melky Cabrera – 5 years younger, comparable range in the outfield (with a better arm), and just as good with the bat (and improving, unlike Coco who has been around long enough for us to confidentently state that this is as good as he gets with a bat). You can argue that he is no better than Coco, but in that case, being 5 years younger and still developing makes him a better choice.
    2) Torii Hunter: Just as good in the field in every way with a significantly better bat.
    3) Ichiro Suzuki: Better range, better arm, phenomenally better bat. Better in every way, by a lot. Even at his age, he is so much better there is no comparison.
    I would even consider a fourth – Aaron Rowand – who is comparable with the bat, strong enough in the outfield, and with Paul O’Neil-like intensity on every play which fans and team-mates alike appreciate.
    In other words, Coco is not top 3 in the AL, let alone in all the majors.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 1:43 pm
  • he certainly didn’t need to do it in a way that would once again hurt A-Rod’s reputation
    Since when is A-Rod not responsible for part of the mess? Why is it all on Boras? A-Rod is an adult and accountable for any hits to his image; he hired Boras, he lives and dies with Boras (he hasn’t fired him, has he?), and through Boras he gains tremendous financial leverage. A-Rod took a PR hit because of his own choices in concert with Boras’ actions.

    SF November 28, 2007, 1:45 pm
  • In response to Lockland’s assertion that Coco is clearly a top 3 CF’er, below are three CF’s I would take right now long before Coco and would suspect any SF who wouldn’t admit the same:
    I think he meant top 3 DEFENSIVE CF’s ;-)

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 1:49 pm
  • Ironhorse, Lockland said he was a top three DEFENSIVE CF, not all-around CF.
    And in regards to “[Melky is] just as good with the bat (and improving),” Melky actually got worse from 2006-2007, based on the stats.
    http://tinyurl.com/2ktltx

    Tyrel SF November 28, 2007, 1:50 pm
  • Doh, jinx.

    Tyrel SF November 28, 2007, 1:51 pm
  • Beat you out by a minute, Tyrel. I win!

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 1:53 pm
  • And what do Ichiro and Hunter cost, IH?
    Melky and Crisp are both financial steals in this market.
    this is as good as he gets with a bat
    What, Coco’s peak is last season, not 2004-2005 which, in fact, were far better? How do you know this? Wouldn’t the definition of “as good as he gets” be his best seasons?
    Would it have been fair to say, after 2006, that that was “as good as A-Rod gets”, even though he had performed at a higher level in prior years? This is convenient logic, IH.

    SF November 28, 2007, 1:56 pm
  • Melky Cabrera – 5 years younger, comparable range in the outfield (with a better arm),
    Yes, younger and with a better arm, but a comparable bat and not nearly the range (again using PMR, which places him below Johnny Damon and the majority of the rest of baseball’s center fielders).
    2) Torii Hunter: Just as good in the field in every way with a significantly better bat.
    But four years older, clearly in decline, and apparently not as good in the field either, as evidenced by PMR, which places him slightly below average. Not gonna argue that his power is much better than Coco’s, which may be enough to rank him ahead of Crisp.
    I wouldn’t have said Coco is one of the three best CFs in the league, but so far, two of your three choices are arguably not better than Coco going forward and at best simply equal to him, particularly when you look at Hunter’s age and how he’s trending defensively. He might not be in center for long.

    Paul SF November 28, 2007, 1:59 pm
  • What Atheose and Tyrel said…
    Not only is it what I meant, it’s actually what I said.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 2:05 pm
  • Melky is 22, solid CF offensively and defensively, and making league minimum. It’s very hard to argue that he and Coco are equal in trade value. Coco is only going to plateau or decline from here. Melky has every chance of developing 50-100 points in SLG over the next FIVE years to his peak.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 2:06 pm
  • “Coco is only going to plateau or decline from here”
    Huh? If you don’t, you should play the lottery.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 2:15 pm
  • Coco is only going to plateau or decline from here
    What’s the plateau? ’07? ’05? I’ll assume you’ll pick ’06 since, like IH, it would justify your position. And how can you know that Melky will do better than he has? Because every young player gets better? Because he improved from one year to the next? Because it’s historically proven that every player gets better every year? Will he suddenly be able to cover more ground in center? Will he get rocket cleats that propel him over walls? Will he develop plate discipline? You apply that logic to Crisp: since he did worse this year than three years ago that trend will continue, no matter what. How can anyone speak with such certainty that Melky will improve but that Crisp will decline, since Coco has actually proven he can hit a higher level than he did last season while Melky has not proven anything above what he has already accomplished? I find all this logic stupefying. Why can’t both guys co-exist as valuable players and possible trade chits? They are different players with different risks and different salaries, both relative bargains in this market, but both assets to their current teams and to trade partners. Because Melky is valuable then Coco can not nearly be of equal value, no matter past performance, according to some Yankee fans around these parts, and it is inarguable to say otherwise. Younger and cheaper is always better according to some Cabrera defenders, hence Cabrera, despite being a far weaker player in one major category (fielding), will always be the superior value, no matter what the counterargument might be. That’s a hard position to take, and I wouldn’t want to be tied to that logic of absolutism.
    The fact is that any trade partner may deem Coco the more valuable player: they may want to acquire a proven veteran centerfielder who can cover ground and protect their pitchers and steal a base (and possibly hit for a bit of power) and look for more solid offensive power elsewhere. Or they may value Melky more, thinking that the risk of his youth, potential, and lower cost is worth more.
    I am kind of tired of these all-or-nothing arguments.

    SF November 28, 2007, 2:23 pm
  • Coco Crisp, going on age 28 = What you see is what you get

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 2:23 pm
  • What SF said.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 2:26 pm
  • Coco Crisp, going on age 28 = What you see is what you get
    You mean the fact that he’s hit .298 or higher for two full years during his career, which Melky has not done? How do you know that Coco won’t find that .300 groove again? He did it two straight years, so who are you to say he’ll never hit at that level again?
    Lowell had an above-average year in 2006 and a fantastic year in 2007, all at a higher age than Coco and after much worse seasons.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 2:30 pm
  • I can’t believe, when discussing best overall centerfielders, IronHorse didn’t even mention Grady Sizemore or Curtis Granderson.

    Anonymous November 28, 2007, 2:35 pm
  • 1. Coco = early peak = Occam’s Razor
    2. Lowell’s 2007 was an anomaly. It happens, as does regression to the mean.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 2:37 pm
  • What SF said.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 2:38 pm
  • Occam’s Razor = Melky, after two full seasons with the Yankees, has little room to improve.
    Occam’s Razor = Coco Crisp’s injury had much to do with his dropoff in average.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 2:41 pm
  • When’s the last time a 22 year old found his peak and never improved?
    Early peaks, while not typical, happen and the guy is out of baseball by 31 or 32. No idea if that’s the case with Coco, but it just as likely as him hitting for a 117 OPS+ again.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 2:46 pm
  • Lowell’s 2007 was an anomaly. It happens, as does regression to the mean.
    Mike Lowell also proved that a player can have the best season of his career well after he is presumed to have “plateaued.” Lowell was written off as having “peaked” after a 2005 season in which his OPS+ equalled Crisp’s 2006. Except Lowell was 31. Crisp was 27.

    Paul SF November 28, 2007, 2:51 pm
  • Wait Mike, which is it?
    “Coco is only going to plateau or decline from here”
    Or…
    “No idea if that’s the case with Coco”
    You can’t have it both ways.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • Coco is only going to plateau or decline from here

    No idea if that’s the case with Coco, but it just as likely as him hitting for a 117 OPS+ again.
    Masterful backpedaling.

    Paul SF November 28, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • Yeah, but that was one season for Lowell and one where he hit .370 at hom. Let’s see him do that again, and four years at that.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 2:56 pm
  • No idea if *he’s out of baseball*.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 2:58 pm
  • I think I just heard this lound grinding noise, something like a person spinning themselves into the ground.

    SF November 28, 2007, 2:59 pm
  • “No idea if *he’s out of baseball*.”
    That’s actually not at all what you said Mike, which is interesting, since it’s right there for everyone to read.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 3:02 pm
  • There’s also the “Coco Crisp, going on age 28 = What you see is what you get” comment. Very different than “No idea if that’s the case with Coco…”

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 3:15 pm
  • I’m still laughing over the Nostradamus comment…
    “Coco is only going to plateau or decline from here”
    The absolute and all seeing eye of Mike.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 3:27 pm
  • Wow – just back from meetings and I see it takes little for SF’s to rally to the defense of Joe DiMag—I mean, Coco Crisp.
    To answer a couple points:
    1. Sorry to not focus on the solely DEFENSIVE qualification. Please Lockland (and his many defenders here), could you enlighten me on which among the follwoing CF’s is NOT in the top 3 together with Coco DiMaggio (and here anon, I take your point that I originally missed some of the best):
    Grady Sizemore
    Curtis Granderson
    Ichiro Suzuki
    Melky Cabrera
    Torii Hunter
    Since we are being sticklers for what you exactly said in your note – and since you are pointing out when others on this blog are not, please include the National League (Andruw Jones, Jim Edmonds, Juan Pierre, Carlos Beltran, Vernon Wells, Mark Kotsay, Mike Cameron). I’d love to see how Coco ranks third DEFENSIVELY in your book here.
    2. SF: What people cost (Ichiro, Hunter, or whoever) has nothing to do with who are the best DEFENSIVE CF’s so if you all want me to stick to Lockland’s assertion, you should probably do the same. Though it is rather “convenient logic” for you to raise this red herring to distract from the issue at hand – namely: Is Coco DiMaggio one of the top 3 defensive CFs in all of baseball…or even in the AL for that matter.
    3. SF (again): On A-Rod bearing some responsibility for the mishandling of his opt-out announcement, nothing I wrote contradicts this. It’s part of why I called him weak-minded. But the point is still that Boras did not engineer anything masterful here. He screwed up. The fact that he will still get money is irrelevant – he would have gotten it if he didn’t screw up.
    4. On whether Melky can only get better offensively or Coco DiMaggio can only stay the same (or decline), I think we are all agreed that they are pretty equal offensively. If this is the case, please make the argument that between two offensively equivalent players, the 27-year old has more upside than the 22-year old.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 3:31 pm
  • Did you really just put Vernon Wells in the national league?
    And Crisp was, really, the best defensively – for 2007. Not considering arm strength, of course. But that doesn’t mean he’s guaranteed to be the best defensively for years after – that kind of thing is much less consistent than offensive production.

    Andrew November 28, 2007, 3:42 pm
  • In Dave Pinto’s book, fwiw, Crisp is the best defensive center fielder in all of baseball, IH. And he’s actually got data to prove it, unlike your list of the usual (-ly overrated) suspects. Granted, that doesn’t include arm strength, so I could see where players like Granderson and Ichiro, who are close in range but with better arms, might top him. But Cabrera, Pierre, Jones, Sizemore, Beltran, Hunter and Rowand aren’t even close — and Cabrera, Sizemore, Hunter and Rowand are all below league average. I’m not sure why you are so antagonistic on this point. A case can be made that Crisp is one of the top three defensive center fielders in the game right now; at least one defensive model has him at No. 1.

    Paul SF November 28, 2007, 3:42 pm
  • But that doesn’t mean he’s guaranteed to be the best defensively for years after – that kind of thing is much less consistent than offensive production.
    I disagree–I think defensive capabilities are more consistent than offensive production.

    Atheose November 28, 2007, 3:45 pm
  • A player can plateau or decline and still have a back to the future year. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
    Meanwhile, let me be clear: It’s just as likely that Coco will be out of baseball at age 31 or 32 that he’ll have a 117 OPS+ year again. That’s what I think, any ways. A player that puts up two straight seasons of:
    2006 (age 26) – .264 .317 .385
    2007 (age 27) – .268 .330 .382
    He is what he is. And once he loses his speed, he ain’t much. He’s looking like Juan Pierre without the AVG and stolen bases. Sorry if you don’t like that analysis.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 3:52 pm
  • IH, nobody here is arguing who has the better CHANCE to improve their offense, we are simply pointing out the complete absurdity of a definitive statement that Coco CAN NOT do better.
    Also, it would have been a lot easier for you to admit that you simply misread my original post, which you obviously did, instead of making up another argument.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 3:53 pm
  • Lockland, here goes: I misread your original post. Happy? Actually, the fact that I wrote as my first point “Sorry to not focus on the solely DEFENSIVE qualification” seems liek a pretty clear admission already. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you misread mine.
    Now, on to that original post of yours: who of the CF’s listed above makes the top 3 with Coco and who does not?
    Paul – not sure what was antagonistic in my original post. Yes, I got more feisty after some of the feisty responses, but that is part of the fun, no? I don’t think I am being disrespectful to anyone here.
    More to the point, I never indicated that everyone I listed is better than Coco. I asked a simple question: which of the players I listed is worse than Coco defensively, making him “easily” a top 3 CF as Lockland asserted. Feel free to use range-stats – just don’t forget to add in assists to cover the arm issue.
    I’m a bit amazed at how enthusiastic the SF-base here is in hailing Coco. I never trashed the guy – I just don’t think he is in the top 3.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 3:58 pm
  • Paul did a pretty good job supporting Coco as a top 3 defensive CF, that’s good enough for me.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 4:01 pm
  • “Paul did a pretty good job supporting Coco as a top 3 defensive CF, that’s good enough for me.”
    “I think I just heard this lound grinding noise, something like a person spinning themselves into the ground.”

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 4:02 pm
  • By the way, I’m glad to see people here buying into Pinto’s formula, cause that means:
    - Jorge one best defensive catcher in the game. Varitek one of the worst.
    - Doug M > Youkilis
    - Cano one of the best 2B in the game. Pedroia is about average.
    - Jeter very bad. Lugo = average.
    - Lowell and A-Rod both above average.
    - Abreu above average. Drew below average.
    - Damon above average. Crisp one of the best in the game. Melky below average.
    - Matsui above average. Manny not even close.

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 4:02 pm
  • Assists? In 2005 Manny lead all MLB left fielders in assists.
    Next stat please.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 4:11 pm
  • None of those statements has really been disputed here, Mike. Drew’s strength is in his arm, and it’s surprising that Abreu’s ranked so highly, but that’s really it.
    Also, Pinto himself notes that range stats are pretty worthless for catchers.

    Paul SF November 28, 2007, 4:13 pm
  • “Assists? In 2005 Manny lead all MLB left fielders in assists. Next stat please.”
    Yeah, he did. It had nothing to do with him patrolling a living room for 50% of the games he plays in.
    How’s this for a stat:
    “Most unsubstantiated assertion of Coco Crisp’s gretness”
    Leader for 2007: Lockland.
    I know it’s true. Dave Pinto says so.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 4:13 pm
  • I can’t believe that the 2007 AL Gold Glove recipients for OF play were all CFs and not one of them was Coco Crisp. What a clear injustice…I guess the managers and coaches who vote on such things know nothing about baseball.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 4:22 pm
  • Not saying I’m disputing anyone, in particular (though the “Damon = finished and overpriced” meme comes close). Jorge also throws out a greater percentage of runners. But how much longer will we have to hear about the great catching of Varitek. Not that I’ve read that here either, but it too is a very popular meme.
    On Drew vs. Abreu:
    Abreu – 105 assists in 1620 games
    Drew – 42 assists in 1074 games
    Who has the stronger arm?

    Mike YF November 28, 2007, 4:24 pm
  • Mike: didn’t you know that assists are now a totally bogus stat? No worries though. Lockland will I’m sure inform us of which stat better captures arm strength.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 4:27 pm
  • You’re using Gold Gloves now? Ok, I can see this is not going to be an intelligent discussion, so I will move on.

    LocklandSF November 28, 2007, 4:42 pm
  • I love it. Assists do not measure arm strength.
    Gold Gloves as voted by the managers and coaches of professional baseball mean less than a book by Dave Pinto.
    Yes Lockland, you may move on now. Just remember, your moving on is just what Scott Boras intended to have happen all along, the genius.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 4:45 pm
  • Not to jump in the middle of this useless argument, but Philly RF is the same bandbox that Fenway LF is. It’s small.

    Brad November 28, 2007, 5:11 pm
  • Brad: by all means, jump in. I think the useless argumnt is over anyway. As soon as we got serious about the contention that Coco is “easily” a top 3 CF, first Lockland’s legion of supporters and then Lockland himself took off.
    I didn’t think any OF was even close to being as small as Fenway LF. What are Philly’s RF dimensions?

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 5:16 pm
  • Not sure, IH, but I know that entire park is tiny everywhere, but then again, I’m not sure what the dimensions were to the old one, and I’m really not that interested. I just figured that I’d throw that in the hat since Drew plays in a huge RF now while Abreu has played in a small one his hole career.
    Also, I don’t really know any more than what my eyes tell me, and I know Coco made some amazing plays in CF this year. If it were the bottom of the ninth, men all around and two outs, and I knew in advance that a flyball was headed to center, I’d take him everytime. Not that it really matters here, since this whole argument is splitting hairs anyhow. They’re all great defensive OF’ers and all track balls as well as the rest of them.

    Brad November 28, 2007, 5:23 pm
  • edit: whole career.

    Brad November 28, 2007, 5:24 pm
  • Fair enough.
    Re: Abreu, he is not terrible defensively but certainly isn’t great either. Everything I heard from philly-fan friends re: his fear of walls when the trade was made appears to me to be true. Don’t know anything re: Drew defensively.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 5:34 pm
  • This is ridiculous. This debate has lost course. One assertion here that seems to be hotly debated is whether or not Coco Crisp has value. It’s foolish to think that he doesn’t have value. And value isn’t just to other teams, but to the Red Sox as well. He’s a stellar defensive player, and not just by Dave Pinto’s measure, but by many other fielding measures as well. A statistical dead heat for second in the AL in RZR, the highest fielding percentage, leader in PMR, first in range factor and third in zone rating. Whether he’s the best, or second best, or third best is splitting hairs: he’s in the upper, upper class of the major leagues at his position defensively.
    Crisp’s offense has been, at least with the Red Sox, mediocre, streaky for sure but neither jaw-dropping nor incompetent (he’s not Mirabelli-esque, as it seems that some people want everyone to believe). Combine a competent bat with speed on the basepaths (28 for 34 stealing this year) with “nearly the best in the league at his position” with a low salary with youth (27 is young by almost any measure) and you have, dare I say it, value. This is a highly non-controversial statement. I am not sure why this has devolved so much. IH’s dig at us SFs “hailing” Coco makes it sound as if we are calling him Ken Griffey or something, when all that has been pointed out is that he is an extremely fine, possibly superb, defensive player by almost all measures, and that this should make him a marketable commodity at his price point. Yeah, that’s a doozy of homerism. Right.

    SF November 28, 2007, 6:23 pm
  • SF: I don’t think Coco stinks, is below average, or is even just good defenisively. I think he is a great defensive player and I bnever argued he doesn’t have value. Nonetheless, I think calling him “easily” in the top 3 of all CFs is an overstatement that confers too much value on him, especially whenyou then add in his mediocre bat.
    This is more than a fair argument to make and one that the collective managers and coaches in baseball happen to agree with judging from their GG votes, in which (at least) 3 CFs finished ahead of Coco not even counting the NL.
    And while you can deride GG voting, if the issue, as you yourself point out, is about what other teams think of a given player’s trade value, it would be much better gauged by what other managers/coaches think than what Dave Pinto writes.
    More generally, your indignation is misplaced.
    My initial post was not even slightly sarcastic or disrespecftul. You came back accusing me of using convenient logic and went on to deride Mike-YF with your “spinning into the ground” crack so I hit back with heavy doses of sarcasm and aggression.
    But when all the smoke has cleared, the issue is whether Coco is easily in the top 3 – yeah it’s splitting hairs, but Lockland said it and I took issue with it. Splitting hairs is what a lot of comparitive player debates come down to. You and some other SFs here (though not Paul-SF) think he is in the top 3. I don’t. More importantly for both our teams is what the Minnesota Twins think about the relative strengths of Coco and Melky. We’ll learn that soon enough.

    IronHorse (yf) November 28, 2007, 6:44 pm
  • The thing that has been lost in this whole conversation is that value is in the eye of the beholder. I think Coco’s value is much greater to a team like the white sox than the twins. It all depends on where a team is in their talent cycle. Now with an impending trade for Delmon Young it appears Melky’s value to the Twins may be decreased.
    I do think its interesting that most SFs have been ready to throw Coco under a bus all season and now that the sox are ready to trade him, it seems that his value to another team is being inflated. If his value is so great now, why not keep him and use Jacoby to land an SP? There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect in these terms. Im sure the term “worthless” has been used multiple times this year by SFs to describe him after all.

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 6:46 pm
  • You and some other SFs here (though not Paul-SF) think he is in the top 3.
    No, I didn’t. Never. In fact, I stated that I don’t care what people rate him, that it’s all splitting hairs. And you were the one who cracked that we were somehow making Coco into an all-world player (Joe DiMaggio I think was the jokey reference), and then that later snide “hailed” comment.
    I wish that people would stick to the merits and actual content of the comments and not assign claims to those of us who never made such claims in order to solidify their position. I never made a comment that I thought Coco was a top three defender, I do not care about this rating. I have been explicit about not knowing how Minnesota ranks Coco with regards to Melky, and that I could understand why they might go for either of them. Like I said before, I think this discussion has gone off course, aided and abetted by a handful of misreadings and misassigned claims.

    SF November 28, 2007, 7:19 pm
  • Sam, that blockbuster between the Twins and Rays will include a young CF Jason Pridie. Apparently he would be the CF of the future for the Twins. So you are 100% correct when you say Melky’s value definitely takes a hit.
    Here’s the deal:
    Delmon Young, Jason Pridie and Brendan Harris
    For
    Matt Garza, Juan Rincon and Jason Bartlett

    John - YF November 28, 2007, 8:50 pm
  • If his value is so great now, why not keep him and use Jacoby to land an SP?
    I’ve been saying that all along. I’ve also been one of those saying we need to trade Crisp and let Ellsbury start because I’m sick of Crisp’s anemic bat, and comfortable enough that Ellsbury already is an adequate defensive replacement. Find a team that needs a great-defense, youngish, fairly cheap center fielder and see the most you can get for him (as long as it’s not ridiculous) — if that’s as part of a trade for a starter, great. If not, we need a backup catcher, or a catching prospect, or a stud reliever.
    BUT… I’d gladly trade Ellsbury for pitching and be happy with Crisp’s top-whatever defense in center and streaky-to-awful bat in the eighth or ninth spot if it means we have Johan Santana or Dan Haren pitching every five days.
    It’s not so much inconsistent as looking at different parts of the elephant.

    Paul SF November 28, 2007, 10:48 pm
  • Paul. you are the only one ive seen who has made this point all along Re:Crisp. I dont think that your tone and logic can be applied to much of the discussion above and in earlier threads on this topic.
    This D. Rays-Twins trade is very interesting and adds another level of intrigue to the hot stove. It greatly reduces the need for one of the best trading chips the sox have and one of the better ones for the yankees. This move could open the door for a few other teams to get in on the bidding and provide better matches than the sox or the yanks.

    sam-YF November 28, 2007, 10:55 pm
  • sam:
    Not sure where you get the impression that I think the Sox should trade Crisp. I only speculate that he has value. I am quite content with Coco and Ellsbury on the roster sharing time; I have expressed no desire for an “acquire Santana at all costs” move and also am expecting Ellsbury to struggle much more next year as his luck changes and other teams adjust. In fact, the argument here that is getting a great deal of resistance is that Coco is a reasonably valuable player! It would stand that he’s valuable to the Sox as well.

    SF November 29, 2007, 6:31 am
  • “I wish that people would stick to the merits and actual content of the comments and not assign claims to those of us who never made such claims in order to solidify their position.”
    You then go on to say “the argument here that is getting a great deal of resistance is that Coco is a reasonably valuable player!”
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
    Coco is reasonably valuable. He is not “easily a top 3 defensive CF”. If you don’t subscribe to the latter statement yourself then I don’t understand why you have been so intent on debating my rejection of it.
    As to the latest Twins deal, I agree with you Sam-YF – it seems to reduce their need for key position players. But I think it also clearly increases their need for both young and proven pitching. With Garza and likely Santana both gone, I’d expect the Twins to put even more effort on the Hughes/Kennedy/Chamberlain/Horne (as well as Bucholz/Lester/whatever other P’s the RS have) parts of their Santana trade talks.
    As a result, I expect a prospective NY trade for Santana to hurt a bit more now given that – while I love Melky – I can deal easier with losing a great CF in a league full of them then I can with losing multiple fine young pitchers.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 8:37 am
  • IH:
    I am still unclear on why you continue to assert that I have been rejecting your “non top-3″ assertion when in fact I have explicitly said I don’t actually care about qualifying Coco in these terms.

    SF November 29, 2007, 10:04 am
  • SF: Fine.
    You don’t care about the “top-3 debate” and never argued that Coco was in that tier.
    And I don’t care about whether Coco is “reasonably valuable” since I never argued he wasn’t.
    We therefore have nothing more to discuss.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 10:39 am
  • sf, in ih’s defense, one of you sf’s, lockland at 10:28am November 28 on this thread, did assert that coco was a “top 3″ defensive c-fielder in response to my disparaging assessment of coco’s skills…not sure who agreed or disagreed after that…we’ve had so many discussions in so many different places about this, that it’s tough to say who said what…in your defense, i don’t recall you ever being so enamored of coco’s value to the sox…

    dc November 29, 2007, 11:13 am
  • I thought I said the same thing thirty comments ago!

    SF November 29, 2007, 11:14 am
  • dc:
    Yes, he did. But I was lumped into a generic group of SFs, when in fact I did not share the opinion. You know how I hate this!

    SF November 29, 2007, 11:17 am

Leave a Comment