In the Lead?

A little birdie says the Boston Red Sox have become the favorite in the Johan Santana trade sweepstakes.

The Twins would receive four players for the Twins’ two-time Cy Young Award winner, including center fielder Coco Crisp, 28.

Others would be shortstop prospect Jed Lowry, 23; left-handed pitcher Jon Lester, 23; and right-handed pitcher Justin Masterson, 22.

Before a deal could be made, the Red Sox would have to have time to negotiate a contract extension with Santana, 28, who can become a free agent after next season and could have a market value as high as $150 million over six years.

The New York Yankees don’t have the prospects available who the Twins figure have a reasonable chance to play in the major leagues by the end of 2008.

Let me say first I fully believe this is a Minnesota leak designed to get the Yankees to budge beyond simply giving up Hughes and Cabrera for Santana.

That said, this deal would make some sense for the Red Sox — it leaves Buchholz, Ellsbury and Bowden untouched, and Lowrie is more expendable with the re-signing of Lowell (though I’d hate to see him go). I think this isn’t bad, though losing two pitching prospects the caliber of Masterson/Lester makes me wince. The prospect of a Santana-Beckett-Matsuzaka-Schilling-Buchholz rotation in September does not.

HT: MLBTradeRumors

222 comments… add one
  • the thought of the sox getting Santana makes me want to vomit. It would be quite a coup if they get him and hang on to their top 2 prospects. If that were the case it would feel like the demands from the yankees were much higher. But as Paul said it could be a plant to get the yanks to up their bid. I dont like making moves based on what the sox do but in this case i think the yankees need to do everything to prevent him from going to Boston.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 9:57 am
  • That’s interesting to me. Lester is probably a stronger prospect than IPK, which implies that the Twins want either Hughes or Joba. Do they consider Masterson further along/better than Alan Horne? Are the Yanks burned here because the Twins have an immediate need and they have so many of their blue chip prospects delayed by surgery (Sanchez, Betances, Brackman)? Also interesting that Masterson is in this mix over Bowden. Wonder what the Twins scouts know there.

    YF November 29, 2007, 10:00 am
  • The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it’s too good to be true. Acquiring Johan Santana without giving up two of the Big Three? Pretty dang good. Theo should be requesting the 72-hour window right now if the Twins really are OK with that package.
    Masterson seems to have leapfrogged Bowden in the past year, for whatever reason. Not sure whether Masterson was that good, or what. has Masterson ranked third, Lowrie fourth, Bowden fifth. Looking at the numbers, Bowden struggled some after being promoted to AA early last season, though he didn’t do much worse than Masterson, who is actually a year older. So you got me.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:05 am
  • Lowrie is a pretty good prospect too. He could probably be an everyday 2B or 3B for the Twins, with reasonably solid production. Do the Yanks have any comparable ML-ready position player prospects?
    A starting CF, starting IF, starting pitcher and a very good pitching prospect is a pretty well-rounded package. Dear Lord, let this be true.

    Tyrel SF November 29, 2007, 10:07 am
  • The writer spelled Lowrie’s name wrong. Plus, the last sentence in the article makes absolutely no sense. If this is the leading deal, Cashman must only be offering Kennedy and Cabrera, and not even mentioning Jackson, Tabata or Horne. This smells strongly of a guy wanting to grab some attention, which I guess he has.
    A little birdie? Does he talk to his racket too?

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 10:09 am
  • The man is a sportswriter for a major metropolitan daily, Andrew. Regardless of his writing style, it seems silly to question whether he actually received the info. The question is who gave it to him, how accurate is it, and what were the motivations?

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:11 am
  • It’s silly to question if he made up the info? He mentions a ‘little birdie’. Not even a standard “unnamed Minnesota executive who has knowledge of the situation”. Why should this guy suddenly be trusted beyond question? Because he writes for a paper?
    I must say, if this is the current leading offer, Hughes and/or Tabata/Jackson must not even be on the table.

    Anonymous November 29, 2007, 10:17 am
  • If true, this would be huge for the Sox. They would not be giving up much. Lester is a great guy, but not destined to be a top flight starter. Crisp is not very productive with the bat. Prospects are a crap shoot.
    I seem to remember the D-Backs asking a lot less for Schilling from the Sox then they were from the Yankees too.

    DS-YF November 29, 2007, 10:18 am
  • i heard the same “leak” paul, but i’m not sure it was from the same source…you have a good point: could be the twins are leaking this stuff to up the ante…a couple of days ago i thought folks generally considered that the yanks were a slight front-runner…but then again, i thought the yanks had more of an interest in torii hunter, and would certainly sign him to pave the way for trading melky…shows you what i know…interesting how these competitions to acquire a player twist and turn, and develop into a real “neck and neck” horse race…oh well, wherever he winds up it’s meant to be i guess, and the loser will have to be happy with keeping their future stars in the family and $125m in their pocket…not such a bad alternative…him going to the red sox worries me that the gap between our teams widens, but that’s how it goes i guess…the yanks will have to assess the validity of such rumors [i don’t think baseball requires clubs to be honest about this stuff], and make the appropriate counter-play…so they either put up or shutup…

    dc November 29, 2007, 10:19 am
  • Well, that was because Colangelo hated the Yankees with a passion, iirc.
    I tend to give people who make a living at newspapers some benefit of the doubt, Andrew, yes. They tend to care deeply about getting it right, not least because getting it wrong would cost them their jobs.
    Also, I presume it’s a column or blog of some sort, hence the informal writing style. It’s poorly sourced info, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not info.
    Why not talk about whether the information he received is accurate? That seems to accomplish the same thing without slamming a guy just because he’s delivering you bad news.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:23 am
  • This is the same newspaper that published the article saying that the Twins should trade Carlos Silva to the Red Sox. That was an opinion piece, but I think we can get a good read on the quality of this Minnesota press.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 10:23 am
  • Funny you mention the horse race, dc, because I was in the middle of writing a post about the Sox and Yanks apparently being the only serious bidders for Santana when MLBTR linked to the Walters piece.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:25 am
  • Just because one guy’s a hack doesn’t mean everyone who works at the paper or in the same metropolitan area are hacks, Andrew. Because Murray Chass talks out of his ass, does that mean Tyler Kepner or Jack Curry can’t be trusted either?

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:27 am
  • I’m highly skeptical of this for one reason only, I jumped for joy. To good to be true for sure.

    LocklandSF November 29, 2007, 10:27 am
  • by the way, we aren’t going to give this minn writer any more cred than we gave the goof that sf posted about yesterday…are we?…no offense to our journalist-regulars, but most of these guys are about 1 step up from used car salesmen on the food chain, and that can slip on any given day…ain’t no pulitzers in most of the stuff that gets quoted/referenced around here…

    dc November 29, 2007, 10:27 am
  • I tend to give people who make a living at newspapers some benefit of the doubt, Andrew, yes. They tend to care deeply about getting it right, not least because getting it wrong would cost them their jobs.
    Oh, please. Made-up baseball rumors happen all the time. Pete Abraham has been wrong on almost every single prediction. Remember when he quoted Rivera’s ‘friend’ as saying Mo considers the Yankees only one of 30 teams? Or what about the reports flying around that Rivera was ‘angry’ and ‘definitely wanted a fourth year’. Those were abjectly wrong, but I don’t think people lost their jobs over it.
    It’s info, but it doesn’t sound very plausible. Add in to the fact that the writer actually wrote the last sentence, which is absolutely wrong, and I think you can see why I’m more than a little skeptical.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 10:29 am
  • Shooting the messenger is ugly business, dc. Problem is, you never have enough ammo for all the people telling you stuff you don’t want to hear.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:29 am
  • I’ve had the sense, this whole time, that the Yanks will end up with Johan when all is said and done. This is not necessarily based on wishful thinking, but more the general needs of the Yanks and the Sox and the teams’ respective roster construction styles. I have an easier time, for instance, seeing the Yanks pony up the money and prospects than I do seeing the Red Sox do the same thing. Also, there is the Johan NTC, and the random implications I’ve read from a couple of reporters here and there (read No Maas’s interview today) that Johan wants to play in New York. So like Paul, I think this story is most likely intended to boost the price up on the Yanks. As YF and others surmise, the offer suggest the Twins are trying to get Hughes or Joba, and it would see the Yanks have held strong so far. I’m not a poker player but I’d guess this is a strong bluff. I wonder if the Yanks will call them on it.

    Nick-YF November 29, 2007, 10:33 am
  • “ain’t no pulitzers in most of the stuff that gets quoted/referenced around here…”
    dc, are you saying we at YFSF don’t write Pulitzer quality stuff!?

    Nick-YF November 29, 2007, 10:34 am
  • That’s close though, no? What if, with competition, the offer gets upped to Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie, Masterson. That seems fair and the Sox lose nothing they need except pitching depth.
    Meanwhile, could the Yanks beat that offer with Hughes, Melky, and Horne? Seems like they’d have to include Kennedy or Jackson.
    Glad I’m not the one making these decisions.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 10:37 am
  • i find it pretty hard to believe that this guy started studying the sox farm system and completely made up this trade on his own. He must have gotten the info from some source to feel it was worthy to put into print. The validity of the info is what should be in question not the guy who wrote it. The way trades rumors work to me is that you can start trusting something a little more when it comes from multiple sources ideally at least one from a national reporter. Those are the ones that typically have real traction.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 10:43 am
  • While I would love this trade to actually happen (though I doubt it will), I have a general question about the Sox starting rotation. With 6 starting pitchers right now (and presumably 6 even with this trade), has there been more discussion about who goes to the bullpen or is traded away? The 6-man rotation seems to be have been ruled out. In most of the starting rotation scenarios, Wakefield seems to be the odd man out. Thoughts?

    Max (SF) November 29, 2007, 10:43 am
  • Keep in mind: This is the same paper that printed this laughable excuse for an article. I’m putting approximately zero stock in it.

    Ben K. November 29, 2007, 10:43 am
  • Actually, I agree with you Sam. I rescind my ‘this guy made the article up’, he most likely doesn’t have enough baseball acumen for that.
    After a little more thought, what I take from this is that Cashman is holding hard at some package like Kennedy, Cabrera and Horne, or maybe even less than that, and the Twins directed their staff to put out anonymous rumors to up the Yankees offer.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 10:47 am
  • Again, Ben, if that’s the standard, then the NYT’s sports section is complete crap because Murray Chass writes for it.
    Max, I’ve wondered that, too. Wakefield has said he’s too old for the bullpen inconsistency, and the Sox seem to agree. With him and the two kids, you could alternate them in the fourth and fifth spots, but if Lester’s gone and Santana’s in his place, you can’t do that anymore. If it’s Wakefield vs. Buchholz for spot No. 5, it’s gotta be Buchholz…

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:48 am
  • After a little more thought, what I take from this is that Cashman is holding hard at some package like Kennedy, Cabrera and Horne, or maybe even less than that, and the Twins directed their staff to put out anonymous rumors to up the Yankees offer.
    I completely agree, Andrew.
    I figure this is a real offer the Sox made, the Twins said, “We’ll get back to you,” decided they didn’t really like it, but thought the Yanks could top it, so they leaked the offer in hopes of getting more.
    The Twins are not in a position of strength. This may indeed be the best offer they’ve received. I doubt it’ll be the best offer they get, though.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 10:51 am
  • aw come on paul, in my first post on this i took the philosophical view…que sera sera, you know?…i really don’t care where santana winds up although it does tilt the balance of power even more in the sox favor, i’ll stop short of saying it guarantees you another ws…too many other variables and flukes, like injuries and such, oddities like the rockies, marlins, twins every 15 years, that kind of thing…i can’t do anything about the yanks’ apparently insufficient offer, so i won’t lose any sleep over it…i “shoot” the messenger [never literally, you’ll be happy to hear] when the message and/or the messenger is questionable, not because it’s something i don’t want to hear…my track record on that around here is rock-solid…i didn’t shoot this guy, i merely questioned his cred, motives, sourcing, “facts”, and put the proper perspective on his contibution to this discussion…i don’t mean to offend all journalists, just most of them…i’m skeptical of everything i read until it becomes fact…

    dc November 29, 2007, 10:51 am
  • I think this guy Walters was one of the journalists who reported the Garza-Young rumor which actually happened. At least, that’s what MBLTR says. Not sure why his credibility is in question because of a colleague’s silliness. That’s like blaming Paul for my poor unintelligent stuff.

    Nick-YF November 29, 2007, 10:53 am
  • Worth checking out River Ave Blues for some interesting takes on this from a NY perspective.

    YF November 29, 2007, 10:54 am
  • Gee, I remember a “major metropolitan newspaper” publishing a definitive account of how the Iraqis had W.M.D., based on information from a credible source codenamed “Curveball.”
    Do I trust the MSM on politics or sports? Not so much.

    Hudson November 29, 2007, 10:56 am
  • I don’t see why this has to be a crock. It could well represent the Sox offer. It doesn’t mean the Twins will take it, just what the Sox have offered. If so, it’s a strong opening bid. If they’re serious they’ll increase it. That’s the pressure on the Yanks – calling that hand.
    I don’t think the Sox are serious – less because of the players (even including Ellsbury instead of Crisp isn’t a huge leap) than because of the cash. It completely changes their salary dynamics for Beckett and Papi and makes it hard to sign a bat to replace Manny. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they pull the trigger by including Ellsbury.
    Tough call for the Yankee front office – stick to the offer and wait it out or start throwing more names in.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 10:57 am
  • “Tough call for the Yankee front office – stick to the offer and wait it out or start throwing more names in.”
    Indeed, Mike. Spot on.

    Nick-YF November 29, 2007, 10:58 am
  • P.S. Good Newsday opinion column on Santana, saying the Yankees must win this game of “keepaway”:,0,5104068.column

    Hudson November 29, 2007, 10:59 am
  • “dc, are you saying we at YFSF don’t write Pulitzer quality stuff!?”
    heck no nick…in fact, some of the best writing i see is done right here…that’s why i keep coming back…i don’t want to mention names, but there isn’t one of you guys i don’t look forward to reading…some of it is a little too cerebral and stuffy at times, but that just adds another flavor…the varying styles keeps it interesting…actually, i will name a name…paul will be shocked by this comment, and not to slight you other guys, but i admire his tireless attention to detail and devotion to the facts…we sometimes rub each other the wrong way, but neither one of us means any harm, and i’m sure we could enjoy a beer together someday if the opportunity presented itself…i could learn a lot from him about how to research and analyze data…

    dc November 29, 2007, 11:01 am
  • “If Santana goes to Boston, the Yankees go to second place in the American League East for the rest of George Steinbrenner’s life, and maybe Hank Steinbrenner’s, too. It’s as simple as that.”
    Man, is he predicting a sudden heart attack for Hank. A bit of hyperbole there. But, for once, I do see Wally Matthews’ point, and I’ve wondered a bit about how much George’s health plays into the immediate and long-term plans of the club. It’s not ridiculous to think that Hank and Hal, for very sentimental reasons, might be desperate to go for the win now for their dad.

    Nick-YF November 29, 2007, 11:02 am
  • Does anyone here actually think that the Twins first year GM could take this offer? How would he explain to the fan base that he wasnt able to pry away at least 1 of his trading partners best chips for the “best pitcher on the planet”? This in the context of losing Hunter already this season seems a bit much. I think he’d be more willing to wait until the season if this was the best he was offered.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 11:03 am
  • Aw shucks, dc. Now I’m blushing.
    River Ave Blues basically is saying the same stuff as we’ve heard here — either the info is false, the Yanks’ offer is minimalist, or other teams are out to screw the Yankees — oh yeah, or all the Sox’ prospects are crap and all the Yanks’ prospects’ pee turns to gold the minute it interacts with the earth’s atmosphere.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 11:05 am
  • Meant to add the winky-face to my last sentence.
    all the Sox’ prospects are crap and all the Yanks’ prospects’ pee turns to gold the minute it interacts with the earth’s atmosphere. ;-)

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 11:06 am
  • Good one Hudson.
    If the Sox actually pulled this off, I would, for the first time, feel they are unequivocally better than the Yankees and likely to be so for at least a couple years. Um…I’d rather not feel that way.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 11:06 am
  • Here is my ‘bit of Pulitzer quality stuff for the moment:
    This isn’t true, and there is no way that it could be unless monkeys took over the GM office for the Twins. That being said, I do think the Sox are neck-deep in this transaction and are going to what it takes to get it done, as they should.
    That being said – Get Johan. Trade Manny. That ends my wish list.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 11:07 am
  • I’m half with ya, Brad. :-)

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 11:08 am
  • Also worth a read over at the Banter, Cliff Corcoran’s convo with Steve Goldman. Apparently the Yanks are talking to KC about David DeJesus, as a potential Melky replacement.

    YF November 29, 2007, 11:10 am
  • That’s the point, Sam. It’s not an offer the Twins would take, but it’s close. It addresses all of their needs, but none very well. Swap in Ellsbury and it gets that much closer.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 11:12 am
  • As a Yankee fan, Brad, I’ll take that swap. Without Manny, Papi’s protection is Lowell. Sounds good to me.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 11:18 am
  • YF, I would love to see that. DeJesus is a former Rutgers product and a pretty solid player. I for one would be happy if that happened.
    As for the Sox getting Johan, if it happens 2008 will be a tough season to watch as a Yankee fan. That’s an amazing rotation.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 11:19 am
    This article said that Valverde was demanding 4 years, $60 million.
    This article says his agent flatly denied those reports.
    Will that reporter who published the first report be fired?
    Just a point, this stuff happens ALL THE TIME in baseball journalism. It’s a part of the job. Taking anything for gospel, or even real information, when it includes ‘unnamed sources’ is a really bad idea.

    Anonymous November 29, 2007, 11:23 am
  • Sorry, that was me.
    And heck, that article even claimed to quote Valverde himself.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 11:25 am
  • “…other teams are out to screw the Yankees — oh yeah, or all the Sox’ prospects are crap and all the Yanks’ prospects’ pee turns to gold the minute it interacts with the earth’s atmosphere…”
    now that’s pulitzer quality stuff paul…obviously well-sourced and researched, factual, and well written…

    dc November 29, 2007, 11:27 am
  • By the way, call me not concerned about that Sox rotation. In getting it they will have put three below average bats into the starting lineup (Coco, Varitek, Lugo) with no possible upgrades on the way. The offense is going to be heavily dependent on Lowell maintaining his 2007 form with Papi and Manny putting up huge numbers.
    I like the Yankee chances of scoring more runs than the Sox in close games. Even at Beckett’s best last year, he didn’t exactly shut down the Yanks.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 11:30 am
  • Um actually the yankees pee does turn to gold when reacts with the atmosphere. You think we are paying A-Rod, et al with gate revenue?

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 11:30 am
  • oh yeah, or all the Sox’ prospects are crap and all the Yanks’ prospects’ pee turns to gold the minute it interacts with the earth’s atmosphere.
    Nah, nah. That’s not what we’re saying at all. We’ll readily admit that fans of teams tend to overvalue their own prospects, but I’d like to think that the three of us writing are keeping a level head about it. A lot of comments take that stance, but I think a Lowrie/Lester deal is a pretty high price to pay for Santana.
    My beef is with the inclusion of Coco Crisp. Considering what the Twins a looking for – a low-cost center fielder under their control for the next few seasons – he doesn’t really fit the bill.
    Your Murray Chass point is a good one, but The Times doesn’t bargain in unsourced rumors offered by “a little birdie” quite as frequently as The Pioneer Press has done over the last few days.

    Ben K. November 29, 2007, 11:31 am
  • Ben, again, that’s why the Twins won’t take it. Keep in mind that the reason we hear about these offers is because they haven’t been accepted. In order for the Sox to come much closer they’ll need to include Ellsbury. I agree with others – this offer was released to get the Yankees to up their package. I actually take it as a good sign they’re holding firm. Kennedy, Melky, Horne > Lester, Crisp, Lowrie, and Masterson but it’s close.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 11:41 am
  • Beckett – Santana – Matsuzaka – Schilling and Buchholz doesn’t concern you? When are (Some) Yankee fans going to acknowledge the fact that in order to win we need to outpitch teams, not outslug them.
    As for Lowell, what evidence do we have that he can’t put up numbers that resemble last seasons output?
    Also didn’t they put those same exact “below average bats” in their everyday lineup last season and didn’t they win the WS?

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 11:46 am
  • like the Yankee chances of scoring more runs than the Sox in close games..
    How has that worked out so far? This whole scoring runs is meaningless if you run into Johan and Beckett in the playoffs. Scoring runs means squat if you aren’t able to do it against good pitching in the playoffs. I’ll trade hitting for good pitching and defense every day of the week, as would most smart baseball managers. Varitek, Lugo, Crisp, and whoever else you consider to be terrible with the bat are just fine with me. They did just win the world series. I could care less if the Yankees score a thousand or five thousand runs. As long as they’re trotting Wang, Mussina, and two rookies to the bump in October, I won’t worry too much.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 11:48 am
  • Beckett – Santana – Matsuzaka – Schilling and Buchholz doesn’t concern you?…
    Yeah, that’s just a dumb statement. But then again, you’re not batting, so they shouldn’t concern you at all.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 11:49 am
  • Damn you, John!
    I wait for the meatballs and you clear the bases first.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 11:51 am
  • “This whole scoring runs is meaningless if you run into Johan and Beckett in the playoffs.”
    …Or Paul Byrd, Kenny Rogers or Jake Westbrook.
    I feel like I am running my head into a wall trying to preach the need for an ACE.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 11:52 am
  • I like the Yankee chances of scoring more runs than the Sox in close games…
    Good, they’re probably really, really going to need them. You know, to keep up.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 11:52 am
  • Nice, John. True enough. You forgot CC!!

    Brad November 29, 2007, 11:53 am
  • That was my attempt at humor Brad, LOL.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 11:55 am
  • yeah, I laughed. Because it’s true. It’s funny. :)

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:00 pm
  • When we look at the facts:
    2007 vs Yankees
    Beckett: 4 GS 2-1 26.2 IP 4.39 ERA
    Johan: 1 G, 7 IP, 2 ER, 2 BB, 5 K
    Dice-K: 4 GS 2-1 25 IP 6.12 ERA
    Schilling: 5 GS 0-3 32.2 IP 5.51 ERA
    Wakefield: 3 GS 0-3 14 IP 10.93 ERA
    Buchholz – Didn’t pitch
    That doesn’t look very scary. :)
    They’ll have a very good team – again. But to acquire Johan, they’ll have to sacrifice offense, and probably let Manny go after 2008. Sorry, but it’s hard to score runs with only 5-6 above average bats, and assuming Lowell will continue to produce (see his BABIP and home/road split) while Drew will bounce back.
    I look forward to the competition, and I don’t think anything is lost if the Sox acquire Johan. It has a significant cost for them. I just hope the Yankee front office sees it my way. Sure, trade for Johan. Just don’t go overboard in the process in try to slay some non-existent beast.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:01 pm
  • This article strikes me as purely speculative. The sourcing is way too vague.

    SF November 29, 2007, 12:02 pm
  • Now can you post their playoff numbers Mike? The Yankees don’t seem to have an issue getting to the playoffs. Their issue is getting OUT OF THE 1ST ROUND. So yes during the regular season the Yankees do stand a shot to put up similar numbers to the Sox. But come playoff time when you are trying to reach your ultimate goal and you have to face BECKETT, JOHAN and DAISUKE in games 1-3 and you throw out WANG, AP and JOBA let me know if it then worries you.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • Of course, acquire Johan and give him 20 million/year and Beckett wants the same. I would love to see the Sox give two pitchers with a lot of mileage 40 million/year and trading away the farm in the process.
    And you want that ace, John? If you’ve been paying attention, the recent Yankee drafting philosophy will produce one sooner or later. Me, I like their chances. That’s a truer path than the Weaver, Vazquez, Brown, Unit one. Many less dollars and no trading four prospects in the process.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:07 pm
  • whether this report is even remotely accurate, how is the Sox acquiring Santana at almost no cost to their current (championship) roster not a concerning scenario for some Yankee fans? If the situation ends up reversed (the Yanks getting Johan for almost no current roster talent) I will certainly acknowledge that this concerns me.

    SF November 29, 2007, 12:08 pm
  • Man, it’s just too bad for you they don’t play the Yankees 162 times a year. If that rotation isn’t formidable, while you think the Yankee one is, I think this discussion is over because you’re just pusing buttons and not talking with any common sense.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:08 pm
  • They didn’t face the Yanks in the playoffs, John, and I really wish they had. And no, facing them in the playoffs doesn’t bother me either. The Yanks have faced Johan twice already and beaten his team both times? Why? They had no offense. And he didn’t exactly shut them down either – he’s had mixed results there.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:10 pm
  • And you want that ace, John? If you’ve been paying attention, the recent Yankee drafting philosophy will produce one sooner or later.
    Really, who? Who has shown that potential? Who has shown the potential to be the next Johan? When? One game in Texas followed up by? Where did this take place?
    Mike, really bro. If you’re not worried about the Red Sox getting Johan because you think that Beckett and Johan are pitchers that should be feared by that big, bad, first round exiting NY offense, I don’t know how to even formulate a response to it statistically. Or coherently. It would be arguing babble with more babble. Pointless. If you really think that, I promise that you’re the only one. Well, maybe DC is with you:)
    Kidding, dc.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:13 pm
  • I’m the one pushing buttons? I’m the only one to offer any stats to back up my claims.
    I have no doubt the Sox will be very good next year, with or without Santana.
    I feel the same about my team.
    See, I remember previously when the Yankees acquiring an “ace” was supposed to put them over the top. It didn’t happen. I’d much rather they stick to their plan than trade a huge package for one players. I feel very good that one of Joba, Hughes, or Kennedy will be pitching like an ace next October. Indeed, Hughes already did this past October.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:14 pm
  • “If you’ve been paying attention, the recent Yankee drafting philosophy will produce one sooner or later.”
    Sooner or later? Since when are we the KC Royals? I am not saying sacrifice what we have built up completely, just use some of the pieces to get that ACE. And please MIKE PLEASE stop using Weaver, Unit, Brown and Vazquez as examples. Brown and Unit WERE aces at one point, but were well past their prime. Vazquez and Weaver were NEVER considered to be aces.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:15 pm
  • All I’ve shown, John, is that the Yankees have had recent success against that big bad (and hypothetical) Boston rotation. What have you shown besides your irrational fears?

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:16 pm
  • Just don’t go overboard in the process in try to slay some non-existent beast.
    Or, the world series champs who just gave away that “below average CF” and prospects for the best pitcher in baseball (assuming this has legs, which I don’t think it does), and in any case, they still haven’t given away anything that contributed heavily all year less Coco, who according to you, isn’t much to sneeze at anyhow.
    Non-existent beast indeed. Is your television broken or something?

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:16 pm
  • Mike, the problem wasn’t with the philosophy, it was with the supposed ‘ace’. Granted they got pretty unlucky with Weaver and Vazquez, who projected to be dominant (Vazquez especially, I remember being particularly excited with his addition), and they got Johnson exactly one year too late (imagine if they had actually gotten him in the middle of 2004).
    The Yankees would be vastly improved with an ‘ace’. But you’re correct, they haven’t had one since 2003 and have still been excellent. They can still win with or without Johan. But they can win much, much easier with him.

    Anonymous November 29, 2007, 12:19 pm
  • Really John? Go back and look at Vazquez’s year before they acquired him. He sure looked ace-like. Same deal with Unit. And Brown. And Clemens 2.0 too.
    This “win now” philosophy you’re espousing, without any concern of the future, is exactly what got the Yankees in this mess. It’s always instructive to see a fan like you. I know what I could potentially become.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:20 pm
  • “See, I remember previously when the Yankees acquiring an “ace” was supposed to put them over the top.”
    Two Things:
    #1 If the Yankees do get Santana, they aren’t put over the top. They still don’t have the complete pitching that the Indians, Angels and Sox have. If anything getting Santana pulls them near even, not over the top.
    #2 Please tell me when the Yankees brought in an ACE? By ACE I mean a 29 year old (not 38-42)with amazing stuff, many years left to offer and 2 Cy Youngs?

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:21 pm
  • Mike the red sox face more than the yankees through out the course of the year. Even if the yankees have success against the Boston staff they are still gonna succeed against the other teams the play all year. Their staff carried them to victory this year and is in a place to do the same next year, adding Santana to that would be a huge boost.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 12:22 pm
  • “ace” was supposed to put them over the top
    Yeah, but the difference is, the Yankees haven’t added the top performer in the game, under thirty, and a lefty. They added old, retreaded, grumpy men looking for big paychecks. Which they obliged.
    Also, let me get this staight, just so I know..
    The Yankees have spent close to a half a billion dollars in the past month, but you’re suggesting that they “wait” and see what happens in the pitching department? When 66% of that half a billion is closing in on forty, how long are you expecting them to wait for that “ace” to show himself? How patient do you think they are going to be? If it was patience they were woring towards, they would never have signed Mo and Posada. They would have went young, and had patience all around.
    They want it now. Their checkbook has shown us that in the last month.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:24 pm
  • Brad, so you’re going to admit this trade “has no legs” but then pretend that it does?
    Please. If the Sox want Santana, they will include Ellsbury. There is no doubt in my mind. Question is: Will they bite? I don’t think they will.
    Anon –
    I’m not saying they shouldn’t get Johan. Just that they should hold firm at Kennedy – Melky – Horne. Let’s see another team top that cause this “reported” Sox package doesn’t.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:24 pm
  • John – if the Yankees get Johan, and presuming Pettitte returns, how are they not over the top? Their rotation would be Santana, Wang, Pettitte, Hughes/Kennedy (depending on which one goes), Chamberlain. That’s decidedly better than the Sox rotation, and is at the least right in step with the Angels’.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 12:25 pm
  • damn you, Trisk. I give up. You talk.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:26 pm
  • “This “win now” philosophy you’re espousing”
    It’s not a “win now” philosophy. We are the New York Yankees, not the KC Royals. I love baseball and the Yankees, win or lose, but when you have a chance to get a guy like Santana you take it. I am not saying we should empty the entire farm system for one guy, but a reasonable trade of say Hughes, Cabrera and a ML’r won’t worry me one bit. You are an extremist and always have been, you take what people say and spin your own extreme twist into it.
    As for providing details, I have a 2 week old and a 2 year old tugging on my sides, so please excuse me if I don’t go digging into Baseball Reference. com for facts right now. I will just let my knowledge of the game do the talking for now.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:26 pm
  • You’re moving the goal posts, John and Brad. The fact is, Vazquez, Brown, and Unit were all producing like aces when the Yanks brought them in.
    Now, John, you’re bringing up criteria that Beckett doesn’t even match (nor Pedro when he was acquired).
    The Yankees have pitching depth. By all means trade some of it. You, John (and I’m sure Brad too) just want them to empty the farm in the process to do whatever it takes. No thanks.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:30 pm
  • Brad, so you’re going to admit this trade “has no legs” but then pretend that it does?
    Yes. I’m arguing the hypothetical. Under the assumption that this trade has legs, I stand by what I say. If not, I still think that you hypothetically saying (and bogus versus Yankee stats) you’re not worried about it happening because you’re “not concerned”.
    It’s kind of like this hypothetical “philosophy” of waiting for a winning team and having patience through the draft. Or Hughes showing he’s an ace. Or Chamberlain not being in the bullpen. Or losing Ellsbury would hurt the Sox. Or not scoring the most runs results in being not in contention.
    It’s all hypothetical.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:31 pm
  • I disagree Andrew. I think with Johan the Yankees pull even with the Sox. Just look at it this way:
    Beckett = Johan (more or less)
    Daisuke = AP (Again, more or less #’s wise. You would have to guess in year #2 Daisuke would improve)
    Schilling Vs. Hughes/Joba/Kennedy – I would give the advantage to Schilling. How much would we expect from any of those three in their first FULL season of pitching in the bigs. If I was a gambling man I would say Schilling finishes with better #’s provided he is healthy.
    #4 and #5 in both would be a near wash. That’s why I would say they aren’t over the top, they are near even with the addition of Johan.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:32 pm
  • You’re moving the goal posts..
    Fact aren’t goalposts. Roger this year? Brown? Unit?
    Nobody could have ever predicted that the Unit or Brown wouldn’t be able to maintain in the AL East.
    Oh, wait. We all did!! Go back and read the threads.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:33 pm
  • Now, you’re going to call me names. What are you, twelve?
    Okay, so the difference between our viewpoints is:
    a) Hughes – Melky +
    b) Kennedy – Melky +
    What’s your problem then, exactly? Oh, right, you’re worried about the Sox having an unbeatable rotation. Oooooooh, quelle horreur!
    Okay – suppose the Sox offer Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Masterson.
    What do you do then? Cause Hughes – Melky isn’t enough.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:34 pm
  • I have a question I don’t think anyone has posed…can the Sox afford Santana? Aren’t they already stretched pretty far on payroll? I didn’t think the Sox were as free-wheeling with salary as the Yankees. I admittedly don’t pay much attention to the Sox so maybe you guys have some thoughts?
    $25 million a year over 7 years seems to be the thought for Santana…

    aaron November 29, 2007, 12:36 pm
  • “I am not saying we should empty the entire farm system for one guy, but a reasonable trade of say Hughes, Cabrera and a ML’r won’t worry me one bit.” – John
    “The Yankees have pitching depth. By all means trade some of it. You, John (and I’m sure Brad too) just want them to empty the farm in the process to do whatever it takes. No thanks.” – (Extreme) Mike YF
    Please show me where Brad or myself ever said EMPTY THE FARM SYSTEM? Like I said you come here to start sh*t storms and twist peoples words.
    “Now, John, you’re bringing up criteria that Beckett doesn’t even match (nor Pedro when he was acquired).”
    I don’t even know what the means or where I said that.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:36 pm
  • John, you completely forgot about Wang. What kind of Yankee fan are you???
    Beckett roughly = Santana. Fine.
    But Wang > Dice-K.
    Pettitte = Schilling, that’s being generous to Schilling, considering he hasn’t pitched a full season in how long.
    Then you get to Wakefield/Lester/Buchholz. Compare it to Chamberlain/(Kennedy/Hughes), and I think the Yankees come out on top there.
    So even without Wang, adding Johan pulls the Yankees even.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 12:37 pm
  • Mike
    Randy Johnson was 41 when they got him, Kevin Brown 38. Johan Santana is gonna be 29 next season. Javier Vazquez may have been young but he was NOT Johan Santana.
    If you cant see the difference between these pitchers and Johan this conversation should end right now because there is no point.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 12:38 pm
  • Of course, I meant even without Pettitte, Johan pulls the Yankees roughly even.
    Add into the fact that the Yankees will probably have the best offense in the majors again next season, and that puts them ‘over the top’.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 12:39 pm
  • “Now, you’re going to call me names. What are you, twelve?” Mike-YF
    “You are an extremist and always have been, you take what people say and spin your own extreme twist into it.” – John
    Please tell me where I called you names? I only pointed out a fact.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:40 pm
  • But Wang > Dice-K.
    yeah, i happen to think that this turns around this year. Still, I think I’ll take Dice in the playoffs! ha!
    Man, that memory makes me freaking smile ear to ear.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:42 pm
  • Sorry, my dislike for Wang must be showing through Andrew. I am trying to type and think with a newborn in my arms, you have my apologies. But I still stand by the fact that they pull even, not ahead.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 12:42 pm
  • Man, even YF’s are ganging up on your insanity.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:42 pm
  • Trisk, you have every right to dislike Wang. Or love him. Or hate him. Or love him. It kind of depends on the day and if the balls finds the gloves! ha.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:44 pm
  • They can afford him, aaron. But not Manny and him.
    Sam – of course I see the difference. And look what they gave up for Vazquez – a decent 1B (who they’ve struggled to replace) and a decent OF (who they’ve paid alot of dough to replace). Now we’re talking about true pitching phenoms that they could trade.
    John – our messages passed in the ether. Try this one:
    Okay – suppose the Sox offer Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Masterson.
    What do you do then? Cause Hughes – Melky isn’t enough.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:45 pm
  • Okay – suppose the Sox offer Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Masterson.
    The beautiful thing here is this: The Red Sox don’t have a need for any of these guys right now. Of all of these positions, the Red Sox are locked up for at least a few more drafts and years.
    It’s beautiful, really. The Yankees could match it, but they would be really hurting the big league club in the process.
    The Red Sox wont.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:48 pm
  • Ah, all these smart(ass) people and not one with a decent answer to a difficult question.
    Brad – You love Santana so much. Do you trade Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Masterson for him?

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • Matsuzaka was pretty mediocre in the playoffs this year. Wang was horrendous in two games, but to base next year’s projections on a couple of postseason games is pretty foolish. Wang has been a top 10 AL pitcher for the past two seasons. I think that bears a lot more weight than two postseason performances. Or are you going to project CC Sabathia to be a lot worse next season too?
    On paper, if the Yankees get Johan, it puts them over the top. Unless you want to project bottom 25% percentiles for the Yankees and top 25% percentiles for the Sox, I don’t see how Beckett/Matsuzaka/Schilling/Lester/Buchholz beats Santana/Wang/Pettitte/Phil Kennedy/Chamberlain. Add in the differences in offensive production, and you have your answer.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • With his no trade clause he can pretty much determine where he wants to go…more $$$ Yankees, perhaps a better chance to win (pains me to say that!!!)and a little less $$$ Sox?
    He seems to really be in the drivers seat…Twins may have to take less than they want if they really want to move him.

    krueg (aaron) November 29, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • They can afford him, aaron. But not Manny and him.
    I haven’t see the books, but I think this is probably wrong. Would they want to? Probably not, but I’m sure they probably could for a year or two.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • The reason I asked is that haven’t they balked at deals in the past due to $$$…ARod come to mind. Not to mention Damon.

    krueg (aaron) November 29, 2007, 12:52 pm
  • “Probably not, but I’m sure they probably could for a year or two.”
    Yes, of course. This year and next. Not an extension for Manny though. And he deserves one.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:53 pm
  • Yeah, but the Twins have to accept the deal before hes allowed to talk to them, K.
    The twins are in the drivers seat. He could, in fact say no, but that’s probably not going to happen since either of the teams is not going to insult him with a low offer. He’ll never get to hear the Yankee offer (or the Red Sox offer) when the twins accept the trade.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:53 pm
  • Yeah, not really. Two years from now it will be time for Manny to leave. Well, if it were up to me, he’d be gone now and replaced by Drew while Jacoby and Coco patrol the rest of the earth. :)

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • Hmmmm, still no takers?
    Now’s the time to put up or shut up, boys. What do YOU do when you have a very tough decision? From all the bluster, John does trade the farm (“Get him before the Sox do! Ahhhhhh!”). Brad too.
    (BTW: I agree the Sox can better afford to give up the pieces. But it’s an expensive proposition.)

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 12:58 pm
  • Mike: In a New York Second.
    Andrew: I was joking, buddy. Calm down, bro. I clearly think Wang is good. On even days. The odd ones really throw him off!
    Matsuzaka is a pretty damn good pitcher, though really beat-up in his first year. I really don’t think they’ll be that much of a difference next year. Then again, you do. I guess that’s our right.
    Oh, and Pettitte still hasn’t come back, and may not, so really, we’re still arguing hypothetical situations. This is stoooopid.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 12:59 pm
  • I understand they have to accept the deal, but then Santana can just not work out a deal. Couldn’t he conceivably just sandbag the deal and then the whole trade falls apart…if, say, he says “i want to play for the Yankees or Sox, no one else” then why would the Twinkies even talk to anyone else…

    krueg (aaron) November 29, 2007, 1:01 pm
  • But, if I’m the Yankees, I do it in exactly one half of a New York second. Then again, I don’t really think Hughes is that great, and Kennedy seems to be a softer throwing Mussina. That is, however, my opinion so really no need to cherry pick a boat load of stats to prove me wrong. New York needs a good pitcher. A proven one that can win against good teams in the playoffs. Can strike out a few guys in the process. Right now, they don’t have any of those. They do however have a bag of hopes and dreams who have never pitched a full season, and haven’t proven anything. I go with the ace.
    It’s not like they’re really “waiting” for anyone to develop anyhow, so yeah, they shouuld do it.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • At least you’re consistent, Brad.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • Signing Santana long term isnt a problem for Boston.
    Saying Boston needs the money to eventually sign a replacement for Manny? Wouldnt they use the $20 MM per year Manny would have coming off the books down the road to do that?
    Its not like their gonna sign some superstar and sit him on the Bench til Manny leaves.

    TJ November 29, 2007, 1:04 pm
  • Yes, k. I can’t imagine that he would pass it up when he has no idea what this season brings. Guys don’t do that. That’s why A-Rod opted out. Money now. Team be damned.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:06 pm
  • If the deals in the above article are true I think it opens up the reality that the Twins may be forced to hold out until the 2008 season begins in order to trade Santana. They might feel that their best bet is to either get lucky during the year (major pitching injury for the Yanks/Sox that forces them to pony-up “more”) or take the 2 draft picks when someone signs Johan.
    Of course, who knows, that didn’t seem to work when Sheffield went down and the Phillies were shopping Abreu.

    walein November 29, 2007, 1:06 pm
  • It’s like no other teams are involved here! I agree, Walein. I think that Minny isn’t about to get short-handed here. What’s the worse case scenario… he wins 18-22 games for them next year and they get two draft picks when he walks?
    It could definitely go either way, but excellent point.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:10 pm
  • Never said trade the farm Mike, you are making yourself look foolish.
    Wang is NOT a top 10 AL pitcher. Agree to disagree.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 1:14 pm
  • You’re right, I can think of countless other pitchers I’d rather have than him. Jake Westbrook isn’t one of them. Neither is Derek Lowe. Is this a pattern?

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:16 pm
  • Again, John:
    Suppose the Sox offer Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Masterson.
    What do you do then? Cause Hughes – Melky isn’t enough.
    Through your arguments, either you increase the Yankee offer substantially (“trade the farm”) or you let the Sox have him (“But the Yankees can’t!!!). Based on your stated opinions, one way or another, you’re being inconsistent. Which way do you go when forced to make a decision?
    Again, based on what you’ve said, you’d rather increase the offer significantly (and trade the farm in the process).

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • You are putting words in my mouth. Never once did I say the Yankees need to trade the farm.
    I will however say that the Yankees need to make this trade happen way more the the Sox need it. Which has been my statement all along. How deep would I go? I would go as far as Cano and Hughes/IPK provided we get that 72 hour window.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 1:30 pm
  • I would have agreed, walein, but the offers to me seem better than those two draft picks. Kennedy was a first round pick with the bonus already paid. Lowrie was a first rounder and again the bonus has been taken care of. Masterson was a second rounder, but that’s not so different from the sandwich (Mmmmm, sandwich) pick, and again he’s already gotten his bonus money. Ellsbury, if he gets included, was also a first round pick, as was Hughes, and again with the bonus money paid.
    All that said, I think the Twins are getting very good offers, if the reports are correct, and better than simply getting those two picks. I think now they’re just trying to sort out the best offer. I’d be very surprised if a deal doesn’t get done.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 1:31 pm
  • Mike I don’t think the Yankees are exactly trading the farm by giving away one of Huges, Joba, or Kennedy. One of them, included with lower level prospects or Melky (who’s easily replaceable) isn’t exactly trading the farm.
    I’d agree if anyone was stupid enough to offer Hughes and another one of Kennedy or Joba, but that isn’t what anyone is suggesting. You are suggesting holding onto all of these guys based on a hunch, or bag of hopes, when you’re getting the best pitcher in baseball today?
    No not the farm, but maybe a few of the horses on it.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:32 pm
  • Ah, yes, you’re back to Cano and Hughes or Kennedy. But I’m the crazy one?

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 1:34 pm
  • I’m not back to anything you asked how high I would go.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 1:35 pm
  • I’m not saying it doesn’t scare me, but in this “off” year by the Yanks, they were only 2 games out. Obviously adding Santana should (in theory) add to the lead, but we’ve seen odder things.
    And remember, the Sox was one game away from losing, but somehow pulled it off. The Yanks probably should’ve at least won game 2.
    If there’s a gap, it’s not that big.

    Lar November 29, 2007, 1:38 pm
  • It’s not a crazy idea as a last resort. You are getting the best SP in the game, not Rick Rhoden. We have offense to spare, so if it came down to it I would grit my teeth and offer that package. It’s a high price to pay, but aces don’t grow on trees.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 1:42 pm
  • By the way, Was Watching was comparing Moose with Santana. I forgot how good Moose was before coming to the Yanks. I hope we can win a ring for him.

    Lar November 29, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • Lar, the only people who called this an off year was the Yankee fans. Everyone in baseball knew how good they were and how capable they were of pounding bad pitching. It was just too bad that bad pitching is pretty rare in the playoffs against the Yankees. Seems that everyone stepped up except the Yankee pitching staff, who in reality, are in trouble right now. No Pettitte. Wang. Mussina. Two rookies who aren’t going to be allowed to go 200IP or much over, if they were capable of doing so.
    I don’t exactly know if I’d call it even. They don’t have an ace, and they need one. It’s that simple. It’s not Wang, and it probably isn’t Pettitte (though he may be capable if he can stay healthy another year and actually, you know, comes back), and it is almost never a rookie.
    If any year is an off year, it lining up to be the next one.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:47 pm
  • Yeah, Moose was off the hook for a while.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:48 pm
  • I hope we can win a ring for him..
    Then you better offer what it takes for Johan. Otherwise, its more of the same because they haven’t exaclty improved in any area whatsoever, and in theory, have gotten worse in the important area: starting pitching.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:49 pm
  • Oh, and the bullpen, which in reality was a huge boost for the Yankees with Joba in there, but now, he’s out of there too, and I hardly expect him to be a suitable replacement for Pettitte.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:50 pm
  • Imagine it was Farnsworth or Bruney or some other scrub getting those Joba innings in the pen, and that whole Joba-mania thing never happened. It would have tempered that comeback a ‘bit me thinks.
    Either way, the the issues are there for sure.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 1:52 pm
  • Name 10 pitchers who pitched full seasons who you would take over Wang for 2007.
    Guys like Guthrie and Bannister put up similar or slightly better numbers, but did not pitch a full season, and have no other history of performance.
    At the least, he’s in the top 15. And he was most definitely in the top 10 in 2006. Everyone is going to underrate him going into 2008, based on two playoff performances. They forget that his best skill – going consistently deep into games, has a huge amount of value, especially to the Yankees. Plus, you know, he puts up ERA’s in the threes. But I wonder, will they apply the same reasoning to the Cy Young winner Sabathia, who barely fared better?
    You can hate Wang if you want, but he is a supremely talented pitcher who has put up great numbers, on the biggest stage in the world, for two years in a row. Just like last year, rumors of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 2:13 pm
  • The more I think about it, I think Epstein may be as interested or more interested in Haren.
    Epstein’s goal: To land one of these two pitchers, and to get the best deal possible by playing Minnesota and Oakland off each other.
    By having news of this “offer” out there, Theo accomplishes two things — the Yankees are forced to up the ante, and the Athletics are made to feel more desperate as one of their biggest potential suitors seems to be drifting away.
    Farfetched? I think he’s plenty smart. (I knew his sister in college, and she was no dummy.) What I don’t know is how available Haren really is.

    Hudson November 29, 2007, 2:13 pm
  • You can hate Wang if you want, but he is a supremely talented pitcher who has put up great numbers, on the biggest stage in the world, for two years in a row.
    All true, and well said. But, in any case, most people here have ten other pitchers, and maybe fifteen, that they would rather have start game one of a playoff race. He’s not an ace, but he is a workhorse. It’s just too bad that workhorses aren’t what a team needs in the playoffs. They need a good pitcher.
    And yeah, I hate him, but we’re not going back down that road. Cleveland already did that.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 2:21 pm
  • Oh, I wasn’t talking to you Brad. I know you have an irreconcilable hatred for the player. I was talking to John, who is sounding less and less like a Yankees fan. What actual Yankee fan hates Wang?

    Andrew November 29, 2007, 2:26 pm
  • // The offense is going to be heavily dependent on Lowell maintaining his 2007 form with Papi and Manny putting up huge numbers. //
    I love the optimism of YFs.
    1) If Lowell drops off 20 points, he’s still a .300-hitting third baseman capable of 90-100 RBI.
    2) Ellsbury is a virtual lock to upgrade substantially over Crisp in center.
    3) Though I don’t much like Lugo, he improved in the second half and can only go upward in his second year in Boston.
    4) Ditto Drew: He caught fire down the stretch, and has nowhere to go but upward.
    5) Manny had something of an off-year in 2007. He may be older, but I see no reason that he doesn’t creep up 5-10 points in 2008.
    6) Varitek — yeah, his bat just keeps getting slower. That’s about all I can grant you.
    At the end of the season, playing the strongest teams in the majors, the Sox lineup looked fearsome. Barring injuries, I expect they’ll come back with an offense that is both a little stronger and a lot more balanced than their World Series-winning team.

    Hudson November 29, 2007, 2:29 pm
  • 1. Josh Beckett
    2. Johan Santan
    3. CC Cebathia
    4. Andy Pettitte
    5. Jake Peavy
    6. Brandon Webb
    7. Brad Penny
    8. Roy Oswalt
    9. Chris Young
    10. Dan Haren
    11. Fousto Carmona
    12. John Lackey
    13. Tim Hudson
    14. Scott Kazmir
    15. Justin Verlander
    16. Carlos Zambrano
    17. Eric Bedard
    18. Doc Halladay
    19. Joe Blanton
    20. Matt Cain.
    I could go on, but all are guys most anyone with eyeballs would rather have on the bump than Wang. Just sayin.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 2:32 pm
  • What actual Yankee fan hates Wang?
    One that’s getting tired of watching the opposing team celebrate on the the Yankee infield after they eliminate them and their “best groundball pitcher in baseball” with relative ease.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 2:34 pm
  • Ten (established) starters I’d rather have than Wang:
    Beckett, Sabathia, Carmona, Lackey, Bedard, Kazmir, Santana, Halladay, Haren, Blanton.
    Anyway, the Herald says the Twins want two of the Big Three, the Sox are only willing to give up one — which further lends credence to our supposition that the Twins are unhappy with the Sox’ offer and leaked the info to get more from New York.
    The Herald also says, “The Twins clearly hold all the cards.” I’m not sure that’s so clear. This is their best chance to get what they can get. The offers only go down as the season begins and the chances of Santana being a rental go up.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 2:41 pm
  • Thanks Brad.
    I never said I hate Wang, I said “My Dislike for him…” This must be the day for misquotes.
    Wang is a good, not great pitcher. We have had this argument here roughly 1 gazillion times. He is not a #1 and he is not someone that the Yankees can put up against the other team’s ace come playoff time. He has showed us that 2 seasons in a row. You can get wrapped up in the Wins all you’d like, but Wang is not a Top 10 pitcher.
    As far as me not being a YF, think what you’d like. I don’t have to drink the Wang Kool Aid to be considered a Yankee fan.
    Other then Wins where does Wang finish in the Top 10? Whip, No. K’s, No. Quality Starts, No (He’s not even in the top 30). CG’s, No. ERA, No. He is far from garbage, but he’s also far from an ace.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 2:53 pm
  • Uhhhh… you named you son Derek. I don’t know how much more freaking kool-aid you could possibly digest; your spare space has already been filled.:)

    Brad November 29, 2007, 2:55 pm
  • I myself would prefer Wang to Blanton, who had a world-class collection of smoke and mirrors this season. However:
    Should guys like Tim Lincecum be included? For me, also: James Shields > Wang. A.J. Burnett whenever healthy as well.

    QuoSF November 29, 2007, 2:58 pm
  • Heck, John Smoltz, who at 40 didn’t get nearly enough Cy consideration (6th place) last season. Cole Hamels too. (not for the Cy, but in the “prefer over Wang” discussion)

    QuoSF November 29, 2007, 3:01 pm
  • I thought about Cole, and to be honest, he’s high on my list, but I think he only started like 25 games, and I was trying to avoid that argument.
    Heck, if we’re going to take into account guys who only had limited time this year, I could come up with about fifty guys, two of which are on the Yankees.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 3:05 pm
  • and, Smoltz is freaking nasty.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 3:05 pm
  • we are way the hell off topic here. ha.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 3:07 pm
  • This must be the day for misquotes.
    No, there were some yesterday, too.
    This is all quite silly. Trisk hasn’t said anything like what some people are representing. He hasn’t urged the Yankees to cripple themselves by acquiring Santana, he hasn’t said he “hates” Wang. This is all very tiring, the reflexive contrarianism of some of the posts in this thread and in previous ones.
    The discussions about Coco Crisp yesterday and Santana today were dominated by black and white readings (and in some cases blatant misrepresentations, intentional or not I don’t know) of nuanced positions, and it would behoove people to wait a few moments, process some information before responding.

    SF November 29, 2007, 3:08 pm
  • Smoltz is ridiculous. Unlike some of his 40+ year old contemporaries, he’s STILL a power pitcher. 197 Ks in 205+ IP. Carry on sir, carry on.

    QuoSF November 29, 2007, 3:11 pm
  • I don’t hate Wang. In fact I love the days that he is on the mound. But he is not an ace. And his performance in October was so atrocious – not weak or slightly off – but ATROCIOUS – that it took me several weeks to not wince when I heard his name. And it underscored his non-ace status in my view. But I am back to still loving the guy and his efficient inning-eating ways.
    I understand Mike’s point that the Yankees seemed last year to be building toward some very exciting youthful talent with very high ceilings and it would be hard to see a bunch of it go just when it was about to step up to center-stage.
    But I also get John’s point that you can’t disparage a mega-trade for Santana by likening it to the Yanks’ acquisitions of aged former-aces like Clemens (part II)/Unit/Brown. Santana is not at all where those guys were when each of them was brought to NY.
    A proven ace in the prime of his career who is one of the best 3 pitchers in the league is almost impossible to pass up.
    But he is only one person. Giving up 3-5 quality players for any one person – who could get hurt, suddenly decline, etc. – is scary. Especially when 2-3 of those 3-5 players to go are young talented pitchers, which are the hardest commodities to come by.
    I am not trying to be diplomatic. I am very torn, and somewhat surprised by how strongly and unequivocally each of you feel. I’d love to see a healthy dominant Santana for the next several years leading our rotation and if I could get this, I’d gladly give up 2 of our big three young pitchers. I’d also love to see any 2 of the Joba/Hughes/Kennedy/Horne group reach the expectations that some of us have for them.
    The problem is that there is no assurance of either of these things happening, so which uncertain path to take right now is just a damn hard decision and our team could get burned – or turn up roses – either way, depending on how things that are totally out of anyone’s control play out.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • Oh, and SF, please let yesterday rest. You were at least as responsible as anyone else for the direction that debate went.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 3:24 pm
  • IH:
    I am a moderator of this site, and no, I was simply not responsible for yesterday’s silliness. My job is to engage in the debate and also to moderate things when it gets a bit out of control, and this thread (along with yesterday’s) are examples of how quick, emotional responses can quickly embed misrepresentations into the debate. I say this with no ill intent: often this kind of stuff is not intentional or devious (though in some cases it can be exactly that), and I am certainly not innocent of doing this, I am not casting stones. I am trying to moderate, as many of my comments yesterday were also intended to do, successfully or not. I just hope everyone is a little more careful, that’s all, that’s a general comment.

    SF November 29, 2007, 3:32 pm
  • Sorry SF but I read your 02:59 PM post yesterday as rather obnoxious and I will point out to you that none of the things I said to which you later objected (Coco DiMaggio, etc.) were posted until after you went there. I am not pasting your comment here since that is not the subject of this thread, but as you are the one to raise yesterday in what is otherwise a much more interesting discussion here today, I respectfully request that you consider my point of view on it as well.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 3:38 pm
  • I respectfully request that you consider my point of view on it as well.
    I do, for sure, and stand by the general content of my posts regarding moderation and consideration prior to commenting.
    I’d say that John has come under some ridiculously unfair fire here for comments that have been misrepresented, and yesterday there were both broad generalizations about comments based on misattributions, and it frustrated a number of people. The frequency of this would lessen with brief pauses before commenting; it will never be eliminated, of course.

    SF November 29, 2007, 4:01 pm
  • IH:
    Please go back to my 2:23 comment as well…

    SF November 29, 2007, 4:02 pm
  • anyone else around here get the feeling we are gonna hear about who gets Santana (or at least a window to talk with him) by the end of business tomorrow. Maybe even today?

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 4:37 pm
  • I don’t see anywhere John was misquoted or misrepresented. He’s the only one here, YF or SF, who thinks it’s reasonable to trade Cano and Hughes or Kennedy, and most especially to keep Santana away from the Sox (and that’s nothing new – he said the same days ago). I frankly can’t see how that’s not “trading the farm”.
    And I still don’t know where he stands if the Sox keep upping the ante. From everything he’s written, he’s all in. But now he’ll pretend like he’s been misquoted while calling other people names. Seems like a moderate and considerate approach to me.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 4:38 pm
  • this is so tiresome. please stop.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 4:44 pm
  • agreed, Sam.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 4:46 pm
  • What’s tiresome in these forums is other people acting out of line, then pretending they were personally offended.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 4:48 pm
  • In the interest of intellectual honesty, please, someone, show me where I or any one else, misquoted or misrepresented John. Please. Seriously. This is a nice exercise for how we expect folks to behave when they’re not talking face-to-face.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 4:51 pm
  • Marathons are pretty tiresome too.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 4:52 pm
  • Whoa, I walk out of Baseball fandom for a couple of weeks to concentrate on football and basketball and all hell breaks loose.
    No one seems to have mention this, but now that Buster Olney is reporting the Lester/Crisp/Lowrie/4thPlayer for Santana trade, do we treat this information more seriously?
    I know Santana is all that, but I’m torn here. I like Phil Franchise; his performance in the playoffs make it hard for me to be objective here. Instead of seeing a #1 Frontline Starter/Cy Young Winner dangling before me, I’m thinking about what it’d be like to root for a young-up-and-comer. I’m thinking about Andy P. in 1997 along with all the other young players that were in the process of being great. I think about Giambi, Brown, Pavano, Clemens Round 2, Johnson and all the other big-ticket items in our locker room.
    Am I no longer a true Yankee fan? Am i going crazy? Do I think Hank Steinbrenner is shoving Cashman out the door while being an uneven incarnation of “da Boss?” Do I think that a couple of years of watching a young ballclub grow might be more meaningful than trying to reload immediately?
    This is why I could not be a GM; its never clearcut. This isn’t a choice between long-term and short term; Santana is a relatively young man. Its all the middle-of-the-road decisions and their infinite nuances that would drive me to drink.
    They already have.

    Carlos (YF) November 29, 2007, 4:57 pm
  • I can point to at least five occasions in this thread where I was misrepresented or misquoted, while someone started calling me names. I don’t really care so much, but if you truly want civil discourse you can’t pretend only one member of the community was treated disrespectfully, especially when they were one in the middle of the mess. I understand I’m a new guy, but I at least tried to keep the discussion on topic and to the point.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:00 pm
  • Excellent question, Carlos. I tried to get back to exactly that.
    We know the Twins aren’t taking that initial offer. So it’s reasonable to ask, what if the Sox increase it by including Ellsbury?
    Now, Melky and Hughes even isn’t enough.
    The next step for the Yankees is to include Hughes AND Kennedy with Melky. That seems to me to be too much. Where do other folks stand?

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:05 pm
  • I will say one thing though.
    Crisp/Lester = Melky/Hughes
    Doesn’t it? Actually, isn’t the Yank offer a bit better. I’m disregarding the prospects I know, but I don’t know if the non-major league players make a huge impact. The Yanks are offering a younger center fielder with a stronger arm. Do we think the Hughes/Lester (young pitcher with good-to-great stuff and some injury history) is a wash?
    If it really is a horse race, then why are both offers nearly identical? Heh, maybe this is just a check or a call, but I’m gonna wait until someone raises the stakes.

    Carlos (YF) November 29, 2007, 5:07 pm
  • Excellent point, Carlos. Onley tends to be one of the guys that everyone pays attention to during these deals.
    Also, after giving A-Rod three hundred million bones, paying a near-forty-closer fifteen a year, and Posada’s deal, how many of these developmental years do you think is in Hankenstein’s plan? I think he’s shown that he has absolutely zero interest in waiting around for performances. If so, they would have stood by their word, and let A-Rod walk, told Mo to be reasonable, and, well, Jorge was a good move.
    I don’t buy into this “waiting” idea that YF’s are talking about..
    They’re stupid to not get in this deal is Phil Freaking Hughes is all that’s being asked. He’s not much more than a prospect. Am I going crazy here? Unknownmaybe great.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 5:07 pm
  • anyone else around here get the feeling we are gonna hear about who gets Santana (or at least a window to talk with him) by the end of business tomorrow. Maybe even today?
    I do, Sam. These things tend to snowball quickly, especially if talks have already reached the level of specifity to include exact minor-league prospects. Even if the Sox don’t win, it means there are concrete offers on the table, and things tend to move pretty quickly from there…

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 5:08 pm
  • Carlos, I couldn’t agree more. I tried to make the same point in my last non-SF focused post. I have to admit that the uncertainty and intrigue of watching how 3 (and maybe soon another 1-2) strong young pitching prospects pans out, makes for a more interesting storyline for me than landing the next big catch. That feeling started to grow in 2005 when Melky, Cano, and Wang were the new arrivals (though Melky really didn’t impress until 2006).
    2007 doubled the intrigue with Hughes, Joba, and Kennedy and I have to admit to enjoying that.
    Having said that, Santana is the best arm that the Yankees have had a shot at for years and it’s hard to pass up, especially if it means he goes to Boston. I have no idea what I’d do as GM and I am the kind of person who, whichever way I went, I would find it hard not to wonder if I had just screwed up massively until the whole thing played out over the next 5-7 years…

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 5:10 pm
  • Also, part of me wants to believe that their is some “anti-Yankee” bias from the Twins. If I were a GM, I would feel the same way towards them and what they’ve been afforded to do. Just like if I were a football GM, I’d have to really think about offering my best player to New England in a deal only to make them stronger.
    GM’s and owners can’t be happy with the Yankees and the A-Rod fiasco.
    Maybe I’m wrong.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 5:11 pm
  • Again, I think you’re spot on Carlos. The Yankee offer is still better, but to the Sox credit, they’re giving the Twins a different look with Lowrie that’s as close as you can get without increasing the stakes. Term it a call if you will.
    Ellsbury would be a raise.
    If the Sox hear the Twins are going with the Yankee offer, unless they include Ellsbury, how the Sox respond determines everything. If they bite, then it’s back on the Yankees.
    That’s exactly what I’d do, if I were the Twins, anyways. And if anything can be gleaned from the reports, that seems to be what’s happening.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:13 pm
  • Thats how i read it too Paul. The key players have been identified by now and the bit players know they need to make a last ditch offer if they are going to. The sox and the yanks can only be played off each other for so long, eventually one will blink.
    Brad, I agree with you re:Hughes. I love the guy, have a shirt with his name on it but ultimately we dont know what happens with him down the line. The yankees need to take this opportunity and run with it if they can. Its always hard to give up great prospects but thats the game. Making this trade and signing Santana for 5-6 years is the best way for the yankees to use their financial muscle to help the team get better. Id hate to see Hughes go but Id love even more to see Santana in pinstripes.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:15 pm
  • Brad, if all things were totally equal, maybe team-bias would factor in, but when you are talking about different players, I have to believe that all things are not equal. In other words, don’t you think the Twins will go strictly with whichever team’s offer they feel helps them the most, regardless of the trading partner? If one team were in their division and the other not, then maybe it would be a factor, but I’d really be surprised if the trading-partner team mattered at all int his case.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 5:16 pm
  • Here’s the 2008 minor league draft order:
    With the 30th pick in each of the first two rounds (plus compensation for Gagne, should he sign elsewhere), the Sox should be able to recoup, with decent drafting, all of the talent shipped away in a Santana acquisition. Because they have a relatively young core of players (Youk, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Drew, MDC, Paps, Dice-K, Beckett, assuming none of these guys are in any deal) and no immediate needs, one must look at the draft as already-in-place replenishment for talent traded. If the Sox trade three of their top-10 minor leaguers as part of a package for Santana that’s really no big deal, as long as it’s not #s 1,2, and 3.
    One name that hasn’t come up in any discussion, surprisingly, is Delcarmen. Could it be that the Twins look to trade Nathan for more young talen and one of the players sent to them to fill Nathan’s slot is MDC, with eyes on him as a possible closer? I am not sure that MDC has closer stuff, but he was a fantastic pitcher during the regular season and incredibly cheap.

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:18 pm
  • Brad. I dont buy the anti-yankee bias one bit. The twins are going to get the best deal they can get no matter who its from. Im sure they would love to ship him to the NL but that doesnt look like its gonna happen. I think its wishful thinking to think that other GMs sit around hating the yankees and feeling great about dealing with the sox who are essentially “yankees lite” as far as resources for building a team.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:18 pm
  • This is calling names in your eyes…
    “You are an extremist and always have been, you take what people say and spin your own extreme twist into it.”
    If you were offended by what I said, you have my apologies. But I don’t think anyone here, moderator or otherwise, would disagree. You need to accept that your ideas are not always someone elses, that’s what we come here for to hear other’s ideas.
    Here’s my stance for the LAST TIME:
    1. I think the Yankees need Santana much more then the Sox or Angels.
    2. I think the Yankees need an Ace. (That’s a fact)
    3. I think Johan Santana is the best pitcher in the game.
    4. I think if the Sox or Angels were to add Santana the Yankees would be in trouble IF they are playing to win it all in 2008/2009. Not to say they wouldn’t make the playoffs, but they would be hard pressed to matchup pitching wise with either team come playoff time.
    5. I don’t think Phil Hughes will be an ace, I think he’s a #2 at best. I think Joba has the stuff to be an ace, provided he stays healthy. I also think we are a few years off from that happening. Joba to me is off limits.
    6. I think in an ideal Yankee world IPK, Melky and a ML’r gets the deal done. Unfortunately I don’t think the Twins would take such a trade.
    7. I think the Yankees have offense to spare. Use it to your advantage.
    8. I think Robinson Cano has one of the most beautiful swings I have ever seen and plays a great secondbase. I also think he has the potential to become a H.O.F. type player. So including him in a trade would not be easy for ANY Yankee fan. But I think having a shutdown 29 yr old established Ace trumps having more offense.
    9. The most I would offer, regardless of what the Sox offer, is Robbie and Phil. At that point if it still doesn’t work you say thanks for trying.
    10. I think the Minor League system serves two purposes: supplementing the Major League club with players and providing pieces to trade when trades that benefit your team arise.
    11. I don’t think losing Hughes and Cano or Hughes, Cabrera and ______ or IPK, Cabrera and _______ is selling the farm. There are plenty more talented players in the Yankees system and the cupboard would be far from bare.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 5:19 pm
  • I dunno, if a moment comes when Theo says “OK Ellsbury is in the deal” if im the Twins GM I say deal 72 hours, go, I wouldnt even take it back to the Yanks.

    TJ November 29, 2007, 5:20 pm
  • Offers right now:
    Yankees: Hughes/Kennedy, Melky, Horne, Tabata
    Sox: Lester, Crisp, Lowrie, Masterson/Bowden
    How high will you (or they) go?
    Yankee fans: Hughes, Kennedy, Melky …?
    Sox fans: Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie, Masterson?

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:20 pm
  • Objective Carlos: A 29 year old two-time Cy Young winner with little injury history asking for money we can afford in the big-time Yankee era. An automatic #1 starter, Game 1 comfort zone (even though his playoff history is nonexistent.) Giving up? A 21 year old pitcher who although impressive in some respects is not our current #1 rated. A great defensive center fielder with a itinerant bat and a lack of good leadoff attributes. Possibly require a middle-line starter, also very young.
    Seems obvious. Remember the Mets young quartet of pitchers, Isringhausen is still the only one left. Remember Oakland’s big four? They didn’t last very long at the top. The Marlins’ four remained good but eventually left the team, but none of them are Santana worthy (minus Beckett.)
    Non-Objective Carlos: Phil Franchise almost saved our season in the playoffs. When he pitched, we had images of Joba-Hughes-Wang in our minds for the next decade-plus. He spoke the right things, his laid-back attitude contrasting with Joba meathead intensity. The idea of forming an identity, a nucleus of sub-24 youth all over the diamond so that I could watch them grow up and grow old. Holding on to some ideal of rooting for a person instead of a uniform. Maybe getting back to 1996 level of expectation and attachment.
    You know…i’d still pick the objective option…but if Santana was just two years old….or if Hughes had two more years to grow into whatever he’ll eventually become…my opinion could easily change.

    Carlos (YF) November 29, 2007, 5:23 pm
  • SF – good call on MDC, I’m surprised as well.
    Though I imagine Pat Neshek would get the first crack at closing for them next season even if they do make that/these moves.

    QuoSF November 29, 2007, 5:23 pm
  • Olney characterizes Crisp-Lester-Lowrie as the “anchor” pieces of the proposed deal. Not sure of two things and don’t have the time to check:
    1. Do the Yankees have a similar SS/3B prospect?
    2. What is the Twins’ SS/3B situation?

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 5:23 pm
  • “Hughes/Kennedy” implies the two pitchers are interchangeable. They are not.
    “Hughes, Melky, Horne, Tabata” is a better offer than “Kennedy, Melky, Horne, Tabata”, is that fair to say?

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:25 pm
  • That’s a fantastic apology, John. Really textbook. /sarcasm
    Point to anything I said anywhere that paints me as an “extremist”.
    And it’s about time you stopped pretending that you’re doing us a favor with your 11 point plan. You’ve finally said something different there at #9. Up to that point, everything you said indicated you would do anything to keep Johan away from the Sox. Cano and Hughes isn’t “selling the farm”, but it’s pretty damn close – an MVP-type talent at 2B and a best in baseball pitching prospect.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:26 pm
  • I am about to ban the term “selling the farm”…

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:27 pm
  • SF –
    I agree on both accounts. But we can’t be sure what the first Yankee offer is right now.
    Paul –
    No. The Yankees do not. And the Twins just acquired Harris who is serviceable at SS, but they need a 3B.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:30 pm
  • Mike as a fellow YF, I ask you to please relax. I realize you may feel you are getting crapped on here but i dont think many are gonna disagree with me when they say that you arent very accepting of other people’s positions when they dont jive with your own. Just leave it be with John. I, for one, often enjoy your insights but there is no right and wrong here. John’s opinion is just different then yours. I feel somewhere in between. Thats the way it is. It really isnt worth talking about any more. Let it go…

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:30 pm
  • Is the best-case scenario for the Yankees that the Sox and Twins actually agree on a deal, and while Yankee fans moan and groan the Sox and Santana don’t work out an extension and the trade fails? Wouldn’t that severely diminish what the Twins could demand from the Yankees?

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:31 pm
  • The yankees have Brad Suttle as a 3b prospect. He projects as an avg player right now but he is in single A I believe.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:32 pm
  • I agree that Hughes>Kennedy as far as they have been prospected from the minors on through to last year.
    In VERY limited service last year, Kennedy outperformed Hughes – and in fact all other Yankee pitching – but the sample size was too small to consider all that seriously.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 5:32 pm
  • Thats a great scenario for us SF, but highly unlikely. I think its understood what Johan wants and any team asking for a 72 hr window is gonna be prepared to give it do him. Id rather not take the chance!

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:34 pm
  • from ESPN:
    “that the Red Sox could go to the brink of a deal in order to push the Yankees to go high in their offer as well”
    The meme rises again, that the Sox are in this only to push the Yankees to overpay (or, the obverse in the Dice-K affair, to play keep-away). Certainly there’s an element of competition, since the two teams are division rivals, that goes without saying. But suffice it to say that if the reporting is accurate, you don’t offer a four-player package of the quality that the Sox have (or, in the Yankees case, your starting centerfielder and one or two of your best prospects) as a bluff, you do it because you’d like to acquire a certain player. This isn’t the same as lowballing a HoF manager… ;-)

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:34 pm
  • How was that a sarcastic apology? You are simply starting trouble now.
    As for my 11 point plan, it was simply to paint a clearer picture. You seemed to be cloudy about the points I was trying to get across, so I laid it out. You asked me what my ceiling was, I answered you. I can’t say it any more clear, I never said empty the farm to get him.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 5:35 pm
  • Where am I not accepting of others opinions, Sam? Show me one place where I treated anyone unfairly or disrespectfully and I’d apologize. “Selling the farm” was a simple way to characterize John’s POV. He never set a limit on what he’d be willing to offer. He just made it seem like preventing Santana from going to the Sox was the most important thing. Now that he’s finally said a limit, I only disagree on the names, Cano being primary especially if linked to Hughes.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:37 pm
  • John, I really feel that your suggestion is equivalent to….what’s that phrase…..selling the ranch?….mortgaging the arboretum?….renting out the homestead?….leasing the plantation?….darn it – I can’t think of it right now. I’m sure it will come to me.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 5:39 pm
  • Guys I have to bow out, my sons need me. My apologies to those who came here to talk baseball and got stuck reading all this back and forth. That’s not what YFSF is all about.

    John - YF November 29, 2007, 5:39 pm
  • mike its not one specific thing its the veracity and self-assured tone of your responses. its a pattern not a single event. if all the regulars around here feel that way dont you think there could be some truth to it? Im not picking on you just trying to explain what i see.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:40 pm
  • “If you were offended by what I said, you have my apologies. But I don’t think anyone here, moderator or otherwise, would disagree.”
    Since when does an apology followed by a But, ring any way but hollow?
    Further, point to anything I’ve said I could even be construed as disrespectful.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:41 pm
  • In all of this there is also a “quantity versus quality” judgment. It may be that we all believe Hughes to be the best pitching prospect, or that some of us believe Melky to be the better deal at centerfield, but at some point there’s a numbers game on the personnel side. Do three or four slightly lesser prospects with some upside plus a proven veteran trump two or three higher-upside prospects? That’s a very good question for an organization that has many needs, not just concerns at a position or two. When teams like the Yankees and Sox hit an off-season, it seems like they have a spot or two to fill at the major league level, not two or three at the major league level PLUS minor league depth PLUS financial concerns. So when a team like the Twins assesses any possible deal I imagine they are also determining if an extra highish-upside minor leaguer trumps fewer, better players. There are a lot of spots to fill.
    In other words, just because a team includes the best player or two of all those considered in any given deal does not mean that team will secure the deal.

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:43 pm
  • I believe what I say. What’s the point of saying it if I don’t believe it? Meanwhile, I read Paul and SF and even you Sam just as assuredly stating your own opinions.
    What, you want me to preface everything with IMHO?
    It’s ridiculous. I treat others with respect. But it doesn’t mean I have agree with them, IMHO (!).
    And now John bows out while pretending he wasn’t exactly in the middle of the “back and forth”. He treated people disrespectfully and now pretends like he was just here to “talk baseball”. Unreal. Good luck raising your sons.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 5:46 pm
  • Further, point to anything I’ve said I could even be construed as disrespectful.
    then this:
    “Good luck raising your sons”
    Unbelievable. Go away.

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:49 pm
  • Further, point to anything I’ve said I could even be construed as disrespectful……………
    “Unreal. Good luck raising your sons”
    That’s not needed, man.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 5:50 pm
  • ugh.
    Sorry, SF. I guess you typed it faster.:)

    Brad November 29, 2007, 5:51 pm
  • Mike the difference between you and John is that he has been posting here for years and you for a month or two. He has earned respect and you have not. If you dont like it here and cant take a critique of what people say about you dont post here. Dont read the site. Talk baseball elswhere. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

    sam-YF November 29, 2007, 5:52 pm
  • How long until the “guess how much Santana gets in an extension” contest?
    I think I’d start at “Barry Zito x 1.20”, at the least.

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:53 pm
  • As long as we’re not raising them on a farm, it’s OK, right?

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 5:53 pm
  • As long as we’re not raising them on a farm, it’s OK, right?
    You can raise them on a farm, you just shouldn’t sell the entire farm while you are raising them. Or, should you buy the farm?
    I am so confused…

    SF November 29, 2007, 5:55 pm
  • There. How’s that new handle?
    The current Sox package is probably enough to draw Hughes into the mix if he isn’t already. Seems to me like the question for the Yankees whether they bite.
    Kennedy, Melky, Horne, Tabata still seems like a better offer. But it’s very close because of Lowrie and the ability to fill a current need. I agree with SF (!), it all deoends on how the Twins are valuing things – long-term value or this year’s needs.
    Seems like if the Yankees heard the Sox deal was going to get finalized, they could offer Hughes, instead of Kennedy, to up the ante. Same deal with the Sox and Ellsbury.
    After that, it seems the whole structure of the deals could change dramatically.

    Mike YF - IMHO November 29, 2007, 5:55 pm
  • SF: Agreed. That Barry Zito deal was obscenely poor judgment and we all knew that long before it was proven by Barry’s performance last year. Unbeleivable. Johan must love it.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 5:55 pm
  • Explain to me how a man can raise his sons without showing them how to offer a simple apology when necessary? I have yet to see that he even knows what an apology looks like.
    And Sam – I don’t want anyone saying anything about me, you, or anyone else. Stick to the baseball discussion, and we’ll all be happy. The problem with this thread is exactly where it became personal and veered off-course.

    Mike YF - IMHO November 29, 2007, 5:59 pm
  • Mike: you might want to start with an apology to John for the raising the kids comment. That comment was way out of line, and it’s going to hang with you for a long while at this site unless you do the right thing.

    SF November 29, 2007, 6:00 pm
  • Johan probably figures that the best player in the game just got 30per, so why should he settle for much less. Especially from the World Series Champs or the Yankees. He knows the money they have, as does his agent. I’m sure if it were another team besides these two the price would be drastically different, as it always is.
    I say 6yrs and 132million.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 6:00 pm
  • Where’s John’s apology, SF? And where’s you saying it was necessary? If anything, you went out of your way to defend him even where he was the one clearly in the wrong throughout the whole thread.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 6:02 pm
  • Mike, you’re out of line.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 6:03 pm
  • I’m done here. I’ll offer an apology when I get one.

    Mike YF November 29, 2007, 6:03 pm
  • Just close this thread. Lets start over tomorrow with the Johan contract one. Please. I’m out.

    Brad November 29, 2007, 6:05 pm
  • Mike, I am probably the king of going sarcastic when I feel I have been slighted. I even got sarcastic on your behalf yesterday when I felt like multiple SF’s were ganging up on you (it was a strange fellow-YF tribal matter that I can’t fully explain…). But I think it’s over now here, especially since John is gone. I think you made a very valid point about not going overboad to get Santana. But as I’m sure you can appreciate, people tend to have cows when you talk about their mothers, fathers, children, or pets (not necessarily in that order). And if enogh people have enough cows here, we’ll have a farm – that we are apparently not allowed to sell here – and then what will we all do?

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 6:06 pm
  • Seems to me, from what I’ve read here more than what Mike told me, that if you guys what a good respectful community, you should be treating everyone equally, newcomers and regulars alike. I don’t see that in this thread.
    Of course, it’s your choice about whether you want an open community. You could easily require registration, for instance.
    That’s just my two cents.

    NH Rob November 29, 2007, 7:26 pm
  • NH Rob: I’m trying to decide if your comment is OK. How long have you been posting here?
    JUST JOKING…I am a relative newcomer myself.

    IronHorse (yf) November 29, 2007, 7:40 pm
  • Strange how the Rob-Mike combo works. One stays for sometimes days at a time, flamethrowing all over. The “other”, more “rational” one then moves in, backs up his buddy, then takes over the reins for a little while before his conversations all end in flame wars.
    Nice racket, fella. Good to know you’ve got so much time on your hands.

    Paul SF November 29, 2007, 9:26 pm
  • Paul, I haven’t been around long enough to know if the pattern you note is in fact true. It sounds a little conspiracy-theory-like to me.
    But I do think Rob raises a good point. When Sam says that John has earned a certain respect and benefit of the doubt here because he has been around for years and Mike hasn’t, that does raise a legitimate question about double standards.
    This is not at all a knock on either Sam or John – and it is natural for a community to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have been around longer and so their intent and style is better known from previous encounters.
    But I mean, how is a new arrival here to know that their tone will be counted against them – if not any actually nasty comments they make – but the tone of those they are debating with will be given more leeway? Until the 12:16 post in this thread of yesterday, Mike seemed to me to be pretty respectful of all and frankly less agressive than some were toward him. And the other person who posted at 12:16 was at least as aggressive toward him.
    I am not picking on John, Brad, or anyone and I think everyone can agree that the raising your children crack is very very far out of bounds. My point is simply that requesting consistency in how these things are moderated is fair and pointing out that it isn’t always the case is also fair.
    Having said that, everyone knows that moderating is a pain in the behind and it is impossible to be fully consistent because other than obvious personal attacks, much is in the eye of the beholder and few things can be misconstrued as easily as blogs and e-mails, where the intent of the writer has to be judged without the benefit of hearing their tone or seeing their expression when they say what they say. So we all need to be a little forgiving of the moderators and I’ll be the first to admit that I sometimes get that one wrong.
    But there seems to me to have been a little overzealous ganging up yesterday and to start this thread back up again today with a comment that seems intended to drive both Mike and Rob away seems to me to be unnecessary.

    IronHorse (yf) November 30, 2007, 6:19 am
  • Could you be any more paranoid? How often does this community welcome a new member without releasing the wolves – once a month or year? Name the date in the Spring and we’ll all go down to watch the Scranton team.
    Worse for your lunatic conspiracy theory, I don’t see anywhere that Mike was “flamethrowing”. Care to point that out? He’s a good guy and really would apologize if it were true. And I’m not that rational.
    But I don’t expect to be posting much here, if at all. I don’t like the holier than thou perspective of respect, then watch as now three of the authors have insulted commenters. I’m not sure if Mike will be back, though the discussion would benefit if he did.

    NH Rob November 30, 2007, 7:43 am
  • He’s a good guy and really would apologize if it were true. And I’m not that rational.
    Freudian slip?

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 10:36 am

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.