Oh Hell, Here’s Your Santana Thread For the Day

In case rumor fatigue hasn’t set in yet, I give you this from Gammons (courtesy SOSH):

There are diverse thoughts within the Boston organization on Jon Lester’s ceiling. Ask John Farrell, whose voice carries a great deal of power, and he’ll argue that Lester can be a No. 2 starter and win 15-18 games next season. So that’s why Theo Epstein told Bill Smith this weekend that, OK, Minnesota can have Jacoby Ellsbury in a Johan Santana deal, but not Ellsbury and Lester.

Farrell has a lot of trust built up within the organization — rightly so, I’d say, considering how he handled the staff last season. If Lester is indeed a 15-18-game winner next year, though, I’d be surprised.

120 comments… add one
  • Something that I just realized. If the Yankees get Santana, they would likely end up paying close to 50 million a year for just 2 players.
    Yikes.

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 11:40 am
  • At this point im practically begging for the Twins to pull him off the market. Im so sick of waiting for a decision. I dont actually believe this will happen of course.
    Also, Beane’s reported price for Haren is basically absurd so the idea of a consolation prize is hard to believe at this point. He asked yankees for 2 of the big 3 and the sox for 2 of Lester, Clay, and Jacoby.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 11:41 am
  • “they would likely end up paying close to 50 million a year for just 2 players.”
    Honestly lockland, I know its alot but who cares? They will still turn a profit and can clearly afford it. Id rather the money be out on the field.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 11:44 am
  • Sam, I didn’t mean to say it mattered at all, I was just pointing it out for the wow factor.

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 11:46 am
  • fair enough. It is a wow!

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 11:47 am
  • I agree Sam, I’m sick to death of this. I’m still EXTREMELY INTERESTED, but like last year’s season of “24” I just want it to end.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 11:48 am
  • Or there’s:
    Santana = 20 million
    Beckett = 9.5 million
    Matsuzaka = 8.5 million
    Schilling – 14 million (given how math is done around here)
    Wakefield = 4 million
    That’s 56 million.
    By contrast:
    Pettitte = 16 million
    Moose = 11 million
    Wang = 500k
    Hughes = 250k
    Joba = 250k
    That’s 28 million.
    Me, that’s a more dramatic wow!

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:13 pm
  • Really, you wanna play this game? You wanna compare prices of players?

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:16 pm
  • You’re a funny dude, Mike.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:18 pm
  • As Sam pointed out above, here is what BB wants from the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Like I said a few days back BB is a S.O.B to deal with and that Haren’s asking price would be equal or greater then Johan. He doesn’t have to trade Haren, the Twins have to (more or less) trade Johan. This Blurb is from MLBTradeRumors.com:
    “Did you expect anything different? Billy Beane is happy to field offers on Dan Haren and Joe Blanton, but he’ll require a king’s ransom for either pitcher. Jayson Stark says Beane asked the Yankees for two of Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, and Ian Kennedy for Haren. With the Red Sox it was two of Clay Buchholz, Jon Lester, and Jacoby Ellsbury. The Mets would have to pony up Carlos Gomez and Fernando Martinez. With two starters under contract through 2010, Beane and the A’s are sitting pretty.”

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 12:22 pm
  • I think Beane has no interest in trading Haren, not really anyway.
    He’s going to get someone to regret for YEARS trading for Blanton, however.

    QuoSF December 3, 2007, 12:33 pm
  • Exactly, John. The A’s are in a position of power because they have great pitching and don’t need to get rid of it. Either way they come out on top.
    The Twins, however, know that they can’t resign Santana and would rather trade him than only get draft picks for him next year. The A’s are definitely in a better position.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:33 pm
  • Padres are on the verge of signing a four year extension to Peavey for upwards of fifty million dollars. That’s a steal if it happens. He makes what Mariano makes. That’s funny.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:36 pm
  • I don’t really think Billy Beane is going to move either of them, but if it does happen, my thoughts would be to the Mets. They need him more than anyone.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:37 pm
  • Seems that the Twins are not happy about Hank’s comments. Which means, surprisingly, that they believe him. Why they would believe a word out of his mouth is beyond me, but I guess they took his comments personally. As they should. It’s over on Was Watching.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:40 pm
  • Padres are on the verge of signing a four year extension to Peavey for upwards of fifty million dollars. That’s a steal if it happens. He makes what Mariano makes. That’s funny.
    Holy crap, that IS a steal! Peavy is great, despite playing in a pitcher-friendly park.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:47 pm
  • Yeah, I don’t know why he would sign that unless he really, really loves SD.
    I can’t find the print, but it was on EEI’s flash, so I have my doubts up till I read it.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:48 pm
  • Ya, I thought the same at first, but I have to see the contract. My guess (since this would make more sense, though a steal could be possible) is that because he’s under contract for the next two years (or one year with a sure option pickup by SD) very cheaply, so the extension would probably remedy that a little bit, as oppose to a simple tack on..

    Lar December 3, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • John - YF December 3, 2007, 12:53 pm
  • Peavy is great,*because of* playing in a pitcher-friendly park (and in a weak division).
    Home: 580 IP, 2.95 ERA, 171 BB, 618 K
    Away: 507 IP, 3.73 ERA 177 BB, 472 K
    Don’t get me wrong. He’s good. But he looks a lot better because of Petco.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 12:53 pm
  • “Heyman believes Johan Santana is “more likely than not” to get traded at the Meetings, and quite possibly today.” – From MLBTradeRumors.com
    The tension builds…

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 12:54 pm
  • Oh geez John, the last thing I needed was news like that! Now I’ll be hitting refresh every 10 seconds all day to see what happens.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • Mike. Do you think any pitchers are good? I mean, are there any guys out there that you think are just awesome pitchers, despite where or who they play for?

    Brad December 3, 2007, 12:58 pm
  • I wonder what pitcher excites you, Mike? What pitcher is out there that you would love to have on your team? Even if you say he’s good, which he is (freaking awesome in fact), why the need to shat on him for playing in petcoa?

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:00 pm
  • “…If the Yankees get Santana, they would likely end up paying close to 50 million a year for just 2 players….”
    so what lockland, you guys once paid the same amount just to talk to a guy…
    “…Why they would believe a word out of his mouth is beyond me…”
    brad, you apparently missed the discussion yesterday where mike and i educated your colleagues on hank’s negotiating skills relative to the arod trade…seems they had all the facts twisted, and had a hard time grasping the financial details, let alone appreciate hank’s clever ploy of letting arod think the yankees were no longer interested…looks like you’ve been dipping your beak in the same sour grape koolaid they were…the yanks refused to get into a bidding war and they didn’t, and basically landed arod for similar money they offered him in the first place with the extension…in fact, the first 3 years are discounted…

    dc December 3, 2007, 1:01 pm
  • “Don’t get me wrong. He’s good. But he looks a lot better because of Petco.”
    I think Johan Santana is *very* good (except in Fenway :).

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • riiiggghhht, dc. Whatever you think, man. Since neither of us know the details, I’ll keep my idea of what happened, and you can keep yours. I have to go on what I read and saw, since I wasn’t at the private meetings between the parties.
    End result = A-Rod gets a ten year deal for close to thirty million dollars per, and not a penny of it comes from Texas.
    Winner = Boras and A-Rod. I’m sorry if I don’t really see the amazing level of intelligence and negotiating skills on Hank’s behalf anywhere in that result, man.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:06 pm
  • Sorry, but Peavy is far from “awesome”. Take a look at his AL performances. He’d get hit hard – 4.00 ERA – if he came to the better league.
    Brandon Webb is much closer to awesome.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:07 pm
  • A-Rod made 28.5 million last year. He’s averaging 27.5 million/year in the next contract. Hard for me to call that a Boras win.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:09 pm
  • actually, dc, I take it back. Those negotiating skills are awesome.
    Lose Texas money…check.
    Talk smack about player…check
    Tell press we’re out, and we don’t want player who doesn’t want us….check
    Wait for player to realize price is too high…check
    Stumble over own words, and welcome player back to the largest contract in baseball history…check.
    Where again was this a Yankee victory, dc? I mean, it was a no-brainer move, but what about the process makes you think that this “ultimatum” to the Twins holds any merit whatsoever, man?

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:09 pm
  • A-Rod made 28.5 million last year.
    How much of that was from NY? How much of next years will come from them? Oh, and the extra seven or so years can’t be overlooked.
    Listen it was a great move, but hardly one in which the player/agent were taken to the bank by a savvy owner and GM.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:11 pm
  • Brandon Webb is much closer to awesome
    Isn’t he in the same division with worse numbers?

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:12 pm
  • 28.5 million minus 27.5 million = 1 million pay cut, on average.
    And that doesn’t count the 32 million A-Rod was scheduled to make in 2009 and 2010 had he not opted-out.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:13 pm
  • Webb’s numbers aren’t driven by his home park. And he’s the same pitcher when he faces AL teams.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:14 pm
  • Sorry, but Peavy is far from “awesome”. Take a look at his AL performances. He’d get hit hard – 4.00 ERA – if he came to the better league.
    Beckett’s numbers against the AL were horrible too, and he came to the AL, adjusted (2006 was painful), and then pitched an amazing season. Again you’re focusing on small sample size!

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:15 pm
  • Brad the other Winners in the A-rod discussion were the Yankees no matter what you say. They retained the services of the best player in baseball who the wanted all along. They will have him as he breaks HR records and make a killing in the process moneywise. So to say the Yankees arent winners too is just wrong and prejudiced.
    Did A-Rod “win” by getting a big contract? Yes. By that definition he was bound to win” all along.
    I am always able to tell if the yankees make a good move by the reaction from my SF friends. I dont know you but I doubt you were happy when you heard the yanks retained Alex. There is a reason for this.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 1:15 pm
  • Mike, Brandon Webb also has a career ERA of 3.61 when pitching in PetCo, which is MUCH higher than his career average. But here’s the thing–that’s a small sample size, so it’s not a strong argument!
    See the underlying theme here with regard to your posts?

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:17 pm
  • WHAT IS THE FINAL PAYOUT???
    Are we pretending that the final commitment isn’t there? He had seven years added to his deal. So yeah, one million may come off per, but what is the final number?
    The said they were out, and turned right around and gave him the largest single payout in baseball history. Ever.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:18 pm
  • Again, a small sample is better than no sample :)

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:18 pm
  • Brad, can we please stop bringing up the ARod contract? We’re all sick of arguing about it.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:19 pm
  • I don’t think anyone is saying it was a bad move for the Yankees to sign Arod. It wasn’t.
    I just think it’s absolutely absurd, given the events, to claim it as some master stroke by Hank.

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 1:19 pm
  • You’re right, Sam. I very much wanted him, but not at that contract. And you’re also right in saying it’s a good move for next several years on the Yankees behalf.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:19 pm
  • Brad, drop it please.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • Atheose, it wasn’t about A-Rod, it was about Hankenstein, who some profess as a brilliant negotiator with regards to that deal.
    I too, am sick of hearing about it:)

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • “The said they were out, and turned right around and gave him the largest single payout in baseball history. Ever.”
    What does that prove? Nothing. They could afford it and wanted him. Do you think the yankees will lose money on this contract? Id argue thats highly unlikely.
    This makes the yankees “losers”. How? You can look at it from whatever perspective you want but it seems to me everyone is a winner here. Except maybe Boras for the flack he took with the opt-out timing. Which is not really irreparable anyway.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • Mike, if you keep trying to use statistically insignificant data, you’re not going to be taken seriously.
    I hope you see the error in this statement.
    “Again, a small sample is better than no sample :)”

    LocklandSF December 3, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • I don’t know if .40 ERA is “MUCH higher”. If so, the .80 ERA difference in Peavy’s home/road split is “MUCH higher” x2.
    Point is, we’re trying to predict the two pitcher’s into a new environment. If I had 160 million over 8 years to give one of them, I give it to Webb. Without a doubt. The evidence suggests so.

    Mike YF December 3, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • I don’t want to get caught up in this conversation BUT Alex’s base last season was $27 million. His $1.5 million for the MVP was an incentive. Also the stipulation that would have pushed Alex over the $30 million mark only came into play IF he was NOT the highest paid player in the game. The stipulation was his contract would increase by $5 million OR $1 million more then the highest paid player in seasons ’08-’10 if he wasn’t the highest paid player and IF he didn’t opt out.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • okay, we can all agree to disagree.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:23 pm
  • Neither side is learning anything new, and we’re going around in circles with this Arod-vs-Hank argument. For the love of god can we move on to a new topic? Think of the children!
    I’ll give you a topic–the peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. DISCUSS!

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:23 pm
  • Harping about how the A-Rod negotiations went down is like YFs talking about how bad it was for the sox to lose Hanley Ramirez.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 1:24 pm
  • I CALL BS!!
    Peanuts are both peas and nuts!!!

    Brad December 3, 2007, 1:26 pm
  • Agreed, Sam.

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:26 pm
  • “Winning”
    “Losing”
    Wrong way to look at things, as far as I am concerned. Both sides “won”. They both got something they wanted. But there are reasonable suppositions about the efficiencies of the negotiation process that are subject to interpretation and debate.
    With the Red Sox, one could question how efficient they were with the signing of JD Drew. There were no apparent suitors other than the Sox, so why did they pay so much for Drew? With Julio Lugo, similarly, it also appeared as if they were bidding against nobody. So why did they spend so much? It would be hard to argue following this year’s championship run that the Sox “lost” those negotiations; both players were important contributors during the postseason, but it is certainly reasonable to discuss and question whether the Sox did the best they could in those negotiations, financially speaking.
    With A-Rod, I think the same analysis is possible. With no other apparent suitors (we don’t know this for a fact, but all reporting to date has indicated that the market was drier than expected), why did the Yankees give Rodriguez ten years? Why, with incentives, a reachable total of $314M? If they were bidding in a restricted market, could they have been more efficient? To me, this just isn’t about winning and losing. It’s an intriguing subject worthy of sophisticated conversation.
    None of us know the answers to these questions with 100% certainty, but to act as if there is no reasonable and intelligent discussion to be had about the business aspects of these deals, whether they include the Sox or the Yankees, is, to me, silly. On the other hand, some of the absolutism with regards to these recent events, about who “won” or “lost” (from both SFs and YFs) may have already proven my sentiment to be naive: maybe that intelligent discussion is just a fantasy.

    SF December 3, 2007, 1:27 pm
  • Diamondbacks traded Carlos Quentin to the White Sox for 1stBaseman Chris Carter. Quentin was once the treasure of the Diamondbacks FS until Upton and Drew came along. He was handed the RF job out of ST last season and really stunk up the joint. As for Carter I know nothing about him other then he is the #4 prospect in the White Sox FS.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 1:28 pm
  • i can say with absolutism that the yankees “lost” by signing Kei Igawa.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 1:29 pm
  • HAHAHA Sam, I agree. I would have said the same thing for Lugo and Drew, but both turned things around somewhat and contributed in September-October. I have high hopes for both next year.
    Kei Igawa? If there was ever a AAAA farm team he would be perfect for it. Great AAA numbers, horrible MLB numbers. Maybe it’s a mental thing?

    Atheose December 3, 2007, 1:32 pm
  • Amen to that Sam. If I never see Kei Igawa in the Bronx again it will be too soon.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 1:32 pm
  • “Maybe it’s a mental thing?”
    Nope, he is just awful.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 1:37 pm
  • Yes its a mental thing.
    He knows he sucks, in his head he says “I suck”, then when he pitches he sucks.
    Apparently the Yanks have been getting offers on this POS. I cant believe they would honestly turn any of them down. If they could scam an RP for him of any decent value they should take it immediately.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • Sam, I got ripped a new one last July when the Padres wanted him and I said take whatever they offer. So be careful, LOL. He probably could pitch in the NL in a very large park or a pitcher’s park. Someone get Minaya on the phone.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 1:49 pm
  • A Twins official this morning confirmed that the club is not pleased with comments made by Yankees senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner about trade talks involving Santana.
    When asked if he thought the comments constituted tampering, the official replied, “We’re not happy. We’ll deal with this internally.’’

    Offered without comment.
    http://www.startribune.com/blogs/neal/?p=282

    SF December 3, 2007, 1:58 pm
  • Hopefully by “internally” they mean:
    “forget him, and his rediculous, and probably false, demands”.

    Brad December 3, 2007, 2:00 pm
  • A little off topic. But here is a quote from Tyler Kepner today talking about who is at the winter meetings. It reinforces a point made about Torre (what now seems like eons ago) vis-a-vis how hard he works….
    “You will also find 29 major league managers here; John McLaren of the Mariners, Lou Piniella of the Cubs and Jim Leyland of the Tigers were among those socializing near the registration desk.
    The one manager not here is Joe Torre, who spends most of his winter in Hawaii. He did not attend when he worked for the Yankees, and he’s not here now that he manages the Dodgers.”

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 3:23 pm
  • SF, this is why you pay me the big bucks!
    “Now this is what I want to know here. Is Hank sending Santana a subliminal message? Presumably Santana already knows that the Yanks and Sox want him. But is Hank The Great’s point, the fact that he wants Santana to know of the Yanks’ desire, to tell him that Hank will blow away any team with the extension he’d give to Santana? Is this tampering in any way? Is Hank telling Johan, Even if you’re traded to the Sox, you’d be wise to use that NTC?
    Hank Steinbrenner just might be crazy like a fox. Or he might just talk a lot.”
    Posted by Nick-YF at 09:38 PM yesterday
    I never get anything right! This is big for me!

    Nick-YF December 3, 2007, 3:26 pm
  • I don’t understand how this is seriously tampering. If Hank were to come out of the blue and say he wants Santana, that’s one thing. But, considering there’s been very public ongoing negotiations and Yanks are willing to cough up good prospects + a load of $, it’s hardly a secret they want Santana, isn’t it?

    yankeemonkey December 3, 2007, 3:31 pm
  • PS. Above comment does not endorse Hank’s big mouth.

    yankeemonkey December 3, 2007, 3:37 pm
  • Twins apparently saying they will file tampering charges.
    Edes joins in from the meetings:
    “Yankees GM Brian Cashman, meanwhile, had yet to arrive. GM Theo Epstein and his aides have been holed up in the Sox suite, holding meetings and making phone calls, and there remains a school of thought that the Sox’ primary interest is driving up the price for the Yankees. One Sox type told me a little while ago that there may be more rumor than substance to what has been reported to date, which is par for the course at these things, though we are persuaded by our sources that Ellsbury and Jon Lester have been offered in different packages.
    The White Sox, meanwhile, are anxious for a resolution of the Santana business because they’d like to engage the Sox in talks for Coco Crisp. Boston doesn’t trade Coco, of course, if Ellsbury goes to the Twins in a deal for Santana.”

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 3:41 pm
  • I’m going to be in meetings until late tonight. I hope that by the time I get back our long national nightmare will be over, one way or another. I’m sick of having to refresh 5 different sites for updates every 2 minutes!

    yankeemonkey December 3, 2007, 3:46 pm
  • what is a “Sox type”? My mom qualifies by that description…

    SF December 3, 2007, 3:49 pm
  • you should change the name of this site to YTST…

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 3:51 pm
  • sf, i understand you wanting to take the high road in the discussion, but frankly it’s the nature of the rivalry to which you contribute [in a good way] to declare winners and losers in all events relative to our teams…you can’t deny that there have been a number of comments in various threads pro/con about every transaction the yankees have executed so far this off season…the very nature of those comments and the critique offered with each suggest that there is a “winner” or a “loser” in each case…with maybe a tie ;)

    dc December 3, 2007, 4:08 pm
  • ” One Sox type told me a little while ago that there may be more rumor than substance to what has been reported to date…”
    I’m curious how our SF brethren feel about this. Are the Sox serious here?
    Given that the Sox are loath to sign long term expensive contracts (Drew excepted), I tend to think not.
    Another problem could be Beckett’s reaction to a fellow starter getting a long term deal making over twice his 10.6M per (avg over the next 3 yrs). Could he ask the Sox to re-negotiate his deal?

    Anonymous December 3, 2007, 4:24 pm
  • me.
    “the very nature of those comments and the critique offered with each suggest that there is a “winner” or a “loser” in each case…with maybe a tie ;)”
    That’s your cue for the “not a zero-sum game” comment, SF :)

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 4:27 pm
  • “Zero sum games roasting on an open fire,…”

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 4:29 pm
  • I think Beckett gets his deal renegotiated if Santana signs. No way his contract stays the same. How many rings does Johan have?

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 4:29 pm
  • I really don’t think Beckett would have much of a case for renegotiation. Santana’s deal will set the market for him when he becomes a free agent or when the Sox ask to negotiate an extension, regardless of where Santana signs.
    To use an example I used before when this subject came up: Should David Ortiz ask for a renegotation since he’s making less than J.D. Drew despite delivering close to twice the production last season?

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 4:31 pm
  • Mike said..
    Santana = 20 million
    Beckett = 9.5 million
    Matsuzaka = 8.5 million
    Schilling – 14 million (given how math is done around here)
    Wakefield = 4 million
    That’s 56 million.
    By contrast:
    Pettitte = 16 million
    Moose = 11 million
    Wang = 500k
    Hughes = 250k
    Joba = 250k
    That’s 28 million.
    ———————————
    Wang is arbitration neligible and lohud suggests he will make around $4 million in 2008.
    The 2008 MLB minumum salary is $390,000 or about $140,000 more then you slotted Joba or Hughes for.

    TJ December 3, 2007, 4:31 pm
  • The only person beckett can blame if his contract is undervalued is himself (and his agent). He signed the dotted line and will have to live with it. I said this yesterday but if every time a team gave a new contract they had to negotiate all of their other contracts it would be chaos.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 4:35 pm
  • Exactly, Sam. Markets change (insert Airplane! quote here) and I’m sure Beckett and his agent realize this. Beckett’s deal is actually somewhat similar to the extension Santana signed when HE was Beckett’s age and not yet a free agent.

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 4:40 pm
  • they sign the contracts in advance for a reason. on both sides. otherwise, igawa, lugo, pavano and drew would be writing the checks this year.

    Yankee Fan In Boston December 3, 2007, 4:49 pm
  • Papi and Drew are fairly similar.
    Papi 4/$52M – $12.5M per
    Drew 5/$70M – $14M per
    Beckett – 3/$30M – $9.5M/’08 – $10.5M/’09 -$12M Option in ’10.
    Santana could get that doubles that. If you take into consideration that Papi is a DH and Drew (plays a position pretty darn well in fact) their contracts are pretty equal. Not too start a sh*t storm because I know Papi is a much better player, I am just saying when negotiating a contract I am sure that stuff comes into play. Not a ton of leverage there, but I am sure if he wanted to Papi could squeak out a few more bucks.
    As for Josh, he was the team’s #1 in a WS Championship season. He dominated the regular season. Pitcher clutch game after clutch game. He now owns two WS rings. Without Beckett who knows where the Red Sox end up this season? His value to this team, especially after that playoff performance cannot be measured. That being said he most definitely has leverage to squeeze some money out of the FO. Santana isn’t worth double Beckett, regardless of how good he is.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 4:49 pm
  • ” Should David Ortiz ask for a renegotation since he’s making less than J.D. Drew despite delivering close to twice the production last season?”
    If Ortiz were making half the amount of Drew’s salary (which would probably be the case if the Sox sign Santana), then I think he should ask for a renegotiation.

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 4:51 pm
  • I understand the “every time” rationale, but Josh Beckett is not an “every time” kind of guy. He is the #1 on the best team in the game. He lead them to a WS Title, without him who knows how 2007 ends up. If anyone ever had leverage to reno, it’s Josh Beckett.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 4:55 pm
  • John
    The sox arent signing Beckett to a contract this year. He was worth what ever they gave him when they gave it to him. If he was worried about this situation he should have signed a shorter contract. If his arm had fallen off the day after he signed it, the sox wouldnt be able to renegotiate it. He has no right to either.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 4:55 pm
  • “Beckett’s deal is actually somewhat similar to the extension Santana signed when HE was Beckett’s age and not yet a free agent.”
    But, he signed that deal with the twins, not the sox, the team with the second highest payroll in baseball.
    What I’m suggesting is that if the sox want to keep Beckett happy, they may have to renegotiate if they sign Johan.

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 4:55 pm
  • Bet me a beer on that one Sam?

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 4:58 pm
  • Trisk, if you win the bet, don’t collect at the “Riviera”. It’s a hellhole! :)

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 5:00 pm
  • That being said he most definitely has leverage to squeeze some money out of the FO.
    He has very little leverage. The Sox owe him almost $30M. If he doesn’t play in a huff, he doesn’t get paid. And if he doesn’t play, he also hurts his chances at his next payday, which may be absolutely enormous. I’d say Beckett would be pretty foolish to walk out in a huff because another pitcher signed a bigger contract. The Sox would be smart to just let him, if it ever comes to that, and who would blame them; they made him very wealthy in the market that he signed his contract, before they were obligated to do so. If Beckett approaches the Sox and they agree, through negotiation, to change his package, then good for Josh. His leverage only goes so far as the Sox are generous. Otherwise he’s got no good options with any kind of threats, as far as I am concerned, and the Sox would be right to let him atrophy on his barcalounger.

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:03 pm
  • that place is the worst. one of my SF buddies had me meet him for a drink there next thing i know im in south boston!

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 5:03 pm
  • Andrews, I was actually in your town this past Saturday. As well as that’s where my two boys were born. Great place!

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 5:04 pm
  • SF, relax bud I wasn’t saying he would not play. All I am saying is if there ever was a Red Sox player that deserved or had some leverage to get his deal Reno’d it’s Beckett. Will it happen, I think so. Will he sit out if it doesn’t, I HIGHLY doubt it. But what’s that saying “You don’t know if you don’t ask?”

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 5:07 pm
  • If the Sox got Santana and signed him to say 6 years/$20M, as a Sox fan/diehard would you hold it against Beckett for approaching them about a raise? I know I wouldn’t if I were a (gulp) Sox fan. It’s win/win, he asks they say no, nothing happens. He asks they say sure and he’s richer then he was 5 minutes ago. It’s my opinion I think it happens.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 5:12 pm
  • John:
    I realize you didn’t say he’d sit out, but other than going into the Front Office and saying “uh, can I have a raise?”, what other options does Beckett have to find out if he’ll get paid more? The Sox say “no”, and then what? Where’s his actual “leverage” other than in threats? The Sox can either pay him more or not, and they are under absolutely no obligation to do so and would be pretty blameless if they refused a (hypothetical) demand. So when I think of “leverage” I think of “what could Beckett do to obviate a pay-raise?”. Asking for one doesn’t qualify as leverage, at least not to me. Holding something over the Sox in order to gain that raise: that’s leverage.
    Oh, and less than seven hours on the Hankometer, until the Yankees walk away from the Twins. Come on, Twins, you can do it! Show some backbone! Hold out!
    (Yeah, sure, if a deal isn’t done the Yankees are walking away, right!)

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:14 pm
  • And really, the Red Sox signed Beckett to the extension when they did precisely BECAUSE they hoped it would be a bargain down the road: That 1. He’s pitch well enough to make himself a bargain, and 2. That they’d lock him in at dollars that would save them money over extending him later or as a free agent.
    So, the Red Sox, having obviously done exactly that, would seem uninclined to undo it just because Beckett felt slighted — and I would doubt that Beckett feels slighted at all. He knows the business. He could have waited just as easily.

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 5:20 pm
  • “Andrews, I was actually in your town this past Saturday. As well as that’s where my two boys were born. Great place!”
    Thanks, Trisk!

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 5:20 pm
  • Oh, I agree John. But that’s not leverage. That’s just Josh being an employee with three years left on his contract who has a question for his bosses.

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:20 pm
  • How about this…If there was ever a player who had the RIGHT to ask for a reno/raise it would be Josh Beckett.
    You are correct SF. Leverage is the wrong term. Leverage would be Josh telling Theo he had pictures of his wife with Hank and if he doesn’t give him a raise then they are being posted on YFSF. That’s leverage.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 5:21 pm
  • Leverage would be Josh telling Theo he had pictures of his wife with Hank and if he doesn’t give him a raise then they are being posted on YFSF.
    That wouldn’t be leverage, that would be awesome.

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:23 pm
  • 07:$6M, 08:$9.5M, 09:$10.5M, 10:$12M club option ($2M buyout)
    Look at how crazy that contract is. Josh Beckett is the steal of the century at those prices. I know I have said this before but the Red Sox really know how to negotiate contracts. It’s amazing. In 2010 at $12M he would still be making the SAME AMOUNT as GIL MECHE!!!

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 5:25 pm
  • The Yankees can walk away just fine knowing that sooner or later, the Twins will come crawling back. Bill Smith is not going to trade Johan Santana for Jon Lester. And if he does, well, he can have fun answering for that when Lester is most likely posting 4.50+ ERAs from 2008 to 2010. Assuming he ever makes it through an entire year in the majors, that is.
    The Yankees cannot do something to block the Red Sox. They have to do it for themselves. And trading anything more than Hughes, Cabrera and an insignificant prospect is eventually just not a good idea. And it’s not a good idea to wait out the entire Winter Meetings just waiting to see if the Twins will bite. They have to move on. Minnesota can take their cues from A-Rod and come back when no one offers them anything close to Hughes and Cabrera. But then they can’t be surprised to find they’re right back at square one.

    Andrew December 3, 2007, 5:28 pm
  • ” I would doubt that Beckett feels slighted at all. He knows the business. He could have waited just as easily.”
    I dunno, Paul, if the guy sitting next to me was making twice my salary, without being better at what he does, I would feel slighted, and probably angry, no matter when my contract was worked out. It’s human nature.
    And for leverage, SF, doesn’t being (arguably) one of the best postseason pitchers of all time count for anything? My guess is that the sox think so.

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 5:28 pm
  • I’m amazed that people still think the Sox might lowball Santana if they win the trade bidding (Law said this today, and to all our posters’ credit, I don’t think anyone here has said that).
    I mean, come on, people. Did they not learn from the Matsuzaka negotiations? Sometimes the Sox push for a player because they actually want to improve their team…

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 5:30 pm
  • but the Red Sox really know how to negotiate contracts
    I dunno, John. I think they have gotten some right, some not. Who were they bidding against with Drew and Lugo that we know of?
    They did well with Josh, they did well with the Dice-K contract, with Big Papi, Lowell to some degree. The have done a good job, for sure, more often than not.

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:30 pm
  • On a sidenote, a move I would much like the Yankees to make: acquire Huston Street from the A’s. Don’t trade any of the Three, but something like Horne + Gardner would be pretty valuable to a team like the A’s.

    Andrew December 3, 2007, 5:31 pm
  • “Josh Beckett is the steal of the century at those prices. I know I have said this before but the Red Sox really know how to negotiate contracts”
    I agree completely, and don’t forget the bargain of Ortiz at 12M….

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 5:32 pm
  • I think Josh will know that its all about timing. Santana may not be better than Beckett, but his contract came up at the right time. Santana has a no-trade clause that makes teams need to bribe him to waive. Beckett did not have that.
    I have a problem accepting the notion that players can re-negotiate contracts so soon after signing them. TO ruined this idea for me…but I’m going to get over my dislike for what TO did and react objectively.
    I believe a player should be allowed to get as much money as he can. If Josh has the leverage to get a new contract, he should be allowed to do so without us feeling like he’s being greedy. He has an idea of his worth and he wants that to match. He has to do his own cost/benefit analysis: is my chance of getting a new contract worth the trouble I have to put in to get one.
    If his contract were expiring or if he had an option written in, then he’d definately would be asking for more money. But as far as we know, all he can do is ask for a raise…and if he doesn’t get it, sit out…which would probably be a breach of contract and the Sox would stop paying him. Then he could go the TO rout, hold out until he gets a new contract.
    I think a look at baseball history would show us that rengotiation of existing contracts does not happen often, if at all. I think that goes to show that players have no real chance of going that route.

    Carlos (YF) December 3, 2007, 5:37 pm
  • And for leverage, SF, doesn’t being (arguably) one of the best postseason pitchers of all time count for anything? My guess is that the sox think so.
    Oh, no harm in asking, of course not. He’s got credentials. But he doesn’t have leverage unless he’s willing to sit out (or the Sox think his performance will be negatively impacted by his mindset, which is something that Josh would have to intimate about to make them concerned, that’s therefore a threat on Beckett’s part and could be considered leverage).

    SF December 3, 2007, 5:37 pm
  • “Leverage would be Josh telling Theo he had pictures of his wife with Hank and if he doesn’t give him a raise then they are being posted on YFSF.”
    I have pictures of A-Rod getting into a Toronto hotel elevator with Theo in a gorilla suit but never thought much about them…should I be trying to sell these?

    IronHorse (yf) December 3, 2007, 5:46 pm
  • The Sox could renegotiate Beckett’s package simply because he could become very unhappy. Doesn’t matter if it’s ‘fair’ or not, if your best player is unhappy with the organization, it could be a problem.

    Andrew December 3, 2007, 5:47 pm
  • I could see the Sox heading the situation off at the pass and offering a raise, but I doubt it would be much more than $5M a year. What’s the point of negotiating a bargain deal at the right time if you have to renegotiate everytime someone signs for a higher price?
    Andrew, I guess I have a hard time seeing how Beckett would be unhappy. I could see him being chagrined or slightly regretful or something along those lines. But no one forced him to sign his own extension; likewise, if $25M is what it takes to sign Santana and give the Sox that much better a shot at repeating as World Series champions, I’d think Beckett would be just fine to accept a teammate at that price — even if he outperforms him.
    I also think the common-workplace analogy is a bit strained because the difference between $30,000 and $60,000 on our respective lifestyles would be pretty drastic. The difference between $10M and $20M? It could if your tastes run that way, but believe me when I say that if you’e living in Texas, you’d have to buy a LOT of mansions, ranches and card to run through $10M a year and be wishing for twice as much money.

    Paul SF December 3, 2007, 5:56 pm
  • Please someone name one example of a player who renegotiated his contract soon after singing one in response to his team signing a new player. As far as I know, this just does not happen.

    sam-YF December 3, 2007, 6:04 pm
  • Oh, I wasn’t guaranteeing Beckett to be unhappy. I have my own views of the guy, but I don’t really know him that well. I just doubt his blood runs Red Sox Crimson. There could be a chance he values his own buck enough over the team that he would be unhappy.

    Andrew December 3, 2007, 6:07 pm
  • “I also think the common-workplace analogy is a bit strained because the difference between $30,000 and $60,000 on our respective lifestyles would be pretty drastic. The difference between $10M and $20M? It could if your tastes run that way…”
    I venture to guess that most people would be unhappy if a co-worker performs at roughly the same level, but receives twice the compensation, no matter what the income level, or lifestyle. That’s human nature, Paul.
    Salaries are about more than just the money -they are often status symbols. Just ask A Rod…

    Anonymous December 3, 2007, 6:28 pm
  • me

    Andrews December 3, 2007, 6:39 pm
  • Regardless of his feelings, he has to have some baseball acumen, or at least his agent should. And he should know that any cauterwhaling on his part about a new contract is going to get ugly. The Red Sox may love Beckett, but if he begins talking about an extension; well there are 24 other players who, although may not have as good of a case as Beckett, may feel themselves underpaid.
    I don’t think it’s a good idea for the Red Sox to make an exception for Josh because they do not want to create the idea that contracts are “temporary” or “open to negotiation.”
    Also, a distinction between our workplace experiences and baseball: We don’t sign contracts. Your boss can give you a raise anytime he wants. The trick is convincing him that you deserve it. In baseball, when you sign a contract you’ve accepted the fact that bonuses, increases and the like are definitively described. You agreed to something and now its up to the good graces of the team to let you out of it.
    And as much as the team may love Beckett…thats a precedent that a team does not want to set. The TO situation was clouded by everyone’s dislike of TO and so Philly’s position was never fully examined. They didn’t deny him an upgrade because they disliked him. They refused to negotiate because regardless if the contract was fair “right now”, it was deemed fair by all parties at signing and by signing it, you’ve accepted that it will remain so until the contract ends.
    If Josh feels underpaid, then take note of Santana and when your contract is up, and you are 32, look back and say well in this position Santana got X dollars…I want X+interest for my new contract.

    Carlos (YF) December 3, 2007, 6:39 pm
  • Sam, I don’t know that it ever has. I also don’t know that there has ever been a situation like this. The Red Sox win the WS Title powered by their #1 Josh Beckett. Then in the off-season the trade for the best pitcher in the game. So you are correct in saying that a player has probably never done what I am saying will happen. But on the flip side the WC’s have never gone out and added the best pitcher in the game the year after they won a title.
    Again, this is just my opinion, not fact. Who knows what happens in the end.

    John - YF December 3, 2007, 6:41 pm
  • As an aside, I’m a fan of players attempting to sign more flexible contracts with more options because, especially in football, nothing is guaranteed ever. The huge sums of money reported are only the best case scenarios. In football, a career can end in a play and you better hope those signing bonuses were invested in a safe place.
    Baseball has a less draconian system and although a player can be waived, the act (i believe) does not void the money promised. Basketball obviously goes the opposite way – in exchange for a hard salary cap (and thus lower salaries), player contracts are guaranteed. There I am less on the players side about re-negotiation.
    So yea, Beckett seeing Dice-K and possibly Santana making much more money than him should ask the Red Sox who their #1 is. And they are perfectly in their rights, officially and unofficially, to remind him that he signed a contract in full knowledge of what could happen and they expect him to live by it. And he could then make some noise in the press, hold out a bit, and the drama could start. The drama that hurts him as much as it hurts the club.

    Carlos (YF) December 3, 2007, 6:48 pm
  • “But on the flip side the WC’s have never gone out and added the best pitcher in the game the year after they won a title.”
    I dunno, Roger Clemens was pretty good in 1998. Not ‘best pitcher in the game’, but he was the Cy Young.

    Andrew December 3, 2007, 7:02 pm
  • John,
    Not the exact same situation, but off the top of my head.
    1998 Yankees win the World Series behind David Wells, Andy Pettitte and David Cone. David Cone won 20 games, Wells had an ERA of 3.49. Cone made $6 million, Wells $4 million, Pettitte made $3.8. baseball-reference.com doesn’t tell me the contract lengths, but I remember that Pettitte started in 1995-1996, so his contract was fairly new. Wells started in 1997 or so, and so his contract was also fairly new. Cone was at the tail end of his career and had been with the Yankees for a while.
    In 1999, the Yankees sign Roger Clemens, fresh of winning two Cy Youngs in Toronto. He signs for $8.25 million.
    Wells/Pettitte did not have the stature of Beckett back then. Santana is not a Clemens of 1997. But, in both cases, a team has won the world series handily, with a pitching staff that although contains veterans, was solid enough to win. The Yankees had youth in Pettitte and experience in Cone, with a little mid-level greatness in Wells and even a wild-card like Hernandez. I won’t enrage opinion by comparing the two staffs, but can we agree that they were in the same ballpark?
    I think Wells/Pettitte knew, and I hope that Beckett knows, that your contract is two-fold. Its about status, but its als about timing. Status will keep, it well ferment and grow, but you have to wait for the perfect moment to make the big $$$ splash.
    (In both those cases, Pettitte and Wells got their money soon after…but during normal contract negotiations.)

    Carlos (YF) December 3, 2007, 7:03 pm

Leave a Comment

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