YFSF: Where the ‘SF’ Stands for ‘Santana Fans’

We do love the Hot Stove. Last December it was Daisuke Matsuzaka; this almost-December it’s Johan Santana. In both cases, multiple reports have claimed the Red Sox to be in the lead. In both cases, we have been skeptical.

Whatever happens,* the fun part is undoubtedly the speculation, the rumors, the thrill of possibly getting the Big Fish of the offseason. It’s not as fun as the game itself, but it’ll do in a pinch.

In these overnight hours, let’s recap just who’s offering what, according to whom:

  • First, Jon Heyman on Wednesday said the Yankees had the edge because they seemed more likely to offer either Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes with Melky Cabrera, plus another prospect or two. The Sox, refusing to give up more than one of their Big Three, were refusing to include Jacoby Ellsbury in a package that otherwise included Jon Lester.
  • Thursday morning, however, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported the Sox were front-runners with an offer of Coco Crisp, Lester, Jed Lowrie and Justin Masterson, and saying the Yankees did not have enough (offer enough?) 2008-ready prospects to do a deal.
  • Later, Buster Olney partially confirmed that report, replacing Masterson with Michael Bowden, but adding the fourth player was "in flux."
  • Heyman returned Thursday afternoon, still giving the Yanks the edge, noting the Twins were dead-set on getting Ellsbury from Boston, and that Boston was dead-set against including him.
  • Nick Cafardo jumped in Thursday night to essentially confirm Olney’s report that the Sox preferred to lose Bowden over Masterson, adding that Lowrie (if the Charlie Walter’s and Olney’s sources were correct) is Boston’s attempt to make up for not including Ellsbury.
  • Cafardo also threw in an interesting name to the Yankee-Twins talks: Negotiations had been centering on Cabrera and Robinson Cano, Cafardo said. No mention of any of the Big Three. Cafardo’s blog post seemed to indicate the Red Sox were both further along and better positioned to get the deal done — to the point that he checked with Santana’s agent (or people who know him) to see whether negotiations with him had begun.
  • Not so fast, though. Later Thursday night, Jack Curry entered the fray to definitively state the Yankees had offered Kennedy, Cabrera and a prospect, which Curry thinks is Jose Tabata. The Yankees, similarly to the Red Sox, said they did not want to trade either of the other two if they were giving up one — but only Joba Chamberlain was declared "untouchable." The Twins, of course, insist that Hughes be part of the deal, just as they seem to insist Ellsbury be part of a deal with Boston.
  • Curry said the Yankees think if they include Hughes, the deal would get done. Similarly, everyone is indicating if the Sox add Ellsbury (presumably replacing Crisp and Lowrie), that deal would get done.

So here’s what we have from all that:

  • Sox: Coco Crisp, Jon Lester, Jed Lowrie, Michael Bowden (maybe)
  • Yanks: Melky Cabrera, Ian Kennedy, Jose Tabata (maybe)

Which side will blink first and include the player they don’t want to include? And how much then will Santana force them to pay?

* Unless the Yankees end up with Johan Santana. And another HT to MLBTradeRumors.

92 comments… add one

  • In addition to IPK and Melky, the Twins can also have Stephon, Isiah, Quentin Richardson, Zach Randolph, Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, and the Knicks City Dancers. Balkman and Lee are off the table.

    YF November 30, 2007, 12:47 am
  • While I’m at it, let me make a plea here. I think Paul’s timeline here is fantastic—another in a string of great posts—but I’d caution that the above reports are about as reliable as a Stephon Marbury jump shot. I’m not sure anyone besides the figures involved has any actual idea about what exactly is being offered and by whom. And even when a deal happens, given the number of prospects sure to be involved, and the financial issues, it’s going to be a long time until we find out who actually “wins” in any transaction. So, I know we’re on pins and needles here, and the conversation can be a lot of fun, but PLEASE, let’s try to have a sense of humor about it, or at least keep matters in perspective. In their conversation over on Bronx Banter yesterday, even Steve Goldman and Cliff Corcoran weren’t quite sure what the right deal might be for the Yanks—and I think those two have pretty strong credentials. So wargame it out, talk it up, have fun, but keep the peace.

    YF November 30, 2007, 1:01 am
  • Stephon Marbury?
    Is that even a104-59current enough topical reference?
    :)

    QuoSF November 30, 2007, 1:58 am
  • Good stuff this morning from Sean McAdam. Well, OK, it’s stuff that advances the story slightly:
    “A source with knowledge of the negotiations last night confirmed only that the teams had exchanged multiple proposals this week and said “some positive momentum” had been created by the two clubs.
    Last night, however, a deal was far from imminent. …
    The Red Sox were adamant in their refusal to part with both [Buchholz and Ellsbury], though they may be persuaded to include one of the two in a grouping that would probably also include Lester and others.”
    First time I’ve seen any indication of that. Is this blind sourcing or McAdam speculating on what common sense surely tells all of us — if you can get Johan Santana and keep Clay Buchholz, then shake Jacoby Ellsbury’s hand and wish him well in Minnesota.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 2:36 am
  • Disagree with ya Paul. i would *consider* giving up Ellsbury and Lester for Haren, but even then … probably not. Certainly not the older, probably ranigng downward, Santana.
    I say.. let the Yanks have him. Let them trade Kennedy, Hughes, Cabrera and whatgever else.
    Le the Mets get him. Even better.
    Do NOT give up Jacoby. No way no how

    Dionysus November 30, 2007, 3:58 am
  • I love Ellsbury, but what exactly will he give the Sox in value over Coco Crisp that would not be blown out of the water by an upgrade from Jon Lester to Johan Santana?

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 4:07 am
  • I’m not convinced yet that Johan will be worht it in the LONG term. Short term – absolutly. But I perfer to think Long Term. What about 5 years from now?

    Dionysus November 30, 2007, 4:44 am
  • YFs here: do any of you feel Santana is worth Hughes, Kennedy, Cabrera, and Tabata?
    Of course it has to be judged not on the combined talent of these players vs. Santana, but rather based on what the 2008 and beyond Yankees would look like with and without this deal.
    This trade would open a hole in CF, but as much as I love Melky, this does not bother me too much. OF’s are plentiful, even athletic CFs.
    Clearly of larger concern is a prospective rotation of Santana, Wang, Mussina, Joba (on shortened innings-total) and a question-mark. If you believe Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte is leaning toward retiring so I don’t count him in at this point. And based on last year (and his age), I don’t think Mussina is good for a full season – he might be crafty and effective for 3/4s of a season, but that would be as much as I think he could be counted on for.
    Now NY has more pitchers in the minors, but none are in a position to be part of a starting rotation from start to finish of the ’08 season.
    If they don’t pull this trigger, their rotation is Wang, Hughes, Mussina, Joba, and Kennedy, with Wang being the only one who likely wouldn’t need a shortened load.
    I hate to say it, because I love the kids coming up, but I think I lean toward option one – throwing in Hughes if it is absolutely necessary while very much hoping it isn’t. 2/5s of a virtually certain full-season rotation (including one of the best aces in the game) is better than 1/5 of a certain rotation (with no ace).
    Having said that, I feel I might change my mind 10 more times today alone.
    On competing with Boston, I really feel that what the Sox do has got to be not at all part of the Yankee equation. You decide what is the most you are willing to give based on what you think is best for the building of your team and then you negotiate up to and not beyond that point. I don’t think you negotiate to that point and then, when you see your rival might still get him instead, you then throw in something you don’t want to.

    IronHorse (yf) November 30, 2007, 5:26 am
  • Sorry for the double-post – the part I forgot to add there is the “beyond 2008″ consideration. I don’t think Santana is on the decline – most reports of which base the theory on his sub-par (for him) performance in the second half of last season.
    And I think that barring injury, I’m more willing to bet that in 5 years, Santana will still be a #1 or, at worst, #2 starter, while having provided at least a few years of legit #1 ace-itude, which I don’t thnk we can expect from Hughes and/or Kennedy.

    IronHorse (yf) November 30, 2007, 5:54 am
  • personally I think this is all smart posturing by the Twins going into the Winter Meetings. Now there’s a baseline market set prior to all the other teams are in the house together. The Cali teams know the (rumored) bar that’s been set. The Twins are even bigger belles of the ball now. I’d be very surprised if a deal was done before these meetings.
    And thanks for the summation, Paul, but I still have no idea what is true!

    SF November 30, 2007, 7:27 am
  • Of course, Mike gives the same exact summation yesterday and he’s treated like a piece of crap. Well done. I’m outta here.

    NH Rob November 30, 2007, 7:50 am
  • IH –
    Re: the trade – I think Santana is worth Hughes, IPK and Cabrera. Does this include Tabata? I have no idea. Does Santana warrant a 4th player? Eh…I feel like we are giving up a lot already (he cautiously offers as he prepares to be attacked by hostile YFs and SFs via the web).
    We need another pitcher. If we don’t pull the trigger on the deal, I don’t think the Wang, Hughes, Mussina, Joba, and Kennedy rotation gets it done. And I don’t think Pettite is coming back, so….
    As far as taking into consideration what Boston is doing, I agree with you 85%. The other 15% of me feels you have to pay attention to what they are offering and guard as much as you can against being tricked into offering away something you don’t want to. I think the Yankees should give the same ratio to their decision making process: 85% attention on how it (the trade) affects them, 15% to what Boston is doing
    They’re in our division. We have to pay them some mind.

    rz-yf November 30, 2007, 8:23 am
  • I agree with you totally rz. I like the big 3 but we cant have 3 rookie pitchers in our rotation. They simply wont give us enough innings

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 8:30 am
  • Sam and rz: this is interesting to me because it seems all three of us are OK with shipping IPK, Hughes, and Cabrera, which is such a high price that I would have expected more push-back (though I am sure it will come sooner or later here to all 3 of us!).
    For me, when I considered the deal just in terms of a swap, it hurt too much, but when I drew out our rotations under both scenarios, it made it hard for me to justify not giving in on Hughes if we have to.
    And frankly, even then, we still need at least one if not two guys to slot into the rotation (I am very uncertain about what Mussina gives us this year).

    IronHorse (yf) November 30, 2007, 8:35 am
  • Looking at our rotation and to a lesser extent the sox rotation is precisely why i think we need to pony up Hughes if thats what it takes to land Johan. Id hate to trade him but sometimes you gotta do that.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 8:45 am
  • If indeed the powers that be have those three names on the table, they have given a very, very strong offer.
    I love Moose and what he’s given us, but alas… I just hope we do right by him and not pull another Bernie Williams

    rz-yf November 30, 2007, 8:48 am
  • Minnesota’s rotation isn’t looking too shabby after the trade, especially with Liriano coming back.

    rz-yf November 30, 2007, 8:50 am
  • Believe it or not, I think Pettitte would be more apt to come back if the Yankees landed Santana. Pettitte doesn’t need money, but he would like another ring. My guess is, he’s leaning towards retirement at this point because he knows that chances are, without getting Santana, the Yankees are probably another year or two away from making a serious World Series run and that’s if the prospects turn out to be what they’ve been advertised to be.
    Santana, Pettitte, Wang, Hughes, Chamberlain.
    Hell even:
    Santana, Pettitte, Wang, Chamberlain, Kennedy
    You use Mussina from time to time to limit Chamberlain/Hughes/Kennedy to 150-175 innings and you’re set.
    I don’t but the notion that Santana is in some sort of decline. The only knock against him last season was that he gave up 33 home runs. That won’t happen with him pitching half his starts at Yankees stadium.
    The bottom line is this: The Yankees shoot to the top as AL east favorites if they land Santana. It gives them the ‘stud’ starter they need. Wang is a gamer. Pettitte is a gamer. It’s too early to tell what Hughes/Chamberlain/Kennedy will be.
    If there’s one thing I DON’T like about the whole thing, is the notion of having to sign Santana to a seven year deal. But hell, the Yankees are going to pay Pettitte $16 million to pitch at the age of 36, so…..

    Jay-YF November 30, 2007, 8:52 am
  • All that said i think the yankees need to do everything to keep 2 of the “big 3″ even if it means tossing a few other prospects in. We need the major league ready guys next year more than they do. I dunno, i just want to find out what will happen and then decide if I am happy or not. My head is spinning.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 8:53 am
  • If the Yankees give up Hughes AND Kennedy, their rotation would be:
    Santana Wang Mussina Chamberlain ???
    The Yankees will absolutely not give up 2/5 of their rotation for Santana. They’d sooner give up Cano, and that has a -2% chance of happening, which is equivalent to a 2% chance in a bizarro baseball world where Nick Punto is MVP.

    Anonymous November 30, 2007, 9:01 am
  • There’s no way they deal Hughes and Kennedy. The Red Sox and Yankees actually have a stronger bargaining position than the Twins. If the Twins keep Santana, they won’t get as much for him in July as they will now and if they don’t deal him, they get nothing.
    I think it will come down to which package is better:
    Crisp, Lester, Bowden, ?
    Cabrera, Kennedy, Tabata, ?
    Epstein and Cashman are both smart enough to know that the Twins will eventually relent and take one of those deals. It will remain to be seen if either of them knee jerks at that point and say “Ok” to either Hughes or Ellsbury.

    Jay-YF November 30, 2007, 9:11 am
  • Meanwhile, what is the significance of the reports linking the Yanks and Mark Loretta? Is Cano on the go? Oh no!

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 9:17 am
  • Anon: 9:01 and Jay-yf
    Petitte comes back if we sign Santana. I agree with you there. Therefore the rotation would be
    Santana, Wang, Petitte, Moose, Chamberlain.
    In the words of my 7 y.o. nephew after I introduced him to my girlfriend: Hubba-Hubba

    rz-yf November 30, 2007, 9:20 am
  • That above anon who made a cheap Nick Punto joke was me.
    Nick – I would assume the interest in Mark Loretta is because Cashman could be putting Betemit in the deal to counteract the Sox’s inclusion of Lowrie and provide the Twins with a somewhat legit option at third. Loretta would be a solid infield utility guy, he plays solid defense and has decent on-base ability. I’ve always liked him.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 9:32 am
  • Andrew, well then I like the signing!

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 9:32 am
  • This, from Olney, I think is particularly interesting:
    “I’d bet if you gave Cashman and Epstein truth serum, they would admit that they would prefer to package prospects and trade them to Oakland for Dan Haren, the 2007 AL All-Star starter who would be a much more cost-efficient acquisition because he is under contract for only $16.25 million (including an option for 2010) over the next three years.
    But Epstein and Cashman have to stay at the Santana table, playing this game of pitching poker, because their rival is staying at the table.”
    So maybe the loser of the Santana Cold War moves on to Haren, and ends up the better for it? Or just holds pat, even better?

    YF November 30, 2007, 9:38 am
  • Billy Beane must be chomping at the bit for the Angels to land Santana. A deal for Haren is going to start out with guys like Buchholz and Hughes, not build up to them.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 9:41 am
  • Jay,
    I’d be really surprised if Cabrera, Kennedy, & Tabata would do it though I’d be happy if it did. I’d expect them to at least have to sub in Hughes for Kennedy, if not go to Hughes and Kennedy. I am not saying I want this to happen – by no means – but I think, as Gammons said his morning, the most desperate team here is not Minnesota or Boston. It is the Yankees, who – if they don’t make a deal – will have no ace and only 1 starter in their front 5 who they could legitimately expect to give them a full year.

    IronHorse (yf) November 30, 2007, 9:41 am
  • A couple of things about Haren than make me weary. First, the Yanks would have to deal with the ever-savvy Billy Beane, who usually does well in these situations. Second, because Haren is cost-controlled, he might very well be worth a package on the level of a Santana. Also, the Mets figure to be major players in any Haren talks because Beane reportedly likes a couple of their young players a lot. The price probably will increase with the Mets involved. Third, if I’m giving up a lot of talent, and I’m a wealthy team like the Yanks, I go for the best pitcher in terms of absolute value. Santana is on another level. Haren’s very good. He’s not great.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 9:42 am
  • Epstein and Cashman are both smart enough to know that the Twins will eventually relent and take one of those deals. It will remain to be seen if either of them knee jerks at that point and say “Ok” to either Hughes or Ellsbury.
    I agree completely, rz-yf. Both teams have made offers, which are probably stronger than any other team is willing to make, so now they’ll sit back and let the clock run. The longer the Twins wait, the more they’ll realize that they can’t get as much for Santana as they want.
    Also Andrew, that Nick Punto reference gave me a nice smile this morning ;-)

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 9:46 am
  • I agree, Nick. Haren has had one great year, but aside from that he has been just average. Santana is in another dimension.
    Haren is also a better option for a team with a smaller budget, like the Mets, because of his current contract. The Sox or Yanks don’t need to take into consideration the differences in budget between Santana and Haren.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 9:50 am
  • By the way, Dan Haren’s high WHIP worries me. Part of me feels it’s all smoke-and-mirrors on his part.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 9:52 am
  • It’s stuff like this that makes me glad I’m not a GM.

    Mark (YF) November 30, 2007, 10:06 am
  • Well you have the Yank’s budget, you go for volatility when you need it. It hasn’t always worked out cough Pavano cough, but you don’t “keep it safe” because that’s not what we need right now.
    Still, the price for Santana is steep..

    Lar November 30, 2007, 10:12 am
  • Two things this Friday morning:
    1. Santana is NOT in decline. He gave up more home runs than usual, which was reflected in his H/9 numbers, as well, and obviously his ERA, but his fly ball numbers stayed the same and he struck out nearly 10 per game. Those who shy away from Santana because he had a “subpar” year that only ranked in the top three or four in the AL do so at their peril. Also, given his numbers and the Sox’ or Yanks’ lineups, Santana wins 20 games last year, or at least 18 again, and no one is even having this discussion.
    In fact, let me post some fun numbers:
    K/9
    2004: 10.46
    2005: 9.25
    2006: 9.44
    2007: 9.66
    BB/9
    2004: 2.13
    2005: 1.75
    2006: 1.81
    2007: 2.14
    K/BB
    2004: 4.91
    2005: 5.29
    2006: 5.21
    2007: 4.52
    BAA
    2004: .195
    2005: .216
    2006: .220
    2007: .229
    The numbers show a pitcher who is still elite, and if he continues “declining” at the rate we see here, he’ll never really decline at all.
    2. Everyone is saying a seven-year extension, but the most I keep seeing in the press is six. And presumably a six-year deal eats up next season’s contract year, so in reality you’d be extending Santana for five years — through age 35, a much better option than what seems to be implied with a seven-year deal.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 10:58 am
  • Great point, Paul, about the decline issue. It’s been really overstated by quite a few people. This is not to say he won’t decline, and maye rapidly, but the evidence just isn’t there at this point.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:01 am
  • Paul, I think a six-year extension implies six years on top of his 13.5 million he’ll make next year. Still, locking up a possible future HOFer like Santana through age 36 is not as bad as it seems. Aside from major injuries, insane talent tends to trump the ravages of age.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 11:03 am
  • Santana is the only pitcher in baseball who could post a 3.33 ERA, 1.073 WHIP and 235 K’s and have it considered an “off year”. If he has off years for the next 6 years with the Sox then we’ll have several more World Series rings.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:05 am
  • can I ask a really naive and silly question. Say the Yanks/Sox deal for Santana. Does the NTC have to waived before the agreement which includes the 72 hour negotiating window gets done. Or can Johan use the NTC if the 72 hour negotiating window fails to get him the extension he wants?

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:05 am
  • Nick, the NTC clause has to be waived for the deal to be finalized. Santana holds all the power in the negotiations, so if he doesn’t get what he wants, he can walk away with no negative consequences other than that it increases his chances of remaining in Minnesota for another year.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 11:08 am
  • I believe the two things are separate.
    He can use the NTC at any point he chooses. This is an agreement between the twins and Santana.
    The 72hr window would be an agreement between the two teams.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 11:09 am
  • Aside from major injuries, insane talent tends to trump the ravages of age.
    Absolutely. As many others have pointed out in the last 48 hours, just look at John Smolz. Freakin unbelievable.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:11 am
  • so, in some way that protects against the Sox and Yanks trading for a player for just one year. But say the negotiations fail, but Santana still approves the deal (who knows? Maybe this whole time he’s wanted a chance at the open market) then the Yanks or Sox are kinda screwed. No?

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:11 am
  • Ok, I was responding to Andrew’s answer. Sam’s impliessomething different entirely.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:12 am
  • Santana really holds all the cards here. What team wants to have him reject them, where the Twins will either be forced to turn to the other (offering far less than they were before, I’m sure) or wait until the trade deadline?
    I think $120M for six is easily the starting point for negotiations between Santana and whoever the Twins give the nod to.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:13 am
  • Not at all nick. Santana could approve the trade immediately and then negotiate with the team. If the negotiations dont work out, the window closes and he remains with the twins. The window is an agreement between the teams to allow the acquiring team to work out an extension. If they cant, the trade is off.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 11:14 am
  • Thanks, Sam. I understand it now.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:16 am
  • http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/beckejo02.shtml
    Completely off-topic, but NoMaas.org sponsorered Josh Beckett’s page at Baseball Reference. They wrote “IT’S NOT A BLISTER!” in their section.
    Funny stuff.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:18 am
  • Nick, what I’ve seen most is the Twins will agree in principle and allow a 72-hour window. If Santana and the team come to an agreement, he waives the NTC, the Twins sign the deal, and all goes through.
    If Santana and the team cannot come to an agreement, the deal is off because Santana won’t waive his NTC. Even if he were to do it anyway, like you say, the team would likely pull a large part of its offer off the table because a one-year rental isn’t worth giving up nearly as much. The Twins would then reject the deal.
    Since both teams need to agree, I don’t think the Sox or Yanks would officially agree to anything until they have Santana signed first.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:18 am
  • I just read a report saying that Seattle is in on this now. They may have more to offer but its unclear if Johan would waive his clause to play there. He apparently doesnt like the extra travel that the west coast requires.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 11:19 am
  • Yeah, and what Sam said. :-)

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:19 am
  • He apparently doesnt like the extra travel that the west coast requires.
    Or the extra sucking playing in Seattle would require.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:21 am
  • Seattle is a damn nice park to pitch in.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 11:22 am
  • Santana won’t go to Seattle. The Mariners won’t pay Santana what he wants (they just extended Ichiro’s contract, remember) and because Santana won’t go there. I think he’s made it pretty clear that he wants to play for a team that will get him a championship, and Boston and New York are the ones that guarantee that the most. Also, he has an above-average (for him) ERA in SafeCo (3.86).
    Although he has a 6.89 ERA in Fenway. I’m hoping that’s just because of the lineup he’s faced there, and not because of the park itself.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:24 am
  • King Felix and Johan fronting a rotation would be pretty crazy in the post-season. The question is how would they get to that post-season?

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:25 am
  • Or the extra sucking playing in Seattle would require.
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:25 am
  • suddenly, I’m rooting for Seattle to land him over the Yanks. I don’t know. I’m conflicted enough about this. My heart says no, but my head says yes.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:26 am
  • The question is how would they get to that post-season?
    By playing for a team other than the Mariners!

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:28 am
  • Most of Santana’s appearances at Fenway were pre-2004. He’s only made one start and one relief appearance since he *became* Johan Santana, I believe.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:29 am
  • Santana has a bad ERA in Fenway because he is a lefthanded pitcher with flyball tendencies. Easy fly balls in any other park become doubles off the green monster. I wonder if that will factor into his willingness to play for the Sox? Him being in Fenway could very well be the difference between him and the HOF down the line.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 11:30 am
  • I also wonder if that plays into the actual willingness of the sox to trade for him.
    One has to think that he is good enough to adjust to his ballpark though.

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 11:34 am
  • Good point, Andrew. His tiny Yankee ERA could very well factor into his decision. He could easily go to the Twins Front Office and say “I want to play for the Yankees, not the Red Sox. If you try to trade me to Boston I’ll nix any trade.”

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:35 am
  • I don’t think you can adjust whether or not a right-handed hitter is going to want pull the ball.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 11:37 am
  • Again, Santana has essentially no experience in Fenway — certainly not enough to draw conclusions from. His bread and butter is missing bats. He can do that in Boston just as well as anyplace else.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:37 am
  • Plus, Santana might think he looks spiffier in pinstripes. And you can’t get genuine New York pizza anywhere else. And who says he doesn’t absolutely hate baked beans and clam chowder? There are many hidden variables that could factor in to where he wants to play.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 11:39 am
  • I’ve wondered in the past how much park effect has hurt the Rockies’ chances at landing an elite established starter.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:40 am
  • Also, just saw that SOSH locked their Santana thread to let things “cool down,” whatever that means.
    We’re all about the democracy here at YFSF. Threads open all day!

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:40 am
  • Paul, I think of the moderators, you, John and I love the hot stove a lot more than YF, SF and the Gerb. Perhaps, it’s our relative youth compared to those octegenarians:)

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:44 am
  • lol, Perhaps so, Nick. Maybe we just haven’t been disappointed enough.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 11:45 am
  • Oh, I’ve been disappointed plenty of late.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 11:46 am
  • Nick, it didn’t hurt Hampton! Well, I meant to say it didn’t hurt his chances. That and a 9 digit contract.

    Lar November 30, 2007, 11:48 am
  • Nick, you are 100% right I love the Hot Stove!
    As for the Yankees signing Loretta, I am not sure it’s a sign that Cano is gone. He is a heck of a player to have on the bench and to fill in when needed. He can play SS, 2B and 1B. His OBP is always respectable and he makes contact. Even if Robbie stays, I like this one if it comes true.

    John - YF November 30, 2007, 11:57 am
  • I, for one, am only 22 and LOVE the hot stove. So your theory is corroberated, Nick!

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 11:58 am
  • Well, Paul’s 64, I’m 72 and John is 73. Those other guys are all in their 80’s. The rumor is that YF’s birth certificate is a fake and he’s in his 90’s. You ever notice how much he knows about Spalding. That’s cause he knew the guy!
    I’ll be here all week. Make sure to tip your waitresses well.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 12:04 pm
  • also, I put up a thread above about Bedard and Haren if anyone wants to speculate about them.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 12:05 pm
  • My poor wife. This happened last December with the Daisuke stuff, too. Every time I transitioned activities, I had to go online and make sure nothing new had happened. It’s crazy. I think I might need professional help.
    “Oh, dinner’s ready? I’ll be right back.”
    I think Loretta’s a good pickup if the Yanks use him as a utility/backup (Alex Cora, basically). His OBP is consistently now around .350, which to me is mehh, and he won’t slug worth a crap, but he’ll hit .280 and string some good stretches together. He’s sure-handed, too, which doesn’t hurt. I kinda think he’s overrated, but not for what the Yanks will probably use him for.
    If New York is replacing Cano with Loretta, though, that’s going from among the best to among the worst at a position offensively in one year. Not advisable.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • the difference is not just offensive though. Cano appears to be a very good defensive second baseman. Loretta…not so much. The drop-off would go a long in making the deal not worth it.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 12:08 pm
  • Hey, a little respect for your elders, fellas, OK?

    SF November 30, 2007, 12:12 pm
  • SF, I’m just enjoying the last days of my 20s. I’m turning 30 next Friday. I can’t even pretend that I’ll ever be a major league player.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 12:17 pm
  • 20s…
    what the hell are those? I can’t remember.

    SF November 30, 2007, 12:18 pm
  • it’s the time when scouts think you have projectability and potential, when people haven’t given up on you.

    Nick-YF November 30, 2007, 12:20 pm
  • i thought i heard [or hallucinated some wishful] thinking that santana had expressed a preference to move to ny [not necessarily the yankees]…doesn’t exclude the sox by any means since they have shed their “loveable gritty losers” role for one with a bit more swashbuckle, capable of not only competing with and spending with the yankees, but taking it to the next level and defeating the evil empire…the sox have indeed become as desirable a place for ml’rs, with dreams of a championship, to relocate…ny no longer has the inside track on that intangible…that sort of leaves seattle out of the mix i’d say…
    for my part, i hate the waiting for the santana deal to be finalized and announced…reminds me of all the stuff that went on with dice-k while we were waiting…all of you have suggested some very likely scenarios which have been repeated [by all of you] again and again over the past few days…the disagreement seems to be over what the actual linchpins of the trade will be: ellsbury?, buchholz?, hughes?, cano?…no telling, but that’s why this discussion is so facinating and fun…
    i don’t think santana is on a decline either…he was on a not so great team last year, and i recall him being disenchanted with the twins management’s unwillingness to retain quality players…while his state of mind worries me a bit, his rough second half could be chalked up somewhat to his being bummed out…what also worries me about him is the length of the contract he’ll get…call it bad karma, jinx, my anxiety kicking in, but the yanks have had a bad experience with some of their longer term contracts and injuries…risk assessment i guess…
    by the way paul, great post…tied all the rumors and leaks together nicely…keep it up and i may change your nickname to “pulitzer” ;)

    dc November 30, 2007, 12:21 pm
  • I’m still prime trade material, just entering my prime. :-D
    This is what I tell myself each morning in the mirror.

    Paul SF November 30, 2007, 12:22 pm
  • SF, I’m just enjoying the last days of my 20s. I’m turning 30 next Friday. I can’t even pretend that I’ll ever be a major league player.
    I thought I was the only one who still fantasized about that! I tried walking-on to my school’s baseball team (Old Dominion University), but couldn’t cut it. I still have fantasies of quitting my job and working out full-time for a year, and then getting drafted. A boy can dream, right?

    Atheose November 30, 2007, 12:31 pm
  • Santana has a bad ERA in Fenway because he is a lefthanded pitcher with flyball tendencies. Easy fly balls in any other park become doubles off the green monster. I wonder if that will factor into his willingness to play for the Sox? Him being in Fenway could very well be the difference between him and the HOF down the line.
    Posted by: Andrew

    Interesting theory. Though it’s worth noting that since mid-2003, when Santana became a full-time starter, he has pitched a total of five innings at Fenway, giving up two earned runs, for an era of 3.60. He didn’t allow any doubles, but he did give up Papi’s 51st homer of the year.

    Tyrel SF November 30, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • I just went through hell, first time the future father in law met my parents. He’s a different kind of man.
    For those of you keeping score at home, she said yes.
    “SF, I’m just enjoying the last days of my 20s. I’m turning 30 next Friday. I can’t even pretend that I’ll ever be a major league player. – Posted by: Nick-YF”
    You need to go out and rent a copy of The Rookie, ASAP.
    I still have a shot and I’m older than you. Just learn to throw a knuckle.
    I see I missed some excitement in the last 24 hours…

    LocklandSF November 30, 2007, 4:09 pm
  • http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/30/2007-11-30_yankees_decide_to_offer_phil_hughes_in_p-2.html
    Looks like the Yankees ‘caved’, or whatever happened. Hughes has replaced Kennedy in the deal, and it will be Hughes, Melky, and another lower-tier pitching prospect. Hopefully someone like Dan McCutchen, not Alan Horne. I guess some consolation is that the Yankees get to keep guys like Jackson, Tabata, Melancon. Oh, and I guess they get the best pitcher in baseball. That doesn’t make me feel any better right now.
    At least Raising Arizona is on, so I can have some momentary happiness.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 9:06 pm
  • There is some rumbling going around that this could be crap: why would the Yankees leak to the media that they’d include Hughes without letting the Twins know first? I can only hope that this is the case.

    Andrew November 30, 2007, 9:09 pm
  • That was the obvious next step.
    Question is: Will the Sox up the ante with Buchholz or Ellsbury?

    Mike YF November 30, 2007, 9:20 pm
  • Well, nevermind, it’s being reported on SI.com. This officially sucks, especially because no one bought that the Sox package was better than the Yankees package. The Yankees bid against themselves again, when they should have waited to see if the Sox would include Ellsbury, and then trump that offer with Hughes. Just doesn’t make sense. I wonder if I should just leave the internet for a while.

    AndrewYF November 30, 2007, 9:48 pm
  • Yeah, it sucks. The Yankees are getting the best pitcher in the game.

    Mike YF November 30, 2007, 9:59 pm
  • We can hardly say the yankees hardly bid against themselves.
    A) we have no idea what the sox or some other team offered.
    B) the twins could have easily said we arent doing this deal if you dont do Hughes. We’d rather keep him for the season.
    The yankees are making this move (if it happens) because it makes their team better. Its hard to argue it wouldnt.
    Anyone wanna buy a Hughes shirt?!

    sam-YF November 30, 2007, 11:04 pm

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: