Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I agree! Are we really that much in need of Santana to trade away a fan-favorite and future star like Ellsbury? Coco Crisp has not exactly proved himself offensively here in Boston.

Then again, rotoworld said the Yankees deal seemed to be more prefered because of the Phil Hughs factor.

"We don't need him"~Curt Schilling on Roger Clemens

by LuXu on Dec 2, 2007 2:23 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Which brings up another point: why would the Twins want Crisp AND Ellsbury?

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

The offer is Ellsbury, Masterson, and Prospects.

Crisp is not in the new deal.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

In the ESPN article it says "Presumably, any offer with Ellsbury would not include Crisp."

I think we'd have wayyyyy too many legitimate major league starters in the roster if this were to go down...

by shadynut on Dec 2, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I don't know if that is exactly true, because Olney writes:

The Red Sox included Ellsbury in one of their proposals a week ago, but the Twins asked the Red Sox for two players among the group of three prospects -- Ellsbury, Lester and pitcher Clay Buchholz. Boston then offered Lester, center fielder Coco Crisp, minor league shortstop Jed Lowrie and a minor league pitcher.

The Twins have continued to ask for Ellsbury, so the Red Sox have flipped Ellsbury back into their offer, sources say, while removing Lester, and upgraded slightly the rest of their proposed package slightly -- perhaps to include right-handed pitcher Justin Masterson. Presumably, any offer with Ellsbury would not include Crisp.

Presumably, but not definitely.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 2:40 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

This feels like a bluff from Theo to tweak Steinbrenner into caving, if for no other reason then I can't see the Twins taking an offer that doesn't involve a pitcher. As a Twins fan (who would vastly prefer the Sox to win this contest, if for no other reason than you guys won't make Johan shave off his goatee), it just wouldn't make sense without someone to throw. Maybe not Lester or Buchholz, but with Garza gone, they're going to need a body in the rotaton. Who can the Sox offer?

by CarrieICL on Dec 2, 2007 2:31 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Lester is a perfect fit to slide into the rotation for the Twins. He'd be successful in Minnesota. Masterson would be ready in a season, too.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 2:32 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I'd love to have Lester and Ellsbury (even though I like Buchholz more than Lester, to be totally honest), but realistically, I don't think the Sox are likely to cough that up. Masterson's good, but I like Bowden more. Realistically, though the "ready in a season" part is tricky for us, because we're going to have a rotation full of absolute newbies without Johan since we're also going to lose Carlos Silva.

What about Ellsbury/Lowrie/Wakefield? Seems like y'all'd be more willing to part with Wakefield than Lester or Buchholz, and we could use a veteran (and, for that matter, a third catcher).

by CarrieICL on Dec 2, 2007 2:45 PM EST up reply actions

"Who can the Sox offer?"

Tavarez is the definition of a "body in the rotation." Moreove, he's strikingly handsome. And he's a winner.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

Re: "Who can the Sox offer?"

Hey, leave Hatchet Face alone. :)

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 2, 2007 3:52 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

This is all to get the Yankees to throw in Kennedy, Horne or Jackson as their third part of the deal.

The Yanks are now trying to scare the Twins with a deadline set for Tuesday, but this is a hollow threat bc the Yanks cannot let the Sox get Santana especially if they do not give up 1 of the young pitching prospects.

Anyone want to talk about this rotation:

Beckett, Santana, Dice-K, Lester, Schilling

Wake + Buchholz in the wings waiting.

Theo is playing the Yanks for fools. What can they do? Go after Haren? Fine he will cost about the same, Hughes, Cabrera + Horne/kennedy/Jackson, especially when the Yanks are more desperate to get him after losing Santana to the Sox. Billy Beane is sitting back praying the Sox get Santana, then Haren becomes so much more valuable since he can play Haren off the Dodgers and the Yanks and this will all start over again.

If Theo pulls this off, he should get GM of the Century and I believe this would ruin the Yanks for at least 5+ years.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 2:33 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

OMG think of the 09' rotation, 15 million cheaper with Schilling and Wake gone.

Beckett, Santana, Dice-K, Lester, Buchholz.

Has there been a rotation this talented in MLB history?

Maybe the 90s Braves?

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 2:39 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

The real scary thing is if they all clicked at the same time...

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

That's the way I'm looking at this too, I just hope you're right. I really, really want to see what Ellsbury can do in a Sox uniform for an entire season (or two, or ten, or more). Yes, having Santana would make our rotation damn near unbeatable, but if the cost is loosing Ellsbury then it's too high. Noooo, please Theo, don't do it!

But man, truly, can you imaging Beckett-Santana-Dice K-Buchholz-Lester? If Dice K pulls a Beckett in his second season with the Sox and Lester and Buch do what they're capable of, good godamn man! That's an entire rotation of Aces.

Sigh

It's touch being a Sox fan these days. So many difficult situations they find themselves in.

ROFL

by B VT on Dec 2, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

The Thing I don't understand if this trade actually goes through that the Sox do, with their starting pitching rotation? they will have 7 starting pitchers to fill 5 slots, if Ellsbury is dealt while Lester stays. Schilling and Lester go to the bullpen is my guess, or fill in slots when one of the pitchers, most likely Schilling and Wake go on the Injured Reserved List.

I think it was smart at least to take off one of the names on the list, but the Sox have to still think not for this season but for the next few, given this will probably be Manny's last year etc.

by superferret on Dec 2, 2007 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

i think Wakefield is going to retire,and they want to lock up Santana because they know it already.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

This makes sense when you add the statements that they plan on starting Buchholz in AAA.

Beckett, Santana, Dice-K, Lester, Schilling. I would guess would be the rotation.

With Buchholz coming up to spell Schilling and give Dice-K and Santana some rest for the post season.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Yeah, thats gotta be the reasoning behind all this. Wake's done.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

Santana, for a price

I would give any of the 4: Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester or Bucholz

not two

under any circumstance

and even if the Twins said yes, I would keep a line in the sand on Santana's salary

have to be willing to walk away

ps. no one knows how any of these players will play in the future. Many a trade has been celebrated, and turned ugly. Gagne, Pavano, Contreras

I am uneasy. Let the Yankees "win"

by jwp on Dec 2, 2007 3:33 PM EST reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

I'd offer PedROYa, Lester and Crisp.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

Trading Pedroia is ridiculous. Where would the Sox be without Pedroia and what would they do without him? Lowrie isn't ready.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 3:53 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

I like Dped. I just think Ellsbury will be better.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

but ellsbury can't play second base like scrappy doo

nobody can in my opinion. i love this kid
...in a manly sort of way

by Schulz on Dec 2, 2007 8:59 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

And 2B who are good both offensively and defensively are somewhat of a scarcity these days

by Realistic on Dec 3, 2007 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

That's odd, I was thinking the same thing.

And we do have somebody to take 2B, Jed Lowrie, who would undoubtedly be taken off the table.

But Pedroia makes a lot of sense - I doubt his stock will ever be higher than it is right now. He's a gamer and I really like him as a player, but my guess is that his career and Lowrie's career are remarkably similar.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 2, 2007 4:35 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

Lowrie doesn't have Pedroia's tools. He won't be half the player Pedroia will be.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

What makes you say that?

The fact that Lowrie still plays SS, a more difficult defensive position?

Or that Lowrie was "toolsy" enough to be a 1st round pick?

Their minor league numbers are very comparable:

AAA OPS
Lowrie (2007): 850 (many fewer ABs, though)
Pedroia (2006): 804

AA OPS
Lowrie (2007): 909
Pedroia (2005): 917

Pedrioa strikes out less, walks less and has a lower ISO, in general.

Look, I'm BIG Pedroia fan, but he's not even a top 3 2B in our division (Cano, Roberts and Upton are better, IMO).

To say that Lowrie "won't be half the player Pedroia will be" is pretty ridiculous.

Pedroia is a solid starter, not a super star. Check out Bill James' projection for Pedroia next year. Good stuff, but not great.

Lowrie has more than enough talent to match that.

PLUS, the big question for you (and others who I think are being a little too homer-ish with Pedroia), is this: if Lowrie is such a stink-o option at second base, why talk him up in the Santana trade like he's better? Can't have it both ways.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 2, 2007 5:03 PM EST up reply actions

Play nice

In my opinion, Lowrie is closer to Dped than Coco is to Ellsbury.

And I desperately don't want Coco playing CF for the next three years. If we traded Dped for Santana today, tomorrow we could sign Mark Loretta to replace Coco's production. Then the remaining issue would be whether Tacoboy outplays Dped. And I think he will.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

Geez, Randy. Your site has Lowrie currently listed as the third best prospect in the organization. What does it say if he's not even HALF the player Pedroia will be?

Everybody below him, including the players we're voting on and debating right now, would be REALLY REALLY bad prospects if your statement is right. Not only would it make the Sox system pretty pathetic, but it would make the conversation over a top 20 list pretty pointless.

Just my thoughts.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 2, 2007 5:06 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

I think he means that DP has the "intangibles" that maybe Lowrie has not shown yet bc he has not had the opportunity that DP has.

I like DP, the guy is a winner, but for the right people i would move him, but it would have to be one helluva deal.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 5:18 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

I agree. I'd only move him for someone of Santana or Fat Miggy's caliber.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 5:21 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

Personally, I don't think Lowrie will be that good of a baseball player. I think he's got some skills, but compared to Pedroia it's a no contest. Maybe I was being harsh by saying Lowrie won't be half the player, but I do think Pedroia has a really bright future ahead of him.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Dec 2, 2007 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

Like I said, I'm a BIG Pedroia fan, so I'm right there with you.

But do you think he'll improve greatly upon what he did last year? I guess that might be the difference between you and I; I'm pretty sure he'll be about as good as last year, while it sounds to me like you think there's more room for growth.

I'd rather have you be right. :)

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 2, 2007 9:57 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

I think Lowrie has the potential to be better than Pedroia. He's got a bit bigger frame to work with, without question, so he could certainly show more power at the big league level, and they have similar skill sets defensively and in terms of plate discipline/patience.

And as has been noted elsewhere, Ellsbury is most likely >>>>> Coco, so while even if Lowrie isn't the player Pedroia is, the gulf wouldn't be nearly as wide.

To be honest, aside from turning a few more of those 2Bs to HRs and not batting 9th all the time, we saw this season kind of the high points of Dustin Pedroia. I'm not sure how much more growth as a ballplayer he has in him.

I don't want him traded, by any means, given all this, but it's worth thinking about in context.

by Allen Chace on Dec 3, 2007 2:16 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

Agreed, but here's the thing. Pedroia is coming of ROY and a great post-season and I don't think he'll ever be worth more (not to say his value won't remain about the same). He's proven he can hit MLB pitching, so I'm wondering if the gulf between Ellsbury and Pedroia isn't that big.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 3, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Santana, for a price

I'll agree on that statement.

Proven DP = Semi-unproven Jacoby, if I'm reading you correctly.

by Allen Chace on Dec 3, 2007 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

This is a bull sh*t move if it happens. I do not want to let Jacoby go for any reason. It would leave us without a legit lead-off hitter, and a CF who cannot hit,only field. This will then trickle down and how in the hell are we going to afford paying BOTH Beckett and Santana 20 million per season in 3 or 4 years? This thing sucks. We are going to give away vital parts of a bright future. I really hope this is gamesmanship from Theo. Im really dissapointed in this call on his part if it isnt. This is not the right move.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 4:22 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Fear not!
There's still a way out.
If the Twins call our bluff (which is what I think this move is), we can simply offer Santana 4 years for say... 4 million dollars. haha. he will obviously refuse and not wave his no-trade clause and we keep jacoby.

meanwhile over in yankee ville, i bet young hank is getting ready to offer a package of 2 or three of the following players
Robinson Cano
Phil Hughes
Melky Cabrera
Joba Chamberlin
Ian Kennedy

plus some other over-hyped prospect

by Schulz on Dec 2, 2007 9:10 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I agree totally. We were world series champs and other teams need to get better just to catch up with us. Keep Ellsbury, Pedroia and Buchholz. I even prefer that we keep Lester and let the deal go, just make it expensive for the Yankees.

Maybe if we keep Lowrie, we can have a replacement shortstop in the future as well.

We could use some help in the bullpen, at catcher and a fill in outfielder, especially if CoCo goes. Why not look to the obvious needs of the team and let Santana go. Getting into a 6 year $150 million dollar contract sounds foolish to me.

by Longsuffering on Dec 3, 2007 10:09 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

With this I have made my mind up. Though having Santana would give us a rotation like few have seen, I also see these kids growing up to be real player, and rather see that then spend huge money on another ace and risk loosing the one I love only faster. Theo play Hank like a fiddle and get his big way up there then get out.

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 3, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

It makes sense with Lester in the mix, but Ellsbury? Why?!? And after all the trade talk, don't you think Coco would walk as soon as his contract is up?

This just doesn't make sense to me unless it's an attempt to force the MFY to up the ante again.

by RSNexile on Dec 2, 2007 4:54 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I am sure this is too see just how ridiculous an offer Hank S. is willing to put out so as to stop the Sox from getting Santana.

The fact that the Yanks have put a deadline for Tuesday, to me, screams the Yanks are desperate and willing to go to any lengths to sign Santana.

Truth is the Yanks CANNOT allow Santana to pitch in a Sox uniform regardless of who the Sox's offer.

Beckett, Santana, Dice-K = Death to the Yanks for 5+ years.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Im really pissed that this organization would consider this. The kid hit over .400 in the world series. This is a mjjor mistake and Im trying to not flip out and hope this doesnt happen.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 5:06 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Ellsbury, great as he has been, is still only a prospect. Santana is the best pitcher in baseball.

I love Ellsbury but for Santana and not giving up Lester and Buchholz, the Sox would be unbeatable.

Especially with Manny and Papi.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

BTW

BTW, if this does happen. You might as well start calling 2008 the "farewell Manny campaign". There is no way we pick up his option(s) if we have to Santana 20-25 million per season.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 5:09 PM EST reply actions

Re: BTW

Red Sox will never find anyone as good at protecting Papi than Manny. He is one of the top five best hitters in baseball. I believe the Sox will pick up this option bc who are they gonna get to replace Manny for $15 million a year?
Holliday? Teixeria?

I would rather have Manny.

The minute the Sox dump Manny, our line up becomes the Angels. Nobody will ever pitch to Papi and he will be like Vladdy, getting very little to hit.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 5:14 PM EST up reply actions

Re: BTW

But if anyone can deal with treatment like that, it's Vlad. He swings at every pitch thrown his way and gets contact every time. And good contact too, the kind that ends up in the outfield bleachers. the man is a beast

by Schulz on Dec 2, 2007 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

Re: BTW

Yeah, true, I love Vladdy. But I love Manny too. I think we should keep Manny as long as we can or until his hitting skills go down.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 9:43 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not so sure.

We'll have @ 22 mil coming off the books from Curt, Wake, Timlin and Hatchetface, plus Tek's $10 million (though I'm hopeful he'd sign an extension at a reduced price).

Nevermind that 20 million a year for two years of Manny Being Manny is a bargain compared 90 million for 5 years of someone like Torii Hunter. As they say, it's not the money kills you, it's the length of the contract.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 5:20 PM EST up reply actions

Re: I'm not so sure.

True, Ive been saying this for a while. Manny is a DEAL on the current market.

Torii EFfing Hunter is making 18 mill a year. Anyone think he can do a better job than Manny protecting Papi?

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 5:21 PM EST up reply actions

Re: I'm not so sure.

You said it S.A.

"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.

by SoxDevil on Dec 3, 2007 8:41 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I couldn't agree more with Acumen about Ellsbury. He's still a prospect. Everyone is hoping he becomes the next Tim Raines(with cf capabilities), but he may become the next Dave Roberts(happy memories there). A solid but not good player.

In Santana we are talking about the single greatest force in pitching in the last 5 years and being able to nail him down for another 4-5 dominant years. With Santana, winning the series again goes from possibility to probability.

If the trade is Ellsbury and other prospects, I'm happy with that. As pointed out above, then when Schill and Wake go after this season, your rotation becomes.

Beckett
Santana
Dice-K
Buchholz
Lester

Yikes, that's a rotation that will give you a mininmum of 100-105 quality starts.

by sydneysox on Dec 2, 2007 5:28 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Arent any of you worried about n ot being able to give Beckett this kind of $$$ if we give it to the witch?

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 5:31 PM EST reply actions

Not so much

We have Beckett for another three years. He'll play out his contract. If he keeps up this season's dominance, we'll re-up him in two years.

Santana is a witch now?

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Thats his nickname.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 5:43 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I had him pegged for a wizard. Who knew?

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 5:50 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Yeah, I dont really care for the nickname. Its not used often, but thats what Ive heard Blyleven call him several times on Twins broadcasts via the package.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 5:53 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but are not "Witches" female and "Warlocks" the male version?

This needs to be changed ASAP.

The Nation can come up with a better nickname than the Witch.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 6:21 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

off topic, but this is pretty hilarious. a winter meetings poem.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2007/12/02/the-night-before-the-winter-meetings/

by em3 on Dec 2, 2007 6:43 PM EST reply actions

CC Sabathia

Where does he fit into all of this? You never hear him as available,but you know Cleveland will not pony up 18-25 million per season. I could see the Yanks sweeping in if they lose the Santana sweepstakes. Shapiro would probably ask for Hughes OR Cano.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 7:38 PM EST reply actions

The Injuns are going for it.

They have to, they're too close to start rebuilding. Maybe he'd be available at the break if the Injuns suck, but I don't see that.

This is interesting. Twins fans comparing the respective offers.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Uhh...fleece...? X_x

I also really don't want to et rid of jacoby. I know there's never supposed to be too much pitching, but I do feel like we have a surplus and not enough non-pitching prospects.
That said, do any of you think we would have won the World Series with Hanley Ramirez instead of Mr. Beckett? To get value we have to give up value.

"We don't need him"~Curt Schilling on Roger Clemens

by LuXu on Dec 2, 2007 7:56 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Haha on another message board I have a Yankee fan who made the quote "Melky is just as good if not better than Ellsbury, there is not much difference between the two". MFY idiots.

by Matzushocka on Dec 2, 2007 8:03 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Coco > Melky

MFY overvalue all of their prospects. Some Yank fan was trying to spin on MLBTR.com that Austin Jackson was the next Griffy Jr.

LOL...yeah OK buddy.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

That's why I think that if Ellsbury is required for Santana, you cough him up. Ellsbury /may/ be a great play (probably will) but wouldn't you trade a great player for one of the most dominant pitchers any day? Would you flip Manny for Santana straight up? I think many people here at OTM would. I don't think you could argue that Ellsbury is more valuable than Manny, even if Manny is "declining."

"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.

by SoxDevil on Dec 3, 2007 8:47 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I would not trade Manny for Santana. Manny is too important to Papi's success and without someone to fill his spot at Papi's protector our lineup looks very average without the Manny/Papi tag team.

But, yeah for Ellsbury, if you want to give me Santana, sure i am cool with that.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 3, 2007 1:53 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Peavy is close to signing an extension with the Padres for around $17-17.5 million a year.

Writing is on the wall...lock up your pitching now BEFORE Johan is traded.

If the Sox can get Johan without giving up Lester or Buchholz, with the way pitching is being hoarded, and the ridiculous deals being made, I am just flabbergasted.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 8:14 PM EST reply actions

the way i see it

which is a bigger upgrade??

jacoby over coco
or
santana over lester

which is why i would pull the trigger on jacoby + lester for santana

by Tippecanoe on Dec 2, 2007 8:56 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

My brain says that Ellsbury as part of a Santana deal is good, but my heart says no. I just love to see homegrown talent flourishing at the major league level.

If Ellsbury turns out right he could Jose Reyes with a little less speed but hits for a little higher power. And right now I think I'd take Jose over Santana.

by gnick55 on Dec 2, 2007 9:18 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Maybe Ellsbury (and others) for Santana is a good trade for us (though I'm not totally sold on that), but a big part of me says screw it, Ellsbury could be the kind of guy that is a lifetime star for Boston. Santana is going to be a hired gun. It's the difference between Papi and Manny. They're both crazy good players, but Papi matters to the Sox in so many ways outside of this average and slugging percentage. I know I sound quaint and naive, but how about we give Ellsbury the chance we gave Pedroia, to become a real part of the team.

I guess I'm trying to say Ellsbury has the potential to be an essential part of more than the Sox' winning percentage, and that's not nothing.

by B VT on Dec 2, 2007 9:56 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I agree with you that I'm conflicted about whether to include Jacoby in the deal but at the end of the day you have to pull the trigger if it gets you the best pitcher in baseball. Ellsbury, while he is very dynamic, is mainly a slap hitter-doubles guy with excellent speed. He endeared himself to all of RSN but if you can acquire Santana for a singles hitter, you make that trade, as much as it may be a shame to see Tacoby in a Twinkies' uniform.

The part about PedROYa though is not entirely accurate. They gave Dusty a chance because a.) they had no clear alternative (sans Alex Cora) and b.) nobody was trying to trade Santana for him.

by Red Peltic on Dec 2, 2007 10:37 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Yeah, I know the Pedroia comparison ain't perfect. And the Papi-Manny vs. Ellsbury-Santana comparison isn't even close. The point was more that I think this one time we can say, "Hey, we've got a killer starting rotation and lineup, better than last year. And last year we won the friggin World Series. So let's go with what we've got and give this Ellsbury kid a real shot."

And yes, I know we need to keep improving and doing the deals needed to keep us getting better. My heart's just saying "No, no, don't do it Theo! Not this one!"

by B VT on Dec 2, 2007 11:08 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Without Manny, Papi is not half the hitter he is today.

Manny is extremely important to the Red Sox bc he makes sure people pitch to Papi.

Manny really is not a hired gun, he has been here for a long time and been a major contributor in the two World Series wins.

I agree Santana would be a hired guy, but if someone is willing to give you $100 for a single dollar why not take it?

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 11:47 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

My point re: Papi vs. Manny wasn't relative offensive value (though I'd certainly challenge that he "is not half the hitter" he is w/o Manny - September, when we were essentially Manny-less, was his best month by far - most HR, RBI and walks, as well as highest average, slugging and OBP). It was that Papi brings a lot more than his bat to the team. He's an icon in Boston and in Red Sox Nation. People love him, both the fans and the players. He's important to the team not just bc he kicks ass on the field but because of a hundred other things off the field. Obviously Manny's a truly incredible player, but he brings his bat, and that's pretty much it (ok, so he fields, if not always well).

Also, giving up Ellsbury, Lowrie and one or two other prospects for Santana is hardly giving up $1 for $100, and you know that. Exaggeration to make a point aside, the point I was trying to make (and obviously failed to) was that I think there's more to the game than winning, and that's why I love the Sox. Do I want to see them win? Yes, absolutely and obviously. But at the same time the reason they've got the following they do is because of the team they are and the cool, fun players they have, not solely bc of their winning percentage.

Bottom line? I want to see us go and do what we can w/Ellsbury, even if that means we don't have Santana and we've got a somewhat higher likelihood of failing to repeat. There's more to baseball than winning games at any cost.

by B VT on Dec 3, 2007 1:53 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I actually think it would be Ellsbury with the better speed and less power. Reyes has already flashed 19 HR power at the ML-level. I don't think we'll see Tacoby reach that level.

On the speed side, I could see Ells at the very least having much better success on the basepaths. Say, 85-90% efficiency as opposed to the 80% that Reyes hovers around.

by Allen Chace on Dec 3, 2007 2:24 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Ok, so to the people that think it's worth it to give up Ellsbury.

As a Twins fan, the package I think we've all been hoping to see is Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Lowrie. Obviously not going to happen, The next best thing and very realistic at this point is Ellsbury, Lester, and Lowrie.

If the Sox are already willing to give up Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterson? then is it that big of a jump up to Lester? Plus you guys have too many starters if you keep all these dudes, so I'd almost think they could afford to get rid of him.

Also, what about doing the trade listed above but both teams adding in another prospect to the mix where the Sox are definitely getting the better of the two. Would that possibly be enough?

by halfchest @ Over the Monster on Dec 2, 2007 10:21 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

After hearing the revised trade offer, I think the Sox ownership is (as they asserted) unwilling to give more than one of Lester, Ellsbury, and Buchholz in a trade for Santana. Adding Twins prospects wouldn't affect this. Adding young major league talent might (ex. Morneau or Mauer, creating a blockbuster deal), but the Twins would never do that.

by 0157H7 on Dec 2, 2007 10:38 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I'd agree with this. Unlike the MFY, when Theo says he ain't gonna do something, he ain't gonna do it. I'd be willing to place serious money on him never offering more than one of Lester-Buch-Ellsbury, and frankly I'd be pretty surprised if he even included Buch at all.

by B VT on Dec 2, 2007 11:11 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

You can never have too many starters. Wakefield and Schilling are over 40, and likely won't be on the team in 2009 (and definitely won't be on the 2010 Red Sox).

The Twins are in this position because Carl Pohlad is a cheap bastard. Your team is looking at two draft picks, which is what they'll get when Santana walks. What you should be asking yourself is whether or not the packages the Sox or MFY are offering are better than two draft picks. Forget Santana, he's gone already--either this year or next. Remember, the team that trades for Santana will have to pony up a lot of coin. That alone should limit the player package offered.

Personally, I think the Sox should stick to Lester, Coco, Lowrie, and either Masterson or Bowden. In my opinion, that's about 60-70 cents on the dollar, which is all a team can expect when they must make a trade.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 2, 2007 10:45 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

too many starters?? cough arroyo cough cough

by Tippecanoe on Dec 2, 2007 10:52 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

IMO, Theo is using the Twins to get the Yanks to move either Cano or Hughes. If the Twins want to take one of Ellsbury, Buchholz or Lester, then sure, you have a deal, but you will not get 2 of those players.

This is bc Theo can get what he wants somewhere else and the Sox do not NEED to move anyone outside of Coco.

The only priority for the Sox, outside of replacing Tek next year, is getting rid of Coco bc the Sox will want to give Ellsbury most of the time in CF and not have the press going crazy if he struggles like Pedroia did last year. Keeping Coco would complicate this. So moving him for a catcher or relief pitcher or in a package for a front line starter is an imperative. Also Coco deserves a shot to start somewhere, he was a team guy all year for us.

The Twins on the other hand are sitting on a potential gold mine of talent coming there way, but if they do not move Santana now, they get draft picks. So they have everything to lose.

If I was Twins management and my floor was either Ellsbury/Masterson/Prospect or Hughes/Cabrera/Prospect, I would be very happy figuring Santana is walking either way and you wont get as much in July. This will be even worse if lets say Ellsbury becomes a star in Boston or Lester/Buchholz pitches lights out next season. Boston will not give up any of them in July.

Time is now, make the move and let someone else deal with the potential headache of signing Santana.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 2, 2007 11:57 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

call me crazy, but i see coco being a much better player next year. I think we will see his bat come back a little and his d stay off the charts. That said I still love Jacoby and would much rather have him, but coco is not the end of the world.

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 3, 2007 2:23 AM EST up reply actions

Neshek

Maybe if he was included I'd consider Lester, Ellsbury and Lowrie. Though I am deeply conflicted about trading all those guys, basically because I want them to be our kids. I want a vibrant, youthful Red Sox, not a collection of overpaid vets.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 10:58 PM EST reply actions

Doh

That should've been attached to halfchest's comment.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 2, 2007 10:59 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Neshek

I dont think Theo would ever include Ellsbury and Lester for a strait up Santana deal. That being said, remember that Santana is only 28 so it's not like we're trading for an aging vet whose best performance is behind him.

by Red Peltic on Dec 2, 2007 11:26 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

ok, i rather we keep what we have, tho sheets is sounding ok, but if we do do something with the twins what do people thing of... lester, jacoby, lowrie and another prospect for santana and nathan. I be getting out of hand at this point, but if we are to steal him from the MFY and have to give up lester, why dont we go after a great set up man to help out paps?

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 3, 2007 3:09 AM EST reply actions

Abort, abort, abort!

Allow me to be glib for a moment...

jumps up and down on couch

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!

Are BOTH of our centerfielders worth an additional ace?

What would Dogbert do?

by panzermensch on Dec 3, 2007 6:05 AM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

http://www.overthemonster.com/story/2007/8/20/17147/2084, though this was funny

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 3, 2007 7:16 AM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

the sox dont have to give in. coco and melky are the same, melky better arm, coco better base stealer. plus our package of 4 is better than 3 of the yanks. I truly believe the sox threw the ellsbury name out to push the yanks into a foolish move. however, with that said, coco will be a consistant 280 hitter and give you the same if not better defense as ellsbury. santana will give you way more than lester. is ellsbury's 30 points ( which is speculation) a year that big a deal? I say (with tears) goodbye to ellsbury and hello santana.

the difference between a yankee stadium hot dog and a fenway frank is that they dont sell yankee dogs in october anymore.

by fishfarmr on Dec 3, 2007 8:37 AM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

in addition, if we are really worried about 30 points of batting avg.(ellsbury - coco) we could send ellsbury to the twins, then use lester to the o's for tejada. I think it could get done and that would stop all the emotion for jacoby

the difference between a yankee stadium hot dog and a fenway frank is that they dont sell yankee dogs in november anymore.

by fishfarmr on Dec 3, 2007 8:46 AM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

and where exactly would we play tejada?

by Schulz on Dec 3, 2007 5:29 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

The likelihood that we win the Santana sweepstakes just went up a bit -- Pettite is returning to the Yankees.

by argo0 on Dec 3, 2007 10:11 AM EST reply actions

On a side note...

Isn't Ellsbury doing a WS DVD signing or something like that on Friday? It'd be pretty awkward if he were no longer on the Red Sox.

"We don't need him"~Curt Schilling on Roger Clemens

by LuXu on Dec 3, 2007 4:46 PM EST reply actions

Re: On a side note...

LOL, yeah that could be awkward.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 3, 2007 4:55 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I've decided that I will be really mad if we trade Ellsbury as part of a Santana deal. He's our kid, we developed him, we scouted, drated, and brought him through the minor leagues, and now just when all of that is about to pay off we trade him? I say no, hang on to Ellsbury. After the MFY pull their deal off the table revert back to the original offer and if they don't accept pursue Bedard or Sheets.

I've heard Bedard could be had without giving up Ellsbury or Buchholz. Mabye just Coco, Lester, and Lowrie.

by gnick55 on Dec 3, 2007 6:27 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

IF that is true, well I agree Bedard is a better deal for Lester, Coco and Lowrie.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 3, 2007 6:59 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Exactly why I don't want to get rid of Ellsbury. We had a brief taste of what he is capable of in September and the play-offs, and it seems almost cruel to take that all away.
Of course we do get Santana.... but what are his stats at Fenway? I heard they were a bit down.

"We don't need him"~Curt Schilling on Roger Clemens

by LuXu on Dec 3, 2007 11:17 PM EST up reply actions

Wicked small sample size.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 3, 2007 11:25 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Wicked small sample size.

Agreed. Also, why would the O's trade Bedard to another AL East team? Still it appears Jacoby isn't part of the deal.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 4, 2007 7:17 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

I do not know what Johan's stats are in Fenway but I know he OWNS the Yankees.

I cannot believe the Yankees are going to let the best pitcher in baseball and a guy who repeatedly kills them go to the Sox to team up and make a Dynamic Trio of Beckett, Santana + the New and Improved Dice-K.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Anyone else feel this lack of activity as the classic lull before the storm?

by gnick55 on Dec 3, 2007 9:29 PM EST reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

What I'm feeling is a little bit pissed about the Patriots defense deciding: "Play defense against the run? Umm. No thanks."

by Allen Chace on Dec 3, 2007 10:54 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

Yeah, boy did the Eagles and Ravens expose the one weakness the Pats have...geriatric linebackers.

I love Junior Seau and Teddy B., but they are looking old.

Well, we know what the Pats will be going for in the NFL draft/FAs next year.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Ellsbury added to Santana Deal

What the hell how are the Patriots losing, this is infuriating.

by gnick55 on Dec 3, 2007 11:24 PM EST reply actions

I'll Play Devil's Advocate...

... for the sake of argument...

Has anyone considered, just for a moment, that Ellsbury was a fluke? Could he not falter next year? Maybe it was simply the fact that no one had any stats on him and when they figure out the scouting report, he'll be nothing more than a mediocre player?

Crisp is proven, he's a major league player. His defense is outstanding and we know what we're getting with him.

Keeping Ellsbury may end up like kissing your sister.

"Call me the fool"!

D. George

The Red Head

by the red head on Dec 4, 2007 9:15 AM EST reply actions

Re: I'll Play Devil's Advocate...

I understand what yor are saying, and have had similar thougthts, but also this is a risk with all prospects, and i do think that jacoby will get at least very close to coco production and has a chance to be in a whole nother league.

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 4, 2007 7:17 PM EST up reply actions