Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

by Randy Booth on Dec 4, 2007 11:09 AM EST in News Comment 82 comments

Different reports are saying Jacoby Ellsbury may not be traded for Johan Santana:

Around 2 a.m. I contacted someone with knowledge of the negotiations. That person had heard that the deal was for four players: Jon Lester, Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie and Justin Masterson. Notice that Jacoby Ellsbury is not part of the deal.

I didn't run with it then because I really wanted to be sure. But I want to let you know this morning that's what I'm hearing. I'm still trying to get further confirmation of the potential deal. Maybe the exchange of medicals isn't as serious of a step as we think. Maybe a name has been switched (i.e. Rincon, Juan for Morlan, Eddie).

And the Globe:

Over the weekend, the Red Sox have reminded the Twins that center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury remains available, but that they will not ship him in a package that would include top pitchers Jon Lester [stats] or Clay Buchholz. All along the Twins have wanted at least two of those three.

The Red Sox have been pushing a package headlined by center fielder Coco Crisp [stats] and Lester, but that does not appear to be good enough to top the Yankees.

I'm thinking the Red Sox are going to be able to pull off this deal without losing Ellsbury or Buchholz. The factors just seem to be in the perfect place right now. If the Red Sox are able to pull off this trade, someone give Theo Epstein the GM of the Year award right now.

0 recs | Comment 82 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I just read an AP report that said the Twins had requested Lester's medical records.

BC14

by BC14 on Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Duh. Sorry, you already mentioned this in the previous thread.

I've been away a bit too long...

BC14

by BC14 on Dec 4, 2007 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Ok, so now SI (via Roto) is saying that the Sox are going to "improve" the offer for Santana. The article says the Twins are looking for the Sox best offer that includes Lester, which would mean no Ellsbury or Buch. So the speculation is that we'd do Lester-Lowrie-Coco-Masterson and then Bowden, Anderson or Kalish. Maybe we could get away with Moss as the fifth player?

What say you? I'd be fine with Kalish or Moss, and Anderson as well I guess, but I really hope Bowden isn't the fifth.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 1:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I don't think they'll go with Bowden as the fifth.

I'm not sure Moss would get it done, I'm guessing Anderson might actually end up the most likely piece.

And, I'm "eh" about that.

by Allen Chace on Dec 4, 2007 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

5 1st & 2nd tier guys for Santana when we'll need to pay him $20 M+ annually? That seems a bit steep, even for Johan. A 4-for-1 trade is really the most I can stomach, unless they're bit pieces. How about we include Gagme?

"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 4, 2007 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I hear that, but on the other hand, Santana>Lester, Coco needs to be traded and Lowrie doesn't have a place on the team. So Masterson is a real loss and then depending on the fifth...

I think a four or even a three player w/Ellsbury is worse for us than a five w/o him or Buch, as it leaves our core intact.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I agree, but our expendable pieces could be used for other players, if not all bullets are spent on Santana.

I saw somewhere (looks like its gone) that the Sox were talking to the Rox about a Fuentes-Lowrie deal. I wouldn't mind that, if Lowrie weren't part of the Santana deal (although I'm sure he will be). But just an example.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I'd rather keep Lowrie than trade him for another washed up NL reliever.

by 0157H7 on Dec 4, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Yeah, those lousy 164, 142 and 155 ERA+ in the last three years, who needs him?

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I'm kind of with ecoli, though I'd be a little hesitant to refer to Fuentes as washed-up.

by Allen Chace on Dec 4, 2007 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I commented a bit too hastily, so I'll explain why I don't want him for Lowrie. My impression of Fuentes is affected by his WS performance, where he put up the following line:
9.82 ERA, 6H, 4R, 3.1 IP
We'd get shut down by Herges or someone, and then Colorado would call on Fuentes and he'd blow the game wide open.

Also, last year he was bad away from home:
Home: 31.1IP, 1.72 ERA, 18 H, 8 BB, 24 SO
Away: 30 IP, 4.50 ERA, 28 H, 15 BB, 32 SO

Much of that can be attributed to being roughed up by Houston (9 R, 3.1IP), so maybe he'll do better in the AL.

Mostly, I think Lowrie's upside is too good to trade for anything but a can't miss reliever. He's not far from slugging .500 as a major league SS or 2B. I'd be willing to package him for Santana.

by 0157H7 on Dec 4, 2007 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

First off, THANK YOU YANKEES for that stupid deadline.

From reading the posts around the net, the key players in the deal for the Twins seems to be Lowrie bc they need bats. I would not be surprised if the improvement is more in terms of other positions players. So maybe something like Lester, Coco, Lowrie + another position player prospect. Maybe a Moss.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 1:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

From what I've been hearing they're pretty hot on Masterson, so I don't think replacing him with a position player that's not considered as high tier a prospect would be considered an upgrade. I don't think we've got a better four player offer that includes Lester than the one on the table. But here's to hoping Moss can be the fifth.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Gammons reports that Kalish is the 5th player

by argo0 on Dec 4, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's a lot to give up

But I am all for it. Santana, Beckett, Dice-K and Buchholz for at least the next three years is off the hook. Off_the_hook.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

OK...I am going to vomit soon...I cannot stand it...the anticipation is killing me!!! I keep clicking websites hoping to see "Santana goes to Boston"! Make it happen already!

by cblesz on Dec 4, 2007 1:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

ROFL

Rotoworld just gave me a "server too busy" message.

I wonder why?

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Seems to be coming down to this:

12:50 p.m., from Peter Gammons
* The Twins and Red Sox are supposed to meet this afternoon to continue discussions on the Johan Santana deal. Sources indicate the Twins are still trying to decide between a 3-for-1 trade for center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, infielder Jed Lowrie and pitching prospect Justin Masterson and a 4-for-1 swap that substitutes lefty starter Jon Lester and center fielder Coco Crisp for Ellsbury.

As a Twins fan, I think it ought to depend entirely on what we think of Pridie, whom we go from Tampa Bay in the Garza-Young swap. If Pridie will be a good centerfielder in a year, the latter deal makes more sense. If not, the former.

Tough call, though, especially with Ellsbury picking up Boras as his agent. The Twins will be priced out in 4 years.

by CarrieICL on Dec 4, 2007 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

From what I read, the Twin have high expectations for Pridie, so the later probably does make more sense.

Twin are my favorite non-sox team, so as a semi-fan, I would prefer the later as is gives a pitcher ready to fill the hole the the Santana leaves (Lester), where as the later does not as Masterson will probably need at least another year in the Minors. Also, even when Coco was first traded to the Sox I had high expectations for him, so if the Twin accept this as a rebuilding year, it's the perfect situation for Coco to try and prove himself without too much pressure, and if that fails you have Pridie in the wings, and if both succede then you pick the best of the two and use the other as a bargaining chip. I'm probably bias though because even though I am a twins fan, I am not a diehard like I am a diehard sox fan, so I might just be swaying that direction because from a sox prospective that's the trade I want to go down.

And if the trade does go down it will just strength the Twin being my 2nd favorite team. The fact that they gave us Santana and that I get to enjoy watching how prospects I've been following pan out (compared to if they were on a rival team or team I don't like, where obviously I won't enjoy watching them succeed) and I would fianlly get to watch Coco who I always had high hopes for try to prove himself without cursing the tv anytime he starts falling short

by Realistic on Dec 4, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I agree. (And while I am not high on the Sox, having grown up a seriously put-upon Orioles fan, I certainly have been rooting for you to win Santana -- if for no other reason than you guys won't be stupid enough to make Johan shave off his goatee.)

I much preferred the Ellsbury deal, until I sat down and thought about it. My final conclusion is that if Pridie is projected to do well, and given that Ellsbury now has Boras as an agent, the Lester package is the better one.

Although if the Sox were willing to pick up part of Crisp's salary, that would be rather nice as well.

by CarrieICL on Dec 4, 2007 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

The Twinkies should rename their team "the cockroaches", because AL Central teams can't get rid of them, and they can always can come back to haunt the AL Central leaders, or be the AL Central leaders like how they won the division in 2006 with the best one two punch that year in Santana and Liriano. I would like them more if when they will play in a better place than the roach motel of the Glad bag stadium.

The Twins, obviously have a well run organization, given they have been in the mix for so many years, even with the resurgence of the AL Central, with Cleveland, Detroit fielding strong teams for last year and hopefully next year as well.

by superferret on Dec 4, 2007 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Now that Ellsbury hired Boras, I want him moved ASAP. Boras will corrupt him and will over charge for his services. Time to dump his ass on some other team who cannot pay him in 4 years.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

You seriously would dump a potential All Star before he's had two full months with us because in 4 years we're going to have to pay him a lot? Should we also dump Tek and Dice-K, just on general principle? Ellsbury is incredibly cheap right now and has the potential to be incredibly good. Throwing that away because of something that might happen 4 years from now is, IMHO, nuts.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Boras is pure evil and signing his players means an orphan dies in Budapest.

Its not like we would not get talent back with Santana.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Boras

I'm a Boras fan. I mean, I was as pissed as anybody about the timing of Arod's opt out, and I hope I never have to sit across the negotiating table from him, but I'm a fan. Maybe it's because I'm an attorney and I have mad respect for his client advocacy.

Here's a NYTimes article about Boras from yesterday. You might need a subscription.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Boras

I am an entertainment attorney in Los Angeles and Boras is regarded as evil in "Hollywood" from entertainment agents.

The man has single handedly driven up the price of players, extorted money from teams, made half the league unable to compete and unable to draft any of the top players in the draft each year bc they cannot sign them.

He has stacked the league in an attempt to get only his clients money without any regard for anyone but his clients and his pockets.

For the Sox, he will make it very easy to replenish our farm system bc we are 1 of only 5 teams that can pay top draft picks the retarded Boras signing bonuses.

I know, free market, capitalism, blah blah blah...tell that to the Royal fans.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

He's a zealous advocate for his clients. He gets mad respect from me.

Boras gets far too much blame for all the imbalance in baseball. The Philadelphia A's were a feeding club for the Yanks before Boras was born. The Twins could afford Santana, but their owner would rather pocket the extra earnings.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

He's a zealous advocate all right, but not necessarily every time for his clients.

Recently, two clients struck deals without Boras, presumably because he was zelously advocating for something other than what was in his client's best interest.

It might happen again. And it certainly happened before (Jones' earlier deal without using Boras).

His tactics can work wonders, but they aren't for everybody. I, personally, am not a fan - although I don't think he's to blame for all the ills in baseball. I also think it's sad that Ellsbury went with Boras now - and I heard somewhere that Lester did too. That says something about the players that I don't agree with, or like.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

No wonder I couldn't find the Lester and Boras reference, it was taken back.

PS. Really good site for rumors right there, even if the Lester bit was off the mark.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

He's very good at getting the biggest payday for people.

Rogers fired him and negotiated his own deal to return to the Tigers, presumably at less than he would've gotten at fair market value.

Ditto Arod. If the Angels were willing to give Torii Hunter and his career .793 OPS $18 million a year to play a position where they already had two above average options (Willits and Matthews), I'm they could've at least been brought into a bidding war against the Yanks for Arod and his career .967 OPS.

So, sure, his methods and goals aren't for everybody.

The thing that really impressed me about the article was his approach to guys like Chad Kreuter. Everyone knows him for getting big money deals for Arod and the ilk, but getting superstars a big payday is relatively easy compared to getting good deals for the 100s of fringe/average guys he's represented over the years.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

And in full-disclosure, I'm a union-side labor lawyer (and immigration lawyer, but that's neither here nor there), so I'm a zealot. Anytime anyone is successfully battling management on behalf of the workers, they've got my respect.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

I think what so many people dislike about him is how polarizing a person he is. Certainly there are times when that is needed - especially in the face of some baseball owners out there. I'm just not into that type of personality. I find you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes.

Plus he's an ego-maniac... which leads me to another article you might be interested in.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

And if you're REALLY interested in Scott Boras, the man, the myth, the legend, you need to know a few more things about him.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh.

I read the Weiter's article first, and I just jumped right in, I didn't look at the source...

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 8:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Heh.

The Onion rules. :)

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

I don't know much about the man (and I'm thinking I've got better things to do that really find out a whole lot), but the fact that he represents Varitek says to me that a) his representation is not an indication of the character of a player and b) ditching a good player solely because of Boras is a mistake.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

Well, there are at least 5 GMs in the MLB who will not deal with him on drafties, there are teams who will not draft a Boras client bc of his tactics and his dealings with JD Drew, A-Rod and many other players have turned off GMs to a degree that Boras only negotiates with 10 or so teams.

If you have Boras as a client you will only be dealing with 10-15 teams. So sure, he gets you money, but he also limits the options of the teams involved.

Boras, halfway through the season, made a statement that Carlos Pena would not resign with the Devil Rays for less that X. WTF, so now we are all ok with Boras screwing with team chemistry bc he wants to maximize profits?

No Boras is PURE EVIL. As I said, people in Hollywood, agents, producers, usually the scum of the earth think this guy is evil.

That says enough to me.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

Hitler was pure evil, Boras is an egomaniac who looks out for his self interest. Ellsbury is a good player who has the potential to be an incredible player and for now at least he's incredibly inexpensive. Getting rid of him to avoid dealing with Boras is foolish not only because you're essentially throwing the baby (sorry Jacoby, unfortunate metaphor) with the bath water but also because we're going to have to deal with him regarding other players anyway.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

I would trade him to get Santana, let the Twins deal with this headache.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

and also, come to LA for a while, you will meet plenty of people who are "Pure evil" and they never needed to murder 9 million people to get that status.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do not doubt it.

I've only spent a couple days in LA, the place reeks of evil.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 5, 2007 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

I think he's a zealous advocate for a.) his ego and b.) his wallet. The deal with A-Rod is a case in point. The towering miscalculation of the Yanks' willingness to walk away is one thing; the 'who cares if my client winds up a Mudhen, so long as the cash value is maximized' attitude is another. I am the last person to make apologies for A-Rod, but he was to a large degree manipulated by Boras into making a terrible decision. Client advocate? Meh. Ego and wallet advocate.

Yankee Ombudsman

by LateInningRelief on Dec 4, 2007 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Exactly

"but he was to a large degree manipulated by Boras into making a terrible decision."

Oh come on. Like Arod was some innocent little lamb and Boras the big bad wolf.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 5, 2007 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way

Did you read the article?

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: This is possibly insane

Randy Moss for a draft pick.
Kevin Garnett for junk.
And now possibly Santana without having to give up Buccholz or Ellsbury?

Come on, did the city of Boston slip a "Mickey" on the rest of the sports world?

The Twins should just keep Santana if this is all they get for him.

vr, Xei

Dodger Sims with a correct pre-season Red Sox Championship prediction!

by Xeifrank on Dec 4, 2007 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: This is possibly insane

LOL... no kidding. Makes you wonder what the Bruins will next pawn off for Sidney Crosby.

by Hughie Jennings on Dec 4, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: This is possibly insane

I wouldn't exactly call Al Jefferson "junk," but yeah, the Celtics got by far the better end of that deal.

by RSNexile on Dec 4, 2007 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: This is possibly insane

Minnesota did not get "Junk" in the Garnet deal. The NBA has far different rules with salaries. The Wolves got the "Most" attractive expiring contract in the NBA, Theo Ratcliff. The Wolves clear almost 15 million bucks next year and that is worth a lot with a salary cap, which they can turn around and make a deal for an All-Star caliber player to go with their young talent.

Plus, the Wolves got Al Jefferson and Gerald Green, both are top young talent and potential All-Stars. With Ryan Gomes and Telfair(another contract that will be over in a year), the Wolves got more than expected.

Garnet was not signing with the Wolves, Phoenix did not want to give up their talent and the Lakers/Knicks offered them worse deals.

In the NBA the Garnett deal was as close to fair for both sides as possible.

Also, didnt Randy Moss come from the Raiders? If the Vikings and the Minnesota fans have problems with any deal they should talk about what they got from Oakland.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 4, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: This is possibly insane

The Twinkies are getting a good deal, they are getting a good left hand starting pitcher, one of the top Sox's pitching prospects, a centerfielder who should won a Gold Glove in 2007, and with the right batting coach, help him get his BA up, another bona fide prospect who can start in 2008. If Santana stayed, the Twinkies would had got two draft picks after the 2008 season, and a couple years of coaching the prospects. They are getting four to five good players.

I still think if the Yankees offered Cano and Hughes, they would had gotten Santana. The Yankees's most difficult part was the pleasing the Twinkies. I think Boston's most difficult part is about to begin with negotiating with Santana's agent for the contract extension. I still think the Yankees are still in the mix, if they stop acting like a victim, and offer Hughes, Cano or Cabrera/Kennedy.

I also see the Angels in the mix if the Miggy Cabrera deal falls through, even though they need a bat more than an arm, but with Lackey, Santana, Weaver, Garland or better yet keeping Escobar and dealing Weaver would make a pretty strong staff.

by superferret on Dec 4, 2007 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: This is possibly insane

That is one of the dumber things on here. No doubt we have teams with smart FO, but all but moss where fair deals. Even moss looked washed up and like a tick, not seeing this season I would not have touched him.
But if we are on good deals, you forgot another older on, C Dillon and Wes W

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 4, 2007 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I have a feeling the Angels are going to sweep in and get him:

4:49 p.m., from Jayson Stark
* The Twins and Angels continue to talk about a Johan Santana trade. Many of the same players mentioned in the Miguel Cabrera sweepstakes -- Howie Kendrick, Brandan Wood, Nick Adenhart, and possibly Jeff Mathis or Reggie Willits -- would be included in a package for Santana.

by DCredsoxnation on Dec 4, 2007 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I don't know whether or not they will, but if throwing Kalish into the mix isn't enough to wrap the negotiations up, we should consider walking away. We don't need Santana, and shouldn't sell off the farm just because we're so close to wrapping up the deal. Any way you slice it, what we're offering (a) is fair, and (b) is way ahead of where the Twins would be in a year's time if they don't make a trade (2 first round picks). I hate to say it, but maybe Hank knew what he was talking about here.

by argo0 on Dec 4, 2007 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

As I understand it the Twins said "put your best offer on the table" and the five player package w/Kalish is it for us. If there's one thing you can guarantee about Theo is he won't get carried away. I'd place strong money on him going no farther than what he's offered.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

i have a feeling this is just a way for the twins and angels to make the redsox and marlins uneasy in their repsective deals.

by spinz on Dec 4, 2007 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope the Angels get Santana

I like Lester

and I would rather send Coco to Texas for a catcher

by jwp on Dec 4, 2007 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hope the Angels get Santana

Ug. I do not want to trade Coco Crisp for Gerald Laird. If we can consummate some deal for Saltalamacchia or Teagarden (sp?), then I'd be happy with the deal.

"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 5, 2007 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto

I'd consider Lester and Coco for Salty. Though I reserve the right to change my mind.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 5, 2007 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

It's being reported that it's all but done (as anyone who can read has probably seen on the left hand bar on the front page). The included players are Lester, "a center fielder" (they said they would not deal Ellsbury and Lester together, so probably Coco), Materson, and Kalish.

If this is true, Wow. We liked the original one that's been going around that included Jed, now apparently we even get to keep him? Not bad, not bad at all

by Realistic on Dec 4, 2007 5:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Crisp and no Lowrie? I can't imagine that's the case. Not in the early evening with the Angels talking on the other end.

I think Ellsbury is more likely, possibly with someone else thrown in on the Twins' side -- Juan Rincon, perhaps. Unless there's a third centerfielding option that no one has mentioned.

by CarrieICL on Dec 4, 2007 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

Angels denied the rumor that they were any way involved in negotiation talks with the Twins

by Realistic on Dec 4, 2007 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm totally freaking out

The suspense is killing me.

I don't see why we'd give up both Kalish and Ellsbury. Kalish is a high ceiling CF who's due in a couple years, or when Coco's K is up. If it is in fact Ellsbury as the "centerfielder" I'd rather keep Kalish and trade Lowrie.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 5:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: I'm totally freaking out

If Ellsbury is in fact the centerfielder I'd rather eat my shoe.

by B VT on Dec 4, 2007 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question

If the basic framework is hammered out, will it be announced in detail before the 72-hour negotiating period commences or after everything is completed?

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Question

I have to think it gets announced. I don't think there's any way they can keep it under wraps for a full 72 hours, especially considering there isn't really a danger in whether or not they'd sign Johan. It would just be a negotiation for a dollar figure, but both sides know his basic asking price.

by CarrieICL on Dec 4, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Question

Thanks. I agree. I'm just worried about the next couple days if we didn't know what the deal was. I'd probably chew off my fingers...

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Question

passes the PeptoBismol

by CarrieICL on Dec 4, 2007 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nevermind, the angels thing was a rumor

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2007/12/angels_not_in_o.html

by spinz on Dec 4, 2007 6:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

The deal will have have to be officially completed before the 72-hour window is granted, so if it officially happens I'm sure it will slip out.

by gnick55 on Dec 4, 2007 6:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wow

In other news, it's looking like Minnesota picked a good time to start rebuilding.

The Marlins and Tigers are on the verge of completing a blockbuster deal that will send Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis to Detroit for a package of six players.

A source familiar with the negotiations has told MLB.com that the Tigers are parting with outfielder Cameron Maybin and lefty starter Andrew Miller and four prospects for the final two players from the Marlins' 2003 World Series championship squad.

The deal was all but finalized as of late afternoon at the Winter Meetings.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 6:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wow

i just read about that....sounds awesome for the tigers.

by spinz on Dec 4, 2007 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wow

Tiger's lineup

CF Granderson
2B Palanco
3B Cabrera
RF Ordonez
DH Sheffield
1B Guillen
SS Renteria
C Pudge Rodriguez
LF Thames

That's a nasty lineup, depsite being heavily RH (Granderson is LH and Guillen is a S). It might make sense to keep the plus defender Inge at 3rd and move Cabrera to LF.

Then their rotation
Verlander
Bonderman
Robertson
Rogers
Willis

Their BP is hurt by losing Zumaya, but still, that's lineup is a force to be reckoned with.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wow

That's a scary team right there. I don't think the Red Sox can claim that they have the best one-two punch in baseball any more.

I mean i love Papi/Manny, but Miggy C./Ordonez? Fuggedaboutit

by Schulz on Dec 4, 2007 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At least we're lefty-righty

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wow

With Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez gone, I think Rick Porcello is actually the only remaining MiL player (player, not prospect) in their system now.

by Allen Chace on Dec 4, 2007 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

It looks like it mighrt be us 2 running away in the AL, a Pitching verse Slugging match up, but then agaain this is baseball, who knows what could happen?

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 4, 2007 6:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

And the Yanks just might be struggling to make the WC, with the Indians and the Tigers both looking really good.

Manny Ramirez is a bad man

by tommy.otm on Dec 4, 2007 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

I had a book called the last night of he yankee dynasty, which came out in 2002 i think, and i was always a little scared to believe to much in it, they are always going to be good, but it might just turn into a collectors idem the way things are going.

by AZredsoxfan on Dec 4, 2007 7:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ellsbury may not be part of Santana Trade

The Yankees are a very old team, and they're not getting any younger.

While we add young, fresh players- Paps, Youk, Dustin, Clay B, Ellsbury (please don't trade him),
the Yanks keep resigning their old, tired players- Mariano (3/$15MM), Posada (4/ $52MM)

My prediction for this year (which means absolutely nothing) is that the Sox run away with the East, the Angels run away with the West, the Tigers win the Central, closely followed by the Indians for the Wild Card.
Meanwhile the Yankees begin their slow decline that will last for at least the next three years.

by Schulz on Dec 4, 2007 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs