Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

The All New, Official "Noise-Free" Johan Santana Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
593 replies to this topic

#251 Joshv02

  • 1,417 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:49 AM

To add ever so slightly to the above comments re Lowrie and Masterson:

Kevin Goldstein's (subscription only) Red Sox Prospects report

Four-Star Prospects
3. Justin Masterson, RHP
4. Jed Lowrie, SS

The Good: Masterson’s sinker is not only the best in the system, it’s arguably the best in all of the minor leagues. ...

The Bad: ... Because of these concerns with his arsenal, some project him to be a reliever down the road. ...

Timetable: Masterson’s development has come along a bit more quickly than expected, and he’ll likely begin 2008 at Triple-A Pawtucket. His long-term role with the Red Sox is still undefined, but he could get a big league look by the end of the season.


The Good: Lowrie is an on-base machine. ... His makeup is off the charts--...Defensively, he’s fundamentally sound and features a solid, accurate arm...

The Bad: Scouts’ opinions of Lowrie vary wildly, with some seeing him as an everyday big league shortstop, and others seeing him as no more than a very good utility player. ...

Timetable: With Julio Lugo still under contract and Dustin Pedroia establishing himself as one of the better second basemen around, Lowrie has no obvious job with the Red Sox. He’ll return to Triple-A in 2008, and probably won’t achieve a full-time role in the majors until he or Lugo gets moved elsewhere.



#252 SaveBooFerriss


  • twenty foreskins


  • 6,121 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:50 AM

It is mind boggling to me that the Yankees might allow Ian Kennedy to be the deal breaker here. This is not some small market team that is totally reliant on developing their own players. With the move into the new stadium next year, money is going to be even less of an issue for them. If they make this deal, the Yanks have a chance to lock up the best pitcher in the game and ensure that they have the starting staff necessary to make a huge run at winning the World Series next year. Can someone please explain why Ian Kennedy, a good but not great pitching prospect, is preventing them from doing this?


It is also mindboggling that they could apparently keep Kennedy and make the deal if they added another prospect. Hughes, Cabrera, Horne & Jackson would get this done.

After years of not valuing prospects enough, the Yankees are now over valuing their prospects to their detriment.

#253 NYCSox


  • chris hansen of goats


  • 6,350 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:54 AM

I have to question the Yankees' valuation system in this. I suspect they feel that in giving up Hughes, who they have hyped beyond reason, they really don't feel the need to try and match chits so the Twins feel like they are getting something they NEED right now. Of course, everyone needs good young pitching, but the Twins have some glaring holes on the MLB staff right now, and it is understandably hard to swallow trading out their most dominant player and not bringing back anything that fills one of those needs.

In other words, I don't think this is so much about the MFY overvaluing Kennedy as it is about overvaluing Cabrera and drinking too much of their own Kool-Aid that giving up Hughes is like giving up a young Clemens.


Actually, I think it may be that the MFYs understand the attrition rate for pitchers and don't want to be left with nothing if Chamberlain flames out. Of course the flip side is that the Twins understand this as well and don't want to be left with nothing if Hughes flames out. So the result is a roadblock with each side valuing the second pitcher more than they possibly should. By offering multiple position players the Sox help the Twins mitigate some of the risk they are taking on. So if Lester or Masterson flames out the Twins have the other (possibly) as well as two ML position players.

#254 67WasBest


  • Concierge


  • 1,995 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:58 AM

I think the Yankees are having trouble with two starters going in the deal because they really would like to keep Chamberlain as their 8th inning guy, despite public pronouncements about him starting in 2008. This move would keep his innings down, and in a season when there is so little quality relief available, allows them a more complete team.

That said I still think they are nuts to walk away from Santana because of Ian Kennedy.

#255 Stu Nahan

  • 3,886 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:59 AM

Actually, I think it may be that the MFYs understand the attrition rate for pitchers and don't want to be left with nothing if Chamberlain flames out. Of course the flip side is that the Twins understand this as well and don't want to be left with nothing if Hughes flames out. So the result is a roadblock with each side valuing the second pitcher more than they possibly should. By offering multiple position players the Sox help the Twins mitigate some of the risk they are taking on. So if Lester or Masterson flames out the Twins have the other (possibly) as well as two ML position players.


They wouldn't be left with nothing. They would have Santana. That's my point. Correct me if I'm wrong but Kennedy is viewed a good middle of the rotation guy, not a front of the rotation starter. That type of pitcher, who the Yanks can certainly find either internally or on the market down the road, should never be the roadblock to trading for a pitcher of Santana's caliber. When you consider the fact that they don't have a true number one starter, it makes their position look even more ridiculous.

#256 NYCSox


  • chris hansen of goats


  • 6,350 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:03 AM

They wouldn't be left with nothing. They would have Santana. That's my point. Correct me if I'm wrong but Kennedy is viewed a good middle of the rotation guy, not a front of the rotation starter. That type of pitcher, who the Yanks can certainly find either internally or on the market down the road, should never be the roadblock to trading for a pitcher of Santana's caliber. When you consider the fact that they don't have a true number one starter, it makes their position look even more ridiculous.


Yeah, I guess. And I agree that Kennedy is nothing special and should be included. If they are really afraid of Hughes and Kennedy becoming top flight pitchers, then the MFY organization is more screwed up than we imagined. Either that or Cashman has a portrait of Bill Stoneman in his office. :c070:

#257 The Flying Dutchman

  • 941 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:05 AM

That said I still think they are nuts to walk away from Santana because of Ian Kennedy.


There was a Hardball times article back in September comparing Kennedy to Buchholz and the conclusion was that Buchhold slightly edged him, but it was a pretty close call. If Boston balked at including Buchholz to an already impressive package would you think they were nuts too?

Kennedy is no slouch..

#258 Manny's Hammies

  • 883 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:06 AM

It's worth noting that the Twins may well be undervaluing the hell out of Crisp. He's cost-controlled, plays GG-caliber defense, threat on the basepaths, and has been a .285-.300 hitter. Maybe the Twins' "We're not high on Coco" piece is a ploy to get the team to jack up the rest of the offer. Or maybe they just miss Torii Hunter. But the idea that he's not a valuable chit for a low-payroll team like them seems misguided.

#259 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:12 AM

FWIW, the Boston Herald just took Michael Silverman's 10:45 blog entry and made it into breaking news... it say "as they close in on a blockbuster deal" and "Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein was in meetings this morning but was expected to resume discussions with the Twins before noon."

#260 Eric Van


  • Kid-tested, mother-approved


  • 10,990 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:12 AM

Updated ESPN Story

First time I have seen that name... here is a scouting report on Marquez. Wow.

In terms of where Kevin Goldstein ranks him in the Yankees' system (13th, 3rd best 2-star prospect), our equivalent would be Kris Johnson.

#261 67WasBest


  • Concierge


  • 1,995 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:15 AM

There was a Hardball times article back in September comparing Kennedy to Buchholz and the conclusion was that Buchhold slightly edged him, but it was a pretty close call. If Boston balked at including Buchholz to an already impressive package would you think they were nuts too?

Kennedy is no slouch..


Neither of them are Johan Santana. Projections are just that, an opinion based on data acquired at a lower level of competition. Neither Buchholz or Kennedy have done what Santana has done at the MLB level and if the deal were to include Buchholz, the structure of the other pieces would be very different. For the Twins to say they aren't sold on Hughes is valid. If he gets injured again, they have nothing but Melky Cabrera to show for this trade and that is a huge risk that is worth considering. At least with the Sox package, the Twins are filling multiple needs and should be able to point to positive results for many years to come.

We're not talking about teams with limited resources here and the yankees have Horne not that far off to backfill Kennedy.

#262 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,902 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:18 AM

FWIW, the Boston Herald just took Michael Silverman's 10:45 blog entry and made it into breaking news... it say "as they close in on a blockbuster deal" and "Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein was in meetings this morning but was expected to resume discussions with the Twins before noon."



It's pretty stunning unless HankHal have a deal for a front-line guy in their back pockets. Say what you want about his likely contract cost and the inns Santana has put on that left arm, this acquisition would make the RS prohibitive favs in the AL East for the next 3 to 5 years, barring one of the Yanks' 3 kids stepping up in a phenomenal way, which I don't think you can count on.

#263 GreyisGone

  • 1,134 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:21 AM

There was a Hardball times article back in September comparing Kennedy to Buchholz and the conclusion was that Buchhold slightly edged him, but it was a pretty close call. If Boston balked at including Buchholz to an already impressive package would you think they were nuts too?

Kennedy is no slouch..

Is that really the conclusion?

Stuff-wise, Buchholz has him beaten, badly. Buchholz' fastball has better velocity. His curve (I could call his curve the "hand of God" deuce too, huh?) and changeup are clearly superior as well. Better stuff, better momentum, a quirky delivery, great deception and an unusual release point and you have my reasons why I'd choose Clay Buchholz. Kennedy has been profiled as a No. 4/No. 5 starter at best. Even with just slightly above average stuff, I believe that he has a higher ceiling than that, with No. 4/No. 5 starter being the worst of his outcomes. I say this even though I see a lot of Mark Prior in his mechanics.


I don't see where in the article he says it is particularly close.

#264 Joshv02

  • 1,417 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:22 AM

There was a Hardball times article back in September comparing Kennedy to Buchholz and the conclusion was that Buchhold slightly edged him, but it was a pretty close call. If Boston balked at including Buchholz to an already impressive package would you think they were nuts too?

Kennedy is no slouch..

I don't think CBW said anything close to Clay being a "slight" edge in that article. Remember that CBW is mainly looking at mechanics (something Kennedy does well at, which he must b/c he has limited "stuff"), but even then, Carlos writes:

Better stuff, better momentum, a quirky delivery, great deception and an unusual release point and you have my reasons why I'd choose Clay Buchholz. Kennedy has been profiled as a No. 4/No. 5 starter at best. Even with just slightly above average stuff, I believe that he has a higher ceiling than that, with No. 4/No. 5 starter being the worst of his outcomes.


I don't think Kennedy is anywhere near the pitcher Clay is and I don't think Carlos thinks otherwise.

#265 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,142 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:25 AM

I know I'm speculating, but the lack of any real solid news updates since 2 AM this morning when the news of the swap of medical records broke seems significant to me. Theo and Smith seem to be in lockdown mode, which can only mean that they are seriously working on finalizing this. (note I say 'working on finalizing' since obviously the efforts could still come up short).

When leaks are flying, I always assume they are being leaked by people for a reason and are aimed at leveraging various things. When the leaks dry up, that means that the serious talk is underway.

I am officially optimistic that Santana is coming to Boston.

#266 The Flying Dutchman

  • 941 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:39 AM

Is that really the conclusion?



I don't see where in the article he says it is particularly close.


You're right - I should have re-read the article. He give Kennedy an advatage in the mechanics and command department but overall had Clay far superior.

#267 Max Venerable


  • done galavanting around Lebanon


  • 792 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:51 AM

At this point, from the Twins perspective, the Sox offer seems like a no brainer over the Yanks. MIN is in position to make a quick turnaround right now, with Liriano stepping into the role Santana leaves, a elite closer and a very good young middle of the order in Morneau and Mauer. They need to fill this team out, not tear it down.

Hughes make be the highest upside single piece, ,but by going that route they are wasting the things they have going for them right now. Guys like Nathan, Mauer, etc. won't be cheap forever, and the Twins need to capitalize. Lowrie, Masterson, Crisp and Lester all fill important rolls for the Twins, and three of those guys are good young prospects who could develop. The Yankees just are not close now I think, and even with Kenedy in there, they are basically asking the Twins to punt on their current team in favor of a distant future.

Edited by Max Venerable, 04 December 2007 - 11:51 AM.


#268 Todd Benzinger

  • 4,290 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 11:59 AM

Herald headline says "deal in the works" and story concludes

There is no other team involved in these negotiations, it is believed. There remains a chance that the Yankees could jump back in by agreeing to include Kennedy but it remains to be seen if the Red Sox and Twins are too far down the road for the Yankees to come back. Right now, it appears so.



#269 Oil Can's Liver


  • Wants a Sammich


  • Pip
  • 665 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:02 PM

If the latest reports are accurate and Theo is closing in on landing Santanna without giving up Ellsbury or Buchholz, this would have to be considered the greatest coup' of the Epstein regime. Beckett was huge, but we gave up a prospect who looks to be the NL's answer to the young A-rod to get him. I am in no way minimizing the worth of a Crisp, Lester, Masterson, Lowrie package..I think that package is just what the Twins need. To land Santana without trading the Sox 2 brightest prospects is almost too good to be true. Fingers crossed.

Edited by Oil Can's Liver, 04 December 2007 - 12:07 PM.


#270 The Big Red Kahuna

  • 2,421 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:03 PM

Herald headline says "deal in the works" and story concludes

It's interesting... the byline to that article says "Lester, Crisp, Ellsbury, Buchholz all in the mix"... yet, the article itself mentions nothing about a new possible deal that is centered around Buchholz. Seems to be implying that Buchholz could be exchanged for Lester without saying it.

(Not to mention the person that wrote the byline spells a certain pitcher's name incorrectly... I edited the byline above)

Edited by The Big Red Kahuna, 04 December 2007 - 12:05 PM.


#271 Todd Benzinger

  • 4,290 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:10 PM

It's interesting... the byline to that article says "Lester, Crisp, Ellsbury, Buchholz all in the mix"... yet, the article itself mentions nothing about a new possible deal that is centered around Buchholz. Seems to be implying that Buchholz could be exchanged for Lester without saying it.


I think that's an old sub-head that they forgot to update, because the story itself says

"The Red Sox have successfully held the line on not including Ellsbury in a package with either Lester or Clay Buc.c.holz, their other top starter."

I added periods to keep Silverman's spelling error.

PS OH wait... I misread that... it is suggesting that maybe Clay is in the package!

Edited by Todd Benzinger, 04 December 2007 - 12:12 PM.


#272 Quintanariffic

  • 4,416 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:14 PM

Are you saying Lowrie is a .300/.400/.500 guy in the majors?

No. Should have been more clear. He is that guy in AA/AAA. My guess is that he profiles as a .280/.370/.450 kind of guy at the ML level.

#273 LahoudOrBillyC


  • Indian name is Massages Ellsbury


  • 3,858 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:16 PM

No. Should have been more clear. He is that guy in AA/AAA. My guess is that he profiles as a .280/.370/.450 kind of guy at the ML level.

A big league shortstop who can hit like that could make the Hall of Fame.

#274 Quintanariffic

  • 4,416 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:20 PM

A big league shortstop who can hit like that could make the Hall of Fame.

Or he could be Carlos Guillen. I think Lowrie profiles as a top 10 ML SS in that regard, at least as much as any prospect in the high minors can profile as anything. He could turn out to be Mike Lansing for all we know.

#275 LondonSox


  • Robert the Deuce


  • 4,938 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:37 PM

Or he could be Carlos Guillen. I think Lowrie profiles as a top 10 ML SS in that regard, at least as much as any prospect in the high minors can profile as anything. He could turn out to be Mike Lansing for all we know.


Would be nice to deal 2 top 10 shortstops in ML for two aces, if it wasn't for Lugo sucking for the Sox.

It's one of those deals that works for both sides. Lester dreams of being Santana but he's solid with the chance of being really good. Coco is affordable an an excellent defensive player who if he can re-establish his old level of play a lot of upside, Lowrie has a shot at being a really good middle inflielder (The Sox have one of those and Lugo) and Masterson probably has a downside of a really good bullpen arm with an upside of sticking at a starter. I'm sad to see Lester, Masterson and Lowrie go, but for Santana make that move. He's expensive though and it works for both sides. It's not a steal.

I think there is a good chance we look back on this like Beckett, both sides glad they did the move.

#276 holden13

  • 51 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:44 PM

It's interesting... the byline to that article says "Lester, Crisp, Ellsbury, Buchholz all in the mix"... yet, the article itself mentions nothing about a new possible deal that is centered around Buchholz. Seems to be implying that Buchholz could be exchanged for Lester without saying it.

(Not to mention the person that wrote the byline spells a certain pitcher's name incorrectly... I edited the byline above)


The Herald update now reads, 'Lester, Crisp, Ellsbury all in the mix', sans Buchholz.

#277 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9,681 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:45 PM

I hate speculating like this, but based on the highly unreliable Will Caroll's rumor mill, the Mariners are both interested in Santana, and possibly willing to move Clement for him. The problem is Mauer blocks Clement, making him of limited use for the Twins.

How does Ellsbury for Clement to facilitate Santana to the Mariners sound though? I suspect the Sox would need to give more there.

Edited by bowiac, 04 December 2007 - 12:47 PM.


#278 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 14,138 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:49 PM

I hate speculating like this, but based on the highly unreliable Will Caroll's rumor mill, the Mariners are both interested in Santana, and possibly willing to move Clement for him. The problem is Mauer blocks Clement, making him of limited use for the Twins.


Didn't the Mariners state they were out of the "race" as of yesterday? I'm guessing that is old (hence, unreliable) news.

#279 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,331 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:00 PM

I think the Sox actually want Santana...I don't think they are just in 'make sure he isn't in NYC' mode. I could be wrong, but given that view I seriously doubt they'd be interested in facilitating a deal elsewhere. This is obviously a pure opinion issue though.

I would guess they also prefer Ellsbury to Clement. Several reasons here, including:

1. More consistent performance record
2. Concerns about catcher development, especially defensively where Sox have by all indications placed a large value on 'catching a good game' however one defines or values that themselves
3. Greater defensive value (even figuring in scarcity of position)
4. Slight preference for keeping someone developed here and who has proven themselves a little in the environment over someone else

So, I don't think they'd do that swap or need/want to add in anything extra.

#280 LondonSox


  • Robert the Deuce


  • 4,938 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:01 PM

If it's Ellsbury not Lester as Gammons (in the news only thread) is reporting, that leaves us seriously long pitching next year. Not that I'm unhappy with that but Beckett, Santana, Dice-K, Schilling, Buchholz, Lester, Wake and Taverez is a bit beyond overkill...

(Which is why I prefer Lester as moving pitching and pospects for pitching makes more sense than hitting)

#281 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:05 PM

If it's Ellsbury not Lester as Gammons (in the news only thread) is reporting

That is not what he is saying though, he says that the Twins are deciding.

#282 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2,075 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:05 PM

Looks like it's either Ellsbury, Lowrie and Masterson, or Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson.

I'd be okay with either deal.

#283 941827

  • 3,336 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:06 PM

I think the Sox actually want Santana...I don't think they are just in 'make sure he isn't in NYC' mode. I could be wrong, but given that view I seriously doubt they'd be interested in facilitating a deal elsewhere. This is obviously a pure opinion issue though.


I agree. They are spending way too much time on this for it to merely be a smokescreen.

Gammons report from news thread:

Sources indicate the Twins are still trying to decide between a 3-for-1 for center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, infielder Jed Lowrie, pitching prospect Justin Masterson and the 4-for-1 swap that substitutes lefty starter Jon Lester and center fielder Coco Crisp for Ellsbury.

http://sports.espn.g...winter_meetings

So Ellsbury's value is close enough to Coco + Lester that the Twins need to mull over those offers?

Doesn't that seems like a significant overestimation of his value, even considering Coco's contract?

Edited by 941827, 04 December 2007 - 01:07 PM.


#284 LahoudOrBillyC


  • Indian name is Massages Ellsbury


  • 3,858 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:11 PM

I believe that 80% of the rumors you are reading are false. I believe the Red Sox and Yankees level of interest is high, but the changing details every five minutes from a different writer from Seattle, Dallas, or Miami does not indicate that a "new" deal is being discussed--just that someone got it wrong.

#285 Quintanariffic

  • 4,416 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:13 PM

So Ellsbury's value is close enough to Coco + Lester that the Twins need to mull over those offers?

Doesn't that seems like a significant overestimation of his value, even considering Coco's contract?

I guess there's a difference in "value" in an objective sense vs. the value a specific player represents to a specific team based on its needs. Given Minn's surplus of pitching prospects (TINSTAAPP aside), they need a replacement for Hunter in CF much more than they need SP help. Crisp is a short-term solution for them whereas Ellsbury is someone you can build around as you head into the new stadium.

#286 Seabass177


  • has an efficient neck


  • 4,183 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:15 PM

So Ellsbury's value is close enough to Coco + Lester that the Twins need to mull over those offers?

Doesn't that seems like a significant overestimation of his value, even considering Coco's contract?

I can understand wanting to land Ellsbury over Crisp, as he's under their control for three more years than Coco is, but to sacrifice four or five years of Lester for the perceived upgrade of Ellsbury to Crisp doesn't make much more sense to me either. Knowing what we know right now, there's just no way that six years of Ellsbury is worth more than three of Crisp and four or five of Lester. Even though the Twins have a perceived glut of young pitching, there's no such thing as too much young pitching.

Perhaps the Twins are hoping the Sox will subsidize some of Crisp's contract?

#287 Skiponzo

  • 905 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:23 PM

I really just think it's a good fit for Minn. They're not looking at it in terms of just talent for talent. They want that talent to fit their team, and the 3 for 1 deal looks best for that team as it is currently construed.

On the Sox side I actually like the 4-1 deal better. We'd get to keep our future CF who should be expected to at least replace Coco's production (with a potential higher upside) and replace Lester with Santana (now that's an upgrade). The unfortunate part is that we have to lose 2 good youngsters with some real potential, but that's what the price is for the upgrade from Jon to Johan.

#288 SoxFanSince57


  • Carrie Nation


  • 10,048 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:32 PM

The MFY could certainly swoop in and offer the best package, but right now for my money the Sox are totally "schooling" the MFY on negotiating strategy. The Sox have remained flexible and responsive to the needs of their trading partners while the MFY have set an internal value for a set of prospects and simply pushed them. I am pretty sure that SoSH members like me who have negotiated hundered of deals appreciate the art and science of Theo's approach. From a negotiating process stand-point Theo is killing the MFY.

The Sox are listening to the Twins needs and doing their best to craft alternatives for them to consider. Nicely done.

Even when the Twins re-open discussions with the MFY and ask them for a similar set of alternatives to consider, the MFY, by reports, just say no.

Here is the latest blunder IMO. (Sure, I don't have all the information, but again, it opens the window for us to look into.)

According to baseball officials who were aware of those talks, the Twins initially asked for pitcher Ian Kennedy, along with right-hander Phil Hughes and outfielder Melky Cabrera, (but) after being told Kennedy wasn't available if Hughes was part of the deal, the Twins apparently proposed expanding the trade into a 4-for-1 swap, with players they considered to be lesser prospects than Kennedy --(Hughes, Cabrera, pitcher Jeff Marquez and either pitcher Alan Horne or outfielder Austin Jackson) -- But the Yankees quickly rejected that pitch, too.


IMO, it is increasingly likely that the MFY's poor negotiating skills will impact their ability to stay engaged with the Twins. Perhaps this is just a small point, but I have seen negotiations fall flat when one side doesn't listen and doesn't keep offering solutions to the other side.

#289 LahoudOrBillyC


  • Indian name is Massages Ellsbury


  • 3,858 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:38 PM

As a pre-emptive strike, let me be the first to suggest a note of caution. The last time the Red Sox and Yankees engaged in a series of negotiations for a superstar it was four years ago for Alex Rodriguez. The Yankees won the war, their fans and owner rubbed our noses in it, and the Red Sox have won 2 World Series since then.

If the Yankees do not get Santana, they are still a very good team with vast resources who will likely improve their team substantially before Opening Day. If the Red Sox have Santana, beating the 2008 Yankees will still be a bitch and a half.

#290 Lollardfish

  • 1,833 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:38 PM

Edit: Never mind, redundant with above post. Sorry.

Edited by Lollardfish, 04 December 2007 - 01:39 PM.


#291 Quintanariffic

  • 4,416 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:43 PM

Let me be the first to say that I'm hoping against hope that Heyman is wrong and the Sox don't include Kalish or Anderson to get this done. Either of those guys could be cornerstone types, though they are obviously quite far away at this point. At what point do you look at the prospects and then the $150MM over 6 years and say - "it's just too much." For me, that point is when you start talking about 5 for 1 deals with guys like Anderson, Kalish and Bowden thrown in with the current package of Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson. Just too much.

#292 Todd Benzinger

  • 4,290 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:45 PM

Let me be the first to say that I'm hoping against hope that Heyman is wrong and the Sox don't include Kalish or Anderson to get this done.


Rotoworld attributes this idea (5 for 1) to Heyman, but the linked article says no such thing. Strange.

Heyman actually wrote

Boston's secondary prospects are also well-regarded, and it appeared possible the Red Sox may just expand the offer to include more of them.

Boston is well-stocked with prospects, including pitchers Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden, shortstop Jed Lowrie and outfielder Brandon Moss.


I think Kalish and Anderson are rotoworld's random speculation, building on Heyman's speculation.

Edited by Todd Benzinger, 04 December 2007 - 01:50 PM.


#293 amarshal2

  • 2,725 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:48 PM

Let me be the first to say that I'm hoping against hope that Heyman is wrong and the Sox don't include Kalish or Anderson to get this done. Either of those guys could be cornerstone types, though they are obviously quite far away at this point. At what point do you look at the prospects and then the $150MM over 6 years and say - "it's just too much." For me, that point is when you start talking about 5 for 1 deals with guys like Anderson, Kalish and Bowden thrown in with the current package of Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson. Just too much.


Agreed completely.

However, I really think we don't know what's going on. I figure it's a package of Lester + Crisp + prospects for Johan (possibly) +. That's the deal that makes the most sense for the Twins and the Red Sox. I'll wait to evaluate once we know the prospects included and the contract handed out.

As Theo alluded to lots of the rumors are probably fictitious.

Edited by amarshal2, 04 December 2007 - 02:50 PM.


#294 DamonasaNomad

  • 2,613 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:48 PM

The MFY could certainly swoop in and offer the best package, but right now for my money the Sox are totally "schooling" the MFY on negotiating strategy. The Sox have remained flexible and responsive to the needs of their trading partners while the MFY have set an internal value for a set of prospects and simply pushed them. I am pretty sure that SoSH members like me who have negotiated hundered of deals appreciate the art and science of Theo's approach. From a negotiating process stand-point Theo is killing the MFY.

It's hard to be sure without knowing if the details are strictly accurate -- but I've been thinking exactly the same thing, SFS57. The Yanks almost seem to be using the old-style approach to negotiation, of trying to obtain maximum advantage, and future relationship be damned. The (reported) willingness to set deadlines and "best and last" offers is symptomatic of that approach, too.

The periodic complaint from Yankee fans about how other teams are willing to give the Sox better deals than they give the Yankees (while I think there are several recent examples to the contrary, including Unit, Moriarty, and Abreu) would be symptomatic of that negotiating approach.

#295 Jimbodandy

  • 802 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:49 PM

Let me be the first to say that I'm hoping against hope that Heyman is wrong and the Sox don't include Kalish or Anderson to get this done. Either of those guys could be cornerstone types, though they are obviously quite far away at this point. At what point do you look at the prospects and then the $150MM over 6 years and say - "it's just too much." For me, that point is when you start talking about 5 for 1 deals with guys like Anderson, Kalish and Bowden thrown in with the current package of Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson. Just too much.


That's my fear too, even before the Rotoworld blurb. Remember how Beltre was announced as part of the Gagne deal, although he hadn't been mentioned at all in any citations. It wasn't the end of the world, but it took a little shine off the deal. Lars or Kalish (in addition to the Lester/Crisp/Lowrie/Masterson deal) would be worse. Adding Bowden to the L/C/L/M deal would be a gutting.

#296 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1,910 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:51 PM

IMO Lester and Crisp are a much better offer than Ellsbury, and I rate Ellsbury highly. Coco Crisp is being seriously undervalued by a lot of people. The salary isn't THAT bad. He's had a bad run in the batters' box but that's a different thing from having no hitting ability. And he isn't just a good defensive player. He's a pick up your phone and call your friend and say 'DID YOU SEE THAT???' defensive player. If they want WOW in the new stadium, Coco Crisp can break 'em off a piece and the first time he makes one of his Rocketman style catches there they'll all do exactly what we did when we saw 'em.

If we keep Ellsbury and he has trouble this year you'll be seeing 'Coco would have had it' shirts.

As Sox fans we worry that we need a complete package at every position, or close to it, because we have to compete with the Yankees and their awesome pile of cash. But they'll love Coco Crisp in Minnesota and he strikes me as someone who could benefit from a change in scenery.

Ellsbury is, and I cross my fingers as I say this because it's far from proven, a better player. But the difference between Ellsbury and Crisp is not Jon Lester.

I think that rumor is incomplete.

As far as Kalish or Anderson, I think they'd have to be the fourth part of an Ellsbury package, not the fifth part of a Lester/Crisp package.

Edited by Resonance Wright, 04 December 2007 - 01:54 PM.


#297 tywebb444

  • 240 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:55 PM

Rotoworld attributes this idea (5 for 1) to Heyman, but the linked article says no such thing. Strange.

Heyman actually wrote
I think Kalish and Anderson are rotoworld's random speculation, building on Heyman's speculation.

I agree. I believe Heyman is speculating that an improved offer includes a 5th player/prospect. I don't see them going over the 4 for 1 offer. If the Sox are revising their offer it could be a substitute of Bowden for Masterson if the Twins liked Bowden better. Not saying that is the case, just don't think Heyman has any info on that front

#298 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,852 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:56 PM

If there is a 5th player (which I don't think there should be); it should not be another top prospect, but a second/ third tier guy or a guy with high upside but a lot of issues. I'm thinking Bard, Hansen, Reddick, Felix Dubront types.

#299 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 26,376 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 02:21 PM

Jon Heyman's really pulling for the Yankees. I mean, fair's fair, and there are Boston writers pulling for the Sox. But any link from heyman has to be filtered through the "written from a Yankee perspective" sifter

#300 Guest_Corsi Combover_*

Posted 04 December 2007 - 02:46 PM

I spoke to a National League scout who watched Jed Lowrie in the Arizona Fall League, and he was very negative about Lowrie’s defense, using the words “hard hands.” The scout said there’s “not a snowball’s chance” Lowrie plays shortstop in the big leagues.

Source: http://www.startribu...istensen/?p=434