299 replies to this topic

[CaptainLaddie]

These guys seem like decent players. Lowrie can hit and be productive that's for sure.

Weren't they "spare parts" just an hour ago?

[CaptainLaddie]

And I apologize - not professional baseball, the minors. I read that quote two nights ago, and messed it up. Apologies.

Point remains though - they aren't "spare parts".

[Wingack]

Apparently the Twins do.

Did I miss something? Have the Red Sox and Twins agreed on a deal?

[jayhoz]

again, unless you believe that Daily News story, which is possible.

We're not talking about the 4 for 1 deal. We've very consistently been discussing Hughes, Cabrera, + throughout this thread. The Twins rejected that offer. The yankees may or may not have balked at the 4 for 1 package.

[bankshot1]

When you trade a HOF, you can't spread out risk like that. You have to go for the HR. That's how it's done. Hughes could blo out his arm tomorrow, and your out of luck. But, I ALWAYS would take the rare talent over quantity

Most HR hitters, even the best ones, strike-out a lot more than more than they hit HRs. If I were the Twins I might be happier with a a double and 2 singles, than the possiblity of a 1HR and 3 Ks.

and I'm not convinced that Hughes is a 4-bagger.

[jayhoz]

Did I miss something? Have the Red Sox and Twins agreed on a deal?

Yes they have. Haven't you seen the news?

By all accounts the Twins are no longer in talks with the yankees and are still discussing the offers on the table from the Red Sox. So yes the Twins do prefer the Red Sox offers.

[TheoShmeo]

I am impressed with Cash because he hasn't allowed himself to be nuetralized by Hank and it really seems he is committed to his plan for the organization.

Your points are all good ones though. I just think Cash is trying to change the image of the organization in away by acquiring all everyone others stars and developing none of their own.

My take, which is based on observation and some insights shared with me from a NY sportswriter I'm friendly with is that Cashman is the decision maker and Hank's increased involvement has not changed things much (other than having to deal with his frequent public pronouncements).

As to changing the Yankees' image, I think that the substantially more important task is to develop a winner, and I think that adding Santana would have helped Cashman do that.

I've vacillated on whether I wanted the Sox to get Santana in light of the economic and personnel costs. But one thing that has remained constant throughout is my hope that the Yankees wouldn't add him. I'd much rather go into 2008 with the Yankees having made no substantial changes other than in the manager's chair and with some bench and bullpen guys.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 05 December 2007 - 04:31 PM.

[CaptainLaddie]

Melky is a CF, but as he gets older may have to move to a corner position. If that is the case, he needs to hit for more power. The question is still out on Melky. For next year however, I think he is a better option for the Twins in center. I think Melky's career arc is uncertain. He still will develop physically.

For the Twins, he would be a stop gap for a year or two.
Are there any signs that Coco will revert to last year in Cleveland form? Or has he become a poor hitter with speed. No punch out of Coco.

A guy who is a "stop gap for a year or two" sounds like a "spare part" to me.

See? We can both play this game!

[Manny10]

The thing about the twins though is the fact that they really have to maximize and get a large number of potentially good players because they flat dont have enough money to take risks like that, the redsox can dish out big cash to the hansens, bards, and almanzars of the world and not blink, the twins have to be conservative in regards to aquiring talent and not soley look at ability but also the likelihood of reaching it and how quick they can. they cant afford at all to take chances in the free agent market, they can only choose to extend certain players, and therefore have to rely basically on the draft and trade market, so any decisions they do make better damn well have a chance of having a decent impact so a package of above average to potentially very good prospects in their estimation is much more valuable than one very good potentially key word great player.

[jon abbey]

We're not talking about the 4 for 1 deal. We've very consistently been discussing Hughes, Cabrera, + throughout this thread. The Twins rejected that offer. The yankees may or may not have balked at the 4 for 1 package.

the Daily News story claims that Minnesota accepted Hughes, Cabrera plus Marquez and Hilligoss, which may technically be a 4 for 1, but is less than any of the other rumored Hughes/Cabrera + deals, 3 person or 4 person. you're making definitive statements, but if the Daily News story is true (obviously we have no idea), your definitive statements are wrong.

[twototango]

So yes the Twins do prefer the Red Sox offers.

You can really infer nothing of the sort. There is too much contradicting evidence to suggest which offer the Twins prefer. This is all just a guessing game.

Edited by twototango, 05 December 2007 - 04:40 PM.

[Wingack]

By all accounts the Twins are no longer in talks with the yankees and are still discussing the offers on the table from the Red Sox. So yes the Twins do prefer the Red Sox offers.

Well, that might only be because the Yankees pulled their offers. So it isn't that the Sox offers are superior to the one the Yankees offered it's just that they are the only ones on the table.

And what twototango said.

[jon abbey]

By all accounts the Twins are no longer in talks with the yankees and are still discussing the offers on the table from the Red Sox. So yes the Twins do prefer the Red Sox offers.

why would the second statement definitely follow from the first? NY quite publicly ended their involvement, and the Twins haven't accepted Boston's deal, so I don't think your logic makes much sense here.

[Rockin Robbin]

By all accounts the Twins are still discussing offers with other teams even with the Red Sox package(s) on the table. So no the Twins may not prefer the Red Sox offer. They must have just preferred it over New Yorks.

They seem to be looking around to see if another girl will ask them to dance before deciding to go with the somewhat attractive girl, who was only slightly more attractive than the one before it.

[Wingack]

My take, which is based on observation and some insights shared with me from a NY sportswriter I'm friendly with is that Cashman is the decision maker and Hank's increased involvement has not changed things much (other than having to deal with his frequent public pronouncements).

Fanastic to hear. Hopefully this will put an end to all rumors otherwise.

As to changing the Yankees' image, I think that the substantially more important task is to develop a winner, and I think that adding Santana would have helped Cashman do that.

It's not that simple, for the same reasons you are looking at it from a Sox perspetive. Is Santana with a 150million dollar contract > Hughes/Kennedy/Melky + 150 million, and is it equal to more wins over the next 6-10 years.

And if Santana doesn't get traded (as at the moment it looks like he wont') they can get Santana next year for just money.

[jayhoz]

why would the second statement definitely follow from the first? NY quite publicly ended their involvement, and the Twins haven't accepted Boston's deal, so I don't think your logic makes much sense here.

The yankees did not have an agreed upon deal with the Twins that they then backed away from as many seem to be suggesting. The yankees drew a line in the sand at Ian Kennedy and did not move from that. The Twins and Yankees "negotiated in good faith" and could not come to an agreement on a third player in the deal. NY decided that they were not willing to add Kennedy or a 4th player and stopped participating in negotiations.

All accounts point to the fact that the Twins prefer the 2 offers on the table from the Sox to the yankees Hughes, Cabrera, +1 deal. The Twins do not have to ultimately accept the Sox offer in order for them to prefer that offer to the yankees'.

Edited by jayhoz, 05 December 2007 - 04:51 PM.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Since Andy Pettitte was a rookie, the best Yankees starting pitcher they have developed was/is Eric Milton. that's in 10 YEARS.

You can't find these guys. What would it cost to acquire Hughes? Yanks didn't develop pitching and end up paying a kings ransom for pitching.

While this is true, doesn't it argue even more heavily for just going out and getting Santana, since they'd no longer have to find and develop one for the next five years or so?

[jon abbey]

The yankees did not have an agreed upon deal with the Twins that they then backed away from as many seem to be suggesting. The yankees drew a line in the sand at Ian Kennedy and did not move from that. The Twins and Yankees "negotiated in good faith" and could not come to an agreement on a third player in the deal. NY decided that they were not willing to add Kennedy or a 4th player and stopped participating in negotiations.

again, a lot of definitive statements. what makes you so positive that what you're saying is true and the Daily News piece is dead wrong?

[bankshot1]

again, a lot of definitive statements. what makes you so positive that what you're saying is true and the Daily News piece is dead wrong?

with all due respect, the articles coming out of the NY tabloids smell like spin/damage control

we just loved Hughes and the other kids too much to trade them...

we didn't really want to add another $150MM to payroll...

do you really think this stuff is credible?

[jayhoz]

again, a lot of definitive statements. what makes you so positive that what you're saying is true and the Daily News piece is dead wrong?

Nothing I have said contradicts the Daily News piece in any way.

[Wingack]

with all due respect, the articles coming out of the NY tabloids smell like spin/damage control

we just loved Hughes and the other kids too much to trade them...

we didn't really want to add another $150MM to payroll...

do you really think this stuff is credible?

When you add the two together, of course that is credible. If it wasn't an issue, Santana would be wearing pinstripes right now.

[Doctor G]

A guy who is a "stop gap for a year or two" sounds like a "spare part" to me.

See? We can both play this game!

The Twins have already had a Melky Cabrera, his name was Lew Ford.

[jon abbey]

do you really think this stuff is credible?

I don't know, I'm not the one making definitive statements about the situation. do I think the scenario in that Daily News piece is possible? definitely. I gave my take on what I think has happened from a NY perspective a page or two back, but clearly it's an educated guess, just like everyone else in this thread.

[TheoShmeo]

Is Santana with a 150million dollar contract > Hughes/Kennedy/Melky + 150 million, and is it equal to more wins over the next 6-10 years.

And if Santana doesn't get traded (as at the moment it looks like he wont') they can get Santana next year for just money.

To me, the financial considerations mean less with the Yankees as I don't think spending $150 mm on Santana will materially lesson their ability to deal with other needs in the future and that he is the kind of special player that their vast resources are meant to address. And I do think they'd win more with him and let's say Rowand in CF than they would with Hughes, Kennedy and Melky over the next several years. I can't deal with years 5-10 as there are too many other variables and it's just too far away to discuss meaningfully.

But I do agree that if Santana does not get traded, the Yankees will be a likely destination for just money (and draft picks) after the 2008 season, and that's one of the risks facing the Sox if they don't deal for and sign him now. By the Yankees not trading for him now, however, they run the risk that someone will swoop in like Detroit did yesterday with Cabrerra.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 05 December 2007 - 05:06 PM.

[jon abbey]

By the Yankees not trading for him now, however, they run the risk that someone will swoop in like Detroit did yesterday with Cabrerra.

the difference being that Santana has a full no-trade and has said he wants an extension before agreeing to go anywhere. he knows he can get something in the 6 years/$150 million range at least from the Yankees in the 2008 offseason, assuming he stays healthy and has another Santana-like year, so he has quite a bit of leverage in this situation also.

[bankshot1]

When you add the two together, of course that is credible. If it wasn't an issue, Santana would be wearing pinstripes right now.

the Y's best offer-Hughes, Melky + was turned down, they set a deadline, then extended it, and then when the Twins kept on shopping Santana, said they were out.

The articles this AM in the NY tabloids is pure spin/damage control.

[EvilEmpire]

Really? That's interesting because I respect your opinion. But I don't get it. Your team has a chance to add the best pitcher in baseball at something near or approaching his prime, and the deal gets held up because of Ian Kennedy? Why would that be - especially since your team is apparently parlaying its overwhelming financial advantage to be able to draft and/or sign at least one Ian Kennedy (and possibly one Phil Hughes) every year?

In addition, and this hasn't been mentioned before, locking up Santana gives them leverage in EVERY future negotiation they have in a trade or in free agency.

If he is lucky, Phil Hughes will become Santana. If he is lucky, Ian Kennedy will become Ron Darling. But if your team makes that trade, luck won't play a part anymore.

This is a fair question, and obviously not directed to me, but I'd like to take a stab at it anyway. The short answer (and obvious one) is that Hughes/Kennedy is too high a price. The Yankees won't include them for the same reason that the Sox won't deal Buchholz or Ellsbury/Lester. Too much to offer for a someone you are going to have to pay something around 6/120+. One big injury and the impact on the club is brutal -- even for a teams with resources like the Yankees and Sox.

Potential 2009 Rotations:

1. Santana/Wang/Chamberlain/ ? / ?
2. Santana/Hughes/Wang/Chamberlain/ ?
3. Hughes/Wang/Chamberlain/Kennedy/ ?

Rotation 1: One Ace and two big holes plus no certainty that Chamberlain will stick as a starter; financial flexibility may be limited due to big contract for Santana. If Santana gets injured, you might as well blow the rotation up and start over.
Bottom line: high risk, medium reward...Santana might not be enough to put the Yankees over the top in the playoffs with that rotation.

Rotation 2: One Ace, with another potential Ace; one hole, possibly two if Chamberlain doesn't stick. Limited financial flexibility but also the potential for two Aces. Some quality depth if Santana gets injured.
Bottom line: medium risk, strong potential for success in the playoffs; optimal deal from Yankee prespective

Rotation 3: One potential Ace; one or two holes depending on Chamberlain. Strong financial flexibility to go after another Ace or at least the best FA(s) available.
Bottom line: low risk, medium reward, strong potential for success dependant on FA pickups. Low potential cost of rotation may allow for flexibility to address other needs.

If I'm the Yankees, door #2 looks pretty damn good. Obviously tough to get Santana for Kennedy+ though.

What about the comparison between option #1 and option #3? With number 1 you might not have enough financial flexibility to patch the holes around Santana with enough quality to be effective. Particularly if Chamberlain doesn't stick. With option 3 you do. Much, much less risk. Not only for the rotation, but for other potential team needs. The savings from having cost controlled starting pitching is huge.

I can see why the Yankees rethought the Hughes part and pulled out. I hope they stick to it.

Btw, I think the same basic thought process works for Boston, but even better:

2009

1. Santana/Beckett/Buchholz/Matsuzaka/ ?
2. Beckett/Buchholz/Matsuzaka/Lester/ ?
3. Santana/Beckett/Buchholz/Matsuzaka/Lester

or

4. Santana/Beckett/Matsuzaka/Lester/ ?

Boston is doing great with any of the first three. Once you take Buchholz out though, the value vs risk starts to look a little sketchy. The Sox can actually afford to lose Buchholz more than the Yankees can Hughes, I think.

[jayhoz]

again, a lot of definitive statements. what makes you so positive that what you're saying is true and the Daily News piece is dead wrong?

Which definitive statements do feel are not facts?

1) Ian Kennedy not being offered?
2) The Twins and Yankees "negotiating in good faith"?
3) The Twins and Yankees not able to agree on a 3rd player?
4) The yankees were unwilling to add a 4th player?

Which is it? Because most of those items came from the Daily News article.

[jon abbey]

Which definitive statements do feel are not facts?

this was the main one:

"So yes the Twins do prefer the Red Sox offers."

I think that Pettitte's signing changed the situation drastically from NY's perspective, so lumping the negotiations before that and the negotiations after that together doesn't make much sense. before Pettitte came back, NY would have jumped on the deal allegedly offered in the Daily News piece in a heartbeat, but once he came back, I think they didn't want to give up Hughes anymore, so they essentially backed out from any deal that involved Hughes and Melky at all, they retreated from their own offer. how interested Minnesota was in those two plus other parts, we really don't know for sure.

anyway, this is a pretty dull debate, none of us know much for sure. it's just funny to me that you're so positive about things. can you let me know how this whole thing will end up, and save me a lot of time following it until then? thanks...

Edited by jon abbey, 05 December 2007 - 05:37 PM.

[ai000h]

I think at the end of the day, both teams are hoping for same thing, that Santana stays put or is traded to the NL.

[JKelley34]

Potential 2009 Rotations:

1. Santana/Wang/Chamberlain/ ? / ?
2. Santana/Hughes/Wang/Chamberlain/ ?
3. Hughes/Wang/Chamberlain/Kennedy/ ?

Rotation 1: One Ace and two big holes plus no certainty that Chamberlain will stick as a starter; financial flexibility may be limited due to big contract for Santana. If Santana gets injured, you might as well blow the rotation up and start over.
Bottom line: high risk, medium reward...Santana might not be enough to put the Yankees over the top in the playoffs with that rotation.

Rotation 2: One Ace, with another potential Ace; one hole, possibly two if Chamberlain doesn't stick. Limited financial flexibility but also the potential for two Aces. Some quality depth if Santana gets injured.
Bottom line: medium risk, strong potential for success in the playoffs; optimal deal from Yankee prespective

Rotation 3: One potential Ace; one or two holes depending on Chamberlain. Strong financial flexibility to go after another Ace or at least the best FA(s) available.
Bottom line: low risk, medium reward, strong potential for success dependant on FA pickups. Low potential cost of rotation may allow for flexibility to address other needs.

If I'm the Yankees, door #2 looks pretty damn good. Obviously tough to get Santana for Kennedy+ though.

What about the comparison between option #1 and option #3? With number 1 you might not have enough financial flexibility to patch the holes around Santana with enough quality to be effective. Particularly if Chamberlain doesn't stick. With option 3 you do. Much, much less risk. Not only for the rotation, but for other potential team needs. The savings from having cost controlled starting pitching is huge.

How is option #3 low risk? If anything that seems like the riskiest package of them all. You are pinning your championship hopes for a team with an aging Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Damon, Matsui and A-Rod on the backs of three starters in their second year of pitching. I would imagine if you polled Jeter, his championship hopes as his career winds down wouldn't be pinned on the hopes that three sub-25 pitchers, with limited track records were going to give his team 200+ IP each. Maybe you catch lighting in the bottle like the 2003 Marlins, but more likely than not, injury and ineffectiveness would crop up for at least one, if not 2 of the pitchers.

As for the financial flexability, the problem is that going forward your not going to see many high end starters hit free agency. This offseason we have Silva and Lohse, next year is better with Sabathia ($150MM+ contract) and Burnett/Sheets (Pavano redux?). Santana is quite possibly the surest thing that is available over the next 3-4 years, which considering the age of the Yankee superstars, I can imagine is the target timeframe for multiple championships.

[jayhoz]

this was the main one:

"So yes the Twins do prefer the Red Sox offers."

I think that Pettitte's signing changed the situation drastically from NY's perspective, so lumping the negotiations before that and the negotiations after that together doesn't make much sense. before Pettitte came back, NY would have jumped on the deal allegedly offered in the Daily News piece in a heartbeat, but once he came back, I think they didn't want to give up Hughes anymore, so they essentially backed out from any deal that involved Hughes and Melky at all, they retreated from their own offer. how interested Minnesota was in those two plus other parts, we really don't know for sure.

anyway, this is a pretty dull debate, none of us know much for sure. it's just funny to me that you're so positive about things. can you let me know how this whole thing will end up, and save me a lot of time following it until then? thanks...

I'll give you the preference for the Sox deal is speculative, but each and every other statement I have made are based on the very article you hold so dear. You might want to read the article before you call me out for contradicting it.

Edited by jayhoz, 05 December 2007 - 06:02 PM.

[EvilEmpire]

How is option #3 low risk? If anything that seems like the riskiest package of them all. You are pinning your championship hopes for a team with an aging Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Damon, Matsui and A-Rod on the backs of three starters in their second year of pitching. I would imagine if you polled Jeter, his championship hopes as his career winds down wouldn't be pinned on the hopes that three sub-25 pitchers, with limited track records were going to give his team 200+ IP each. Maybe you catch lighting in the bottle like the 2003 Marlins, but more likely than not, injury and ineffectiveness would crop up for at least one, if not 2 of the pitchers.

As for the financial flexability, the problem is that going forward your not going to see many high end starters hit free agency. This offseason we have Silva and Lohse, next year is better with Sabathia ($150MM+ contract) and Burnett/Sheets (Pavano redux?). Santana is quite possibly the surest thing that is available over the next 3-4 years, which considering the age of the Yankee superstars, I can imagine is the target timeframe for multiple championships.

The risk has nothing to with the team's championship hopes. That is the reward part. I associate the difference in risk between #1 and #3 based on having too much of the rotation tied up in the success of one guy and lack of financial flexibility. There are so many holes with option one that a bunch of coin will probably be spent beyond whatever Santana is paid.

FWIW, I agree that the Yankees won't see too many high end starters in free agency. Thats why I'm particularly concerned about option one -- there would be between two and three holes in the rotation depending on Chamberlain. In rotation three there are only one or two holes, and more money available to spend on it/them.

By 2009 the Yankees should have a pretty clear idea of what kind of career track these young guys are going to be on. I also don't see significant innings issues by then either.

As has been mentioned before, I think Pettitte coming back really gave Cashman the confidence to roll the dice and stand pat for next year.

[Rockin Robbin]

It's still a mistake for Boston to walk away and let this opportunity slip away. With Detroit improving and Cleveland and Anaheim all remaining competitive, there may be no Wild Card to fall back on for either New York or Boston in 2008. They may have to win the A.L East outright to make the playoffs and it may come down to the head-to-head meetings. Boston having Santana in the rotation would have put even more distance between themselves and New York-Cleveland-Detroit-Anaheim and made 2008 Boston vs. the rest of the American League. Now Boston is just bunched in with those teams as another A.L contender with as good a chance as anyone instead of being that elite team that every other contender is looking up too.

[jon abbey]

I'll give you the preference for the Sox deal is speculative, but each and every other statement I have made are based on the very article you hold so dear. You might want to read the article before you call me out for contradicting it.

I don't hold it "so dear", maybe it is just Yankee spin. if it is true, it pisses me off as a Yankee fan, I would have made that move in a second. the point is that we don't know almost anything for sure, there's been a ton of conflicting reports.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The risk has nothing to with the team's championship hopes. That is the reward part. I associate the difference in risk between #1 and #3 based on having too much of the rotation tied up in the success of one guy and lack of financial flexibility. There are so many holes with option one that a bunch of coin will probably be spent beyond whatever Santana is paid.

I don't usually do this, but let me lay out the two choices:

#1) Santana/Pettitte/Wang/Joba/etc.
#2)Pettitte/Hughes/Wang/Joba/Kennedy +$150M.

There are three reasons I think your argument for #2 is weaker. First, #1s are hard to come by and they do stablise the rotation. Second, Hughes has no less a chance to get injured as Santana. Third, as has been noted, financial flexibility isn't going to get you a lot over the next three or four years.

Over the next 3 or 4 years, I have to think that Santana is going to be MUCH better than Hughes. Maybe at that point, the MFYs would be able to get Hughes back as he approaches FA. So really, Kennedy is going to have to be a lot better over the short term than your average fifth starter to make this non-trade valuable to the MFYs, and I just don't see it.

[EvilEmpire]

I don't usually do this, but let me lay out the two choices:

#1) Santana/Pettitte/Wang/Joba/etc.
#2)Pettitte/Hughes/Wang/Joba/Kennedy +$150M.

There are three reasons I think your argument for #2 is weaker. First, #1s are hard to come by and they do stablise the rotation. Second, Hughes has no less a chance to get injured as Santana. Third, as has been noted, financial flexibility isn't going to get you a lot over the next three or four years.

Over the next 3 or 4 years, I have to think that Santana is going to be MUCH better than Hughes. Maybe at that point, the MFYs would be able to get Hughes back as he approaches FA. So really, Kennedy is going to have to be a lot better over the short term than your average fifth starter to make this non-trade valuable to the MFYs, and I just don't see it.

Argument #1: I agree that number one pitchers are hard to come by and that they do stabilize the rotation. It is risky though if the cost of Santana includes giving up two other cheap starters who will have to be replaced by others who likely cost more and who might be of lesser quality...after all, number one starters are hard to come by in FA. If #1s are hard to find it drives up the cost and competition for #2 and #3s. Having two such holes would be expensive. You have a challenge in getting both quantity and quality. That is riskier than just keeping a potential ace and trying to fill one hole with a quality FA.

Argument #2: I agree, Hughes has as much chance to be injured as Santana. Or any pitcher really. But Hughes won't be signed to a 120M+ contract. And you would still have Kennedy. One less hole to fill in what is going to be a difficult time regardless. And you also have more money to try and fill that gap with a FA.

Argument #3: Having more money available in a scarce market is better than not having more money in a scarce market. Beyond that, I still don't understand how rotation #1, which has more holes that need to be filled by free agents alleviates that problem.

If getting Santana opens up enough holes that are difficult to fill with quality FA pitchers, to the point where his ability to pitch every fifth day isn't enough to clearly put your team over the top in the regular season and playoffs...well, I don't think its a slam dunk.

The only other thing I would ask is why you think Pettitte will be back in 2009? I certainly agree that having him around would help. But I don't think the Yankees can count on that right now. Do you?

edit: I should have mentioned, the rotation #1 I was refering to is the one I orginally posted, not your #1. Same issue though. If you don't have Pettitte you have two holes for sure. Possibly three depending on Joba.

Edited by EvilEmpire, 05 December 2007 - 07:20 PM.

[jon abbey]

I agree that number one pitchers are hard to come by and that they do stabilize the rotation. It is risky though if the cost of Santana includes giving up two other cheap starters who will have to be replaced by others who likely cost more and who might be of lesser quality...after all, number one starters are hard to come by in FA. If #1s are hard to find it drives up the cost and competition for #2 and #3s. Having two such holes would be expensive. You have a challenge in getting both quantity and quality. That is riskier than just keeping a potential ace and trying to fill one hole with a quality FA.

you'd be trading two starters and getting back one, so that's only one additional hole to fill.

one thing people aren't really talking about so much is that losing Melky is a factor for NY in 2008. none of the ways of replacing him are especially acceptable, Jackson and Gardner aren't ready, the free agents will be expensive, and Damon playing there means Matsui goes back to LF and is more likely to get hurt again. this factors into NY's thinking to walk away from this deal also, rightly or wrongly.

[jobaksortiz]

The Yankees can't give up 2 pitching prospects unless its a Kennedy/Marquez(or Horne) type thing. No one is getting 2/3 of Joba, Hughes, and Kennedy. It createa another rotation hole to be filled by Mike Mussina who's running on fumes.

[yankeelurker]

you'd be trading two starters and getting back one, so that's only one additional hole to fill.

one thing people aren't really talking about so much is that losing Melky is a factor for NY in 2008. none of the ways of replacing him are especially acceptable, Jackson and Gardner aren't ready, the free agents will be expensive, and Damon playing there means Matsui goes back to LF and is more likely to get hurt again. this factors into NY's thinking to walk away from this deal also, rightly or wrongly.

Yanks can't play with Damon in CF and Matsui in LF the entire year. Offensively, it would be gangbusters, but I really like the Melkman's arm in CF. It saves runs, not just cutting runners down at the plate but more importantly stopping doubles on bloops to CF and especially stopping first to third on a single. I didn't know how bad Damon's arm was until I saw him throw live.

I don't think the Yanks get him. First off Cashman loves Hughes, it would then cost $150 million plus another $60 million for Aaron Rowand. That is a factor.

And on the spare part thing: A spare part is a piece of the trade that is interchangeable with other parts. It's not exactly needed or a deal breaker on either side. So, the minor league prospects talked about in the Yankees and Red Sox deals are in fact spare parts. The trade isn't built around them and they could be easily substituted. Melky and one of the Red Sox CFs appear to be needed to make the deal work. They are not spare parts.

Edited by yankeelurker, 05 December 2007 - 07:41 PM.

[EvilEmpire]

you'd be trading two starters and getting back one, so that's only one additional hole to fill.

one thing people aren't really talking about so much is that losing Melky is a factor for NY in 2008. none of the ways of replacing him are especially acceptable, Jackson and Gardner aren't ready, the free agents will be expensive, and Damon playing there means Matsui goes back to LF and is more likely to get hurt again. this factors into NY's thinking to walk away from this deal also, rightly or wrongly.

Yeah, my bad. I wasn't clear at all. I was thinking back to the orginal rotation #1 and #3 that I listed. If you take out Pettitte who isn't signed for 2009, you have the same issue with what WBCD posted. Two holes in #1 and one hole in #2. More if Joba doesn't stick.

With regards to Melky I agree that the real issue is that he holds more value for NY than anyone else.

Errors aside, I think its a lot more fun to examine different perspectives on cost/benefit analysis and levels of risk than it is to constantly bicker about which offer was better between Boston and New York and who Minnesota likes more. Sort of changes the tone to something at least marginally more productive.

[Manny10]

Yeah, my bad. I wasn't clear at all. I was thinking back to the orginal rotation #1 and #3 that I listed. If you take out Pettitte who isn't signed for 2009, you have the same issue with what WBCD posted. Two holes in #1 and one hole in #2. More if Joba doesn't stick.

With regards to Melky I agree that the real issue is that he holds more value for NY than anyone else.

Errors aside, I think its a lot more fun to examine different perspectives on cost/benefit analysis and levels of risk than it is to constantly bicker about which offer was better between Boston and New York and who Minnesota likes more. Sort of changes the tone to something at least marginally more productive.

This is the Critical line of reasoning the twins for all their budget saving ways just dont seem to get. in order to Obtain Santana every single team has to weigh not only the cost in terms of prospects and the cash required to extend him but they also need to basically rework their team in order to in a way offset that cost, and the more they linger holding out for the best deal the more teams are going to say you know what screw it im not going to let myself get in a position where im disregarding my current flaws and not correcting them, and then make my self even weaker by aquiring him and not having a chance too because the options once there jones, rowand, cameron to fill in center are no longer available because the twins were to cute.

[OCD SS]

I haven't seen it mentioned, but I do find it interesting as it puts some perspective on all the arguing done on behalf of prospects in this thread:

Jim Duquette formerly of the Red Sox, Mets, and O's was on the Michael Kay show and broke down what he thought of the various Yankee prospects (sadly, Kay did not ask for opinions on anybody on another team). He was passing on the takes by the O's scouts and how that organization perceived the players, he was not just giving his own opinion.

Joba: Fantastic stuff. Either a front of the rotation starter or top notch reliever.
Hughes: Really, really likes him. Sees him as a #2 or #3 starter.
Kennedy: Pretty good, a #4 or #5 starter, probably a 4.
Jackson: Didn't see him as he didn't spend enough time in AA.

The point of this is not to mock Duquette (we all know he has made some questionable judgments in the past) or to revamp the pissing match about who's prospects/ package is better; it's to consider that an entire MLB organization (granted not one the people in this thread happen to think that much of right now) has different rankings and evaluation than that dictated by popular wisdom. People in this thread should take that into account when they start flaming away.

[Bob420]

Completely off topic but does anyone know if that article on cbs news radio is hughes 2.50?

[Bob420]

Thanks.

[JKelley34]

Yeah, my bad. I wasn't clear at all. I was thinking back to the orginal rotation #1 and #3 that I listed. If you take out Pettitte who isn't signed for 2009, you have the same issue with what WBCD posted. Two holes in #1 and one hole in #2. More if Joba doesn't stick.

With regards to Melky I agree that the real issue is that he holds more value for NY than anyone else.

Errors aside, I think its a lot more fun to examine different perspectives on cost/benefit analysis and levels of risk than it is to constantly bicker about which offer was better between Boston and New York and who Minnesota likes more. Sort of changes the tone to something at least marginally more productive.

See, the entire problem with this logic is in scenario 1 you have backed yourself into the idea that if Joba doesn't stick then there is a hole to fill, but in scenario 3 you've made the assumption that both Hughes and Kennedy have already stuck.

There is a chance that Hughes, Kennedy, Joba become the three-headed monster that the Mets dreamed about, but there is probably a similar chance that all three wash out.

It is a similar choice to the one the Sox made w/r/t Pedro. Pavano and Armas Jr. were looked upon as young, cost-controlled studs, but the two for one for Pedro netted a far greater return. I am of the personal belief that elite talent is worth an overpay. Hey, its not like I'm going to complain if the Yanks don't get Santana. I just don't get the logic of putting a half a billion in new contracts for aging hitters on the books, but being unwilling to trade a couple of starters for the best pitcher in baseball. Seems like a misallocation of resources to me.

[86spike]

I have been thinking the same thing and it is probably why the Red Sox have not put a deadline on the Santana deal as of yet. If the Sox trade Crisp in a separate deal, a new package would have to be built around Lester that did not include Ellsbury. That is to say it would be highly unlikely they could even compete against the Mets for Santana let alone the Yankees.

The Yankees could then re-enter the picture and offer Kennedy, Melky, + for Santana. Or one of the packages already reported by various writers.

I don't think there's any way that the Twins can accept a package less than what they have already turned down. No way on earth. They could accept the same package they already turned down (in that case Hughes/Melky/Prospect) and spin it as 'we spent as much time as we could looking for the best package and in the end it was one of the first ones we saw and we are all thrilled... blah blah blah'... but they cannot take less than that. It would be a disaster for them and the only option at that point would be to hold Santana and hope they can move him in July.

Because of this... I really think Santana is moved soon. The question remains: will another team bite the bullet and swoop in (LAA, LAD, SEA, NYM).

[BronxBomber61]

I just don't get the logic of putting a half a billion in new contracts for aging hitters on the books, but being unwilling to trade a couple of starters for the best pitcher in baseball. Seems like a misallocation of resources to me.

Santana is not a sure fire slam dunk for the Yankees or the Red Sox. The Yankees could be better off counting on one of their three very promising young pitchers becoming an ace and the other two being decent middle of the Rotation pitchers. This would be better and cheaper then having a Santana that pitches like he has in the past and much better then a lesser Santana.

The same is true for the Red Sox, if Santana pitches like the ace he's been in the past the one two punch would be hard to beat but the huge contract of 150 million or more for Santana added to the other pitchers (Dice-K, Beckett's future contract) could strap them. And if Santana doesn't pitch as well with half his starts at Fenway it could turn out very bad, just think about the money Beckett would want if Santana pitches mediocre for 150 million.

I believe the Yankees and the Red Sox were worried more about the other team getting Santana then thinking about if this trade is really a smart thing to do.

[PooNani]

good old reliable murray chass

http://www.nytimes.c...b...&oref=login

The Yankees’ go-slow approach stems from their ambivalence over whether they want to keep Phil Hughes and a younger pitching prospect, Jeffrey Marquez, or have Santana pitch at the head of their rotation.

At one point, the Twins were said to be holding out for Hughes and Ian Kennedy, another of the Yankees’ attractive triumvirate of major league-ready young pitchers (the untouchable Joba Chamberlain being the third), but the Yankees wouldn’t give up both, so the Twins asked instead for Marquez, a 23-year-old right-hander.

Last season, his fourth in the minors, Marquez had a 15-9 record and 3.65 earned run average for Class AA Trenton.

A little background on Marquez: http://www.thebaseba...Marquez-1.shtml

A first round pick out of JC in 2004, he's made slow progress in developing command of his four pitches. In terms of raw stuff, he is extremely similar to Brandon Webb. From my own observations, his biggest issue is command of his curveball. At times when he is on he can rack up the Ks as well as groundballs (with a very good changeup and 90-95 sinker), but more often than not his curveball command is spotty. His strikeout rate dropped in AA, but his walk rate continues to improve. He has the upside to be a front-line type starter if he makes the correct adjustments, but its far from a sure thing. Kennedy is clearly a better prospect but his upside is not the same.

If the report is true, its going to come down to giving up Hughes. I'd rather play my cards with the youth rather than making another trade for a merc and throwing down another ridiculous contract....even if it means Boston getting Santana. I dont think Johan is as sure of a thing as some make him out to be going forward


edit: from the BA article back in June:

Jeff Marquez, rhp, Trenton

Marquez and Alan Horne both have the best pure stuff in the Trenton rotation, and no scout would go out on a limb to give either one an edge at this point. Marquez, a supplemental first-rounder in 2004, has a live arm that consistently produces 94-95 mph four-seamers. His sinker is even better, though both his curveball and changeup lag behind the other two offerings right now.

"He's got a real quick arm and works very fast, good rhythm," a scout from an American League club said. "His curveball is a little too soft, too loopy at times. He can really get around it and doesn't have the consistency you might think. But he's a power arm with an awful lot of upside. He could really be a groundball machine."

Through 65 innings for the Thunder, Marquez was 7-3, 2.62.

Alan Horne, rhp, Trenton

An 11th-round pick out of Florida, Horne has come into his own this season, dominating EL hitters and going 5-3, 2.67 with 75 strikeouts in 64 innings. The 24-year-old righthander can throw strikes with two plus pitches: a 92-96 mph fastball with excellent late life and a hard curveball. Horne's changeup has been his most improved pitch this season, and is a major reason why he was second in the EL in strikeouts.

"He can sometimes get a little too long in the back with his arm action--he'll fly open on the front side and the arm will drag behind," another scout from an AL club said. "But he's a very good arm with explosive life on the fastball and his changeup was one of the best ones I saw in that league this season."

Edited by PooNani, 26 December 2007 - 11:13 AM.