Steve Phillips on Mike and Mike: What the Sox *might* offer for Santana

[JoeSixPat]

Phillips suggested that the Sox might offer Lester, Buchholz, and Ellsbury to land Santana, on the grounds that Beckett-Santana-Matsuzaka-Schilling-Wakefield would be well nigh unstoppable.

Does this sound logical to anyone else? Personally, I don't buy it, mainly because the Sox would basically be screwing themselves over in 2009 and 2010 for an increased chance of winning in 2008.

I'm sure they made clear that they would not trade any players without a long-term Santana contract... is that what you mean by "screwing" the team in 2009 & 10? Because you can take that out of the equation - it wouldn't happen that way.

What you would have is a sure fire starting rotation that barring injury would virtually assure the Sox a playoff position for the next several years.

Getting A-Rod gives you no such assurance, though you don't need to give up players to get A-Rod (aside from the money you no longer have to spend).

I agree Ellsbury would likely be the sticking point - I doubt that Theo would hesitate to trade two potential starters for one sure fire, Cy Young caliber starter. Substitute Crisp and there might be a deal.

And as far as Bucholtz and Lester developing into great pitchers a few years down the road, by that point Minn. won't be able to keep them and we can just trade back for them!

Now if we wind up keeping them - while they are big "ifs" and might wind up with too many innings to play in the playoffs next season (they are still young and this team is cautious as they were with Bucholtz this season) - having them both might open up the potential for a 6 man rotation - which would help Shilling and the young kids and keep everyone hopefully healthy going into the playoffs.

So frankly I like BOTH scenarios, but am surprised folks so quickly discount trading for a sure fire Cy Young guy like Santana... then again I suspect there were a lot of people who didn't want to give up young potential talent on the Celtics this season who were opposed to Kevin Garnett coming here as well.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think you're exaggerating Santana's current status and ignoring the fact he's a one year rental.

I'd be shocked if there's any serious baseball executive executive or writer who has suggested that Santana's going to fetch anything on the trade market without agreeing to a long term extension.

Santana is being talked about as trade bait in the context that he will sign a contract extension along with the deal.

Scott Kazmir of Tampa Bay however might be someone available for fewer players and without a long term extension immediately as he still has 3 more years left. That might be worth something looking into.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm sure they made clear that they would not trade any players without a long-term Santana contract... is that what you mean by "screwing" the team in 2009 & 10? Because you can take that out of the equation - it wouldn't happen that way.

What you would have is a sure fire starting rotation that barring injury would virtually assure the Sox a playoff position for the next several years.

I was referring to the fact that you're getting a guy that will definitely help you in 2008, but deprive you of the guys (i.e., Lester and Buchholz) who would be in the roster in 2009, 2010, and beyond. I don't see Schilling sticking around much longer, and even Wakefield is much closer to the end of his career than the start.

Now if we wind up keeping them - while they are big "ifs" and might wind up with too many innings to play in the playoffs next season (they are still young and this team is cautious as they were with Bucholtz this season) - having them both might open up the potential for a 6 man rotation - which would help Shilling and the young kids and keep everyone hopefully healthy going into the playoffs.

I have no personal problem with a six-man rotation . . . if you've got six good-to-great pitchers to work with

 

[JoeSixPat]

I was referring to the fact that you're getting a guy that will definitely help you in 2008, but deprive you of the guys (i.e., Lester and Buchholz) who would be in the roster in 2009, 2010, and beyond. I don't see Schilling sticking around much longer, and even Wakefield is much closer to the end of his career than the start.



I have no personal problem with a six-man rotation . . . if you've got six good-to-great pitchers to work with

Yes - but I expect that we'll see a continuation of Theo's formula (recognizing he didn't trade for Beckett and was actually against the trade) of continuing to invest in young player development and then trading "potential" players for sure fire pitchers.

So by 2009 and 2010 we'll be in a position to trade for the young proven pitchers and other players - giving up multiple "potential" players in return.

Will some of them develop into All Stars? Yup - so get used to it. And when their salaries get too big and they hit their peak we'll trade back for them with the other young players we've developed.

It's a nice system that gives us proven players in return for potential - it just requires fans to accept the fact that, yes, we do have to give up quality to get quality - and that we can't simply trade crappy players for proven ones.

 

[Foley]

I agree Ellsbury would likely be the sticking point - I doubt that Theo would hesitate to trade two potential starters for one sure fire, Cy Young caliber starter. Substitute Crisp and there might be a deal.

I doubt any potential Santana trade with Boston would happen without Ellsbury being included. I'd think they'd be more likely to accept a trade without Buccholz than accept a trade without Ellsbury, considering they have a much bigger need for hitting talent that they do for pitching talent (although I doubt they'd accept a trade without both considering what the Dodgers could offer).

Francisco Liriano, Matt Garza, Kevin Slowey, Glen Perkins, and Scott Baker are all on par or better than Lester at this point in their careers, making him little more than a throw-in in a trade for Santana. And while no team would ever pass up quality SP talent, when they're trading away someone like Santana they want to get something in return that they don't already have a stockpile of.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I'd be shocked if there's any serious baseball executive executive or writer who has suggested that Santana's going to fetch anything on the trade market without agreeing to a long term extension.

I see your point. I'm just not buying that Santana signs an extension. He likes Minnesota and has a reason to sign an extension with them. He has little reason to pass up free agency and sign with another team he doesn't know. Next year he can choose where he goes and get paid more.

I agree that it makes sense with an extension. I just don't agree we should start with that assumption.

 

[Real World]

Any deal for Santana would have to be made with a negotiating window in mind. No one is going to give up their best prospects for a 1 year rental. If there is no window, then the price will come down.

As for Kazmir, he'll cost more than Santana. He's 4-5 years younger, is still a service year player with 3 more years of control, and hasn't even hit his prime yet.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I doubt any potential Santana trade with Boston would happen without Ellsbury being included. I'd think they'd be more likely to accept a trade without Buccholz than accept a trade without Ellsbury, considering they have a much bigger need for hitting talent that they do for pitching talent (although I doubt they'd accept a trade without both considering what the Dodgers could offer).

Francisco Liriano, Matt Garza, Kevin Slowey, Glen Perkins, and Scott Baker are all on par or better than Lester at this point in their careers, making him little more than a throw-in in a trade for Santana. And while no team would ever pass up quality SP talent, when they're trading away someone like Santana they want to get something in return that they don't already have a stockpile of.

I don't think anyone gives up a starting pitcher like Santana without getting multiple young pitchers in return... but hey, if you're right and they are willing to let Santana go and not take an additinonal top prospect - DO IT!

Good bats are always easier to find than excellent pitchers. If the Twins GM had a momentary lapse of reason we'd definitely take advantage of him.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Any deal for Santana would have to be made with a negotiating window in mind. No one is going to give up their best prospects for a 1 year rental. If there is no window, then the price will come down.

As for Kazmir, he'll cost more than Santana. He's 4-5 years younger, is still a service year player with 3 more years of control, and hasn't even hit his prime yet.

I'm not sure if his price will be higher than Santana's.... Santana's accomplishments are, shall we say slightly more impressive than Kazmir's - but all the reasons you mentioned is why he's an attractive alternative.

 

[Foley]

I don't think anyone gives up a starting pitcher like Santana without getting multiple young pitchers in return... but hey, if you're right and they are willing to let Santana go and not take an additinonal top prospect - DO IT!

Good bats are always easier to find than excellent pitchers. If the Twins GM had a momentary lapse of reason we'd definitely take advantage of him.

I don't expect them to do a trade that doen't net them top prospects, I just think that Ellsbury is more attractive to them than Buchholz (but I doubt they'd do a trade without both). Would they like more young pitching talent? Of course, everyone would. But adding to a deficit is better than adding to a surplus.

The fact is, if the Dodgers make a serious push for Santana any offer they make would blow Bostons out of the water, unless Boston includes both Buchholz and Ellsbury. A trade can't get done with Boston trading away only one top prospect.