Red Sox Leading For Santana?
mercurynut
Posts: 3,207
in Sports Talk
Would you pull the tigger on this trade if its true?
Red Sox Leading For Santana?
Shooter Charley Walters is back with a new column of rumors and whatnot. Remember, Walters was the one saying the Garza for Delmon rumor wouldn't die.
Despite the exclusion of Jacoby Ellsbury, Walters says the Red Sox have the lead in the Johan Santana sweepstakes. The package would be Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, Jon Lester, and Justin Masterson. Not a bad haul. I was thinking Lowrie might become a target of the Twins.
The following clubs are interested in Carlos Silva: Tigers, Mets, Phillies, and Royals. None of those teams are new.
The amount of cash each club is getting this year for online media properties like MLB.com sites: $25MM. And don't forget the Twins get about $20MM in revenue sharing. Maybe that's why they have interest in Aaron Rowand.
Red Sox Leading For Santana?
Shooter Charley Walters is back with a new column of rumors and whatnot. Remember, Walters was the one saying the Garza for Delmon rumor wouldn't die.
Despite the exclusion of Jacoby Ellsbury, Walters says the Red Sox have the lead in the Johan Santana sweepstakes. The package would be Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, Jon Lester, and Justin Masterson. Not a bad haul. I was thinking Lowrie might become a target of the Twins.
The following clubs are interested in Carlos Silva: Tigers, Mets, Phillies, and Royals. None of those teams are new.
The amount of cash each club is getting this year for online media properties like MLB.com sites: $25MM. And don't forget the Twins get about $20MM in revenue sharing. Maybe that's why they have interest in Aaron Rowand.
0
Comments
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>Red Sox are now frontrunner's in the race:
The Twins would receive four players for the Twins' two-time Cy Young Award winner, including center fielder Coco Crisp, 28. Others would be shortstop prospect Jed Lowry, 23; left-handed pitcher Jon Lester, 23; and right-handed pitcher Justin Masterson, 22. Before a deal could be made, the Red Sox would have to have time to negotiate a contract extension with Santana, 28, who can become a free agent after next season and could have a market value as high as $150 million over six years. >>
Hate to see Lester go
<< <i>Would you pull the tigger on this trade if its true? >>
I'd pull the trigger, but only if there was a 72-hour window in which we could negotiate a contract extension. It's not worth it for a one year deal.
I think Bucholz has more talent and more command than lester, so if im the twins i'd rather have him. Lester is still a highly prized pitcher and any deal won't be a cheap one. CoCo is gone with any one of them though, I don't think the sox will give Ellsbury up to anyone.
The angels may end up being the best suitor for MN as they have extra starters (with experience) and a bevy of young prospects and sophmores that they are willing to trade.
The Yankees in my opinion should be the ones emptying their pockets and sending a package to MN, since their starters are HIGHLY suspect for 2008.
(Little bits and pieces quoted from Jerry McGuire! )
cuba gooding Jr. just rolled over in his grave....
(No, he isn't dead, but his career is)
<< <i>With all the crap I have said over the years about the Yankees and their payroll, I already have and will say again that Ive got NO problem with Boston becoming the biggest spenders now, were global now-worldwide. We have come to play!
(Little bits and pieces quoted from Jerry McGuire! ) >>
We liked it better when you acted poor
<< <i>You guys are talking about Johan Santana, right? You honestly wouldn't deal Jacoby Ellsbury and Lester/Bucholz for Johan Santana? I find that hard to believe. You're talking about guys that hardly have any MLB experience for probably the top pitcher in the game. What do you think is a fair deal-Crisp, Lester and a prospect? If the Twins do this, they need their head(s) examined. >>
Im not saying I would do it if I was the Twins
The way baseball is these days, it's a race to see who can spend the most money. Sure the Marlins or Twins may win a series every 3-4 years but all other years, it's the big 5 spenders. Thankfully the NFL has a salary cap. That keeps the Dan Snyders from buying every good player in the league. I guess that's why football has surpassed baseball as the national pastime.
<< <i>
<< <i>You guys are talking about Johan Santana, right? You honestly wouldn't deal Jacoby Ellsbury and Lester/Bucholz for Johan Santana? I find that hard to believe. You're talking about guys that hardly have any MLB experience for probably the top pitcher in the game. What do you think is a fair deal-Crisp, Lester and a prospect? If the Twins do this, they need their head(s) examined. >>
Im not saying I would do it if I was the Twins
Ellsbury is only 3 years younger than Santana. I recall a few former 'five tool studs':
-Ruben Rivera (mid 90s Yankees)
-J.D. Drew (current Sox)
-Jason Bay
There are plenty more. I'm a Yankees fan. I say give up Hughes or Kennedy, Cabrera, and a prospect. I would much rather take the sure thing, as opposed to possible future potential. It's a win now mentality with Boston and New York and whoever gets him will have a huge advantage over the other.
<< <i>Ellsbury is only 3 years younger than Santana. I recall a few former 'five tool studs':
-Ruben Rivera (mid 90s Yankees)
-J.D. Drew (current Sox)
-Jason Bay
There are plenty more. I'm a Yankees fan. I say give up Hughes or Kennedy, Cabrera, and a prospect. I would much rather take the sure thing, as opposed to possible future potential. It's a win now mentality with Boston and New York and whoever gets him will have a huge advantage over the other. >>
You're right that Ellsbury isn't that much younger than Santana, but it's more like a 4 1/2 year difference. Ellsbury turned 24 in September. Santana will be 29 in March.
And you're also right that there are plenty of prospects that don't pan out long term so getting Santana for a handful of what-ifs would be a huge lift for any team. I just don't think Santana is worth some of these top notch prospects without some assurance that the team that gets him won't just be renting him for the 2008 season. If something can't be worked out long term, Santana won't go to the Red Sox because it's against their "Theo-ology" to prioritize one year over another year which is exactly what they'd be doing if they traded away the future for Santana in '08.
Isn't anyone else getting sick and tired of this? I mean, how much freakin' money do you need?
If you are making 4, 5, 6, 7 Million $ a year, how much more do you need? And....what do you
need it for? So you can pound your chest and say look at me! I am the highest paid blah blah blah.
Don't get me wrong, I think a guy should go for whatever the fools will pay, but......
I was a HUGE fan of Hunter and now, I hope he fails miserably. Same thing for Santana. There is
NO loyalty from these guys, so, I have no loyalty to them. I hope they all fall flat on their face.
Santana has been kind of a cry-baby lately anyway. I have a sense that these guys just don't
care about anything but money.
Hunter had a couple years (Even with his gold glove won in those years) that he stunk up the
Metrodome when he batted.
Sorry folks, I am not bitter about losing them, I am just bitter at the way Baseball is progressing.
No loyalty to a city, a team or fans, all they care about is how much money they can get!
Tony
<< <i>
<< <i>Ellsbury is only 3 years younger than Santana. I recall a few former 'five tool studs':
-Ruben Rivera (mid 90s Yankees)
-J.D. Drew (current Sox)
-Jason Bay
There are plenty more. I'm a Yankees fan. I say give up Hughes or Kennedy, Cabrera, and a prospect. I would much rather take the sure thing, as opposed to possible future potential. It's a win now mentality with Boston and New York and whoever gets him will have a huge advantage over the other. >>
You're right that Ellsbury isn't that much younger than Santana, but it's more like a 4 1/2 year difference. Ellsbury turned 24 in September. Santana will be 29 in March.
And you're also right that there are plenty of prospects that don't pan out long term so getting Santana for a handful of what-ifs would be a huge lift for any team. I just don't think Santana is worth some of these top notch prospects without some assurance that the team that gets him won't just be renting him for the 2008 season. If something can't be worked out long term, Santana won't go to the Red Sox because it's against their "Theo-ology" to prioritize one year over another year which is exactly what they'd be doing if they traded away the future for Santana in '08. >>
exactly! NO WAY the Sox trade prospects for Santana without a long-term contract for Santana agreed upon within 2-3 days of the trade being announced...it would be a certain dealbreaker.
I'm really not sure and was wondering what everyone thinks.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would you pull the tigger on this trade if its true? >>
I'd pull the trigger, but only if there was a 72-hour window in which we could negotiate a contract extension. It's not worth it for a one year deal. >>
The Sox definitely should pull the trigger on that one. I hate to see Lester go, but having Santana in the fold would be awesome.
You're right though... no way this gets done without an extension for Santana.
<< <i>Which is a better deal for the Twins - Bucholz and Ellsbury OR Hughes and Cabrera?
I'm really not sure and was wondering what everyone thinks. >>
not sure either at that level. Money makes a difference to MN, so maybe the Sox players as Cabrera is closer than any of the other players to arbitration $?
Bosox1976
<< <i>Which is a better deal for the Twins - Bucholz and Ellsbury OR Hughes and Cabrera?
I'm really not sure and was wondering what everyone thinks. >>
I think that Ellsbury and Bucholz would my choice, I think Ellsbury is going to be alot better than Cabrera. Not thinking with my heart I just think Jacoby has more to offer. Hughes might be a better "prototypical" pitcher IE: his size might make him more of a workhorse? But Im not big on pitching prospects as much as young fielding players and I like Ellsbury over Cabrera.. just my 2 cents!
<< <i>
<< <i>Which is a better deal for the Twins - Bucholz and Ellsbury OR Hughes and Cabrera?
I'm really not sure and was wondering what everyone thinks. >>
I think that Ellsbury and Bucholz would my choice, I think Ellsbury is going to be alot better than Cabrera. Not thinking with my heart I just think Jacoby has more to offer. Hughes might be a better "prototypical" pitcher IE: his size might make him more of a workhorse? But Im not big on pitching prospects as much as young fielding players and I like Ellsbury over Cabrera.. just my 2 cents! >>
That's a fair analysis. I think most of us agree that while Melky is a very good player while Ellsbury looks ultra special. Hughes has the look of a future number 1, but then pitchers are such a crap shoot. Still a tough call.
<< <i>With all the crap I have said over the years about the Yankees and their payroll, I already have and will say again that Ive got NO problem with Boston becoming the biggest spenders now, were global now-worldwide. We have come to play!
(Little bits and pieces quoted from Jerry McGuire! ) >>
Oh man is it ever getting DEEP up in beantown. Y'all just see how QUICKLY it becomes OKEY friggen DOKEY to BUY a team when it is your own team doing it?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Which is a better deal for the Twins - Bucholz and Ellsbury OR Hughes and Cabrera?
I'm really not sure and was wondering what everyone thinks. >>
No brainer, Bucholz and Ellsbury, hands down. Both have proven themselves at every level - even at the MLB level (short term). Hughes and Melky will be good, but the two from the Sox are going to be something special - which is why they are probably untouchable.
<< <i>
<< <i>With all the crap I have said over the years about the Yankees and their payroll, I already have and will say again that Ive got NO problem with Boston becoming the biggest spenders now, were global now-worldwide. We have come to play!
(Little bits and pieces quoted from Jerry McGuire! ) >>
Oh man is it ever getting DEEP up in beantown. Y'all just see how QUICKLY it becomes OKEY friggen DOKEY to BUY a team when it is your own team doing it?
Yes realizing its the only way to compete fairly with teams in your division makes it "Okey Dokey"
<< <i>
Yes realizing its the only way to compete fairly with teams in your division makes it "Okey Dokey"
nah ... the Red Sox are gluttonous big market slobs and it has everything to do with their ownership. That excuse Paul is just the cannon fodder you all would like us to believe so it does not make all of you hypocrites for getting on Yankee spending for so long. I have no problem with it. I would like for teams with ownership with ALOT more money then George Steinbrenner has to step up. But please, stop the charade that you guys are somehow the "good guys" for having single players on your team which dwarfs other teams entire payrolls.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Coughing up Hughes and Caberra is a hefty price to pay, though (in addition to the $25 mil per year for a pitcher).
<< <i>
Coughing up Hughes and Caberra is a hefty price to pay, though (in addition to the $25 mil per year for a pitcher). >>
Suuuure it is. During the stretch run this year when the Yanks were playing well I read so many comments from Sox fans and Yankee haters alike about how Hughes had done nothing yet to be considered such a great prospect and how that he was over rated just like all young players from the big bad media market. Now, all of the sudden, its a STEEP price to pay, etc. Hell, in one place I read a Sox fan barf out that the Yanks "Just coughed up the golden nugget of their farm system". The same thing would be said if Joba Chamberlain were in this spot and not Hughes.
Sox fans gobble up the propaganda and slurp down the media koolaide just as well as anybody. Like the Pide Piper.
Bottom line here is that Santana is CERTAINLY one of the best starters in baseball. If you have the opportunity to get him for kids then YOU DO IT. If this happens the Pied Piper will start playing a song for all the willing to gobble up fans about how it does not matter that Santanna is only 28. He has pitched sooooo many innings he must be ready to break down. And so, Sox fans bellies will be full once again
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Santana
Wang
Chamberlain
Kennedy
Mussina
Pettitte (hopefully)
...is pretty dam good.
We'll lose a decent bat and an excellent defensive centerfielder in Cabrera (ouch). I'm not sure how we'll fill that gap.
I wouldnt be at all surprised if Santana doesnt go anywhere. After Hunter's departure, Twins made a pretty significant trade getting 2 good players from the Rays. Twins traded a starting pitcher in that deal. With Liriano coming back, Twins have a shot of playoffs. I dont understand why they would let go of Santana before mid season....unless of course it was THAT sweet of a deal.
I would like to see the Yanks pull out of this one. Let the Twins keep Santana. That way, they can keep Hughes and Cabrera and hope that Santana ends his season with the Twins. Go after him in free agency.
Any team that goes after Santana now loses twice. They lose top prospects AND in the trade, Santana will demand what they are saying is a 6 year, 150 million dollar extention. So pay the money and lose the prospects. No thanks.
As much as I like Ian Kennedy, he would be the one to trade. Control power pitchers are the most successful right now. Hughes fits that, Kennedy doesnt. Kennedy is a VERY good control pitcher but isnt throwing a 96/98 mph fastball. Kennedy will be consistant though and make an excellent 2nd/3rd starter.
Rumor is that A's are making Dan Haren available. Haren will be had for much less than Santana and is very effective. Not only that...6 years for a pitcher? Yikes. That has Carl Pavano and Kevin Brown written all over it.
That is all. Carry on, please.
<< <i>Suuuure it is. During the stretch run this year when the Yanks were playing well I read so many comments from Sox fans and Yankee haters alike about how Hughes had done nothing yet to be considered such a great prospect and how that he was over rated just like all young players from the big bad media market. Now, all of the sudden, its a STEEP price to pay, etc. Hell, in one place I read a Sox fan barf out that the Yanks "Just coughed up the golden nugget of their farm system". The same thing would be said if Joba Chamberlain were in this spot and not Hughes. >>
For what it's worth, I agree with you about the trade. I would trade Hughes and Cabrera for Santana too. My only question for the Yankees would then be about the situation in Center Field this year. Cabrera is clearly a better option defensively than Damon is (mainly because of that "arm") and he's young enough that you could legitimately expect Cabrera's offensive prowess to improve over the next couple years. There have also been some rumblings about Damon being shopped around by the Yankees. Has all that changed with Hunter signing with the Angels?
<< <i>I would like to see the Yanks pull out of this one. Let the Twins keep Santana. That way, they can keep Hughes and Cabrera and hope that Santana ends his season with the Twins. Go after him in free agency. >>
But what if we pull out, and instead Boston makes the deal (and you know they will up their deal because it would be a knockout blow to the Yanks). Then we're dead ducks. As much as I'm having reservations about this whole thing I think we have to act now.
But hey, if they pick up Aaron Rowand after getting Santana, it's a great trade, except for having to overpay to extend Santana's contract. But the Yanks will get to jack up ticket prices in the new stadium, so they will be swimming in cash.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes realizing its the only way to compete fairly with teams in your division makes it "Okey Dokey"
nah ... the Red Sox are gluttonous big market slobs and it has everything to do with their ownership. That excuse Paul is just the cannon fodder you all would like us to believe so it does not make all of you hypocrites for getting on Yankee spending for so long. I have no problem with it. I would like for teams with ownership with ALOT more money then George Steinbrenner has to step up. But please, stop the charade that you guys are somehow the "good guys" for having single players on your team which dwarfs other teams entire payrolls.
Nah...right back atcha Dan. Yes the Red Sox are big market slobs now no doubt. BUT you have to agree the Yankees brought this type of behavior to the table first, we followed suite did we not?
Nathan is no "toss in"! He's one of the top relievers of the game...for Ellsbury??? Please tell me that was sarcasm!
<< <i>"toss in Nathan"???? You are kidding, right???
Nathan is no "toss in"! He's one of the top relievers of the game...for Ellsbury??? Please tell me that was sarcasm! >>
Yep that is what it would take for me to give up a future 5 tool guy. Its not like the Twins aren't asking for the moon already. I am begining to thing Danny haren would fit The Sox better in the long run.
<< <i>
<< <i>"toss in Nathan"???? You are kidding, right???
Nathan is no "toss in"! He's one of the top relievers of the game...for Ellsbury??? Please tell me that was sarcasm! >>
Yep that is what it would take for me to give up a future 5 tool guy. Its not like the Twins aren't asking for the moon already. I am begining to thing Danny haren would fit The Sox better in the long run. >>
Asking for the moon? You have to give up 'potential' talent to get talent. You guys talk about Ellsbury like he's the next Willie Mays...
<< <i>If the Red Sox have to throw in Ellsbury then I would except if the Twins also toss in Nathan. We might as well ask for something as long as we can sign them both for a few years. >>
While you're at it, the Twins should probably throw in Morneau. Oh, that's right, you don't need him. Youkilis is much better...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"toss in Nathan"???? You are kidding, right???
Nathan is no "toss in"! He's one of the top relievers of the game...for Ellsbury??? Please tell me that was sarcasm! >>
Yep that is what it would take for me to give up a future 5 tool guy. Its not like the Twins aren't asking for the moon already. I am begining to thing Danny haren would fit The Sox better in the long run. >>
Asking for the moon? You have to give up 'potential' talent to get talent. You guys talk about Ellsbury like he's the next Willie Mays... >>
Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, Jon Lester, and Justin Masterson seem like a lot of talent to me.