The Latest: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-santanaupdate120507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Boston Red Sox reaffirmed their status as the favorites to acquire Johan Santana as the team's top executives Wednesday evening warmed to the idea of trading for the Minnesota Twins ace mere hours questioning the merits of the deal, a source close to the situation said. Red Sox executives, and particularly general manager Theo Epstein, had blanched at giving up four players and paying Santana more than of $20 million a year, the type of contract he will demand to waive his no-trade clause. With the New York Yankees claiming they had dropped out of the Santana sweepstakes, the Red Sox also considered whether it was prudent to give up pitcher Jon Lester or center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, the proposed centerpieces of the deal. Internal discussion has affirmed that it is, though there is no timetable on the talks, and they could well last past baseball's winter meetings, which end following the Rule 5 draft Thursday morning. The parameters of the trade have not changed, according to the source, with Lester heading a package that also would include center fielder Coco Crisp and minor-league pitcher Justin Masterson and infielder Jed Lowrie. Seattle briefly emerged as a candidate, center fielder Adam Jones and pitcher Brandon Morrow the main chips in the Mariners' offer, but talks there have stagnated, as they did with the Los Angeles Angels. The Red Sox, meanwhile, have weighed the implications of Santana's salary demands and seem ready to move forward. Santana, a two-time Cy Young award winner, would join a rotation with this year's Cy Young runner-up, Josh Beckett, Curt Schilling, Daisuke Matsuzaka and either Tim Wakefield or Clay Buchholz, the right-hander Boston has refused to include in any trade negotiations.
It keeps coming down to one thing with Santana. Is he worth Arod money over the next 7 years? That's pretty much what he wants. He will appear in a total of maybe 33 games. He won't even finish one of them. If he is lucky as he will be in the AL east he may win 20 of them. Now compare that to a Hughes or maybe even a Lester. Certainly Hughes should win at least 15 games. So you are willing to pay 25 million dollars a year for 5 extra wins? Commit to that for 7 years when he could go down for good in his first start? That's why the Twins don't have a line at their door and why he is even on the block to begin with. Money isn't the issue with the Twins, it's the length of the deal that he wants. Absolutely nobody gives pitchers 7 year deals.
So, Epstein doesn't want him either. Just like Cashman. I guess he has been ordered to continue with this by Henry.
I read this morning that Santana was a rule 5 draft player. Talk about stepping in shit. I wonder what team exposed him and let that happen.
Sometimes I wonder if we are reading the same articles....I don;t know where your interpretations come from..:grin: Anyway, the way I see it is this..Jon Lester is roughly a 15 game winner next year. Santana wins 19-20. That's a 4 or 5 game difference. Losing Ellsbury makes about a 3 or 4 game difference, IMO. This makes the deal unappealing to me. I think the Yanks feel the same about Hughes and Kennedy...At best, the gain 5 games with Santana...at worst, their starting staff has injuries, and instead of having Hughes and Kennedy to step up, they have some unkown pitchers step in, and that could cost them dearly if they don't find the right pitchers....so the risk seems greater than the reward. Just my take on things.
uhh..it was plain as day. How do you interpret this? "Red Sox executives, and particularly general manager Theo Epstein, had blanched at giving up four players and paying Santana more than of $20 million a year, the type of contract he will demand to waive his no-trade clause." Or did you post it and not even bother to read it yourself?
It's not the reg season games that matter, at lost not for the Sox. A 4-5 game diff btw Letser and Santana w/ a 3-4 gamedifference losing Ellsbury isn't what the deal is about It's about postseason and having another shutdown arm. So you might win 95 instead of 100- who cares as long a you win in october and facing beckett and Santana is about as tough as it gets.
They just reported on the news that the Yankees are now saying they'd be willing to part with some established veterans such as Matsui or Damon for Santana. Umm, I love the Yankees, but this is just ridiculous. Not that it would be bad to trade those guys for Santana, but who in their right mind would take that trade? Even if you packaged Damon, Matsui, AND Giambi it wouldn't even be CLOSE to Santana's value. Unless they're just toying with Minny now. It's time to just stop though. Let it go, and let's move on.
They are not trying to trade those guys to Minny for Santana, they are exploring trading them to free up salary so they could then get Santana. Apparently Minny was willing to accept a Kennedy-less deal but the Yanks backed out after Andy's $16 mil returned. They are looking to shed some payroll before going back after Santana.
Ahh, gotcha. Also, it wasn't Matsui, I misheard it the first time, it was Moose that they said. I still say forget Santana. I want Hughes here.
how bout Moose for santana straight up? I think its fair......Ill throw in andy phillips too if it means getting the deal done
You know what, if they would take it, I'd even be generous and throw in Giambi as a "thank you" gift.
It could be written in the deal that Giambi is not part of the deal, which could make the Twins happy to see.
What news was that? I guess that means they would be paying their entire salary and then some. Which the league would never approve. That must have been Mad magazine news.
I think they all have no trade clauses. They tried to trade Giambi last winter and he flat out refused. Damon is willing to be traded if he isn't going to play and Moose..who knows? If they tell him he will be pitching long relief he would probably ok a deal too. Of course if they trade Damon and Cabrerra they will need to go out and buy a CF which negates any money they save.
