The St. Paul Pioneer Press is reporting that Santana could be traded to the Sox "within days". http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Report-Santana-trade-could-come-within-days?urn=mlb,58580
A Santana deal could happen after New Years http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Headlines.aspx?sport=MLB&hl=227835
According to the New York Times, the Twins have lessened their demands for Johan Santana and are no longer asking for Ian Kennedy along with Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera.
Just saw that:sad: Something gives me a bad feeling about this, as I can easily see Hank accepting this deal. Don't get me wrong, I would love Santana, but there's something about getting younger that I like a little better for the Yanks.
It looks more like the Twins are having a problem with the Yankees walking away. It's dropping Santana's value to the Sox. They don't need him, and they face a potential PR nightmare by trading Ellsbury, who the Twins almost surely covet. If the Yankees don't stay in the game, the Twins are basically going to be stuck keeping him, or getting almost nothing in return. The Yankees need to hold tight to Hughes, Kennedy, and Joba. F Santana. Yeah, he's a nice addition, but as I've said repeatedly, it's about the future. The Red Sox have the pieces falling together to be competitive for years into the future. If we don't get much younger, very quickly, we're going to be watching them win titles for the forseeable future. Plus, I've just got this nagging feeling like last year was not a fluke for Johan. This could be the kind of trade we're still talking about 10 years from now. And not in a good way.
it can also be a trade that we look at 6 years from now and say" why the fuck didnt we get Johan when we had the chance" you just dont know...its a toughy no doubt....Im still leaning slightly towards wanting the trade to happen...
Johan Santana is a given commodity for 5 years or so. Phil Hughes is something between Roger Clemens and Carl Pavano. Statistically, it would be silly to not trade Hughes and prospects for Santana.
I guess then it depends on your faith in Hughes. I think the range between one of the most successful pitchers in baseball history, and a fragile, average-at-best pitcher is a little extreme. That's really best case/worst case. I think Hughes will be no worse than a #2 starter and Kennedy no worse than a #4. Throw in Chamberlain, and a deeper than most system of arms beyond those three, I don't see the need in trading two potential top of the rotation starters for a pitcher who will want up to 7 yr. $150M. Continue to build the staff through the system.
I just want this to get done already. If the Sox can get him without giving up Ellsbury, great. Do it and lock up the division for the foreseeable future. If not, let him go to the Yankees for Hughes+. Then it's closer, but I think the Sox STILL have a better rotation top to bottom. Either way, I'm sick of this looming in the distance crap.
That's another reason I don't want the Yankees to do it. The only way I could POSSIBLY be in favor of this deal is if the two rotations were practically even, and Santana would put NYY well ahead of the Sox. But a Yankee rotation with Santana is still about equal with the Sox.
Honestly, I want Santana on the Yankees. Giving up Melky and Hughes to get him is fine with me. Part of it is because he is a beast, part of it is that I think he will be clutch in the playoffs, and the other part is I don't want him to become a Red Sox.
But how would you feel if Damon become the full-time center fielder, Hughes went on to multiple Cy Young awards, the third prospect became an All-Star, and last year was not an aberration for Santana? Right now, we can say he has been a beast. However, there is a chance he is shot. Hughes is all but can't-miss for the next decade and a half. And he doesn't improve the Sox long-term. If they sacrifice Ellsbury for him, that's the future they're giving up for today.
I agree with you, but I can't see the Yankees defeating the Red Sox with Santana, Beckett, Schilling, and Matsuzaka in the playoffs for the next 3 years atleast. I think Santana, Pettitte, Wang, Mussina, and Kennedy would give them a run for their money come playoff time. You could say Pettitte, Wang, Hughes, Kennedy and Mussina would give that first mentioned rotation a run for their money, but I doubt it. As a Yankees fan, I care about the playoffs to tell you the truth. I am thinking that far down the line, I know I shouldn't but I am. Getting to the playoffs will be tough in 2008 with the Red Sox, Yankees, Indians, Angels and Tigers looking playoff bound already. Hard to think one of those teams won't get in.
Well we can be assured one won't. I'm willing, for one year, to be that one. However, that's only if we are preparing for the future. If we have to baby our kids, and it results in a September end to the season, but gives us the true potential to win throughout the twentyteens, I'm all for it. We know that young star pitching is what wins titles. We've been trying to outhit the competition for years, and it's not working. Now we finally have the first chance since the 90s came to a close where we have the pieces in place for dominant short-series pitching performances. I'd really like to win multiple titles again, and staying young in the rotation is the way to get there. Again, Santana is a risk. If he is actually in decline, which is fully possible, we sacrifice years of pitching potential for a year or two of short-series dominance. Don't get me wrong, if we get Santana, I won't spend a lot of time crying about it. However, if we trade Hughes to do it, and he wins Cy Youngs while Santana's ERA inflates and K/9 drop, I'll be pissed off for a long time. As 10P10 said, it's about your faith in Hughes as a long-term starter. I believe in the kid. I'm just willing to take my chances with the talent we've cultivated at home, but I do understand the deep desire to get Santana while also preventing Boston from getting him. All I can say is, look at Gagne. :wink:
This is where I'm a little undecided. In principle, I believe that pitching is the ultimate commodity in baseball, and that you give up hitting for pitching when you can, because dominant pitching always stops dominant hitting. That's why when the Sox gave up Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett, I was fine with it. In this case though, I feel a little differently. The Sox already have the best pitching staff in the league. They have a young ace which they lacked before they got Beckett. They have two prospect/young guys with tremendous potential in Lester and Buchholz. They have solid veterans in Schilling and Wakefield, and and Matsuzaka who from his K rates clearly shows the ability to dominate, and did for stretches last year. However, they don't have a great leadoff hitter. In theory, I know it's a lot easier to find a centerfielder/leadoff hitter than an ace pitcher, but right now the Sox need the former more. So based on team need, I'm opposed to including Ellsbury. Philosophically though, the way I'd build a team would be to acquire as many of the true aces in baseball as I could. By true aces I mean real, shut down starters, not guys who start the first game by default. Either way the team is improved, but I think they would be slightly less balanced by trading Ellsbury.
