Yeah, fair enough. But based on what we've seen so far, and what's been said about him, he's an ace for many years to come. I'll take my chances. Unless you have every true ace in the game, eventually you're going to need to generate runs. While you could get past trading Ellsbury in the near term easily, it does leave a hole to fill later. I think we both have the same viewpoint on this topic. We both want to overload on aces, but maybe not necessarily at the expense of a balance in the lineup. Given that we both have a lot of at least potential stars in our rotations, Santana becomes a luxury, and is a luxury worth sacrificing future dividends?
I don't really agree with this. If you have even one of the TRUE aces* you have a leg up on most teams. If you have two you're automatically better than almost any other team in baseball. If you have 3 or more, you are virtually unstoppable, regardless of offense. No Major League team is going to score fewer than 4 runs a game. If the have three guys at the top of the rotation that give up from 2.75-3.50 runs a game, you're going to win a lot more than you lose. Also, I don't think the Yankees rotation is at the point where Santana would be a luxury. They don't have an ace. You have the Yankees rotation a lot closer to the Sox rotation than I do. I think it's a pretty big mismatch at this point. Santana would help draw them closer to even. *True aces: Beckett Santana Oswalt Sabathia Peavy Webb Halladay Zambrano
1. I dislike the idea of a "true ace." It's nearly impossible to measure except in terms of non-tangible notions like "shutdownability" or "big-gaminess" or "cojones" or other non-quantifiable, hindsight-driven observances. 2. I don't think Boston's rotation is that much better than the Yanks, really. Or, at least, it's far from a sure thing. Consider the following: Wang vs. Beckett Beckett had, by all accounts, a career year in 2007, after a down year in 2006. Should Sox fans expect the same level of performance next year? Wang has been nothing if not consistent over his three seasons. Edge definitely goes to Boston, but not because Wang is a slouch. Pettitte vs. Schilling (?) I think it's tough to say what either will give you next year... although it's tougher to say with Schilling. I'd give a slight edge to the Yanks, mostly based on age, although I wouldn't be surprised if Schilling outperformed Pettitte, either. Chamberlain vs. Dice-K Mediocre first season for Dice-K. Lights-out first season for Joba from the pen. Could Dice-K improve? Sure. Could he regress, as well? Sure. For all the potential ability to dominate that he showed last year, he's still going to be fighting the same problems... smaller strike zone, larger baseball, better hitters, no Madduxian reputation. Joba could be worlds better than Dice-K... or significantly worse... but I'd put money on Joba having a better overall season than Dice-K next year. Hughes vs. Buchholz This particular argument has been going on between Sox and Yankee fans since 2005. Hughes was slightly better in the minors, but we didn't get a chance for a really good look at him last season. We all know what Buchholz did last season. I'd say a slight edge to Boston... but very, very, very slight. If Hughes is back to form, it could go the other way. Kennedy/Moose vs. Wakefield/Lester Right now, I'd take Kennedy over Wakefield, and over what I've seen from Lester so far. I'd take Lester over Moose in a heartbeat, and Wakefield over Moose (but much closer). If Lester finally reaches this potential that everyone keeps talking about and stops walking every other batter, he could be the best of the bunch. But I haven't seen it on a consistent basis yet, and it's not like he's shown control at the minor league level and lost it at the majors. His WHIP hasn't been pretty throughout his entire career. There are plenty of question marks on both sides, but I don't think the Sox have a rotation that is out of the Yankees' league. You can HOPE for one, and it has the POTENTIAL to be one, if everything goes right... but that means you need Beckett to repeat his career year, Dice-K to adjust/improve, Schilling to stay healthy, Wakefield to continue, Buchholz to be the real deal, Lester to find his control, etc. The Yanks have plenty of questions of their own, but not so many that I find it unlikely that they'll be able to hang with the Sox next year. Not at all.
Fair enough, since I'm going on presumption. I rate the Yankees rotation very high when it consists of Wang, Pettitte, Hughes, Chamberlain, Kennedy, and Moose as a backup. Is that good enough to beat the Sox? I don't know. If you take out Wang's dismal October performances, we've had pretty good pitching in the playoffs the past couple years. We just don't score. I agree that dominant pitching beats dominant hitting, but if you don't hit at all, which the Yankees haven't, then your starter giving up 2.75-3.50 is 3 runs too many. Again, my point is different than what I believe you think I mean. I don't care about the Sox in 2008. It's almost like the Pats. They're all but unstoppable. I care about 2009-2012 right now. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and deal with a missed shot. There's no better time for the Yankees to miss the playoffs than 2008. A new manager, and a staff loaded with kids is the perfect excuse in a town that does not accept failure. If they make the playoffs this year and collapse again, or make it and then fail next year, the fires will be lit and burning red-hot. Regardless of what happens, the Sox are in a "can't lose" scenario all the way through the next 15 months. I'd rather look forward to a time when we can go in with a sure attitude that we have a team capable of beating them. By getting Santana, we give ourselves that shot next year, and then quickly degrade in terms of overall talent. (Keep in mind, the deal wouldn't just be Hughes, but also our starting centerfielder. Damon only has but so much left in the tank.)
Its too quiet around here, so I figured I would stir up the nest. Consider this, the Yankees are unwilling to give up a pitcher who went 5-3 last year at the major league level, with an ERA of 4.46, and gives up more hits an inning than strikeouts, for the dominant 29 year old pitcher of his era, Johan Santana? Of course, you know the pitchers name is Phil Hughes. Give me a freaking break. That decision will cost the Yankees "AT LEAST", two championships in the next 5 years. Please spare me from telling me they did not want to give up Ian Kennedy also. Who the FREAK is Ian Kennedy?
Giving a top 5 pitching prospect in baseball as well as Kennedy, who is a good pitching prospect, and whatever other talent would be involved, is a ton to give for Johan Santana, a guy who is 29 years old and who doesn't exactly have the strongest body even though it's never really been an issue. More importantly, this is trading homegrown guys with a ton of talent, especially in the case of Hughes, who are under control for many years for not much money in exchange for guys who will be making huge amount of money longterm. Signing pitchers to huge deals longterm can be a recipe for disaster. Giving a team a ton of young talent on top of that is difficult.
Yes, let's judge the deal by comparing the limited major league performance of one of the most highly rated, 21-year-old pitchers to the career of an established pitcher. Give me a freakin' break, indeed.
Is this the case of a Mets fan bitter that the Yankees actually have pitching prospects that people want? It has to be... unless you're just god damn crazy.
Steinbrenner is speculating that the Yankees have the best offer on the table for Santana (Hughes, Melky and two more prospects) http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...1-03_yanks_we_have_shot_at_johan_santana.html
A few interesting tidbits on a few different topics. I think I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in a private room with Theo, Cash, and Boras.
It really bothers me that Steinbrenner talks so openly about which way he's leaning on trade proposals. I don't think I've seen anything like this before. For Cashman's sake, I hope this is his last year. This is an impossible working environment.
this thread is 16 or 32 pages long depending on your settings... can this thing be locked until something actually happens?
Yeah I know... but how much can really be discussed? I blame Don... he has 205 post here... Alio's the next with 50... ban Don:lol:
