Bucholz and Ellsbury for Santana: revisited

[johnnyrondo]

The Sox offered two deals to Minny last winter:

1) Ellsbury, Lowrie and Masterson for Santana
2) Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson for Santana

Clay was deemed an untouchable at the time. The Twins were holding out for both Lester and ellsbury. The Sox obviously at the time ranked Clay ahead of ellsbury and Ellsbury ahead of Lester. Just b/c Lester, Lowrie and Masterson are doing better this Summer than Clay and ellsbury doesn't mean we should give up on either of those 2 guys. There were many times it seemed like you could say it was time to give up on Lester in the past and now he's become one of the finest young pitchers (AL Pitcher of the Month for July. First sox winner since Pedro in '02).

In hindsight, The Twins have to be kicking themselves for not taking option #2 and we have to consider ourselves very lucky to have Lester, Lowrie, and Masterson making next to nothing on our team and 20 mil extra in cash to play with.

I do question a little the Sox evaluation of their prospects. They deemed Clay untouchable, but were willing to trade Lester. They were willing to throw in Masterson and Lowrie. They thought Hanley wouldn't cut it in the majors (yes Beckett was a great pickup, but the point is the top baseball FO's do a better job knowing what prospects to keep and what ones to trade. Think the braves). Murphy was deemed by Boston to be a career backup and has done well in Texas. The other guy they traded in that Gagne trade, Beltre, is considered one of the top young prospects in the minors. I'm also scared that Moss might end up being a very good outfielder. The Sox also drafted one of the best slugger prospects, LaPorta, a few yrs ago, but didn't project him well enough to pay him enough over slot to sign him (we're talking minimal money here for a team that can kick in 7 mil to have another team take on Manny).

So in retrospect Santana would have been nice to have, but we are really lucky that Minny didn't take the Lester, Crisp, Masterson, Lowrie offer. If the OP meant we should of traded Ellsbury and Clay for Santana well that's what the Twins originally wanted and they would have taken that in a heartbeat. Too early to tell if we made a mistake, but I think that Clay and ellsbury's stock have dropped a lot since the winter and it would be a terrible mistake to give up on them now, when their stocks are low. I think ellsbury is a little injured and the Sox made some silly adjustments to Clay's delivery which has messed him up (they did the same thing to craig Hanson yrs ago after he was basically unhittable and he's never recovered).

[Triboy16]

i do understand what you mean but clay and ellsbury seems clearly not ready for a full season. problem with both are obvious

clay isn't strong enough yet and going 2-7 with every run he gives up, its killing his confidence and same for bucholz. The redsox could have hurried their development just a bit. not saying give up on them yet but they need develop in other ways imo then to develop them and hurt the team.

[Rondo2287]

I would still not do it.  you would need to lock up santana to a record deal and Ellsbury and clay are under the sox control for a while at real cheap.  Not worth it.

[Chris]

This reminds me of everyone saying we missed our chance to trade Al Jefferson, when he had his disapointing sophomore year.  These two are very young rookies, with very bright futures.  I think they made the absolute right move to hold onto them.

[Fan from VT]

Yeah, I was catching up on some old B.S. reports this week and listened to a Simmons/Mr. Roto about some of the early baseball developments, and they were talking about how long it often takes very good prospects to put it together, especially pitchers. Remember, this isn't the NBA, athleticism matters less and skill refinement more. Think about the leap lester has made this year. Bucholtz is only 23, has great stuff, still manages a decent strikeout:walk ratio, I think he'll put it together eventually.

I doubt the sox refused to trade buchltz/ellsbury/lester combo for santana not for this year, but for their careers. Let's revisit this topic in 2012 or so.

[cdif911]

I do question a little the Sox evaluation of their prospects. They deemed Clay untouchable, but were willing to trade Lester. They were willing to throw in Masterson and Lowrie. They thought Hanley wouldn't cut it in the majors (yes Beckett was a great pickup, but the point is the top baseball FO's do a better job knowing what prospects to keep and what ones to trade. Think the braves). Murphy was deemed by Boston to be a career backup and has done well in Texas. The other guy they traded in that Gagne trade, Beltre, is considered one of the top young prospects in the minors. I'm also scared that Moss might end up being a very good outfielder. The Sox also drafted one of the best slugger prospects, LaPorta, a few yrs ago, but didn't project him well enough to pay him enough over slot to sign him (we're talking minimal money here for a team that can kick in 7 mil to have another team take on Manny).

Its apples and oranges though, with the 7 mil to get rid of manny vs. the LaPorta situation - and I think the Sox have done a pretty darned good job of evaluating their talent, as we all know, you can't keep everyone, and the guys who have been kept are by and large solid players - Youk and Pedroia and Pap are all-stars, Clay has been shaky, but still has value, Lester is arguably our best starter - and I would make the Hanley Ramirez deal over again today if it were given to us - Beckett, though not performing as well as last year, is still an ace in the major leagues, something very hard to come by - much like the celtics did, sometiems you have to stockpile young talented guys to get established vets, but it also doesn't hurt when your own guys develop

as for the not evaluating our own talent correctly, how do we 100% know the deals offered to Minny? There may be some smoke and mirrors going on there - I wouldn't take anything definitively unless both gms say it is so, and that will never happen.

[bucknersrevenge]

The Sox offered two deals to Minny last winter:

1) Ellsbury, Lowrie and Masterson for Santana
2) Lester, Crisp, Lowrie and Masterson for Santana

Clay was deemed an untouchable at the time. The Twins were holding out for both Lester and ellsbury. The Sox obviously at the time ranked Clay ahead of ellsbury and Ellsbury ahead of Lester. Just b/c Lester, Lowrie and Masterson are doing better this Summer than Clay and ellsbury doesn't mean we should give up on either of those 2 guys. There were many times it seemed like you could say it was time to give up on Lester in the past and now he's become one of the finest young pitchers (AL Pitcher of the Month for July. First sox winner since Pedro in '02).

In hindsight, The Twins have to be kicking themselves for not taking option #2 and we have to consider ourselves very lucky to have Lester, Lowrie, and Masterson making next to nothing on our team and 20 mil extra in cash to play with.

I do question a little the Sox evaluation of their prospects. They deemed Clay untouchable, but were willing to trade Lester. They were willing to throw in Masterson and Lowrie. They thought Hanley wouldn't cut it in the majors (yes Beckett was a great pickup, but the point is the top baseball FO's do a better job knowing what prospects to keep and what ones to trade. Think the braves). Murphy was deemed by Boston to be a career backup and has done well in Texas. The other guy they traded in that Gagne trade, Beltre, is considered one of the top young prospects in the minors. I'm also scared that Moss might end up being a very good outfielder. The Sox also drafted one of the best slugger prospects, LaPorta, a few yrs ago, but didn't project him well enough to pay him enough over slot to sign him (we're talking minimal money here for a team that can kick in 7 mil to have another team take on Manny).

So in retrospect Santana would have been nice to have, but we are really lucky that Minny didn't take the Lester, Crisp, Masterson, Lowrie offer. If the OP meant we should of traded Ellsbury and Clay for Santana well that's what the Twins originally wanted and they would have taken that in a heartbeat. Too early to tell if we made a mistake, but I think that Clay and ellsbury's stock have dropped a lot since the winter and it would be a terrible mistake to give up on them now, when their stocks are low. I think ellsbury is a little injured and the Sox made some silly adjustments to Clay's delivery which has messed him up (they did the same thing to craig Hanson yrs ago after he was basically unhittable and he's never recovered).

jesus...as they say, sometimes the best deals are the ones you dont make. and think of how minny is feeling. had we taken that deal they could be sitting on a pitching staff of lester, liriano, and masterson into the next decade. not to mention ellsbury and lester at the top of their order. with the way the ball gets down the line and to the wall in a such a hurry in the metrodome it would be triples all day for them there. we are really lucky.

as for murphy i think the signing of drew made murphy expendable. there was no indication at that time that manny was a big enough problem that he wouldnt be here for the foreseeable future and at the time we had coco and ellsbury there too. plus gagne while he didnt work out was doing well last year. at the time it was widely considered a smart trade.

[yall hate]

I would just like to remind people that we dont know who was offered to minny. there were rumors, but there has been no confirmation that lester was offered, no confirmation that ellsbury was etc...just rumors.

[cdif911]

I would just like to remind people that we dont know who was offered to minny. there were rumors, but there has been no confirmation that lester was offered, no confirmation that ellsbury was etc...just rumors.

excellent point - one I made but said way better, TP my friend, TP