Bucholz and Ellsbury for Santana: revisited

[Roy Hobbs]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

Well really, it's just good business.  The only  franchises, in theory, that could win without having a certain percentage of their roster made up of cheap players are 1) the Yankees and 2) the Knicks.  Those are really the only two franchises that seem to have unlimited resources.  Every other team has to operate within a budget, although of course the Red Sox one is significantly higher than most other franchises.

Hmmm...I am pretty sure that the Red Sox are richer than the Yankees.

Based upon what?  As cited above, the Yankees make much more revenue, even in light of the recent Red Sox championships.  Their franchise is worth $500 million more, which will only go up with the new stadium.  YES is worth more than NESN.  George Steinbrenner's net worth is estimated as higher than John Henry's.  In terms of money-making, the Yankees are unparalleled in every way.

No, you're definitely incorrect on this one.

[drkalloch]

The Mets had to pay him $137.5 million over six years, for a guy who is already 29 years old.  A contract like that for a pitcher is a huge, huge risk; if his arm blows out, your payroll is wrecked for half a decade.

This is a common misconception about salaries in MLB. After Albert Belle's degenerative hip disorder cost Baltimore nearly $85 million, the insurance markets in baseball players BOOMED. Currently, teh credit market is making insurance more expensive for teams, but, to put it in simple terms, if Santana is injured and never pitches again, the Mets are only on the hook for about $4 million TOTAL  ($10-million policy about $200,000, but higher (excess casualty) levels of insurance have differential rates based on market conditions). See the following article for an interesting take on insurance for college athletes and some statistics about policies: http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_pc&id=36541

[beantownboy171]

im sorry if this point has already been made but its late and i don't feel like reading all the posts, but if the redsox left the deal on the table (lester,crisp,lowrie,masterson) the twins were going to take it, the deal that they made with the mets was in desperation after both the redsox and the yankees watered down their deals, the trade the twins ended up making was for less then the redsox originally offered and we never would or should have down bucholz and ellsbury for santana because not only is the overtrading for santana but we then had to give him a contract extension after that, but my overall point is that if the redsox had kept that same offer we would have had santana

[Robb]

The trade in my view, is not and never has been about what those prospects could be, it's about what Johan Santana is.

Between keeping players who'd never combined for one full major league season and trading them for the best pitcher in baseball, I trade them for the best pitcher in baseball 100% of the time.

If I'm in the front office, the only reason I wouldn't have done any deal to get Johan Santana would have been over concern about his arm's health.  If it now comes out that he's hurt or he's on his way down, who cares?  I traded for the best pitcher in baseball, who I knew to be healthy, and caught some bad luck.  No one could ever second guess that.

[ReadyFor17]

The trade in my view, is not and never has been about what those prospects could be, it's about what Johan Santana is.

Between keeping players who'd never combined for one full major league season and trading them for the best pitcher in baseball, I trade them for the best pitcher in baseball 100% of the time.

If I'm in the front office, the only reason I wouldn't have done any deal to get Johan Santana would have been over concern about his arm's health.  If it now comes out that he's hurt or he's on his way down, who cares?  I traded for the best pitcher in baseball, who I knew to be healthy, and caught some bad luck.  No one could ever second guess that.

Well how about what Jon Lester is right now? He's been almost as good as Santana in a harder division and league and he costs nothing. You might say there was no indication that this would happen but pitching coach John Farrell was adamant about holding on to Lester because he knew he could be this type of pitcher. The way Lester has pitched has already made it a good decision not to trade for Santana in my mind.

This is coming from someone who wanted to make the trade at the time for all the reasons you stated; but how anyone can argue with the results to this point is beyond me.

[Rondoholic]

Wow, are you guys already giving up on Ellsbury and Bucholz.  These guys are young and contributing now.  They're only going to get better with experience.  I'd much rather have them than 20 mill tied up in "don't mess with the zohan" santana.

[Robb]

Well how about what Jon Lester is right now? He's been almost as good as Santana in a harder division and league and he costs nothing. You might say there was no indication that this would happen but pitching coach John Farrell was adamant about holding on to Lester because he knew he could be this type of pitcher. The way Lester has pitched has already made it a good decision not to trade for Santana in my mind.

How about Jon Lester?  He has 18 career wins.  Good for him.  I'm pumped as anyone that he's proving capable.  Would you rather send him to the hill in the playoffs this year or two time Cy Young winner Johan Santana?

How they've pitched this season (and Johan has been better, don't worry about that one bit) has no bearing.  How their careers play out has no bearing.  If the best pitcher in the game is on the market, and you can deal a couple maybes a few coulds and a should for him, I think you do it.

[ReadyFor17]

Well how about what Jon Lester is right now? He's been almost as good as Santana in a harder division and league and he costs nothing. You might say there was no indication that this would happen but pitching coach John Farrell was adamant about holding on to Lester because he knew he could be this type of pitcher. The way Lester has pitched has already made it a good decision not to trade for Santana in my mind.

How about Jon Lester?  He has 18 career wins.  Good for him.  I'm pumped as anyone that he's proving capable.  Would you rather send him to the hill in the playoffs this year or two time Cy Young winner Johan Santana?

How they've pitched this season (and Johan has been better, don't worry about that one bit) has no bearing.  How their careers play out has no bearing.  If the best pitcher in the game is on the market, and you can deal a couple maybes a few coulds and a should for him, I think you do it.

Citing his career wins certainly isn't misleading at all....how their careers play out has every bearing on it. The Red Sox judged what they believed Santana would give them over the next 5-6 years for $20 million as compared to what Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie and Masterson will give them over the same time period for next to nothing. That's why they didn't make the deal, because they believed these guys would provide better overall value at three of the most important positions on the field. They aren't just guessing that they'll be good, otherwise they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

I already said I would have pulled the trigger on either rumored deal, but I also understood the other side and thought the prospects + cash was almost too much of a risk.

Even given Santana's great season thus far, I would not do the deal now. Sure I'd rather have Santana on the hill than Lester, but I'd much rather have Lester starting with Ellsbury in CF, Lowrie at SS and Masterson out of the pen as opposed to Santana  with Coco and Lugo in the lineup.

[jimmyt]

You can't revisit this non-trade yet, it is still way to early... we are only just over halfway through ONE season.

This isn't a trade you revisit right now, its a trade you revisit three years from now.

A couple reasons for this.. Ellsbury is a ROOKIE. He leads the league in steals as a rookie, thats pretty good. His batting average hasent been great so far, but again, hes still just a rookie. The problem is everybody assumed he would pick up where he left off in the playoffs and that is just ridiculous to think that anyone could keep up with those numbers.

Also, Santana has not been pitching amazing like he has in the past. I wouldnt say that he is earning his money completely yet. That is not to say that he wont get better because he defintitely will...

If you are looking short term, then Santana is your guy.. If you are looking longer term then Lester and Ellsbury are your guys.

If the Sox are in third place right now back by 10 games, and santana is dominating the NL, then you might have a right to complain. I dont think anyone can say that Theo made the wrong decision while we sit atop the AL East going into the All-Star break with one of the best records in the league. Not to mention we have been without our biggest clutch hitter Ortiz for a while. This team has gone on three 10 game road trips, they went to Japan, and theyve had barely any rest. The second half is much more kind to them.

We have so many great prospects, it enables us to spend alot of money on stars like Manny (who I hope gets his option picked up), Ortiz, Becket, etc.

[Robb]

Citing his career wins is to show in comparison that he has nowhere near the body of work that Johan Santana has and thus can't be relied upon to have the same impact that he's having now.  He may end up worse than he is, he may be better, and he may be pitching right now how he'll pitch for the next 15 years, but with 18 career wins, I'm not ready to say with confidence how good he will or won't be for his career.

The careers of the players being traded has a bearing on whether or not it was a good deal in retrospect, but it has no bearing on whether or not the deal should have been made.  My view that I would trade prospects for the best pitcher in baseball will not change regardless of what happens in the career of any of the involved.  Jon Lester, Clay Buccholz and Jacoby Ellsbury could go to the Hall of Fame and I won't change my opinion on this.  There is too much to chance when you're dealing with minor leaguers who have limited experience in the majors to not make that trade.

If it works out, and all of those guys pan out the way I hope they will, I'll be happy that the deal wasn't made and probably celebrate a few more World Series, but that won't change whether or not I would have done it.

[xmuscularghandix]

imagine if we did one of these trades like ellsbury, bucholtz, lowrie, and masterson for santana. thats such a crappy trade, we'd be screwed right now. i would have been so bull if we traded anybody for him. the last thing we need is another starter.

[Triboy16]

ellsbury and bucholz are so disappointing thus far. You can't really blame the coaches as other younger rookies like masterson and lowrie are having solid seasons so far.

If i were the redsox i would give bucholz 1 or 2 more starts before sending him down to pawtucket permanently(put masterson back in the starting lineup and chris smith as a reliever) and keep on rotating ellsbury and crisp in the 9th spot and assess the cf situation end of this year.

[yall hate]

ellsbury and bucholz are so disappointing thus far. You can't really blame the coaches as other younger rookies like masterson and lowrie are having solid seasons so far.

If i were the redsox i would give bucholz 1 or 2 more starts before sending him down to pawtucket permanently(put masterson back in the starting lineup and chris smith as a reliever) and keep on rotating ellsbury and crisp in the 9th spot and assess the cf situation end of this year.

While I am not doubting that Buch may need to be demoted, MAsterson will not be back in the rotation.  He was getting hit pretty hard at the end of his time in the rotation, his inning count is/was getting too high to consider him a starter this year, and they have a suitable rotation guy ready in Bartolo colon.

As for pointing Ellsbury, Rookies struggle.  the first run through the league they may not, because the other teams havent adjusted to them.  Hence why ellsbury was so good (he also had a higher then expected BABIP last year) and is struggling now.  He simply hasnt made the adjustments necessary (inside fastball).  While Lowrie has also looked good, I will be curious to see how he adjusts when the league begins to adjust to him.

[Triboy16]

good point. Thats why i also stated its a wait a see approach with lowrie too

ellsbury needs to change something more than his technique which might include using a shorter bat(he uses a pretty long one now) and/or moving closer to the plate or further away(like pedroia)

magadan has to ask him to try these things.

But i don't get how you state masterson was doing badly when he was a starter near the end. He always kept the sox in the game and i can't really times were he gave up for than 3 runs.(he is like john lester, a gamer when runs are about to be scored).

Bucholz biggest problem i see is his strength. When he pitches with nobody on and he can wind up a bit more, he is effective no doubt. When there is a man on and he uses the short wind up , every pitch loses effectiveness

[yall hate]

But i don't get how you state masterson was doing badly when he was a starter near the end. He always kept the sox in the game and i can't really times were he gave up for than 3 runs.(he is like john lester, a gamer when runs are about to be scored).

He was giving up a fair amount of hr's.  June 30th, 6 innings pitched, 4 runs, 5 walks, 2 hr's.  June 24th, 6 innings pitched 4 runs, 4 walks, 1 hr.

I dont doubt he can be effective, but his stats were getting progressively worse (albeit not terrible) and the homers were rising...  3 games he gaveup 2 hrs.