Jan
04

Hey, must be the money

By

Perusing through The Times this morning while eating breakfast, I left their coverage of the Iowa caucuses for a quick glimpse at the Sports pages. What did I find but yet another article on Johan Santana.

Today, Tyler Kepner reinforces the rumors we’ve heard of a debate between Hank and Hal over the money Santana will command. Both Steinbrenner brothers, Kepner reports, are as hellbent on winning as their father is, but Hal is concerned that the financial outlay for Santana doesn’t justify a trade.

Interesting in the Kepner article – besides, of course, the Santana question – are the descriptions of the chain of command. While Hank has become the de facto spokesperson for the Yankees ownership, Hal considered an equal in the organization and is responsible for the money. As Kepner writes, Hank, for all his bluster, “cannot and has not acted unilaterally.”

So how do the Santana economics play into this? Well, Hank is willing to sign on to GM Brian Cashman‘s player development deal but wants to avoid a possible scenario where Santana ends up on the Red Sox. Hal wants to keep the payroll at $200 million, an amount that, if spent wisely, should keep the Yankees competitive forever. Santana and his contract would add substantially to the Yanks’ payroll. Kepner writes:

If the teams agreed on players, the Yankees would have to negotiate a contract extension with Santana, who would probably ask for seven years and $140 million.

For the Yankees, the $140 million figure would be compounded by an additional $56 million they would owe in luxury taxes, because they are still charged an extra 40 cents for every dollar they spend. Investing almost $200 million in Santana for seven years — and the prospects — is clearly too steep a price for General Manager Brian Cashman.

Shelling out $200 million plus prospects for the services of Johan Santana is indeed a price that is too high. As long as Hal and Cashman are on the same side, it seems like the Yanks won’t trade for the Twins’ lefty. As the Santana shenanigans continue, it’s interesting to watch the Yanks’ new organizational structure take place.

Categories : Hot Stove League
  • jonm

    It’s nice to see that there is a “separation of powers” structure for the Yankees now. Positively Madisonian (and that’s a good thing when a Steinbrenner is involved).

  • marc

    wait does this mean we get to hold on to Phil “where in the world did my velocity go” hughes. yesss. man its been awhile since i brought it up. in all honesty, id rather roll the dice with the kids. id rather go down because of our own parts than pay through the effin nose for someone elses.

    • http://riveraveblues.com Mike A.

      Word.

      The Yanks were 8-5 in Hughes’ starts last year. Hard to argue with a rook giving you that.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      You can call him that if I can call you Marc “I wasn’t paying attention to September or October” whatever you last name is. Deal? :)

      • marc

        but come on, it is a great nickname… i wish i saw phil more before his big league debut so id know mroe of what i should have expected… he’s poised but until he figures out his change, hes going to have a hard time.. anjd lets hope he can stay healthy… it seems very tough for young pitchers to do so these days.

  • http://yanksfansoxfan.typepad.com/ysfs/ Nick-YF

    After some time, I am almost entirely converted to the RAB view of this Johan situation. Mainly, the cost is just so steep. In my view, in order to do this deal A-Rod is right (A-Rod, the master roster constructionist!), the Yanks would have to sign Mike Cameron. I just don’t see Damon lasting more than half the season out in center. And I am not a believer in Brett Gardner. So add a pretty substantial contract, in addition to Johan’s, to the payroll. And add the opportunity cost of losing young players and their cost-controlled years, and this is too big a gamble.

  • snoop dogg resident

    If they want to keep Hughes, but i do not understand this mentality about the money the yankees will spend. they will lose so much paroll next season. true they have to replace these contracts, but if the yanks were to go out and give sabathia a 20 million dollar contract as a free agent would that not affect the payroll the same way as a santa deal. will the yankees pass on santana (if is truly based on payroll) because of 1 year and 13 million dollars?

    • steve (different one)

      no.

      it’s a COMBINATION of the payroll increase and paying steeply in talent.

      the Yankees will do one or the other, but not both.

      for example:
      1. if Johan was signed to a 5 year, $60M contract, the Yankees would make everyone in their system (within reason) available for trade
      2. if Johan were a free agent, they would sign him to a 6 year deal at more than $20M/year.

      what the Yankees do not want to do is give up elite talent AND pay him $20M/year for 6-7 years.

      and you know what? no one else seems in rush to do this either.

      which is why the offers from Boston have seemed underwhelming and the offers from the Angels and Dodgers have seemed non-existant.

    • steve (different one)

      ps. i love your screen name.

    • Ed

      will the yankees pass on santana (if is truly based on payroll) because of 1 year and 13 million dollars?

      a) Trading Hughes + Melky for Santana realistically means the Yankees sign someone like Mike Cameron for say $10 million/year. Hughes + Melky = $800k, Cameron + Santana = ~$23 million. Or for after luxury tax figures, ~$1.1m & ~$32.2m.

      b) If the Yankees don’t trade for him and he’s not traded elsewhere (which looks like the most likely scenario atm), they can sign him in one year at the cost of 1 draft pick instead of 4 players (at least 2 of which would have meaningful roles on the ’08 team).

  • nick blasioli

    no you sign santana, take your chances…everything is a gamble…all teams have to gamble…the yankees are no different…please quit screwing around and make the deal…..

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      I don’t really think anyone’s screwing around. The Yanks have been pretty set in their ways, and the media – yes, we’re guilty of this too – is continuing to drum up the story. I think this story is more interesting for the way it illustrates the Yankees internal dynamic than for anything new on the Santana front.

  • brxbmrs

    What are the odds of Santana throwing 200 innings the next 3 years, how bout 4 or 5 – that’s where I think the problem lies – I can’t see him staying healthy long enough to make a 150+ contract worth the investment – the question is how many guys have done that – throw 200+ innings for 10 straight years (or lets say even 8 years) and are power pitchers (and consider the implications of stricter pe testing as well).

    On a fan level, I’m tired of rooting for overpaid free agents who come here, age rapidly and underwhelm. I think Santana would be different and if the trade is Melk, Hughes, Marquez and a b level guy, that’s understandable – but I’m not gonna be unhappy if the Yanks stand pat – in fact I still hope they do.

    As for the Steinbrenner bros – above all else I’m elated that they actually seem to want to run this team – not sell it and make a huige $ once Daddy kicks. Maybe their interest wanes quickly, or maybe Hank and Hal take the best attributes of the Boss and also temper it with some sanity and listening to the right voices within the org.

    Fun to watch at any rate.

  • JRVJ

    steve (different one) hits it right on the head.

    The best case scenario for the Yankees re: Santana is that he is a FA after 2008 (obviously, the Yankees would prefer for all their pitchers, field players and prospects to have great 2008 seasons, but that’s a different kettle of fish).

    At this point, the Yankees will have anywhere from $46.5MM ($17MM Giambi, $11M Moose, $10MM Pavano, $5MM Farns and $3.5 for Hawkins) to $78.5MM (depending on what happens with Pettittle and Abreu, both of whom will earn $16MM in 2008) to spend.

    Other than Santana (or maybe Sabathia), the other consideration for the Yankees should be 1st base. Unless Juan Miranda surprises us all, they will probably be looking for a 1B (and Mark Teixeira will be available, unless he signs an extension).

    IMO, the Yanks can spend $20MM on Santana and $15/16MM on Teixeira, and still reduce their payroll by (at least) $10MM (plus $4MM in luxury tax).

    No, the Yanks reticence is not about money per se. It’s about money AND the desire to change the shape of the team for the future.

  • Gus

    i agree the asking price is just getting too steep. I hate it when i hear sox fans like peter gammons say our offer hasnt been the best. IT HAS BEEN. If they take the sox offer they will not keep coco beyond his 2010 option, if that long b/c of his high price tag for that team (at 5.5 MM he would be top 3 highest paid twins, more then Monrneau I believe) So if thats what they want to do go ahead, it would be very foolish. We have offered talent that they could use for several years to come and at virtuallty no cost. Is Coco a better CF then the melk man, quite possibly, but nobody in thier right mind could actually say hes worth ten times him, especially not in that market. The twins have no conviction, its really pathetic, and if they do get this done, at this pace, dealing Nathan would be another huge issue. I like many Yankees fans want less and less to do with this with every passing day. We got 26 championships without Johan and our future looks very very bright without him. I want to know my ’08 team, so lets just go ahead without the guy. The way I see things, the sox would only have one true ace if they got him anyway. Beckett is super clutch and the sox got him b/c of his ability to beat us but lets face it, his ’07 season was an abarition, his era was over 5 in ’06 and will be in ’08 as well, the guy is not that good (I still hope he breaks his arm in spring training however).

  • Jen Hughes

    It’s nice to see the noticeable difference in the RAB readers stance on the Johan Santana issue. Giving the Twins the talent and paying Santana the crazy contract is too much risk for any team to take. Even the deep pocketed Yankees have to worry about their financial situation, especially given the fact that their outfield will be depleted within 2-3 years and the 1b situation is pathetic. We need that money to get guys for those positions, and we need to utilize our young guys while they are cheap.

    • Kevin23

      I agree completely. Using the young talent while cheap is an especially good idea with pitchers. Spreading the odds out over several arms is better than putting all eggs in one basket. From the current crop, my guess is that we’ll have found an ace inside of 2 years. Maybe even a great 1-2 punch. Now that’s a higher ceiling than Santana by himself any day. AND longevity is on your side. AND you can afford to overpay for that free agent 1st baseman or outfielder.

      RAB has sold me on the value of the big three. Admittedly, I was had pretty cheap.

  • Gus is a bitterman

    The twins are trying to get as much for Johan as possible – makes sense, he is the best pitcher in the game right now. If something doesn’t happen now then they will get what they want mid season. The Red Sox have put together the best deal hands down. Coco is better, Lester is on the same potential/youth issues as Hughes, Plus the Sox are tossing in SS Jed Lowrie who may be one of their best prospects. The Yankees need Santana more than the Sox, So the Sox are making the Yankees stay honest in this deal and hopefully get them to give up more than they should – it has been the Yankee way as of late. 26 rings! What have they done lately or even this millenium – nothing. Gus your post had merit until your Beckett comments. He is quite easily the second best pitcher in baseball right now and you are calling it a fluke. We will see next year. I hope the Yanks overpay like always and Santana becomes the next Pavano.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      Ah, yet another Sox fan overvaluing Jon Lester. Even your own organization wouldn’t dare to compare Lester’s potential to that of Hughes’. It’s not even close. And Coco Crisp is better than what exactly? Count Chocula? Because he’s about the same as Melky, and Melky’s younger and cheaper, two traits the Twins value more.

    • steve (different one)

      i agree that Gus’ comments on Beckett were probably unwarranted. i don’t think his 2007 was a “fluke”. honestly, looking at his pedigree, age, and career trajectory thusfar, 2006 looks like the “fluke” unfortunately.

      that said, i don’t know if he is the second best pitcher in baseball either. certainly not “quite easily” the second best pitcher.

      why does everyone forget Brandon Webb? just wondering.

    • Kevin23

      Sox fans are out in La-La Land as of late. The media coverage in the last few years has apparently given the chowder-heads just enough information to be dangerous. And they’ve wasted no time at all proving yet again that Boston is the home of the most retaaaaded sports fans in the country by far. If it weren’t for their overall lack of decorum and class up there, it’d kinda cute.

  • Gus is a bitterman

    How about I compare Lester to what the rest of baseball is – a young Andy Pettitte. This year his velocity should be back to where it was 2 yrs. ago Overall he improved dramatically in the postseason coming of a year of cancer. and had amazing presence in Game 4 of the World Series. After the Cleveland series, the Indians front office, coaches, and player personnel people had a meeting and it was unanimously agreed that after Josh Beckett, the best pitcher on the Red Sox was Lester.

    • Ed

      Lester only looks good when compared to Boston’s other prospects (with the exception of Buchholz).

      Lester’s minor league career stats are mediocre, with some glaring flaws (VERY high walk rate). All the Yankees big name young players (Wang/Hughes/Joba/Kennedy/Horne) – and Andy Pettitte, since you brought him up – all put up much better minor league stats than Lester. And so far, Lester’s major league career hasn’t shown any signs of fixing those flaws.

      And it’s not saying much for Cleveland to think Lester was their second best pitcher. Schilling is a shadow of his old self, and Daisuke faded badly in the second half of the season.

  • steve (different one)

    well that is certainly irrefutable evidence.

    seriously, if Lester was Hughes’ equal, the trade would have been completed already, no?

    most people agree that the rest of the Sox offer is better than the rest (non-Hughes portion) of the Yankee offer. yet no trade has been completed.

    Lester needs to dramatically improve his control before he has the same level of trade value as Hughes.

  • Gus is a bitterman

    “seriously, if Lester was Hughes’ equal, the trade would have been completed already, no?”

    Not true – the Twins want a bidding war here and they aren’t going to cave until one of the offers is significantly better than the other. Right now the Red Sox have a slightly better offer to them.

    Again, they are both young so they have their isuues. Phil needs to work on his consistency and velocity. What were his excuses for that? Cancer? A swarm of flies? No he is young thats it like Lester who was coming off cancer – from a potential standpoint they are the same caliber pitcher.

    If the Yanks are smart they will stick with what they have and let that other New York Team overpay. I mean they are in a rebuilding year anyway, new control at the top and coaching staff as well as the young arms possibly taking the hill.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      from a potential standpoint they are the same caliber pitcher.

      That is categorically not true. Was Jon Lester ever the number one pitching prospect in all of baseball? No. Hughes has a higher ceiling with better stuff and better control than Lester.

      Sure, Lester could be pretty good, but he’s not of the same caliber as Hughes.

    • Ed

      Phil needs to work on his consistency and velocity. What were his excuses for that?

      Perhaps you missed the hamstring strain and ankle ligament tear?

  • Adrian-Retire21

    You people are nuts.The 22 million we lose next year from Giambi will go to Santana so the money doesn’t go up.Man you guys think you can go into the season with three rookies and win the Championship.

  • marc

    isn’t there an old baseball saying… “don’t judge a player in april or september” lets just give him time. i hope we don;t trade him, i enjoy watching him.

  • CB

    “How about I compare Lester to what the rest of baseball is – a young Andy Pettitte.”

    This is completely not true. “The rest of baseball”‘ has never compared Lester to Pettite.

    This Lester is a young Pettite comparison only got started because John Farrell brought it up at the winter meetings when discussing the Santana trade and then Peter Gammons started running with it. Amazing how two guys become “the rest of baseball.”

    Call me skeptical but you have to take what the Red Sox pitching coach says with a big grain of salt. Ditto for Gammons. What else is Farrell supposed to say – great, I think we should trade one of the guys on my staff?

    • Gus is a bitterman

      Farrell and Gammons aren’t the only ones to make that comparision. As with any young up and coming pitcher, analysts, broadcasters etc… all make comparisons to other pitchers. The name that comes up most of the time when reffering to Lester is Andy Pettite just like the name that comes up for Hughes is Mark Prior.

      You guys keep talking about how Hughes was the #1 prospect last year. A year that Lester had cancer (which effected his prospect status) but I don’t really care about who’s potentially #1 at the begining of the season . (you have also been predicted to win the world series the past 6 years as well but what did that mean – NOTHING) I care about what happens during the season. What I and most people saw last year was that Lester and Hughes both have similar potential to be great pitchers.

      • CB

        I’d like to see references from other reputable sources comparing Lester to Pettite. The first I ever heard of this was Farrell at the winter meetings. Since seen Gammons pushing the idea. When has this ever been stated before Farrell said it this winter?

        I’m not saying Lester is not a good young pitcher – he is. But comparing him to Pettite is a real stretch. Lester’s control was poor last year (4.4 BB/ 9) and also throughout his career, even going back to the minors. Pettite has never had those kind of control issues.

        Pettite has pitched enormous, high pressure post season games and thrived. Lester has thrown three mediocre innings against the Indians and then 5 very good innings against a very marginal rockies team. Don’t get ahead of yourself.

        Lester is nowhere near Buchholz. Buchholz is the appropriate comparison for Hughes.

      • steve (different one)

        What I and most people saw last year was that Lester and Hughes both have similar potential to be great pitchers.

        this may be true. in fact, no one knows either way who will be the better pitcher.

        but that’s not what we are talking about.

        we are talking about who has more trade value.

        and that is clearly Hughes.

      • Steve S

        I agree the Red Sox have a better offer but there is no doubt that Hughes has greater value than Lester. The Red Sox offer is about quantity with some quality (with Lowrie and Masterson). But the concept that Lester projects better than Hughes is way off base. Hughes demonstrated in his first year that he understands pitching. Of course he needs to correct somethings, but he is 21 years old. And he managed to pitch half the season without having full confidence in his legs. I give you that Lester has his own issues. BUT no matter what the twins at this stage are trading on what these players project to be and their limited exposure. There is little debate amongst scouts that Hughes > greater than Lester in the long run.

        And then the other part, to suggest the Yankees are rebuilding is ridiculous. And its semantics to say they are in a transition year. Thats ridiculous, just like the claim the Red Sox “rebuilt” or “transitioned” in 2006. When you have a payroll of $200M there is no such thing as transitions or rebuilding. There are changes, and hiring Girardi signifies a change, NOT a transition. Betting on young pitchers signifies a change- something they havent done in a LONG time. In the late 90′s they were able to get some young players but they built their rotation largely from free agent pitchers who became available largely because of the economic state of the game: Cone, Wells, El Duque, Clemens, etc….That strategy has back fired but largely because of the quality of players they have acquired and partially bad luck (Javier Vazquez was the right move at the time). The change in philosophy doesnt mean that they aren’t looking to win a championship. Rather, there are some bright people who have determined this is the best course.

        • Gus is a bitterman

          I never claimed Lester “projected better than Hughes (look through all my posts)” I stated that based on their performances they project similar – meaning Hughes may be better but slightly. My arguement started with Gus who stated the Yanks put together a better deal for Santana than the Sox and overall it is just not the case – and that Beckett’s performance last year was a fluke…. if the Yanks and the Red Sox are smart they will stay away from Santana and stick with the young talent that they have been developing. It has proven lately to be the way to sustain long term success. Let the Mets overpay and put him in the NL where he can thrive.

          • Steve S

            First of all I completely understood your post. BUT Lester and Hughes are at completely different stages and Lester is not really projecting anymore. Its clear what he is and what his potential is. And i think the point is that Hughes projects as an ace, no one is willing to say that about Lester. Even the Pettitte comparison- has pettitte ever been an ace of a staff?

            And just to play devils advocate- who has sustained long term success better than the Yankees? Have they maintained their young talent. Im sorry its about making the right moves, not one fixed philosophy. The Red Sox didnt just decide to start rebuilding. They made a good move for now- they traded an superstar caliber shortstop for a young injury prone-starter with huge upside. The gamble paid off for both franchises (as much as it could of for the Marlins). Im just tired of this Gammons/ESPN/SI propoganda that somehow Theo rebuilt the team from within. He gambled and he looks great now because he won a world series. BUT if Ortiz breaks down and Manny leaves, and they are a team with great pitching but a weak lineup, then everyone is going to wonder what would have been if they had Hanley Theo took a chance, and a good one he bet on the Beckett, and he also bet that he can purchase/acquire offense much easier than he young pitching talent (also why I say the yankees should include Cano). Its a gamble but no one besides the Yankees can claim to have long term success. They are the only team who has consistently made the playoffs, which may not mean a lot in NY but in the scheme of a baseball franchise, it does.

            My whole point is that the Santana move is being dismissed by so many because of this belief that long term Hughes, Kennedy, and Joba will be better for the team. I tend to agree with that, but I dont think its fair to expect the Yankees to say well pass on Santana because keeping these kids will result in prolonged success. Guess what they have had success, they just havent won a world series. And I think there a bunch of people who would say lets win one next year and figure out things year by year. Five year plans dont usually work in baseball or in any sport. Its a matter of luck. We may never see another team win four championships in five years. People have to start realizing that. Its not about building dynastys its about building a World Championship Team (singular) then figure out how to make it last.

            And dont bring up the red sox, they won two world series in four years its impressive but its not dynastic by any definition of the word.

      • Rob_in_CT

        I’m amused at this Sox fan attempt to claim Lester is the equal of Hughes. None of my Sox fan friends would claim that. They wouldn’t bother. Why would they need to? They know that he isn’t, but that Buccholtz is, and what’s more they just won the WS. But no, apparently that isn’t enough for Gus. :)

        Lester’s a good young lefty with command issues, and he’s a great story. And hey, if he cuts down on the walks (without getting lit up, which is the challenge of course), he could be really, really good. Hughes is the better bet, though. Hughes’ value is not tied to his #1 prospect ranking – which ultimately is meaningless. His value shows up in the *basis* for that ranking – his minor league numbers, which blow Lester’s out of the water. This, when combined with his performance so far (don’t just look at ERA – note the BBs and Ks) in the majors, shows a damned good pitcher – one who is better than Jon Lester, at a younger age. As for postseason performance, I think he did just fine in game 3 of the ALDS with the Yankees’ season on the line.

        Back to the trade proposals…

        Melky and Crisp are even in overall performance, but Melky is younger/cheaper. Advantage Yanks, though slight. These guys aren’t key to the trade anyway.

        The Hughes/Melky advantage is balanced by Lowrie, who (even if he’s more of a 2B than SS, as some say) is a middle infielder who can hit – something the Twins really do need. That’s something the Yankees can’t provide.

        I’m less clear on the respective values of the 4th guys in the two packages.

  • Moose

    Yo,

    Totally off topic – but I recently came in possession of a game-used 2007 NBA ALL-STAR basketball signed by all 27 all-stars (Kobe, Lebron, Shaq, Nash, Duncan, Garnett, Kidd, etc.). How much do you think its worth? Thanks.

  • Gus is a bitterman

    I’m not Gus I am responding to Gus – Just chime in without following the thread. Go back through and read my posts for what they are before you put words in my mouth. I didn’t claim that Lester was better or even equal – Iam saying that the Sox trade offer overall is better and that based on their performances last year Lester and Hughes aren’t as far apart as you guys would like to think. Both showed what they are capable of and both had some issues which is to be expected of young talent.

    • CB

      “based on their performances last year Lester and Hughes aren’t as far apart as you guys would like to think. ”

      Lester threw 62 major league innings last year. Hughes 72. To say that Hughes and Lester have equal potential based on 60-70 innings while completely ignoring their minor league performances, past assessments by scouts and past rankings/ evaluations by Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, etc. isn’t a sound strategy in evaluating a young player.

      In particular, Lester was coming back from cancer and hughes was hurt for most of the year. The handful of innings they threw in the majors in no way cancels out what their prior performance/ potential was thought to be.

      Come up with a reputable, neutral reference that equates Jon Lester with Phil Hughes. No one makes that comparison. Hughes and Buchholz is the comparison. Not Lester. 60 innings by Lester last year doesn’t change that.

  • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

    …And that based on their performances last year Lester and Hughes aren’t as far apart as you guys would like to think.

    This is glaringly obvious sample size issue. You can’t compare two pitches who have been pitching professional to each other based on a combined 135 innings in one season. It just doesn’t work like that.

    I can find you a future Hall of Famer who had a worse season last year than a guy you wouldn’t want on your team going forward. It’s a sample size issue. Hughes and Lester are farther apart than you realize because Phil Hughes is a better pitcher than Jon Lester with a better track record of professional success over multiple seasons.

    • Gus is a bitterman

      The Twins obviously don’t agree with you or they would have pulled the trigger on this trade immediately. If what your saying is true then the Twins turned down a guy that should become the Santana of his generation and the best centerfielder available as well as a couple other prospects for a guy that will be gone come next year. The Sox have made the best offer – hands down. The Sox can afford to part with Lester and Crisp because they have other talent. The Yankees lose more then they gain on this trade in the long run. Hope you get him you wear him out this year trying to win a world series that you fall short of yet again and the reamining 6 years of his contract are plagued with injuries due to being overworked while PHIL HUGHES BECOMES THE GREATEST PITCHER EVER and is eventually traded to the Red Sox after his contract expires with the Twins.

      • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

        I see you responded to a correct, logical argument with nothing that makes sense. Typical Boston bluster. Thanks for playing.

        • Moose

          I love how these Boston retards think that their tough shit now that their team finally won a world series. Your team has done everything in its power to copy the way of the Yankees, and they themselves have clearly bought their last 2 World Series’ (Dice K 100+ mil, Drew 70+ mil, etc., etc.). You people are nothing more than uneducated, racist, hypocrits who probably hold shitty jobs and are brainwashed by Red Sox propoganda media reporters (which their are a ton of – 70% of ESPN staff is from New England).

          Additionally, your Farm isn’t what you think it is – who do you guys have??? Materson and Lowrie??? What are you kidding me! Their both mid level prospects who had decent (at best) years last year. Your young picthing doesn’t compare to ours – Bucholz had one good game, yipee! He came back down to earth after that. And Ellsbury? That cocky bastard has the balls to hijack Red Sox fans by selling his worthless signature for 150 bucks a pop! Can the guy get more than 70 AB’s before we crown him the next Willy Mayes? You guys are rediculous and cant be taken seriously.

          • Gus is a bitterman

            I’m glad to see you admit to buying some of your championships but the fact remains that in order to win a world series the Red Sox have to go through the team that on average spends at least 1/3 more then they do. Dice K and Drew had nothing to do with the 04 championship and very little to do with the championship this year. Beckett and Wakefield had amazing years and young talent like Pedroia, Papelbon, as well as Lowell (an add on from the Beckett trade) had way more impact. Lester and Buc helped get out starters rest and Elsbury was just amazing. If I look at all those contracts that is money wisely spent.

            • lloydbanks

              Just outta curiosity, how did the Sox do against that team “that spends on average 1/3″ more than them, last year?

      • “gus is bitter” is an asshole

        get a fucking life troll

  • Hudson

    At $200 million, the price may seem too steep for Howlin’ Hank and Humble Hal.

    But the true price of the Yankees *not* acquiring Santana, if the Sox nab him, is likely another 5-6 years without a World Series ring, as Beckett, Santana and Matsuzaka form a core Boston rotation that would be nearly unbeatable.

    What’s the financial cost to New York of failing to bring home another trophy for the forseeable future? What’s the financial upside — offsetting the salary cost — of being champions on a regular basis?

    As a BoSox fan, I hope the Steinbrenners and Cashman continue to overvalue their prospects and help Epstein land Santana. New York needs him more, while Boston can become the new Empire if they splurge on him.

    But for the benefit of baseball, it would probably be ideal (and in a way a lot more interesting) if neither the Sox or Yanks take Santana. Either of the Big Two adding Santana would really make things lopsided. It would give us all a chance to find out which of our prospect hopes were justified, and maintain some pretense of balance in the Majors.

  • Realist

    Wow , it has come to using monikers to disparage others PLUS adding curses to do it?!!!!!!!!!!!! Good show!!!!!

    Move on from Santana as this isn’t getting done unless Minny comes down to reality in their demands. If The Sox deal is soooooooooooooo much better than let them have him.

    Hell , I have heard Hank’s statements have bordered on tampering………..how could the aforementioned deal not constitute demands of collusion……IF accepted????? It’s beyond ridiculous and quite frankly needs to end!

  • snoop dogg resident

    the one thing that i find difficult to get over is all the talk on every blog about the concern everyone had with hughe’s ramatic loss in velocity. does everone remember the concern going across these boards – not to mention the constant analysis on sportscenter and BBT.

    like everyone else, i tend to believe that the velocity loss was directly caused by his leg injuries, but what happens if has genuinly lost velocity or if it was overate from the beginning. if he is throwing 92 MPH at the all-star break and still hasnt develped anything esemblng a change-up, do we start regrettingnot making the eal?

    With regar to Santana, sine he does not rely on a breaking ball he i at much less risk for injury than a pither who thows a curve as his out-pitch (see hughes). As time passes he will lose veloit, but will still see success as a lefty in Yankee Stadium (old or new) because as a lefty fly ball pitcher he will be ideal for the big outfield. finally, keep in mind that whle he has led the league in iinings pitched a couple of years – he has never thrown over 120 pitches in a game – EVER. that is particularly impressive for a strike-out pitcher and shows that the outs he gets in play are done so early in the count. when he gets older and stops striking out as man people – he is sure to be economial in his pitching therefore keeping him healthy. of all the 29 year old starters – he defenitly has the best chance of staying healthy over the next 6 or 7 years. quite frankly, based on their pasts and style of pitching, he has a better chance of staying healthy over the next 5 years than joba or hughes.

    for me, this move is a no-brainer for me because it sets them up for the next 6 years. the best way to build a rotation is to start at the top and go down from there. santana sets everone up pefectly to move into their slots

    As for a replacement in center – i have heard cameron mentioned. i am okay with him, but do not see him getting 10 million – secondly i would rather go with corey patterson who was once looked at as the next great thing. he would be a servicabe cf with great speed and a little pop and who know – maybe he finally realizes some of his potential ebing hidden in the yankee line-up

  • Pingback: River Ave. Blues » Cashman: Yankee organization has a new power structure