Register now to remove this ad

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Analyzing the Santana deal

  1. #16

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gom;313017;
    Jacko, are you nuts? This is the best pitcher in the game! This is like saying you don't want Angelina Jolie because she slept with Brad Pitt.

    Kennedy will NEVER be as good as Santana is from this point forward. Ever. Melky is the most overrated CF in the AL.

    Let me ask two questions here:

    1) For Jacko: Do the Yankees beat the Indians if we had the extra home game?

    2) For Red Sox fans: Over the course of the regular season, does Santana in pinstripes make up the difference in the standings?

    I think the answer to both is YES.

    Cashman should be fired. NOW.
    That is amazing (if true). The Yankees have a bit of a log-jam in the outfield. Abreu, Damon, and Matsui may be up in age but they are still very good players. You wouldn't lose...anything on offense really and perhaps a little defense. Either way its not a big downgrade in the outfield if you lost Melky Cabrera.

    So Ian Kennedy for Johan Santana? Again who cares about the third prospect since it's not Hughes or Chamberlain. You have to be joking. Thats a weak group of prospects for the best pitcher in the game and I believe it because the Mets didn't exactly give up the world for him.

    The Yankees with a Santana, Wang, Pettite rotation would have been difficult to contend with. Then you only have to count on 1 or 2 of the kids being able to pan out. Instead you better hope they all contribute in a big way to have any success this season.

  2. #17
    Evil Emperor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,800

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by das11209;313008 View Post
    Cashman loves the kids - and no it is not like Rep. Mark Foley loves the kids.

    I believe report says it included another prospect so it depends who that prospect is. Even if it is Austin Jackson - he should have pulled the triggar.
    I see what you're saying, but no way we would have traded both Melky and Jackson. But even still, despite my favorable feelings towards Melky, there could have been no complaining if that trade went down. Doesn't matter at this poing though, I'm fine with what we have. Santana would have been nice, and so would have been his paycheck..so either way it doesn't make much of a difference. Granted making a move of that magnitude would have more than likely made us the favorites in not only the AL East but probably the AL all together, but I feel we can absolutely compete with the Beaneaters as is.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,673

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    I would have traded Jackson, Kennedy, Melky, and anyone else they wanted. You guys keep falling in love with players who, statistically speaking, do not pan out.

    The truth is, the Red Sox dropped the ball as well. I am making an assumption here, but I can't see them dropping the demand for just the Yankees. If you had to have given up either Lester or Ellsbury, and you didn't do the deal, it's almost as bad.

    Your rotation would have looked like this:

    Beckett
    Santana
    Matsuzaka
    Schilling
    Buchholz

    There was no space for Lester anyways. Wakefield is your back up. Unreal. Cashman and Theo should be infected with the Cordella virus, circa
    24" season 3.

    Lester, most favorably, has been compared to Pettitte. Pettitte is no Santana. What the hell are these guys thinking?
    "Every year, the infielders move a step back because you have lost some speed, and the outfielders move in a step because you have lost some of your power. When they can shake hands, you're finished."

  4. #19

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gom;313029;
    I would have traded Jackson, Kennedy, Melky, and anyone else they wanted. You guys keep falling in love with players who, statistically speaking, do not pan out.

    The truth is, the Red Sox dropped the ball as well. I am making an assumption here, but I can't see them dropping the demand for just the Yankees. If you had to have given up either Lester or Ellsbury, and you didn't do the deal, it's almost as bad.

    Your rotation would have looked like this:

    Beckett
    Santana
    Matsuzaka
    Schilling
    Buchholz

    There was no space for Lester anyways. Wakefield is your back up. Unreal. Cashman and Theo should be infected with the Cordella virus, circa
    24" season 3.

    Lester, most favorably, has been compared to Pettitte. Pettitte is no Santana. What the hell are these guys thinking?
    Difference is the Red Sox won the World Series while basically underachieving.

    Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, JD Drew, Julio Lugo, Jason Varitek, Coco Crisp didn't perform to expectations on offense. Obviously David Ortiz and Manny put up good numbers but short of what we are accustomed to.

    Daisuke Matsuzaka had an up and down year. Tim Wakefield and Curt Schilling spent plenty of time on the DL. Jon Lester was doing everything he could to get up to par with others after having an entire offseason recovering from cancer.

    Point is...they don't need Johan Santana to win the World Series again and are favored to win the AL East. They will have more rookies coming up to make an impact this season and many of the players from the 2007 team should have a better performance in 2008.

    The Red Sox have the team to win 100 games. The Yankees are old and short on experience in the rotation (not to mention extremely lacking in depth). The bullpen is thin and we are talking about Kei Igawa, Mike Mussina, and Ian Kennedy fighting for a rotation spot. Assuming Joba is in the rotation.

  5. #20
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,957

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gom;313029;
    I would have traded Jackson, Kennedy, Melky, and anyone else they wanted. You guys keep falling in love with players who, statistically speaking, do not pan out.

    The truth is, the Red Sox dropped the ball as well. I am making an assumption here, but I can't see them dropping the demand for just the Yankees. If you had to have given up either Lester or Ellsbury, and you didn't do the deal, it's almost as bad.

    Your rotation would have looked like this:

    Beckett
    Santana
    Matsuzaka
    Schilling
    Buchholz

    There was no space for Lester anyways. Wakefield is your back up. Unreal. Cashman and Theo should be infected with the Cordella virus, circa
    24" season 3.

    Lester, most favorably, has been compared to Pettitte. Pettitte is no Santana. What the hell are these guys thinking?

    I agree with you to some extent. I don't give a rat's ass about Lester if I get a Santana. And unlike most Sox fan who are high on Coco - I think he is at best a late innings replacement. I would have been more concerned about loosing Lowrie( hopefully he kicks Lugo in the ass) or Masterson. But I would have pulled the trigger with the Lester package.


    But no way it is as bad as Cashman's fuck-up. He needed Santana in front of those kids and getting Santana without giving up Hughes or Joba is such a no brainer.

  6. #21

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by das11209;313032;
    And unlike most Sox fan who are high on Coco - I think he is at best a late innings replacement.
    I don't have to use 2 hands for the Sox fans I know that prove your statement above

  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,673

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by SchillingIsTheNatural;313031;
    Difference is the Red Sox won the World Series while basically underachieving.

    Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, JD Drew, Julio Lugo, Jason Varitek, Coco Crisp didn't perform to expectations on offense. Obviously David Ortiz and Manny put up good numbers but short of what we are accustomed to.

    Daisuke Matsuzaka had an up and down year. Tim Wakefield and Curt Schilling spent plenty of time on the DL. Jon Lester was doing everything he could to get up to par with others after having an entire offseason recovering from cancer.

    Point is...they don't need Johan Santana to win the World Series again and are favored to win the AL East. They will have more rookies coming up to make an impact this season and many of the players from the 2007 team should have a better performance in 2008.

    The Red Sox have the team to win 100 games. The Yankees are old and short on experience in the rotation (not to mention extremely lacking in depth). The bullpen is thin and we are talking about Kei Igawa, Mike Mussina, and Ian Kennedy fighting for a rotation spot. Assuming Joba is in the rotation.
    There was doubt that the Red Sox would even make the playoffs this time last year. You had finished 3rd behind us and the Blue Jays.

    The season is long, my friend. Remember the axiom...you're never as good as you look when you win, and you're never as bad as you look when you lose. Who would have thought that Pedroia would be as good as he was? That Lowell would have an MVP caliber season? That Beckett would rebound to a Cy Young caliber season from an atrocious 2006? That your rotation would stay literally injury-free all season?

    The gap between the Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, and Tigers is very small. One of those teams is out. Which one?

    Your team underachieved? Get real. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't make the playoffs. I wouldn't be all that surprised if we didn't either. The only team that would surprise me at not making the playoffs is the Angels and the Mets.
    "Every year, the infielders move a step back because you have lost some speed, and the outfielders move in a step because you have lost some of your power. When they can shake hands, you're finished."

  8. #23

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gom;313034;
    There was doubt that the Red Sox would even make the playoffs this time last year. You had finished 3rd behind us and the Blue Jays.

    The season is long, my friend. Remember the axiom...you're never as good as you look when you win, and you're never as bad as you look when you lose. Who would have thought that Pedroia would be as good as he was? That Lowell would have an MVP caliber season? That Beckett would rebound to a Cy Young caliber season from an atrocious 2006? That your rotation would stay literally injury-free all season?

    The gap between the Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, and Tigers is very small. One of those teams is out. Which one?

    Your team underachieved? Get real. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't make the playoffs. I wouldn't be all that surprised if we didn't either. The only team that would surprise me at not making the playoffs is the Angels and the Mets.
    Agreed in the first part, but Schill, and Wake (?) missed time last year. Also anyone who says they expected those numbers posted by Lowell and Pedroia is lying through their teeth, especially given Lowell's age, and Pedroia's inexpereince. Beckett you have more of a case to believe he'd rebound, but only to a certain extent. And yes I'd say we underacheived in terms of record, Gagne cost us a few wins, and in just not reaching expectations were Manny, Tek, Crisp, Drew, Lugo, very key components to this team when one was the opening day lead-off hitter and another batted 4th spot all year.

  9. #24

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Gom, if the report is accurate, then I am a bit disappointed.
    Hal sucks

  10. #25
    Power, Pride, Pinstripes
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,967

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Post is reporting that the Twins asked for Wang and Kennedy to replace Hughes. If that's true, then I'm not sure how i feel about it.

  11. #26

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    The NY Times is reporting that the final offer from the Twins was Kennedy, Cabrera, Wang and Marquez. Nothing like taking 2SP's out of our rotation and our starting CFer. Wang was a dealbreaker IMO.
    Hal sucks

  12. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,673

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Does this make any sense to you guys? They asked for Wang and Kennedy, and settled for crap from the Mets?

    Did it ever occur to you that this is what the Yankees FO is planting?

    How do you possibly compare what the Yankees were told to offer as opposed to what the Twins took from the Mets? Are you going to hear the Red Sox had to offer Pedroia and Lester?

    Get real. The NY times, when it comes to news in New York is unparalleled. When it comes to sports, they are clueless.
    "Every year, the infielders move a step back because you have lost some speed, and the outfielders move in a step because you have lost some of your power. When they can shake hands, you're finished."

  13. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,673

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Here is something that I am starting to believe happened....and that my tiny little brain believes, lol. Santana going to the Mets....was agreed upon by the Yankees and Red Sox.

    Wait a second before you dismiss this off-hand. Think about this.

    Theo and Cashman are reputed to be friends and get along. They just hung out together for some official function just before the Santana deal.

    Is it inconceivable that the following happened?

    Cash: Theo, I got a deal for you. I don't want to give up my farm system for this guy. Do you?
    Theo: Not really. I think my kids are better than yours.
    Cash: Funny, I was thinking the same about mine. So here's my deal. Let's both pass, and let him go to the Mets. My feeling is that Santana is going to blow his arm out sometime during the extension he wants, and then I'm screwed. However, with Hank breathing down my neck, I won't have a job if you get him.
    Theo: I'm still listening Cash...but what if they drop their demands?
    Cash: They will. They'll probably come to me first. I'll decline, then you do the same. Let the Mets tie up their money for years, and kill their payroll. After all, three years from now, we'd both be better if we didn't make this deal.
    Theo: Sounds good to me. You're gonna get killed in the press.
    Cash: Not if I'm holding the 2008 World Series trophy.
    Theo: What if I don't let you? Ok...agreed. Let's see who can build a team better from the ground up.
    Cash: Good..now what?
    Theo: Hmm...wanna hit up 49th street and find us some hookers?
    Cash: Only if their Asian.
    Theo: That's what I'm talking about...let's go, I'll drive.

    I really believe this coulda happened.
    "Every year, the infielders move a step back because you have lost some speed, and the outfielders move in a step because you have lost some of your power. When they can shake hands, you're finished."

  14. #29

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gom;313164;
    Does this make any sense to you guys? They asked for Wang and Kennedy, and settled for crap from the Mets?

    Did it ever occur to you that this is what the Yankees FO is planting?

    How do you possibly compare what the Yankees were told to offer as opposed to what the Twins took from the Mets? Are you going to hear the Red Sox had to offer Pedroia and Lester?

    Get real. The NY times, when it comes to news in New York is unparalleled. When it comes to sports, they are clueless.
    I have to agree with Gom here... thats BS theres no way that they would asked for wang and kennedy and then turn around and settle for what the mets gave them

  15. #30
    Deity BSN07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,889

    Re: Analyzing the Santana deal

    May not be word for word, but it's possible...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •