I know I shouldn't look to Bill Simmons for competent baseball analysis. And I do not. But I was reading through his marathon chat yesterday, and couldn't help but notice this:DJ (Cranston,RI): Hey Bill,thanks for making work go by a little faster...anyway, if you were Theo Epstein would you trade Buckholtz,Lester and Coco for Santana?I am quite confident that if Theo Epstein called up Bill Smith and offered this package for Santana, Smith would accept it immediately. I have not seen any scenario in which the Twins get Lester and Buchholz. He continues:
Bill Simmons: (1:26 PM ET ) In a heartbeat. That's not going to be nearly enough though.
No. The Yankees do not make this trade, Bill. They would be giving up Robinson Cano, Ian Kennedy, Phillip Hughes, and Melky Cabrera for Johan Santana. This would be completely insane. Brian Cashman would absolutely never even consider doing this.
This is really a fantastic way to look at this situation. When looking towards the future, it's important that Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester weren't even in the "TOP FIFTEEN" on this year's team. Extremely relevant.
And this trade would be fantastic for the "sports of baseball as a whole", specifically the Twins, Yankees, Indians, and Angels.
And then there's this, from ESPN:
"The Red Sox and Twins are discussing the framework of a Johan Santana deal that would have Boston sending four players to Minnesota in return for the two-time Cy Young Award winner, including center fielder Coco Crisp, pitcher Jon Lester and minor-league shortstop Jed Lowrie, the trio that would anchor the deal."Hmm...something tells me that this is less than the Buchholz/Lester/Crisp trade that Simmons thought wouldn't be "nearly enough". Also, another slight detail:
"Red Sox prospects Clay Buchholz and Jacoby Ellsbury are considered untouchables in the Red Sox-Twins negotiations; similarly, the Yankees have indicated to others that they will not trade second baseman Robinson Cano or pitcher Joba Chamberlain."Oops.
Photo: 1-800-Beisbol.
20 comments:
does simmons even know who these players are? i mean he obviously knows who santana only is by reputation and did 20 seconds of research looking up haren's innings from the last three seasons, but i don't think he's heard of any of the yankee names he throws around. and this man gets paid?
I noticed this mess too during his chat. Why did he throw Cano in there? In all the Johan stuff I've read it's been clear that Buchholz was off-limits and I never heard Cano's name mentioned. And Simmions gets on Epstein about some of his deals? Please.
I also thought this was a bit off, from the chat:
"I also think Melky is decidedly above-average - he's better than Coco Crisp." Decidedly above average? Based on what metric? Jack-O's gut?
Lets see, the question asks would he do that trade and he answers that he would do it right away. He then gives his opinion that Santana is worth overpaying for to guarantee another Championship run for his team. I do not see the problem, you take the position that a sensible GM should not make that deal, but he is a fan and the fact is I agree with him that if the goal is to win the world series the Red Sox would be crazy not to give up Lester and Bucholz. What you leave out is his follow up that he thinks pitching prospects should always be traded for studs. If all of these prospects became all-stars no one would need to trade. Your critique is not a fair reading of his comments and what view he was answering from.
"...if the goal is to win the world series the Red Sox would be crazy not to give up Lester and Bucholz."
That's an opinion, and that's fine. But everybody in baseball completely disagrees with that stance, as made clear by the fact that Buchholz isn't even being considered in trade talks.
The point is that Simmons isn't paying attention, at all. And how about that Yankees trade? Does that improve the Yankees' chances of winning the World Series?
sports guy is no better at hoops. in the same chat he advocated a camby and najara for amare deal. and in his last column, he said the lakers should trade andrew bynum for shaq.
he may be full of himself, but if you take him for what he is, he's rather entertaining.
You guys who are posting...you have to realize how terrible this Sox trade would be for the Twins. Simmons is correct in that first aspect. Maybe Lester AND Buckholtz would be enough, MAYBE, but trading the best pitcher in the league for Lester, 2 prospects, and the Sox backup center fielder? I realize he only has one year left on his contract, but the Twins would be getting hosed on this deal.
I agree with Bill here - he may have gone overboard on what the Yankees would be giving up in the trade (Kennedy, Cano, Cabrera, and Hughes would be too much), but not WAY off. If the Yanks or Sox get Santana, they can resign him. So if you take away one of the pitchers from that deal (Kennedy or Hughes), the Yanks would be giving up a good hitting second baseman, an alright outfielder, and a good young pitcher (let's net go overboard on Hughes or Kennedy, they have great promise, but are still too young to really tell) for the best pitcher in the game, by anyone's measure.
It's important to look towards the future, but it's not like Santana is 35 or anything - he's 28. Remember, the point of putting together a team is to win. Sounds simple, but pitchers like this don't come along often, and when you have a chance to get someone like Santana you have to pull the trigger.
There is definitely a possibility that the Crisp/Lester/Lowrie/Masterson package got leaked to put pressure on the Yankees to include both Hughes and Kennedy in a deal with Cabrera. Its certainly possible that the Yanks end up including both pitchers, which would make Simmons' assessment of Santana's value not too far off.
^^^^
there is no chance of the possibility you mention. the twins ARE trying to pressure the yankees by leaking the sox offer...but its to include hughes INSTEAD of kennedy, not in addition to. the yankees are not going to move 2 elite, major league ready, pitching prospects in the deal.
furthermore, there is no way cano (who is more than just a "good" hitting 2B, he is one of the most promising young hitters in the game 24 or younger) is being traded.
which makes simmons incredibly far off.
The problem is that no matter how good Santana is, he is only a starting pitcher. He would only pitch every fifth day and would be losing to everyday starters and good young pitcher.
Would it make them better in the postseason when Santana could pitch two or even three times in a series? Yes. But it wouldn't matter because a trade like this would likely result in them missing the postseason entirely.
"The problem is that no matter how good Santana is, he is only a starting pitcher. He would only pitch every fifth day and would be losing to everyday starters and good young pitcher"
the only valid point you made, anon, is one we already knew: yes, johan santana is a starting pitcher. I guess you forgot that he has a cy young or two to his credit and therefore, when pitching every fifth day, tends to win. often. and who are these everyday starters? I don't know a single team that employs a pitcher that starts every day. what a horrid comment. there's a reason that everyone is getting a hard-on at the prospect of acquiring a sure-thing like santana: he WILL get you into the post-season. you think the twins were making a run at the central and wild card the last few years because of scott baker? jackass
"The problem is that no matter how good Santana is, he is only a starting pitcher. He would only pitch every fifth day and would be losing to everyday starters and good young pitcher"
the only valid point you made, anon, is one we already knew: yes, johan santana is a starting pitcher. I guess you forgot that he has a cy young or two to his credit and therefore, when pitching every fifth day, tends to win. often. and who are these everyday starters? I don't know a single team that employs a pitcher that starts every day. what a horrid comment. there's a reason that everyone is getting a hard-on at the prospect of acquiring a sure-thing like santana: he WILL get you into the post-season. you think the twins were making a run at the central and wild card the last few years because of scott baker? jackass
To be fair, the guy was in the middle of a 7 hour chat. I'm not the biggest supporter of Simmons, but give him a break on this one.
hey how about we bitch about what someone else writes like we can do a better job? sounds like a good idea to me.
Hey, why don't we anonymously bitch about what someone writes about someone else like we can do a better job?
Our blogger here wasn't criticizing Simmons' writing. He was criticizing his dumbass ideas.
Formula for getting blog noticed:
Make anti Simmons post. check
As a Sox fan, I say make that trade in a heartbeat. As in, I would trade any two pitching prospects for the best pitcher in baseball. Pitching prospects are always shaky.
Clearly Cano was never part of the trade, but the hold on on the Sox end has been Ellsbury. Reportedly the package the Twins are demanding includes Bucholtz, Ellsbury and Lester. From the Yankees it's Phil Hughes (the potential deal breaker), Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera. A three way trade would be the way for the Twins to go though. They need a complementary pitcher for Francisco Liriano.
It's hard to know if Haren is the guy that posted the 2.30ish (off the top of my head, I know it was in this range) ERA in the first half or the season or the guy that was 4.15 in teh second half. With Liriano they have the flexibility to find out. I'd want Haren and another guy though in this scenario if I'm the Twins.
Anonymous at 6:02am
Are you bleeping retahded? First of all, it's not trading 2 pitching prospects for the best pitcher in baseball: it's trading 2 pitching prospects, who are basically free for the next few years, and then still under the BoSox's control for a while after that, for 1 year of Johan. 1 year.
Second, it's not like these guys are Brian Rose and Tony Armas here. These are guys who've pitched in the Show, and have shown that they can succeed. Buchholz did pitch a no-hitter, as you may recall. At one point, some jackass fan such as yourself most likely made the same comment about Johan after he first experienced success. Lester looks like a 3-4 pitcher, and Buchholz looks like a legit ace. Trading two guys like that for one year of Johan is what Dan Duquette would do, and is a good reason the Sox sucked prior to the Epstein era.
Take a seat, chump.
So, uh, but Simmons was right you know?
i know this is kinda old now but listen to "the voice of reason":
"there's a reason that everyone is getting a hard-on at the prospect of acquiring a sure-thing like santana: he WILL get you into the post-season. you think the twins were making a run at the central and wild card the last few years because of scott baker? "
are you serious, guy? the name's gotta be a joke, right? 1.santana WILL get you to the playoffs. 2. the twins had santana. the combination of axioms 1 and 2 logically leads one to the conclusion that the twiins *almost* made the playoffs last year. wait, no. something appears to be wrong here...
even if santana wins every game he pitches (which wont happen) there still needs to be 24 other players who can win the other ~65 games that will be needed to win that division. and lets not forget that minisota was not a team full of bakers, but there was in fact some real talent on those teams. furthermore, lets remember not only this year but that santana is not required to sign with the team he is traded to, and the other team will probably be better after the team he is traded to loses most of it's future stars. also remember santana's last seven games, 5 of which he allowed more than three runs. now, is trading for santana a good idea? i don't know, and the truth is neither do any of you and neither do the gms. trades, unlike FA signings which can sometimes be obviously good or bad from the get go, are almost never sure things (or at least no sure things actually are agreed to, excluding all mets trades and the giants pirates trade last year) and there is almost always risk on both sides. think about it, both sides have to want what they are getting. more to the point the three way trade is absolutely retarded and would never get offered, and the red socks package at the top is also not very rational. lets think about this, yes santana will help the team he goes to for one year, plus maybe some extra time to resign him, but a cy-young winner does not mean playoff berth (see mr peavy) and when the goal at the end of the day is a ring one has to examine the whole team not just who your #1 starter is.
all of this tedious, insipid santana talk is fucking killing me. Fuck the yankees, Fuck the red socks (fuck the way the red socks spell socks), and Fuck Johan. the man is very good and i understand the huffing and puffing but it aggrivates me to no end.
oh, and p.s.- some of you are absolutely retarded, those of u who aren't know who u are, and those of you who are, well, probably think you're not (except for "the voice of reason" who has lost the right to speak entirely).
yep, bill simmons fucking sucks. i wonder why he's even on the espn staff. the more crap he dishes out, everyone in the office has now been switching over to fox sports. expert analysis my fucking ass.
Post a Comment