POSTED BY Coley Ward ON 6:08 pm, November 27, 2007 - POSTED IN News reel
It’s amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Looking at today’s headlines I noticed…
Paul Moro says: But Joe, when the best pitcher in baseball may be available, you HAVE to at least pick up the phone and dial. And if Boston were to get Santana, I assume that Buchholz and/or Lester would have to go.
coley says: First of all, there are reports that the Cubs might be willing to trade Prior, but only because the Cubs want to sign him to a two year deal, and Prior only wants a one year contract. It’s not because they don’t want him back.
Second, Johan Santana is like a pair of silk underwear. Nobody needs Santana, but sometimes you just want to treat yourself.
Sarah Green says: Plenty of teams NEED Santana, Coley. Hello. But the teams that have the blue-chippers to trade for him are probably not the teams that need him the most.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Red Sox are seriously interested in Santana, not as long as the asking price includes Jacoby Ellsbury. I think they are just involved in the talks to make sure that if Santana does go to New York, New York will have had to give up a lot to get him.
Coley Ward says: Actually, Sarah, I’m going to have to disagree with that statement. I assume you’re talking about teams like the Rangers, Rays, Pirates, etc. when you talk about teams that NEED Santana.
But the reason those teams aren’t going to trade for Johan isn’t because they don’t have the blue chippers. In fact, some of the teams that NEED Santana the most are the teams with the best prospects.
In the case of the Rays, they don’t have the cash to sign Santana to a longterm deal. Ditto with the Diamondbacks, Pirates, Reds and just about every team except the Yanks, Sox, Angels and Dodgers.
Sarah Green says: Coley, you are now talking about something totally different—which teams can GET Santana. Which teams can AFFORD Santana. The point is, Santana is not an extraneous luxury like silk underwear. He is an ace pitcher! Imagine if the Devil Rays got him. They would have Santana AND Kazmir. They are halfway to the World Series right there! Rather than being an extraneous luxury, Santana is an essential big-ticket item. Like a new truck, if you’re a contractor. Or a sexy Mac laptop, if you’re a graphic designer. Or, if you’re, say, a soldier, Santana is like a really hot assault rifle. No, maybe you don’t *need* it. You can still shoot people with your boring old weapon. But damn, you could shoot them a lot better with that beautiful, beautiful gun.
Coley Ward says: That’s fine. Santana is a laptop. Whatever. I was just disagreeing with your statement that the teams with the blue chips are not the teams that need him the most. Many of the teams with the blue chips are EXACTLY the teams that need him the most (see: the Rays). But they won’t get him, because they can’t afford him. Or because he still wouldn’t bring enough firepower to enable them to win now.
melissa says: Santana is 28 year old lefty and he’s already won 2 Cy Young awards. He could arguably be considered the best pitcher in the game, what team can say they don’t “need” him? Any team possessing the resources to sign him to an extension should be pursuing him. I agree with Sarah in regard to considering Santana a luxury item. He’s an Ace that you build your staff around.
As far as the Cubs wanting to sign Prior, it’s more likely they are trying very hard to deal him. They have to tender him a one year deal for at least $2.8 mil by December 13 or he becomes a free agent. They are trying to deal him in order to avoid this. They have offered him a 2 year deal in case they can’t trade him. Why 2 years? They figure he will be rehabbing the first part of next season and don’t want to pay him to rehab and watch him walk at the end of ’08. The 2 year deal would be a club option for the second year. They want to try and recoup some of the money they have paid him to be injured in the off chance that he will remain healthy over the next 2 years. As a Cub fan I would rather they stop throwing good money after bad.
Paul Moro says: We’re really getting into semantics here, aren’t we? Coley’s right in a way, though. The 2007 Red Sox won the World Series. They did not have Johan Santana. They did not need Johan Santana. They could have used Johan Santana. But they did not need Johan Santana. They got the job done anyway. The 2008 Red Sox remains pretty much in tact. So they may not need Santana to repeat. That’s pretty much all he was saying, I think. But Sarah and Melissa, no one’s going to argue with you that every team could use him. But not everyone needs him.
Sarah Green says: What am I reading? Dost my eyes deceive me? EVERYONE NEEDS ACE PITCHING. EVERYONE. I DON’T CARE WHO YOU ARE. EVERYONE!!!!! Even the 2007 World Series Champs! What if Josh Beckett gets a blister the size of my head? What if Schilling’s weight balloons to sumo proportions? What if Daisuke decides that, with a baby due in March, he really ought to stay home and take care of the kids? EVERYONE NEEDS MORE PITCHING. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH PITCHING. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY ACES ON YOUR STAFF. I THOUGHT THIS, AT LEAST, WAS SOMETHING WE ALL AGREED ON.
[Sarah's head explodes.]
melissa says: Paul, I don’t think it’s semantics, I don’t see how any team can say they don’t “need” him. Sarah is absolutely right that you can’t have too much quality pitching. By your logic the Red Sox shouldn’t have acquired Beckett because they won the World Series in 04 without him. Would you suggest that when a team wins the WS they simply come back with the same exact roster the following year? Doubtful. Santana is not just a guy that makes your staff better, he’s the best pitcher in baseball. Even if you don’t think he’s the best pitcher in the game you can’t argue against him being in the top five. The other point I would make is that whatever team acquires Santana they will have increased their chances of winning the 08 World Series. Let’s narrow it down to the Red Sox and the Yankees, if one of these two teams acquire him they should have the edge over the other going into the 08 season.
Paul Moro says: Well, it is semantics. We’re just disagreeing on what “need” is. To me, “need” means absolutely essential to accomplish a goal. In 2007, the Red Sox had a goal to win the WS. They accomplished it without Johan Santana. Therefore, they did not need him. I’m not exactly sure where the controversy is. No one’s going to argue that getting a pitcher like Santana isn’t a good thing. And I never even tried to insinuate that if he’s available at a price the Sox can afford to pay they shouldn’t jump on it. Coley and I are basically saying that getting Santana would be huge but ultimately may not be neccesary. You guys (Melissa and Sarah) are saying that Santana is a must-have for every team or else you’re not going to win a World Series. Which obviously isn’t true because every team that has ever won a World Series did not have Johan Santana on their roster. So again, it’s semantics. We’re disagreeing on “need”.
Sarah Green says: Paul, come on. Your characterization of Melissa’s and my argument is hardly fair. In fact, that is a classic straw man argument, sir, and I will have none of it. None of it!
Coley said “nobody needs Santana.” That is what caused me to take to my keyboard in disbelief. “Nobody needs Santana.” Actually, a fuckload of teams need Santana. If nobody needed him to play baseball, he would be working in a cubicle like the rest of us.
Somehow this argument has now become about the Red Sox and whether they need Santana. I agree that they may need him less than other teams need him, but I will not say they flat out don’t need him, period. All 30 teams in baseball could very much use Santana’s services. That is close enough to “need” for me.
Let’s just be honest here: Coley’s comment was amusing and provocative, but obviously not accurate.
Margaret says: Hey folks–first time poster, long=time reader–known Sarah for many a year (hi Sarah!)–
I’m going to return to what Sarah originally said, which is that Santana is like luxurious silky undies, and I just can’t bring myself to disagree with that metaphor. I’m also intrigued by Beckett’s cranium-sized blister.
For the record, I don’t think they should make the trade if Ellsbury is involved. I also think Buchholz could develop over the coming years into a pretty wicked pitcher… I just feel like the potential risks outweigh the benefits, and given the excellent make-up of what we’ve got, I feel like we should be conservative in this situation.
And for me to say we should be conservative in any context is pretty remarkable.
Anyway–hi everyone–not revolutionary thoughts here but a way to introduce myself–
Paul Moro says: Well, you’re probably right about the strawman thing, Sarah. That probably was taking it overboard. My apologies. But ultimately, as usual, we’re not really disagreeing on much, if anything. But until you’ve tried silk underpants, you have not lived, my friend.
And welcome Margaret.
melissa says: Paul, Coley referred to Santana as a luxury not a needed addition to a team that was already successful. It was need vs. luxury, I didn’t see that as semantics. I would actually assert that a team with a good roster needs Santana more because he could be the one guy to put them over the top. I never said Boston or any other team can’t win the World Series without Santana. It’s easy after a team has already won to say they didn’t need any player that wasn’t on their team. Does that then mean they don’t need to upgrade their roster the following year? Sorry, I don’t agree that since Boston won in 07 it proves they don’t need Santana in 08.
Sarah Green says: Melissa, yeah. I mean, HOW DID WE EVER WIN IN 2007 WITHOUT KEVIN MILLAR?! My God.
Hi Margaret! Actually, it was Coley who said Santana was like a pair of silky drawers (or, presumably, 400-thread count Egyptian cotton sheets, or dark Godiva chocolate, or Tiffany diamonds, or….well, now I am getting carried away). I said he was like an HK416.
I agree with you on being conservative with our prospects. (Which is pretty weird for me, too.) I want to see those guys hit their prime with my team.
Coley Ward says: This has got to be one of the top 10 stupidest arguments that we’ve ever had. Paul, as usual, is right. It all depends on what your definition of “need” is.
I orginally compared Santana to a pair of silk underwear because, unless you’re in the military or have totally given up on hygene, everybody needs underwear.
Melissa, if you want to debate “need” vs. “luxury”, then let’s start by admitting that pitching is a need, while certain pitchers are luxuries that only a few teams can afford. And Johan fits into that latter category.
It’s possible to build a championship team without Santana. Of course, I think Santana would help any team he plays for, but he might not be worth acquiring if the cost is too steep.
And by all accounts, the cost will be very, very steep.
Pitchers are underwear. Johan Santana is a very expensive pair of underwear.
Unless otherwise noted, all original work by UmpBump.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
Powered by Wordpress. Designed and developed by Alejandro A. Leal.
joe l 
Aren’t they dangling Prior now?