Comments on: Old news new again

By: Coley Ward

Coley Ward — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:57:19 +0000

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.

Report this comment

By: Sarah Green

Sarah Green — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:32:31 +0000

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.

Report this comment

By: melissa

melissa — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:39:34 +0000

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.

Report this comment

By: Paul Moro

Paul Moro — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:12:56 +0000

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.

Report this comment

By: Margaret

Margaret — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:00:20 +0000

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–

Report this comment

By: Sarah Green

Sarah Green — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:59:22 +0000

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.

Report this comment

By: Paul Moro

Paul Moro — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:45:29 +0000

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”.

Report this comment

By: melissa

melissa — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:32:03 +0000

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.

Report this comment

By: Sarah Green

Sarah Green — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:57:21 +0000

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.]

Report this comment

By: Paul Moro

Paul Moro — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:38:26 +0000

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.

Report this comment