But I also think that having Santana seriously increases the Sox’ chances of playing in October for the next few years. And when they do, they go in with a front line of Santana, Beckett, Matsuzaka, and Buchholz. That’s just nuts, and I’m incredibly jealous of the thought.

With all this said, “sample sizes” – and I agree that the term sounds cold – are incredibly important to put things into perspective. There are tons of guys who’ve had impressive debuts to their MLB careers over the years. But not many of them can sustain that success over a longer span of time. Look at guys like Scott Podsednik, Ross Gload, Angel Berroa, Ben Grieve, Bob Hamelin, Terrmel Sledge, Josh Barfield, Eric Hinske, etc. Sure, I can rattle off the names of guys who’ve succeeded too, but that’s not the point.

I’m not saying that Ellsbury is going to fail. If I had to bet, I’d say that he will be an above-average CFer (which isn’t as easy as it sounds) and lead-off guy. That’s obviously valuable. But I’m also saying that Johan Santana is the greatest pitcher since Pedro Martinez. When you can get him without giving up your #1 prospect and, depending on whether or not you prefer Ellsbury to Lester, your #3 prospect, AND you can afford his contract, I think you should do it.

But you’re also right to prefer Ellsbury to Crisp.

REPORT COMMENT

I mean seriously, if they can afford give $10 million a year to Julio Lugo and $14 million a year to JD Drew, they can easily afford to give $22 million a year to Johan freakin’ Santana!

REPORT COMMENT

I think you also have to factor in the opportunity costs in tying up so much money in one player, especially a player who doesn’t play every day. It’s one thing to give Manny Ramirez, the best hitter of his era and a durable position player, $160 million for 8 years. It’s quite another to give that amount to a pitcher for 5 years.

And Nick, so far you are the only other person who has even acknowledged that the Red Sox lineup will be weaker without Ellsbury. But your response falls short, as pretty much every other comment has fallen short, because it fails to address BOTH the trade itself AND the lucrative contract Santana will demand. I don’t think you can talk about one without talking about the other.

REPORT COMMENT

The way I see it, the Red Sox can easily afford to give up Ellsbury, if they have to, because they have Coco Crisp.

These trade proposals always need to be considered within the relative context of what other pieces a team has. If the Sox didn’t have Crisp, or had already traded him away or something, then even despite the fact that Santana for Ellsbury and Lester would objectively be a good trade for the Sox if looked at in a vacuum, I would have to agree with Sarah that giving up a very promising young centerfielder for an ace pitcher when you already have 6 major league quality pitchers would not be a good idea if you don’t have a replacement.

However.

Since the Red Sox DO have Coco Crisp available to step into center field, the trade has to be evaluated in terms of the potential dropoff from Ellsbury to Crisp versus the potential gain from Lester to Stantana. And when viewed in that context, I think it is clear that including Ellsbury in a trade for Santana would still be a GREAT trade for the Sox. Because the dropoff from Ellsbury to Crisp is simply not all that much, relative to what would be gained by getting Santana. Crisp is clearly a major-league caliber CF, especially on defense, and he still has considerable up-side left on offense.

No one is disputing that there would probably be a slight dropoff in centerfield from Ellsbury to Crisp. But that is not the issue here.

REPORT COMMENT

Everyone is talking about what a gleaming, golden God Santana is. I’m just trying to bring some balance to the conversation. Nonetheless, I’ve already said I’d support a move involving Lester. I can’t support moving Ellsbury because the role he fills for Boston is too important. At the end of the season, when Ellsbury was in the lineup, the Red Sox won. When Ellsbury came out of the lineup, the Red Sox lost. It’s as simple as that.

And I think it’s important to note that neither Lester nor Ellsbury are untested young punks. They’re not teenagers. For all intents and purposes, Ellsbury is Boston’s Opening Day starting centerfielder and Lester is their No. 4 pitcher (and would be a No. 2 starter on almost any other team). This is not a no-brainer. This could be a very expensive move for Boston.

And I’ll remind the peanut gallery that most folks (though not me, and not Nick) thought Gabbard, Beltre, and Murphy for Gagne was a no-brainer back in July. We saw how well that turned out.

REPORT COMMENT

REPORT COMMENT

Anyhow, here’s the thing with Peter King’s comments – he’s talking as if Ellsbury becoming a top-notch lead-off hitter is an inevitability. But he questions Santana (and rightly so). But Ellsbury himself is no lock by any stretch of the imagination. You’re right about not knowing how much Santana has left – but the same could be said about pretty much anybody. I understand the hesitation about giving up prospects – but when you have the chance to acquire the best pitcher in the game without having to give up your top prospect (Buchholz), isn’t that a good deal? Although the more I hear about Lowrie, the more I wonder…

REPORT COMMENT

“Ellsbury’s going to be a fun, electric, great player anchoring the outfield for the next decade while stealing 50 bases a year with a good on-base percentage. Santana is the best pitcher in the game, arguably, right now. But he’ll be 29 next opening day, he has 175 starts under his belt with 1,308 innings pitched. That’s a lot of wear on a hard-throwing pitcher. Does he have three years of prime pitching left? One? Seven? And the money you’ll have to pay him … How will Josh Beckett feel after basically winning this team the World Series and then making half what this new import’s making?”

Coley, I’m not going to dignify your Kenny Lofton suggestion with a response. He is old enough to be Ellsbury’s grandfather.

And Paul, can you tell me why New Yorkers have such a superiority complex, such that when other cities want to be the best at something, New Yorkers act like they’re getting all uppity and forgetting the natural order of things?

Margaret, I did see that Ellsbury signed with Boras. Boras must represent like half the Red Sox roster now. It’s disgusting.

And Melissa, I don’t think it’s sentiment to keep your cheap, young lefty starting pitcher and your cheap, young leadoff-hitter/CF, both of which have huge upside, rather than send them both packing in exchange for one man who, frankly, will cost a fuckload and may not have more than 2-3 good years left. To go back to my original post, if the Red Sox want pitching, even lefty pitching, even good lefty pitching, there is plenty on the market. The last thing the Red Sox need to do right now is get all starry eyed and talk themselves into Santana, at the cost of as many as five other players, possibly including two players that were essential to the 2007 World Series title. That is madness.

REPORT COMMENT

REPORT COMMENT

Sadly, non-Bostonians largely are correct in their translations.

It’s called an inferiority complex. And every real Boston sports fan suffers from severe aggressive impulses as a result.

Decades of despair… its not like those complexes go away overnight. I’m being completely serious here. There’s a lot of lasting bitterness.

Not that there isn’t an element of delicious masochism in it–OH IT HURTS SO GOOD. If we aren’t blowing World Series, we have to anguish about hot stove deals BECAUSE WE LOVE THE PAIN. WE NEED IT. We will seek it out.

Speaking of pain–did you see Ellsbury has signed with Boras?

REPORT COMMENT