Jump to content
SportsWrath

Got Balls?


mickeef2

Recommended Posts

Theo does. I think he has played this Santana sweepstakes brilliantly so far, at least from the look of things. It appears that he has now changed the offer to Ellsbury and three minor leaguers. Word is the Twins are highest on Ellsbury of all the players being discussed (Hughes, Kennedy, Melky, Lester, etc.). If they really value him, they may make an impulsive move and go for it. I would have to agree to that trade. I love Ellsbury, but if you can trade him and three minor leaguers for Santana, you gotta do it. It then forces the Yankees' hand, and you know it would be killing Hank Steinbrenner to let Santana get away, and to the Sox no less. On the other hand, if the Twins say, "No thanks," you've at least made the Yankees include Hughes in the deal.

 

Looking ahead a step, suppose the Twins say no and the Sox then say, "We'll throw in Lester, too." (So it's Lester, Ellsbury, and two minor leaguers). If the Yankees drop out and the Twins decide to make that trade, a window will be opened for the Sox to sign Santana to an extension. If I'm Theo, I try to low-ball Santana and offer him, say, 17 mil a year for 6 years. If he says yes (he probably wouldn't), you get him at a discounted rate. If he says no, you lose nothing, but you've now basically forced the Yankees to show their hand to the Twins as to what they'd be willing to pay. That would be my next move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the Yankees do get Santana then everybody starts saying they buy all their players and overpay, and the Yankees have monopolized the industry. Even when I discuss how the Angels are over paying and trying to buy as many free agents as they can, the Yankees get dragged into it. People say, "well the Angels have to in order to keep up with the Yankees."

 

Regardless of what the Yankees do in this situation, the critics will never stop with the same old, tired argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the Yankees do get Santana then everybody starts saying they buy all their players and overpay, and the Yankees have monopolized the industry. Even when I discuss how the Angels are over paying and trying to buy as many free agents as they can, the Yankees get dragged into it. People say, "well the Angels have to in order to keep up with the Yankees."

 

Regardless of what the Yankees do in this situation, the critics will never stop with the same old, tired argument.

 

Well, you won't hear any of that from me, and never have. Until baseball adopts a salary cap (and it doesn't look like that will happen anytime in the near future), this is the way it is. They Yanks and Sox could just sit back and count their money and not give a crap about the product out on the field, but instead they re-invest money into their franchises, and they're the better for it. That's good business.

 

By the way, lots of Yankee fans, especially on this board, have whined about the Sox being the highest-payrolled team to ever win a championship, which is probably the most retarded argument imaginable considering the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol The latest quote from Hank Steinbrenner:

 

"I'm not going to be played against the Red Sox. That's not something I'll do. That's not something the Yankees should ever do, and that's I think what they're trying to do now," Yankees senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner said Sunday. "So if they want the best offer that has been offered to them, then they need to make up their minds."

 

What a rube. He really needs to let Cashman handle this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about the whole salary cap point. The Yankees and Sox both have owners that make loads of money and THEN put that money right back into the team. There are many owners in the league (looking your way Minnesota and Tampa Bay) that could pay the high salaries, but these owners refuse to put their revenue back into the team in order to make it a winner. They willingly accept and then pocket the money from the Yankees and Sox, then turn right around and say that the Yankees spending is bad for the game. Bad for the game, but not bad for their bank accounts, am I right? It's a very tired argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, at this point I've changed my mind about trading Ellsbury. I don't want to do it under any circumstances. I'm not feeling good about giving all that money to Santana after the season he had last year (good, but not up to his standards), and I would just rather hold onto the prospects. While I don't want to see him go to the Yanks, I wouldn't mind seeing them give up Hughes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, my assesment is from their minor league numbers...actually Ledee's numbers were better...Ricky Ledee 900 ops, jacoby Ellsbury 800 ops

 

Sounds like flawless logic to me. You're comparing a guy (Ellsbury) who had an 800 ops in the minors (not very good), to a guy (Ledee) who, despite a good ops in the minors, turned out to be a mediocre Major Leaguer, and you're claiming they're going to be the same player based on stats that are totally dissimilar. Makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, my assesment is from their minor league numbers...actually Ledee's numbers were better...Ricky Ledee 900 ops, jacoby Ellsbury 800 ops

 

So minor league stats are your basis as to what a player will do in the majors? Thank god you were not Gene Michael and getting all those offers from teams in the early 80's for Don Mattingly and his minor league stats.

 

Most talent evaluators pay very little attention to minor league stats, they look at the tools that the player has in terms of their overall game.

 

I can name you ten guys who would have numbers in AA and AAA that would blow ones mind, only to be shit in the majors. Geez Tom O'Malley was a perennial player in the AAA all star game in the late 80's, man could not hit the cows ass with a shovel in the majors and everyone knew it, despite his inflated minor league numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So minor league stats are your basis as to what a player will do in the majors? Thank god you were not Gene Michael and getting all those offers from teams in the early 80's for Don Mattingly and his minor league stats.

 

Most talent evaluators pay very little attention to minor league stats, they look at the tools that the player has in terms of their overall game.

 

I can name you ten guys who would have numbers in AA and AAA that would blow ones mind, only to be shit in the majors. Geez Tom O'Malley was a perennial player in the AAA all star game in the late 80's, man could not hit the cows ass with a shovel in the majors and everyone knew it, despite his inflated minor league numbers.

todd linden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So minor league stats are your basis as to what a player will do in the majors? Thank god you were not Gene Michael and getting all those offers from teams in the early 80's for Don Mattingly and his minor league stats.

 

Most talent evaluators pay very little attention to minor league stats, they look at the tools that the player has in terms of their overall game.

 

I can name you ten guys who would have numbers in AA and AAA that would blow ones mind, only to be shit in the majors. Geez Tom O'Malley was a perennial player in the AAA all star game in the late 80's, man could not hit the cows ass with a shovel in the majors and everyone knew it, despite his inflated minor league numbers.

 

I wouldn't say that talent evaluators pay very little attention to minor league stats, because they can be an accurate indicator of a guy's potential. But they are definitely aware that there are plenty of guys who are average minor leaguers, yet flourish in the pros, and vice-versa. The point is, it's stupid to compare two guys' major league potential based on their minor league stats, especially two guys who had as different minor league career tracks as Ledee and Ellsbury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest quote from Hank Steinbrenner:

 

"We're all still very much pleased with what we've got," Steinbrenner added in a telephone interview. "As far as the door (to a Santana deal) being open, who knows? At this point, Chamberlain, Hughes, Kennedy, Cabrera and Cano, they're as close to untouchable as you get. "The only reason I made a point of a deadline on Santana was that I didn't want to get caught up in the circus of the winter meetings. The purpose of that deadline was trying to get something done before the winter meetings."

 

This guy is a comic genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...