2010 MLB Season Discussion

[Jb1210a]

They weren't signing two pitchers to two $130million+ contracts. No one would, it's bad business. They sure as fuck weren't gonna trade an elite pitching prospect (Hughes) on top of paying Santana an ass-ton of money.

I never wanted Santana.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/33...l_Velocity.png

Fastball Velocity does not equal MLB success. See Jamie Moyer.

Don't be a homer and tell me you never wanted Santana, hell I would have pulled the trade for Ellsbury and Lester to the Twins for Santana and there's no way you value Hughes and Cabrera over Lester and Ellsbury.

[Cephius]

Fastball Velocity does not equal MLB success. See Jamie Moyer.

Don't be a homer and tell me you never wanted Santana, hell I would have pulled the trade for Ellsbury and Lester to the Twins for Santana and there's no way you value Hughes and Cabrera over Lester and Ellsbury.

I bet if you keep acting like the trade was just for Hughes and Melky, it'll come true.

[fren.]

Santana was never a true power pitcher. So what his velocity is is irrelevant when arguing his value. The issues with his change is why he's been inconsistent at times, but nobody is perfect, not even CC. I'd be worried about CC's size going into his early to mid 30s, guys typically that big don't always stay healthy. I'd argue Santana is a surer bet to stay more productive later in his career barring any more arm/shoulder injuries because he's developed as a location pitcher instead of the power pitcher CC is.

Sabathia has a better BB/9 in the last 4 years; 1 fewer walk than Johan and he's pitched ~70 more innings. Not even mentioning the fact that Santana dipped below 8K/9 after going to the NL. Sure he can be successful, he's fucking excellent, but he's trending backwards (loss of velo, arm injuries, declining peripherals)

[Soa]

Kyle Kendrick fucking blows.

I'm stuck listening to the Nats broadcasters on the stream I'm watching and whoever that guy is with Dibble is a moron. He thought faking a throw over to 3rd then looking at 1st was a balk.

Way to call fan interference after we throw the guy out at third.

[Jb1210a]

Assuming Hughes becomes anything close to a serviceable starter, then it's Hughes and Vazquez.

Santana in 2008: 16 - 7, 2.54 ERA, 234.1 IP, 206ks on Mets team that won 89 games.

Hughes in 2008: 0 - 4, 6.62 ERA, 34 IP, 23ks on a Yankees team that won 89 games.

Knowing what we know now does not equal what may happen in the future, especially on a team whose yearly goal is to win a Championship.

[Jb1210a]

I bet if you keep acting like the trade was just for Hughes and Melky, it'll come true.

Let it be know that when I didn't mention the excess talent in this trade, it's not because I am not aware, it's because it's irrelevant in terms of the argument.

[fren.]

Fastball Velocity does not equal MLB success. See Jamie Moyer.

Santana is 31, he's not supposed to be LOSING velocity. Moyer's been a below league-average pitcher since '04, why is this relevant?

To go along with his decreased fastball velocity, he's also striking out fewer batters. Hurrrrrrrrrrr.

Don't be a homer and tell me you never wanted Santana, hell I would have pulled the trade for Ellsbury and Lester to the Twins for Santana and there's no way you value Hughes and Cabrera over Lester and Ellsbury.

Homer? the fuck? Sabathia was a FA the next off-season, this wasn't a hard decision.

[Cephius]

Santana in 2008: 16 - 7, 2.54 ERA, 234.1 IP, 206ks on Mets team that won 89 games.

Hughes in 2008: 0 - 4, 6.62 ERA, 34 IP, 23ks on a Yankees team that won 89 games.

Knowing what we know now does not equal what may happen in the future, especially on a team whose yearly goal is to win a Championship.

Yes, let's compare Santana in his prime to a 21 year old kid in his first year in the majors. When he got injured no less. Brilliant. Proves a lot.

[Trichocyst]

Kyle Kendrick fucking blows.

I'm stuck listening to the Nats broadcasters on the stream I'm watching and whoever that guy is with Dibble is a moron. He thought faking a throw over to 3rd then looking at 1st was a balk.

Way to call fan interference after we throw the guy out at third.

Yeah, but it definitely was interference. This game is out of hand. 7-6 in the bottom of the 2nd? No Rollins? No Werth? No problem. Polanco, Utley, and Howard are just dialed up.

[Jb1210a]

Santana is 31, he's not supposed to be LOSING velocity. Moyer's been a below league-average pitcher since '04, why is this relevant?

It's proof that having excellent velocity isn't what makes or breaks a pitcher. The guy is 47, in 2004 he was 41. He's also playing for a very good ball club. There's no way Santana is playing at 47 years old. Here's a couple more examples of pitchers with low velocity that have been very successful. Mike Mussina and Andy Petite.

To go along with his decreased fastball velocity, he's also striking out fewer batters. Hurrrrrrrrrrr.

k/9 is important yes, but look at Andy Petite, his k/9 has always been in the 5 and 6 range except for one fluke year with the Astros. He's successful right?

Homer? the fuck? Sabathia was a FA the next off-season, this wasn't a hard decision.

As was Burnett and they signed him. His salary in 2009 was 16.5 million, Santana's in 2009 was 18.9 million. Difference of 2.4 million, have I made my point?

[Jb1210a]

Yes, let's compare Santana in his prime to a 21 year old kid in his first year in the majors. When he got injured no less. Brilliant. Proves a lot.

Christ, will you listen to what I'm saying? In 2008 the Yankees didn't make the playoffs, with Santana, they surely would have.

[Soa]

Its about time we had a good argument here, its way too civil compared to the other sports threads.

Yeah it was definitely interference, just odd that they waited till after the whole play was done before calling it. I think Joe West is part this umpiring crew, so I guess he's enjoying this fine pitchers duel.

[Trichocyst]

I'd like to point out, so that there's no confusion, that Jamie Moyer has been throwing 88 MPH since he was signed by the Cubs. One of the famous Moyer anecdotes is that he carries around his scouting sheet from when he got drafted and it essentially described the same pitcher. And in 2008 he had a 3.71 ERA which is none too shabby for a #4 starter and he's 85-77 since 2004.

[Cephius]

Christ, will you listen to what I'm saying? In 2008 the Yankees didn't make the playoffs, with Santana, they surely would have.

That's not even what we were fucking talking about. You've now changed the topic so many times I have no idea what your god damn point is.

I will make this as freaking clear as humanly possible:

Hughes, Cabrera, Cano/whoever for Santana was never going to happen because the Yankee spending is not limitless, despite your feelings to the contrary. They were going to save their prospects and cash and get Sabathia the next year.

Also, comparing Andy Pettitte to CC and Santana is fucking lol.

[*Shinzon*]

They weren't signing two pitchers to two $130million+ contracts. No one would, it's bad business. They sure as fuck weren't gonna trade an elite pitching prospect (Hughes) on top of paying Santana an ass-ton of money.

I never wanted Santana.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/33...l_Velocity.png

Holy shit this chart is excellent. I can't imagine that the Perez fastball is actually worse than Maine's but I guess it could be lol. Yeah Santana has been on a downward trend, but he's had those bone chips in his arm for awhile, it only really started to affect him last year to the point where he couldn't throw without any pain. So he's been pitching with some pain for a bit.

I imagine he'll build get back to averaging 90~ but my point was he's going to be successful for awhile just because he doesn't rely on over powering hitters. CC on the other hand will have to prove his health because big guys don't age well usually. But there was also the point made about David Wells so.

[Melena]

dear god if i didn't know any better, i'd think you were a god damn troll. Could the yankee's gotten both? Yes. Without looking at what happened in the future, they realized they'd have to give up 4 prospects + sign Santana at about 150-200 mil. Or they could wait a year, sign CC and Burnett for a little more + give up no prospects. Hmm, tough fucking call right there.

[Trichocyst]

I feel like the Yankees might have been committed to spend more money this off season, but they don't have to. They just won the world series and improved the team through smaller contracts. That's how the dominoes fell.

[Jb1210a]

That's not even what we were fucking talking about. You've now changed the topic so many times I have no idea what your god damn point is.

You're right, the original argument was based on Melky Cabrera sucking it up and another poster referring to Vazquez having a bad start. Which I in return stated that it would have been a good trade for the Yankees based on what we know now.

I will make this as freaking clear as humanly possible:

Hughes, Cabrera, Cano/whoever for Santana was never going to happen because the Yankee spending is not limitless, despite your feelings to the contrary. They were going to save their prospects and cash and get Sabathia the next year.

Difference in salary between Santana and Burnett in 2009 was 2.4 million. If they didn't have the money in 2008 to sign Santana after the trade, then why sign someone to a comparable deal in terms of money per year in 2009?

Also, comparing Andy Pettitte to CC and Santana is fucking lol.

Never compared Petite to CC, look again. My argument with Petite was of velocity and success based on velocity.

Look, I'll make this easy for everyone. Santana was an amazing pitcher in 2008, will probably be a good pitcher for years to come. Santana could easily be the number 2 starter on the Yankees this year. The trade wasn't made for whatever reason, if the general consensus was that it was made because they simply didn't or couldn't spend the money, then so be it.

[Cephius]

Difference in salary between Santana and Burnett in 2009 was 2.4 million. If they didn't have the money in 2008 to sign Santana after the trade, then why sign someone to a comparable deal in terms of money per year in 2009?

Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that Santana would have cost valuable prospects and would have had to be signed to a longer contract than Burnett was. I give up.

[Jb1210a]

dear god if i didn't know any better, i'd think you were a god damn troll. Could the yankee's gotten both? Yes. Without looking at what happened in the future, they realized they'd have to give up 4 prospects + sign Santana at about 150-200 mil. Or they could wait a year, sign CC and Burnett for a little more + give up no prospects. Hmm, tough fucking call right there.

Actually it should be a tough fucking call. It's obvious that every team in MLB overvalues their prospects while undervaluing every one else's. It was a huge topic in 2008 and not so simple as you put it here. If it's a fact that all 4 of those prospects turn out to be fucking hall of famers, then you don't make that trade. No team in baseball values a prospect more than a proven commodity, if you could trade 4 prospects to the Yankees in return for CC Sabathia and an almost guarantee to make the playoffs and do some damage that year, then do you do it?