Eagle-Tribune Blogs: Burt Talks Sports

8 reader comments to “Ellsbury now in Santana deal?”

1. 1
   Colin said:

   The Twins have to trade Santana before the season starts because he said he won’t sign an extension with a team if he’s traded in the middle of the season. I think the Red Sox are serious about this, unfortunately.

   Posted: Dec 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
2. 2
   Bill Burt said:

   Colin
   I agree the Twins get more value trading him now rather than, say, at the All-Star break. But there is a movement in Minnesota of fans (and media) that don’t think they should get rid of Santana for the prospects. If that’s the case, nobody, and I’m talking about the fans, are behind this move in all three baseball cities. Interesting.
   As for Santana, look the Sox will be virtually unbeatable next year with him in the rotation. And they probably could find another decent centerfielder (I don’t think Coco Crisp is going to be that guy if Ellsbury is dealt away). Five years ago, Sox fans would have demanded this trade. Now they’re not. That’s interesting developement, too.

   Posted: Dec 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 am
3. 3
   Scott in Lowell said:

   I hope the ‘inclusion’ of Ellsbury is just to drive the price up for the Yankees. I don’t mind giving up young pitchers to get an established all-star like Santana, but you’d leave a gaping hole in CF and lose a potentially terrific leadoff hitter if you trade Jacoby. He’s an every day player, he’s young, and who knows what his ceiling is. I’m with you, I doubt Coco stays either way.

   It’s going to be an interesting couple of days…

   Posted: Dec 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
4. 4
   Bill Burt said:

   Scott
   I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
   I was on WEEI on Thursday. My theme here was the Red Sox don’t NEED Johan Santana. I’m not saying he wouldn’t help them, but they don’t need an ace. They have one in Josh Beckett and maybe two, if Dice-K finds himself, which I believe he will.
   With two titles in four years, the pressure to make a move like this isn’t there. That being said, Santana is great.
   I guess the sentiment, which you brought up, is a having an every day player like Jacoby Ellsbury is not an easy thing to give up, especially at the top of the lineup, which was a major weak spot this past season.

   Posted: Dec 3rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
5. 5
   Colin said:

   I don’t agree that having Santana makes the Red Sox virtually unbeatable next year. Pitching was not Boston’s problem in 2007. The biggest issue was getting offensive production from Coco, Lugo and Drew (up until the $14 million grand slam, at least). Ellsbury gives you newfound speed at the top of the order and allows you to put Youk in the bottom half of the lineup (probably sixth) to take some pressure off Lugo and Drew. That’s a much bigger value to the team than paying $150 million to bolster a rotation that’s already one of the best in baseball.

   Posted: Dec 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
6. 6
   Steve said:

   I don’t like losing Ellsbury, but Colin, be serious. If you add Santana to the rotation, they are unbeatable, maybe for a few years. The issues with the lineup are easier to address.
   That being said, I wouldn’t make the deal.

   Posted: Dec 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
7. 7
   Scott in Lowell said:

   My big thing is, it’s okay to give up a couple of young PITCHERS for Santana (a pitcher), but not give up pitchers, AND an every day player, and only receive one pitcher in return.
   You’re totally right, the Sox don’t need this deal at all, and I’m still not convinced the Yankees are really out of it. Afterall, they NEED Santana.
   Last I heard, the Angels failed to trade to Miguel Cabrera (Tigers got him, and Dontrelle Willis), so they’re trying to make a trade with Minnesota for Johan now.

   Posted: Dec 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
8. 8
   Scott in Lowell said:

   Nevermind about the Angels going after Santana, Edes reported that it was just a crazy rumour.

   Posted: Dec 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm