To Johan, or Not to Johan?
I wanted to post about this earlier, but I'd been tied up for the past week making revisions to a dissertation chapter, among other things. But I had been keeping an eye on the recent Santana to the Yankees rumors, and it's impossible not to find such a move intriguing. Who wouldn't want to see Santana, easily one of the best pitchers in the game the past few years, in pinstripes? He throws quite hard, has lock-down stuff including a dynamite change-up, he eats innings, and he's tough. The Yankees particularly need a very good lefty starter, possibly even more should Andy Pettite retire, and Santana would immediately solidify the entire rotation while dramatically improving the top of the rotation. He's an ace, without question, and would put the Yankees near, if not at, the top of favorites for the 2008 World Series. He's just that terrific.
But at what costs Santana? Preliminary discussions between the Twins and Yankees have involved names such as Melky and Phil Hughes, and it's hard to believe that the Twins wouldn't command those two, plus another pitcher and possibly another position prospect/player. That is, the Twins would demand a top pitching prospect, a good player already in the majors, and one or two more prospects. Is this worth it?
I'm torn, honestly. Should the Yankees pull off such a deal, I wouldn't complain as long as the asking price weren't exorbitant. After all, it would be Santana, not an overpriced, fairly good, limited pitcher such as Barry Zito. But I have to admit that I'm eager to see how Hughes, Chamberlain, and Ian Kennedy pan out. I'm not expecting the three of them to garner all the Cy Young awards until the year 2020--though that would be tremendous--but I do believe they'll perform well in 2008 and beyond. Plus, they'll only improve from here. Though he only pitched several innings in the 2007 ALDS, Hughes showed himself to be good and at times dominant in several starts in his rookie year. He has much to learn, he has to improve his strength and endurance (hopefully through a rigorous exercise regimen), and he needs to sharpen his change-up and slider (key alternative pitches). But he has the stuff as well as great poise for his age. He's worth holding onto and watching how he'll develop. So are the others, especially Joba.
The Yankees have also planned to use at least two of those mentioned above for the 2008 rotation, and it's quite possible that Kennedy could be in the rotation as well. I agree with the plan, especially because the three have had some, albeit limited, experience in the majors. Chamberlain will need to make the transition to the rotation, and thankfully appears to be untouchable. Hughes had a nice, but truncated, 2007 season, and Kennedy was quite good in his brief stint in the majors. All three have very good stuff, and Chamberlain is dynamite. The drawback is that the Yankees will be investing a lot of hope in very young pitchers based on the promise of shortened seasons. That, and the possible loss of Pettite combined with the bizarre collapse of Wang late last year, might spur the Yankees to pull the trigger. Yet that has panned out well for the Tigers, and is worth considering for the Yankees.
There's no getting around the fact that the Yankees--any team--will need to cough up a top pitching prospect and then some to get Santana, then they'll need to sign Santana to a huge, long-term deal--the less problematic part of any potential trade. Is it worth it? Should the Yankees trade Hughes, Melky, and a couple others for Santana? I honestly don't know. I'm leaning toward saying keep the kids and go with them, though Santana is scary good. But if the Yankees went with two talented kids, Joba one of them, to go with Santana and Wang in the rotation, I would comfortably live with that. Tell me you wouldn't also.
On a different note, I relaxed with the Celtics-Knicks game last night, and it was better than I could have hoped for. As long-time basketball but somewhat dormant Celtics fan, The 104-59 blowout was hilarious, especially after Quentin Richardson's shooting off his mouth that the 11-2 Celtics (now 12-2) hadn't won anything yet, so there was no need to over-dramatize their early-season success. More than that, the game provided a perfect contrast between two teams and, more importantly, their philosophies toward the game. The Celtics have three stars, all of whom have sublimated themselves to a team concept and have quickly jelled together. They're carrying the team, but also bringing along good young players like Kendrick Perkins, a tough young center who allows Garnett to play his natural power forward position, and Rajon Rondo, whose quickness and penetrating skills provide the Celtics with the engine they need at the point, and a player who doesn't need the ball for scoring very often. The Celtics have more than a very good, star-studded team--they have very good chemistry, and some depth to boot.
The Knicks, on the other hand, are an abject disgrace, an affront to the game. From the opening tip, they looked indifferent to the outcome. They played with no intensity whatsoever offensively or defensively. There were at least a dozen possessions in the first half alone that were one pass and shoot possessions, most of which missed. They played aimless, selfish, foolish basketball, and only a 40-foot heave at the buzzer prevented the Knicks from breaking their ignominious record for the lowest point total for a game (58) in their history. It was pathetic, and I loved every minute of it. Not to be lost in this, and why I enjoyed it so much, watching Isiah Thomas sit and blankly stare at his team's descent into the laughable was worth every minute. Why on earth Thomas--who drastically ratcheted up the team's payroll, who made numerous high-profile moves that all backfired, who has been a bad coach and a worse GM, who was recently found guilty of sexually harassing an employee--has stayed on as long as he has, as the deplorable team he built has Knicks home crowds rightly, increasingly, loudly calling for his firing is beyond me. As terrific as the Celtics are, the Knicks are nothing short of HORRIBLE.
Meanwhile, as the Bulls themselves struggle badly, and actually lost to the Knicks, people should be impressed by and not overlook Orlando. Dwight Howard will be an All-Star for the next decade plus, the team is young and talented, and one of the best five in the NBA in this young season. Lots of great NBA stories during baseball's off-season.
Seventy-seven days until pitchers and catchers report.
[Edit: According to Buster Olney at ESPN, the Yankees are becoming more willing to consider trading Phil Hughes in a package for Santana. Olney also reports that the Yankees and Red Sox are considering a trade for Dan Haren as well, a very good pitcher for Oakland who might command the same level of prospects and players in return, but would be pay far less. Haren had a very good 2007 for Oakland, though for lots of reasons, I would be partial to acquiring Santana. Regardless, this off-season certainly is heating up again.]