[ginahunt3]

I read today that the Red Sox are still talking to Santana. Unfortunately, Ellsbury is still on the table.

[azrael492]

I would give up Ellsbury for him right now. Could you imagine the rotation with Santana in it too. They would win it again.

[ginahunt3]

We did it twice without him so I don't think winning without him will be that much of a problem. He would be a nice addition, but not a necessity. A pitcher is only part of the equation, he can't win without the rest of the team (unless every time he pitches it's a no hitter, which isn't going to happen).

[EmpireWF]

Gotta say having Santana increases your chances of winning more than if you had Ellsbury or Lester.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by EmpireWF

Gotta say having Santana increases your chances of winning more than if you had Ellsbury or Lester.

It's really a tough call. For so many years the Sox had zero pitching. Now we've got a good roster and in the position to add more. Pitchers do not score runs. Jacoby's bat was real good to the Sox when he played. When they got Gagne they felt he was a good fit for the team. They couldn't have been further from the truth. He was junk. I feared every time they would put him in. If they trade Ellsbury we'll always wonder if we should have kept him. If we don't get Santana we'll always wonder if we screwed up by not getting him. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.