It's good that Santana went to the NL and to the biggest disaster of a ballclub in the NL at that. If they think Santana is going to get the Mets into the postseason I think they are sorely mistaken but, hey, it's their money. I still think the Phillies are a far better team than the Mets and Florida(!?!?) and the Braves may even have better teams than the Mets do.

Good for the Sox in that they have 2008 to allow Schill to finish off his career which means Lester can work into the rotation this year and Buchholz can do the same in 2009 when there is a full-time slot for him. If Farrell believes Lester is a 15-game winner that's good enough for me. Keeping the youngsters means they ought to have cash for a catcher for 2009 (Varitek or other FA) and possible Manny replacement rather than committing big bucks to a guy (Santana) who would have been far more of a luxury than a necessity.

Now maybe they can try to work out a deal of Coco for a young catcher since they know Jacoby will be on the team in 2008?

Also remember that Lowrie now stays with the Sox. IF (and it's a big IF) they could find someone who'd take Lugo as a throw-in in another deal (hey, the Sox did it with Mike Lowell and THAT worked out) they could plug Jed in and have a pretty nice young middle infield.

Also glad he did not end up with the Yanks. Their offense is going to be good as always but I think they are depending a little too much on the young pitchers in 2008 to have a realistic shot of beating out the Red Sox/Tigers/Indians/Angels at the top of the AL.

Agree with MOST everything you say, DB, especially the part about the Yanks making a huge mistake going into the season so dependant on young, unproven pitchers, no matter how highly touted they are.

DO disagree with your assessment of the Mets. Without any pitching last year, they still almost won the division. Now they've added the best regular season pitcher in baseball and brought him into the offensive minor leagues.

Which leads right into my second beef with your post; you're understimating the impact of pitching in general, never mind a tried and true ace of aces. Santan on that roster spells trouble. Check the Vegas line now to see what his presence means.

Santana isn't necessary for the Sox to contend. No, he's not a luxury. Pitching is NEVER a luxury. It's a necessity you can never have enough of, as even a mediocre arm like Bronson Arroyo's taught us two years ago when we traded because of "too much" pitching depth.

I just think the Mets are way overrated. Who else on the Mets' staff is a good starter? They've added Santana and lost Glavine who could have been a reliable #3 or #4. Who on that staff can win to go with Santana?? Also I think their bullpen is vastly overrated. Wagner has too much Mitch Williams in him IMO. After the amazing collapse last year I think they needed to shake things up with their lineup as well as adding some pitching. I just don't see that they've done enough to be touted as the best team in the NL (which a few talking heads are touting them as).

If you had Santana at less than $25 mil a year then, sure, he's a necessity. You wouldn't rather have Lester and Buchholz at less than $1 mil a year and, in theory, have that $24 mil leftover to spend elsewhere?? Now- if the Sox didn't have vets like Beckett, Schilling, and Wakefield allowing them to work the young guys in slowly I'd agree that Santana should have been acquired at all costs. I don't see the Sox making the same mistake this time of dealing any of their starters- see if Wake and Schill can hold up and, if not, Buchholz is there for at least a few starts in 2008 and then can be in the 2009 rotation. I think Santana will be great in the NL- I really did see him as on the decline in the AL though- his numbers last year were very mediocre for him. Not worth the big $$$ in my book - at least not in years 4, 5, and 6 of the deal he'll be signing...