How invincible would Boston's pitching be if they got Santana?

1. Beckett 2. Santana 3. Dice-K 4. Schilling 5. Does it matter?|||My friend, there isn't such a thing as an invincible team.The Yankees, for example had Petite, Mussina, Clemens and Mariano Rivera ( the best regular season records for a pitching staff for the past 8-10 years ) and lost to a bunch of rookie pitchers with the Marlins.Pitching is as important as team work, doing the little things, hitting behind the runners and not for the fence when it is needed.The Dodgers in the '60s, were a great as a team, with only one or two position players that could be considered stars and just two really strong starters. Only when a star play as part of a team it can be called invincible.|||The Best in the league|||can you say back to back champs|||It would be awesome however the Yanks will end up getting him.聽 I am not even a Yankee fan.|||It would be the MOST overrated rotation ever. Beckett is an injury risk, Santana is in slight decline after pitching so many innings and being so young, Dice-K will never be better than a #3 starter, Schilling is 40 years old and will lose more games than he wins w/ an ERA over 4.00.





I'm glad they are pitching for Bawstun. They aren't Yankee material.





Schilling is 7-8 vs the Yanks w/ a 4.71 ERA for his career.


Dice-K is 2-1 w/ a 6.12 ERA vs the Yanks.


Beckett is 4-3 w/ a 6.56 ERA vs the Yanks.





That's not very impressive. Do you think the Yankees are scared of THAT?!?! LMAO





Kris: What part of 5.50+ ERA do you not understand? Man are you biased. You barely won the division, you barely won the ALCS, and you faced an overrated Rockies team that was probably the 6th or 7th best team in the MUCH weaker NL. Not to MENTION the 8 day layoff which pretty much killed them. You think that makes you good? LOL. Why do you always look at the smaller picture and ignore the macro-manipulators of the grand scheme?





I'm sorry but simply saying "we won" doesn't prove anything. Any team can win or lose for any million numbers of various parameters. The only true way to measure a team is by looking at everything that manipulated the outcome. My facts can't be ignored so easily by saying "we won". It makes you even less credible.|||Scary good...better than the Braves of the 90's|||It doesn't matter they can't beat the Yankees. Indians vs.Yankees ALCS 08'|||I don't really care the Angels would whoop their @ss with or without Santana.|||carlos santana the guitar player?|||Not invincible at all. Boston had a miraculous year, pulling out victories when facing elimination. But pitching is an unpredictable thing. On paper, it looks marvellous but out on the ballfield, any hurler can have a lousy game, a lousy season. Conversely, a minor leaguer called up to MLB may prove to be a flash in the pan and win 20 games for you. Look at all the famous pitchers this year who just didn't get 'er done. If I had any money, I sure wouldn't put it on Boston who won't even get into the playoffs next year. You heard it first right here.|||GREAT rotation.





lol @ overrated. Did you type that with a straight face Legends?





Not sure if you watched the playoffs after the Yankees were knocked out, but the Sox won the World Series with that overrated rotation - without Santana.


.|||A great rotation - but not invincible.|||That rotation could go down as the possibly the greatest ever. Whoever said Josh Beckett is injury prone is a joke. (I guess if you consider getting blisters on your hand "injury prone.") Santana on the decline? Is that person serious for saying that. The guy is 93-44 lifetime with the MN Twins. Put him with a contending team like the Red Sox. Wow. Anyone who knows the way it works in Boston will see a better, more relaxed, effective Dice-K. Just ask Josh Beckett how his first year went in Boston. And now look at him. Then you have Schilling-The guy has 3 WS rings, future hall of famer, proven veteran.





So yes, their pitching would be invincible. Yankees fans are jealous because they don't have the prospects and can't stomach another summer with the Red Sox on top.|||well beckett had a good year he'll go bak to a 4 era santana like 3 or allittle above dicke had a 4.4 so ill say that again schilling is too old 4 era so not very good





Beckett 3.9


Santana 3.1


Dice k 4.3


Schilling3.95


other 4.5|||Good, but not invincible. Likely there would be six starters because Bucholz is not ready to throw 200+ innings. But if they have an injury or two it wouldn't look so good. Beckett is not really injury prone, he spent one stint on the DL last year with blisters which wasn't a big deal. I don't think the Yankee fan would be saying Santana is on the decline if he was headed to the Bronx. Matsuzaka is probably going to be better than a "number 3 starter". Schilling will NOT lose more games than he wins. Wakefield eats innings and Bucholz has shown potential but is still unproven in the Majors, even with his no-hitter.


I couldn't care less what there numbers are against the Yankees. We only play them 19 times during the season not 162.|||legends never die is an idiot...how would they be over rated...beckett just won more games than any one else in the league...santana is a previous 20 game winner...dice k with a little more experience could be awesome...schilling though hes old was still awesome in the playoffs...they would be the best rotation in baseball...easily...but we dont need him...but he would be nice|||It will kick it up a couple of notches.|||regrettably, yes, the sox would have unbeleivable pitching if they do get santana, its hard to imagine anybody having a whole lot of chance to beat them if they can go with beckett, santana and schilling in a playoff series, with their offense theyd be hard to beat


still i think that the angels do have the ability to stick with them, there are still parts of the sox bullpen that are suceptible and anything can happen


while the sox with santana would be awfully good, i still like the angels chances|||i dunno.