267 replies to this topic

[bombdiggz]

Yes, but my point is why create a hole at 3B at this point? Even if the plan was to replace Lowell, they lose leverage in filling that hole by a FA (Beltre). If you have a plan, step #1 is to fill 3B, then step #2 is to trade Lowell. Doing step #2 without knowing that you have step #1 is reckless if #1 is independent of step #1. It only makes sense if both step #2 and step #1 are linked.

In short, the 1B/3B fix is a trade related to the Lowell trade, not a FA.

They have leverage in Casey Kotchman. It seems pretty clear to me that Theo thinks moving Mike Lowell is an improvement itself and I'm inclined to agree. After moving Lowell, the starting 1B/3B combo is Kotchman and Youks. It is a significant defensive improvement from the former alignment and Kotchman has a legitimate shot to match Lowell's offensive production. That doesn't seem unreasonable, considering he put up an .840 OPS in 2007 as a 24 yo which is 20 points higher than Mike posted last year. That being said Kotchman's presence isn't going to block them from acquiring either Adrian if they find the price to be right.

Conversely, isn't their leverage in what they can get for Lowell reduced when you sign or trade for a CI and you have 4 of them and need to move 1 or 2?

Seems like moving Lowell now, sitting tight with Kotch/Youks, and observing the market maximizes their leverage in both getting some value back for Lowell and any future acquisitions because they still don't need to make a move, but will if the price is right. It also seems like the FO likes this team more, right now, without Mike Lowell on it.

Edited by bombdiggz, 16 December 2009 - 02:28 PM.

[irinmike]

Read part of the thread and still not sure where the thought that Ellsbury would be included in a deal for AG would take place. In the eternal quest for major league teams to get younger, Ellsbury is going nowhere. However a pitcher might be as well as prospects. However its very difficult to see how Epstein can pull the wool over Jed's eyes at San Diego. He is way too familiar with all the Red Sox players. If a deal for AG is made, we will have to give like value or walk, of that I am certain.

[Gambler7]

So ESPN has a very dumb head writer for their magazine...I hope his sources are better than his player evaluation...

# Also, Buchholz is still prospect.You're not getting player (gonzalez) ranked 13th in majors in vorp for a prospect and a role player. 5 minutes ago from TweetDeck

# Ellsbury is nice player not superstar.doesn't get on base a ton,doesn't hit for power,and D metrics say he's not good CF. role player 8 minutes ago from TweetDeck

Jore Arangure Twitter

[Steve Dillard]

I'm actually a fan of using Ellsbury to grab Gonzalez, but this sort of BS makes you look silly (again). ]You start out saying he's way below avg, particularly for a lead-off hitter. You didn't even bother to take half a nanosecond to look if that was true or not, and then got schooled when it was revealed that it dead avg for leadoff hitters and well above avg for all hitters. No worries - just keep on spouting the BS as if that was your point the whole time. Have a little integrity please. If you're going to make a case for trading Ellsbury, make it based on the facts, not some non-factual, pre-conceived garbage.

Are 2008 not facts? Care to explain why you selectively pick only 2009 in which he was just at league average, and ignore 2008 where he was below average? I said Ellsbury was significantly below average, and then listed his two seasons, one of which was 20 points below average OBP and one that was just at ML average. It is an indisputable fact that his career OBP average is below league leadoff average OBP. Was my comment that he was "significantly" below league average subjective and perhaps hyperbole? Sure.

The low OBP leading to the .355 league average comes from non-regulars. The OBP of regular leadoff batters with 500 PAs
In 2009, Ellsbury ranked 11th out of 15 batters.

In 2008, Ellsbury was dead last, 15th out of 15 batters.



Combine that with the CF skillset in the pipeline (Kalish, Westmoreland), and you have a guy who I'd bet is traded before next trade deadline.

They have leverage in Casey Kotchman.

I forgot about that possibility, because I considered staying with Lowell for one more year are more plausible fix than a whole year with Kotchman. But you're right, it's conceivable that they can stand still with that.

Edited by Steve Dillard, 16 December 2009 - 05:43 PM.

[FanSinceBoggs]

Just saw Corsi's link as I'm typing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was a 3-way deal with Texas.

BOS: Gets Adrian Gonzalez
TEX: Gets Mike Lowell and $9 million
SD: Gets Max Ramirez, Jacoby Ellsbury, Ryan Westmoreland, and Casey Kelly.

I would love this deal. I wouldn't consider the inclusion of Westmoreland to be a major negative for the Red Sox. They can draft someone over the summer who has similar upside and potential. Westmoreland is impressive, but has less than 300 PAs in his professional career, and thus the jury is still out on him. . . .

Losing Buchholz would be painful, which would suggest that the deal probably doesn't get done without him. Nevertheless, any deal for Gonzalez that keeps Buchholz in Boston would be a significant accomplishment for the Red Sox, assuming the deal revolves around top prospects (i.e., Kelly and Westmoreland) and Ellsbury, and not a player of Josh Beckett's stature.

I think Ellsbury is expendable, and I would rather keep the SP in Buchholz, who has top-of-the-rotation potential. Cameron can play CF and be the bridge to Kalish or Lin.

[JohntheBaptist]

http://twitter.com/GordonEdes

The last of these three quotes makes me wonder if Gordo's being fitted as the new mouthpiece.

Edited by JohntheBaptist, 16 December 2009 - 02:47 PM.

[Gambler7]

I like Gordon, but he also said this a week ago...

Here are five things on Boston’s to do list this holiday (or Holliday) shopping season:

1. Re-sign Jason Bay

This is the primary item on the Sox’ wish list, now that they’ve resolved the shortstop issue by signing Marco Scutaro,

4. Pass on John Lackey

John Lackey, the Angels’ right-hander, is the best available starter on the free-agent market, but unless they’re executing a colossal bluff, the Sox don’t see enough there to justify the A.J. Burnett-type money it may take to sign him

http://sports.espn.g...s...&id=4720994

[absintheofmalaise]

It depends how Hoyer diagnoses his poor 2009 UZR in centerfield. The most plausible explanation I've heard so far (I can't remember the poster for sure; it may have been smastroyin) was that Ellsbury's newfound difficulties on balls coming in could best be explained by overcompensation for his earlier problems with the walls. In other words, he started playing deeper than he should have in order to have more time to gauge deep flyballs near the wall, which led in turn to more bloops dropping in front of him. That in turn led to Ellsbury distrusting his first instincts and getting slower breaks. As the season went on, he improved on deep flies, turning in some memorable warning track and against-the-wall catches, but deteriorated on short hits. Those are mindset issues, not physical limitations, and thus are more likely to be overcome. It's not certain, to be sure, since depth perception may be easier in the corner outfield spots when the batted ball tends to hook or slice, compared to balls hit at, but in front of the centerfielder. Ellsbury's special blind spot in 2009 seemed to be softly hit balls in short right-centerfield.

Also, Ellsbury's UZR needs to be adjusted for the Monster and the lower, but still high, centerfield wall. Wallballs against either wall count against the centerfielder as well as the leftfielder in Fenway in that they appear on paper to be in the fielder's zone and catchable, but aren't in reality.

Assuming that Hoyer saw the same things, he might think that Fenway was a problem for Ellsbury because of its confines, and that he would be a better fielder in larger parks where his speed could come more into play.

In the thread about the Dewan chat over on The Book Blog, MGL said that he was going to change that wall ball factor like Dewan has already done. I'm not sure if he made the changes during the season or if he's making them this off-season. He went on to say that he already accounted for the Wall factor in Fenway somewhat with his park adjustments. He also said that the wild fluctuations from one year to the next could be due to a variety of factors, including measurement error. Here is a very small sample of his response along with a question before it about year to year fluctuations. I think the Ellsbury question is from our chat with Dewan:

From MGL

Here is one question, or at least a similar one, which I hear/read probably a hundred times a year, more or less

What kinds of factors skew statistical analyses of defense?

I’ll give a concrete example: Jacoby Ellsbury’s defense has fallen off a cliff this year, according to most advanced metrics. I find it hard to believe that he was an elite defender in 2008 and is now a poor one. Can you make an educated guess whether one year’s rating is more likely to be an aberration than the other? If so, what factors would you look for as signs that a particular player’s rating is an aberration (or, inversely, is especially likely to be accurate)?

My response is very important because many people, even astute followers of sabermetric stats and principles, still do not get what it means to present a metric which represents a sample of a player’s performance, or I should say, a measurement of that performance (I qualified that because in addition to random fluctuation in the “value” of the performance, we also have random - or even biased - variation in the metric because of measurement error).

Let me re-state the problem succintly:

Player A has a stellar UZR (or OPS, or lwts, or ERA, or FIP, or whatever) one year and then a really bad one the next year. Or vice versa. Player is not hurt in one of those years and healthy in the other, as far as we know. How can this be! Dial 911! How can a player be fantastic with the glove one year (say, according to UZR) and terrible the next year. That just can’t be! There must be something wrong with the metric!

When a player has a good or great UZR in any time period, it does NOT mean that he is a good or great player and it does not even mean that he had a good or great year with the glove. What does it mean, you ask? Well, it doesn’t mean anything other than he had a good or great UZR. It really doesn’t. He may be a bad or average defensive player who had a good 147 games with the glove (woop-de-do_. It may be a bad or average defensive player who did NOT have a good or great year with the glove but the way we measure defense with UZR just got it wrong.

[Sprowl]

The last of these three quotes makes me wonder if Gordo's being fitted as the new mouthpiece.

It sure sounds like there's a new Town Crier. The primary audience for the "we're fine with our status quo" message would appear to be other GMs (not to mention agents for Beltre and Holliday) who think that the Red Sox have to make another move, and want to use that as leverage.

[BoSoxFink]

The last of these three quotes makes me wonder if Gordo's being fitted as the new mouthpiece.

Gordon Edes has done this shit in the past as well. He said nothing was happening with the Manny trade in '08 and he claimed way back in the day that the Nomar thing wasn't happening either I believe. It's funny he always so adamant about these big trades not happening, which to his credit most of the time they don't. But I can't remember the last time he broke a big trade for the Red Sox. He could be the new mouthpiece.

[yecul]

But the former two make plenty of sense. While something might be in the works no one here seems to think Ellsbury + Buchholz is a good idea and they probably don't either. That is SD's certainly starting point and may very well be their ending point as of this minute.

As for Kotchman, I really doubt it. I don't mind the idea at all as it probably means Beltre is too costly, but it's hard to see it winding up there.

Regardless, more tweets the better. This is the hot stove season and we live and die by random rumors and tid bits.

[The Boomer]

My guess (and that's all any of us has) is that Sox management is concerned both about their finances (preferring cost effective investments) and the flow of talent. I could swear that Theo went on record saying that he wouldn't have made the Hanley Ramirez trade that was completed during his brief hiatus a few winters ago.

The Sox got what they bargained for in Beckett but what really made that a good trade (even for the money owed him) was Lowell's unexpected comeback. At the time the deal was made, the acquisition of Lowell was viewed by almost everyone as a salary dump. To win the 2007 championship, the Sox needed both Beckett and Lowell as it turned out. Without Lowell's contributions, we can only speculate as to whether the Sox would have won that year.

If the Sox had instead retained Hanley while he was cost controlled (and presumably signed him to an extension like the Marlins gave him when he became the real deal), significant money would have been available (everything spent on Beckett and Lowell after the trade) to have filled team needs by another route. Millions more wouldn't have been wasted on the ghost of Julio Lugo. Maybe, instead of Lowell, the Sox would have invested in Adrian Beltre when he was a free agent during his prime (rather than his declining) years of production. Maybe Youks sticks at 3B and the Sox sign Teixeira at 1B. If there is a such thing as alternate universes, the possibilities are endless. Keeping Hanley would have maintained their financial flexibility. You can imagine scenarios where, instead of a single championship in 2007, perhaps they could have won a couple.

That Hanley was sacrificed only for a rare ace (which he was at the time) says something about his value as a prospect by both teams in that trade. If San Diego is only demanding the top young guns of the Sox, that says the same thing.

Trading Beckett (based on his anticipated level of performance) and surplus (i.e. Lowrie and Bowden) for Gonzalez is roughly equivalent to swapping Burnett or Lackey for Teixeira. He is not the same Beckett that the Sox acquired for Hanley (though he is still among the best pitchers in the game).

My opinion is that, if Hanley was traded during Theo's hiatus, then he really hasn't done this before. Beckett (and Lowell) for Hanley Ramirez was jutifiable and certainly doesn't compare with Bagwell for Larry Anderson, Cecil Cooper for the ghost of George Scott or Babe Ruth for the cast of No No Nanette. However, I get the sense that Theo (who is still in charge) wouldn't have made that trade and that, despite the rumors, he won't trade any of his best prospects for Gonzalez. Beckett for Gonzalez (if they can find the third team who will give San Diego the prospects) actually makes more sense. We aren't privy to what Sox scouts think about their youngsters but, if any of the bluechippers are sacrificed for Adrian Gonzalez (I don't expect this), then we can assume they know something that Jed Hoyer doesn't.

Additionally, I don't believe that the Sox, unlike the Yankees, have unlimited finances. They must conserve to some extent to compete. Thus, I believe (I might be wrong) that they can extend both Beckett and A. Gonz (if they acquire him with prospects). To me, it's an either or situation.

I heard a pundit speculate that Hoyer really doesn't want to trade A. Gonz as his first move unless somebody sells him the farm (for a variety of reasons). I simply don't expect that Theo will be the guy to do it.

I have one additional thought to add. If it's true that the Ramirez-Beckett deal can't be attributed to Theo, we do have a better precedent for what he might do. He traded Manny plus surplus (Hanson and Moss) to get Jason Bay in the three way deal that landed him with the Dodgers. They too need an ace like Beckett, cleared some financial space to add someone like him, have some prospects and young players who in the long term Jed will be glad to pry away from them to compete later but in the short term the Dodgers might sacrifice to take the window of opportunity to move Beckett to pitcher's heaven in Chavez Ravine. While Beckett probably won't cause distractions next season, the acquisition of Lackey makes it more obvious that next season will be his last in Boston. Trading him and the surplus prospects to get Adrian Gonzalez both short and long term makes the most sense from their perspective and is more consistent with the "bridge" situation that, for Beckett, is about to end for him before he reaches the other side. With Lackey, Halliday and Lee now off the market, Beckett is probably the best pitcher who is now available to anyone who is willing to trade what it takes to triangulate Adrian Gonzalez to the Sox. I can envision a scenario where, perhaps, Texas, the Dodgers and teams not yet thought of might get into the kind of Johan Santana/Roy Halliday prospect bidding contest that could land Gonzalez in Boston. You could conjure up a similar three way trade with the Tigers who might still be glad to get Cabrera off their books and to the Sox for the right prospects. They just did the similar 3 way with the Yankees and Diamondbacks.

[Quintanariffic]

I said Ellsbury was significantly below average, and then listed his two seasons, one of which was 20 points below average OBP and one that was just at ML average. Its an indisputable fact that he is below average OBP? Yes. Was my comment that he was "significantly" below league average subjective and perhaps hyperbole? Sure. Is your over-the-top reaction about a true premise losing the forest for the trees?

You said he was significantly below avg, especially so for a lead off hitter. Clearly, you are saying he's below league avg, and much further below avg for a lead-off hitter. What other possible interpretation is there? No matter what season you look at, no possible interpretation of your statement is true. In his rookie year, he was league avg from an OBP perspective and admittedly below avg for a lead-off hitter. In his sophomore season, he was well above league avg in OBP and was league avg for a lead-off hitter. That simply doesn't dove-tail with your statements at all. Moreover, it ignores the context that he made significant improvements from his rookie year to his second year. Given, well, the entire history of baseball, it's a lot likelier that he ends up looking as good or better than 2009 for the next 5-6 years than it is that he regresses to his rookie campaign.

If you have a JD Drew carryover, please just email me privately. Particularly where you agree with the main premise of my post that Ellsbury is replaceable and should be a centerpiece to a trade for a bat. Combine that with the CF skillset in the pipeline (Kalish, Westmoreland), and you have a guy who I'd bet is traded before next trade deadline.

The only carryover is that you are continuing to use bullshit, cherry-picked, and intellectually dishonest factoids to poorly make your case. I'm not going to just go ahead and give you an atta boy b/c I think Ellsbury should be the centerpiece of a Gonzalez deal. If the subject is to be debated, make it a discussion based on facts, logic and reason, not hyperbole, hunches, and pseudo-math.

[Rudy Pemberton]

While Beckett probably won't cause distractions next season, the acquisition of Lackey makes it more obvious that next season will be his last in Boston.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

It still doesn't make sense to me that teams that weren't in on Lackey are going to be willing to give up prospects to get Beckett, and I don't understand why a team would want Adrian Gonzalez, but not Beckett. Trading Beckett to get Gonzalez just doesn't make much sense to me.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 16 December 2009 - 03:34 PM.

[TheYellowDart5]

According to multiple major-league sources, there’s very little likelihood of a deal between the Red Sox and Padres involving Adrian Gonzalez in the near future. As has been the case since last summer, the Sox continue to check in with the Padres on Gonzalez and to monitor his availability, but the team has not made a concerted push for the slugging first baseman in the aftermath of signing pitcher John Lackey and outfielder Mike Cameron. Indeed, one source suggested that there was absolutely nothing to the idea that a deal might soon be hatched.

...

Even so, there is no sense that there is a fit right now between the clubs. The Padres, understandably, would seek a Brinks truck return for Gonzalez, whose skill set (40-homer power, Gold Glove caliber defense) and salary ($4.75 million in 2010, $5.5 million in 2011) make him as desirable a trade target as there is in the game. San Diego has shown little inclination to compromise on its asking price.

Source: http://fullcount.wee...likely-for-now/

[yecul]

Regarding Beckett, Edes was just on the radio saying that Theo sent JB a text restating their intentions for him and how the Lackey signing would not impact their long term plans.

Grain of salt, front office speak, etc, etc. The Sox will definitely offer him a big deal. Whether he wants an even bigger one and can get it is another matter. Heck, they offered some big bucks to Pedro and just made a big offer to Bay even though I think we all know they didn't really want either. Certainly not Pedro.

[Steve Dillard]

You said he was significantly below avg, especially so for a lead off hitter. Clearly, you are saying he's below league avg, and much further below avg for a lead-off hitter. What other possible interpretation is there? No matter what season you look at, no possible interpretation of your statement is true. In his rookie year, he was league avg from an OBP perspective and admittedly below avg for a lead-off hitter. In his sophomore season, he was well above league avg in OBP and was league avg for a lead-off hitter. That simply doesn't dove-tail with your statements at all. Moreover, it ignores the context that he made significant improvements from his rookie year to his second year. Given, well, the entire history of baseball, it's a lot likelier that he ends up looking as good or better than 2009 for the next 5-6 years than it is that he regresses to his rookie campaign.


The only carryover is that you are continuing to use bullshit, cherry-picked, and intellectually dishonest factoids to poorly make your case. I'm not going to just go ahead and give you an atta boy b/c I think Ellsbury should be the centerpiece of a Gonzalez deal. If the subject is to be debated, make it a discussion based on facts, logic and reason, not hyperbole, hunches, and pseudo-math.

You are correct that I wrongly said "especially for a leadoff guy." Since he's a leadoff guy, I should have said I was speaking of him as a leadoff guy, not "especially" as a leadoff guy. With that one-word correction, the rest of my post is accurate. If you want to be precise, his career leadoff OBP is .337, which is below league average for leadoff batters.

With that background, would you agree:

(1) that Boston values OBP (not making outs) more than most AL teams,
(2) that given Boston's expectations (ie., we're not KC, Oakland, etc) that just being average for the league (or, for the last two seasons, actually below league average) is not a positive and perhaps a negative? and
(3) that he has underwhelming other leadoff skills (3.77 pitch per appearance).

If so, then wouldn't you agree with the conclusion that Ellsbury is not filling the offensive skills that Boston values, or, more precisely, that he's pretty replaceable?

Edited by Steve Dillard, 16 December 2009 - 04:11 PM.

[The Boomer]

According to multiple major-league sources, there’s very little likelihood of a deal between the Red Sox and Padres involving Adrian Gonzalez in the near future. As has been the case since last summer, the Sox continue to check in with the Padres on Gonzalez and to monitor his availability, but the team has not made a concerted push for the slugging first baseman in the aftermath of signing pitcher John Lackey and outfielder Mike Cameron. Indeed, one source suggested that there was absolutely nothing to the idea that a deal might soon be hatched.

...

Even so, there is no sense that there is a fit right now between the clubs. The Padres, understandably, would seek a Brinks truck return for Gonzalez, whose skill set (40-homer power, Gold Glove caliber defense) and salary ($4.75 million in 2010, $5.5 million in 2011) make him as desirable a trade target as there is in the game. San Diego has shown little inclination to compromise on its asking price.

Source: http://fullcount.wee...likely-for-now/

This is probably a good thing. I am more happy to see them go with what they have. I conjured the Adrian Gonzalez scenarios because the only way that the Sox deal Beckett and his expiring contract is for that kind of return. I simply don't see them sacrificing any (and certainly not more than one) of their blue chip youngsters to get Adrian Gonzalez. I don't see Beltre as being the cost effective solution for 3B. It's more likely that Youks will shift there and Kotchman will get the first crack to see if he is a keeper at 1B. Andersen and Rizzo are in the top minor league rungs behind him and, in a best case, the Sox will have a nice dilemma as to which of the three is their 1B of the future if all of them perform to or exceed expectations. Worst case is if none of these three looks like the answer. The most likely outcome is something intermediate (only 1 or 2 of these 3 comes through). However, if they start the season with this 1B status quo and move Youks to 3B, they ought to be in a position where whoever will be their 1B of the future emerges based on next season's performance without sacrficing their other prospects. If Andersen and Rizzo fulfill their promise, Kotchman is probably an adequate bridge to either or both of them. If both develop as hoped, they will also have their long term replacement for Papi on the cusp of the majors.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

(3) that he has underwhelming other leadoff skills (3.77 pitch per appearance).

I'm having trouble finding 2009's league average since THT no longer has their stats database up publicly... but the league averages for P/PA in the last six years going backward are 3.77, 3.74, 3.73, 3.70, 3,74 and 3.72. So he's not underwhelming in that regard, either. I'll keep looking for 2009's league average, but I doubt it's too far out of line with these.

Edit: AAccording to ESPN.com, there were only 51 hitters in all of baseball who saw more pitches per PA last year. Derek Jeter (611), Chone Figgins (615), Marco Scutaro (574), Brian Roberts (611), BJ Upton (406), David Dejesus (376), Scott Podsednik (505), Grady Sizemore (323), Curtiz Grandeson (535), Dernard Span (578), Adam Kennedy (401), Jason Bartlett (218), Ryan Sweeny (108), and Ian Kinsler (449) all come in before him (though Jeter and Kinsler were less than .10 of a pitch per better), making him middle of the pack, or average. The number in parentheses is their total AB's (ESPN doesn't have PA's listed in their splits page) at leadoff, so if you remove anyone who didn't spend the majority of their season leading off, Jacoby moves up two spots.

Either way, I'd have a hard time classifying him as "underwhelming" as a leadoff hitter.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 16 December 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[SumnerH]

How can anyone have a question about Ellsburys UZR range?

He is one the fastest men in baseball. He could not move for a full 3/10 of a second and still cover more ground then most other CFs.

How can UZR make the claim that he cant cover the same amount of ground as the avg CF?? Especially the year after saying the guy covered an insane amount of space.

Either Fenway somehow screws up the rating....or its simply too flawed in its fluctuations from year to year to be considered valid.

The creator of UZR himself says that single-season numbers are totally invalid, and that it takes a 3-year sample to become meaningful.

Anyone have a source for historical UZR data? Eric's recent analysis claims that a half-season of UZR is predictive; I'd love to see if I can duplicate that result.

[Steve Dillard]

I'm having trouble finding 2009's league average since THT no longer has their stats database up publicly... but the league averages for P/PA in the last six years going backward are 3.77, 3.74, 3.73, 3.70, 3,74 and 3.72. So he's not underwhelming in that regard, either. I'll keep looking for 2009's league average, but I doubt it's too far out of line with these.

Edit: Compiling a list of the top P/PA lead off guys now... will add it in a minute.

Figgins 4.22
Scutaro 4.07
Roberts 4.04
DeJesus 4.01
Posednick 3.98
Sizemore 3.97
Granderson 3.96
Denard Spann 3.91
Barltett 3.89 (230 ABs)
and partially (leadoff/2nd) A. Cabrera 3.88
Jeter 3.84
Ellsbury 3.77


Also a bunch of #2 guys like Damon, Crawford, Pedroia

[PrometheusWakefield]

I'm having trouble finding 2009's league average since THT no longer has their stats database up publicly... but the league averages for P/PA in the last six years going backward are 3.77, 3.74, 3.73, 3.70, 3,74 and 3.72. So he's not underwhelming in that regard, either. I'll keep looking for 2009's league average, but I doubt it's too far out of line with these.

Edit: Compiling a list of the top P/PA lead off guys now... will add it in a minute.

And keep in mind: the best way to get a high P/PA ratio is to be able to frequently hit the ball out of the ballpark. When you only a little power and a ton of speed, pitchers are going to throw you strikes.

My general feeling about Jacoby early last year was that he was too focused on trying to draw walks and wait on pitches, and so was consistantly falling behind in the count, and that reduced his effectiveness across the board. I thought he took a more aggressive approach later in the year and that was more effective. You need to be willing to swing at the first pitch if you ever want that first pitch to be anything other than a strike.

[Harry Agganis]

I am content with this. Either as a way to start the season or as negotiating tactic for Beltre or for Gonzalez. I see no rush to make a offer for him at this point. They can always wait to see what develops and swoop in at the last minute with an offer just like the Tex case last season. As gonzalez gets further into the year the price has to start going done as more of his contract is eaten up.

[paulftodd]

I'm having trouble finding 2009's league average since THT no longer has their stats database up publicly... but the league averages for P/PA in the last six years going backward are 3.77, 3.74, 3.73, 3.70, 3,74 and 3.72. So he's not underwhelming in that regard, either. I'll keep looking for 2009's league average, but I doubt it's too far out of line with these.

According to the 2010 THT annual, the league average was 3.85.

In a projected lineup for next year, Ellsbury is last on the team in P/PA (unless we get Beltre)

2009 P/PA

Ellsbury -3.77
Pedroia -3.95
V-Mart -4.28
Youk -4.41
Papi - 4.19
Drew -4.12
Cameron -3.96
Scutaro-4.06
Kotchman-3.80 (A. Beltre 3.56)

Edited by paulftodd, 16 December 2009 - 07:26 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

In a projected lineup for next year, Ellsbury is last on the team in P/PA (unless we get Beltre)

Well, considering the fact that the Sox value patience at the plate as much as they do, I would expect their average to be higher than most teams (2nd in the AL, actually), so I don't see how ranking him in the Sox lineup would do anything to support the claim that he's underwhelming for a lead off hitter. Maybe you're not trying to defend that claim, though.

It seems he was slightly below league average, though... which seems odd since he was number 52 in the majors in 2009. So I'm not sure how they ended up with 3.85 if only 51 batters in the majors were above 3.77 for the year. But I'll take your word for it.

[Steve Dillard]

so I don't see how ranking him in the Sox lineup would do anything to support the claim that he's underwhelming for a lead off hitter. Maybe you're not trying to defend that claim, though.

Re: OBP, I added stats showing that of batters with more than 500 PAs in the #1 spot, Ellsbury was 15th out of 15 in 2008 OBP rank, and 11th out of 15 in 2009 OBP rank. See post #105.

On P/PA, and using 2009 leadoff stats, he's 8th among regular AL leadoff batters, and 12th if you include guys with 200+ leadoff at bats (out of 14 AL teams). See post #123.

I don't see how this constitutes him being anything but average to slightly below average as a leadoff guy, with the huge caveat of his basestealing skills. I'll also admit that as a young guy, he might improve his batting eye to draw more walks and his P/PA.

Returning to the starting point of this detour, I think he's someone whose skills lend themselves principally to the leadoff spot, and his leadoff skill set doesn't make him indispensable.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Returning to the starting point of this detour, I think he's someone whose skills lend themselves principally to the leadoff spot, and his leadoff skill set doesn't make him indispensable.

This is a statement I would definitely agree with. Especially the last clause. If the Sox can build a package around him that doesn't include Buchholz and doesn't require more than one of our top 5 prospects, you pull the trigger immediately. If it includes two of our top 5 prospects not named Westmoreland, I'd still do it.

[jacklamabe65]

I really think this is all a smokescreen and that Yuke will be at third and Casey Kotchman will be at first to start the season (with Clay in the rotation). If we need Adrian Gonzalez, it won't happen until July 31st, if at all.

Edited by jacklamabe65, 16 December 2009 - 08:23 PM.

[RedOctober3829]

I really think this is all a smokescreen and that Yuke will be at third and Casey Kotchman will be at first to start the season (with Clay in the rotation). If we need Adrian Gonzalez, it won't happen until July 31st, if at all.

And Roger Clemens in the rotation.










Sorry Jack, I couldn't resist.

[bosockboy]

My guess is Theo will not allow any two of Buchholz, Kelly, Bard and Westmoreland to be paired in a potential trade. That's his line in the sand that he won't cross. With Cameron in the fold, I imagine Ellsbury plus one of Kelly/Westmoreland is what he would headline a package with for Gonzalez, plus maybe a Max Ramirez and an upside A Baller or two. Or package 2 is Buchholz and three from the list of Kalish, Lowrie, Anderson, Ramirez (if obtained) or Reddick. Buchholz headlining things moves the secondary pieces down the totem pole a bit.

Finding the middle ground will be pretty tough to accomplish I think.

[Robinson Checo]

Another thing to consider in any possible Adrian Gonzalez trade is that Bard may well be a part of the package. Do not expect Heath Bell to be coming Boston's way in return. Bell and Gonazalez are Hoyer's two biggest trading chips. I see Hoyer holding out for a prospect package involving Bell at some point in another deal. There are too many teams that will want a closer like Bell at the deadline when they know if they are in or not.

Putting Bard in any package also puts the Red Sox in some type of numbers crunch regarding the closer role. If Bard is dealt, does re-signing Papelbon become more of a priority? If not, does that mean that funds will have to be spent on a closer in the 2010 off-season, and if so, does that impede signings of other guys like Mauer, Lee, or Crawford?

Personally, I wouldn't let Bard hold a deal for Adrian Gonzalez up, but there are questions about the future if he is a part of the package that could land the first baseman.

[RedOctober3829]

Boston won't be only team on Gonzalez. Baltimore made a pretty good run at him at the winter meetings, I'm told

Gordo

[dauber23]

The Cubs are searching for a center fielder and might be waiting to see whether free agents Matt Holliday or Jason Bay somehow end ups in Boston.

Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune reports today that the Cubs would immediately make a "major effort" to land Jacoby Ellsbury if the Red Sox were to sign Holliday or Bay. Rogers adds one way to pull off such a trade might be for Cubs GM Jim Hendry to be part of a three-team deal that sends first baseman Adrian Gonzalez from the Padres to Boston for prospects.

Excerpt from ESPN Insider.

[YTF]

The Cubs are searching for a center fielder and might be waiting to see whether free agents Matt Holliday or Jason Bay somehow end ups in Boston.

Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune reports today that the Cubs would immediately make a "major effort" to land Jacoby Ellsbury if the Red Sox were to sign Holliday or Bay. Rogers adds one way to pull off such a trade might be for Cubs GM Jim Hendry to be part of a three-team deal that sends first baseman Adrian Gonzalez from the Padres to Boston for prospects.

Excerpt from ESPN Insider.

A three way may be the best route to go with another team ponying up players to compliment what the Sox may offer without killing the Sox farm system. That said, if Ellsbury gets shipped to Chicago that would most certainly leave the Padres wanting Buchholz and then you're back to a situation where a Gonzales deals costs Boston both Buch and Ells. If the Sox can move Ellsbury for Gonzales in any reasonable senario that doesn't involve Buchholz, I'd be Ok with it.

[jippaman]

I suggested this deal in another thread, but it's probably more appropriate here:

Ellsbury to Cubs.
Kelly, Vitters to San Diego.
A-gon to Sox.

There would probably need to be another secondary player thrown in by the Sox, either to the Cubs if they feel Vitters' upside is greater than Ells or to the Padres if they're looking for more than Vitters and Kelly. There may even need to be multiple secondary players to balance it all out, but as the principles to a deal, this might be a good starting point

[radsoxfan]

I suggested this deal in another thread, but it's probably more appropriate here:

Ellsbury to Cubs.
Kelly, Vitters to San Diego.
A-gon to Sox.

There would probably need to be another secondary player thrown in by the Sox, either to the Cubs if they feel Vitters' upside is greater than Ells or to the Padres if they're looking for more than Vitters and Kelly. There may even need to be multiple secondary players to balance it all out, but as the principles to a deal, this might be a good starting point

Perhaps I am too low on Vitters, but I would be shocked if the Sox would ever trade Ellsbury straight up for Vitters (much less throw in something else). I mean, he is a 20 year old 3B who had a good year in A ball at age 19 and then struggled in 50 games at A+. Good prospect sure, but essentially a one for one deal for Ellsbury?

And I would also be shocked if San Diego traded Adrian Gonzalez for just Kelly/Vitters. I think you need more "non-secondary" prospects involved to make a 3 team deal like the one you're proposing. But as a starting point, I guess that's a possiblity.

Edited by radsoxfan, 27 December 2009 - 03:05 PM.

[amarshal2]

Rogers adds one way to pull off such a trade might be for Cubs GM Jim Hendry to be part of a three-team deal that sends first baseman Adrian Gonzalez from the Padres to Boston for prospects.

In other words, person who knows nothing speculates that maybe this rumor could fit into the hot rumor of the off-season that has been fabricated by other people who know nothing.

I don't think there's even smoke here, never mind a fire.

[Adirondack jack]

My immediate reaction is that Vitters alone isnt enough for the Cubs to involve themselves in this. Vitters does have a knack of squaring up balls and hitting them hard, but his defense at third leaves plenty to be desired and his 2009 ml walk rate of 2.5 % are some warts that havent been mentioned. BA does have him sitting up on top of their team rankings though, and maybe most are thinking he sticks at third, but I will say the defense needs a lot of improvement and a good pitcher most likely eats that free-swinging approach up with their morning coffee.

Kind of surprised Castro isn't higher than Vitters frankly after watching both quite a bit this fall in AZ as the Cubs prospects were teamed with the Sox.

Edited by Adirondack jack, 27 December 2009 - 03:24 PM.

[amarshal2]

BA does have him sitting up on top of their team rankings though, and maybe most are thinking he sticks at third, but I will say the defense needs a lot of improvement and a good pitcher most likely eats that free-swinging approach up with their morning coffee.

Kind of surprised Castro isn't higher than Vitters frankly after watching both quite a bit this fall in AZ as the Cubs prospects were teamed with the Sox.

I don't know what rankings you are looking at. Last year's perhaps? Castro is on top, ahead of Vitters.

edit: Vitters is 3rd. Link

Edited by amarshal2, 27 December 2009 - 03:35 PM.

[Adirondack jack]

Yep, you're right. Old news is better than no news they do say.

[Rough Carrigan]

I wondered this same thing and saw it in Nick Cafardo's column today.

If not Adrian Gonzalez, what about David Wright?

[Pumpsie]

I wondered this same thing and saw it in Nick Cafardo's column today.

If not Adrian Gonzalez, what about David Wright?

The Mets have NO reason to trade Wright. The Padres HAVE to trade Gonzalez eventually. They can't afford him. Big difference.

[TomRicardo]

The Mets have NO reason to trade Wright. The Padres HAVE to trade Gonzalez eventually. They can't afford him. Big difference.

The Padres can afford him the next two years. The key is that they can get a lot more than 2 draft picks for him in trade value. Padres have no real reason to trade him now or even at the deadline though. He is dirt cheap at the moment.

[Eric Van]

This trade makes so much sense if they don't sign Beltre ... but at the next trading deadline, not now.

Our goal is to get Adrian Gonzalez without giving up guys that project to be important pieces for us. Westmoreland and Kelly look they can be important pieces. But there are many guys who, as good and as desirable to Jed Hoyer as they might become, would not be important pieces for us. In general, any real good player who is blocked by an even better player has far more value to another team than to you. When that player is, furthermore, sandwiched between an MLB player and an even better prospect at a lower level, he becomes especially tradeable.

The guys you might hope (important word) to include in an Adrian Gonzalez trade include:

Casey Kotchman. Nor doing the deal now has the advantage of giving him another chance to show that he's the really good player he was three years ago. If he rerurns to a .290 EqA with his excellent defense, suddenly you are swapping 8 months of Gonzalez for the same amount of time for a player who is, while no superstar, above average. Jed has no use for him because of Kyle Blanks, but could easily deal him to another contender looking to upgrade the position, i.e., whoever we outbid in these trade talks.

Michael Bowden. If he can improve his consistency and demonstrate that he's a solid #3 starter type after all, he becomes a very nice part of the trade. You would probably also want a good season from Tazawa before dealing him.

Jed Lowrie. If he looks better than Scutaro you probably want him as your starter, but if he comes back just enough to be comparable he becomes a very potent trade chip. Jed would probably need less evidence of health than most other GMs.

Ryan Kalish. Neatly sandwiched between Ellsbury and Westmoreland. A big year could make him a potential important part of the deal.

Yamaico Navarro. Sandwiched between Scutaro / Lowrie and Iglesias. A good year makes him a nice 3rd or 4th piece.

Luis Exposito. Good years from Wagner, him, and Fed-X make him very sandwiched. (It's a longshot, but that's why he's listed last, eh?)

(I exclude Lars because he has a future here at DH if he breaks out this year, and Reddick looks like Drew's heir.)

When you add in all the C prospects we could include, you can see us putting together a very desirable package even if it includes no top 20 prospect. I think there's a lot of folks who feel that those prospects will be traded less and less frequently. Getting two really good players, one or two solid types with upside, and maybe a lottery ticket or two would be a very nice haul for 8 months of Gonzalez, and yet it's something we could do unhesitatingly if none of those guys actually projected to start for us.

Note that I am not saying, hey, we can trade Lowrie, Bowden, Kalish, and Randy Conseugra for Gonzalez! Oh boy! I'm saying that there is a hope that a package like that (and there are many possible such combinations) will be much sexier next July 29th than it is right now.

In general, it is always better for both sides to spend the extra four months evaluating all the prospects.

[phragle]

I wondered this same thing and saw it in Nick Cafardo's column today.

If not Adrian Gonzalez, what about David Wright?

Isn't he afraid of baseballs now?

[Pumpsie]

I totally agree with Eric that a Gonzalez trade is most probable at the deadline. Hoyer doesn't want a Gonzalez trade to be the first big thing he does, and I don't blame him. Plus, the Padres will get to see a lot more of all the players the Sox are pushing at them, including Lowrie, Bowden, Kelly and Westmoreland, and have a much better grasp of their worth. The Sox have to be at the front of the line come the trading deadline but the timing will most probably preclude them from giving up too much from the 25-man roster, and that would include both Ellsbury and Buchholz.