[Corsi Combover]

4 months of a season = cherry picking? I think it is either 1) not cherry picking, or 2) borderline-cherry-picking at best. That's a lot of PA...

He took defense from 2008 and 4 months of of offense from 2009. That's cherrypicking.

This post has been edited by Corsi Combover: 16 December 2009 - 11:05 AM

[Gambler7]

If Jed trades Gonzalez away, the blow would be softened a bit with Kyle Blanks waiting in the wings. He had a pretty good year in AAA, but is 23.

He also had a 172 PA with the Padres last year and put up an .868 OPS. I'd say he is ready and is a big reason they would trade Gonzalez now to bring in more young cost controlled guys to the team.

[Worst Trade Evah]

I don't really understand why people are mentioning Gonzalez's salary as a selling point. If anything, it's a problem. It's not like San Diego doesn't know the value proposition he represents, so we will be forced to pay full dollar, up front, in order to acquire him, because of his salary. We'd be better off if Gonzalez had a terrible salary.

I agree that people around here generally under-rate Ellsbury. Ellsbury + Buchholz is an insane price.

This post has been edited by Worst Trade Evah: 16 December 2009 - 11:10 AM

[PrometheusWakefield]

Buchholz and Ellsbury is steep, but I just might do it.

It's times like this I wish I knew how to make one of those puking icons.

Let's forget about the future and think about just next year. Using some fangraphs projections:

Ellsbury LF: +11.8 offense, +21.8 defense
Beltre 3B: +7.2 offense, +14.8 defense
Youkilis 1B: +37 offense, +4.5 defense

That's 97.1 runs of value. After the trade, we have:

Hermida LF: +1 offense, -7.7 defense
Youkilis 3B: +37 offense, -1.6 defense
Gonzalez 1B: +38.9 offense, +2.1 defense

Equals 69.7 runs of value. And that's before we consider trading Buchholz, and before we consider the fact that between Ellsbury and Buchholz we have another nine cost-controlled seasons for probable high quality players. OK, admittedly Hermida might outplay those projections, or we could get a real left fielder with the money we aren't spending on Beltre. Still, this trade does not necessarily make us better even for next season, which is the minimum you'd expect from a trade of a young cost controlled player for a current star.

If Ellsbury plus Buchholz is where the Padres are starting, then we aren't close to being close and there's no reason to continue the conversation other than leverage in Beltre negotiations.

This post has been edited by PrometheusWakefield: 16 December 2009 - 11:09 AM

[johnlimberakis]

He took defense from 2008 and 4 months of of offense from 2009. That's cherrypicking.

Yeah but why is that unreasonable? I'm not trying to be rude or antagonize you, I just want to hear your case for why that is unreasonable.
You see some fluctuation in defensive measures on a year to year basis. Granted most are not as extreme as Jacoby's but he is still a young and developing player. Is this the unreasonable part?
On offense it seems like 4 consecutive months of a season might be long enough in this particular players situation. Is that the unreasonable part?
Or is it using both together that doesn't work for you?
Combination of all 3?

[snowmanny]

[size=4]

He's 80% or 85% or 90% as good as Adrian Gonzalez. You don't trade four years of 85% for two years of 100%. Insane.

While I wouldn't be as thrilled with others with an Ellsbury for Gonzalez trade, I have to disagree with the above statement. Of course there are many many instances when one would trade 2Xyears of 85 for X years of 100.
It really really isn't a value of 340 vs. a value of 200.

The Red Sox stated goal is 95 wins every year. They are therefore not looking at wins over replacement level for each position, they are essentially looking at wins over 95 for each position. If player A is going to pull you away from 95 wins and player B is going to help nudge you over 95 wins, then getting extra years of player A (whose deficit needs to be made up elsewhere in the lineup for four years at some cost) is not exactly a bonus. Your logic might make more sense for the Royals than it does for the Red Sox. (Edit: Again, not saying you are necessarily wrong in this case, just that it's not always correct to keep the 85% guy for more years).

This post has been edited by snowmanny: 16 December 2009 - 11:17 AM

[NDame616]

Kurkijan on ESPN right now talking about this deal:

-Thinks Buchholz/Bard is the starting point and we need to add more
-Doesn't think the Sox will stay put with "their current roster configuration"
-Mentioned the usual “now that we signed Lackey, we can trade Buchholz” thinking

[RedOctober3829]

Wow, you're giving up current and future center fielders in this trade. And according to general consensus, Kelly and Westmoreland are the Sox' two top prospects.

I see Cameron as the bridge to Westmoreland in two years. What they do with Ellsbury remains to be played out, though one could envision him in the right package elsewhere like SD. If he goes, it wouldn't surprise me to see Nady coming in here to round out the OF.

It depends on what Hoyer wants. I think he feels he needs to get as much as he can for Gonzalez because a) he doesn't really have to trade him right now and b) his contract is so cheap that teams should have to give up more to get him. He is rightfully asking for the farm. Now, in the perfect world I'd like to keep Kelly or Westmoreland but I think both are required to make this deal. Now, if that is the case, then if I'm Theo I pull Ellsbury from the deal and make it Max Ramirez, Ryan Westmoreland, and Casey Kelly for Gonzalez. I didn't think my first proposal through well enough and those 4 would be a massive overpay. If Theo can get Gonzalez while keeping one of the 2 top guys then I'm all for it.

If you are Hoyer and you look at Ellsbury's UZR rating from last year, wouldn't you have doubts that he could play an adequate CF in the massive NL West pitcher's parks?

[Savin Hillbilly]

Let's forget about the future and think about just next year. Using some fangraphs projections:

Ellsbury LF: +11.8 offense, +21.8 defense

Where are you getting that defensive projection? I'm looking at Fangraphs right now and all the defensive projections I'm seeing are near zero. Even the Sox fans are only projecting +3.7. I personally think that this is conservative and he is a good bet to be at least a +10 CF next year, but +21.8 is a pretty heady prediction and I don't see where anybody is making it.

EDIT: Got it. It's his career UZR in LF. The word "projection" threw me off.

This post has been edited by Savin Hillbilly: 16 December 2009 - 11:24 AM

[Gambler7]

If you are Hoyer and you look at Ellsbury's UZR rating from last year, wouldn't you have doubts that he could play an adequate CF in the massive NL West pitcher's parks?

It depends how he thinks he will be going forward. If he thinks like Eric and believes more in his fielding in 2008, then he would value him a lot. If he thinks he will continue to be the 2009 defensive version then no. All depends on his evaluation of the player. Everyone has different views.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It is true, though, that Ellsbury has already shown the ability to be a plus hitter, plus defender and plus baserunner for sustained periods in the major leagues. While he has yet to do all three at once, there don't appear to be skill-based reasons why he can't put them all together going forward. If his bad defensive ratings from '09 are primarily caused by his crappy reads on balls hit right at him, maybe a year with Cameron will help him learn to correct that. It's really the only thing holding him back, as his bat and legs are there.

Except, this isn't true. His only season as a plus defender in center is 2008 where he only played 66 games there. I'm not at all convinced that he can be a plus defensive centerfielder, and I'm worried that prolonged periods in left will reveal similar small sample size issues with his past numbers. Getting bad reads on balls hit to him is not necessarily something he will grow out of. People talked about Wily Mo Pena learning to get better reads after some playing time, too. Granted, Ellsbury has at least shown periods of good defense where Pena never did, but the point stands...

Jacoby Ellsbury might never become a good defensive outfielder, despite his great speed and athleticism. And if he never becomes a plus defender, a lot of his value is shot. He also has a lot of value tied up in his ability to hit .300. That's variable, and if he has a season where he doesn't hit nearly .300 his value plummets as well.

I agree that Ellsbury could be one of the better centerfielders in baseball in coming years, and that he was one of the best last year. But it seems that his skill set is not one you can reliably expect to remain constant going forward, and that part of his value is based on theoretical performance on defense that just hasn't been backed up by a large enough sample size to make me comfortable.

If you can turn that into Adrian Gonzalez, I do it every day of the week.

[bosockboy]

Kurkijan on ESPN right now talking about this deal:

-Thinks Buchholz/Bard is the starting point and we need to add more
-Doesn't think the Sox will stay put with "their current roster configuration"
-Mentioned the usual “now that we signed Lackey, we can trade Buchholz” thinking

I'm willing to bet whatever incarnation this deal ends up being, if it does at all, includes Heath Bell coming back with Gonzalez.

[glennhoffmania]

So then you make a prerequisite of acquiring Gonzalez a long-term deal. Pay him more right now to keep him around and to avoid letting him hit FA. Does 7/105 get it done?

He's locked up for two years already. You think he'd demand a 7 year extension on top of that?

[Seabass177]

He also had a 172 PA with the Padres last year and put up an .868 OPS. I'd say he is ready and is a big reason they would trade Gonzalez now to bring in more young cost controlled guys to the team.

This is why it makes sense for SD to trade Gonzalez. Blanks has hit everywhere he's been, and is ready to play 1B full time. Putting him in the OF murders their defense (especially in PetCo) as his UZR/150 was -27.9 last year. Granted, it was a small sample, but he's simply too huge to cover that much ground. Earlier scouting reports put him at as average with decent quickness at first.

The way I'd be looking at this if I'm Hoyer is if I can get Buchholz/Bard and a couple top prospects for my 1B, while having an in house replacement that is has a decent chance to produce at 80-90% of my current 1B in the next couple of years, then I make that deal. I don't think the Sox will include Ellsbury, personally, but I can see why the Padres would want him as a centerpiece.

It's a deal that would make sense for both sides, obviously depending upon the pieces going back for Gonzalez.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Rather than repeat my Ellsbury argument, I will say this: There is no way on God's green earth that this front office with trade Ellsbury and prospects for Gonzalez. None. There is a huge deficit of center fielders in baseball at the moment, and the front office knows how lucky it is.

Ergo, I will cease worrying about it.

[yecul]

You're trading for 2 low cost years of an elite player plus the ability to get him extended or at least have first negotiation rights up until free agency. I don't know what that is 'worth' but it cannot be ignored.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

He's locked up for two years already. You think he'd demand a 7 year extension on top of that?

Sure, why not? You know how hard it is to find power hitting first baseman. Other than the one we already have, of course.

[glennhoffmania]

Sure, why not? You know how hard it is to find power hitting first baseman. Other than the one we already have, of course.

Well this gets to the whole debate about how much of a discount a player would/should take to sign a deal well before he hits FA. If he was a FA, we're talking about Teixeira's deal. How much less would Gonzalez take today to avoid the risk of what happens after 2011? I have no clue, but 7 years seems like a little much.

[Myt1]

Did you know that Nick Green had a 1.167 OPS when playing LF last year?

Problem solved.

I think he's pitching this year.

[smastroyin]

I agree that Ellsbury could be one of the better centerfielders in baseball in coming years, and that he was one of the best last year. But it seems that his skill set is not one you can reliably expect to remain constant going forward, and that part of his value is based on theoretical performance on defense that just hasn't been backed up by a large enough sample size to make me comfortable.

I think this is more a function of the metrics than of the player.

I think people are down on Ellsbury because he doesn't hit the ball hard all over the place. He has already fixed the biggest problem in his offensive game which was his extremely poor walk rate. I actually expect that he will start making better contact as he matures. I think there is potential for growth of his offensive game as well as the potential in his defense. Regarding his AVG he had a .332 BABIP with only a 17.2 LD %. I don't think that his ability to his for average will be as variable so much as you have to make a bet whether he will hit with more authority. That is to say, he was lucky this year in a sense, but in some ways his "luck" can be found in his components. He cut way down on his infield flies and went way up on infield hits, which we can reasonably assume are a result of him improving his speed out of the batter's box. His HR/FB and his LD% were both the lowest in his career. If you think this is a trend then there is a concern. If you think he is learning and can put it together, it is a completely different story. Put it this way, in a best case but plausible scenario where with age Ellsbury bring up the LD % and the FB/HR back to 20%/7 level and he comes around on defense then he will be as valuable at Gonzalez in 2010. I think that's too much achievable potential to give up right now.

On the other hand this is not a guarantee and if by giving Ellsbury it makes the rest of the package very small then maybe you do it. But not if you are also including Buchholz.