Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

What will happen with Ellsbury


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

Poll: What will happen with Ellsbury (266 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you offer Ells 7 years, $123 million, 17.6 aav. (Jones/Kemp averaged)

  1. Yes (73 votes [27.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.44%

  2. No (193 votes [72.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.56%

That contract is...

  1. Too much, he should be more in line with Jones (165 votes [62.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.03%

  2. Too little, he should be more in line with Kemp (16 votes [6.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.02%

  3. Fair compensation for Ellsbury (85 votes [31.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.95%

What will happen is...

  1. Ellsbury will be traded in the next calendar year (deadline 2013) (93 votes [34.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.96%

  2. Ellsbury will re-sign between now and next spring training (16 votes [6.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.02%

  3. Ellsbury will re-sign in the final year of his deal or in his free agency (30 votes [11.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.28%

  4. Ellsbury will walk away and sign with a different team (127 votes [47.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:32 AM

1. If he walks after 2013 we will only receive one pick as compensation and it will be after the first round of the draft.

2. Are Jones (6/$86, 14.3 aav) and Kemp (8/$60, 20.0 aav) good comps for him?

#2 Laser Show

  • 3181 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:41 AM

I think an important distinction to make is whether you would offer Ellsbury that contract versus whether the Red Sox should do it. I think that's pretty fair value for Ellsbury if his true talent level is 2011 (I believe it is). However, I would not want the Sox shelling out that much with the payroll issues they have already.

#3 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20253 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:52 AM

If you believe he's the 2011 Ellsbury going forward, I think the Kemp contract is a good range to aim for and I think they should do it regardless of the mistakes they've made in the past. Center field is one of the positions you want to shell out money for if you can.

That said, I'm not convinced he's going to be that good consistently going forward. I think he's a very good player and I think he might be 2011 good for a few more years, but I have a hard time imagining him keeping up that level of production over 8 years.

Combining that with the likelihood of the Sox being gun shy on big contracts right now and I think he gets traded this off season if they can get a really strong offer or next season if the team isn't looking like a contender. If they feel they're a playoff threat around the deadline next year, I would expect them to ride out the season with him and take the pick. But considering the issues this team has, and to my ever growing disappointment, I can't say I think this team looks like one of the top teams in the league next year without some major changes. So I'm starting to think we'll see another year like this year in 2013 and that they should be looking to sell at this time next year.

#4 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6811 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:00 PM

So much of the contract stuff is tied to Boras....he is going to find a sucker to pay him over 20 million annually. And trading him is equally difficult because of Boras.....

The time to trade him in order to get maximum value is now....youre selling two postseason runs before you have to tangle with Boras.

#5 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20253 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:03 PM

The time to trade him in order to get maximum value is now....youre selling two postseason runs before you have to tangle with Boras.


I've gotten to the point with this season that I agree they should probably look to off load as many valuable short term assets as they can, but as has been pointed out above, there is virtually no chance the front office signs off on it.

This team would have to be out of the second wild card by double digits for it to be even remotely possible.

#6 normstalls

  • 1970 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:12 PM

So much of the contract stuff is tied to Boras....he is going to find a sucker to pay him over 20 million annually. And trading him is equally difficult because of Boras.....

The time to trade him in order to get maximum value is now....youre selling two postseason runs before you have to tangle with Boras.


As much as I would hate to do it, I agree with this. I am just so disenchanted with the whole team right now I no longer think anyone is untouchable. Looking at teams quickly, it sure seems like Cincy could use an upgrade in CF. I am not familiar with their young talent, would that be a possible fit?

#7 dylanmarsh

  • 4653 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

Assuming Ellsbury's first big contract goes into the $20M AAV, I can't say it's appealing having to shell out $65MM/season from 2014 to 2017 for three players (Crawford, Gonzalez, and Ellsbury). 2014 would have five players making $95M (add-in Beckett and Lackey).

So much of the contract stuff is tied to Boras....he is going to find a sucker to pay him over 20 million annually. And trading him is equally difficult because of Boras.....

The time to trade him in order to get maximum value is now....youre selling two postseason runs before you have to tangle with Boras.


This. Let someone else have the Boras problem and get some value for Ells now. By the time Ellsbury hits the FA market, both NY teams will have money to spend and I imagine he'll get his pay day.

#8 Dick Pole Upside

  • 3315 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:25 PM

(Obviously total speculation) Unless the Sox offered him Crawford money, I frankly don't think he'd want to re-sign with the Red Sox. Even if the Sox were somehow able to off-load Crawford, I STILL don't think Ellsbury would sign here if he had equal offers from somewhere else.

It's never been his style to lead from in front, and I think the environment surrounding and within the Sox organization is deterioating rapidly. I don't see Ellsbury as the guy who would want to be one of the new faces of the team and help "turn things around". He's been fragged internally and by the media. I know $$ cures all, but I'm not seeing the Sox offering enough to make it matter to him.

Ergo, trade him while his value is still high (i.e. between now and Spring Training '13, assuming he doesn't suffer a significant injury). Sadly, this doesn't appear to be something Cherington is capable of, either.

#9 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8382967 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:32 PM

I think that's pretty fair value for Ellsbury if his true talent level is 2011 (I believe it is).


Why do you think it is? I'm not saying you're wrong, but personally I'd like to see him do it more than once before handing over $160m.

#10 YTF

  • 3517 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:56 PM

(Obviously total speculation) Unless the Sox offered him Crawford money, I frankly don't think he'd want to re-sign with the Red Sox. Even if the Sox were somehow able to off-load Crawford, I STILL don't think Ellsbury would sign here if he had equal offers from somewhere else.


Agreed, he was ripped by everyone about being soft and not having any heart when he missed most of the 2010, followed by a carreer year that turned to shit when many of his teammates showed worse than what he was accused of. Hate to say it but I hope he lights it up this next week and brings lots of trade interest, because there really isn't much more on this team that's going to bring a decent return.

#11 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:56 PM

Why do you think it is? I'm not saying you're wrong, but personally I'd like to see him do it more than once before handing over $160m.


I think 2011 is very likely a career year; we may never see him match it. But I agree with Laser Show that his true talent level is closer to 2011 than to any previous season.

A lot of us predicted, based on observable trends in his numbers up to that point, that he would have a breakout season last year. As it turned out, we were all too conservative. But I think his performance going forward will probably be in line with the kinds of numbers we were predicting: .310/.365/.475 or thereabouts.

#12 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27861 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

He turns 29 in September, though. Figure he's going to want 6-7 year deal which will be his age 30-35/36 years. Given his frequent injuries and reliance on speed, how do those years project? I don't know how the Sox can risk the kind of deal it will take to lock him up. I'd be curious to see how Boras sells him...who the heck are the comps?

#13 Laser Show

  • 3181 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:40 PM

Why do you think it is? I'm not saying you're wrong, but personally I'd like to see him do it more than once before handing over $160m.


I would definitely like to see him do it for another season before making that enormous financial commitment. If I had to say which player I think he'll be going forward, though, I think there's a good chance he's much closer to 2011 than 2009. The most important thing in that is the power he's found. His power stroke was previously nonexistent (he hit 9 and 8 homers in his first two full seasons). Given the facts that he A) tripled his typical home run production B) was playing just his third full major league season and C) was coming into his prime at 27, I think it's pretty reasonable to expect 20+ home runs and an .850 OPS from him going forward.

Edited by Laser Show, 24 July 2012 - 01:41 PM.


#14 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5376 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

This isnt Jacoby specific, but its probably going to affect how we handle the Jacoby situation.

In 2013 and 2014 our highest paid guys are taking up most of the payroll, they are going to make approximately:
  • A-Gon - $22M
  • Crawford - $21
  • Becket $17
  • Lackey - $16
  • Pedey - $10M
  • Lester - $11M
  • Clay - $6M then $8M
So in 2013 thats $103M for 7 guys, and roughly the same in 2014, assuming we just let Ortiz walkk. Even if Jacoby cost just $18MAAV thats ~$121M for 8 guys. In either scenario the depth of roster is not going to be great, and in the later scenario I would argue its going to be worse.

IMO, the problem the club is facing isnt just trying to determine if Jacoby will justify the contract Boras is certainly going to demand and find somewhere, but probably more importantly determine if, considering the current makeup of the payroll, if that money might be better used to make 'depth' type signings, put differently could $18M a year be better used to sign 2 guys for $9M, diversify the portfolio a bit, trade Jacoby for something of value and hopefully provide more value to the team? I have a feeling considering the current top-heavy payroll makeup that eventually the Sox will trade Jacoby and avoid adding another close to $20MAAV player to the payroll.

Its too bad because if we didnt sign Lackey or Crawford, we wouldnt be having this Jacoby debate.

#15 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14218 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:04 PM

Since the question OS what will happen rather than what should, he will remain with the non playoff in shambles red sox organization that desperately keeps selling the streak until he leaves as a fa.



#16 Seels

  • 1481 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:14 PM

Ellsbury was an 8 War player last year. I think it is highly unlikely he averages even 4 WAR over the duration of his contract. I'd trade him for the best package available, and if one isn't available now, just wait to assess where the team is next trade deadline.

One thing rarely mentioned is Jackie Bradley Jr, who seems like a pretty safe bet to be a solid contributor at the major league level, and is a big plus defensively. Not that you ever keep prospects in mind for star players, but JBJ will be our CF in 2014 regardless of what team Ellsbury is on.

#17 saintnick912


  • GINO!


  • 3473 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:15 PM

I agree with yecul on what is most likely vs what should happen.

I'd like to see him traded while he has value, but used as a vehicle to get rid of a bad contract. Not unlike how the Sox had to take on Mike Lansing to get Rolando Arrojo back in the day.

#18 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:35 PM

One thing rarely mentioned is Jackie Bradley Jr, who seems like a pretty safe bet to be a solid contributor at the major league level, and is a big plus defensively. Not that you ever keep prospects in mind for star players, but JBJ will be our CF in 2014 regardless of what team Ellsbury is on.


This is true only if you assume that whatever team Ellsbury is on, it won't be the Boston Red Sox.There is simply no way that JBJ, no matter how good he is defensively, is pushing a newly-signed Ellsbury out of CF in 2014.

#19 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25849 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:37 PM

This is hugely dependent on what Ellsbury, Crawford, and JBJ do betwixt now and then. I don't think we can come to any reasonable conclusions other than that we hope they all perform well and that the better JBJ does and the better Crawford does, the less likely it is that Ellsbury sticks around.

#20 Eric Van


  • Kid-tested, mother-approved


  • 10990 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:45 PM

There is still a ton of talent in this organization, and not a lot has to be done to make the team a serious contender in 2013. Stay healthy, and fix the inefficiency which has them winning 6 fewer games (so far) than they should have, given their hitting and pitching stats, and they are neck-and-neck with the Yankees and Rangers.

Ellsbury would obviously be a key part of such a 2013 elite team, so trading him any time in the next year makes no sense. Meanwhile, in another year we'll have a much better idea how good he really is, and how good JBJ looks to be as his potential successor. This entire thread (including the currently unanswerable third question in the poll) is a year premature.

Edited by Eric Van, 24 July 2012 - 04:46 PM.


#21 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:54 PM

Ellsbury would obviously be a key part of such a 2013 elite team, so trading him any time in the next year makes no sense.


A question: what's more hypothetical, the "2013 elite team" of which you speak, or the difference in value between what we'd receive in return for Ellsbury now (or this winter) and what we'd get in draft pick compensation for him? (Not entirely a rhetorical question.)

#22 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25849 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 05:14 PM

A question: what's more hypothetical, the "2013 elite team" of which you speak, or the difference in value between what we'd receive in return for Ellsbury now (or this winter) and what we'd get in draft pick compensation for him? (Not entirely a rhetorical question.)


Clearly the compensation.

The difference between this team and the hypothetical team is easy to peg--not necessarily easy to fix--it's a combination of three kinds of luck, the luck of injuries, the general variance that leads to underperforming pythags, and the general variance that leads to the inefficiencies Eric talks about. Plus there was the shakeup of the bullpen right when the season was about to start that led to people sucking in roles they weren't mentally prepared for which accounts for at least part of the pythag underperformance.

I mean, hell, the difference between the hypothetical and the current reality is largely bridged by Lester and Gonzales having normal years.

Compare that to the completely undefinable trade value at some point we can't even determine less the value of a draft pick in a future year, the real value of which won't manifest for five or six years?

Yeah, that's not a hard question.

#23 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 07:00 AM

Clearly the compensation.

The difference between this team and the hypothetical team is easy to peg--not necessarily easy to fix--it's a combination of three kinds of luck, the luck of injuries, the general variance that leads to underperforming pythags, and the general variance that leads to the inefficiencies Eric talks about. Plus there was the shakeup of the bullpen right when the season was about to start that led to people sucking in roles they weren't mentally prepared for which accounts for at least part of the pythag underperformance.

I mean, hell, the difference between the hypothetical and the current reality is largely bridged by Lester and Gonzales having normal years.

Compare that to the completely undefinable trade value at some point we can't even determine less the value of a draft pick in a future year, the real value of which won't manifest for five or six years?

Yeah, that's not a hard question.


I think calling the difference between where we are now and an elite 2013 squad "easy to peg" but "not necessarily easy to fix" is a distinction without a difference. If it's not easy to fix, then the fact that it's easy to "peg" is pretty close to meaningless in this context. With few exceptions (I can't think of one at the moment), the underperformers on this year's team are underperforming for reasons that are not obvious. And if the causes are unknown, then so are the fixes, or even the likelihood that there are fixes. We don't know, for instance, that the assumptions inherent in saying "Lester and Gonzales having normal years" are still valid. Maybe for Lester and Gonzales 2012 is the new normal. I hope not, but I can't think of a solid reason to rule it out.

On the other side, just because Ellsbury's trade value is unknown to us doesn't mean it isn't a real and definite (albeit fluid) thing. It is much more certain that Ellsbury has a trade value than that Lester will ever be a top-of-the-rotation starter again.

#24 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 7994 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:36 AM

I think it's pretty remarkable that only 25 out of 150 voters think Ellsbury will re-sign with the Red Sox.

Not that I think that the prevailing view is wrong. I think they'll trade him and wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the next week. Between the Boras impact, that they have Crawford signed to that stupid contract and whatever lingering ill will there is from the injuries in 2010, it doesn't seem likely that Ells will voluntarily stay in Boston.

But how many times have the Sox let go of a young player with Ellsbury's ability and upside? If you ignore the back story (which is, I know, impossible), he's the rare kind of player who should never be allowed to leave town.

#25 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25849 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 10:23 AM

I think calling the difference between where we are now and an elite 2013 squad "easy to peg" but "not necessarily easy to fix" is a distinction without a difference. If it's not easy to fix, then the fact that it's easy to "peg" is pretty close to meaningless in this context. With few exceptions (I can't think of one at the moment), the underperformers on this year's team are underperforming for reasons that are not obvious. And if the causes are unknown, then so are the fixes, or even the likelihood that there are fixes.


No. Just no on the face of it. The vast majority of the undefinable is simply luck. The only fix to that is to start again.

We don't know, for instance, that the assumptions inherent in saying "Lester and Gonzales having normal years" are still valid. Maybe for Lester and Gonzales 2012 is the new normal. I hope not, but I can't think of a solid reason to rule it out.


The fact that two things are both possible doesn't mean they are of equal likelihood. That is something people around here don't seem to grasp and I don't understand why.

On the other side, just because Ellsbury's trade value is unknown to us doesn't mean it isn't a real and definite (albeit fluid) thing. It is much more certain that Ellsbury has a trade value than that Lester will ever be a top-of-the-rotation starter again.


Of course it means it isn't definite. That's what those words mean in this context.

Why is it much more certain that Ellsbury will have trade value (the implication being a reasonably high trade value) than Lester will recover?

Lester has been a top of the rotation starter for four straight seasons prior to this one, and Ellsbury doesn't even have four full seasons. He missed half of this season, effectively all of 2010 and oh yeah he's had one real season with an OPS over .770. If he were to just have a mediocre season in 2012 his trade value in the offseason is minimal.

Meanwhile, we have three different scouts come to the same conclusion about Lester. If the Sox don't attempt that fix, I am certain that Lester will attempt it in the off season. I'd be rather stunned if he didn't.

#26 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5485 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 10:43 AM

I am pretty sure Ben has gotten a few calls about Ellsbury. The question is what would teams offer for him and what would the Sox accept for him.

Since trading Ellsbury would certainly tell the whole world that the Sox have officially given up on 2012 (and changes the whole perspective of 2013), I think that unless the value coming back is a "franchise building prospect" or an ace starting pitcher locked up for 2-3 years more, nothing will happen and they will take their chances with Boras at the end of the 2013 season.

If anything, the Sox have shown they are not afraid to deal with Boras.

#27 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14218 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:33 AM

Ellsbury isn't young. If he were to be 26 when he becomes a fa then 1 wed all want to keep him and 2 would expect them to do what it took to make room.

At 29/30 he's no longer young.

#28 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:23 PM

Boras believes that a player can best maximize his salary value only when all 30 teams can bid. By contrast, re-signing with a team before free agency means, by definition, a player isn't taking full advantage of all the market has to offer.

The Sox could, of course, make Ellsbury an offer this winter to gauge his interest in staying in Boston. But to get Ellsbury to agree to an extension, the Sox would almost certainly have to present something seven or eight years in length, with an average annual value in excess of $20 million. (Boras cited Matt Kemp's eight-year, $160 million deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers as a benchmark last spring).

Asked last month about the chances of the Sox locking up Ellsbury this winter, a team source answered: "Zero."

With that acknowledged, the Sox have two choices with Ellsbury: settle on an arbitration figure -- somewhere around $10 million, most agree -- and hope he enjoys a career year in anticipation of free agency; or trade him this winter.

Keeping Ellsbury is the safe choice. He's one of the team's most popular players and there exists the possibility that Ellsbury could duplicate his magical 2011 season, when he finished second in the American League MVP voting. But toward what end? Few expect the Red Sox to be legitimate playoff contenders next year. Keeping Ellsbury might help the team win 87 games instead of, say, 82.

The Texas Rangers would seem to make some sense. The Rangers have reached the post-season three straight times. Texas may lose free agent outfielder Josh Hamilton this winter and Ellsbury could serve as a one-year replacement.

Texas might be willing to move shortstop Elvis Andrus, who is signed through 2014 for a total of $11.2 million. (The Rangers have baseball's best shortstop prospect, Jurickson Profar, to replace Andrus).

Or, Texas might be willing to move a starter -- Matt Harrison? Derek Holland? -- in return for a package involving Ellsbury.

Other contending teams with a need in center field: Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, and San Francisco.

It's possible the Sox could hold onto Ellsbury then re-assess the trade market -- and their own position in the standings -- next July. But if they wait until after the 2013 season begins, Ellsbury's value will decline since no player traded in the final year before reaching free agency can result in a compensation draft pick for the team obtaining him.

http://www.csnne.com...717&feedID=3352

#29 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7564 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:58 AM

http://www.csnne.com...717&feedID=3352


Coming from the perspective of being bearish on the team's chances next season and extremely bearish on the likelihood of Ellsbury starting the 2014 season in a Sox uniform, I'd love to see them explore a deal based on Andrus for Jacoby.

#30 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5155 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:44 PM

The Sox should just keep him for next year, and then let somebody else overpay. But don't trade him. Boras clients almost always have career years in their walk years, and I'm sure Boras will hire the very best trainer, nutritionist, batting guru, and sports psychologist to get Ellsbury ready for 2013.

#31 someoneanywhere

  • 3116 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

The Sox should just keep him for next year, and then let somebody else overpay. But don't trade him. Boras clients almost always have career years in their walk years, and I'm sure Boras will hire the very best trainer, nutritionist, batting guru, and sports psychologist to get Ellsbury ready for 2013.


If one knows or suspects this is true, and moreover other teams suspect it is true, that is the single best argument for trading him.

#32 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20253 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:16 PM

It depends on what you think the team's chances of making the playoffs are next year. If you fall in the camp that considers them a dark horse contender for a wild card spot or at least want to wait to see what other moves the team might make in the off season before deciding where you stand on their playoff chances, you would want to hold onto Ellsbury for now. If you feel the team has no chance at the playoffs next year no matter what they do, then trading him makes the most sense.

I'm unsure of where I fall right now. I started out in the camp that felt they were a dark horse wild card contender with a couple of moves, but after the way they finished I'm wondering if they can make a serious run at the playoffs in 2013 without being careless about the team long term. So I'd like to wait at least until later in the off season to see if they can pick up a starting pitcher or two from the free agent market on moderate or short term deals. If they can land Edwin Jackson, I'm starting to feel better. If they pick him up and maybe someone like Anibel Sanchez, I'm feeling much better.

Of course, on the other hand, if they fail to re-sign Papi and Ross, the season is probably over before it begins and it only makes sense to pick up a starting pitcher if the team feels it's a long term acquisition. But even then, moving Ellsbury makes the most sense since him having another MVP caliber year in a non-playoff season doesn't do the franchise that much good.

So I don't think this is a clear cut decision by any means.

#33 someoneanywhere

  • 3116 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:46 PM

No, it's not an easy call. The difficult element here is not if, but when. By that I mean only the Sox do not alone control the timing of any of these moves, and they may be forced to act on one of them before any of the others, or key moves among the others, can be consummated. Sure, you can make a case that they are one big bat, one decent bat, and a starting pitcher or two away. I've made that case myself. But you don't know that you can get all that, or even some or any of it, before you get an offer for Ells that might be the best offer.

If I get something that sets me up for success beyond 2013 -- given Ells's one monster year among several good ones; and given what to me are legitimate questions about his ability to stay on the field and competitiveness when hurt -- I pull the trigger.

#34 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8382967 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:33 AM

From Scout's quote above:

Or, Texas might be willing to move a starter -- Matt Harrison? Derek Holland? -- in return for a package involving Ellsbury.


Would anyone trade a "package involving Ellsbury" for either Harrison or Holland? I wouldn't.

#35 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:08 AM

No idea what the "package" is, but if the Rangers offered Holland for Ellsbury today I would do it. 4 years at $26m, followed by two $11m team options. I don't think he will ever be an ace, but as a number 2/3 guy for that contract, I would definitely take it over a year of Ellsbury and the #35 pick.

#36 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8382967 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:22 AM

Straight up I might do it. If I had to throw in a couple of prospects I'd pass. I'd like to think the return for Ellsbury would be better than that.

Holland would also make the rotation very lefty heavy.

#37 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12225 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 02:42 PM

I'd absolutely trade Ellsbury and a 10-20 prospect for Harrison. The latter is a young solid player with two years on control and not a ton of miles on his arm. Gotten it done as a starter for two years in a good hitter's park. Ellsbury's trade value is like Russian roulette. He could miss half of 2013 and post a .750 OPS, or he could be the best hitter in the league. Neither woul remotely surprise me. You can't lock yourself into when to trade Ells or searching for elite-caliber return. You see the chance to get an impact player for him, you pull the trigger. If it turns out he hits his upside an you could have gotten more, oh well - that's still a fine worst-case scenario.

#38 deanx0

  • 1317 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

On the idea that you need a package with Ellsbury to get anything, that isn't the first time I've heard that. Mike Francesa was on the radio a couple of weeks ago talking about the Mets needing an outfielder and said they should trade Ike Davis for Ellsbury, but because it's a 1-year rental, the Sox would have to thrown in more to get Davis.

#39 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:58 AM

On the idea that you need a package with Ellsbury to get anything, that isn't the first time I've heard that.


It'll hardly be the last time either, as i'm tempted to guess there won't be a whole lot of baseball execs out there that are as willing to put as much potential weight behind Ellsbury's second half of 2011 as is routinely suggested here on this board. Which isn't to say Ellsbury does not present value, but even as an in-demand positional player he's still a 1 year rental with a "worst contract of the winter waiting to happen" written all over him imo.

The guy popped off for 3 months going on a year+ ago, with a mountain of surrounding data suggesting that's not who he is or ever will be (on the whole) as a MLB hitter. If you can pull a Matt Harrison return out Ellsbury + a 10-20 prospect, you don't even blink before saying yes.

Not that i could see Texas settling on a 10-20 prospect there to begin with, mind you.

Edited by MikeM, 14 October 2012 - 01:59 AM.


#40 Hokie Sox

  • 83 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:51 AM

http://www.csnne.com...#38;feedID=3352


No idea why Washington is on that list when they have baby Harper..

#41 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6811 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:03 AM

No idea why Washington is on that list when they have baby Harper..


They need a legit leadoff guy...they would probably move Harper to RF to get one.

#42 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:46 AM

The guy popped off for 3 months going on a year+ ago, with a mountain of surrounding data suggesting that's not who he is or ever will be (on the whole) as a MLB hitter.


Really? A mountain? If this is true, why was there a whole thread in spring training 2011 where a bunch of us predicted a breakout year for Ellsbury based on detailed projections rooted in past performance?

What the data suggest is that this is a very talented offensive player who has had horrific luck with injuries. I don't think the label "injury-prone" makes sense here. You say that when someone sprouts bum hammies and ankles and shoulders in response to no particular trauma, or minor trauma. You don't say it about a guy whose ribs break when a human Sherman tank runs into him or whose shoulder collapses when the whole weight of a 190-pound athlete falls on it.

If you leave out the two injury-ruined years, he's had three ML seasons since his 2007 cup of coffee:

.280/.336/.394
.301/.355/.414
.321/.376/.552

Apart from the fact that the age-27 power spike in 2011 was probably exaggerated, this is who he is. 2011 was not a fluke, it was a culmination.

There is legitimate cause for worry that the cumulative effect of the two major injuries may permanently impair him. But if you're willing to take that risk, you're getting a guy who you should be able to count on for annual seasons in the .300/.360/.450 range, with bonus power in a good year, plus very good CF defense and baserunning.

So I would flip your formula around and say if you can get that guy for Matt Harrison--a sinkerballer with a sub-6 K/9 who has gotten the living crap beaten out of him by three of our four divisional rivals so far in his brief career, while feasting on weak competition*--you don't hesitate.

*Career ERA vs. Seattle (104 IP): 2.06
Career interleague ERA (72 IP): 2.24
Career ERA vs. everybody else (447 IP): 4.81

#43 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7564 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:59 AM

Really? A mountain? If this is true, why was there a whole thread in spring training 2011 where a bunch of us predicted a breakout year for Ellsbury based on detailed projections rooted in past performance?

What the data suggest is that this is a very talented offensive player who has had horrific luck with injuries. I don't think the label "injury-prone" makes sense here. You say that when someone sprouts bum hammies and ankles and shoulders in response to no particular trauma, or minor trauma. You don't say it about a guy whose ribs break when a human Sherman tank runs into him or whose shoulder collapses when the whole weight of a 190-pound athlete falls on it.

If you leave out the two injury-ruined years, he's had three ML seasons since his 2007 cup of coffee:

.280/.336/.394
.301/.355/.414
.321/.376/.552

Apart from the fact that the age-27 power spike in 2011 was probably exaggerated, this is who he is. 2011 was not a fluke, it was a culmination.

There is legitimate cause for worry that the cumulative effect of the two major injuries may permanently impair him. But if you're willing to take that risk, you're getting a guy who you should be able to count on for annual seasons in the .300/.360/.450 range, with bonus power in a good year, plus very good CF defense and baserunning.

So I would flip your formula around and say if you can get that guy for Matt Harrison--a sinkerballer with a sub-6 K/9 who has gotten the living crap beaten out of him by three of our four divisional rivals so far in his brief career, while feasting on weak competition*--you don't hesitate.

*Career ERA vs. Seattle (104 IP): 2.06
Career interleague ERA (72 IP): 2.24
Career ERA vs. everybody else (447 IP): 4.81


This is a good argument, but it's not one that's going to hold up very well in trade negotiations. He could put up stellar numbers next year (Disclaimer: I'm skeptical), but there's no reason to be certain that's going to be the case. Oh, and he's a rental.

I don't have any particular feelings pro or con about Harrison specifically, but I think most around here are going to be very disappointed with what he fetches if the Sox decide to move him.

#44 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:38 AM

This is a good argument, but it's not one that's going to hold up very well in trade negotiations.


I agree--which might (along with the fact that we have no obvious short-term replacement unless we want to rush JBJ) be a good argument for holding onto him going into 2013. If he bounces back with a solid .800-.850 type season next year--which seems pretty likely to me--then he might be worth about as much at the deadline next year, even minus the draft pick possibility, as he will be this winter. And we would get the extra four months of his services (and four more months for JBJ to solidify his game in the upper minors). If Ellsbury is raking at the deadline and we are in contention, keep him and settle for the draft pick. If he's raking and we're out of contention, sell him to a contender. If he's struggling, well, gamble lost. But I think it's a good gamble.

#45 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:45 AM

Really? A mountain? If this is true, why was there a whole thread in spring training 2011 where a bunch of us predicted a breakout year for Ellsbury based on detailed projections rooted in past performance?


For the same reason there's a a hundred other threads every year proclaiming potential breakouts/upside to get optimistic about. It's what we do as fans every spring. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. But if there was a thread where a bunch of people were coming together, notably predicting Ellsbury would "break out" to the extent of being a middle-of-the-order MVP type, i must of missed it.

There is legitimate cause for worry that the cumulative effect of the two major injuries may permanently impair him. But if you're willing to take that risk, you're getting a guy who you should be able to count on for annual seasons in the .300/.360/.450 range, with bonus power in a good year, plus very good CF defense and baserunning.


So basically the general level of potential he's previously flashed over his MLB career when things where going well for him, the player he was the first 3 months of the 2011 season, and where many people here had his ceiling potential pegged at prior to that 3 month surge. No argument there. Although the length of time you can "count on" Ellsbury staying at that presented level, in relationship to any potential contract he's to receive, remains debatable imo. Guy does turn 30 next year.

My issue is with the constantly presented notion that the odds are somehow better then lottery ticket level that Ellsbury amounts to anything more that that. Which wasn't meant as a knock in itself on who he is or could be, just that all this "top 5 in MVP votes player" and belief of 32hr/.552 being the potential "50/50 chance" norm stuff here is getting rather carried away with itself at this point imo. Especially every time the concept of trading him is brought up.

#46 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11195 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:01 AM

For the same reason there's a a hundred other threads every year proclaiming potential breakouts/upside to get optimistic about. It's what we do as fans every spring. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. But if there was a thread where a bunch of people were coming together, notably predicting Ellsbury would "break out" to the extent of being a middle-of-the-order MVP type, i must of missed it.


Here.

Of course the fact that we projected a breakout--and to be fair, none of us predicted the full extent of the power surge--doesn't prove that he is really a "middle of the order MVP type." But we were basing our projections on his statistical performance up to that point, not just pulling them out of the air. It's hard to reconcile that with the idea that there's a "mountain" of data showing 2011 was a mirage.

I agree that his age means there's a limit to how long we can expect prime performance. OTOH, let's not exaggerate. He turns 30 next year, yes, but not till September. A five-year FA deal would run from age 30 through age 34. We're not talking Jayson Werth here.

Really it all boils down to whether we think the injuries--particularly this last one--will have significant long-term effects. If not, then he's still a pretty valuable piece.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users