Jump to content


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

SOSH

Happy Patriots Day.  I expect some heavy usage today so please if there are any problems just let me know via twitter @sonsofsamhorn.  thanks folks.  nip

Photo

SI Rumor: Ellsbury to Rangers for Derek Holland


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

#1 FredCDobbs

  • 424 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:29 PM

Would allow Rangers to offset loss of Hamilton.

http://www.fannation..._and_rumors/mlb.

#2 Fishercat


  • Svelte and sexy!


  • 4282 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:32 PM

Yeah, there better be a lot more than Derek Holland involved if this has any legs.

#3 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 20518 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:37 PM

I would do that yesterday. Straight up.

#4 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6515 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:39 PM

No doubter. Three years of Holland is a great deal. He pitched better this year than his ERA indicated.

#5 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 20518 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:40 PM

No doubter. Three years of Holland is a great deal. He pitched better this year than his ERA indicated.


3 years?

12:$1M, 13:$3.2M, 14:$5.4M, 15:$7.4M, 16:$10M, 17:$11M club option ($1.5M buyout), 18:$11.5M club option ($1M buyout)


That's the kind of contracts the Red Sox need to be adding.

#6 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6515 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:43 PM

3 years?



That's the kind of contracts the Red Sox need to be adding.


Forgot they had extended him....I knew he had three years service time.

#7 Papelbon's Poutine

  • 4311 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:47 PM

Done and done. Sign me up as long as its one for one.

(null)

#8 SouthernBoSox


  • SoSH Member


  • 7951 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

He's essentially the perfect example of what we need to add. Talented. Cheap. Long term value.

Edit: it also frees up some of other pieces. (Dubbie)

Edited by SouthernBoSox, 14 October 2012 - 08:57 PM.


#9 Andrew


  • broke his neck in costa rica


  • 8663 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

Please make this happen. It's going to be a couple of seasons before the Red Sox are a "force" again. Holland would be a member of this team in a few years, Ellsbury would not. Perfect deal for the Sox.

#10 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27097 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

Works for me. Curious about the Texas angle; assuming they'd look to extend Ellsbury. They must really hate Hamilton.

#11 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7473 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:55 PM

Yeah, there better be a lot more than Derek Holland involved if this has any legs.


Are you kidding? Straight up would be a steal for the Sox.

#12 Ferm Sheller

  • 4042 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:56 PM

Any chance they could expand it and add Andrus, or is that a pipe dream?

#13 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38354 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:56 PM

Works for me. Curious about the Texas angle; assuming they'd look to extend Ellsbury. They must really hate Hamilton.


This seems like it may be a big issue, given how much we know Boras values getting his players to free agency. He's going to want a huge deal for Ellsbury and, quite frankly, I'm not really sure why any team would be willing to give Ellsbury that deal at this point in time. I wouldn't do it.

#14 TheShynessClinic


  • SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer


  • 5600 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

I won't believe this until something/someone more reputable reports this.

The "fan nation" section of SI is basically throwing shit against the wall hoping it sticks.

#15 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5097 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

Is Derek Holland a future Cy Young caliber starter? Isn't that what you should be asking in exchange for someone with the potential to finish in the top 5 of the MVP voting? This would be another trade where the primary consideration was money rather than talent; and teams giving up the talent portion of the deal usual lose those trades badly.

#16 SouthernBoSox


  • SoSH Member


  • 7951 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

This seems like it may be a big issue, given how much we know Boras values getting his players to free agency. He's going to want a huge deal for Ellsbury and, quite frankly, I'm not really sure why any team would be willing to give Ellsbury that deal at this point in time. I wouldn't do it.

Is this assuming the deal would be contingent on an extension?

#17 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27097 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:02 PM

It's 1 year of Ellsbury. 10M for a guy who could be an MVP candidate, or far less than that. He seems to have no interest in staying here, an there's no way the team will give him what he wants (not to mention he may be the hardest player to evaluate in the league). What team will give up a Cy young candidate for one year of Ellsbury? Frankly, this sounds like something the Rangers would float to show Hamilton that they are serious about moving on. Or something a bored fan made up.

#18 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7473 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:03 PM

Is Derek Holland a future Cy Young caliber starter? Isn't that what you should be asking in exchange for someone with the potential to finish in the top 5 of the MVP voting? This would be another trade where the primary consideration was money rather than talent; and teams giving up the talent portion of the deal usual lose those trades badly.


You might want to read through the Fate of Ellsbury thread to count up the number of reasons this doesn't hold water.

#19 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38354 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:13 PM

Is this assuming the deal would be contingent on an extension?


Yes. I suppose Texas could take the pick instead, you're right. Not sure I understand it from their perspective, but that's ok.

#20 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24822 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:29 PM

Is Derek Holland a future Cy Young caliber starter? Isn't that what you should be asking in exchange for someone with the potential to finish in the top 5 of the MVP voting? This would be another trade where the primary consideration was money rather than talent; and teams giving up the talent portion of the deal usual lose those trades badly.


Ellsbury has had exactly one season where he's been a top 5 player (2011, 8.0 WAR, league leader had 8.5). Every other year of his career he's been nowhere near the leader in WAR in the AL. He's under contract for 1 more year. Boras is his agent and will ask a bazillion zillion dollars for his services. And he'd be on the same team as Beltre again.

I dunno, a 25 year old starting pitcher under club control through 2018 and with a couple of good recent years under his belt seems like more than a fair return.

#21 Rod Becks Mullet

  • 1953 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:36 PM

I won't believe this until something/someone more reputable reports this.

The "fan nation" section of SI is basically throwing shit against the wall hoping it sticks.

The SI link actually links to a Phil Rogers report in the Chicago Tribune. The blurb is pretty much "reported" verbatim by "fan nation"

http://www.chicagotr...0,7881572.story

#22 LogansDad

  • 4874 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:36 PM

Is there any chance at all that Ellsbury would be all the Rangers want in return? I would do the deal in a heartbeat, but I don't know that the Rangers agree to it straight up.

#23 DanoooME


  • SoSH Member


  • 5267 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:50 PM

Is Derek Holland a future Cy Young caliber starter? Isn't that what you should be asking in exchange for someone with the potential to finish in the top 5 of the MVP voting? This would be another trade where the primary consideration was money rather than talent; and teams giving up the talent portion of the deal usual lose those trades badly.


Who's to say he isn't? He gets killed in Texas (career 5.34 ERA at Texas, 4.08 elsewhere, and his split was worse this year - 5.55 vs. 3.65). Fenway may not help him any more, but it's worth a chance since what are the odds Ellsbury has another 8 WAR season? It's certainly not 50% and may be much less.


Ellsbury has had exactly one season where he's been a top 5 player (2011, 8.0 WAR, league leader had 8.5). Every other year of his career he's been nowhere near the leader in WAR in the AL. He's under contract for 1 more year. Boras is his agent and will ask a bazillion zillion dollars for his services. And he'd be on the same team as Beltre again.

I dunno, a 25 year old starting pitcher under club control through 2018 and with a couple of good recent years under his belt seems like more than a fair return.


Young pitching is always going to cost a lot on the trade market, especially cost controlled pitching.

And Victor Martinez desperately needs to get traded to Texas just for this reason.

#24 Fishercat


  • Svelte and sexy!


  • 4282 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:06 PM

Are you kidding? Straight up would be a steal for the Sox.


I'll take the minority position here. I have seen nothing from Derek Holland to indicate that he is a player to be excited about. He's had four seasons in the pros. He never reached over 200 IP, with two moderately above average seasons and two moderately below average seasons. It's worth noting that he has been very good against teams like Seattle and Oakland, who aren't quite juggarnauts, and struggled (read: 5+ ERA) against NY, Tampa, and Los Angeles Angels. It was noted that Ellsbury had exactly one player where he's been a Top 5 player. That year alone doubles the amount of WAR Derek Holland has produced over his entire career. He has a fastball with decent zip, and a passable slider. None of the Fangraph stats indicate anything but the fastball is an above average pitch. It would be nice to get him out of Arlington, but some of that split is exaggerated because many of his road starts were in LA, OAK, and SEA. He's been really good against us, and that's nice, but I'm not sure how much it would help when he's actually on our team.

Maybe I'm missing something and am completely off on Derek Holland, feel free to tell me if I am, but he seems like a completely pedestrian SP who is earning roughly what he should be earning, maybe a little bit underpaid, with that extension. I'd honestly rather search for a suitor with something better to offer for someone with Ellsbury's potential or let him walk and coup a good draft pick or two. If his potential is far greater than anything he's ever done in his career (as a 27 year old SP at this point), and I admit it's completely possible as I haven't been following his career with a magnifying glass, maybe it's less ridiculous than my original flippant comment suggested, but I just don't get the appeal of Derek Holland to call him a future Cy Young candidate.

Edited by Fishercat, 14 October 2012 - 10:09 PM.


#25 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 9481 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:14 PM

I'll take the minority position here. I have seen nothing from Derek Holland to indicate that he is a player to be excited about. He's had four seasons in the pros. He never reached over 200 IP, with two moderately above average seasons and two moderately below average seasons. It's worth noting that he has been very good against teams like Seattle and Oakland, who aren't quite juggarnauts, and struggled (read: 5+ ERA) against NY, Tampa, and Los Angeles Angels. It was noted that Ellsbury had exactly one player where he's been a Top 5 player. That year alone doubles the amount of WAR Derek Holland has produced over his entire career. He has a fastball with decent zip, and a passable slider. None of the Fangraph stats indicate anything but the fastball is an above average pitch. It would be nice to get him out of Arlington, but some of that split is exaggerated because many of his road starts were in LA, OAK, and SEA. He's been really good against us, and that's nice, but I'm not sure how much it would help when he's actually on our team.

Maybe I'm missing something and am completely off on Derek Holland, feel free to tell me if I am, but he seems like a completely pedestrian SP who is earning roughly what he should be earning, maybe a little bit underpaid, with that extension. I'd honestly rather search for a suitor with something better to offer for someone with Ellsbury's potential or let him walk and coup a good draft pick or two.


What do you expect the Sox to get for Ellsbury? Putting aside his spotty career for a moment (and lets chalk up his injuries to freak accidents) as others have noted, his agent is Scott Boras. He will cost the Sox or any other team a ton of money to sign. Contrary to what the wish-casters around here are saying, Boston isn't likely to be competitive for a few seasons at least.

Holland is relatively young, left-handed, cost-controlled for the next five seasons (including the team options if they carry over) and is better than what Boston has at the back end of their rotation.

He may turn out to be nothing special but this is exactly how the Sox need to start to rebuild.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 14 October 2012 - 10:16 PM.


#26 Fishercat


  • Svelte and sexy!


  • 4282 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:25 PM

What do you expect the Sox to get for Ellsbury? Putting aside his spotty career for a moment (and lets chalk up his injuries to freak accidents) as others have noted, his agent is Scott Boras. He will cost the Sox a ton of money to sign and contrary to what the wish-casters around here are saying, they aren't likely to be competitive for a few seasons at least.

Holland is relatively young, left-handed, cost-controlled for the next five seasons (including the team options if they carry over) and is better than what Boston has at the back end of their rotation.

He may turn out to be nothing special but this is exactly how the Sox need to start to rebuild.


I don't think it's out of line to see how the FA market plays out and see the strategy the team plans to go with before casting out Ellsbury. I don't think he'll be re-signed, no argument there, but there's a pretty huge difference on what caliber of player or type of player I'd be looking for if they decide to stay quiet on the FA market than if they decide to spend heavily on this...lovely...batch of free agents. Maybe after free agency, some team that missed out on Josh Hamilton will be willing to talk on Jacoby Ellsbury who isn't willing to now. I just don't see Derek Holland as the prize that forces the Red Sox' hand on this matter this early in the process.

And for what it's worth? His spotty career includes three seasons better (based on WAR) than Holland's best season, one of which was dramatically better, and even this quasi-disaster of a year was only one worse than Holland's best.

Granted, I'm not a GM, and definitely no expert on Holland, so it could just be me. I admit I could be entirely wrong on this one, and if Holland comes out next year to be a 15-win pitcher with a sub-3 ERA, I'll have egg on my face. But my feeling on Ellsbury is that his ceiling is high enough to justify in return someone with a higher ceiling than what Derek Holland has shown so far, or something in addition to Holland. I don't need a Cy Young pitcher like P91 seems to want (or someone with that ceiling), but I would like someone who has proven more than Derek Holland has at the MLB level, even with his quality looking contract (having him locked up until he's in his early-30's is pretty nice)

Edited by Fishercat, 14 October 2012 - 10:29 PM.


#27 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14172 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:30 PM

DH3 is just setting up impossible standards so he can continue on his 1 note ranting about the team. Again. Until they win a bunch of games and have success he will make the same posts over and over. It's his thing.

Anyway, Ellsbury is gone after this year. With the new compensation rules in place I think max trade value can be had now vs in-season. While he's essentially a 1-year rental there should be a number of teams interested, so a strong return would not be surprising.

This particular trade option would make a lot of sense on all fronts. It helps address pitching, which is a big deficiency. He is young and under control for a bit. He would play in 2013, so you can move Ellsbury and still have something to show for it right away. And at some point in 2013 or certainly 2014 you'd get to see Ellsbury's projected replacement. There are many detractors to trading Ellsbury or other talent citing that prospects are actually suspects... but those same people will complain in this type of deal that nets a more established commodity. It's as if they just want to bitch.

It would be impressive to see a 1 for 1 type of trade, but at this point it's just nice to have some rumors floating around.

#28 Mugsys Jock


  • Longtime Member


  • 3668 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:32 PM

Would be worth it just to see the look on Ellsbury's face the first time a short fly to the outfield sees Beltre charging out in hot pursuit.

#29 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7473 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:35 PM

Granted, I'm not a GM, and definitely no expert on Holland, so it could just be me. I admit I could be entirely wrong on this one, and if Holland comes out next year to be a 15-win pitcher with a sub-3 ERA, I'll have egg on my face. But my feeling on Ellsbury is that his ceiling is high enough to justify in return someone with a higher ceiling than what Derek Holland has shown so far, or something in addition to Holland. I don't need a Cy Young pitcher like P91 seems to want (or someone with that ceiling), but I would like someone who has proven more than Derek Holland has at the MLB level, even with his quality looking contract (having him locked up until he's in his early-30's is pretty nice)


No one's predicting or expecting that Holland is going to become a Cy Young contender. The problem is that for all the reasons cited in this and the other thread on what to do with him, Jacoby Ellsbury isn't going fetch that sort of player from anyone, even those who want but miss out on a Hamilton. He just doesn't have the track record or the benefit of cost control to get that sort of talent.

#30 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 19170 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:40 PM

Who's to say he isn't? He gets killed in Texas (career 5.34 ERA at Texas, 4.08 elsewhere, and his split was worse this year - 5.55 vs. 3.65). Fenway may not help him any more, but it's worth a chance since what are the odds Ellsbury has another 8 WAR season? It's certainly not 50% and may be much less.


Holland is a 26-year-old left-handed fastball pitcher with impressive velocity (average 93) and high HR/FB rates, which might be bad luck, or might be earned bad luck. I'm inclined to think it's earned bad luck that comes from RHB connecting on his fastballs and pulling them out of the park (career HR/9 1.61 vs RHB, 0.54 vs LHB).

How will he age? He was injured briefly in 2012 with "shoulder fatigue." Can he sustain his velocity? If he can't, he'll be in trouble, because his offspeed stuff is nothing to crow about: his slider is just OK, and his curve and changeup suck.

He suffers in Texas because of the home runs, and he will suffer in Fenway for the same reason. How much will he suffer? Here is his 2012 in Arlington overlaid on Fenway -- plenty of singles and doubles in Texas will probably be over the Monster in Boston.

Posted Image

Lester, Holland, Doubront, and Morales would make for a LHP-heavy starting rotation. I don't worry so much about Lester and Doubront, who have reverse or even platoons splits, but Holland and Morales could be trouble at home.

#31 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 9481 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

I know Ellsbury is popular and that tends to color how people think about him around here. But if you look at this objectively, its pretty simple.

The pool of major league GM's who have a need and the wherewithal to acquire Jacoby Ellsbury for what amounts to a one year rental is relatively small. They too know he'll be expensive in terms of years/dollars or, at the very least, will be a pain to keep given the nature of Boras' negotiations. They also know that while he is capable of putting up an 8 WAR season, he hasn't shown the ability to do so consistently (for whatever reason). Why would they give up a very good player in return for him?

#32 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8909 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

If we're going to trade Ellsbury to the Rangers, it should be for Andrus. If they don't want to do it, that's fine, we can keep Ellsbury for one more year. Missing out on Derek Holland isn't that big of a deal, frankly. There are pitchers who are free agents this year who should be about as good, like Anibal Sanchez, Dan Haren or Edwin Jackson who wouldn't cost any players to sign, just money.

Why should Derek Holland be that much better than even Edwin Jackson over the next couple of years, pitching in Fenway in the AL East? Holland's FIP for the last 3 years is 4.02, 3.94 and 4.75. Jackson: 3.86, 3.55, and 3.85. Either of them pitching in the AL East next year, I'd expect to put up an ERA of around 4.20 or so.

We have loads of payroll room now and don't lose a draft pick for signing a free agent. We should take adavantage of that and try to sign a solid starter in free agency. If we could get a player like Andrus for him, then sure trade Elslbury. If Ellsbury's value is too low, then we can't get Andrus, okay. But Holland is to me not better than a number of guys we could sign for just money this offseason. So I'd much rather go into next year with both Ellsbury and a solid free agent pitcher on the team, rather than just Holland and even more payroll room.

#33 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 9481 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:59 PM

If we're going to trade Ellsbury to the Rangers, it should be for Andrus. If they don't want to do it, that's fine, we can keep Ellsbury for one more year. Missing out on Derek Holland isn't that big of a deal, frankly. There are pitchers who are free agents this year who should be about as good, like Anibal Sanchez, Dan Haren or Edwin Jackson who wouldn't cost any players to sign, just money.

Why should Derek Holland be that much better than even Edwin Jackson over the next couple of years, pitching in Fenway in the AL East? Holland's FIP for the last 3 years is 4.02, 3.94 and 4.75. Jackson: 3.86, 3.55, and 3.85. Either of them pitching in the AL East next year, I'd expect to put up an ERA of around 4.20 or so.

We have loads of payroll room now and don't lose a draft pick for signing a free agent. We should take adavantage of that and try to sign a solid starter in free agency. If we could get a player like Andrus for him, then sure trade Elslbury. If Ellsbury's value is too low, then we can't get Andrus, okay. But Holland is to me not better than a number of guys we could sign for just money this offseason. So I'd much rather go into next year with both Ellsbury and a solid free agent pitcher on the team, rather than just Holland and even more payroll room.


Why would the Rangers give up Andrus for one year of Ellsbury?

Andrus is signed for two more seasons and is a decent player at a position that is suffering across MLB. He too is represented by Boras that might hurt his value before free-agency. But the fact remains that he is 24, is under control for a few seasons and would likely fetch a bit more from a contending team looking to fill a hole at SS.

#34 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8909 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:08 PM

Like I said, if they won't do it, then fine. They're rumored to be considering moving Andrus and Ellsbury was mentioned as a possibility, but we don't have to make a trade with them. We should be fine keeping Ellsbury for one more year, especially if all we could get by trading him is a guy that isn't any better than some of the guys we could acquire for just money. Again, one year of Ellsbury plus a decent starter is better to me than a decent starter plus more payroll room, which we already have loads of.

#35 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10376 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:11 PM

I'd rather have Holland than Ellsbury over the next 6 years which is the relevant length of time. The Sox won't be extending Ellsbury and Holland *could* be a true #2 level starter if he makes the adjustment. Problem is he's such a liability vs. RH power hitters that I'd have to be confident they can change his approach. He's going to pitch next year at 26 so still a young guy and hopefully he can be taught something though I do think it's a risk. Of course, if you are the team buying Ellsbury you also have uneasy feelings about what you are really getting. Are you getting a 3-4 win player or a 5-6 win player? He's either been elite--one year--or not even above average at less than 3 wins each year or in some cases 0 wins.

On second thought, I might consider some other pitchers first but again the risk-adjusted return on Ellsbury is most likely less than what Sox fans think.

#36 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 34371 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:16 PM

Pros
* His contract is extremely reasonable, even if he's only a league-average starter through 2018.
* He's primarily a ground-ball pitcher (1.15 GB/FB career, 1.08 last year)
* His K/BB has progressively improved year-to-year (2.28 --> 2.25 --> 2.42 --> 2.79)
* His walk rate in 2012 was about average (2.7 BB/9 IP, ranking 19th out of 36 qualified AL starters). But he also keeps the ball around the plate control-wise (just 3 HBP and only 1 WP all season).
* As Sprowl points out, decent velocity on his FB (93 mph sinker).
* Last year, had the 13th-best average length of start in the AL (6.5 IP/GS; Verlander, Sabathia & King Felix led the league with 7.2, 7.1 & 7.0 respectively)

Cons
* About 13% of the fly balls he's given up in the majors have been home runs.
* This season he ranked 2nd out of 36 qualified AL starting pitchers in home run frequency, yielding 1.6 HR per 9 IP. Only Ervin Santana was a better friend to sluggers (2.0 HR/9IP).
* His unadjusted OPS last year (.745) was the 15th-worst among 36 qualified AL starters. (Verlander was best at .601; Ivan Nova worst at .860). This despite having the 5th-lowest BABIP in the group (.264).
* According to Fangraphs, lost 1.5 mph on his FB from 2011 to 2012 (94.1 to 92.6), though I'm sure some of that is pitch classification noise (sinkers, cutters & 4-seamers).
* He appears to rely pretty heavily on the sinker (68.2% of all pitches in 2012).
* His slider, curve and change all had negative run values last year (-0.4, -4.6, -5.2 respectively).
* His high duration per start may have been helped by his receiving the 5th-best run support in the AL (5.5 runs per start).

#37 Manramsclan

  • 1836 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:10 AM

If we're going to trade Ellsbury to the Rangers, it should be for Andrus. If they don't want to do it, that's fine, we can keep Ellsbury for one more year. Missing out on Derek Holland isn't that big of a deal, frankly. There are pitchers who are free agents this year who should be about as good, like Anibal Sanchez, Dan Haren or Edwin Jackson who wouldn't cost any players to sign, just money.




I agree. Why do the we need another cost-controlled slightly above average starter? It seems that we already have two of those. (Buchholz & Doubront, and maybe three if you are not sold on "Lester as ace")

Keeping Ellsbury for one year and hoping for a repeat of 2011 a is a much clearer path to a successful 2013 season. Letting him go after next season for a draft pick is also a better long-term strategy to reloading with higher upside talent. That scenario is the best of both worlds, barring some scenario in which Ben can get someone to overpay with high upside young talent, or acquire an impact starting pitcher which is unlikely.

As has been mentioned, his trade value is suppressed by his inconsistency and looming Boras contract negotiations. I do agree with the assertion that Derek Holland may be the best we can get for him, but I would rather have the two lottery tickets of Ellsbury's 2013 season and a draft pick then another lefty without a high ceiling locked into the rotation for the next 5 years.

#38 Wingack


  • Yankee Mod


  • 9808 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:50 AM

With the new compensation rules in place I think max trade value can be had now vs in-season.


But why "now"? While the playoffs are still going on? I can understand moving him in a couple weeks when the GMs meeting in November, but what is the rush? I would think the Nationals might be interested in Ellsbury (they have been desperate for a CF, leadoff type for years), and they have a good working relationship with Boras. Maybe they would give up Detwiler for him (who I think has a higher ceiling than Holland and an even more friendly contract situation). But the Nationals, like many other teams, are still sorting through the wreckage of their seasons. What exactly is the rush?

#39 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3539 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:42 AM

But why "now"? While the playoffs are still going on? I can understand moving him in a couple weeks when the GMs meeting in November, but what is the rush? I would think the Nationals might be interested in Ellsbury (they have been desperate for a CF, leadoff type for years), and they have a good working relationship with Boras. Maybe they would give up Detwiler for him (who I think has a higher ceiling than Holland and an even more friendly contract situation). But the Nationals, like many other teams, are still sorting through the wreckage of their seasons. What exactly is the rush?


The Rangers would probably interested in this ASAP, though, because it determines how serious their re-pursuit of Hamilton would be. From their standpoint, they might be happy to get a deal done during the week after the WS (or before). If you can extract extra value from them in return for the "security" that they have Ellsbury traded for before Hamilton's suitors start passing big numbers around, you do it.

#40 someoneanywhere

  • 3057 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 05:49 AM

Huh. Young, left-handed, cost-controlled.

If he is on the market -- if this deal is really in play -- the first question anyone should be asking themselves is why a smart team like the Texas Rangers would be willing to give up young pitching for a rental.

And then you walk away.

#41 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4253 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:22 AM

But why "now"? While the playoffs are still going on? I can understand moving him in a couple weeks when the GMs meeting in November, but what is the rush? I would think the Nationals might be interested in Ellsbury (they have been desperate for a CF, leadoff type for years), and they have a good working relationship with Boras. Maybe they would give up Detwiler for him (who I think has a higher ceiling than Holland and an even more friendly contract situation). But the Nationals, like many other teams, are still sorting through the wreckage of their seasons. What exactly is the rush?


Just because the rumors are surfacing now does not mean a deal is coming now. Teams still can only trade through the waiver wire right now anyway, so nothing is going to happen until November regardless of who is dealt where.

#42 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7031 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:48 AM

Holland looks like he has benefited from good run support in that he is 29-3 when receiving 6+ runs in his support in a 39-29 career. While he might make a good addition the the Red Sox starting rotation, is trading Ellsbury for him this winter a good idea? They'd have to find a replacement for him as well as finding a LF or RF this winter. They will still be in a rebuilding mode next year, I believe, and if Ellsbury bounces back to somewhere near his 2011 level, he may be worth keeping. If they decide they don't want to spend the money he will want, then they can trade him during the season...the better he is doing, the more he will be worth in trade. I can't see him getting a big raise in arbitration; I suspect that the club will offer about what he got last year. Besides, they need to see Bradley's pro\gress before they can really make a decision about the CF of the future.

#43 Lefty on the Mound


  • SoSH Member


  • 1301 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:41 AM

Holland looks like he has benefited from good run support in that he is 29-3 when receiving 6+ runs in his support in a 39-29 career. While he might make a good addition the the Red Sox starting rotation, is trading Ellsbury for him this winter a good idea? They'd have to find a replacement for him as well as finding a LF or RF this winter. They will still be in a rebuilding mode next year, I believe, and if Ellsbury bounces back to somewhere near his 2011 level, he may be worth keeping. If they decide they don't want to spend the money he will want, then they can trade him during the season...the better he is doing, the more he will be worth in trade. I can't see him getting a big raise in arbitration; I suspect that the club will offer about what he got last year. Besides, they need to see Bradley's pro\gress before they can really make a decision about the CF of the future.


What's the max that Ellsbury's value could increase, 20% or so? Whatever it is, there remains a less than zero chance that he will get injured and we'll see his trade value crater to zero. Why risk losing it all for a chance at a small increase? The sooner you trade him, the better.

#44 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18473 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:45 AM

I find it interesting that the evaluations of Holland are so starkly different from poster to poster. Some feel he's an overpay (or at worst good value) for Ellsbury straight up, others think he's selling low on Ellsbury. Not a lot of people coming in right down the middle with the opinion that this would be a fair swap. That's not a value judgement on the discussion. It's just an observation.

Anyway, putting the talent comparison aside for a moment, I find myself looking at what acquiring Holland would do to the rotation. At the moment, he seems like he'd fit in with the group of Doubront, Morales and maybe Buchholz, depending on how high or low you are on the latter. You would probably be safe throwing Lackey in that group as well, since even healthy, there's a good chance he's about league average at best.

That sets up a rotation of one potentially very good or great starter in Lester, one potentially very good at best starter in Buchholz and three or four starters who would consider 2013 a good year if they came out of it as an average to good starter. The downside of that rotation is pretty ugly.

The other issue I see is that it makes the rotation very left handed. Of the top 6 options, four would be lefties (Lester, Doubront, Holland, Morales) although the minor league depth most likely to contribute next year is mostly right handed (Rubby DLR, Webster, Workman, Barnes with Britton being the only lefty). When your two best (and only) right handed options to start the year are Buchholz and Lackey and you play half your games in Fenway Park, you're asking for trouble. So that makes me think that acquiring Holland would be a precursor to moving one or more lefties in another deal.

The obvious choice is Doubront, who showed really good stuff throughout the year, is young and cost controlled. The problem is, I'd rather take our chances with Doubront than with Holland. Holland has had more success in inducing ground balls and in avoiding walks and he is certainly a better bet to go deep into games at this point, but Doubront's raw stuff is really good. His 9,34 k/9 was 4th among all starters with 160 or more innings pitched in 2012.

They could be looking to move Morales, whose 8.96 k/9 is also intriguing but was compiled over less than half the innings and with a lot of relief work. Doubront is the more valuable asset and seems like the better bet as a starter and even if they move Morales we're still looking at 3 lefties in the top 5 options.

The other option is that they could be looking to move Lester in the hope that they can market him as a left handed ace for a strong return and just fully embrace the rebuilding project. A rotation of Buchholz, Holland, Lackey, Doubront and a combination of Morales, Rubby DLR and Webster could be decent next year or could be awful. If they're actually looking to pick up a right handed arm on the free agent market (Jackson or Sanchez) to slot in near or at the front of the rotation, then moving Lester at least makes a tiny bit of sense. Otherwise, this seems like a far shot at best.

I'm honestly not sure how I'd feel about moving Ellsbury for Holland. There are some compelling points on both sides of the rumor in this thread. On the one hand, I don't think Ellsbury is going to fetch a king's ransom. He hasn't been consistent enough as a superstar caliber player and he hasn't been healthy enough for that. On the other hand, he's had a full season as one of the very best players in the game and is a dynamic player, so you'd hope that the return is at least somewhat exciting and I'm not quite convinced that Holland would be an exciting addition to the roster at this point.

#45 glennhoffmania


  • peaks prematurely


  • 8381669 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

I find it interesting that the evaluations of Holland are so starkly different from poster to poster. Some feel he's an overpay (or at worst good value) for Ellsbury straight up, others think he's selling low on Ellsbury. Not a lot of people coming in right down the middle with the opinion that this would be a fair swap. That's not a value judgement on the discussion. It's just an observation.


The reason is that Ellsbury is almost impossible to value at this point. The optimistic people think that 2011 is his true talent level. Others think he can't stay on the field and will never approach those numbers again. Somewhere in the middle of those two views Holland for Ellsbury becomes an even swap.

Personally I think that Ellsbury is worth more than Holland- not that I'm sure he'll end up being the better player, but his upside would probably make some GMs give up more for him. We don't know what other discussions Ben has had about Ellsbury and what the perceived market is so it's impossible to evaluate at this point. I think the odds of them resigning Ellsbury are pretty much zero, so trading him for something more valuable than the pick makes complete sense. I just don't know if Holland is the best they can do. He's a pretty good pitcher with a reasonable contract who might become a solid player for a few years. Or like Someoneanywhere said, maybe Texas knows something that nobody else knows.

#46 Joshv02

  • 1380 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:03 AM

If they decide they don't want to spend the money he will want, then they can trade him during the season...the better he is doing, the more he will be worth in trade.

If he is traded this offseason, the receiving team can offer qualifying arb and either keep him for a year or get a comp pick back. If he is traded during the season, that is no longer true.

Ellsbury's value may be higher if he plays better; but, I think that sentiment is vastly overblown. An extra 80-100 game sample (in a roughly 600 game career thus far) will change a projection, but not as dramatically as this implies. If he plays very well for 80 games, he still has a lot of questions - he'll be a ~110 OPS+ player (115-120 in his last three full seasons then), he'll still have been injured two out of the last four years, he'll be going into his thirties, and he'll not receive compensation if he leaves (and he is most likely to test free agency).

I'd suspect that trading him this offseason would probably get the larger return unless something wild were to happen.

Trading Ellsbury isn't about Bradley. Bradley may make it easier to trade him, but trading Ellsbury is about getting the most value possible for the asset you currently have, given the realistic chances of the playoffs next year.

#47 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7473 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

Huh. Young, left-handed, cost-controlled.

If he is on the market -- if this deal is really in play -- the first question anyone should be asking themselves is why a smart team like the Texas Rangers would be willing to give up young pitching for a rental.

And then you walk away.


If he's the best deal available for Ellsbury, do you keep Jacoby and hope for a better market at the trade deadline? Keep him all year and take the draft pick?

#48 Joshv02

  • 1380 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:37 AM

Huh. Young, left-handed, cost-controlled.

If he is on the market -- if this deal is really in play -- the first question anyone should be asking themselves is why a smart team like the Texas Rangers would be willing to give up young pitching for a rental.

And then you walk away.

That's reasonable. But that is kind of the market for all lemons: you never buy a used car (or trade for a player) because why would a car seller (or another team) who has better information than you do about this asset sell the asset for that price?

There is certainly asymmetric information, but I think in this market the bad does not necessary drive out the good. In other words, there are times when you can trade a player and despite being afraid of asymmetric information disadvantages, you can still have two teams reasonably happy. And I think that happens fairly often. If you think that does happen - that two teams do at times make trades that benefit both sides -- then it is a matter of identifying those deals.

(Though, I don't think this trade happens.)


(edit: added link for context.)

Edited by Joshv02, 15 October 2012 - 09:58 AM.


#49 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18473 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:39 AM

Huh. Young, left-handed, cost-controlled.

If he is on the market -- if this deal is really in play -- the first question anyone should be asking themselves is why a smart team like the Texas Rangers would be willing to give up young pitching for a rental.

And then you walk away.


Not every player that's available is available because something is wrong. Texas has a very good crop of young pitchers and with Darvish panning out in year one, can afford to use some of that pitching to address other needs. I don't think Holland ranks close enough to the top of their depth chart that his being available for Ellsbury should necessarily set off the warning bells. It's entirely possible nothing is wrong with him and that Texas simply feels they need to replace Hamilton or line up a replacement before negotiating with him.

It's also possible they simply floated this rumor as a way to build leverage with Hamilton's agent.

#50 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16166 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:57 AM

Do we really want a fly-ball lefty who has a fat platoon split in Fenway Park? I am not necessarily ruling it out but it's gonna require deeper analysis than just cooing over Holland being young and cost-controlled.

Andrus seems like a big ask, but with Profar almost ready Andrus is going to get dealt sooner or later. I would love to have shortstop locked up for the next several years. I'd like it even more than a new starting pitcher to play with,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users