Jump to content


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

Photo

Will the Sox move Ellsbury?


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

#1 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 9131 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:40 PM

Olney:

Rival officials believe that the Red Sox are laying the groundwork for a trade of Jacoby Ellsbury, for the pitching they need.

https://twitter.com/...138413562920961

Abraham:

Sources: #RedSox are open to idea of trading Ellsbury, playing Victorino in CF and signing C. Ross or another RF. Keeping doors open.

https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/276131069995151361
link to tweet

Nightengale:

The signings of Shane Victorino and Jonny Gomes certainly gives the#RedSox the flexibility of listening to offers for CF Jacoby Ellsbury.

https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/276134815626043392
link to tweet

Edited by Corsi, 04 December 2012 - 08:42 PM.


#2 Yaz4Ever


  • sucking on the government teat


  • 7976 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:45 PM

Yes, but for whom?

#3 Ferm Sheller

  • 4318 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

Has the Derek Holland rumor been at all revived?

#4 Laser Show

  • 3180 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:47 PM

The first name that came to my mind was Cliff Lee, since Philly needs an outfielder, but I doubt Philly would go for that (unless the Sox took the whole Lee deal), especially with only one year of control.

Edited by Laser Show, 04 December 2012 - 08:48 PM.


#5 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6808 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:47 PM

Cliff Lee. Ellsbury/Doubront for Lee.

Edited by bosockboy, 04 December 2012 - 08:48 PM.


#6 sackamano

  • 365 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:48 PM

Lee or Halladay.

#7 Laser Show

  • 3180 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

Lee or Halladay.


I know we're speculating here... but that would conveniently fill the "ace" part of the rotation in the event of a Jon Lester trade... and leave right field wide open for Wil Myers.

#8 Ferm Sheller

  • 4318 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:56 PM

I know we're speculating here... but that would conveniently fill the "ace" part of the rotation in the event of a Jon Lester trade... and leave right field wide open for Wil Myers.


And leave the line up almost entirely right-handed.

#9 Yaz4Ever


  • sucking on the government teat


  • 7976 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:56 PM

I know we're speculating here... but that would conveniently fill the "ace" part of the rotation in the event of a Jon Lester trade... and leave right field wide open for Wil Myers.


I would heartily approve of this development, not that Ben cares what I think :)

#10 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 9131 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:05 PM

You can put the rumors of Ellsbury-for-Cliff Lee to rest. "Not a prayer," source said.

https://twitter.com/GordonEdes/status/276144701508296705
link to tweet

#11 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4114 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:07 PM

https://twitter.com/GordonEdes/status/276144701508296705
link to tweet


Not a prayer as in the Red Sox would be foolish to make this deal, right?

#12 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 13756 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:08 PM

Has the Derek Holland rumor been at all revived?


I think I'd prefer reviving the Elvis Andrus rumor, especially if BenC could somehow turn Andrus into Justin Upton.

#13 MHead81

  • 529 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:10 PM

I think I'd prefer reviving the Elvis Andrus rumor, especially if BenC could somehow turn Andrus into Justin Upton.

Texas won't even give up Andrus for Upton, let alone one year of Ellsbury.

#14 Ferm Sheller

  • 4318 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

I think I'd prefer reviving the Elvis Andrus rumor, especially if BenC could somehow turn Andrus into Justin Upton.


I'd much rather have Andrus over Holland, but realistically Ellsbury's value likely is much closer to Holland than Andrus. A deal for Andrus would have to be expanded pretty significantly, I think, for it to work.

Edited by Ferm Sheller, 04 December 2012 - 09:12 PM.


#15 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10954 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

Ellsbury + for Lincecum.

#16 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6808 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:20 PM

Ellsbury + for Lincecum.


They re-upped Pagan.

#17 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10954 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

Wrong thread.

Edited by Dogman2, 04 December 2012 - 09:30 PM.


#18 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 9999 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:37 PM

They re-upped Pagan.


That is true, but the Giants still need a LF. It wouldn't be a perfect fit but one of Pagan or Ellsbury could move over. A transaction like Ellsbury for Lincecum, while creating other issues, would solve some things for both sides.

#19 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4114 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:39 PM

Lincecum was arguably the worst pitcher in baseball last year pitching in the worst offensive division in the sport, in the inferior league, in a massive pitchers park.

How does that make any sense at all?

#20 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 9999 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:49 PM

And Ellsbury put up a .682 OPS during another injury year (I know he has had some freak injuries but the fact is that he has missed significant chunks of two of the past three seasons) and is a Boras client in a walk year. You aren't getting Roy Halladay for him.

#21 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7549 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

Lincecum was arguably the worst pitcher in baseball last year pitching in the worst offensive division in the sport, in the inferior league, in a massive pitchers park.

How does that make any sense at all?


I thought we had the market pretty much cornered on "worst pitcher in baseball" last year.

Trading for Ellsbury at this point requires something of a leap of faith on the part of the buyer, particularly since he's only controlled for one year. You're not going to get top goods for him unless he's part of a package with some other attractive pieces.

Edit--What DeJesus said.

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 04 December 2012 - 09:51 PM.


#22 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16503 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:57 PM

I thought we had the market pretty much cornered on "worst pitcher in baseball" last year.

Trading for Ellsbury at this point requires something of a leap of faith on the part of the buyer, particularly since he's only controlled for one year. You're not going to get top goods for him unless he's part of a package with some other attractive pieces.

Edit--What DeJesus said.

And our bizarro ace, our leader in being the worst pitcher was out for the season after TJ surgery! We had worst pitcher depth!

#23 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4114 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:59 PM

And Ellsbury put up a .682 OPS during another injury year (I know he has had some freak injuries but the fact is that he has missed significant chunks of two of the past three seasons) and is a Boras client in a walk year. You aren't getting Roy Halladay for him.


I don't disagree with that mindset. I disagree with the premise that the Victorino signing only makes sense if the Red Sox trade Ellsbury for fifty cents on the dollar.

He's attractive to other teams because that team, hypothetically speaking, knows that he has to perform well next season to garner the interest on the open market that he and Boras desire. And if that team doesn't end up signing him long term, they will receive draft pick compensation as a result.

Edited by knucklecup, 04 December 2012 - 09:59 PM.


#24 judyb

  • 3303 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:04 PM

I thought we had the market pretty much cornered on "worst pitcher in baseball" last year.

Trading for Ellsbury at this point requires something of a leap of faith on the part of the buyer, particularly since he's only controlled for one year. You're not going to get top goods for him unless he's part of a package with some other attractive pieces.

Edit--What DeJesus said.

Still, the Lincecum leap of faith costs about twice as much money as the Ellsbury leap of faith.

#25 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:11 PM

Mariners are dying for a bat and a huge splash and no one wants to go there. They have the pitching prospects. It will happen.

#26 MartyBarrettMVP

  • 2135 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:05 PM

Pete Abe:

Sources: #RedSox remain interested in Cody Ross and other RFs. No doors have closed there. Asking for time to seek Ellsbury trade


https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/276174563195367424
link to tweet

#27 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27854 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:18 PM

Mariners are dying for a bat and a huge splash and no one wants to go there. They have the pitching prospects. It will happen.


Why? Wouldn't they be better off just signing Hamilton? Ellsbury will cost prospects and then you have to extend him, challenging because he won't accept a Pagan type deal, I assume. What is one year of Ellsbury worth to a team like the mariners?

#28 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:24 PM

Why? Wouldn't they be better off just signing Hamilton? Ellsbury will cost prospects and then you have to extend him, challenging because he won't accept a Pagan type deal, I assume. What is one year of Ellsbury worth to a team like the mariners?


1 year, plus a top 40 pick or a year to extend the home town player, and not having to give a huge deal to an addict while giving up the #12 pick

Edited by SoxScout, 04 December 2012 - 11:25 PM.


#29 sketz

  • 22 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:29 PM

1 year, plus a top 40 pick or a year to extend the home town player, and not having to give a huge deal to an addict while giving up the #12 pick


This. And the rumor that the M's might be up for sale as the opt-out in their TV deal approaches means they won't want huge payroll liabiities (other than Felix) dragging on their valuation.

#30 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 9999 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:38 PM

Former Mets GM and production assistant heart-throb Steve Phillips was on MLB radio tonight saying that the Sox should look to extend Ellsbury while acknowledging that he is a Boras client. We should be better than Steve Phillips...if someone acquires Jacoby Ellsbury via trade, its highly unlikely they will get to extend him, whether he is from the region or not.

In fact, given the money spent by teams this offseason, Scott Boras is likely to give Ellsbury undershirts, sliding pants and socks made of bubble wrap for Christmas.

#31 johnnywayback

  • 436 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:43 PM

Mariners are dying for a bat and a huge splash and no one wants to go there. They have the pitching prospects. It will happen.


Have to think either Hultzen or Walker would be the beginning of the package. How much more, do we think, would the Sox need?

#32 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37116 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:37 AM

Have to think either Hultzen or Walker would be the beginning of the package. How much more, do we think, would the Sox need?


I don't think there's a chance in hell one season of Ellsbury following a down year nets the Sox either of those guys. Walker had some difficulty adjusting to AA, but he just turned 20 in August and is ranked their #1 or #2 prospect depending on who you listen to. Seattle paid Hultzen more than $6M to sign as the #2 overall pick 18 months ago, and they're not about to flush that investment away for a rental.

Edited by mabrowndog, 05 December 2012 - 12:38 AM.


#33 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:45 AM

Walker would presumably be off the table, but Hultzen and Paxton I think are legitimate targets. Both are big time prospects in a pitching rich system, but both have their warts. Hultzen shine has come off a bit and has a lower ceiling than when he was drafted. Paxton has the monster arm, but you need to get his control in order.

#34 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25845 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:57 AM

I don't think there's a chance in hell one season of Ellsbury following a down year nets the Sox either of those guys.


And this is why I think a trade is much more likely at the trade deadline. If you trade based on his 2012 season you get squat. If you trade based on his 2011 season you get a lot more. Either way, there's a better than normal chance someone got screwed in the deal.

Looking at it from the other end, I'd be wanting a big discount from the cost of an MVP caliber player and hoping he gets back there.

From this side, you've got to be anxious about giving too much of a discount off that MVP caliber player.

I don't see how anyone makes a deal for Ellsbury from either end without having serious qualms. Sure, every deal comes with qualms, but I think these are bigger and more pervasive than most.

#35 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:14 AM

I don't see why they would. He's one of only two lefthanders in the lineup and his stock is rather low right now. I'd wait to see if we're competitive this year before trading him. If we are and he returns to form, he'd be an essential part of our team. If we aren't competitive and he returns to form, we could get a King's ransom from some desperate team in July looking to put themselves over the top. If he doesn't return to form, we could sign him on a pillow contract.

I'm sure the Red Sox will do their due diligence and see what teams are willing to give up. But I find it unlikely that a team will give them a package that the'd accept. We need a top of the rotation starter, and teams don't give those up for one year of a position player who's been hurt most of the last three seasons.

Edited by Edelpeddle, 05 December 2012 - 01:18 AM.


#36 LondonSox

  • 4574 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:22 AM

Guys look at what bj upton and victorino just got. Ellsbury is a valuable piece and don't forget he draft pick as a worst case, he isn't going to walk for nothing. Plus teams do think a year to impress and make a case to stay helps, ESP in a bad market.

We will see but he's not moving for chopped liver.

#37 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 5063 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:02 AM

Speier piece about how the Sox still have an ungodly amount of money to spend: http://www.weei.com/...oom-spend-big-a

In short, he's estimating $40M this year and $50M next year to spend but still be under the luxury limit. With that in mind, I think keeping him is the right poker move.

That leaves three (and a half) possible outcomes:
1. A Qualifying Offer and a supplemental draft pick when he splits (the half-possibility being that he sucks or gets hurt again next year and accepts the QA as a make-good year. Not likely, though not impossible).
2. A deal at the deadline because Sox are sellers and Ellsbury is hot -- the dream scenario being Beltran-to-Giants redux and a return of a Zack Wheeler (who is apparently a top-10 MLB prospect and one would assume has ace potential). (I understand that there's no draft compensation for a rental anymore, but the Giants agreed at the time of that trade not to offer arb to Beltran -- and thus agreed to a no-compensation rental. They perhaps hoped to re-sign and beyond that were loaded with young pitching. So that'd be the ideal for an Ells deadline deal.)
3. An idea that most seem to have abandoned: Ellsbury puts up another 2011 and JBJ plateaus and the Sox decide at age 30 he's worth winning the FA bidding on -- say 6/120M.

Of course I agree with the general viewpoints of the dangers of 6/120 types of contracts. But are they never wise? Manny was a rare talent, Adrian Beltre got in essence 6 years at 16M per, and he'd look good in a Sox uni. Miguel Cabrera is worth his money. I'd certainly rather drop $15M-$20M per on a young CF than a pitcher.

Just saying Speier's numbers make it clear we've got boatloads left to spend -- and with all the Barnes, Websters, Rubbys, Xanders etc on the way they're not gonna feel a pinch anytime soon.

With all the speculation that the Sox will get a RF and shift Victorino to center, it may be equally telling if they get anywhere near $20M to the luxury limit with pitcher buys. For example if they make waves with, say, a Dempster AND Anibal spree and add upwards of $25M, then clearly they're already mapping Jacoby's exit.

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 05 December 2012 - 11:05 AM.


#38 MartyBarrettMVP

  • 2135 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:26 AM

Buster:

Rival official on Red Sox: "Boston is listening on... Ellsbury and Lester, but not motivated to move them unless teams overpay."


https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/276361430360535040
link to tweet

#39 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37116 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

Walker would presumably be off the table, but Hultzen and Paxton I think are legitimate targets. Both are big time prospects in a pitching rich system, but both have their warts. Hultzen shine has come off a bit and has a lower ceiling than when he was drafted. Paxton has the monster arm, but you need to get his control in order.


I completely disagree on Hultzen. In what way did any of the shine come off? Last year was his first season in the minors and he started at AA. After a completely dominant half-season (1.19 ERA with 5 of his 10 ER coming in his first pro start, 9.4 K/9, a mere 38 H in 75.1 IP), they jumped him to AAA at age 22. He had some adjustment issues at the highest level of the minors, but how is that a negative for a first-year pro? Keeping in mind that he's a lefty facing lineups where he's at a platoon disadvantage ~75% of the time?

If you're Seattle, and you've spent around $6.5M to sign this kid with the #2 overall selection, are you seriously going to chuck him away so soon just to have an OF from a neighboring state wear your laundry for a season and possibly get an unprotected draft pick when he leaves? Especially when said OF is coming off a down year?

Unless there's a clear signal that he isn't going to pan out as an ace (and I don't see one yet), they won't give him up unless there's a commensurate talent under club control coming back the other way.

Edited by mabrowndog, 05 December 2012 - 11:40 AM.


#40 Gash Prex

  • 1075 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:45 AM

Buster:



https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/276361430360535040
link to tweet


Sounds to me like "they are available but are posturing for the best possible deal."

#41 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

http://www.minorleag...eattle-mariners

The rocket got off the launch pad with 13 starts for Double-A Jackson this spring, with an 8-3 record and a 1.19 ERA. Well, how can you complain about a 1.19 ERA? He gave up only 38 hits in 75 innings and held hitters to a mere .151 average.

There was a caution flag however, some pogo oscillation in the stack: he walked 32 in those 75 Double-A innings. To put that in context, the 32 walks at Jackson were more walks than he'd given up in an entire college season before. But, hey, he's Danny Hultzen, nothing to worry about, right?

Promoted to Triple-A Tacoma, Hultzen scuffled from the outset, struggling with his command in late June and July. There was some concern about fatigue, so the Mariners gave him the first two weeks of August off to re-set physically and mentally. He had one good start on August 19th, but after that he got hammered, pitching poorly in his last three starts. Overall, he finished 1-4, 5.92 in 12 starts in Triple-A, with a 57/43 K/BB in 49 innings and 49 hits allowed. Pacific Coast League hitters didn't care that his name was Danny Hultzen.

So, where do we go from here? On the positive side, he continued striking hitters out at a strong clip, maintaining a better-than-one-K-per-inning pace even when struggling. There didn't seem to be anything wrong with his stuff; he just couldn't locate it well. According to scouting reports, he got into a "nibbling" habit after he couldn't get hitters to chase pitches that his previous competition would normally go after.



http://www.lookoutla...eattle-mariners

Hultzen went three innings in his first start, walking five. Hultzen went two-thirds of an inning in his last start, walking four. In between, things were better, but things were not good. And we can't just throw away the bookends, either.

Hultzen made ten appearances with the Rainiers, totaling 42 innings. In the Pacific Coast League this year, 194 pitchers have thrown at least 40 innings. Among them, Hultzen's strike rate of just under 58 percent ranks tied for fifth-worst. Among them, Hultzen's walk rate of just over 16 percent ranks second-worst. As a Mariner in 2009, Ian Snell walked more than 13 percent of the batters he faced. Hultzen's walk rate is a lot worse than that, in the minors.

But Hultzen was wild. Observably, regularly, unexpectedly wild. This isn't something that we can just dismiss. Danny Hultzen was supposed to be a safe, polished strike-thrower, and against the most advanced competition he's seen, he didn't throw strikes. That's worrisome, and more worrisome than it seems it's getting credit for.

As biased fans, we tend to downplay under-performance and celebrate over-performance. The way we do it is subtle and it sounds perfectly reasonable, so we don't stop ourselves from doing it. It's really easy to say that Hultzen was just adjusting to a new level, and at the end of his first professional year. Ackley struggled early on at new levels in the minors before turning it up. It's really easy to say that Hultzen just needs to make a few simple adjustments and going forward he'll be fine.

Danny Hultzen is very young and in triple-A he missed a lot of bats, even when he didn't have a shred of his command. That's the encouraging takeaway. The discouraging takeaway is the rest, and Hultzen needs work. More work than a lot of people thought he needed while he was pointing and laughing at double-A's tiny wiener. And it's not just that Hultzen's numbers were troubling; he's a pitching prospect, and hopefully I don't need to go into detail on the perils of trusting pitching prospects.



#42 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2675 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

I don't see why Seattle would want Ellsbury only one year away from free agency, especially if the price were a top prospect. They were a last place team last year. They'd be better off signing Michael Bourn and keeping their prospects.

#43 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

I don't see why Seattle would want Ellsbury only one year away from free agency, especially if the price were a top prospect. They were a last place team last year. They'd be better off signing Michael Bourn and keeping their prospects.


Then they would be giving up the #12 pick and huge money for Michael Bourn. I don't see how that's a pretty option either.

Edited by SoxScout, 05 December 2012 - 11:57 AM.


#44 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6808 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

I still think Philly is the best option.....they have a short window, have the money to extend Ellsbury, etc....

#45 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

Ellsbury an interesting option for Phillies

What would the Phillies have to surrender in a trade for Ellsbury? The deal could get done for righthander Vance Worley because the Red Sox need another starting pitcher. Worley, 25, should be attractive to a lot of teams even though he is coming off a frustrating season caused by a bone spur that was surgically removed in September. Worley is not eligible for salary arbitratrion until after the 2013 season and cannot be a free agent until after the 2017 season. The Red Sox, after spending big in the free-agent market this offseason, should like that kind of low-cost option for the back of their starting rotation.



#46 johnnywayback

  • 436 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:06 PM

Ellsbury an interesting option for Phillies


Worley alone seems like an awfully slight return. Philly also has a number of interesting arms in their system, and while I don't know much about Larry Greene, he fits the profile of the power-hitting 1B we lack in the system.

#47 someoneanywhere

  • 3116 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:11 PM

Ellsbury only moves now if there's thunder coming for the outfield: meaning, Josh Hamilton.

Then you see if you can package him for a young stud on the mound. Then you see if there's any sense in packaging Lester off to KC for the Myers kid.

Otherwise you're looking at Gomes//Ells/Victorino to open 2013.

#48 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8489 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:13 PM

No chance the Sox deal Ellsbury for Worley straight up. The last thing they need is another back of the rotation starter.

#49 Joshv02

  • 1396 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

Especially a RH one whose arm problems caused another decline in velocity, and who averaged under 90 on their FB.

#50 Laser Show

  • 3180 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:21 PM

Ellsbury only moves now if there's thunder coming for the outfield: meaning, Josh Hamilton.

Then you see if you can package him for a young stud on the mound. Then you see if there's any sense in packaging Lester off to KC for the Myers kid.

Otherwise you're looking at Gomes//Ells/Victorino to open 2013.


Jon Heyman@JonHeymanCBS
#rangers said working hard now on justin upton.


If that comes to fruition, I have to imagine that we'd be the front runners for Hamilton, right?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users