yecul said:Actually I think it's just fanboyism under the guise of analysis. He's upset a guy he likes is gone. Laundry only takes you so far.
The departure of ellsbury always struck me as a certainty. By all accounts Boston had strong competitive numbers but the Yankee offer was not going to be topped.
Boston is in good standing this headband going forward. They are off a hugely successful championship run founded on strong player evaluation and sticking to their plan.
They could have thrown more money at ellsbury to make it happen. They could have retained salty or at least given him a qo. But they didn't. Havent they earned at least a tiny bit of rope here?
They certainly do deserve some rope, and I have hope that they'll turn that rope into a lasso soon enough. However, as has been discussed elsewhere, it is difficult to improve on 2013 in a value conscious way because they got reasonable production from everywhere and were either relatively healthy or had historic luck in replacing injured players. Moreover, the remaining available free agents also have warts and will be overpriced as well, making them unlikely targets for the Boston Red Rays. We (They?) also, I think, are significantly overrating the prospects not named Bogaerts, Cecchini, and Owens, and so I don't have a large hope that they will be able to make an impact trade (since I don't think they should/would trade any one of those 3). Finally, the outfield depth, particularly in CF, seems inadequate to me and so "overpaying" Ellsbury seemed consistent with the "deep depth" philosophy of the organization, leaving Bradley as a high-quality option for an injury at any of the 3 outfield positions rather than relying on Bradley to replicate Ellsbury's value and then finding a high-quality backup who will agree to be a backup.