Plympy's Ellsbury's Gone B*tch-a-thon - Post away!

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
All posts like yours do is make me even more pissed that Ellsbury is playing in NY.

What you've just described is a bad baseball team in 2014: "We have one legitimate CF, and we don't know if he can hit. "

Wucking funderful.

Pay the money to keep your all star then and worry about 2017 in 2017 .
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Can we avoid the sidebars on the Ellsbury stuff? I mean, there were countless threads on him this winter, and his status was discussed and debated ad nauseum.
 
I started this thread to discuss Victorino's health issues. It spawned a brief discussion of the relative merits of Nava and JBJ, which was relevant since a roster move is needed to make room for Victorino coming off the DL.
 
Ellsbury is gone. He isn't coming back. Let it go already.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Rudy Pemberton said:
You think the Sox should have outbid the Yankees to keep Ellsbury? Are you going to be complaining about this for the next 7 years?
Yes, I do, because, as Savin's post explains, they didn't have any organizational depth in CF or RF beyond the totally unproven Bradley and the physical wreck that Victorino was at the end of last season. I have also on several occasions justified the Yankees offer on the basis of projected $/WAR. If you missed those posts I'm sure you can find them using the search engine.

So, I'll be complaining as long as that organizational weakness remains inadequately addressed and the team remains below .500 partly as a result.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
mabrowndog said:
Can we avoid the sidebars on the Ellsbury stuff? I mean, there were countless threads on him this winter, and his status was discussed and debated ad nauseum.
 
I started this thread to discuss Victorino's health issues. It spawned a brief discussion of the relative merits of Nava and JBJ, which was relevant since a roster move is needed to make room for Victorino coming off the DL.
 
Ellsbury is gone. He isn't coming back. Let it go already.
Those who do not learn the correct lessons from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. The less of Crawford, Lackey, Gonzalez, and Beckett shouldn't be, "Never pay market value for a superstar."
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
12,974
The gran facenda
Plympton91 said:
Those who do not learn the correct lessons from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. The less of Crawford, Lackey, Gonzalez, and Beckett shouldn't be, "Never pay market value for a superstar."
Tell you what. This could be a good discussion in another thread. Why don't you start it and quit sidetracking this one.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
I don't understand why the fact that we're still waiting for Victoino's first AB of the season, while the teams best remaining defensive CF can't hit major league pitching and the Sizemore bandwagon has crashed into a ditch doesn't bear directly on the wisdom of the teams offseason strategy, but whatever.

To me, the return of Victorino won't matter a bit if all it does is cost the team the services of Nava or Carp. You're just replacing one good player with another, and moving the gaping hole from one position in on one side of the ball ( right field defense ) to another on the other side of the ball (wherever Bradley hits )
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,396
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is hilarious. In a matter of a few hours you've gone from
 
Plympton91 said:
it's not entirely clear that Jackie Bradley can hit major league pitching yet
to
 
Plympton91 said:
we don't know if he can hit.
to
 
Plympton91 said:
totally unproven
to
 
Plympton91 said:
can't hit major league pitching
I take it if we give you a few more hours, we'll reach the point where he couldn't hit a community college softball pitcher.

And by the way, you realize when you say this....
 
 
...moving the gaping hole from one position in on one side of the ball ( right field defense ) to another on the other side of the ball (wherever Bradley hits )
 
....that of Nava, Sizemore and Bradley, the best hitter so far, by wRC+, has been Bradley?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Savin Hillbilly said:
This is hilarious. In a matter of a few hours you've gone from
 

to
 

to
 
couldn't hit a community college softball pitcher.

And by the way, you realize when you say this....
 
 
....that of Nava, Sizemore and Bradley, the best hitter so far, by wRC+, has been Bradley?
I don't really expect anything out of Sizemore and if I didn't think Bradley had more to learn at AAA i'd be thinking long and hard about ending that experiment. To me Nava is a completely proven major league hitter, at least as proven as Gomes who never enters these discussions, and so I'd call his start an unfortunately timed slump.

Absent considerations of options or everyday playing time the best the Sox can do is a group of JBJ, Vic, and Nava/Gomes. But because of all the uncertainty around JBJ hitting, Sizemore all around, and Vic's health, you need to maximize depth over 162 as well as strength over the next week. That's the dilemma that makes these discussions so heated.
 

Andrew

broke his neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,011
Western Massachusetts
Why are you evaluating the wisdom of not giving a 7 year deal based upon the first 3 weeks? Come on, even you aren't that dumb. 
 

rembrat

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,080
Rudy Pemberton said:
You think the Sox should have outbid the Yankees to keep Ellsbury? Are you going to be complaining about this for the next 7 years?
He'll forget Ells when Lester walks as he forgot Paps when Ells walked. And repeat.
 

Andrew

broke his neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,011
Western Massachusetts
rembrat said:
He'll forget Ells when Lester walks as he forgot Paps when Ells walked. And repeat.
He forgot Papelbon conveniently when it became obvious what a great decision not resigning him was. He's a complete troll. He only shows up when something is wrong. I don't even get why he's on the board. If you agree to a wager where you get banned if you lose, why do you get to just make a new name and keep trolling? 
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,651
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I'm tired of other threads being ruined by this entirely predictable line of posting from you, P91, so here's a new thread to talk about it. Keep those complaints in here and leave the other threads in peace.
 
Others have already made the rather obvious rejoinders to your complaints regarding Ellsbury's move of teams. I will add we've already seen this play out years ago with the Damon move (which you had exactly the same reaction to as this one) and we all lived and the Sox did OK after that, so we'll just have to get through this together. I mean, it's been 3 weeks, it's a mite early to declare the Ellsbury loss as a catastrophe.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I'm tired of other threads being ruined by this entirely predictable line of posting from you, P91, so here's a new thread to talk about it. Keep those complaints in here and leave the other threads in peace.
 
Others have already made the rather obvious rejoinders to your complaints regarding Ellsbury's move of teams. I will add we've already seen this play out years ago with the Damon move (which you had exactly the same reaction to as this one) and we all lived and the Sox did OK after that, so we'll just have to get through this together. I mean, it's been 3 weeks, it's a mite early to declare the Ellsbury loss as a catastrophe.
 
Bless you. You saved me a trip to backwash requesting this very thread.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
And Fisk!  They should have figured out how to get that postmark doctored! 
 
Mo Vaughn was the only superstar on the team!  Look at how well he played for the Angels in the first month of 1999!
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I don't understand the mindset that the Sox could "just keep Ellsbury".  Did Ellsbury indicate that the Red Sox would or did get the chance to match the best offer?  Do we think the Yankees couldn't have gone to $160MM or $170MM?  Is there a cutoff where Ellsbury wouldn't have been worth the money, or does the fact that it was very difficult to upgrade the team in '14 while losing Ellsbury mean the answer was to give Ellsbury a blank check?
 
Key numbers with how the Ellsbury signing turns out have always been 18,158, 74, 134.  Three weeks of outperforming the new Red Sox CF's tell us nothing.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,676
NY
Plympton91 said:
Those who do not learn the correct lessons from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. The less of Crawford, Lackey, Gonzalez, and Beckett shouldn't be, "Never pay market value for a superstar."
 
This is insanity.  You wanted Boston to outbid NY and give out the biggest contract since Manny and the highest AAV in their history?  For Ellsbury?  It's a shame that this team hasn't accomplished anything in a generation so they need to make reactionary moves to try to become relevant.
 

mBiferi

lurker
May 14, 2006
312
Seriously,is there anyway that somebody can defend spending the money on Ellsbury?
I'm sorry but I don't see how spending 170+M$ on a 30yr old CF (who had issues staying on the field during his whole career) can be considered smart. I always considered that if the price stayed in the 120/130m, sure, sign him. But 170 for 7 years is just nuts, and you don't get into a bidding war with the Yankees because you are going to lose anyway.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,089
bluefenderstrat said:
Look, the Red Sox haven't won the World Series in nearly 7 months.    Clearly the plan isn't working.
Furthermore, do we even know if there IS a plan? They never tell us what it is. So frustrating, you guys.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,089
mBiferi said:
Seriously,is there anyway that somebody can defend spending the money on Ellsbury?
I'm sorry but I don't see how spending 170+M$ on a 30yr old CF (who had issues staying on the field during his whole career) can be considered smart. I always considered that if the price stayed in the 120/130m, sure, sign him. But 170 for 7 years is just nuts, and you don't get into a bidding war with the Yankees because you are going to lose anyway.
You clearly aren't familiar with the formula of dreaminess+projected $/WAR over the cubed root of small sample sizes.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
17,350
The 718
Savin Hillbilly said:
This is hilarious. In a matter of a few hours you've gone from
 

to
 

to
 

to
 

I take it if we give you a few more hours, we'll reach the point where he couldn't hit a community college softball pitcher.
 
Give him a few more hours, and Bradley will regress to an embryo.
 
There should be a statute of limitations on woulda-shoulda-coulda after a player moves on.  I get it - the Red Sox outfield would definitely look better on April 22, 2014 if Ellsbury were still here. But that cookie has crumbled.
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
16,071
Fanboys -- even smart, articulate ones -- are driven by the same things. They want their familiar faces and the names they know to stick around. 
 
Additionally, the budget considerations that present us in reality are not a consideration for all. While we may look at the situation and try to make all the pieces fit in terms of reality others will view it through the prism of their reality.
 
This is really what's driving all this complaining in a nutshell. Delusional fanboys will throw their tantrums from time to time.
 
The real problem is that Nava blows this year and Victorino is hurt. The immediacy of the moment should not cloud long term vision. I think it's a mistake to pine for Ellsbury for a number of reasons.
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
Reverend said:
 
I personally believe that JBJ, so long as he is not sent down, will maintain his 90+ point lead over Ellsbury in UZR/150.
 
Too date , JBJ's fielding has been so good that both players are sporting a .5 WAR.  
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Defensive metrics like UZR are flat out useless in samples of a few weeks.  They take three seasons to stabilize so even a sample of one full season doesn't give us a definite answer about one's defense versus another's.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
wolfe_boston said:
 
Too date , JBJ's fielding has been so good that both players are sporting a .5 WAR.  
 
Well, sorta, but that's irrelevant because I was referring to FanGraph's UZR/150 and you're coming back with bRef WAR numbers, so the point is sorta moot, but the real sin here is not realizing that was completely tongue in cheek.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
times.

Andrew said:
He forgot Papelbon conveniently when it became obvious what a great decision not resigning him was. He's a complete troll. He only shows up when something is wrong. I don't even get why he's on the board. If you agree to a wager where you get banned if you lose, why do you get to just make a new name and keep trolling? 
There was never any such bet made by me. Furthermore, the name change I made was discussed with and explicitly approved by the founder of this site.

And it's still not clear to me that the Red Sox were better off for having let Pedro go, unless you think half a season of Matt Clement for $28 million was a great bargain, or that Papelbon's contract was worse than the combined salary, performance, and prospect cost of Jenks, Hanrahan, and Bailey. A prospect cost significantly greater than the single supplemental round pick that has apparently become more valuable than two way shortstops.


That points out a difference with Ellsbury. Having won the post season tournament in 2013, the Red Sox have decided to rest on those laurels in 2014 and neither sign nor trade for a potential replacement. So, we're spared the reactionary "grass is greener" moves that usually failed to connect anyway. That's progress.

I bet a lot of us wish we could be evaluated in our jobs the same way. "Hey boss, I broke the company sales record last year, so this year I figure I'll take it easy and just barely hit my quota, that ok with you?"
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I bet a lot of us wish we could be evaluated in our jobs the same way. "Hey boss, I broke the company sales record last year, so this year I figure I'll take it easy and just barely hit my quota, that ok with you?"
 
Come on, you know that is an inaccurate simplification.
 
How would the employee be evaluated if they broke the sales record every year with no regard for whether the sale was profitable or not?  That seems like a closer description of paying retail in free agency for a player the Yankees make a priority.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Stitch01 said:
Come on, you know that is an inaccurate simplification.
 
How would the employee be evaluated if they broke the sales record every year with no regard for whether the sale was profitable or not?  That seems like a closer description of paying retail in free agency for a player the Yankees make a priority.
As the examples of Clement and Hanrahan et al show, it depends on what you do with the money you "saved".

There are very limited ways for the Red Sox to exploit their financial advantage these days, as the lack of good alternatives to Ellsbury and Salty showed. And we've seen they underbid for Lester as well. Maybe they're preparing to acquire Scherzer and Stanton this offseason. We'll see. I'm a Missouri guy.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
Yes, I do, because, as Savin's post explains, they didn't have any organizational depth in CF or RF beyond the totally unproven Bradley and the physical wreck that Victorino was at the end of last season. I have also on several occasions justified the Yankees offer on the basis of projected $/WAR. If you missed those posts I'm sure you can find them using the search engine.

So, I'll be complaining as long as that organizational weakness remains inadequately addressed and the team remains below .500 partly as a result.
 
Well, as recently as 5 days ago you were acknowledging that the 7th year made the contract too risky for Boston but not for New York.
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/82875-impact-of-the-sum-total-of-bens-off-season-moves-regarding-2013-veterans/?p=5354400
 


I would have thought long and hard about matching the Yankee offer to Ellsbury. Probably the 7th year makes the risk too high for Boston's revenue stream whereas it's not for the Yanks. But that wasn't as much of a no brainer to me as it was to most other's here. Ellsbury is an elite player in a post steroids world. The Yankees will get a lot of value before he declines. 
 
So in less than a week you've gone from "not signing him wasn't a no brainer" to "pay the man his money!"
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
13,361
Eugene, OR
mBiferi said:
Seriously,is there anyway that somebody can defend spending the money on Ellsbury?
I'm sorry but I don't see how spending 170+M$ on a 30yr old CF (who had issues staying on the field during his whole career) can be considered smart. I always considered that if the price stayed in the 120/130m, sure, sign him. But 170 for 7 years is just nuts, and you don't get into a bidding war with the Yankees because you are going to lose anyway.
To be fair, there were a number of analyses at the time, like this one from Dave Cameron, saying that this might very well be a slight overpay, but not a bad contract, especially given inflation. )link: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yankees-sign-jacoby-ellsbury-bet-on-speed-aging-well/)
 
They all basically said the same thing, which is that if you don't care how a player generates wins, and you don't think that he is somehow injury-prone in a way that guarantees future injuries, then he is probably worth every penny in the first few years, and a little less later when it doesn't matter as much.
 
I'm glad the Sox didn't win that bidding war, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't worth the money.  The existence of JBJ, and more importantly, the expectations we had for JBJ, were part of the reason that I was happy to let Ellsbury walk, and if we were wrong about his offensive abilities (which remains to be seen), then yes, that needs to be re-evaluated in terms of the decision about Ellsbury.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
You clearly aren't familiar with the formula of dreaminess+projected $/WAR over the cubed root of small sample sizes.
It's really not that complicated. Assume Ellsbury will match last season's WAR for 2 more years, then decline by 1 WAR per year thereafter. Assume a generally accepted value of 1 WAR equal to $5.5 million that is projected to increase 5 percent annually. Also, remember to apply an appropriate discount factor to both expected WAR and the salary streams. You get pretty much what the Yankees offered.

Or we can assume only the Red Sox front office knows what it's doing and the Red Sox are the only team with any promising young players. But, yeah, I'm the fanboy.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
It's really not that complicated. Assume Ellsbury will match last season's WAR for 2 more years, then decline by 1 WAR per year thereafter. Assume a generally accepted value of 1 WAR equal to $5.5 million that is projected to increase 5 percent annually. You get pretty much what the Yankees offered.

Or we can assume only the Red Sox front office knows what it's doing and the Red Sox are the only team with any promising young players. But, yeah, I'm the fanboy.
 
Has anyone here actually said this?  Ever?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Snodgrass said:
 
Well, as recently as 5 days ago you were acknowledging that the 7th year made the contract too risky for Boston but not for New York.
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/82875-impact-of-the-sum-total-of-bens-off-season-moves-regarding-2013-veterans/?p=5354400
 
 
So in less than a week you've gone from "not signing him wasn't a no brainer" to "pay the man his money!"
Go back and look at how this discussion started., which was actually a few posts before where Jolmy broke it out.

The premise to which I responded was one that laid out the limitations of the current Red Sox outfield. Context matters.

I'd also note that my post of 10:55 pm makes no mention at all of Ellsbury, focusing entirely on the ramifications of Victoino's imminent return for the outfield and the roster more generally. Yet, in the new SoSH style of "shout down the dissenter" the next 8 posts were irrelevant personal attacks bringing up retired pitchers and current relief pitchers. So, back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
Go back and look at how this discussion started., which was actually a few posts before where Jolmy broke it out.

The premise to which I responded was one that laid out the limitations of the current Red Sox outfield. Context matter.
 
Where the limitations of the outfield any different 5 days ago?  Other than your opinion of Bradley's hitting ability dropping like a stone, what has changed to take you from thinking the decision to let Ellsbury walk was defensible to ranting that they didn't just open the checkbook for him?
 
What I'm calling into question here is your consistency.  This isn't a position you changed your mind on with five months of data to dig through.  It's five days.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,089
Plympton91 said:
It's really not that complicated. Assume Ellsbury will match last season's WAR for 2 more years, then decline by 1 WAR per year thereafter. Assume a generally accepted value of 1 WAR equal to $5.5 million that is projected to increase 5 percent annually. Also, remember to apply an appropriate discount factor to both expected WAR and the salary streams. You get pretty much what the Yankees offered.

Or we can assume only the Red Sox front office knows what it's doing and the Red Sox are the only team with any promising young players. But, yeah, I'm the fanboy.
 
I didn't call you a fanboy.  And in your assumptions of a single WAR decline per season, did you note that there is quite a bit of volatility to Ellsbury's WAR, even for his full seasons?  No, you didn't because it doesn't suit whatever it is you are trying to sell.   You are the Wolf Of Constitution Ave.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,541
02130
yecul said:
 
This is really what's driving all this complaining in a nutshell. Delusional fanboys will throw their tantrums from time to time.
 
The real problem is that Nava blows this year and Victorino is hurt. The immediacy of the moment should not cloud long term vision. I think it's a mistake to pine for Ellsbury for a number of reasons.
I agree, but all this complaining is one person repeating the same thing over and over, even though we've pretty much covered it in the offseason when it happened and then moving the goalposts when someone responds reasonably. It's trolling of the basest level and while I'm glad it's been confined to one thread (for now) I'm not sure why it's allowed to continue at all. Do we really know anything more after three weeks than we did in December when the signing happened?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
Where the limitations of the outfield any different 5 days ago?  Other than your opinion of Bradley's hitting ability dropping like a stone, what has changed to take you from thinking the decision to let Ellsbury walk was defensible to ranting that they didn't just open the checkbook for him?
 
What I'm calling into question here is your consistency.  This isn't a position you changed your mind on with five months of data to dig through.  It's five days.
What changed was the question to which I was responding. If people can't grasp that nuance, or see all sides of an issue as well as I can, not my problem.

I'm certainly not making arguments based on 3 weeks of results. If I was, then I'd be screaming to let billy Beane claim Nava on OAW when Vic is ready and moving on.

My fundamental argument for resigning Ellsbury has been two pronged and consistent all the way through: 1 the Yankees didn't really overpay and 2 the Red Sox hAve no organizational depth whatsoever behind Bradley. The curiosity around Sizemore's remaining potential leading to an additional potential cost of losing Nava or Carp for pennies on the dollar just adds to the problem Ellsbury's departure created. It is that which is coming to a head as the DL option fades.

And yes, I still recognize the validity of ute counter argument considering contract length, I just disagree. Without, however, a need to do so with personal attacks.
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
16,071
The argument against Ellsbury is an argument for spreading of resources. Bradley may not match Ellsbury's value and they may take a hit in spot a or b, but this is a large roster with multi-year considerations.
 
Making an argument founded on 1:1 comparisons or isolating a singular position is either disingenuous or dumb. I think we know what we're dealing with here.
 
You sign Ellsbury, sure, you are better this year in certain areas, but what about others? What about resigning Lester? Does that hamper you there or further down the road in retaining your players or acquiring others? That's where this argument falls apart unless you want to broaden the scope to account for the forest.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,401
HriniakPosterChild said:
 
Hey, have you already forgotten how good Pedro was in 2008?
 
This is a good point because saving money by signing Matt Clement instead worked out great.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
 
I didn't call you a fanboy.  And in your assumptions of a single WAR decline per season, did you note that there is quite a bit of volatility to Ellsbury's WAR, even for his full seasons?  No, you didn't because it doesn't suit whatever it is you are trying to sell.   You are the Wolf Of Constitution Ave.
Actually, by using last seasons WAR as the starting point, without accounting for any likelihood of his 2011 power returning and then being magnified by the park effect, I think I am accounting for that variability adequately, especially because the down years were fluke injuries. Being able to efficiently account for such nuances is what gets you in the big leagues.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
yecul said:
The argument against Ellsbury is an argument for spreading of resources. Bradley may not match Ellsbury's value and they may take a hit in spot a or b, but this is a large roster with multi-year considerations.
 
Making an argument founded on 1:1 comparisons or isolating a singular position is either disingenuous or dumb. I think we know what we're dealing with here.
 
You sign Ellsbury, sure, you are better this year in certain areas, but what about others? What about resigning Lester? Does that hamper you there or further down the road in retaining your players or acquiring others? That's where this argument falls apart unless you want to broaden the scope to account for the forest.
I completely understand all that, and I'm not looking at it from a 1:1 perspective. First the leaked low ball offer provides no evidence they're serious about signing Lester. Second, I go back to organizational depth. Other than Bradley, the next legitimate CF or RF prospect they have is in Greenville. So they have not only performance risk with Bradley but injury risk as well. Third, if, in fact, the farm system is as productive as they hope, then there's no reason whatsoever to expect any payroll pressures with all that minimum salary talent flowing.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,089
Plympton91 said:
Actually, by using last seasons WAR as the starting point, without accounting for any likelihood of his 2011 power returning and then being magnified by the park effect, I think I am accounting for that variability adequately, especially because the down years were fluke injuries. Being able to efficiently account for such nuances is what gets you in the big leagues.
 
Your math doesn't really work.  But don't let that stop you.  People like me questioned ninja loans and Webvan and some people still made money selling those things.