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

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
 
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.
My math is in a previous thread, if it's wrong feel free to show your work. But it's also very similar to the published article linked above, so you'll have to correct that one, too.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
What changed was the question to which I was responding.

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.
 
Changing your position on the outfield based on the question you are being asked is not nuance.  It is the definition of inconsistency.
 
And this is not a personal attack.  It is pointing out that you are contradicting yourself in the span of 5 days while claiming to have held the same belief since the signing.  If you can't distinguish between someone calling out you tripping over your own arguments and someone attacking you personally, that's not my problem.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,065
Plympton91 said:
My math is in a previous thread, if it's wrong feel free to show your work. But it's also very similar to the published article linked above, so you'll have to correct that one, too.
 
I don't see any link to an article.  But I will gladly show my work.  What am I missing (and yes, I know that negative WAR doesn't create contract clawbacks...too bad).
 
[tablegrid= Dream WAR-ver, I believe you can hit one out to right ]Year Ellsbury's Projected Dreamy WAR Price Per WAR (MM) -assumes 5% increase per yr Total Value Of Ds (in MM) 2014 4.7 $5.50 $25.85 2015 3.7 $5.78 $21.37 2016 2.7 $6.06 $16.37 2017 1.7 $6.37 $10.82 2018 0.7 $6.69 $4.68 2019 -0.3 $7.02 -$2.11 2020 -1.3 $7.37 -$9.58         Totals 11.9   $67.41 [/tablegrid] 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
Changing your position on the outfield based on the question you are being asked is not nuance.  It is the definition of inconsistency.
 
And this is not a personal attack.  It is pointing out that you are contradicting yourself in the span of 5 days while claiming to have held the same belief since the signing.  If you can't distinguish between someone calling out you tripping over your own arguments and someone attacking you personally, that's not my problem.
I should have been clear that I wasn't accusing you of personal attacks but rather the others who very definitely want to shout down dissenting voices rather than engage them.

I guess I disagree that I've changed my position when you consider the entire context of each discussion. Last week, in response to someone claiming that the Yankees were colossally stupid to give Ellsbury the contract they did, I pointed out why it made sense for the Yankees and acknowledged the argument for why the Red Sox perspective might be different. Yesterday, in response to someone pointing out the weaknesses of the Red Sox outfield, I reiterated my long held view that they should have resigned Ellsbury. YMMV.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
8,737
DBMH....maybe I missed the explanation, but where are you getting those numbers?
 
OLIVER has Jacoby's WAR projected for:
 
2014: 3.8
2015: 3.6
2016: 3.4
2017: 3.1
2018: 2.7
 
Are you just taking off 1 WAR/season until he becomes below replacement level? That's not really how it works. Even a simple, and slightly more pessimistic projection than OLIVER would be for him to lose 0.5 WAR/season
 
I don't think Ells will be worth 20+ million in years 5-7, but that rundown doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
 
I don't see any link to an article.  But I will gladly show my work.  What am I missing (and yes, I know that negative WAR doesn't create contract clawbacks...too bad).
 
[tablegrid= Dream WAR-ver, I believe you can hit one out to right ]Year Ellsbury's Projected Dreamy WAR Price Per WAR (MM) -assumes 5% increase per yr Total Value Of Ds (in MM) 2014 4.7 $5.50 $25.85 2015 3.7 $5.78 $21.37 2016 2.7 $6.06 $16.37 2017 1.7 $6.37 $10.82 2018 0.7 $6.69 $4.68 2019 -0.3 $7.02 -$2.11 2020 -1.3 $7.37 -$9.58         Totals 11.9   $67.41 [/tablegrid] 
My assumption was to replicate last year's WAR in 2014 and 2015 and then start to decline by 1 WAR per year. So, you need to add 13 WAR to the total. I also discounted both WAR and the stream of salary payments.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,401
Right.  I don't get DBMH's numbers at all.  We are assuming he NEVER has a year as good as last year again? I would bet it's more likely he puts up 11.9 WAR in 2014 and 2015 (edit-combined) than it is he puts up only 11.9 WAR for the life of the contract.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,065
[tablegrid= Hair Long, Money Long, Me & Broke Owners Don't Get Along ]Year Ellsbury's Projected Dreamy WAR Price Per WAR (MM) -assumes 5% increase per yr Total Value Of Ds (in MM) 2014 5.7 $5.50 $31.35 2015 5.7 $5.78 $32.92 2016 4.7 $6.06 $28.50 2017 3.7 $6.37 $23.56 2018 2.7 $6.69 $18.05 2019 1.7 $7.02 $11.93 2020 0.7 $7.37 $5.16         Totals 24.9   $151.47 [/tablegrid]
 
 
 
Ok, now I am clear - I initially misunderstood you and thought you meant he would have a 4.7 WAR this year and so on.  
 
Hmm.  Well, I guess he could  produce those numbers and then the contract might actually be worth it.  Then again, he is on the other side of 30 and while I understand most people here believe his injury history is a fluky thing, the fact remains that as a regular for the Sox over six seasons, he missed around 290 regular season games or somewhere around 48 games per year on average.   Assume away 10 or so for rest per year and he is still averaging almost a quarter of a season off the field over that time.    Add to this that the last full season he played was three years ago and there is reason to believe he may not be capable of putting up those sorts of numbers going forward.  
 
In other words, the Yankees fully priced him not unlike other asset buyers tend to estimate returns that justify their purchase price.  Its kind of a neat bias trick but as you and I both know, you rarely hit the forwards just right.  
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the argument that the Sox were stupid for not giving 7/160 to a player of Ellsbury's caliber.  That's really one of the most subjective and borderline insane things I think I've read on the main board.  I think a much better argument would be that they should've resigned Salty, since that was a very reasonable contract, AJP is pretty shitty, and they have no legitimate catching options right now who aren't in their late 30s.
 
But Ellsbury at about 23m until he's 37?  That's a huge risk.  Hell, if they signed him to the rumored 6/120 deal I wouldn't be too comfortable.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
[tablegrid= Hair Long, Money Long, Me & Broke Owners Don't Get Along ]Year Ellsbury's Projected Dreamy WAR Price Per WAR (MM) -assumes 5% increase per yr Total Value Of Ds (in MM) 2014 5.7 $5.50 $31.35 2015 5.7 $5.78 $32.92 2016 4.7 $6.06 $28.50 2017 3.7 $6.37 $23.56 2018 2.7 $6.69 $18.05 2019 1.7 $7.02 $11.93 2020 0.7 $7.37 $5.16         Totals 24.9   $151.47 [/tablegrid]
 
 
 
Ok, now I am clear - I initially misunderstood you and thought you meant he would have a 4.7 WAR this year and so on.  
 
Hmm.  Well, I guess he could  produce those numbers and then the contract might actually be worth it.  Then again, he is on the other side of 30 and while I understand most people here believe his injury history is a fluky thing, the fact remains that as a regular for the Sox over six seasons, he missed around 290 regular season games or somewhere around 48 games per year on average.   Assume away 10 or so for rest per year and he is still averaging almost a quarter of a season off the field over that time.    Add to this that the last full season he played was three years ago and there is reason to believe he may not be capable of putting up those sorts of numbers going forward.  
 
In other words, the Yankees fully priced him not unlike other asset buyers tend to estimate returns that justify their purchase price.  Its kind of a neat bias trick but as you and I both know, you rarely hit the forwards just right.  
 
I know that you're using P91's numbers so I'm not questioning your work.  I'm questioning the assumptions.  Ellsbury has had exactly 2 seasons over 4 fWAR.  Why the hell is it reasonable to assume that he'll do that for the next 3 years?
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,065
glennhoffmania said:
 
I know that you're using P91's numbers so I'm not questioning your work.  I'm questioning the assumptions.  Ellsbury has had exactly 2 seasons over 4 fWAR.  Why the hell is it reasonable to assume that he'll do that for the next 3 years?
Well you and I agree.  Let's take a look at a slightly more conservative approach...
 
[tablegrid= JBJ Don't Put It Down Like You, He Don't, He Don't... ]Year Ellsbury's Projected Dreamy WAR Price Per WAR (MM) -assumes 5% increase per yr Total Value Of Ds (in MM) 2014 5.7 $5.50 $31.35 2015 1 $5.78 $5.78 2016 8.1 $6.06 $49.12 2017 -0.1 $6.37 -$0.64 2018 2.8 $6.69 $18.72 2019 3 $7.02 $21.06 2020 0.6 $7.37 $4.42         Totals 21.1   $129.80 [/tablegrid] 
 
These are using his last six seasons in reverse and I know past performance yadda yadda...but its my table and I can assume (anything) if I want to.  Anyhow, using these numbers - WAR he actually produced while he was younger and presumably closer to his peak and they show his contract overvalues him by ~$20mm.  And that assumes the mid-30s Ellsbury, who has an history of missing chunks of the season - flukily or not - is able to still produce at a pretty high level.  
 
Some folks may like that bet but I don't blame the Sox for passing.  
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
8,737
glennhoffmania said:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the argument that the Sox were stupid for not giving 7/160 to a player of Ellsbury's caliber.  That's really one of the most subjective and borderline insane things I think I've read on the main board.  I think a much better argument would be that they should've resigned Salty, since that was a very reasonable contract, AJP is pretty shitty, and they have no legitimate catching options right now who aren't in their late 30s.
 
But Ellsbury at about 23m until he's 37?  That's a huge risk.  Hell, if they signed him to the rumored 6/120 deal I wouldn't be too comfortable.
 
Speaking only for myself, but I totally understand not matching that contract for Ellsbury.  I wouldn't have offered that contract either, especially with JBJ in the fold. 
 
I was just pointing out that WAR projection of 12 for the remainder of his career is wildly pessimistic. Plus, a 1 WAR decline/season assumption isn't at all in line with most projection systems.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,541
02130
Providing something that is (potentially) new and of value to the thread:
 
https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/458776427215986688
 
Who knows if "Red Sox vet" is right. You have to think they'd have made him some offer, but maybe they figured it would be so far below what he'd end up getting that they wouldn't bother.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
Toe Nash said:
Providing something that is (potentially) new and of value to the thread:
 
https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/458776427215986688
 
Who knows if "Red Sox vet" is right. You have to think they'd have made him some offer, but maybe they figured it would be so far below what he'd end up getting that they wouldn't bother.
 
First off, I don't understand what Gammons is trying to say.  If a fan boos Ellsbury he should be willing to forfeit two titles due to the fact that they didn't offer him a contract?  Those three things are all completely unrelated to each other.
 
Second:
 
Ellsbury signed a seven-year, $153 million contract with the Yankees over the winter, but only after reportedly rejecting two offers from the Red Sox: five years and $100 million, or six years and roughly $120 million. That's according to Gordon Edes of ESPN Boston
 
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
Edes tweeted that in Dec.  I assumed he was referring to a recent event and not something from two years prior.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
10,666
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
snowmanny said:
 
This is a good point because saving money by signing Matt Clement instead worked out great.
 
Matt Clement aside (and comic value of root, root, rooting for David Wells in an oversized Red Sox uniform aside as well), Pedro's departure netted the Red Sox Clay "I-Am-An-Idiot" Buchholz in the 2005 draft, which worked out okay for awhile.
 
And I'll give you the last word and say no more, lest Jolmy break our comments out into yet another thread.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
glennhoffmania said:
 
First off, I don't understand what Gammons is trying to say.  If a fan boos Ellsbury he should be willing to forfeit two titles due to the fact that they didn't offer him a contract?  Those three things are all completely unrelated to each other.
 
Second:
 
He's saying that by booing Ellsbury, your action implies that you have no appreciation for his contributions to two championships.  
 
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
Well you and I agree.  Let's take a look at a slightly more conservative approach...
 
These are using his last six seasons in reverse and I know past performance yadda yadda...but its my table and I can assume (anything) if I want to.  Anyhow, using these numbers - WAR he actually produced while he was younger and presumably closer to his peak and they show his contract overvalues him by ~$20mm.  And that assumes the mid-30s Ellsbury, who has an history of missing chunks of the season - flukily or not - is able to still produce at a pretty high level.  
 
Some folks may like that bet but I don't blame the Sox for passing.  
 
You're still not doing any discounting of payments made in the future.  Moreover, given that the 22 games that Ellsbury missed to due a foul ball of his foot are reflected in the 5.7 WAR for 2013, that does already account for a lot of missed time due to injuries not caused by being played out of position to make way for a 39 year old free agent that the team inexplicably signed and running into the third baseman.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,065
One more thing on Ellsbury's WAR (or P91s war on the Sox management).   If you really wanted to use this methodology to calculate the value of a given player, you would need to risk adjust the projected WAR.  I would not suggest that it is as simple as taking the player's historical WAR volatility  but if you did that and threw in a factor for age and other variables, it would be a more intellectually honest method of valuing a player.  
 
I like the idea of assigning a value to one WAR and even adding the annual inflation.  But projecting a player's performance over any significant time frame seems to be an exercise subject to serious error.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,065
Plympton91 said:
 
He's saying that by booing Ellsbury, your action implies that you have no appreciation for his contributions to two championships.  
 
 
You're still not doing any discounting of payments made in the future.  Moreover, given that the 22 games that Ellsbury missed to due a foul ball of his foot are reflected in the 5.7 WAR for 2013, that does already account for a lot of missed time due to injuries not caused by being played out of position to make way for a 39 year old free agent that the team inexplicably signed and running into the third baseman.
Discounting?  Isn't the WAR inflation effectively doing the same thing - I mean 5% per annum is pretty robust.  Btw, I wish I could earn WAR inflation.  Thanks to you guys, I would be lucky to get a third of that after regular guy inflation.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,401
[QUOTE="Hriniak]
 
Matt Clement aside (and comic value of root, root, rooting for David Wells in an oversized Red Sox uniform aside as well), Pedro's departure netted the Red Sox Clay "I-Am-An-Idiot" Buchholz in the 2005 draft, which worked out okay for awhile.
 
And I'll give you the last word and say no more, lest Jolmy break our comments out into yet another thread.
[/QUOTE]
You make a winning point with Buchholz. My point was just that while paying a premium for a star can be an overpayment, getting a supposed "bargain" on a lesser player can be a greater overpayment. You mentioned Pedro in 2008. In 2009 he barely played, but he was capable of throwing 7 shutout innings in the NLCS. The younger starters who were also free agents in 2004 were at that point mostly retired (Jaret Wright, Matt Morris, Brad Radke, Matt Clement),
some for years. And then there was Carl Pavano, who sucked to the tune of a 5.10 ERA.

So the answer was in fact signing none of them and getting the pick. But Pedro was really at least as good a signing as any premium starter that year except Clemens.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
Well, the appropriate comp for MLB free agent talent would be the salary increase for Fortune 100 CEOs, not us bean counters.

The inflation of value per WAR is what you'd have to pay if you signed an equivalent player in the future. That doesn't account for the ability of the Yankees to invest the money they're deferring to year 7 of the contract.

I thought about whether to go with a probability distribution of WAR values for each year, but unless you introduce some kind of non linearity you'd still just end up with the expected value times the value of a WAR.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
30,065
Plympton91 said:
Well, the appropriate comp for MLB free agent talent would be the salary increase for Fortune 100 CEOs, not us bean counters.

The inflation of value per WAR is what you'd have to pay if you signed an equivalent player in the future. That doesn't account for the ability of the Yankees to invest the money they're deferring to year 7 of the contract.

I thought about whether to go with a probability distribution of WAR values for each year, but unless you introduce some kind of non linearity you'd still just end up with the expected value times the value of a WAR.
 
I get the bolded part but if you are saying the Yankee contract makes sense if you assign an inflation component to WAR but then you have to discount the future cash flows, shouldn't the two effectively net out?  Or are the Yankees investing this deferred cash in some highly levered manner that may pay a very high return (or may not on a risk-adjusted basis)?  Hmm...
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
Plympton91 said:
 
He's saying that by booing Ellsbury, your action implies that you have no appreciation for his contributions to two championships.  
 
 
 
 
Yes, I understand what his words actually say.  I'm saying that his point makes no sense.  And Peter should talk to his buddy Gordon since there seems to be a minor discrepancy regarding the Sox' contract offers.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,646
Deep inside Muppet Labs
glennhoffmania said:
 
Yes, I understand what his words actually say.  I'm saying that his point makes no sense.  And Peter should talk to his buddy Gordon since there seems to be a minor discrepancy regarding the Sox' contract offers.
 
 
The whole booing or not booing issue is moronic in the extreme and is not really worthy of discussion here. Any simpleton knows he got booed for putting on a Yankee jersey, nothing more. They played an Ellsbury highlights montage on the scoreboard last night and it was greeting with a loud ovation, so I think that fans do in fact appreciate his contribution to two World Series teams in Boston.
 
As for Ellsbury, if you could waive a magic wand and ensure that he'd remain both healthy (much healthier than his last 4 seasons in Boston, say) and would continue to produce like he did in his prime years for the entirety of his contract then  a 7/152 deal is fair. When healthy and in his prime he's a very dynamic player. But he's a 30 year old outfielder whose game is primarily based on speed. Giving such a player $23 million for 7 years seems to be assured of an excellent chance of an extreme overpay at some point in the contract. Yes, 21 games into the contract it looks like a fair deal all around. It's early yet.
 
Ellsbury should hope for his sake the Yankees don't trade for Beltre, though.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
 
I get the bolded part but if you are saying the Yankee contract makes sense if you assign an inflation component to WAR but then you have to discount the future cash flows, shouldn't the two effectively net out?  Or are the Yankees investing this deferred cash in some highly levered manner that may pay a very high return (or may not on a risk-adjusted basis)?  Hmm...
I'm seeing it as two separate things. There's a nominal contract that needs to be discounted, at least at the risk free rate. There's a real increase in the value of WAR being driven by the expansion of revenues across the league creating more competition for the best players. I guess you could add those two effects together and apply them to one or the other as you're suggesting, but then I'd use more than 5 percent.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
50,636
San Andreas Fault
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
 
The whole booing or not booing issue is moronic in the extreme and is not really worthy of discussion here. Any simpleton knows he got booed for putting on a Yankee jersey, nothing more. They played an Ellsbury highlights montage on the scoreboard last night and it was greeting with a loud ovation, so I think that fans do in fact appreciate his contribution to two World Series teams in Boston.
 
As for Ellsbury, if you could waive a magic wand and ensure that he'd remain both healthy (much healthier than his last 4 seasons in Boston, say) and would continue to produce like he did in his prime years for the entirety of his contract then  a 7/152 deal is fair. When healthy and in his prime he's a very dynamic player. But he's a 30 year old outfielder whose game is primarily based on speed. Giving such a player $23 million for 7 years seems to be assured of an excellent chance of an extreme overpay at some point in the contract. Yes, 21 games into the contract it looks like a fair deal all around. It's early yet.
 
Ellsbury should hope for his sake the Yankees don't trade for Beltre, though.
If, during his time with them, his WAR is one more than the differential by which they win the East, or even qualify for the playoffs, and they win the world series, all Yankeedom will consider the whole contract worth it. Even if his WAR isn't that but he looks good in center, at bat and on the bases, and they win it all, they'll consider him the second coming. It happened with Zito in SF after they won in 2012. He was absolved of all Boras induced overpay. The Yankees just don't need to worry about money. 
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The plan last year and this year was to try to be competitive while developing the players who would be the foundation of the "next great Red Sox team".   That everything broke beautifully last year and resulted in an unexpected championship is not a reason to abandon the plan.  They set a number for Ellsbury knowing that they had JBJ ready to step in this year at some position, and when Jacoby passed on it, they wisely let him go because they had a ready or near ready replacement.  Same with Drew and X.  
 
So this season may be harder because we may have to suffer through some losses as young players adjust to the majors and the stopgaps for those who are further away prove to be less capable than those Ben picked up last year.  The Cards are going through the same thing from having let Beltran go and their fans don't have the happy memories of winning a championship last year to get them through the rough patches.  
 
It really comes down to whether or not you trust the plan.   
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
13,350
Eugene, OR
P91 is correct in saying that you need to increase the $/War value by more than 5%.  As in, a lot more.
 
Here is the chart Cameron made in 2009 looking back: (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/win-values-explained-part-six/)
 
2002 – $2.6m / win
2003 – $2.8m / win
2004 – $3.1m / win
2005 – $3.4m / win
2006 – $3.7m / win
2007 – $4.1m / win
2008 – $4.5m / win
...
2013 - $7.0m / win
 
This was updated from late last year to about 7 million, both here (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/10/15/4818740/how-much-does-a-win-really-cost) as well as on fangraphs for this past offseason.
 
That means that we are looking at more like 8-12% increase per year, with that increase accelerating recently.
 
edit: We also have to take into account the marginal values of wins (higher to the Yankees given their expected finish and playoff odds), as well as the recognized phenomena that premium players command a greater $/WAR price as free agents (i.e., the average value of a win doesn't take into account the distribution of those dollars along the win curve).
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,392
There are valid points to be debated over signing Ellsbury.  This isn't one of them:
 
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.
 
 
The "resting on their laurels" is just post hoc psychobabblebullshit (its not even *post* hoc; it's more mid-hoc, considering the season is 3 weeks old). You honestly believe that if the Sox didn't make the playoffs last year or win the WS that they would have paid Ellsbury the money?  After the Punto trade, the entire Sox fanbase (and probably management) was ready for some mediocrity, as long as it showed some promise for the future.  Not only is "resting on their laurels" psych-babble, but its also the opposite of what they've done. "Resting on their laurels" would be to say "we won the WS, so screw this re-loading bullshit, screw the farm system, lets keep the whole gang together forevah."  What they are doing instead is harder work subject to more criticism BECAUSE THEY LOST TO THE YANKEES YESTERDAY OMFG!!!
 
As for a potential CF replacement, they think they have one.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
joe dokes said:
There are valid points to be debated over signing Ellsbury.  This isn't one of them:
 
 
The "resting on their laurels" is just post hoc psychobabblebullshit (its not even *post* hoc; it's more mid-hoc, considering the season is 3 weeks old). You honestly believe that if the Sox didn't make the playoffs last year or win the WS that they would have paid Ellsbury the money?  After the Punto trade, the entire Sox fanbase (and probably management) was ready for some mediocrity, as long as it showed some promise for the future.  Not only is "resting on their laurels" psych-babble, but its also the opposite of what they've done. "Resting on their laurels" would be to say "we won the WS, so screw this re-loading bullshit, screw the farm system, lets keep the whole gang together forevah."  What they are doing instead is harder work subject to more criticism BECAUSE THEY LOST TO THE YANKEES YESTERDAY OMFG!!!
 
As for a potential CF replacement, they think they have one.
 
If the entire Red Sox fan base was ready for mediocrity after the Punto trade, how come the sellout streak ended and NESN ratings plummeted?  Shouldn't all those fans have been flocking to the games and glued to their TV to watch the new model?
 
If the Red Sox had signed Adrian Beltre and Matt Holiday instead of trading for Gonzalez and signing Crawford there would be this angst about big contracts.  You need to sign the right players, who fit in with your team and with the strengths and weaknesses of the overall organization. 
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I doubt the Red Sox are done giving out big contracts forever.  They pretty clearly didn't think Ellsbury was the right player to spend that kind of money on. 
 
Im still curious why you think the Sox had a chance to outbid or match the Yankees here even if they wanted to.  If the Sox had matched, isn't the likely outcome Ellsbury on the Yankees for $15MM more or something like that?  Obviously would be marginally positive for the Sox, but not really anything to lose sleep over.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
This might have been covered elsewhere.  If so, apologies.
 
Were you, P91, advocating that the Sox offer more than the MFYs when he signed in NY?  If so, what was your upper limit?
 
I ask that because it's hard to argue against spending big on the right players.  Larry has said repeatedly that while there's a presumption against big dollar, long term deals, that it's rebuttable and that for the right player and under the right circumstances, they would do it...or at least be open to it.  All of that makes sense.
 
Knowing what I knew about Ellsbury -- his various injuries, the time he took to recover from them, that he had only put up one truly dominant year (2011), and that his game might decline more rapidly than other players given the extent to which it relies on speed (a la Carl Crawford, seemingly) -- I would have been very concerned this past fall  had the Sox paid $153.1 mm for this player.  I would have worried a lot about him being way overpaid for a long time and it having a material negative impact on the Sox ability to field a contender for years to come.
 
Now, seeing Ells doing what he's doing, how well he's fit into the MFY line-up, and what the Sox have done at lead off and in CF, it's tempting to grind my teeth.  But at the time, I was applauding Ben for using the proper restraint and I don't recall reading or hearing many people, here or elsewhere, who disagreed with me.
 
Sometimes -- and we don't know if this will turn out to be one of those times -- investments that seemed expensive at the time turn out to be things we wished we would have made.  That makes the result regrettable but doesn't call into question the decision making process.
 
Are you questioning the result or the thought process?  Or both?
 
(Not that I yet agree with you on the result as I think it's way too early even on that).     
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
I've probably made 10 different posts hypothesizing the right value and length for Ellsbury with a minimum somewhere around 5-$95 and a maximum somewhere around where the Yankees ended up.  Eventually, through all the discussions and criticism that those posts generated, I arrive at where I've been recently: Given the lack of CF/RF depth in the Red Sox organization, the likelihood of a lot of cost controlled talent coming online at other positions, and the Red Sox overall budget, they would probably be better off signing him or at least acquiring another proven everyday CF.   The best case for me would have been to have Bradley serve as deep depth in 2014 just as he did in 2013, then move into the 4th outfielder role in 2015 as Gomes' contract expired and assuming he develops as most expect slide into the starting CF/RF slot in 2016 when Victorino's contract expired and Brentz or Hassan becomes the 4th outfielder.   Nobody is blocked in that scenario, and the $5 million saved with a rookie in the Gomes slot in 2015 plus the $18 million saved with rookie/2nd year players in the Gomes/Victorino slot in 2016 offsets almost the entire cost of a $20+ million deal for Ellsbury or other CF in the overall payroll scheme. 
 
Now if the plan is to go all out to acquire and then give that payroll slot to Stanton in RF and JBJ in CF, I'll stand corrected.  Get it done, Ben.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
Plympton91 said:
I've probably made 10 different posts hypothesizing the right value and length for Ellsbury with a minimum somewhere around 5-$95 and a maximum somewhere around where the Yankees ended up.  Eventually, through all the discussions and criticism that those posts generated, I arrive at where I've been recently: Given the lack of CF/RF depth in the Red Sox organization, the likelihood of a lot of cost controlled talent coming online at other positions, and the Red Sox overall budget, they would probably be better off signing him or at least acquiring another proven everyday CF.   The best case for me would have been to have Bradley serve as deep depth in 2014 just as he did in 2013, then move into the 4th outfielder role in 2015 as Gomes' contract expired and assuming he develops as most expect slide into the starting CF/RF slot in 2016 when Victorino's contract expired and Brentz or Hassan becomes the 4th outfielder.   Nobody is blocked in that scenario, and the $5 million saved with a rookie in the Gomes slot in 2015 plus the $18 million saved with rookie/2nd year players in the Gomes/Victorino slot in 2016 offsets almost the entire cost of a $20+ million deal for Ellsbury or other CF in the overall payroll scheme. 
 
Now if the plan is to go all out to acquire and then give that payroll slot to Stanton in RF and JBJ in CF, I'll stand corrected.  Get it done, Ben.
 
First off, that's a huge range you presented.  Somewhere between 5 years at 19m per and 7 years at 22.5m per doesn't take advanced analytics to come up with. 
 
Secondly, the Sox supposedly offered 6 years for almost 120m.  He said no.  NY blew that away by adding a year and almost 40m.  So basically the Sox made a competitive offer that fell within your projected range but you still fault them for not increasing it by about 30%.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
glennhoffmania said:
 
First off, that's a huge range you presented.  Somewhere between 5 years at 19m per and 7 years at 22.5m per doesn't take advanced analytics to come up with. 
 
Secondly, the Sox supposedly offered 6 years for almost 120m.  He said no.  NY blew that away by adding a year and almost 40m.  So basically the Sox made a competitive offer that fell within your projected range but you still fault them for not increasing it by about 30% or doing something else to acquire a proven everyday CF so that they weren't spending the whole 2014 season needing Victorino and JBJ to each play at least 150 games in order to field an adequate defensive outfield most nights.
 
F T F Y
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Glenn, Where are you getting that 6/$120 mm?  I've read nubmers much less than that -- totals of $75 or 80 mm.  And Gammo tweeted today that an unnamed Sox player said that the Sox never made an offer to Jacoby.  Not that I am confident that what I read or Gammo tweeted is accurate.  It's just that what you wrote was news to me.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,037
Maine
TheoShmeo said:
Glenn, Where are you getting that 6/$120 mm? I've read nubmers much less than that -- totals of $75 or 80 mm. And Gammo tweeted today that an unnamed Sox player said that the Sox never made an offer to Jacoby. Not that I am confident that what I read or Gammo tweeted is accurate. It's just that what you wrote was news to me.
He already sourced it once in this thread...
 
glennhoffmania said:
Second:
 
Ellsbury signed a seven-year, $153 million contract with the Yankees over the winter, but only after reportedly rejecting two offers from the Red Sox: five years and $100 million, or six years and roughly $120 million. That's according to Gordon Edes of ESPN Boston.
 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,392
TheoShmeo said:
Glenn, Where are you getting that 6/$120 mm?  I've read nubmers much less than that -- totals of $75 or 80 mm.  And Gammo tweeted today that an unnamed Sox player said that the Sox never made an offer to Jacoby.  Not that I am confident that what I read or Gammo tweeted is accurate.  It's just that what you wrote was news to me.
 
That unnamed player probably read it in Cafardo's column, where he was quoted as the unnamed player grousing about Lester.
 
will the circle (jerk) be unbroken . . . . .
 

No Guru No Method

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 23, 2002
1,174
Hyndford Street
Getting into a bidding war with Brian Cashman is like arguing with the village idiot. It can seem like an appealing thing to do but after it's all over you've just wasted your time and the idiot doesn't even realise he was in an argument.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,397,652
NY
Does anyone seriously believe that they didn't even offer him a contract besides Michael Kay?  Or that they topped out at around 70m?  Sometimes you have to use some judgment when you read a report or hear a rumor.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
15,902
Richmond, VA
Secondly, the Sox supposedly offered 6 years for almost 120m.  He said no.  NY blew that away by adding a year and almost 40m.  So basically the Sox made a competitive offer that fell within your projected range but you still fault them for not increasing it by about 30% or doing something else to acquire a proven everyday CF so that they weren't spending the whole 2014 season needing Victorino and JBJ to each play at least 150 games in order to field an adequate defensive outfield most nights.
 
 
So, honest question here.  Why did they need a "proven everyday CF" if they had JBJ?  Don't they just need a reserve at that point?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
61,810
Oregon
No Guru No Method said:
Getting into a bidding war with Brian Cashman is like arguing with the village idiot. It can seem like an appealing thing to do but after it's all over you've just wasted your time and the idiot doesn't even realise he was in an argument.
 
You've read this thread, right?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,083
DanoooME said:
 
So, honest question here.  Why did they need a "proven everyday CF" if they had JBJ?  Don't they just need a reserve at that point?
 
That's been covered a million times.  They don't have room for a reserve CF plus Carp and Nava, as shown by the Sizemore roster dilemna.  If they had a proven starting CF, then Bradley can be on the Pawtucket shuttle covering any DL trips by any of the outfielders, relieving the roster stress that way.   Getting Nava to AAA sort of solves that problem, if you're of the opinion that last year was a complete fluke and Nava is really unworthy of a permanent roster spot.  Though, given Sizemore's obvious deterioration in defensive range and ability, they still don't have a backup centerfielder/rightfielder anywhere in the organization.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,303
Washington
I wouldn't have thought so before the Lester rumors. Now? Whether or not it was 70m, the idea that the Sox low-balled Ellsbury pretty significantly seems plausible. It makes sense if the Sox were utterly convinced the JBJ was the answer in the near future and that Victorino would be solid enough during that transition. Which of course still might be the case. If not, there is nothing keeping the Sox from making another move to shore up CF. Factor in the gain of a draft pick, and really, isn't that the sort of shrewd move that some people around here take pride in?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,646
Deep inside Muppet Labs
EvilEmpire said:
I wouldn't have thought so before the Lester rumors. Now? Whether or not it was 70m, the idea that the Sox low-balled Ellsbury pretty significantly seems plausible. It makes sense if the Sox were utterly convinced the JBJ was the answer in the near future and that Victorino would be solid enough during that transition. Which of course still might be the case. If not, there is nothing keeping the Sox from making another move to shore up CF. Factor in the gain of a draft pick, and really, isn't that the sort of shrewd move that some people around here take pride in?
 
 
Did you miss the quote from Edes above? They made him (Ellsbury) 2 offers that he turned down: 5/100 and 6/120. That's not lowballing at all. He wanted to see what the FA market might have for him and it had an extra year and a slightly higher AAV for all those years than 6/120. So he took it.
 
This entire thread is footstomping because Ellsbury's now a Yankee. That's all there is to it.
 
My guess is that the Sox would have been happy if Ellsbury had accepted either contract proposal, but once he wanted FA they were equally happy to plug in JBJ and take their chances. At some point you have to let the rookies play, and JBJ was the heir apparent in CF all along anyway, so it makes sense to actually let him try to keep the job. Pouting that he's not as immediately productive as Ellsbury was last year strikes me as petulant. Of course there will be growing pains; I might point out that much of Ellsbury's 2008 season was a growing pain and work in progress and that he got himself benched in that year's playoffs because he sucked out loud. Things happen in the short term.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,541
02130
DanoooME said:
 
So, honest question here.  Why did they need a "proven everyday CF" if they had JBJ?  Don't they just need a reserve at that point?
Also, who was that outfielder who would have signed here to have a reserve role when the team already had Nava, Gomes, Victorino and Bradley (and Carp)? Sounds like p91 wanted to go with JBJ but also sign a backup who was really good in case JBJ wasn't ready, or go back in time to develop more than one top outfield prospect who can play center.
 
Off the top of my head, Craig Gentry would have been a nice option and he moved teams last offseason. But he took the A's sending Michael Choice to Texas, who's a pretty good prospect. Would you have traded one of the Sox' top 10 prospects for Gentry, if that were even possible?
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,303
Washington
Did you miss the quote from Edes above? They made him (Ellsbury) 2 offers that he turned down: 5/100 and 6/120. That's not lowballing at all. He wanted to see what the FA market might have for him and it had an extra year and a slightly higher AAV for all those years than 6/120. So he took it.
Yeah, I saw it. It said "reportedly" and likely was from ownership or management. Nothing I've seen has confirmed it since. It could be true. Or it could be damage-control PR released right after Ellsbury signed with the Yankees. Given the other speculation floating around (that no offer was made), how does anyone know for sure?