A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Maybe not, but here goes.


    The Yankees have just done to the Sox exactly what the Sox did to the Rays 3 years ago when they signed Carl Crawford for $140M and change for 7 years.  We were/are richer than the Rays and the Yankees were/are richer than the Sox. 


    Relatedly, one of the Boston sportswriters has done an article on the Lester situation, arguing the Sox are very likely to let him go too.  As evidence he cites the mostly true rumor that the Sox offered Lester $70 million for four years.  That's right, to their ace.  That's less than half of what the Yankees paid for


    So maybe John Henry has decided that he wants a bigger profit and the way to get there is to raise ticket prices--now the highest in MLB--and lower costs. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    1)  And it got our GM and manager fired


     


    2)  We cut our losses and dealt him


     


    3) Would like to see the yankees be able to dump any of those deals (4) they did this winter

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

     


     Not sure about the profit maximization strategy.  Could be true, but only time will tell.  On the flip side of that arguement:  being gun shy about mega free agent contracts (in the post Crawford era) and mega contracts and associated post fees to japanese stars (in the post Matsuzaka era) is understandable from ownership.  Since the Dodger trade, we have not yet seen a real test as to whether Henry is tightening the purse strings to lower cost.  There has been no marquee player available that has fit the Sox needs and not come with giant question marks/red flags:  Ellsbury is playing great right now - but, his contract was based on one awesome season and great wheels.  Not a safe bet by any means, particularly at 7 years.  Josh Hamilton was no ones idea of a safe bet for the big dollars.  And Tanaka had never pitched a major league inning.  There really hasnt been a Manny or Pedro or Adrian Gonzalez guy who is a clear risk/reward bet to back up the brinx truck for.  The Yankees look really cool right now because Tanaka is the real deal (well scouted Yankees, well scouted) and Ellsbury is delivering.  But i dont think that means that Henry has given up the money-making formula of Winning = $$$.  He just has a shrewd GM in his ear who is more inclined to build a complete roster and cultivate the farm than spend willy nilly and mortgage future.  
     
     
     
     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    Maybe not, but here goes.


     


    The Yankees have just done to the Sox exactly what the Sox did to the Rays 3 years ago when they signed Carl Crawford for $140M and change for 7 years.  We were/are richer than the Rays and the Yankees were/are richer than the Sox. 


     


    Relatedly, one of the Boston sportswriters has done an article on the Lester situation, arguing the Sox are very likely to let him go too.  As evidence he cites the mostly true rumor that the Sox offered Lester $70 million for four years.  That's right, to their ace.  That's less than half of what the Yankees paid for


     


    So maybe John Henry has decided that he wants a bigger profit and the way to get there is to raise ticket prices--now the highest in MLB--and lower costs. 




    I don't buy the part about lowering costs.  The Red Sox seem to have set their payroll budget at just below the luxury tax threshold and it will be there again this year.


    Henry and Lucchino understand the Red Sox fanbase and that they won't accept significant payroll cuts. 


     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    A thought on Ells is that he is pretty good, a year or three younger than Vic or Size,  and perhaps less, or no more likely to break down than these two potential cripples in our outfield.  But John Henry is saving our money for us, so get ready for a big drop in beer and ticket prices.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    Maybe not, but here goes.


     


    The Yankees have just done to the Sox exactly what the Sox did to the Rays 3 years ago when they signed Carl Crawford for $140M and change for 7 years.  We were/are richer than the Rays and the Yankees were/are richer than the Sox. 


     


    Relatedly, one of the Boston sportswriters has done an article on the Lester situation, arguing the Sox are very likely to let him go too.  As evidence he cites the mostly true rumor that the Sox offered Lester $70 million for four years.  That's right, to their ace.  That's less than half of what the Yankees paid for


     


    So maybe John Henry has decided that he wants a bigger profit and the way to get there is to raise ticket prices--now the highest in MLB--and lower costs. 




    That's called capitalism and that's exactly what he's doing. Trophy wives are expensive.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to billge's comment:


    A thought on Ells is that he is pretty good, a year or three younger than Vic or Size,  and perhaps less, or no more likely to break down than these two potential cripples in our outfield.  But John Henry is saving our money for us, so get ready for a big drop in beer and ticket prices.




    That should happen about the same time as gas prices go down to $2.00/gal.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Strange pitching. Last night in the first inning with no outs and nobody on Lester had Ellsbury 0-2 and grooves the 3rd pitch fast ball which Ellsbury crushes off the wall in center barely missing a home run. With nobody on base he could have thrown a breaking ball in the dirt or high heat that Ellsbury might have chased. This happened the other night with Peavey throwing 0-2 pitches right down the middle to Jones and to Wieters. Maybe they were location mistakes but all 3 hitters are pretty good fast ball hitters. I don't get it!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Damb, we are making out like bandits!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    I don't buy the part about lowering costs. The Red Sox seem to have set their payroll budget at just below the luxury tax threshold and it will be there again this year.



    Henry and Lucchino understand the Red Sox fanbase and that they won't accept significant payroll cuts.


     I don't get it.  Every year, we are generally #2 in payroll.  That will change now that the LAD have signing a gazillion $$$ TV deal, but we will be #3 generally.  It amazes me that some RS fans don't know that.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Time to get realistic. Ellsbury was gone no matter what. His attitude changed several years ago when the Ellsbury-Haters Club of Greater Boston chastised him for his decision to get back in shape in sunny Arizpna, than in the lousy weathered northeast. The Club accused him of being soft, not wanting to come back until "he was ready', etc.


    Stop trying to compare the Sizemore of today with the Ellsbury of today. Sizemore's days as a full time, .300 hitter and great outfielder are over, folks. He has slowed by at least 2 steps, and will probably be gone by August.


    It couldabeen and shouldabeen different; but it isn't.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:


    I don't buy the part about lowering costs. The Red Sox seem to have set their payroll budget at just below the luxury tax threshold and it will be there again this year.


     



    Henry and Lucchino understand the Red Sox fanbase and that they won't accept significant payroll cuts.


     


     I don't get it.  Every year, we are generally #2 in payroll.  That will change now that the LAD have signing a gazillion $$$ TV deal, but we will be #3 generally.  It amazes me that some RS fans don't know that.




    Yeah, you wonder why they choose to ignore it.


    Gets in the way of the whining, I guess.


     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:


    I don't buy the part about lowering costs. The Red Sox seem to have set their payroll budget at just below the luxury tax threshold and it will be there again this year.


     



    Henry and Lucchino understand the Red Sox fanbase and that they won't accept significant payroll cuts.


     


     I don't get it.  Every year, we are generally #2 in payroll.  That will change now that the LAD have signing a gazillion $$$ TV deal, but we will be #3 generally.  It amazes me that some RS fans don't know that.




    I understand that the SOX have the 3rd highest payroll; what I don't understand is what the hell are they paying for?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    This always happens. A guy gets signed to a huge long term contract and everyone says he is worth it the first year if he plays well. Then by the end of his contract the same people that say he is worth it at the beginning say he is horrible.


    We all know Ells is good, we all know the deal will look good for the Yankees the first few years. Then, all of a sudden, it wont.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:


    I understand that the SOX have the 3rd highest payroll; what I don't understand is what the hell are they paying for?




    The World Series winning team, minus Ellsbury, Salty & Drew, plus Pierzynski.


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    A couple of things:  1 -  The Crawford contract was a big mistake. That does not mean that all big contracts are a mistake. If you want to acquire and retain the top talent, you have to pay the going rate. Sometimes you have to gamble. Sometimes you will get burned. If you don't want to do that, you have to find another way to succeed. Farm system, etc. It can be done, but it is not too easy.  2 -  MLB owners are mostly billionaires. John Henry is one of them. There is a common misconception that Steinbrenner is the richest. Not true. He is no wealthier than Henry and the rest. Maybe even less so. But he and his father have always been willing to spend what it takes to please their fans. They get it back in attendance, concessions, post season money and TV and radio money. They have been very successful. That is just the way it is.  If you don't want to spend big on the top free agents, fine. But don't complain when the Yankees do. Just have to deal with it.


    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from joyceand. Show joyceand's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Sox management blew it on Ellsbury. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:


    A couple of things:  1 -  The Crawford contract was a big mistake. That does not mean that all big contracts are a mistake. If you want to acquire and retain the top talent, you have to pay the going rate. Sometimes you have to gamble. Sometimes you will get burned. If you don't want to do that, you have to find another way to succeed. Farm system, etc. It can be done, but it is not too easy. 


    Stabbed by Foulke.




    There are no easy ways to succeed.  But the Red Sox have, in fact, been the most successful team in baseball the last decade.  That's why it's funny how much their methods are questioned.


     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:


    In response to dgalehouse's comment:


     


    A couple of things:  1 -  The Crawford contract was a big mistake. That does not mean that all big contracts are a mistake. If you want to acquire and retain the top talent, you have to pay the going rate. Sometimes you have to gamble. Sometimes you will get burned. If you don't want to do that, you have to find another way to succeed. Farm system, etc. It can be done, but it is not too easy. 


     


    Stabbed by Foulke.


     




    There are no easy ways to succeed.  But the Red Sox have, in fact, been the most successful team in baseball the last decade.  That's why it's funny how much their methods are questioned.


     


     





    [object HTMLDivElement]       We have three championships in the last ten years. That is absolutely great. But one could also say that we have three championships in the last twenty, thirty, forty , fifty, etc. years.   I have been around for a long time. We had many teams over the years that were capable of winning a championship. But the one big play to make it happen always eluded us.  Hence, " the curse."  In winning our three championships, the big plays finally went our way, in large part thanks to David Ortiz. We could just as easily be in a ninety six year drought.  There is no reason for complacency or to give management a pass on anything.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:


    [object HTMLDivElement]       We have three championships in the last ten years. That is absolutely great. But one could also say that we have three championships in the last twenty, thirty, forty , fifty, etc. years.   I have been around for a long time. We had many teams over the years that were capable of winning a championship. But the one big play to make it happen always eluded us.  Hence, " the curse."  In winning our three championships, the big plays finally went our way, in large part thanks to David Ortiz. We could just as easily be in a ninety six year drought.  There is no reason for complacency or to give management a pass on anything.




    This ownership has only had the team for 12 years.  3 titles in 12 years is good on them, no matter how you look at it.


    It's not about giving them a pass.  It's about giving credit where it's due.  I think that's fair.


     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Offering Lester only a $70 million contract is a bit disrespectful.  


    There will be a team out there that will give Lester many years and a lot of dollars (which Lester deserves).


     


     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    I understand that the SOX have the 3rd highest payroll; what I don't understand is what the hell are they paying for?


     Okay, I'll go out pn a limb on this one, but they are paying for a World Series Championship?  I hate when people ask questions with really obvious answers.  Feels like they are trying to trick me.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    2 - MLB owners are mostly billionaires. John Henry is one of them. There is a common misconception that Steinbrenner is the richest. Not true. He is no wealthier than Henry and the rest. Maybe even less so. But he and his father have always been willing to spend what it takes to please their fans. They get it back in attendance, concessions, post season money and TV and radio money. They have been very successful. That is just the way it is. If you don't want to spend big on the top free agents, fine. But don't complain when the Yankees do. Just have to deal with it.


    You can only spend what you take in.  The RS spend a lot more of their revenues than the NYY do.


    Plus, no one is complaining about the NYY spending money.  For a while now, they've only been spending in an effort to keep up with us.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    Actually, I'm fine with the Ellsbury thing.  The Yankees can afford his big salary more than the Sox can.  Cherington responded with a decent fix, still to play out--bring up Bradley and bring in Sizemore.


    My concern is more with Lester, the Sox one true ace, and the apparent decision to offer him well below the standard for an ace at his age, track record, etc.  I do agree that by and large the John Henry era as been hugely successful because he hired some smart baseball people and underwrote what they set about doing.  I had my doubts about Drew the rightfielder, but thought Drew the SS was a heckuva move.  I didn't like the AGon deal until I saw him play, but always hated the Crawford deal, and loved the humoungous trade with the Dodgers in 2012--great move that set things up for the comeback in 2013.  So, yes, overall I give the Sox high marks.


    But the Lester thing worries me.  The Sox pitching staff was a huge part of their success especially in the postseason last year, and Lester is in fact the ace.  $70M for four years is peanuts.  On the other hand, Pedroia signed for less I believe. 


    I don't like Pierzynski at all, but have no problems with why they did it this way--too much talent at C at Pawtucket, so AJ is the bridge. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: A slightly new thought on Ellsbury

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:


    Time to get realistic. Ellsbury was gone no matter what. His attitude changed several years ago when the Ellsbury-Haters Club of Greater Boston chastised him for his decision to get back in shape in sunny Arizpna, than in the lousy weathered northeast. The Club accused him of being soft, not wanting to come back until "he was ready', etc.


     


    Stop trying to compare the Sizemore of today with the Ellsbury of today. Sizemore's days as a full time, .300 hitter and great outfielder are over, folks. He has slowed by at least 2 steps, and will probably be gone by August.


     


    It couldabeen and shouldabeen different; but it isn't.




    I agree---the Sox are rehabbing Size in hopes he will have a good season. If they keep him through the remainder of the year do they make him a QO---no way unless he wins the triple crown. He will be moved by the TD if not before unless he turns into an amazing LF in the next two months and starts using LF as his hitting playground.


    I think BenC realizes Ue has perhaps a two year closing shelf life remaining---he has to start grooming one of the prospects for that role or go out and find someone that is a consistent unhittable strike thrower.


    The ticket prices will always remain high as long as they play at Fenway--supply and demand.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share