Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    I think some GM will give him about $17-18M for five years. Longer contracts are becoming suspect, even for the most foolish GMs, given how some of them have worked out. I don't mind paying him that much if he earns it through incentives, but guaranteeing that to him is, IMO, foolish.

     



    Here's something we DO agree on.  I think all contracts should be incentive-laden.  As it is owners are paying for past performance and hoping that performance continues.  Paying millions of dollars based on "hope" is a crazy thing to do.  These owners didn't make their money doing that!

     

    In the case of Ellsbury I'd like to see a contract based on games played, much like the contracts of Napoli and Lackey, but it's not going to happen because some owner won't require that clause and Ells will go there.  If I were JH I'd take the risk rather than lose him.

    [/QUOTE]

    In contrast, owners make a ton off players that do great in their pre-arb and arb years. The players make less than their worth. It probably all just about evens out, as most owners are making a killing.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130907/jacoby-ellsbury-injury-red-sox.ap/

    According to SI.com he's been fitted with a protective boot and is out "indefinitely".  While that means he could come back tomorrow it usually means, "we have no idea, but don't be looking for him soon". 

    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it first appears.  The Sox need this guy on both sides of the ball.

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     


    I think some GM will give him about $17-18M for five years. Longer contracts are becoming suspect, even for the most foolish GMs, given how some of them have worked out. I don't mind paying him that much if he earns it through incentives, but guaranteeing that to him is, IMO, foolish.

     



    Here's something we DO agree on.  I think all contracts should be incentive-laden.  As it is owners are paying for past performance and hoping that performance continues.  Paying millions of dollars based on "hope" is a crazy thing to do.  These owners didn't make their money doing that!

     

    In the case of Ellsbury I'd like to see a contract based on games played, much like the contracts of Napoli and Lackey, but it's not going to happen because some owner won't require that clause and Ells will go there.  If I were JH I'd take the risk rather than lose him.




    There is where we disagree. Ellsbury has a history of getting injured. If Henry does not pay attention to that then the risk of future injuries is on the CLUB rather than on the PLAYER, where it should be in this case. I think we agree, approximately, on the dollar amounts he should get, and I could even see going five years rather than four with a properly incentive laden contract, but the guaranteed money has to be something reasonable-like $14M per year. If he walks we will miss him, but he is not irreplaceable. The money used to pay him could be used to pay someone who will contribute in a different way to the success of the club.

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

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    The fact is that Ellsbury has played in 90+% of all possible games other than the years when the two freak injuries occurred when he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I suggest that he's no more "injury prone" than any other player who picks up occasional bumps, bruises and strains.

     

    Ellsbury did not call off Beltre, which caused the collision. It was not freaky bad luck. He caused his own in jury to happen. This year, he did it again, but avoided a bad collision.

    Sox4ever



    The problem is that some flyballs become very difficult to call.  That's why you still see collisions.

    I've had one collision.  The ball was right in between me and the CF.  I didn't call for it because I wasn't sure I could get to it.  I assume the CF did likewise.  For anyone with more experience than me, do you call for the ball if you're not sure you can get to it?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to S5's comment:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130907/jacoby-ellsbury-injury-red-sox.ap/

    According to SI.com he's been fitted with a protective boot and is out "indefinitely".  While that means he could come back tomorrow it usually means, "we have no idea, but don't be looking for him soon". 

    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it first appears.  The Sox need this guy on both sides of the ball.

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.



    I have not heard that he has actually been diagnosed with a definite fracture yet, so thats good news. If its just inflammation, rest and a little cortisone might get him through this in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that we won't really need him for almost a month, and from what I read he really wants to try to play through this. If there is no broken bone he might be able to be in the lineup in October.

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

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I think some GM will give him about $17-18M for five years. Longer contracts are becoming suspect, even for the most foolish GMs, given how some of them have worked out. I don't mind paying him that much if he earns it through incentives, but guaranteeing that to him is, IMO, foolish.

    I'm not sure all GMs have learned that lesson.

    I do think the injuries will scare some GMs away, but I have to think someone will offer at least $90M/5.

     

    Sox4ever

     

     



    I am not sure any GM can afford that. The usual suspects with large bankrolls are probably not in a position to offer that kind of money. The Yankees are committed to getting under the luxury tax (so they claim); the Dodgers are also highly stretched from a dollar standpoint-and they really don't need a CF. Where would he be able to sign for that kind of money? Who needs a CF badly enough to give him that?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    1) The Yanks lose a lot of payroll, including Granderson.

     

    2) The Giants may make a splash to try and get back in the hunt.

    3) Baltimore, STL, Texas, Mets, Cubs, Toronto, Seattle, even someone like Cincy, KC or Washington might make a surprise run.

    [/QUOTE]

    BA has Jones, StL has Jay, TO has Rasmus, Nats have Span.

    I'm not sure if the NYMs will put off their rebuilding plan for one year with Harvey's injury.  The Mariners have Saunders, but Ells would look really good at the top of the lineup.

    I'll go with SFG's as the favorite.  They lack a good lead-off hitter, will need an OF assuming Pense leaves, and have a ton of money coming off the books.

    I'll make Cincy the #2 favorite.  They had a solid increase in attendance this year, might want to build on it, and Choo is presumably leaving.

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

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to S5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130907/jacoby-ellsbury-injury-red-sox.ap/

    According to SI.com he's been fitted with a protective boot and is out "indefinitely".  While that means he could come back tomorrow it usually means, "we have no idea, but don't be looking for him soon". 

    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it first appears.  The Sox need this guy on both sides of the ball.

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

     



    I have not heard that he has actually been diagnosed with a definite fracture yet, so thats good news. If its just inflammation, rest and a little cortisone might get him through this in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that we won't really need him for almost a month, and from what I read he really wants to try to play through this. If there is no broken bone he might be able to be in the lineup in October.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The bright side is that we really shouldn't need him for about 29 days.  Just to keep it simple, JBJ plays v righties, and Vic, Nava, and Gomes play against lefties.  All it means is that we finally have a hole in our lineup.  I wouldn't think twice about it.

    Q-

    1-My understanding is that breaks take 6-8 weeks.  Are fractures similar?

    2-Would any healing have taken place in between the time he first hurt and now, or does playing on in prevent any healing (or worsen it)?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    The problem with Ellsbury is that he has Borras as an agent which is good for him and bad for the team. Borras never has his clients rush back from injuries because productivity can fall which affects the "Dollar Figure" of his clients especially when they are in a free agent "Walk Year". You have to hope that its not series but the Red Sox Medical Staff has a history of minimizing injuries, especially in the case of Clay Bucholtz and Adrian Gonzalez. Borras is not going to want him on that field unless it can be a positive effect on Ellsbury's productivity. You cannot blame Borras because that is his job as a Sports Agent, looking after his clients.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to S5's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130907/jacoby-ellsbury-injury-red-sox.ap/

    According to SI.com he's been fitted with a protective boot and is out "indefinitely".  While that means he could come back tomorrow it usually means, "we have no idea, but don't be looking for him soon". 

    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it first appears.  The Sox need this guy on both sides of the ball.

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

     

     



    I have not heard that he has actually been diagnosed with a definite fracture yet, so thats good news. If its just inflammation, rest and a little cortisone might get him through this in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that we won't really need him for almost a month, and from what I read he really wants to try to play through this. If there is no broken bone he might be able to be in the lineup in October.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The bright side is that we really shouldn't need him for about 29 days.  Just to keep it simple, JBJ plays v righties, and Vic, Nava, and Gomes play against lefties.  All it means is that we finally have a hole in our lineup.  I wouldn't think twice about it.

     

    Q-

    1-My understanding is that breaks take 6-8 weeks.  Are fractures similar?

    2-Would any healing have taken place in between the time he first hurt and now, or does playing on in prevent any healing (or worsen it)?

    [/QUOTE]

    It depends if it is displaced and needs a screw to push it together.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to S5's comment:

     

     

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130907/jacoby-ellsbury-injury-red-sox.ap/

    According to SI.com he's been fitted with a protective boot and is out "indefinitely".  While that means he could come back tomorrow it usually means, "we have no idea, but don't be looking for him soon". 

    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it first appears.  The Sox need this guy on both sides of the ball.

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

     

     



    I have not heard that he has actually been diagnosed with a definite fracture yet, so thats good news. If its just inflammation, rest and a little cortisone might get him through this in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that we won't really need him for almost a month, and from what I read he really wants to try to play through this. If there is no broken bone he might be able to be in the lineup in October.

     

     



    The bright side is that we really shouldn't need him for about 29 days.  Just to keep it simple, JBJ plays v righties, and Vic, Nava, and Gomes play against lefties.  All it means is that we finally have a hole in our lineup.  I wouldn't think twice about it.

     

    Q-

    1-My understanding is that breaks take 6-8 weeks.  Are fractures similar?

    2-Would any healing have taken place in between the time he first hurt and now, or does playing on in prevent any healing (or worsen it)?



    First, I never wing it when it comes to medical stuff. If I do not know for sure I will state that. I am a pediatrician, not an orthopedist. That said as groundwork, fractures are the same as breaks. A broken bone=a fractured bone. Same thing. From what I can read about navicular fractures it seems they take AT LEAST six weeks to heal, sometimes up to four months. The initial treatment is placing the patient in a non weightbearing cast, ie no weight on that foot at all, for six weeks. If insufficient healing has taken place surgery is considered-inserting screws to further immobilize the bone, but most patients don't need that. That is how most fractures are treated-immobilization (certain fractures, like the skull cannot be immobilized, so they are essentially not "treated" at all unless they are depressed into the brain). So playing on with a broken bone is going to prevent healing and my guess is that it could threaten the healing process in its entirety. You have to treat fractures promptly or else they may never heal properly. I think if he has a navicular fracture, which is something I have not yet heard, he is out for the year. Maybe some ingenious orthopedist can figure out a way to keep him on the field with it, but thats beyond my level on knowledge.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to AL34's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

     

    In response to S5's comment:

     

     

     

     

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130907/jacoby-ellsbury-injury-red-sox.ap/

    According to SI.com he's been fitted with a protective boot and is out "indefinitely".  While that means he could come back tomorrow it usually means, "we have no idea, but don't be looking for him soon". 

    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it first appears.  The Sox need this guy on both sides of the ball.

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

     

     

     



    I have not heard that he has actually been diagnosed with a definite fracture yet, so thats good news. If its just inflammation, rest and a little cortisone might get him through this in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that we won't really need him for almost a month, and from what I read he really wants to try to play through this. If there is no broken bone he might be able to be in the lineup in October.

     

     

     

     



    The bright side is that we really shouldn't need him for about 29 days.  Just to keep it simple, JBJ plays v righties, and Vic, Nava, and Gomes play against lefties.  All it means is that we finally have a hole in our lineup.  I wouldn't think twice about it.

     

     

    Q-

    1-My understanding is that breaks take 6-8 weeks.  Are fractures similar?

    2-Would any healing have taken place in between the time he first hurt and now, or does playing on in prevent any healing (or worsen it)?



    It depends if it is displaced and needs a screw to push it together.

     



    Not all displaced fractures need a screw. I have seen some very ugly looking breaks that the orthopedists just cast without surgery-and they seem to heal just fine. A callous (a lump of bone at the healing site) is formed where the break originally was making that area even stronger than the surrounding bone that wasn't broken. Over time the callous disappears and the bone is remodeled to its original shape.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The fact is that Ellsbury has played in 90+% of all possible games other than the years when the two freak injuries occurred when he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I suggest that he's no more "injury prone" than any other player who picks up occasional bumps, bruises and strains.

     

    Ellsbury did not call off Beltre, which caused the collision. It was not freaky bad luck. He caused his own in jury to happen. This year, he did it again, but avoided a bad collision.

    Sox4ever

     



    The problem is that some flyballs become very difficult to call.  That's why you still see collisions.

     

    I've had one collision.  The ball was right in between me and the CF.  I didn't call for it because I wasn't sure I could get to it.  I assume the CF did likewise.  For anyone with more experience than me, do you call for the ball if you're not sure you can get to it?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The fact is that Ellsbury has played in 90+% of all possible games other than the years when the two freak injuries occurred when he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I suggest that he's no more "injury prone" than any other player who picks up occasional bumps, bruises and strains.

     

    Ellsbury did not call off Beltre, which caused the collision. It was not freaky bad luck. He caused his own in jury to happen. This year, he did it again, but avoided a bad collision.

    Sox4ever

     

     



    The problem is that some flyballs become very difficult to call.  That's why you still see collisions.

     

     

    I've had one collision.  The ball was right in between me and the CF.  I didn't call for it because I wasn't sure I could get to it.  I assume the CF did likewise.  For anyone with more experience than me, do you call for the ball if you're not sure you can get to it?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

    [/QUOTE]

    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are". 

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

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

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    The fact is that Ellsbury has played in 90+% of all possible games other than the years when the two freak injuries occurred when he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I suggest that he's no more "injury prone" than any other player who picks up occasional bumps, bruises and strains.

     

    Ellsbury did not call off Beltre, which caused the collision. It was not freaky bad luck. He caused his own in jury to happen. This year, he did it again, but avoided a bad collision.

    Sox4ever

     

     

     



    The problem is that some flyballs become very difficult to call.  That's why you still see collisions.

     

     

     

    I've had one collision.  The ball was right in between me and the CF.  I didn't call for it because I wasn't sure I could get to it.  I assume the CF did likewise.  For anyone with more experience than me, do you call for the ball if you're not sure you can get to it?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are". 

     

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

    [/QUOTE]

    I think we all do that to some extent.   True objectivity is hard to come by.   In baseball or anything else.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    The fact is that Ellsbury has played in 90+% of all possible games other than the years when the two freak injuries occurred when he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I suggest that he's no more "injury prone" than any other player who picks up occasional bumps, bruises and strains.

     

    Ellsbury did not call off Beltre, which caused the collision. It was not freaky bad luck. He caused his own in jury to happen. This year, he did it again, but avoided a bad collision.

    Sox4ever

     

     

     



    The problem is that some flyballs become very difficult to call.  That's why you still see collisions.

     

     

     

    I've had one collision.  The ball was right in between me and the CF.  I didn't call for it because I wasn't sure I could get to it.  I assume the CF did likewise.  For anyone with more experience than me, do you call for the ball if you're not sure you can get to it?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are". 

     

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

    [/QUOTE]


    +1

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

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    The fact is that Ellsbury has played in 90+% of all possible games other than the years when the two freak injuries occurred when he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I suggest that he's no more "injury prone" than any other player who picks up occasional bumps, bruises and strains.

     

    Ellsbury did not call off Beltre, which caused the collision. It was not freaky bad luck. He caused his own in jury to happen. This year, he did it again, but avoided a bad collision.

    Sox4ever

     

     

     



    The problem is that some flyballs become very difficult to call.  That's why you still see collisions.

     

     

     

    I've had one collision.  The ball was right in between me and the CF.  I didn't call for it because I wasn't sure I could get to it.  I assume the CF did likewise.  For anyone with more experience than me, do you call for the ball if you're not sure you can get to it?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are". 

     

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a real possibility.  I'm an accountant, so for me, I think in terms of pure numbers and formulae.  And BB is as formula-driven as almost any industry.  The team with the highest WAR is mostly likely to win.  The goal is to get the highest WAR/$$$.  The only limits are irreplacable players like aces, maybe closer.  That, in turn, leads me to prefer JBJ if only because he shouyld be okay (sb better than okay) for minimum wage.

    Past that, how many FA signings work out?  It has to be way less than 50%.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     



    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are".  

     

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

     

    Yes, think about it. You are "seeing things the way you are".

    A .355 OBP leadoff hitter is not worth $17-20M a year. The SBs and plus defense make up for some of the low OPS, but not enough to be worth that kind of commitment. Then, there is the injury question.

    Again, it's not like not signing Ellsbury will mean we don't spend that money elsewhere. I have never pretended that JBJ will equal the value of Ellsbury year one, but the $17-20M spent as wisely as Ben spent this past winter will go a long way to upgrading other positions and high need areas. The highly valued comp pick will probably help us deep into the future.

    Our payroll budget next year is currently going to be at about $150M after arbs are settled, including the $13M Lester option. That leaves us enought o sign Ellsbury and maybe Salty, but no big 1Bman. Spreading the money out more evenly can get us a very good OF'er, 1Bman, catcher, utility IF'er, and pen help.

    Is this Ellsbury-less line-up really any worse than the one with Ellsbury?

    No Ellsbury:

    1) Victorino CF

    2) Nava/Gomes LF

    3) Pedroia 2B

    4) Ortiz DH

    5) Napoli, Morneau, or Morales 1B

    6) Pence RF

    7) McCann C

    8) Boggy SS

    9) Middy 3B

    (Plus a comp draft pick in 2014)

     

    with Ellsbury 

    1) Ellsbury CF (maybe for just 120 games or less)

    2) Victorino RF

    3) Pedroia 2B

    4) Ortiz DH

    5) Nava/Gomes LF

    6) Carp/Nava 1B

    7) Salty/Ross C (Maybe we can afford Ellsbury and McCann)

    8) Boggy SS

    9) Middy 3B

     

    Then, as Ellsbury ages and production drops and/or injuries increase, how will the $17-20M spent be helping us win year after year?

     

    BTW, I wasn't "sold a couple months ago". I have held the position that no player with a profile like Ellsbury is worth $17-20+M a year, especially for 4+ years. When we signed Crawford, who had a better OPS and WAR than Ellsbury, I said his contract would "cripple us for years and years", and that he was no more than a "glorified platoon player". This is not some new fly-by opinion I developed overnight. I am not blind to the "anectdotal value" Ellsbury brings to the team. I watch the game. I love defense. I love speed. I love having him as a healthy leadoff hitter. There are intangibles that are not seen in stats. I get that. Really, I do. I just don't see them as countering the low OPS and pedestrian leadoff OBP.

     

     

    Sox4ever

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

     

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     



    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are".  

     

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

     

    Yes, think about it. You are "seeing things the way you are".

    A .355 OBP leadoff hitter is not worth $17-20M a year. The SBs and plus defense make up for some of the low OPS, but not enough to be worth that kind of commitment. Then, there is the injury question.

    Again, it's not like not signing Ellsbury will mean we don't spend that money elsewhere. I have never pretended that JBJ will equal the value of Ellsbury year one, but the $17-20M spent as wisely as Ben spent this past winter will go a long way to upgrading other positions and high need areas. The highly valued comp pick will probably help us deep into the future.

    Our payroll budget next year is currently going to be at about $150M after arbs are settled, including the $13M Lester option. That leaves us enought o sign Ellsbury and maybe Salty, but no big 1Bman. Spreading the money out more evenly can get us a very good OF'er, 1Bman, catcher, utility IF'er, and pen help.

    Is this Ellsbury-less line-up really any worse than the one with Ellsbury?

    No Ellsbury:

    1) Victorino CF

    2) Nava/Gomes LF

    3) Pedroia 2B

    4) Ortiz DH

    5) Napoli, Morneau, or Morales 1B

    6) Pence RF

    7) McCann C

    8) Boggy SS

    9) Middy 3B

    (Plus a comp draft pick in 2014)

     

    with Ellsbury 

    1) Ellsbury CF (maybe for just 120 games or less)

    2) Victorino RF

    3) Pedroia 2B

    4) Ortiz DH

    5) Nava/Gomes LF

    6) Carp/Nava 1B

    7) Salty/Ross C (Maybe we can afford Ellsbury and McCann)

    8) Boggy SS

    9) Middy 3B

     

    Then, as Ellsbury ages and production drops and/or injuries increase, how will the $17-20M spent be helping us win year after year?

     

    BTW, I wasn't "sold a couple months ago". I have held the position that no player with a profile like Ellsbury is worth $17-20+M a year, especially for 4+ years. When we signed Crawford, who had a better OPS and WAR than Ellsbury, I said his contract would "cripple us for years and years", and that he was no more than a "glorified platoon player". This is not some new fly-by opinion I developed overnight. I am not blind to the "anectdotal value" Ellsbury brings to the team. I watch the game. I love defense. I love speed. I love having him as a healthy leadoff hitter. There are intangibles that are not seen in stats. I get that. Really, I do. I just don't see them as countering the low OPS and pedestrian leadoff OBP.

     

     

    Sox4ever

     




    seems you BOTH see things as you areWink

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Yes, I realize some plays are in "no man's land" or "both man's land", but neither know it in time to call for it, but I have watched that play over and over many times, and I do not think it falls into either of those categories. In my opinion, Ellsbury had the ball easily and should have called for it. Beltre did his job by running hard until called off. He was never called off.

     

     

    There was a play this year that was also clearly Jacoby's ball. His lips never moved. He never called off the RF'er, and they nearly collided. I see a pattern of not following the fundementals of baseball. He increases the odds of getting injured.

     



    Slightly off topic - but not much - I have to wonder if Moon and I, along with many other unnamed posters here, aren't a product of a tag line someone had in the past.  "We don't see things as they are.  We see things as WE are".  

     

    In the case of Ellsbury, Moon became sold on the idea a couple of months ago that this team couldn't afford Ellsbury and still remain competitive, so he now sees everything related to Ells as being a reason to not sign him.

    I, OTOH, want to see Ells signed so I can overlook a lot or not put a lot of faith in "anecdotal evidence".  I tend to see his contributions to the team as overriding any negatives that might be there.

    Again, we don't see things as they are. We see things as WE are.

    Just something to think about.... Smile

     

    Yes, think about it. You are "seeing things the way you are".

    A .355 OBP leadoff hitter is not worth $17-20M a year. The SBs and plus defense make up for some of the low OPS, but not enough to be worth that kind of commitment. Then, there is the injury question.

    Again, it's not like not signing Ellsbury will mean we don't spend that money elsewhere. I have never pretended that JBJ will equal the value of Ellsbury year one, but the $17-20M spent as wisely as Ben spent this past winter will go a long way to upgrading other positions and high need areas. The highly valued comp pick will probably help us deep into the future.

    Our payroll budget next year is currently going to be at about $150M after arbs are settled, including the $13M Lester option. That leaves us enought o sign Ellsbury and maybe Salty, but no big 1Bman. Spreading the money out more evenly can get us a very good OF'er, 1Bman, catcher, utility IF'er, and pen help.

    Is this Ellsbury-less line-up really any worse than the one with Ellsbury?

    No Ellsbury:

    1) Victorino CF

    2) Nava/Gomes LF

    3) Pedroia 2B

    4) Ortiz DH

    5) Napoli, Morneau, or Morales 1B

    6) Pence RF

    7) McCann C

    8) Boggy SS

    9) Middy 3B

    (Plus a comp draft pick in 2014)

     

    with Ellsbury 

    1) Ellsbury CF (maybe for just 120 games or less)

    2) Victorino RF

    3) Pedroia 2B

    4) Ortiz DH

    5) Nava/Gomes LF

    6) Carp/Nava 1B

    7) Salty/Ross C (Maybe we can afford Ellsbury and McCann)

    8) Boggy SS

    9) Middy 3B

     

    Then, as Ellsbury ages and production drops and/or injuries increase, how will the $17-20M spent be helping us win year after year?

     

    BTW, I wasn't "sold a couple months ago". I have held the position that no player with a profile like Ellsbury is worth $17-20+M a year, especially for 4+ years. When we signed Crawford, who had a better OPS and WAR than Ellsbury, I said his contract would "cripple us for years and years", and that he was no more than a "glorified platoon player". This is not some new fly-by opinion I developed overnight. I am not blind to the "anectdotal value" Ellsbury brings to the team. I watch the game. I love defense. I love speed. I love having him as a healthy leadoff hitter. There are intangibles that are not seen in stats. I get that. Really, I do. I just don't see them as countering the low OPS and pedestrian leadoff OBP.

     

     

    Sox4ever



    I respect that.  We both see things as we are!  Smile

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    I respect that.  We both see things as we are!  Smile

    But, only one of sees things for what they really are, and that would be me.

    ;)

     

    BTW, I actually raised my initial suggested Ellsbury offer a couple months ago, so my stance has actually softened a bit. Originally, I said I would not go any higher than $80/5 or $90/6, but a couple months ago, I think I said something like, "I would not complain if we went $85/5 or $96/6".

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    The problem with Ellsbury is that he has Borras as an agent which is good for him and bad for the team. Borras never has his clients rush back from injuries because productivity can fall which affects the "Dollar Figure" of his clients especially when they are in a free agent "Walk Year". 

    That doesn't necessarily apply in every case.  I can't blame a player for not playing when he is hurt.  If a player exacerbates an existing injury, it will cost him money.  If Ells further damages his foot, or if Buchholz further damaged his shoulder, the RS aren't going to tell them 'thanks, we're going to give you the $25M in lost wages'.  If my company needs me to go to Syria, I'm going to politely decline.

    OTOH, if Boras cares only for his client's next contract, it would make sense to have him return to the field this year.  Missing the last month of the year, and the playoffs, is definitely not how you want to go into free agency.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    Compression fracture. Farrell expects him back during the regular season 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Ellsbury foot injury more than day to day 2nd opinion coming

    In response to J-BAY's comment:

    Compression fracture. Farrell expects him back during the regular season 




    Non-Displaced stress fracture JB...Is that the same thing?

     

Share