Re: Ellsbury speaks about his injury last year
posted at 8/10/2011 11:03 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Ellsbury speaks about his injury last year
[QUOTE]Ellsbury was groomed to play CF, though, and that's the difference. He played LF because they had Crisp and moved to CF and played it the entire 2009 season. As I remember him, I thought he made several spectacular plays in CF, looked like a guy who could field that position as well as a Johnny Damon (certainly from a speed, quickness factor, Damon clearly read balls and could go back on a ball with better judgment than Ells). I was very pleased with Ellsbury in CF, then there were all these stories about the UZR and how Ellsbury was deemed "questionable" by some of the rating systems. Then Cameron, a guy who was 38, not an upcoming Fryman, not an upcoming Reggie Smith, not a guy who HAS EVER MOVED ANOTHER GUY out of a position, especially with a history of bouncing from team to team. He's the guy who takes a player 12 years his junior and places him in LF, and then the manager tells us in a quote that he told Ellsbury not to worry, it was going to be a temporary 1-year thing, and he would be back in CF......ROY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AS SOMEONE I THINK KNOWS HIS BASEBALL, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY DEAD WRONG ON COMPARING GUYS LIKE ROSE, YAZ, HALL OF FAME PLAYERS TO JACOBY ELLSBURY AND THE REASONS THESE GUYS MOVED POSITIONS...ARod had to move to 3b for Jeter, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO MOVE FOR ALEX GONZALEZ.... As for Youkilis, he is far, far more versatile than Ellsbury. Jacoby is a CF who played LF because that's where the rookies got to play (Reddick, Kalish, etc), not because it was his natural position. Jacoby is a CF, he played a full CF in a 2009 playoff year, and he lost his spot, and you think that is perfectly ok....you know, maybe you and softy can have a cup of tea and tell me about the 2011 Ellsbury in CF, and then tell me again what year that Ellsbury has to change positions for the next over-the-hill 38-year-old fossil (signed to a 2-year contract). I thinke expitch was right. There was a master plan, and it backfired on Theo, and then it was all back to normal the next year. It was like the Bridge Year never happened, how lucky for Theo. He signs a LF for 142 Million on a team full of lefthanded hitters, and put Ellsbury back in CF. Makes so much sense, huh? Jesus, roy, you are full of it. (editor's note--I was out of line, but I stand by this, and I still respect 95 percent of your posts).
Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]
Ellsbury was groomed ... what the heck does that mean.
Yaz was groomed to be Williams replacement yet after three years, he moved for one season to CF. Didn't seem to hurt him. And LF at Fenway is the more glamour position even back then than CF.
All that groomed means is that the team sees you as the future major league team at that position. So 90 percent (or whatever, let's say a huge majority) of players are groomed for a certain position. It doesn't mean that they can't or won't be moved.
Players are moved all the time out of their original/ best position, sometimes short term, sometimes long term. I can't believe you making it out to be some sort of huge anomaly.
Yes, he payed LF because of Crisp and played it well. If Ellsbury was the young guy being groomed for CF, why didn't they move Crisp. Because Crisp was either A) the better CF or B) couldn't play LF. It might have been C) all of the above. But that's the point, Ellsbury could play LF.
(As an aside, Fryman was hardly an up-and-comer when he went to the Tribe. Like Cameron, he was an estabished player at his position. The difference was that he was only 29 but an eight-year veteran. But the point is, he was better than Thome and Thome, who had never even played 1B, agreed to make the move and worked hard in the offseason to prepare to play 1B).
Now this I don't get.
You said I'm dead wrong on comparing guys like Rose, Yaz, Hall of Fame players to Jacoby Ellsbury and the reasons these guys moved positions ... but you don't explain why.
Then you say A-Rod had to move to 3B for Jeter. He didn't have to move for Alex Gonzalez.
But that rationale, Rose and Yaz shouldn't have had to move because in those cases, they were moved for inferior players. The reasons they moved because the player brought in could only play that position and Rose and Yaz were versatile enough to move to different positions. And unlike Rose and Yaz, they were Gold Glovers being moved out of their positions for an inferiour player. Ellsbury was being moved out for a Gold Glover, a guy with a reputation around baseball as being one of the top two or three defensive CF'ers in the game, even at his age.
Your insistence that Youk is more versatile than Ellsbury is mystifying. Ellsbury can play all three OF positions and play them well. He just doesn't have a strong arm for RF. In a pinch, Ellsbury probably could play 1B and play 1B better than Youk can play LF. As for the other IF positions, it's moot because Ellsbury throws RF. Youk is a corner IF -- 3B and 1B. He was a butcher in LF, but played their in an emergency. You wouldn't put him anywhere near CF or RF. But let's put it this way -- Ellsbury is a versatile OF and Youk is a versatile IF.
There are two points you're arguing here.
The first point where you're on solid ground is moving Ellsbury for a 38-year-old player. That's fine if you don't like it. And guess what. I would have moved Cameron to LF and kept Ellsbury in CF. Ellsbury was younger and would likely wear down less. Cameron, even though he was in great shape, probably would have benefitted from playing in the smaller LF. I wasn't, however, going to get bent out of shape because the Sox decided to put Cameron in CF. He was a Gold Glover there. I didn't mind the Cameron signing short term, but if you didn't like, fine. People can have differing opinions on the matter.
The second point is you seem to be saying it's unreasonable in general to move a young player who is being "groomed" for a certain position to another position. And that's where you're on very shaky ground. There are plenty of other examples where the young player was moved from his best position for a variety of reasons. It's one thing to say Ellsbury shouldn't have been moved for a 38-year-old player you didn't want in the first place. It's quite another thing to say in general that the young up-and-coming CF shouldn't be moved for a year (or two) to another position for the betterment of the team. Why is Ellsbury so special when many players (Hall of Famers included) did the same thing.
And finally Danny, I'm disappointed. Here we are having a back-and-forth offering our different opinions on a subject and then you have to go all pi ss y at the end with that snide remark that included softy and imply that I've been a Ellsbury basher like he has. I've been as big a support of Ellsbury as anyone on his board. And I'm actually complimenting him by saying he should have easily moved to LF for a year or two then move back w/o it affecting him. If he didn't like it, the only reason would be ego and yeah, I'll criticize him for that.
(I'll ignore the full of it remark).