Re: Ellsbury - The Market
posted at 10/14/2012 2:14 AM EDT
In response to notin's comment:
In response to Skadude22's comment:
Teams that operate this way typically do so more for budgetary reasons as opposed to actual strategy.
Anderson is not the guy to target. For one, I think trading Ellsbury would be done for top prospects, not for an impact player. Two, if you get back Anderson, do you honestly think the team as constructed (minus Ellsbury), is only one pitcher away from contending? You don't trade for impact players if you aren't close to competing, especially pitchers that only play once every 5 games. You trade Ellsbury for the best prospect package possible, or you don't trade him.
The idea is to load up on young talent. It increases the likelihood that you have prospects pan out, and it makes it more likely that you will have an influx of talent from the farm for the coming years. This creates extreme payroll flexibility (with the whole 6 years of control rule) and allows you the freedom to add that one piece when the time is right. This plan is predicated on the idea that you put a great deal of emphasis on scouting, so the prospects you get are guys that you are confident will develop and be successful.
All the years spent rebuilding represent lost revenue. Very doubtful the Sox spend 2013 trying to rebuild the attendance numbers in Portland and Pawtucket and hope it translates to Fenway down the road...
I disagree. Yes, it is financially the smarter way to go. But the teams that use this because of budget restraints approach it differently. Every time they get a player in the arbitration process. They either move him, or let him play out one arbitration season and then move him. The value of trading a player with multiple years of control left gets them more value, and allows them to utilize the cheapest years of the player's career, and get top dollar back when they cut bait.
That being said, I'm not suggesting the Red Sox do that. I'm saying that they are already in rebuild mode. They weren't close to competing this year, and obviously they recognized that it was not just because of injuries. Injuries didn't help, and they would have been better with a fully healthy team to start the year, but not enough to get them in the playoff race.
It seems safe to assume they won't throw money at guys that they think are not good fits. So this offseason, that eliminates most of the top free agents. They can build a decent team with guys like Hunter, Haren, LaRoche, Peavey, etc, but only on short term deals. Again, they'd be better than they are currently, but again, not good enough to be a serious contender. That being said, if they don't compete in 2013, and then they lose Ellsbury next winter, the best they get is either a 30 year old Ellsbury on a long term deal or a supplemental round pick. If they trade him now, they could get multiple prospects (in my opinion), and help speed up the rebuilding process. I'm not advocating trading away every player that gets to this point.
You could try to tie him up long term, or get the prospects, sign a one/two year stop gap, and get 6 years of Bradley to replace him after that. These prospects ideally would fill holes in your system, like a legitimate first base prospect and a top of the rotation starter. 2013 is a bridge year, get another set of high picks in the 2014 draft, draft well in 2013 with the #7 pick, and hope your farm makes great strides this year.
Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Bogaerts, Brentz, Bradley, Pedroia, Lavarnway/Saltalamacchia. Again the hole is 1B. So either you can trade some of those guys and go for it now, which seems unwise, or you keep them together and add prospects by subtracting a piece that is apparently going to be gone shortly anyways.