Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $100M/6 was too much anyways.

    I wish Jacoby all the luck in the world, except when he plays us.



    I know you're not one to pay him a lot of $$ for a long term, but, boy, I'm concerned about the offense without him.  This is the guy who made things go.  He's the best leadoff hitter this team has had in years and I'd hate to see where this team would have been without him.  Which is why I'd be willing to go six figures with him. 

    [/QUOTE]

    It will be a tough hole to fill, but with $100M a lot can be accomplished.

    Look what we got for about $100M last winter:

    $39M Victorino

    $26M Ortiz

    $13M Napoli

    $10M Gomes

    $9.5M Drew

    $4.25M Uehara

    [/QUOTE]

    comparing Ells 100 mil to one yr signings is comparing apples and oranges. 100 mil in one year is different than 100 mil over x years. If it was 5 yrs it then becomes 20 mil and maybe equal to another player which you then can debate the value of signing two guys to the same number.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to LagunaJose's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rameakap's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $100M/6 was too much anyways.

    I wish Jacoby all the luck in the world, except when he plays us.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know you're not one to pay him a lot of $$ for a long term, but, boy, I'm concerned about the offense without him.  This is the guy who made things go.  He's the best leadoff hitter this team has had in years and I'd hate to see where this team would have been without him.  Which is why I'd be willing to go six figures with him. 

    [/QUOTE]

    It will be a tough hole to fill, but with $100M a lot can be accomplished.

    Look what we got for about $100M last winter:

    $39M Victorino

    $26M Ortiz

    $13M Napoli

    $10M Gomes

    $9.5M Drew

    $4.25M Uehara

    [/QUOTE]

    Now Moon, you know that is 58 million in '13 salaries and Ellsbury would cost 18-22 million yearly.

    The real comparison is that you can pay Victorio, Gomes and a minor leaguer the same as you would pay Ellsbury. The team is not concerned about paying him 20 million the next 3 seasons. It is about paying him that much ages 34-36. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Great point. Keep everything on an annual basis.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, the annual basis is good for debate, but the length of Ellsbury's deal could be a burden and keep us from signing a Victorino and Uehara in 2014 and again in 2017.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $100M/6 was too much anyways.

    I wish Jacoby all the luck in the world, except when he plays us.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know you're not one to pay him a lot of $$ for a long term, but, boy, I'm concerned about the offense without him.  This is the guy who made things go.  He's the best leadoff hitter this team has had in years and I'd hate to see where this team would have been without him.  Which is why I'd be willing to go six figures with him. 

    [/QUOTE]

    It will be a tough hole to fill, but with $100M a lot can be accomplished.

    Look what we got for about $100M last winter:

    $39M Victorino

    $26M Ortiz

    $13M Napoli

    $10M Gomes

    $9.5M Drew

    $4.25M Uehara

    [/QUOTE]

    comparing Ells 100 mil to one yr signings is comparing apples and oranges. 100 mil in one year is different than 100 mil over x years. If it was 4 yrs it then becomes equal to Ortiz which you then can debate the value of signing two important guys to the same number.

    [/QUOTE]

    I get that, but the point I was making was you can sign all the guys like on this list, but spread out over 6 seasons. It is a relevent point to make.

    $39M Victorino 3 yrs

    $26M Ortiz 2 yrs

    $13M Napoli 1 yr

    $10M Gomes 2 yrs

    $9.5M Drew 1 yr

     

    $8.5M Uehara 2 yrs

     

    That's a total of 11 seasons from these guys for 6 of Jacoby.

    Sometimes comparing apples to oranges has some merit, but I do realize the yearly basis is important too, especially with a luxury tax.

    In summary, we could not pay all of these players for 2014 at an equal yearly cost of Jacoby, but if you spread out their contracts over 6 years, it would be equal, so the comparison has some meaning:

     

    Which would you rather have?

     

    6 years of Jacoby

    or

    11 years of players like on this list spread out over 6 seaasons at shorter term deals.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    Its time for Ellesbury & BORA$$ to go ... There is life after Jacoby !!!!

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In addition to his total bases via steals with Ellsbury it might be interesting to calculate how many bases he induced through errors caused by his speed. That would involve errant throws to any base which advance Ellsbury and anyone else on base at the time who advances along with Ellsbury due to an error generated by Ellsbury. 
    There may not be available stats on that kind of thing but I wonder how many times Ellsbury's speed forced as rushed throw to first with the result Ellsbury being on second? 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to Eternalsummer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wish the Sox and El had been able to get her done by splitting the difference on his request v. their offer. This could have been closed with a solid offer of $80- $90M with a stretch to $100M -- if he's healthy throughout! There are few out there as athletic.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well from all reports ... Right after the parade ,Ells couldn't get out of town fast enough . I guess he wasn't only fast on the bases ? Ibelieve that if a player really wants to play of a team , they can get a real great deal worked out. But on the business over the team thing they take the money and run. Really how much is enough? What if nobody knew what the other player was making? Maybe they should post what everyone makes on all jobs?  That would make for a great day at work ????

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $100M/6 was too much anyways.

    I wish Jacoby all the luck in the world, except when he plays us.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know you're not one to pay him a lot of $$ for a long term, but, boy, I'm concerned about the offense without him.  This is the guy who made things go.  He's the best leadoff hitter this team has had in years and I'd hate to see where this team would have been without him.  Which is why I'd be willing to go six figures with him. 

    [/QUOTE]

    It will be a tough hole to fill, but with $100M a lot can be accomplished.

    Look what we got for about $100M last winter:

    $39M Victorino

    $26M Ortiz

    $13M Napoli

    $10M Gomes

    $9.5M Drew

    $4.25M Uehara

    [/QUOTE]

    comparing Ells 100 mil to one yr signings is comparing apples and oranges. 100 mil in one year is different than 100 mil over x years. If it was 4 yrs it then becomes equal to Ortiz which you then can debate the value of signing two important guys to the same number.

    [/QUOTE]

    I get that, but the point I was making was you can sign all the guys like on this list, but spread out over 6 seasons. It is a relevent point to make.

    $39M Victorino 3 yrs

    $26M Ortiz 2 yrs

    $13M Napoli 1 yr

    $10M Gomes 2 yrs

    $9.5M Drew 1 yr

     

    $8.5M Uehara 2 yrs

     

    That's a total of 11 seasons from these guys for 6 of Jacoby.

    Sometimes comparing apples to oranges has some merit, but I do realize the yearly basis is important too, especially with a luxury tax.

    In summary, we could not pay all of these players for 2014 at an equal yearly cost of Jacoby, but if you spread out their contracts over 6 years, it would be equal, so the comparison has some meaning:

     

    Which would you rather have?

     

    6 years of Jacoby

    or

    11 years of players like on this list spread out over 6 seaasons at shorter term deals.

    [/QUOTE]

    It just isn't the same. A fairer point would what is worth more Drew and Napoli or Ellsbury. Those are about equal cost(the former costing more than the latter). 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its time for Ellesbury & BORA$$ to go ... There is life after Jacoby !!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    You realize Boras represent a few players on the team including Bradley?

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    How is it all these other teams can pay Ellsbury but the Red Sox can't? 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bigdog1's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    If Ellsbury really wanted to stay he would have taken the 6/100 million contract.  I wish him luck in the future!  But no way do I go anymore than that!  Take the pick and move on and keep building.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree.  Like paps, I think he just had his mind set on going ellswhere.

    That said, I think JBJ will be fine.  Not as good as Ells, but if he can be 75% of Ells, the $18M per that we save can cure a lot of ills.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily "elsewhere"; just wherever the most money is. If its here, he will stay here (unlikely). Can't really blame him for wanting to cash in like that. This is a business, first and foremost.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How is it all these other teams can pay Ellsbury but the Red Sox can't? 

    [/QUOTE]

    All what other teams?  Which teams have offers on the table and how much?

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In addition to his total bases via steals with Ellsbury it might be interesting to calculate how many bases he induced through errors caused by his speed. That would involve errant throws to any base which advance Ellsbury and anyone else on base at the time who advances along with Ellsbury due to an error generated by Ellsbury. 
    There may not be available stats on that kind of thing but I wonder how many times Ellsbury's speed forced as rushed throw to first with the result Ellsbury being on second? 

    [/QUOTE]


    I guarantee you Bora$ and his team will have all these stats in his JE packet he will hand to teams.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Not necessarily "elsewhere"; just wherever the most money is. If its here, he will stay here (unlikely). Can't really blame him for wanting to cash in like that. This is a business, first and foremost.

    [/QUOTE]


    Agreed. Sometimes one of the fastest ways OUT of town is to sign a team-friendly contract.  Without wanting to get into whether it was a good trade or not, Bronson Arroyo wanted to stay in Boston so he signed for less than he could have gotten elsewhere .  He was promptly traded to Cincinnatti for Wily Mo Pena because the Sox felt they had a surplus of pitching, they wanted to add some power to the lineup, and Arroyo had a financially manageable contract for the Reds. 

    Had he held out for more money he could most likely have remained where he wanted to stay... in Boston. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its time for Ellesbury & BORA$$ to go ... There is life after Jacoby !!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    billy, you can offer him a polio infested blanket like the good ol' days......

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $100M/6 was too much anyways.

    I wish Jacoby all the luck in the world, except when he plays us.



    I know you're not one to pay him a lot of $$ for a long term, but, boy, I'm concerned about the offense without him.  This is the guy who made things go.  He's the best leadoff hitter this team has had in years and I'd hate to see where this team would have been without him.  Which is why I'd be willing to go six figures with him. 

    [/QUOTE]

    It will be a tough hole to fill, but with $100M a lot can be accomplished.

    Look what we got for about $100M last winter:

    $39M Victorino

    $26M Ortiz

    $13M Napoli

    $10M Gomes

    $9.5M Drew

    $4.25M Uehara

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't necessarily agree with this post moon - and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.  You are talking about $100Million over the course of 5-7 years in one instance (regarding Jake) and then tying it into $100million in one season.  I think it would be more accurate to say look what $20-25million bought us last year when making the comparison to Jake.. it would have bought us Gomes & Drew..

    I see the point you are trying to make but it feels like you are skewing the numbers a little to fit your point.  Jake would make approximately 20-25 million next year..not 100million.

    EDIT: Sorry, didn't see the second page of responses.. didnt mean to be repetetive!

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In addition to his total bases via steals with Ellsbury it might be interesting to calculate how many bases he induced through errors caused by his speed. That would involve errant throws to any base which advance Ellsbury and anyone else on base at the time who advances along with Ellsbury due to an error generated by Ellsbury. 
    There may not be available stats on that kind of thing but I wonder how many times Ellsbury's speed forced as rushed throw to first with the result Ellsbury being on second? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I did that once. I added SB to his total bases and it upped his SLG% considerably, but I also took away his CS'ing from his OBP. His OPs was still not spectacular.

    Ellsbury has gotten a lot better at baserunning beyond SBs, but he has run into several outs as well, so we'd have to take away some of what we give him for speed.

    Look, Ellsbury is a big force leading off for this team. His OBP could be a little higher, but he's a great #1 hitter. Personally, I'd sacrifice some of his power and speed for a higher OBP, but that's not how it works.

    We will miss him when he goes to the highest bhidder, but nobody on this team is going to shatter our chances of winning next year by leaving or getting hurt. This team without Ellsbury can still win, if we allocate the money saved wisely.

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    How does the 18-20 million "saved" on Ellsbury cure a lot of ills? Do you go out and pay two solid players nine million each? Or do you sign someone other than Ellsbury for 18-20 million? 

    Don't the Red Sox have a surplus of good solid players? How many at bats did Nava and Carp get in the post-season? 

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How does the 18-20 million "saved" on Ellsbury cure a lot of ills? Do you go out and pay two solid players nine million each? Or do you sign someone other than Ellsbury for 18-20 million? 

    Don't the Red Sox have a surplus of good solid players? How many at bats did Nava and Carp get in the post-season? 

    [/QUOTE]

    We have 4 major holes to fill:

    C

    CF

    1B

    SS/3B

    We have about $30M to spend and stay under the limit. You tell me how spending 2/3rds of that on one guy is going to solve the other 3 holes?

    To me, the drop off from Ellsbury to JBJ and a cheap back-up will be noticable, but keeping Ellsbury at $20M/yr and trying to fill the other slots in-house and with just $10M will show a steeper decline in production than trying to spend $30M on 3-5 guys instead of 2-3.

    Is Middy going to outplay Drew's 2013 season? Carp over Napoli? Lava over Salty? 

    We can't have it all.

     

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    You absolutely subtract the times caught stealing. However I would make a case you could add in bases by people in front of or behind him which are taken as a result of Ellsbury "forcing" an error. 
    For example a hypothetical. Man on second Ellsbury at the plate hits a ground ball to third. The third baseman must take a moment to check back the runner at second, and then rushes his throw to first because of Ellsbury's speed resulting in a throwing error with the runner on second scoring and Ellsbury advancing to third on the throw home. 
    That's five total bases. 

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    One thing people forget is that the Sox already paid Ellsbury 9 mil this year. Drew got 10 mil. So , if you simply let Drew walk, and put Bogaerts at short, you could sign Ellsbury without adding a cent to the payroll. To suggest that the Red Sox cannot compete with the Mariners for free agents is preposterous. It really all comes down to how much the Sox really want to keep Ellsbury. My feeling is that they are willing to move on without him. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How is it all these other teams can pay Ellsbury but the Red Sox can't? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Are you saying like the Yankees?  and where did thier fat payroll get them? Or any other team with fat payrolls get them?  OH ! But the sox can.... Maybe ,just maybe Sox will try a different way to win? Do you think it worked for them?...........Thats your answer.......

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

    Re: Is It Really Smart of the Sox to Low-Ball Ellsbury


    Ellsbury is a unique talent with speed to burn and a pretty good swing.  He led MLB in SB's with a high success rate while hitting around .300.  Good enough glove to be a finalist for a gold glove in CF.  But I honestly think Boras has Ellsbury convinced he can get what the Sox very unwisely gave to Carl Crawford--7 years, $140M or thereabouts.  Ells, good as he is (and he will be missed beyond question), is just not worth that kind of money.  For $20M X 7, you need a lot bigger bat. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share