Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I do believe you reminded me a couple days ago Dempster wasn't a hitter so perhaps we can take the class together.

     

    If you are talking to me, you believed wrong. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

     

    Your argument on the 18 mil for 5 or 6 is valid Moon that's not my point although some would consider that a bargin.

    I actually think he might get over $20M a year. I don't consider 418M a bargain, but some GM might. Agreed.

     

    My point were your you were going way overboard on how easily we'll replace him and making poor assesment of the talent we'll have available.

    Please. Where did I ever come close to saying Ellsbury can be easily replaced? He can't. My point was this: the trade off is made. If we sign Ellsbury, we don't sign some others and will be weaker at other positions. That's a fact I have yet to even hear you acknowledge.

    The trade of is this:

    Sign Ellsbury, no comp pick, no upgrades at several other positions.

    Do not sign Ellsbury, yes comp pick, $18++M to spend to upgrade 1-4 of these openings: C, 1B, SS or 3B (whichever Boggy does not play), OF and RP.

    No, it's not going to be easy to replace what we lose in Ellsbury. It is a step down to JBJ and Vict in CF, but there is certainly a good hope that the pluses of the draft pick and maybe $20M a year to upgrade other positions can offset the loss in the OF.

     

    I don't think i'm wrong remembering you saying Bradley was ready to replace Ells earlier this year.  Better outfielder decent hitter with a good OBP  were the highlites you noted. Sorry i disagree.

    You are wrong. Once the season started and the draft pick was lost to any team trading for Ellsbury, I stopped arguing for trading Ellsbury.  I wanted JBJ to start the year in AAA. I wanted him called up and give a chgance in CF with Ellsbur moved to LF, but once Nava started killing the ball, that was not going to happen.

     

    I like to hope a root for the young kids but the fact is we'll suffer next year without him.

    Yes, and if we bring him back, we will "suffer" at 2-3 other positions due to lack of funds needed to upgrade.

     

    Yes i know he's gone already so i'll be polite and move on.

    I'm still saying the chance he returns here is less than 1%. I do not think Ben wants to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years, and if he did, it wouldn't be for Ellsbury. It might be for a 40+ HR type hitter.

    Sox4ever



    40 plus home run hitters are hard to find. Not a lot of GMs want to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years. Is it better to give big money , short term contracts to veteran mediocrities? Is that how to succeed? I think it is best to lock up your core players, develop your young players ( don't trade an Iglesias for a Peavy ) , sign free agents as needed , but carefully , and especially in today's game , explore the foreign free agent market. Letting your top players walk , and trying to improve through trades , is not the way to go. In short, don't spend on the likes of Napoli and Dempster, then try to economize when it comes to Ellsbury. 

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Im not knocking you, Moon, in fact I reallly like reading your Posts, but this one to me is a No-brainer.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I do believe you reminded me a couple days ago Dempster wasn't a hitter so perhaps we can take the class together.

     

    If you are talking to me, you believed wrong. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

     

    Your argument on the 18 mil for 5 or 6 is valid Moon that's not my point although some would consider that a bargin.

    I actually think he might get over $20M a year. I don't consider 418M a bargain, but some GM might. Agreed.

     

    My point were your you were going way overboard on how easily we'll replace him and making poor assesment of the talent we'll have available.

    Please. Where did I ever come close to saying Ellsbury can be easily replaced? He can't. My point was this: the trade off is made. If we sign Ellsbury, we don't sign some others and will be weaker at other positions. That's a fact I have yet to even hear you acknowledge.

    The trade of is this:

    Sign Ellsbury, no comp pick, no upgrades at several other positions.

    Do not sign Ellsbury, yes comp pick, $18++M to spend to upgrade 1-4 of these openings: C, 1B, SS or 3B (whichever Boggy does not play), OF and RP.

    No, it's not going to be easy to replace what we lose in Ellsbury. It is a step down to JBJ and Vict in CF, but there is certainly a good hope that the pluses of the draft pick and maybe $20M a year to upgrade other positions can offset the loss in the OF.

     

    I don't think i'm wrong remembering you saying Bradley was ready to replace Ells earlier this year.  Better outfielder decent hitter with a good OBP  were the highlites you noted. Sorry i disagree.

    You are wrong. Once the season started and the draft pick was lost to any team trading for Ellsbury, I stopped arguing for trading Ellsbury.  I wanted JBJ to start the year in AAA. I wanted him called up and give a chgance in CF with Ellsbur moved to LF, but once Nava started killing the ball, that was not going to happen.

     

    I like to hope a root for the young kids but the fact is we'll suffer next year without him.

    Yes, and if we bring him back, we will "suffer" at 2-3 other positions due to lack of funds needed to upgrade.

     

    Yes i know he's gone already so i'll be polite and move on.

    I'm still saying the chance he returns here is less than 1%. I do not think Ben wants to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years, and if he did, it wouldn't be for Ellsbury. It might be for a 40+ HR type hitter.

    Sox4ever

     



    40 plus home run hitters are hard to find. Not a lot of GMs want to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years. Is it better to give big money , short term contracts to veteran mediocrities? Is that how to succeed? I think it is best to lock up your core players, develop your young players ( don't trade an Iglesias for a Peavy ) , sign free agents as needed , but carefully , and especially in today's game , explore the foreign free agent market. Letting your top players walk , and trying to improve through trades , is not the way to go. In short, don't spend on the likes of Napoli and Dempster, then try to economize when it comes to Ellsbury. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly what I mean!! Thank-you.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Moon, why are you so worried about the payroll? It probably wont matter if they go over for 1 year as they can reset the next with all the contracts coming off and most likely a few low cost prospects.

    Do you really think that if they sign Ells, they are going to worry about going over for 1 year?

    I dont.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    He will likely get at least one ridiculous offer, after all these guys got these recent offers:

    Greinke $147M/6

    Hamilton $125M/5

    BJ Upton $75M/5

    Swisher  $56M/4

     

    Sox4ever

    [/QUOTE]

    I see Ellsbury as a better player than any of the OF's you listed and I'd gladly pay what Upton and Swisher got.  The one that concerns me is Hamilton's $125/5.  That concerns me because it proves that there are GM's out there with more money than brains and one of them might covet Ells.  If they do, Ells is gone. 

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I do believe you reminded me a couple days ago Dempster wasn't a hitter so perhaps we can take the class together.

     

    If you are talking to me, you believed wrong. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

     

    Your argument on the 18 mil for 5 or 6 is valid Moon that's not my point although some would consider that a bargin.

    I actually think he might get over $20M a year. I don't consider 418M a bargain, but some GM might. Agreed.

     

    My point were your you were going way overboard on how easily we'll replace him and making poor assesment of the talent we'll have available.

    Please. Where did I ever come close to saying Ellsbury can be easily replaced? He can't. My point was this: the trade off is made. If we sign Ellsbury, we don't sign some others and will be weaker at other positions. That's a fact I have yet to even hear you acknowledge.

    The trade of is this:

    Sign Ellsbury, no comp pick, no upgrades at several other positions.

    Do not sign Ellsbury, yes comp pick, $18++M to spend to upgrade 1-4 of these openings: C, 1B, SS or 3B (whichever Boggy does not play), OF and RP.

    No, it's not going to be easy to replace what we lose in Ellsbury. It is a step down to JBJ and Vict in CF, but there is certainly a good hope that the pluses of the draft pick and maybe $20M a year to upgrade other positions can offset the loss in the OF.

     

    I don't think i'm wrong remembering you saying Bradley was ready to replace Ells earlier this year.  Better outfielder decent hitter with a good OBP  were the highlites you noted. Sorry i disagree.

    You are wrong. Once the season started and the draft pick was lost to any team trading for Ellsbury, I stopped arguing for trading Ellsbury.  I wanted JBJ to start the year in AAA. I wanted him called up and give a chgance in CF with Ellsbur moved to LF, but once Nava started killing the ball, that was not going to happen.

     

    I like to hope a root for the young kids but the fact is we'll suffer next year without him.

    Yes, and if we bring him back, we will "suffer" at 2-3 other positions due to lack of funds needed to upgrade.

     

    Yes i know he's gone already so i'll be polite and move on.

    I'm still saying the chance he returns here is less than 1%. I do not think Ben wants to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years, and if he did, it wouldn't be for Ellsbury. It might be for a 40+ HR type hitter.

    Sox4ever

     



    40 plus home run hitters are hard to find. Not a lot of GMs want to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years. Is it better to give big money , short term contracts to veteran mediocrities? Is that how to succeed? I think it is best to lock up your core players, develop your young players ( don't trade an Iglesias for a Peavy ) , sign free agents as needed , but carefully , and especially in today's game , explore the foreign free agent market. Letting your top players walk , and trying to improve through trades , is not the way to go. In short, don't spend on the likes of Napoli and Dempster, then try to economize when it comes to Ellsbury. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox have known for a long time they weren't going to re-sign Ellsbury.  Other teams need him a lot more - teams that have no CF, or left-handed hitting, or struggle offensively.  Plus, they see him as an injury risk - if they enter a bidding war against teams that need him more, he'll never live up to the contract.  Even a short DL stint would make the contract a loss for the Sox.

    What you're saying makes sense, but not for Ellsbury, and not at the point of free agency.  Locking up core players means extensions where the team takes some risk, and the player doesn't fight for every dime.  Pedroia's extension is a perfect example - he could sit out a year, and the Sox could still come out ahead.

    We'll have to wait and see if trading Iglesias for Peavy pans out, but the Sox also got a guy who reaches triple-digits on the radar gun in Brayan Villareal, and when Peavy's contract is up, most likely a first round draft pick.  So the FO is balancing the moment with the future.  

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Ellsbury won a Gold Glove at Centerfield. Not an easy thing to do. Remember this is at the Major Leagues not Pawtucket.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    Ellsbury won a Gold Glove at Centerfield. Not an easy thing to do. Remember this is at the Major Leagues not Pawtucket.



    Jeter's won five.  GGs are kind of a joke.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I do believe you reminded me a couple days ago Dempster wasn't a hitter so perhaps we can take the class together.

     

    If you are talking to me, you believed wrong. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

     

    Your argument on the 18 mil for 5 or 6 is valid Moon that's not my point although some would consider that a bargin.

    I actually think he might get over $20M a year. I don't consider 418M a bargain, but some GM might. Agreed.

     

    My point were your you were going way overboard on how easily we'll replace him and making poor assesment of the talent we'll have available.

    Please. Where did I ever come close to saying Ellsbury can be easily replaced? He can't. My point was this: the trade off is made. If we sign Ellsbury, we don't sign some others and will be weaker at other positions. That's a fact I have yet to even hear you acknowledge.

    The trade of is this:

    Sign Ellsbury, no comp pick, no upgrades at several other positions.

    Do not sign Ellsbury, yes comp pick, $18++M to spend to upgrade 1-4 of these openings: C, 1B, SS or 3B (whichever Boggy does not play), OF and RP.

    No, it's not going to be easy to replace what we lose in Ellsbury. It is a step down to JBJ and Vict in CF, but there is certainly a good hope that the pluses of the draft pick and maybe $20M a year to upgrade other positions can offset the loss in the OF.

     

    I don't think i'm wrong remembering you saying Bradley was ready to replace Ells earlier this year.  Better outfielder decent hitter with a good OBP  were the highlites you noted. Sorry i disagree.

    You are wrong. Once the season started and the draft pick was lost to any team trading for Ellsbury, I stopped arguing for trading Ellsbury.  I wanted JBJ to start the year in AAA. I wanted him called up and give a chgance in CF with Ellsbur moved to LF, but once Nava started killing the ball, that was not going to happen.

     

    I like to hope a root for the young kids but the fact is we'll suffer next year without him.

    Yes, and if we bring him back, we will "suffer" at 2-3 other positions due to lack of funds needed to upgrade.

     

    Yes i know he's gone already so i'll be polite and move on.

    I'm still saying the chance he returns here is less than 1%. I do not think Ben wants to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years, and if he did, it wouldn't be for Ellsbury. It might be for a 40+ HR type hitter.

    Sox4ever

     

     



    40 plus home run hitters are hard to find. Not a lot of GMs want to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years. Is it better to give big money , short term contracts to veteran mediocrities? Is that how to succeed? I think it is best to lock up your core players, develop your young players ( don't trade an Iglesias for a Peavy ) , sign free agents as needed , but carefully , and especially in today's game , explore the foreign free agent market. Letting your top players walk , and trying to improve through trades , is not the way to go. In short, don't spend on the likes of Napoli and Dempster, then try to economize when it comes to Ellsbury. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox have known for a long time they weren't going to re-sign Ellsbury.  Other teams need him a lot more - teams that have no CF, or left-handed hitting, or struggle offensively.  Plus, they see him as an injury risk - if they enter a bidding war against teams that need him more, he'll never live up to the contract.  Even a short DL stint would make the contract a loss for the Sox.

     

    What you're saying makes sense, but not for Ellsbury, and not at the point of free agency.  Locking up core players means extensions where the team takes some risk, and the player doesn't fight for every dime.  Pedroia's extension is a perfect example - he could sit out a year, and the Sox could still come out ahead.

    We'll have to wait and see if trading Iglesias for Peavy pans out, but the Sox also got a guy who reaches triple-digits on the radar gun in Brayan Villareal, and when Peavy's contract is up, most likely a first round draft pick.  So the FO is balancing the moment with the future.  

    [/QUOTE]

    A big part of Pedroia's appeal is his reliability. If he sat out a year, we do not come out ahead. Villarreal is a throw in.  His hitting triple digits is a pipe dream.  If he could throw 100 mph with command, he would not have been traded. Other GMs are not stupid. 

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Maybe but he won one. Centerfield is all about speed, not arm. You need to cover ground. I remember growing up Paul Blair, dude could run. One of the best ever. Addequate arm like Ells. Nobody hit Homeplate 400 feet away. Catching the ball is the difference.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Ellsbury won a Gold Glove at Centerfield. Not an easy thing to do. Remember this is at the Major Leagues not Pawtucket.

     



    Jeter's won five.  GGs are kind of a joke.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They are not kind of a joke. Jeter won his because of his reputation and overall ability. Others were more deserving. That does not make the award a joke. In 2011 , Ellsbury did not commit a single error, while leading A.L. outfielders in putouts and making numerous highlight reel catches. He fully deserved the gold glove. You may not like it , but it is true. It was not a joke. 

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I do believe you reminded me a couple days ago Dempster wasn't a hitter so perhaps we can take the class together.

     

    If you are talking to me, you believed wrong. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

     

    Your argument on the 18 mil for 5 or 6 is valid Moon that's not my point although some would consider that a bargin.

    I actually think he might get over $20M a year. I don't consider 418M a bargain, but some GM might. Agreed.

     

    My point were your you were going way overboard on how easily we'll replace him and making poor assesment of the talent we'll have available.

    Please. Where did I ever come close to saying Ellsbury can be easily replaced? He can't. My point was this: the trade off is made. If we sign Ellsbury, we don't sign some others and will be weaker at other positions. That's a fact I have yet to even hear you acknowledge.

    The trade of is this:

    Sign Ellsbury, no comp pick, no upgrades at several other positions.

    Do not sign Ellsbury, yes comp pick, $18++M to spend to upgrade 1-4 of these openings: C, 1B, SS or 3B (whichever Boggy does not play), OF and RP.

    No, it's not going to be easy to replace what we lose in Ellsbury. It is a step down to JBJ and Vict in CF, but there is certainly a good hope that the pluses of the draft pick and maybe $20M a year to upgrade other positions can offset the loss in the OF.

     

    I don't think i'm wrong remembering you saying Bradley was ready to replace Ells earlier this year.  Better outfielder decent hitter with a good OBP  were the highlites you noted. Sorry i disagree.

    You are wrong. Once the season started and the draft pick was lost to any team trading for Ellsbury, I stopped arguing for trading Ellsbury.  I wanted JBJ to start the year in AAA. I wanted him called up and give a chgance in CF with Ellsbur moved to LF, but once Nava started killing the ball, that was not going to happen.

     

    I like to hope a root for the young kids but the fact is we'll suffer next year without him.

    Yes, and if we bring him back, we will "suffer" at 2-3 other positions due to lack of funds needed to upgrade.

     

    Yes i know he's gone already so i'll be polite and move on.

    I'm still saying the chance he returns here is less than 1%. I do not think Ben wants to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years, and if he did, it wouldn't be for Ellsbury. It might be for a 40+ HR type hitter.

    Sox4ever

     

     

     



    40 plus home run hitters are hard to find. Not a lot of GMs want to sign anyone for more than 4-5 years. Is it better to give big money , short term contracts to veteran mediocrities? Is that how to succeed? I think it is best to lock up your core players, develop your young players ( don't trade an Iglesias for a Peavy ) , sign free agents as needed , but carefully , and especially in today's game , explore the foreign free agent market. Letting your top players walk , and trying to improve through trades , is not the way to go. In short, don't spend on the likes of Napoli and Dempster, then try to economize when it comes to Ellsbury. 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox have known for a long time they weren't going to re-sign Ellsbury.  Other teams need him a lot more - teams that have no CF, or left-handed hitting, or struggle offensively.  Plus, they see him as an injury risk - if they enter a bidding war against teams that need him more, he'll never live up to the contract.  Even a short DL stint would make the contract a loss for the Sox.

     

     

    What you're saying makes sense, but not for Ellsbury, and not at the point of free agency.  Locking up core players means extensions where the team takes some risk, and the player doesn't fight for every dime.  Pedroia's extension is a perfect example - he could sit out a year, and the Sox could still come out ahead.

    We'll have to wait and see if trading Iglesias for Peavy pans out, but the Sox also got a guy who reaches triple-digits on the radar gun in Brayan Villareal, and when Peavy's contract is up, most likely a first round draft pick.  So the FO is balancing the moment with the future.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A big part of Pedroia's appeal is his reliability. If he sat out a year, we do not come out ahead. Villarreal is a throw in.  His hitting triple digits is a pipe dream.  If he could throw 100 mph with command, he would not have been traded. Other GMs are not stupid. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He has horrible command, but he does touch 100 MPH and he was a valuable reliever for Detroit last year.  He's more than a throw-in.  

    Pedroia's extension gives him $14M / year.  If he sat a year, he'd have to be worth $17M/year.  Fangraphs already has him at $17.4M for 2013.

     

     

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Ellsbury won a Gold Glove at Centerfield. Not an easy thing to do. Remember this is at the Major Leagues not Pawtucket.

     

     



    Jeter's won five.  GGs are kind of a joke.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They are not kind of a joke. Jeter won his because of his reputation and overall ability. Others were more deserving. That does not make the award a joke. In 2011 , Ellsbury did not commit a single error, while leading A.L. outfielders in putouts and making numerous highlight reel catches. He fully deserved the gold glove. You may not like it , but it is true. It was not a joke. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, the FO thinks Bradley's the better fielder, so if Ellsbury gets points for defense, it's only more fuel for the argument that other teams will need him more than we do.

     

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    It can't possibly be for less than !50 mil for 7 years. That's what he's worth and that's what he'l get---from someone!

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Sox just have to talk and dont be stupid. They can work it out. If Magament thinks JBJ can replace Ellsbury, we'll we will see.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    It can't possibly be for less than !50 mil for 7 years. That's what he's worth and that's what he'l get---from someone!

    Last offseason agent Scott Boras landed lefthand-hitting Gold Glove centerfielder Michael Bourn a four-year, $48 million contract (with a club option for a fifth year at $12 million) when Bourn was coming off a 6.1 WAR season in 155 games (at the same age Jacoby Ellsbury will be this offseason).

    Ellsbury has posted a WAR of 4.6 in 109 games this season (through Saturday) with 42 games remaining.

    Bourn remains a reasonable comp for Ellsbury.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Ellsbury won a Gold Glove at Centerfield. Not an easy thing to do. Remember this is at the Major Leagues not Pawtucket.

     

     

     



    Jeter's won five.  GGs are kind of a joke.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They are not kind of a joke. Jeter won his because of his reputation and overall ability. Others were more deserving. That does not make the award a joke. In 2011 , Ellsbury did not commit a single error, while leading A.L. outfielders in putouts and making numerous highlight reel catches. He fully deserved the gold glove. You may not like it , but it is true. It was not a joke. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, the FO thinks Bradley's the better fielder.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    link please?

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to hill55's comment:

     

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    It can't possibly be for less than !50 mil for 7 years. That's what he's worth and that's what he'l get---from someone!


    Last offseason agent Scott Boras landed lefthand-hitting Gold Glove centerfielder Michael Bourn a four-year, $48 million contract (with a club option for a fifth year at $12 million) when Bourn was coming off a 6.1 WAR season in 155 games (at the same age Jacoby Ellsbury will be this offseason).

     

     

    Ellsbury has posted a WAR of 4.6 in 109 games this season (through Saturday) with 42 games remaining.

    Bourn remains a reasonable comp for Ellsbury.



    You kidding me, just look up the stats. Not close, 9 HRs 57 rbi's best season. hahaah .303 BA this year he has 17 stolen bases.

     

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    Moon, why are you so worried about the payroll? It probably wont matter if they go over for 1 year as they can reset the next with all the contracts coming off and most likely a few low cost prospects.

    Do you really think that if they sign Ells, they are going to worry about going over for 1 year?

    I dont.



    If you think we can sign Ellsbury and fill he other needs we have without going too much over the limit, then please spell it out for us.

    I'd love to keep Ellsbury at any cost, and go way over the limit, but I just don't see us doing that. Yes, we can go over this year, and yes we lose a lot of slary after 2014, but you do realize, we lose some top talent too, and will have to find a Papi replacement. How "cheap" will that cost?

    My guess is our budget will be close to the limit. Maybe a little more. We can afford Ellsbury and not go over by much. We can sign Ellsbury and a few other bridge players and still compete. 

    I have never said signing Ellsbury will cripple us like I said with the Crawford signing. My point is simple. Losing Ellsbury will not be as bad as many here feel it will be. The money spent on Ellsbury can be spent on 2-3 free agents that should cancel out the loss in CF.

    Some of you guys make the argument that counting on JBJ and Vic to play CF is a big gamble, but I say so is counting on Middlebrooks instead of a FA corner IF'er. I say, so is counting on Boggy to play SS or 3B at 21 years old under the spotlight. So is counting on Ross, Lava and Vazquez at catcher.

    Sure, let's sign Ellsbury, MCCann, K Morales, Drew, and Crain. It's not money. It's very realistic. Henry's got the money. Yeah. Sign 'em all.

     

    The point is simple, whether our spending buget is $45M or $60M, if we spend $20M on Ellsbury, we'll have less to spend elsewhere. It's a very simple concept. The factors that make me lean towards not overpaying for Ellsbury are ...

    1) Bradley has a better chance of being MLB ready next year than Vazquez at C. I like Bradley in CF more than I like Middy at 3B or 1B. I like JBJ better than Carp/Nava at 1B. I like Bradlet in CF more than Dempster at SP or our 3 bottom relief pitchers.

    2) I like the comp pick we get when Ellsbury walks.

    3) I like a more balanced roster than having one guy make 1/9th to 1/10th of the entire budget.

    4) I like not signing guys to contarcts that carry 2-3 years beyong their prime. The Crawford, Beckett and a few others' delas should have taught us a lesson.

     

    If we end up signing Ellsbury, I will not be upset, but I do know Henry will not allow us to be the next Yankees. We will have a payroll budget. There will be some flex on the budget at times for the right player. I'm not sure Ben or I see Ellsbury as being "that guy" to break the bank on. He had a spectacular 2011 season and is having an excellent 2013 season. He's had injuries that are not "freak" as some here want to believe. He's struggled at times. He's not a sure bet to put up 2011/2013 type seasons for 5-6 straight years. I realize nobody is, but any choice we make is a gamble. 

    Maybe I'm minimizing Ellsbury's impact and projected perfomance level, but I think you guys may also be minimizing what $20M can buy added to the value of a draft pick along with the potential of JBJ and other OF options.

    It's not a clear advantage either way we go. If it's about having a $200M budget with Ells or a $190M buget without him, and Henry's OK with either one, then of course I am for having Ellsbury. My belief is that our budget will be the same with or without Ellsbury, so either way, we will be highly competitive next year and beyond.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    It can't possibly be for less than !50 mil for 7 years. That's what he's worth and that's what he'l get---from someone!

    Last offseason agent Scott Boras landed lefthand-hitting Gold Glove centerfielder Michael Bourn a four-year, $48 million contract (with a club option for a fifth year at $12 million) when Bourn was coming off a 6.1 WAR season in 155 games (at the same age Jacoby Ellsbury will be this offseason).

    Ellsbury has posted a WAR of 4.6 in 109 games this season (through Saturday) with 42 games remaining.

    Bourn remains a reasonable comp for Ellsbury.

    You kidding me, just look up the stats. Not close, 9 HRs 57 rbi's best season. hahaah

    Michael Bourn lacks Jacoby Ellsbury's single outlier season while Ellsbury lacks Bourn's consistency:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=2007&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

    Save the homeruns and RBI for fantasy baseball (although outside his 2011 season Ellsbury's best single-season totals have been 9 HR and 60 RBI ... much like Bourn's).

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Well, the FO thinks Bradley's the better fielder, so if Ellsbury gets points for defense, it's only more fuel for the argument that other teams will need him more than we do.

    I think JBj is a better fielder than Ellsbury, but I do not think Ben and john feel that way, otherwise, why didn't they start JBJ in CF and Ells in LF when they both played this year?

    Ells has LF experience.

     

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    Your wrong buddy, Ellsbury beats him in every catergory, stop looking at computer, and watch some real baseball. This year .275 avg,, got caught almost 50 % of the time stealing, dude whats wrong with you. 85 k's to 26 BB's

    99 hits for Bourne

    142 hits for Jacoby

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    If you think Bourne is as good as Ellsbury, you should be assigned to a two year seminar on trying to decipher exactly what " WAR " is all about. The nerd obsession with dubious " metrics " has replaced common sense. No one who knows the game would say that Bourne is on the same level.  

    Stabbed by Foulke.

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

    Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    [QUOTE]In response to hill55's comment:

     

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    It can't possibly be for less than !50 mil for 7 years. That's what he's worth and that's what he'l get---from someone!


    Last offseason agent Scott Boras landed lefthand-hitting Gold Glove centerfielder Michael Bourn a four-year, $48 million contract (with a club option for a fifth year at $12 million) when Bourn was coming off a 6.1 WAR season in 155 games (at the same age Jacoby Ellsbury will be this offseason).

    Ellsbury has posted a WAR of 4.6 in 109 games this season (through Saturday) with 42 games remaining.

    Bourn remains a reasonable comp for Ellsbury.

    You kidding me, just look up the stats. Not close, 9 HRs 57 rbi's best season. hahaah


    Michael Bourn lacks Jacoby Ellsbury's single outlier season while Ellsbury lacks Bourn's consistency:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=2007&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

     

    Save the homeruns and RBI for fantasy baseball.

    [/QUOTE]

    Steady games played is what helped Bourn get his deal.

    I happen to think Bourn was worth more than BJ Upton, but Atlanta's GM thought otherwise.

    I have to think Ellsbury will get more than both of these two. BJ got $75M/5, so that has to be the starting point for Jacoby.

    My guess is he gets at least $90M/5, and probably will get $105M/6 or $120M/7.

    I'd certainly pay him $48M/4 if he'd take it. I'd have to think about $75M/5, but I don't think that gets him, and there aren't many other worthy big ticket FAs out there this year.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share