Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?
posted at 8/11/2013 9:43 PM EDT
In response to dgalehouse's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to dgalehouse's comment:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.