Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?
posted at 8/12/2013 2:24 PM EDT
In response to moonslav59's comment:
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.
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?
All I said was If we go to over the limit (maybe200M) for 1 year it wont kill us and it wouldnt be an unrealistic possibility.
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?
who knows, maybe papi will still be worth resigning for another year after 2014. Trades can be made, new talent has another year to perform. The FA market will have to set itself after the 2014 season. I guess all that factors in and we cant answer that question until some of these other questions are answered first.
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.
That was pretty much my idea. We will try a few prospects and sign another stop gap for a year or 2. No big money on a FA. Just our own proven talent.
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.
I never said you said it would cripple us. But it does depend on how our kids do, whos available on the market, how much they will cost and the years.
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.
I have no issue giving our prospects a shot. We have some good vets on this team that will help them. Im also realistic about it and I do expect some adjustments and rough patches making the transition from AAA to MLB. It just has to be the right balance of kids and vets. I believe ben has a good handle on that.
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.
No need to get all snarky again like you have been lately when a simple statement like mine is made.
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 ...
I wouldnt spend 20M on Ells. My number has always been 16-17M for 5 years. Since this is a reply to my post I figure you should stick with the offer I suggested.
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.
I think if Ells was signed to a 5yr (maybe 6 with a performance based vesting option), Ells could easily perform thru age 34, he will turn 35 at the end of the year on his 5th year. Unless you think he will fall off a cliff at age 32.
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.
Yes, they were "freak"injuries. Its not like he pulls a hammy every year or tweaks his back, or strains his knee. Running into beltre and then Tommy Hunter injuring his ribs and having sa player land on his is NOT your normal injuries Moon. Hes a safe bet to be a .300BA .360+OBP with some "pop" as well as stealing 40-50 bags a year.
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.
If Henry is going to go over by 1-2M, then he will probably go over by 11M for ONE year. If we do pay Ells 16M like I suggested we would have just under 60M owed for 2015. then about 30M for 2016. Maybe Ben will make a trade and rid us of some payroll too. If he trades Dempster and takes on 3M, then weve gained 10M towards our budget. Theres all sorts of ways to make it work and I believe there will be some trades this winter.