Re: Is time to give Ellsbury a 4 year deal for 60M?
posted at 8/11/2013 10:07 PM EDT
In response to southpaw777'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.
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'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.