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 notin's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Bourne struckout 155 times last year, thats hilarious.

     

     

     

     




    One thing to remember. Hill is an anti Red Sox troll. Moonslav is not yet onto that fact.  Hopefully , he will come to see that.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I respect hill more than many Sox fans. i know he is a Seattle fan, but that doesn't bother me. hill uses the same criteria for everyone in MLB. I think he over uses WAR, but at least he is consistent with his criteria and doesn't cherrypick sample timeframes and differing stats to suit his position.

     

     

     

    He's not a troll. Not even close. I'll never "come to see that", because it isn't true.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Now , why would a Seattle fan continually come onto a Red Sox forum and try to provoke Sox fans ?  What would you call that ?  

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Is there anything that does not bother you? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I am trying to think of something that does not bother me , Notin. You are not on the list of possibles. 

     
  2. 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 moonslav59's comment:

    Hill, were you a Seattle Pilots fan?

    I was in Milwaukee when they moved there.



    Only from the standpoint of reading Ball Four as a teenager in 1970.

    I grew up a Minnesota Twins fan in Iowa, but later shifted by allegiances to the Kansas City Royals and then to the Colorado Rockies. I moved to the Pacific Northwest two weeks before the baseball strike in 1994 and became hooked on the Mariners the follow year during their magical run to the American League Championship Series.

    Four years ago this month I had planned to attend the 40-year reunion of the 1969 Seattle Pilots (the public was invited), but I broke my wrist in a bicycle accident that morning and missed the afternoon reunion. I had to settle on watching Jim Bouton and the other Pilot players being introduced at the Mariner game that evening.

     
  3. 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:

    There is no way I can give you a top offer. That is just a game some are playing. It is up to John Henry how much he wants to spend. I have no idea. I did say that anything less than what he gave Pedroia will not get it done. Take it from there. I have no top offer to give with someone else's money. I will not be the one to complain if he signs elsewhere. I will leave that to others. They can complain and curse Boras.  And they can continue to speculate on how we can win another championship by refusing to spend money on the top talent, while giving big money , short term contracts to veteran ham and eggers. We can continue to develop our prospects. And then , trade an Iglesias for a Peavy.  And , we can continue to hope that a kid like Cecchini can be our salvation. We can go on like that for years to come. There will always be more prospects to become excited about. Finally , we can continue to try and get lucky with the Dempsters, while others sign guys like Greinke and Sanchez.  I am not trying to be totally negative. We have had a great season so far. I am just trying to say that we cannot hope to compete with the other big market teams without spending the money. Posters can have fun playing with numbers  and trying to put together a fantasy lineup.  No problem with that. In the end , there is a reason why the big market, big spending teams have won so many championships. What do we want to be ? 

    I had a feeling you'd ride the fence.

    Now, you can come back later and argue either side.

    Sox4ever



    I think that I have made it clear where I stand on every issue. If you think that is " riding the fence " , I don't know what else to tell you. You might not like what I say , but I am certainly not riding the fence. How in the world can someone be called opinionated and riding the fence in the same thread ?  I think it is useless for people to give dollar amounts when talking about other people's money. I don't think there is a poster on here who more clearly states their feelings. I could not care less as to whether you or anyone else agrees. I say what I believe. I don't ride any fences. 

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

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

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

    Ask him if he'll sign for 75m/3Undecided



    $25M per? No way.

     
  5. 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 dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    There is no way I can give you a top offer. That is just a game some are playing. It is up to John Henry how much he wants to spend. I have no idea. I did say that anything less than what he gave Pedroia will not get it done. Take it from there. I have no top offer to give with someone else's money. I will not be the one to complain if he signs elsewhere. I will leave that to others. They can complain and curse Boras.  And they can continue to speculate on how we can win another championship by refusing to spend money on the top talent, while giving big money , short term contracts to veteran ham and eggers. We can continue to develop our prospects. And then , trade an Iglesias for a Peavy.  And , we can continue to hope that a kid like Cecchini can be our salvation. We can go on like that for years to come. There will always be more prospects to become excited about. Finally , we can continue to try and get lucky with the Dempsters, while others sign guys like Greinke and Sanchez.  I am not trying to be totally negative. We have had a great season so far. I am just trying to say that we cannot hope to compete with the other big market teams without spending the money. Posters can have fun playing with numbers  and trying to put together a fantasy lineup.  No problem with that. In the end , there is a reason why the big market, big spending teams have won so many championships. What do we want to be ? 

    I had a feeling you'd ride the fence.

    Now, you can come back later and argue either side.

    Sox4ever

     



    I think that I have made it clear where I stand on every issue. If you think that is " riding the fence " , I don't know what else to tell you. You might not like what I say , but I am certainly not riding the fence. How in the world can someone be called opinionated and riding the fence in the same thread ?  I think it is useless for people to give dollar amounts when talking about other people's money. I don't think there is a poster on here who more clearly states their feelings. I could not care less as to whether you or anyone else agrees. I say what I believe. I don't ride any fences. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you haven't made it clear.

    You clearly want Ellsbury, but if some other GM offers him $200M/9, and the Sox let him walk, I can see one of two things happening down the road:

    1) Ellsbury does great, and you come on here and say, "See, I told you we should have done what it took to get him to stay here."

    2) Ellsbury does less than expected, and you say, "I never would have paid more than that to get him."

     

    Look, I understand your point about money. We all know Henry can afford a $500M payroll even with all the luxury taxes tagged on, but be realistic; it's not going to happen. It's okay to may statements based on the assumption that we have a somewhat limited payroll budget of close to the luxury tax limt- maybe a little more. How hard is it for you to make a suggested offer based on the idea that our payroll will be somewhere between $185M and $195M? We will still know your views on Henry and budgets, but we're talking about the most likely scenario and asking for your suggestion within the framework given.

    Even the Yankees have given up on the throw money at every need area concept. The Dodgers are giving a go at it, but the Sox clearly are working within paramneters set by Henry- like it or not. Justified or not.

     

     
  6. 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 TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Ask him if he'll sign for 75m/3Undecided

     



    $25M per? No way.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's your tippy top offer of take it or walk? (Assuming another GM is bidding you up to your max.)

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

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

    I'd say my top offer to Ellsbury would be something like 5 years, 87.5 million.

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

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

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    It's hard to know where some here really stands on this issue. They say we should sign Ellsbury, but then mention a low price.

    Let's get everyone on record for waht really counts:

    What's the most you'd offer Ellsbury for a 5 or 6 years deal in a bidding war?

    Earlier this year, I think I said I'd offer $68M/5 and $80M/6 tops and that it wouldn't be enough, so he'd walk.

    I'm going to update my offers to this (I suppose they could change a little depending on the end of the season):

    $75M/5 years

    $87M/6 years

    I would not complain too loudly if we offered $80M/5 or $90M/6.

    I still think those numbers won't land him, but what is the highest you guys would go to keep him here?

    If he signs for more elsewhere, I don't want any of you guys saying you we should have ourbid the other guys if Ellsbury goes on to greatness for the next 5-6 years.

    Give me your tippy top offer- no regrets if he signs for more.

    Sox4ever

    For me, it's more about the number of years than it is about the dollar amount. I would not offer more than 5 years guaranteed, and even with that, I would prefer offering more money for 4 years (I know that is not going to happen).

    In terms of the dollar amount, I think that can somewhat change depending on how the market is unfolding during the offseason. Also, it depends on what other moves are made in addition. If we are able to fill another need at a fairly low cost, than we can afford to pay more for Ellsbury. Your dollar amount of about $16 mil per year sounds about right as a max.  So, if he can't be signed for $80M/5 yrs, the correct decision would be to let him walk.

    That said, I would really like to see Jacoby back. While I think long term contracts are generally a mistake and I would prefer the Sox stay away from them, I will not complain if the Sox sign him for $126M/7 yrs or some other huge contract, because I will be excited to have him back.

    Maybe it sounds like I'm riding the fence, and maybe I am, but that's the 'GM' thinking versus the 'fan' thinking. Thinking rationally, I can understand why the FO lets many of their FAs walk, and this is usually the right move. Thinking emotionally, the fan in me can't help but get excited when we sign good players.

    Even though I think it was the right move to let Papelbon walk for the amount he was asking, I would not have been upset if the Sox had re-signed him. Even though I thought Crawford's contract was 2 years too long, I was not at all upset when the Sox signed him.

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

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

    It's the toughest call with Ells.  Someone is going to give over $100 and over 5 years and we won't and shouldn't match that.  What makes it tough are his long stays on the dl.  And he's about 30, so going forward he won't be less prone to injury.  I love him as a ballplayer, he's fleet and can hit .300 and hits homers sometimes too, and in 2011 he even hit 30 plus homers, which makes him difficult to peg.  I guess you can count on maybe 10-15 homers from ells, but maybe 2 and maybe 28?  And then on top of that is our recent history with these long-term expensive contracts, and not just ours.  Seems like these long-term $100 million plus contracts nearly always turn out to be a bad deal for the team.  They're regretted more often than not.  People want to give him whatever it takes, but that's because he's on a hot streak and he's healthy right now, and they think he'll continue to be exactly this for the next 6 years.  Could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.  5/80 or 6/95 would be my top offer, and I'd be somewhat relieved when he didn't accept.

     
  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 moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    There is no way I can give you a top offer. That is just a game some are playing. It is up to John Henry how much he wants to spend. I have no idea. I did say that anything less than what he gave Pedroia will not get it done. Take it from there. I have no top offer to give with someone else's money. I will not be the one to complain if he signs elsewhere. I will leave that to others. They can complain and curse Boras.  And they can continue to speculate on how we can win another championship by refusing to spend money on the top talent, while giving big money , short term contracts to veteran ham and eggers. We can continue to develop our prospects. And then , trade an Iglesias for a Peavy.  And , we can continue to hope that a kid like Cecchini can be our salvation. We can go on like that for years to come. There will always be more prospects to become excited about. Finally , we can continue to try and get lucky with the Dempsters, while others sign guys like Greinke and Sanchez.  I am not trying to be totally negative. We have had a great season so far. I am just trying to say that we cannot hope to compete with the other big market teams without spending the money. Posters can have fun playing with numbers  and trying to put together a fantasy lineup.  No problem with that. In the end , there is a reason why the big market, big spending teams have won so many championships. What do we want to be ? 

    I had a feeling you'd ride the fence.

    Now, you can come back later and argue either side.

    Sox4ever

     

     



    I think that I have made it clear where I stand on every issue. If you think that is " riding the fence " , I don't know what else to tell you. You might not like what I say , but I am certainly not riding the fence. How in the world can someone be called opinionated and riding the fence in the same thread ?  I think it is useless for people to give dollar amounts when talking about other people's money. I don't think there is a poster on here who more clearly states their feelings. I could not care less as to whether you or anyone else agrees. I say what I believe. I don't ride any fences. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you haven't made it clear.

     

    You clearly want Ellsbury, but if some other GM offers him $200M/9, and the Sox let him walk, I can see one of two things happening down the road:

    1) Ellsbury does great, and you come on here and say, "See, I told you we should have done what it took to get him to stay here."

    2) Ellsbury does less than expected, and you say, "I never would have paid more than that to get him."

     

    Look, I understand your point about money. We all know Henry can afford a $500M payroll even with all the luxury taxes tagged on, but be realistic; it's not going to happen. It's okay to may statements based on the assumption that we have a somewhat limited payroll budget of close to the luxury tax limt- maybe a little more. How hard is it for you to make a suggested offer based on the idea that our payroll will be somewhere between $185M and $195M? We will still know your views on Henry and budgets, but we're talking about the most likely scenario and asking for your suggestion within the framework given.

    Even the Yankees have given up on the throw money at every need area concept. The Dodgers are giving a go at it, but the Sox clearly are working within paramneters set by Henry- like it or not. Justified or not.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, I am not going to give some made up ceiling number of what I think Henry should spend. It depends on what the market is, and how much he wants to retain the player. I already said that I thought Ellsbury should get roughly as much as Pedroia. If that is too vague, so be it. No sense in continuing this.  I'm getting saddle sores from riding the fence.

     
  11. 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 moonslav59's comment:

    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



    Out of respect.  They didn't start Iglesias at SS over Drew either.

     
  12. 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 hill55's comment:

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    [QUOTE]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.



    Do you really want to cite a down year in a discussion about Jacoby Ellsbury?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In 2011, from August 12 through the end of the season, Ellsbury had 13 HRs and an OPS over 1.  If he finishes like that this year, 2012 will look like the outlier, and GMs will assume that is what to expect from a healthy Ellsbury.

     

     
  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 moonslav59's comment:

    Now , why would a Seattle fan continually come onto a Red Sox forum and try to provoke Sox fans ?  What would you call that ?  

    He doesn't ever provoke me, and I'm the biggest Sox fane ever.

    He has praised several Sox players. He has been a consistent outside observer who offers another viewpoint.

    What would I call it? I'd call it a baseball fan looking to talk baseball, and maybe not getting many good opportunities within his own team's forums.

    Sox4ever



    I don't like to get personal on these boards, but I do like to call people out on their BS.

    Michael Bourn's career OPS is 90 points lower than Ellsbury's - the comparison is meant to provoke.

    The Alex Liddi to Will Middlebrooks comparison was meant to provoke - Liddi was unheralded and hasn't had a whiff of success since 2011.  Hill compares numbers from Liddi's High Desert A+ days to Middlebrooks's Pawtucket days in an attempt to disparage.

    The mocking of trade suggestions for Felix Hernandez were meant to provoke - we traded one real prospect for Jake Peavy and Brayan Villareal, but Hill thinks our entire farm system would not get King Felix, whose WHIP over the last 2 years is identical to Peavy's.

    The comment about Webster's ERA at Pawtucket on the Dodgers thread was meant to provoke - Hill is an agitator, but he is informed.  If he mocks the ERA of a guy with a 1.163 WHIP and a 6.6 H/9, it's to provoke - not because he believes what he is writing.

    I'm not writing this as an "open your eyes" type comment - I enjoy debating the trolls, and sometimes they are right - Hill more than most.  Sox players and prospects aren't always the cream of the crop, and sometimes we do get carried away.  But the posters who are sick of Hill being the one reminding them of that fact do have a legitimate gripe IMO.

     

     
  14. 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 soxnewmex's comment:

    It's the toughest call with Ells.  Someone is going to give over $100 and over 5 years and we won't and shouldn't match that. 

    That's my biggest fear in this negotiations.  Someone is going to want Ells REALLY BADLY and will throw a ridiculous amount of money at him.

     People want to give him whatever it takes, but that's because he's on a hot streak and he's healthy right now, and they think he'll continue to be exactly this for the next 6 years.  Could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.  5/80 or 6/95 would be my top offer, and I'd be somewhat relieved when he didn't accept.



    I agree with Max on the numbers.. sort of.  I'd offer 5/80 or 6/95 but I'd be hoping he did take it. 

    I'm of the opinion that with salaries continuing to escalate the way they are that escalation may just about offset a decline in skills.  In other words, he's worth what he's getting at any year.

    In response to Moon's challenge of what's the highest number I'd give, I can't answer that.  I'm not going to get tied into a number because if the Sox offered him 5/80 or 6/95 and Ells came back with an offer of 5/82 or 6/97.5 I'd push the paperwork toward him and ask him to please sign quickly before he changed his mind. 

    I don't have an exact number but if he signed with someone else for $2M more than the Sox offered for five or six years I'd be unhappy with the Sox for not offering a bit more. I don't have an absolute top but it's somewhere in the vicinity of $100, and for as many years as we can get for that price.    

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

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

    ....But woudn't it be a "hoot" if the owners of the big market teams decided independently (and I'm truly NOT suggesting collusion) that no player is worth more than $10M/year and stuck to their guns. 

    I find this to be humorous because I'm certain the owners would like to do this but they don't trust one another enough to go through with it!  Laughing

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

     
  16. 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 slomag's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Now , why would a Seattle fan continually come onto a Red Sox forum and try to provoke Sox fans ?  What would you call that ?  

    He doesn't ever provoke me, and I'm the biggest Sox fane ever.

    He has praised several Sox players. He has been a consistent outside observer who offers another viewpoint.

    What would I call it? I'd call it a baseball fan looking to talk baseball, and maybe not getting many good opportunities within his own team's forums.

    Sox4ever

     



    I don't like to get personal on these boards, but I do like to call people out on their BS.

     

    Michael Bourn's career OPS is 90 points lower than Ellsbury's - the comparison is meant to provoke.

    I think you are wrong. hill55 always uses WAR as his criteria, both when praising or criticizing Sox players. It's not like he is all over the map, like softy and otehrs, looking for one stat to use against a player.

    Nobody, even hill, would dispute that Ellsbury has a much higher OPS, but OPS is not all that gives a player value. A player has to be on the field to be a value, and Bourn has been very healthy and steady over the last 4-5 years. hill values that value and that value is reflected in Bourn's WAR numbers.

     

    The Alex Liddi to Will Middlebrooks comparison was meant to provoke - Liddi was unheralded and hasn't had a whiff of success since 2011.  Hill compares numbers from Liddi's High Desert A+ days to Middlebrooks's Pawtucket days in an attempt to disparage.

    No, he was responding to overly giddy Sox fans gushing over a half season sample size and saying "whoa". He even said, he hoped Middy did well. That's not trolling.

     

     ... we traded one real prospect for Jake Peavy and Brayan Villareal, but Hill thinks our entire farm system would not get King Felix, whose WHIP over the last 2 years is identical to Peavy's.

    Here's where you differ from hill. You seek out one stat to make your point. Couldn't one say you are "trolling" now by trying to say Peavy is as good as Felix due to one stat being identical?

     

    The comment about Webster's ERA at Pawtucket on the Dodgers thread was meant to provoke - Hill is an agitator, but he is informed.  If he mocks the ERA of a guy with a 1.163 WHIP and a 6.6 H/9, it's to provoke - not because he believes what he is writing.

    Believe what you want. hill is not a Sox fan. He does not have a Sox bias. I happen to think he is one of the most balanced and consistent posters on this site. He rarely varies from his criteria of judgement. He does not seek out stats to fit his position. At times, I think he does choose sample size timeframes that counter what some giddy Sox fan has claimed. We all do thet to some extent, just in reverse because we are Sox fans.

     

    I'm not writing this as an "open your eyes" type comment - I enjoy debating the trolls, and sometimes they are right - Hill more than most.  Sox players and prospects aren't always the cream of the crop, and sometimes we do get carried away.  But the posters who are sick of Hill being the one reminding them of that fact do have a legitimate gripe IMO.

    hill has been right more than wrong, so when griping Sox fans who are wrong more often than hill gripe about hill, I fail to see the legitmacy.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

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

     

     

    Ellsbury's agent is Scott Boras who is tougher to negotiate than the North Koreans.  So I see Boras starting with at least a seven-year offer at around $100 million.  

     
  18. 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 moonslav59's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Now , why would a Seattle fan continually come onto a Red Sox forum and try to provoke Sox fans ?  What would you call that ?  

    He doesn't ever provoke me, and I'm the biggest Sox fane ever.

    He has praised several Sox players. He has been a consistent outside observer who offers another viewpoint.

    What would I call it? I'd call it a baseball fan looking to talk baseball, and maybe not getting many good opportunities within his own team's forums.

    Sox4ever

     

     



    I don't like to get personal on these boards, but I do like to call people out on their BS.

     

     

    Michael Bourn's career OPS is 90 points lower than Ellsbury's - the comparison is meant to provoke.

    I think you are wrong. hill55 always uses WAR as his criteria, both when praising or criticizing Sox players. It's not like he is all over the map, like softy and otehrs, looking for one stat to use against a player.

    Nobody, even hill, would dispute that Ellsbury has a much higher OPS, but OPS is not all that gives a player value. A player has to be on the field to be a value, and Bourn has been very healthy and steady over the last 4-5 years. hill values that value and that value is reflected in Bourn's WAR numbers.

     

    The Alex Liddi to Will Middlebrooks comparison was meant to provoke - Liddi was unheralded and hasn't had a whiff of success since 2011.  Hill compares numbers from Liddi's High Desert A+ days to Middlebrooks's Pawtucket days in an attempt to disparage.

    No, he was responding to overly giddy Sox fans gushing over a half season sample size and saying "whoa". He even said, he hoped Middy did well. That's not trolling.

     

     ... we traded one real prospect for Jake Peavy and Brayan Villareal, but Hill thinks our entire farm system would not get King Felix, whose WHIP over the last 2 years is identical to Peavy's.

    Here's where you differ from hill. You seek out one stat to make your point. Couldn't one say you are "trolling" now by trying to say Peavy is as good as Felix due to one stat being identical?

     

    The comment about Webster's ERA at Pawtucket on the Dodgers thread was meant to provoke - Hill is an agitator, but he is informed.  If he mocks the ERA of a guy with a 1.163 WHIP and a 6.6 H/9, it's to provoke - not because he believes what he is writing.

    Believe what you want. hill is not a Sox fan. He does not have a Sox bias. I happen to think he is one of the most balanced and consistent posters on this site. He rarely varies from his criteria of judgement. He does not seek out stats to fit his position. At times, I think he does choose sample size timeframes that counter what some giddy Sox fan has claimed. We all do thet to some extent, just in reverse because we are Sox fans.

     

    I'm not writing this as an "open your eyes" type comment - I enjoy debating the trolls, and sometimes they are right - Hill more than most.  Sox players and prospects aren't always the cream of the crop, and sometimes we do get carried away.  But the posters who are sick of Hill being the one reminding them of that fact do have a legitimate gripe IMO.

    hill has been right more than wrong, so when griping Sox fans who are wrong more often than hill gripe about hill, I fail to see the legitmacy.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]

    When healthy, Peavy has been as good as Hernandez over the past 2 years.  I don't use WAR in that analysis because Peavy has not been completely healthy, and WAR is an aggregate stat.  WAR depends on your health.  WAR depends on whether you're left in the game for 140 pitches / night.  IMO WHIP is the best stat for measuring pitching efficiency, and OPS hitting efficiency.  Everything I've written is consistent with that.

    If you love WAR, that's fine - you can think Hernandez is twice as good as Peavy, or three or four times if you really want to - but how can you in all honesty mock the idea that the Sox have the young talent to get anybody in the game?

    And if you do love an advanced metric like WAR, are you really dumb enough to then judge a prospect we are all excited about, and who has had by all intelligent measures a great year, solely on his ERA?

    We don't need to go any more into this - I like debating and I like to call BS when I think someone isn't being above-board, but I respect your baseball knowledge and the thought behind your posts.  I probably should have just left well enough alone.

     

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

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

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

     

    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.

     




    ^^This^^

     

    I just talked to a good friend who was a ballplayer and said almost the same thing. CF is not so much about arm strength, thats usually for a corner OF'er. Speed and defensive ability trumps arm in CF any day of the week. heres what he told me...

    "Centerfielders are hired to run down fly balls not to throw people out.  A strong arm in center is a bonus.  The reason is that centerfielders rarely throw from balls hit directly at them or nearly so. They usually chase down hits to their left or to their right, making it unlikely that they will throw the runner out at third or at the plate. OTOH,  many more balls are hit almost directly at corner outfielders, who are not moving laterally but forwards in preparation to make a throw. There is a good reason why the best arm is put in right -- to discourage the runner from going from first third.  If a ball is hit even ten feet or so to the side of a centerfielder, he'll never throw the runner out at third. If the choice for centerfield is between the fly hawk and the cannon, the fly hawk wins."


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777'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, 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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you talk to someone in the FO? Kind of a bold statement sice there have been no reports saying this. Unless of course I missed in, in which case you can post a link to it. Otherwise you would have to have talked to someone directly on the inside to make a statement like this.

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

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

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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.

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  22. 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 southpaw777's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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, 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.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you talk to someone in the FO? Kind of a bold statement sice there have been no reports saying this. Unless of course I missed in, in which case you can post a link to it. Otherwise you would have to have talked to someone directly on the inside to make a statement like this.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2013/02/16/red-sox-prospect-jackie-bradley-jr-and-art-fie

    That commitment has paid off in jaw-dropping fashion. Talent evaluators inside and outside theRed Sox organization believe that the 2011 supplemental first-round pick has a chance to be a Gold Glove center fielder, thanks to his incredible routes, a seemingly impeccable radar for the baseball and a powerful throwing arm. He will not be confused for a burner any time soon, but his direct path to the ball permits Bradley to move with an exceptional efficiency that can render his outfield neighbors irrelevant, as right fielder Bryce Brentz learned while playing right field in Portland.

    Remember - Ellsbury was moved to LF for Mike Cameron in 2010.

     

     
  23. 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 Ice-Cream's comment:

     

     

    Ellsbury's agent is Scott Boras who is tougher to negotiate than the North Koreans.  So I see Boras starting with at least a seven-year offer at around $100 million.  



    I hope you're right about this because if you are I see the Sox being in the thick of things.  The starting point isn't what you expect to get, it's what you hope you'll get, and in this case he'll go down from there.  It's someone offering more than that, that concerns me.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  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?

    When healthy, Peavy has been as good as Hernandez over the past 2 years.  I don't use WAR in that analysis because Peavy has not been completely healthy, and WAR is an aggregate stat.  WAR depends on your health.  WAR depends on whether you're left in the game for 140 pitches / night.  IMO WHIP is the best stat for measuring pitching efficiency, and OPS hitting efficiency.  Everything I've written is consistent with that.

     

    If you love WAR, that's fine - you can think Hernandez is twice as good as Peavy, or three or four times if you really want to - but how can you in all honesty mock the idea that the Sox have the young talent to get anybody in the game?

    And if you do love an advanced metric like WAR, are you really dumb enough to then judge a prospect we are all excited about, and who has had by all intelligent measures a great year, solely on his ERA?

    We don't need to go any more into this - I like debating and I like to call BS when I think someone isn't being above-board, but I respect your baseball knowledge and the thought behind your posts.  I probably should have just left well enough alone.

    I value WAR, but not as much as hill.

    I get your points here, but the fact is the Sox did offer 5 nice prospects for Felix long ago and were turned down.

    On WAR and Felix and Jake, I'm OK with the 2 year sample size, but prefer to look at various sample sizes. Also, the injury history of Peavy is a big issue when determining value. Then there is years of team control. Peavy had 1.3 years of control. Felix has had more than that at times.

    I do think a WAR per game or IP might be a good stat for evaluating talent seperate from health and longevity. Here are some numbers:

    2012-2013:

            WAR   GS    IP   WAR/GS  prorate to 33 GS

    Felix  11.1  58  406   .191        6.3

    Jake   5.6  47  311    .119        3.9

     

    2009-2012:

             WAR   GS    IP

    Felix 22.4  134  954  .167       5.5

    Jake 11.4    83  535  .137      4.5

     

    2004-2012 (Peavy's first great year was 2004)

              WAR   GS    IP

    Felix  35.2  238  1620  .147    4.9

    Jake  32.4  233  1504  .139   4.6

     

    As you can see, from 2004 to today, they are pretty even per 33 starts. From 2009 to 2012, Felix had many more GS'd (51 in 4 years) and about a 22% higher WAR per start.) Since the start of 2012, Felix has only 9 more starts, but has clearly been way better by WAR per start... almost 65% better than Peavy.

    I'm not defending the use of WAR as an almost exclusive way of assigning value to a player, but it is what hill55 has used consistently for years. Felix is the top WAR SP since 2012. As far as I can see, no pitcher hs more WAR/GS than Felix and no pitcher has more GS'd than Felix. That's an awesome value. He's the best and the most/longest. Since 2010, only 6 pitchers have 91+ GS'd (Verlander, Wilson, Masterson, Kershaw, Shields and Felix). Felix is 3rd in WAR behind Verlander and Kershaw. Only 3 starters have 125 GS'd since 2010 (Felix, Verlander & Wilson). Only Verlander has a better WAR. Only 2 pitchers have 159+ GS'd since 2009 and only Verlander and C Lee have a higher WAR.

    Felix doesn't miss starts. Peavy does. Felix is a top 3 WAR per GS in almost any sample size time period you choose. Peavy is not, unless you go way back in time.

    Sox4ever

     

Share