Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor
posted at 10/29/2012 9:04 AM EDT
I think one year of Ellsbury plus the comp pick is worth someone's top pitching prospect.
So its basically the difference between getting a Brian Johnson and getting a Allen Webster value wise? I haven't seen your trade proposals so correct me if I am wrong?
No, our top pitching prospect is Barnes. And yes, I'd trade Ellsbury and Brian Johnson (the equivelent of the comp pick) for Barnes.
If so, I don't agree with this being enough a seperation in overall value to trade Ellsbury. Especially since we might be able to get more then a Brian Johnson at the deadline if Ellsbury plays up to his abilities and the Sox are out of it at the deadline.
We all have given up on 2012, so I'll assume you mean 2013.
Right, 2013. It was just a rhetorical question anyway. You have already basically said you have given up on a championship in 2013. Most of us haven't yet. The question was really for others.
Miracles can happen. I never give up on the Sox, but I view our chances in 2014 as much greater than 2013, unless Ben goes "all out" this winter, which I don't recommend due to the poor FA class this year.
OK, in one breath you act as though Ellsbury's value is so low that we'd only get back 2-3 picks worth of value in return, but now you act like he is or can be the guy who leads us to a ring next year.
The key word you missed was the word I put in quotations to emphasise.... "POTENTIAL" He had a 9.2 WAR a year ago. Those are the kind of numbers that can definately be the difference between championship and missed playoffs.
Yes, and that "potential" has value to other teams & GMs as well. That was my point.
I admit that winning the championship next year would ALL be about potential. But the potential will be there with some reasonable moves, health, and luck....IF we keep our most talented and potentially best player.
Let me add that if a GM offered a deal that gave the value of getting a 9 WAR player in return, which would be a lot, then I would be open to trading Ellsbury. Not gonna happen. Maybe if he plays like that at the deadline.
They won't offer a 9 WAR player with 2+ years of team control for a "Potential 9 WAR player". I guess in theory, I am willing to trade 1 year of a "potential" 9 WAR player for 2 years of a 3-4 WAR player, 3 years of a 2-3 WAR player, or a top pitching prospect from a team with a good farm. However, my stated plans have also included trading some top prospect for young players like Brett Anderson and Justin Upton who are under team control for 2+ years, so the propsct we get for Jacoby will fill the hole left by a depearting prospect or two. My plans are not to just fill up the farm and wait 3-4 years.
Letting Papi go will not bring us a draft pick. Signing Papi to 1 year will not make any impact on 2014 and beyond. I'm really Ok either way we go on Papi.
If we offer him 13 million for 1 year and he turns it down we will get a pick. I would think somebody looking at the long term would agree with that move.
I agree 100%.
Papi is untradeable. Jacoby is not. Big difference, but I will agree that if the money spent on extending Papi prevents us from signing anybody useful for 2014 and beyond, then I am not for extending him. However, I seriously doubt we will approach the luxury tax limit this winter, so his deal should not interfere with any future plans, except maybe keeping Lava from playing everyday in the bigs next year.
Twenty Four million isn't chump change. We won't be going over the luxury tax this year and probably not even next year. However, we don't know what the owner is thinking. He might not have a luxury tax ceiling. It might be 150. Or even less. Spending 24 million for the sake of having Papi DH as a nearly 39 year old come the 2014 ployoffs might be better left in the bank. Atleast thats what I would expect somebody who is not thinking about winning a championship in 2013 would think. There is a difference between 130 million in 2013, 150 million in 2014.....and.....142 million in 2013 and 162 million in 2014 even if in neither situation we get near the luxury tax. Signing Papi could easily cost a player acquisition in 2014.
I don't know the mindset of henry concerning the budget, but I have stated several times that if signing Papi to 1 or 2 years prevents us from signing or trading for a younger player with 2+ years of team control, I am against extending him 100%.
Papi could also block somebody in 2014. Bogaerts, Brentz, some other 2014 signing or trade possibility. Two seasons being completed is a long ways away and things can change real fast.
With all that said I would sign Papi.
I think we can too, and we would not effect any future deals. The only potential downside is that Lava may have to start in AAA again, instead of seeing ML pitching as our DH vs RHPs and C vs LHPs.