jacoby ellsbury rumor

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    ...geared towards improving our chances of contending in 2014 and beyond.



    How much more then the compensation pick value do you think the Red Sox could get in trade value right now for Ellsbury? The equivelent of two picks? Three picks?

     

    I think one year of Ellsbury plus the comp pick is worth someone's top pitching prospect or a player under team control for 2+ years. (I have already given several specific ideas of trade offers I'd make.) I think getting either of these two things can help us in 2013 as well as 2014 and beyond. If we get a top pitching prospect, we can then afford to trade a prospect or two for a better MLB ready starter that is under team control for 2013 and also well beyond.

     

    Is the difference worth giving up on 2012?

     

    We all have given up on 2012, so I'll assume you mean 2013. 

     

    Ellsbury is clearly the player with the most "potential" on the team to me. Giving up your most talented player for prospects is basically giving up.

     

    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.

    Then, I also seriously doubt that if jacoby hits .350 with 50 HRs, we'd still miss the playoffs and have a measly draft pick to show for holding onto him. If one GM values Ellsbury like so many posters here do, we could get some awesome return for him.

    Especially without a ready replacement. Its atleast akin to the Indians or Rockies trading away Choo or Carlos Gonzalez for prospects. If they did that I would percieve they were giving up in 2013. The difference isn't worth giving up on 2013.

     

    They may trade those two players as well.

     

    Also, if we are basically giving up in 2013 and focusing on 2014 and beyond, I don't see how a 38 year old DH making 24 million to eventually play in 2014 makes any sense. Its bad value.

     

    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.

     

    They will get no compenstaion when he leaves in 2014 either. If the major purpose is 2014 and beyond, Papi is a stupid and bad move. How can you disagree?

    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.

    It should either be Ellsbury and Papi or neither.

    Adios to both is fine with me if given this restricted choice.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    geared towards improving our chances of contending in 2014 and beyond.

    [/QUOTE]


    How much more then the compensation pick value do you think the Red Sox could get in trade value right now for Ellsbury? The equivelent of two picks? Three picks? Is the difference worth giving up on 2012? Ellsbury is clearly the player with the most "potential" on the team to me. Giving up your most talented player for prospects is basically giving up. Especially without a ready replacement. Its atleast akin to the Indians or Rockies trading away Choo or Carlos Gonzalez for prospects. If they did that I would percieve they were giving up in 2013. The difference isn't worth giving up on 2013.

    Also, if we are basically giving up in 2013 and focusing on 2014 and beyond, I don't see how a 38 year old DH making 24 million to eventually play in 2014 makes any sense. Its bad value. They will get no compenstaion when he leaves in 2014 either. If the major purpose is 2014 and beyond, Papi is a stupid and bad move. How can you disagree?

    It should either be Ellsbury and Papi or neither.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree.  Unless someone knocks us over, I'd prefer to take my chances on 1 year of Ellsbury, plus a supplemental pick.

    Past that, it's the same as the 'let's sign so-and-so, or many of the other 'let's trade for Cargo' threads.  Without knowing how much so-and-so will cost, or what we'd have to give for Cargo, the discussion is moot.  If I get the #1 prospect in the country, Ells is gone and I'll take my chances.  If it for the #100 prospect in the country, I'll keep Ellsbury.  Until we have an idea of what we'd get, it's all speculation.

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

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Proposed offseason plans at Over the Monster include a trade of Jacoby Ellsbury:

    http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/10/26/3557010/boston-red-sox-armchair-gm-off-season-edition-brendan-otoole/in/3313201

    http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/10/24/3547608/boston-red-sox-armchair-gm-off-season-edition-ben-buchanan/in/3313201

    [/QUOTE]


    For Holland?  You hated that deal when it came up from people on ths borad, and now it has merit?.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skadude22. Show Skadude22's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    I couldn't read through the entire thread, but if I'm BC, and I'm trading Ellsbury (which I would), it would either be for an ace, or multiple top prospects.  In losing Ellsbury, you are creating a big whole in a lineup that is already an issue.  I'd rather build for the future, especially with at least a half dozen top prospects a year or two away from being ready.  If you can increase the size of that group, and have a large portion of your team under control for 6 years, while also having a contending team, you are in a great position.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I think one year of Ellsbury plus the comp pick is worth someone's top pitching prospect.

    [/QUOTE]


    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?

    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.


    [/QUOTE]

     We all have given up on 2012, so I'll assume you mean 2013. 
    [/QUOTE]

     

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     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.

    [/QUOTE]

     


    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.

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.
    [/QUOTE]

     

    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.

     

     [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

    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.

     

     

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

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to Calzone65's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yet you and your friends continue to enable them. Add SeabeachFred, Pumpsie, and DannyCater to the bunch. Did you take note that they are also trolling?

    [/QUOTE]


    You do realize that your tired act is probably "enabling" them the most, right?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to Calzone65's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yet you and your friends continue to enable them. Add SeabeachFred, Pumpsie, and DannyCater to the bunch. Did you take note that they are also trolling?

    [/QUOTE]


    I do not catagorize any of those posters as trolls Calzone...they are Sox fans that are not afraid to criticize the team or organization, since that is how they feel about things. Sometimes their expectations are above and beyond reasonable since they're wanting the team to make moves before the free agency and the offseason has even gotten underway.

    Regarding this topic...Ellsbury is a good player who has had some bad luck with injuries, maybe a change in scenery would do him good, however, trading him this offseason is when you will get the biggest bang for the buck...but because of the injuries team's will likely be hesitant to acquire him unless they can spend 50 cents on the dollar.

    With that said, let's just hold on to the guy and hope he returns to the player we saw in 2011. That is a player that is worth investing in long term and doable since most of the big salaries have been moved out.

    The question regarding Ellsbury is this...is he the player we saw in 2011 or 2012...because when on the field the statistics are drastically different?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to Yonkersman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moon is also the #1 enabler of Softlaw.

    [/QUOTE]

    Letting lies go unchecked is a sure way to ruin.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    I think one year of Ellsbury plus the comp pick is worth someone's top pitching prospect.

    [/QUOTE]

     


    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.


    [/QUOTE]

     We all have given up on 2012, so I'll assume you mean 2013. 
    [/QUOTE]

     

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     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.

    [/QUOTE]

     

     


    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.
    [/QUOTE]

     

    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%.

     

     [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to notin's comment:

    For Holland?  You hated that deal when it came up from people on ths borad, and now it has merit?.


    I endorsed neither plan from Over the Monster; I merely shared information relevant to the thread's topic.

    I don't "hate" anything about baseball. My only reservation about the Derek Holland proposal was that I would be surprised if the Rangers would trade away pitching.

    Look it up.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from djcbuffum. Show djcbuffum's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    Right now, the Sox should be holding Ellsbury for a blow-us-out-of-the-water trade offer.  Anything short of that, and they should continue a wait-and-see strategy.  He should perform this year (as most Boras clients do in a contract year), and the Sox will continue to be in a strong bargaining position right up until the trade deadline.

    If the Sox traded Ellsbury for Derek Holland right now, I would have to conclude that they do not plan to contend next year.  (Unless, of course, they offset the trade with some other move, like signing Josh Hamilton -- not that I'm advocating for anything like that).

    Guessing what kind of package Ellsbury could get now v. later is kind of a silly exercise.  It's not like ebay where you put him up for auction and sell to the highest bidder.  You just make it known that he might be available, and you evaluate offers.  You can't set a value in a vacuum.  I the right offer to make the Sox better right now comes along, you take it.  If it doesn't, you wait. Ellsbury is (sometimes) good enough, that it would have to be a pretty damn good offer to be worth jumping on.  

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to dblock33644's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The rumors are swirling that if josh Hamoilton doesnt return to texas they have already offered derek holland for ellsbury, and cherrington is strongy considering it. I don't think this is a goodn idea what do u guys think?

    [/QUOTE]


    The Sox have two very promising OF's in the minors that can be ready for the 2014 season Jackie Bradley and Bryce Bentz. Personally keep Elsbury for his contract session and trading Els will be a big mistake. Bradley can be the next Elsbury in a couple of seasons.

    Can Cody Ross play the green monster as the left fielder for sox and maybe to see what it will cost to sign Ichiro Suzuki for 2 years in the RF spot while the sox OF youth develop.  I like Ichiro for his experience and can still get those important hits. Ross LF Els CF Suz RF . The sox outfield 2 years from now wil be young and strong.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    Major League Baseball Trade Rumors projects virtually no raise for Jacoby Ellsbury in his final arbitration year:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/10/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2013.html#more

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    Ichiro would be a great addition to anyone's lineup. I think he would like to play at Fenway before retireing and I would love to see him hit in this lineup--overpay him for a one year contract--giving Brentz one more year at AAA. $12 M might be more than what the Yankees would offer.

    Then sign Bourn or BJ for CF and trade Ells for Holland or another starting pitcher.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     No, our top pitching prospect is Barnes. And yes, I'd trade Ellsbury and Brian Johnson (the equivelent of the comp pick) for Barnes.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    I was thinking about it from the Dodgers point of view. But fair enough, difference between Barnes and Johhnson. Not enough for me to trade Ellsbury.

    It dramatically decreases the potential to win this year and leaves a gaping hole in CF for this season. For me, its nowhere near enough value aswell.

     

    [QUOTE]

    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.
    [/QUOTE]


    I used the qualifying word of "basically" to cover your miracle possibility.:)

     

     [QUOTE]

    Yes, and that "potential" has value to other teams & GMs as well. That was my point.

     [/QUOTE]

     

    And if a GM offers us the value of that potential I might be open to trading Ellsbury. The difference between Barnes and Johnson to me is not the value of Ellsbury's potential.

     

    [QUOTE]

    My plans are not to just fill up the farm and wait 3-4 years.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    I understand everything you say here and I just would not do those trades. Just not enough for the loss in potential value this year, since I still believe it would not take a miracle to win in 2013.

     

    [QUOTE]

    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.

     [/QUOTE]



    I see a lot more potential downside to signing Papi for two years then simply blocking Lava. Little surprised you don't. Anyway, we will probably find out.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     No, our top pitching prospect is Barnes. And yes, I'd trade Ellsbury and Brian Johnson (the equivelent of the comp pick) for Barnes.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    I was thinking about it from the Dodgers point of view. But fair enough, difference between Barnes and Johhnson. Not enough for me to trade Ellsbury.

    It dramatically decreases the potential to win this year and leaves a gaping hole in CF for this season. For me, its nowhere near enough value aswell.

    The hole in CF can be filled by a stop-gap signing or a longer term solution via FA signing or trade. Some here are talking about the glut of CF'ers on the market this winter.

    I'd trade 1 year of Ells for 6 years of Barnes in a heartbeat.

     

    [QUOTE]

    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.
    [/QUOTE]


    I used the qualifying word of "basically" to cover your miracle possibility.:)

    Maybe we have just been arguing over semantics. I do think we have a chance, especially if we make several key moves, but I guess what I am saying is that I do not think it is likely, and in some sense, I think it is mre of an either or situation. Trying to gear towards going from about worst to best in one year is, in my opinion, going to take away from the longer outlook.

    I am for any move that makes us better in 2013, as long as it also helps in the longer term. I don't see Ellsbury in our 2014 and beyond plan, so I'm thinking the overall best interest of the Sox is to deal him for the right top prospect(s).

     

     [QUOTE]

    Yes, and that "potential" has value to other teams & GMs as well. That was my point.

     [/QUOTE]

     

    And if a GM offers us the value of that potential I might be open to trading Ellsbury. The difference between Barnes and Johnson to me is not the value of Ellsbury's potential.

     

    I have never said I wanted to trade for a Johnson, but I would trade Ellsbury and Johnson for Barnes. Perhaps we can evenb do better. As for the other offers I mentioned, one was Ellsbury for Romo & H Sanchez, and one was basically Ellsbury for Tommy Hanson.

     

    [QUOTE]

    My plans are not to just fill up the farm and wait 3-4 years.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    I understand everything you say here and I just would not do those trades. Just not enough for the loss in potential value this year, since I still believe it would not take a miracle to win in 2013.

    What would you say our odds are to win it all, assuming we make a few savvy deals?

     

    [QUOTE]

    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.

     [/QUOTE]



    I see a lot more potential downside to signing Papi for two years then simply blocking Lava. Little surprised you don't. Anyway, we will probably find out.

    Since I don't see us getting near the luxury tax threshhold this winter, I don't see signing Papi to a 1 year deal will hurt our chances of signing or trading for anyone else. If it did, I would not be for signing him. I guess only upper Sox management knows the answer to that.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The hole in CF can be filled by a stop-gap signing or a longer term solution via FA signing or trade. Some here are talking about the glut of CF'ers on the market this winter.

    I'd trade 1 year of Ells for 6 years of Barnes in a heartbeat

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    Well, it would be 1 year of Ellsbury and the pick. But even straight up, I would not do Ellsbury for Barnes. And its not like I think Barnes is over rated. I rank him in the top 40 in all of baseball. Maybe if it was a prospect who was ready NOW ranked in the top 40 and we had a good CF replacement for 2013 I do it.

    As for filling CF, I have not heard a good idea yet. There are options, but I personally think they are all bad ideas. And a great idea in 2014 is waiting in case we don't resign Ellsbury.

    [QUOTE]
    Maybe we have just been arguing over semantics. I do think we have a chance, especially if we make several key moves, but I guess what I am saying is that I do not think it is likely, and in some sense, I think it is mre of an either or situation. Trying to gear towards going from about worst to best in one year is, in my opinion, going to take away from the longer outlook.

    I am for any move that makes us better in 2013, as long as it also helps in the longer term. I don't see Ellsbury in our 2014 and beyond plan, so I'm thinking the overall best interest of the Sox is to deal him for the right top prospect(s).

     

    What would you say our odds are to win it all, assuming we make a few savvy deals?

     [/QUOTE]

     

     

    If they do what I hope, maybe the best team in baseball not named the Rangers or Tigers and something like 10-1. If the Rangers don't resign Hamilton and Napoli, the Sox might end up with the biggest upside and potential of any team in baseball. However, with more downsiide then most playoff contenders aswell.

     

    I think we agree philosophically. However, there are 3 main differences.

     

    1-The potential of the Red Sox next year. You see a last place team. I see a nightmare we have ALREADY begun to awaken from.

    2-The amount we are willing to go against the long term philosophy for the short term.

    3-The production and value Ellsbury will have next year.

     

     

     

     [QUOTE]

    Since I don't see us getting near the luxury tax threshhold this winter, I don't see signing Papi to a 1 year deal will hurt our chances of signing or trading for anyone else. If it did, I would not be for signing him. I guess only upper Sox management knows the answer to that.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I thought you said you were fine with two years of Papi? One year would probably only slightly go against your long term strategy. Two years would be a much larger departure from your long term strategy.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    What would you say our odds are to win it all, assuming we make a few savvy deals?

     [/QUOTE]

     

     

    If they do what I hope, maybe the best team in baseball not named the Rangers or Tigers and something like 10-1.

     

    I just read the odds are 23:1, but of course this is before any winter deals. I think they may be 10:1 by spring, but there's serious work to be done to get there.

     

    If the Rangers don't resign Hamilton and Napoli, the Sox might end up with the biggest upside and potential of any team in baseball. However, with more downsiide then most playoff contenders aswell.

     

    I think we agree philosophically. However, there are 3 main differences.

     

    1-The potential of the Red Sox next year. You see a last place team. I see a nightmare we have ALREADY begun to awaken from.

    I said we may win 80-85 games if we make some serious moves. That would be 3rd or 4th place.

    2-The amount we are willing to go against the long term philosophy for the short term.

    This team has been pretty stubborn holding onto their top 3 prospects. I have usually been more for dealing prospects for top players, but this year I am a bit different.

    3-The production and value Ellsbury will have next year.

    I think Ellsbury will have a great year, but my point is, it won't help us win it all. I think other GMs know this is his "contract year" and has a good chance to repeat 2011 or even better. I actually think we can get better than an "Ellsbury for Barnes" type deal, but would setlle on that as a minimum.

     

     

     

     [QUOTE]

    Since I don't see us getting near the luxury tax threshhold this winter, I don't see signing Papi to a 1 year deal will hurt our chances of signing or trading for anyone else. If it did, I would not be for signing him. I guess only upper Sox management knows the answer to that.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I thought you said you were fine with two years of Papi? One year would probably only slightly go against your long term strategy. Two years would be a much larger departure from your long term strategy.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1-The potential of the Red Sox next year. You see a last place team. I see a nightmare we have ALREADY begun to awaken from.

    I said we may win 80-85 games if we make some serious moves. That would be 3rd or 4th place.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Sorry for the confusion. I was just talking about last year and where we are building from. I think our last place team was very misleading and not really what we were. In other words we were not your normal last place team. More of a sick sleeping giant that has been awoken. I don't think you think that and that is our difference I was trying to say.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

    I think Ellsbury will have a great year, but my point is, it won't help us win it all. I think other GMs know this is his "contract year" and has a good chance to repeat 2011 or even better.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I didn't realise you thought this. I also am predicting a 6-7 WAR. Losing that without a solid replacement I think would harm the team pretty dramatically. I prefer not to do that.

     

    My two exceptions against the long term strategy are Papi and Ellsbury. All the other moves I want involve players 32 or younger. Involve players on the short term unless the contract ends by the time they are 34. Involve trying to add compensation picks. And involve no trades of top prospects. Because as you say, we are likely to be a better team with a better chance in 2014, 2015 and beyond.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: jacoby ellsbury rumor

    1-The potential of the Red Sox next year. You see a last place team. I see a nightmare we have ALREADY begun to awaken from.

    I said we may win 80-85 games if we make some serious moves. That would be 3rd or 4th place.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Sorry for the confusion. I was just talking about last year and where we are building from. I think our last place team was very misleading and not really what we were. In other words we were not your normal last place team. More of a sick sleeping giant that has been awoken. I don't think you think that and that is our difference I was trying to say.

     Our team on paper now, is actually worse than the team at the end of the season (no Ross, Pods...)

     

    [QUOTE]

    I think Ellsbury will have a great year, but my point is, it won't help us win it all. I think other GMs know this is his "contract year" and has a good chance to repeat 2011 or even better.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I didn't realise you thought this. I also am predicting a 6-7 WAR. Losing that without a solid replacement I think would harm the team pretty dramatically. I prefer not to do that.

    I have said on other threads that even if Ellsbury hits .350 with 50 HRs, we'd still need a lot of other things to happen for us to win it all. 

    Since this is a contract yea, I expect Ellsbury to have a 2011 type season again. I think other GMs might feel the same, and would give more than a Barnes type player in return.

     

    My two exceptions against the long term strategy are Papi and Ellsbury. All the other moves I want involve players 32 or younger. Involve players on the short term unless the contract ends by the time they are 34. Involve trying to add compensation picks. And involve no trades of top prospects. Because as you say, we are likely to be a better team with a better chance in 2014, 2015 and beyond.

    I am fine with short-term signings and see the benefit in allowing our prospects a chance to shine and possibly overtake their positions in 2014, however, I am not sure what Henry has in mind for a budget, so we are shooting blind here a bit. If signing a bunch of guys to 1-2 year deals will keep us from signing young FAs to longer term deals, then I may be against those types of signings.

    I'd like to see us get guys like B McCarthy. He has #2 slot upside, and solid #3-4 slot projections for 2013 and beyond. I still think we need an ace, but I don't see any readily available right now, so we do what we can until that time arrives.

     

Share