Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    Ellsbury had an incredible 2011, but he was well above his averages in every category.  It's not impossible that he will continue to improve, but at age 28, a regression is much more likely.

    Slo, I don't think age 28 is the normal year to begin a decline, but it certainly is possible. Two things in Jacoby's favor:
    1) He has not played many 162 game seasons, so he may peak at age 29-30.
    2) I think he is in better "baseball shape" now than at ages 24-26.

    I think if you graphed Jacoby's production into a normal S-Curve projection, his 2011 season may not look like a fluke at all.
    In a limited 2007 season, he had a .394 OBP.
    The S-Curve model correctly projected a decline in year 2 (.336).
    Year 3 showed the expected uptick to .355.
    Had he not been injured in 2010, one might have graphed a point of about .365.
    Had that happened, his .376 2011 OBP was right on track.
    Normally players peak at 29-30 unless they they have played 7-8 full seasons by age 28, and a decline might occur sooner.
    One could easily project an OBP above .380 for 2012, in fact, by the model, it seems more likely he improves than declines, but I'm not so sure he will.

    Looking at Slg% and his body changes, I would expect a decline in 2012.
    His Slg% went from 509 to 394 to 415 to injured year to 552. Thats a huge spike and probably not sustainable.

    If I had to project Jacoby's next 2 years right now, I might go something like this:  (OBP/Slg%)

    2012: .385/.525
    2013: .390/.510

    I admit, this is pure speculation. He could hit 40 HRs next year. He could decline to .290/.360/.440/.800.

    I'm not sure about your percentage chances of Sizemore, Reddick, and Kalish of topping .780, but I do agree, the cahnces are one of the 3 will, but if we trade Ellsbury, we will need 2 of them to do it. I'd bet against that.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    I want to make clear that I have not specified "what to expect from Ellsbury." I have given no numbers or percentages. But I have questioned where Slomag gets his flurry of percentages. 
    I've said that Ellsbury could be on the verge of becoming a super star. Or not. My guess ( guess ) is that he'll have another very good year in 2012, perhaps not a replica of 2011 but very good nonetheless. He might even improve on 2011. He looked like one terrific ballplayer who had put it all together. At this moment, that's all we have to go on solidly, peak age and all generalized stats aside. He is an individual. 
    Why even bother with the murky business of projections, for him or for the others mentioned on this thread?
    For goodness sake, if we are patient, we'll find out soon enough what the future holds for the young man -- in Boston or elsewhere.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : You're all over the board here.   1) Kalish was "OK" at age 22, which could mean very good at age 24.  I give him a 35% chance of reaching an OPS of .780 in 500 PAs. 2) I never said Reddick is a AAAA player.  I think he can be a bit better than Trot Nixon.  I don't think he's a superstar, but I give him a 60% chance of besting .780 OPS in 500 PAs. 3) Sizemore is an injury risk, but Ellsbury has lost about 25% of his career to injuries so far.  He's not exactly an iron man.  Sizemore isn't a fluke - if he's healthy, he's terrific, and since doctors give his surgery an 80% chance of full recovery, I give him a 70% chance of a .780 OPS. 4) I don't know any of this for certain, but you don't know what to expect from Ellsbury, either.  Nate McLouth once led the league in doubles, and now Atlanta can't give him away.  You don't have a higher ground on certainty. 5) I don't think there is any bone in any human body that takes six months to heal, but you're right, I don't know all of the details. 6) Ellsbury had an incredible 2011, but he was well above his averages in every category.  It's not impossible that he will continue to improve, but at age 28, a regression is much more likely.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    The statement that Ellsbury has lost 25% of his career to injuries is willfully misleading, because it suggests that he's been in and out of the lineup and could be injury-prone. He lost all 25% in one gulp. Otherwise, here's the record:
    2008, 145 games, 609 PA, .280 BA
    2009, 153 games, 691 PA, .301 BA
    2010, dark, owing to a freak collision and broken ribs, which, according to Dr. Slomag, took 20% longer to heal than they should have.
    2011, 158 games, 729 PA, .321 BA
    That looks like the record of a study player who shows up for work in shape to do his job, is getting stronger, and stays on the field when called upon.
    If you are going to toss percentages around, at least do it honestly, no matter how off the wall.  You resorted to an old dishonored tactic: a statement that is true in what it says but false in what it implies. Like saying that Jack is skinnier than Joe, when Jack weighs 125 pounds and Joe 180, and they are both 5'9".

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]Ellsbury had an incredible 2011, but he was well above his averages in every category.  It's not impossible that he will continue to improve, but at age 28, a regression is much more likely. Slo, I don't think age 28 is the normal year to begin a decline, but it certainly is possible. Two things in Jacoby's favor: 1) He has not played many 162 game seasons, so he may peak at age 29-30. 2) I think he is in better "baseball shape" now than at ages 24-26. I think if you graphed Jacoby's production into a normal S-Curve projection, his 2011 season may not look like a fluke at all. In a limited 2007 season, he had a .394 OBP. The S-Curve model correctly projected a decline in year 2 (.336). Year 3 showed the expected uptick to .355. Had he not been injured in 2010, one might have graphed a point of about .365. Had that happened, his .376 2011 OBP was right on track. Normally players peak at 29-30 unless they they have played 7-8 full seasons by age 28, and a decline might occur sooner. One could easily project an OBP above .380 for 2012, in fact, by the model, it seems more likely he improves than declines, but I'm not so sure he will. Looking at Slg% and his body changes, I would expect a decline in 2012. His Slg% went from 509 to 394 to 415 to injured year to 552. Thats a huge spike and probably not sustainable. If I had to project Jacoby's next 2 years right now, I might go something like this:  (OBP/Slg%) 2012: .385/.525 2013: .390/.510 I admit, this is pure speculation. He could hit 40 HRs next year. He could decline to .290/.360/.440/.800. I'm not sure about your percentage chances of Sizemore, Reddick, and Kalish of topping .780, but I do agree, the cahnces are one of the 3 will, but if we trade Ellsbury, we will need 2 of them to do it. I'd bet against that.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon,
    I woud think that Ellsbury will probably hit close to his 2011 career year numbers. He may not hit 30 dingers, becasue I think that pitchers are going to be more weary challenging him with fastballs when they fall behind, and instead make him hit soft stuff away. If they indeed pitch him more carefully and he can stay in the zone, and drive the ball to left, he could come close to 50 doubles and even eclispe 400 OBP...If I were to try to project his numbers for next year I think that 310-390-510-900 with about 70 XBH could be his new norm and something he could sustain for 3 or 4 years...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]Ellsbury had an incredible 2011, but he was well above his averages in every category.  It's not impossible that he will continue to improve, but at age 28, a regression is much more likely. Slo, I don't think age 28 is the normal year to begin a decline, but it certainly is possible. Two things in Jacoby's favor: 1) He has not played many 162 game seasons, so he may peak at age 29-30. 2) I think he is in better "baseball shape" now than at ages 24-26. I think if you graphed Jacoby's production into a normal S-Curve projection, his 2011 season may not look like a fluke at all. In a limited 2007 season, he had a .394 OBP. The S-Curve model correctly projected a decline in year 2 (.336). Year 3 showed the expected uptick to .355. Had he not been injured in 2010, one might have graphed a point of about .365. Had that happened, his .376 2011 OBP was right on track. Normally players peak at 29-30 unless they they have played 7-8 full seasons by age 28, and a decline might occur sooner. One could easily project an OBP above .380 for 2012, in fact, by the model, it seems more likely he improves than declines, but I'm not so sure he will. Looking at Slg% and his body changes, I would expect a decline in 2012. His Slg% went from 509 to 394 to 415 to injured year to 552. Thats a huge spike and probably not sustainable. If I had to project Jacoby's next 2 years right now, I might go something like this:  (OBP/Slg%) 2012: .385/.525 2013: .390/.510 I admit, this is pure speculation. He could hit 40 HRs next year. He could decline to .290/.360/.440/.800. I'm not sure about your percentage chances of Sizemore, Reddick, and Kalish of topping .780, but I do agree, the cahnces are one of the 3 will, but if we trade Ellsbury, we will need 2 of them to do it. I'd bet against that.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon, I'm not suggesting Ellsbury is on the decline - just that if we had projected his 2011 numbers at the start of the year, we would have thought they were wildly optimistic.  I think what we saw in 2011 was the culmination of a very good player with a very good offense around him, playing a completely healthy season.  At age 28, I don't expect his talents to erode, but I don't expect that his body is maturing or his game is improving.

    Keep in mind - Ellsbury's OBP is consistently 50 - 55 points higher than his BA.  Unless his plate approach changes somewhat, that means to reach the .380 - .390 range, he has to hit .330 - .340.  I think perfectly healthy, he can maintain a .300 - .310 AVG, but a little bad luck or something uncomfortable that he plays through could his AVG and OBP down significantly.

    I do agree we would be opening up holes to fill in the OF with an Ellsbury trade, but they are holes that can be filled much more easily than the holes I would expect to be plugging with the return.  With Jurrjjens and Venters, we would have our 4th starter and a replacement for Papelbon.  Crawford could move to right, and we could pick up a short-term option for LF.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    I have no problem trading Ells since it is most likely that he will walk as soon as  and as fast as possible away from Boston the moment he can.  Better to deal him while he is a hot commodity than lose him to FA and gain nothing but a pick in return.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : The statement that Ellsbury has lost 25% of his career to injuries is willfully misleading, because it suggests that he's been in and out of the lineup and could be injury-prone. He lost all 25% in one gulp. Otherwise, here's the record: 2008, 145 games, 609 PA, .280 BA 2009, 153 games, 691 PA, .301 BA 2010, dark, owing to a freak collision and broken ribs, which, according to Dr. Slomag, took 20% longer to heal than they should have. 2011, 158 games, 729 PA, .321 BA That looks like the record of a study player who shows up for work in shape to do his job, is getting stronger, and stays on the field when called upon. If you are going to toss percentages around, at least do it honestly, no matter how off the wall.  You resorted to an old dishonored tactic: a statement that is true in what it says but false in what it implies. Like saying that Jack is skinnier than Joe, when Jack weighs 125 pounds and Joe 180, and they are both 5'9".
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    That's one interpretation, but it's also a way of saying that Ellsbury has lost one of his four years thus far to injuries.  So if there is not enough data to claim that he is an injury risk, there cannot be enough data to claim he is not.  In his first four full years in the league, Sizemore played in 639 games, including 382 in a row.

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : That's one interpretation, but it's also a way of saying that Ellsbury has lost one of his four years thus far to injuries.  So if there is not enough data to claim that he is an injury risk, there cannot be enough data to claim he is not.  In his first four full years in the league, Sizemore played in 639 games, including 382 in a row.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    So why not say one in four instead of 25%, with its implications that the man is in and out of the lineup. That interpretation is hard to avoid.
    He has been injured once in four years, seriously injured, but otherwise he's on the field day in and day out, stealing bases, running down fly balls, diving for balls, ready to go the next day. That's plenty of evidence that he's a pretty sturdy guy. And it in no way even hints at "injury risk." 
    We are talking about Ellsbury now, not Sizemore in his first four years. 

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : So why not say one in four instead of 25%, with its implications that the man is in and out of the lineup. That interpretation is hard to avoid. He has been injured once in four years, seriously injured, but otherwise he's on the field day in and day out, stealing bases, running down fly balls, diving for balls, ready to go the next day. That's plenty of evidence that he's a pretty sturdy guy. And it in no way even hints at "injury risk."  We are talking about Ellsbury now, not Sizemore in his first four years. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I think we just don't see eye-to-eye on this one.  If I bought a new car four years ago, I would not consider it reliable because it had not broken down in a year. 


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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    The opposition would love to see Crawford in right. Runners wouldn't even think once before going from first to third or second to home on a base hit. Maybe the Sox could use a relay system, from Crawford to Pedroia to third or home, even on singles, save that Crawford has trouble hitting the relay man. He'd probably be the only noodle-armed rightfielder in baseball. 
    Let the man learn to play left in Fenway. He should play shallow and use his speed to intercept sinking liners -- if only he can catch them. His speed to left-center affords Ellsbury the opportunity to cheat a few steps to right-center.
    You'd trade Ellsbury for those two guys, and then cobble together an outfield: a "pick up" in left and, presumably, one from Sizemore/Kalish/Reddick in center.
    We've been over that ground. No thanks.
    If Cherington trades Ellsbury for Jurrjens and Venters, he might have the shortest tenure of any GM in Boston history. But he ain't that dumb. Unless he gets top quality talent in return, Jacoby Ellsbury will start in center in 2012 for the Boston Red Sox. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    Im all for trading Ellsbury before he signs elsewhere (100% sure thing), but not for those 2.  It would have to be a King Felix type deal.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : I think we just don't see eye-to-eye on this one.  If I bought a new car four years ago, I would not consider it reliable because it had not broken down in a year. 
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    I have no idea what this means or how it applies to the topic.

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]The opposition would love to see Crawford in right. Runners wouldn't even think once before going from first to third or second to home on a base hit. Maybe the Sox could use a relay system, from Crawford to Pedroia to third or home, even on singles, save that Crawford has trouble hitting the relay man. He'd probably be the only noodle-armed rightfielder in baseball.  Let the man learn to play left in Fenway. He should play shallow and use his speed to intercept sinking liners -- if only he can catch them. His speed to left-center affords Ellsbury the opportunity to cheat a few steps to right-center. You'd trade Ellsbury for those two guys, and then cobble together an outfield: a "pick up" in left and, presumably, one from Sizemore/Kalish/Reddick in center. We've been over that ground. No thanks. If Cherington trades Ellsbury for Jurrjens and Venters, he might have the shortest tenure of any GM in Boston history. But he ain't that dumb. Unless he gets top quality talent in return, Jacoby Ellsbury will start in center in 2012 for the Boston Red Sox. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Jeff Francoeur led all Right-fielders in assists with 16.  Crawford's speed would stop two balls from dropping in for every one a rifle-armed RF would throw out at third.  And it's the same distance to home whether you're in right or left.

    I'll admit, it's a lot of moving parts, but I have to wonder if the Sox weren't thinking along these lines when they signed Crawford.  If they felt like he could play RF, the price tag makes a lot more sense.

    You said yourself you would trade Ellsbury for a top-tier starting pitcher.  Who is that pitcher?  Josh Johson?  Tim Lincecum?  Felix Hernandez?  Whatever your price, you still need to find a way to fill out the OF.  With Jurrjens and a top-notch reliever, you get a solid #4 (with ace potential) and a replacement for Bard / Papelbon, which means $12M to fill other holes, including OF.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jb12bb. Show jb12bb's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    Jurrjens and Prado have problems staying healthy and Prado had a down year.  Im not so sure giving up top prospects for the tandem is in the best interest of the franchise.

    Id only be willing to give up maybe Weiland or Pimental and a positional prospect that is not in the teams plans for the next three years.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]Jurrjens and Prado have problems staying healthy and Prado had a down year.  Im not so sure giving up top prospects for the tandem is in the best interest of the franchise. Id only be willing to give up maybe Weiland or Pimental and a positional prospect that is not in the teams plans for the next three years.
    Posted by jb12bb[/QUOTE]

    Jurrjens alone is worth at least 10 Weilands.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : Jeff Francoeur led all Right-fielders in assists with 16.  Crawford's speed would stop two balls from dropping in for every one a rifle-armed RF would throw out at third.  And it's the same distance to home whether you're in right or left. I'll admit, it's a lot of moving parts, but I have to wonder if the Sox weren't thinking along these lines when they signed Crawford.  If they felt like he could play RF, the price tag makes a lot more sense. You said yourself you would trade Ellsbury for a top-tier starting pitcher.  Who is that pitcher?  Josh Johson?  Tim Lincecum?  Felix Hernandez?  Whatever your price, you still need to find a way to fill out the OF.  With Jurrjens and a top-notch reliever, you get a solid #4 (with ace potential) and a replacement for Bard / Papelbon, which means $12M to fill other holes, including OF.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    Two for one, maybe. But you're overlooking runners who don't try to go from first to third or from second to home, because they fear the rifle in right. Those bases and runs saved have to be figured in. Assists are only part of the picture. No noodle arms in right.
    Moving parts, indeed: Crawford trying to learn right, a newbie trying to learn left in Fenway, and a centerfielder at least a notch ( or two ) down from Ellsbury. Toss in the limitations on the left side of the infield, and you might have trouble getting the pitchers out of the clubhouse even on days when they are scheduled to pitch. Someone has to catch the ball. 
    I doubt that rightfield entered Theo's mind when he signed Crawford, but I wouldn't doubt that Theo might have had center in mind. Crawford needs to learn to play left pronto. And if the leftfielder plays shallow in Fenway, the throw from there is not the same distance as the typical throw from right. 
    "Ace potential" is a phrase. We've heard it before. An ace is what an ace does.
    Which brings me to the pitchers you named. For people of that quality, and considering that Ellsbury probably does not have a long-term future in Boston, I'd make the deal, and then worry about the outfield. But only for pitchers at 1 or 2 level. I think that the chances of a deal like that are very slim anyway.
    It's reasonably certain that Ellsbury will start the season in center for Boston.


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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    I agree, ex. I don't think Ells is going anywhere this winter, but I do think if we could get a top notch starter (with more than 2 years of team control), it has to be considered.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    Elles for Brian McCann straight up baby!  Elles will be moved next winter if they do plan not to re-sign him. I think the team stands to benefit big time by keeping Elles here for 2012 and seeing if he can repeat ...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : Two for one, maybe. But you're overlooking runners who don't try to go from first to third or from second to home, because they fear the rifle in right. Those bases and runs saved have to be figured in. Assists are only part of the picture. No noodle arms in right. Moving parts, indeed: Crawford trying to learn right, a newbie trying to learn left in Fenway, and a centerfielder at least a notch ( or two ) down from Ellsbury. Toss in the limitations on the left side of the infield, and you might have trouble getting the pitchers out of the clubhouse even on days when they are scheduled to pitch. Someone has to catch the ball.  I doubt that rightfield entered Theo's mind when he signed Crawford, but I wouldn't doubt that Theo might have had center in mind. Crawford needs to learn to play left pronto. And if the leftfielder plays shallow in Fenway, the throw from there is not the same distance as the typical throw from right.  "Ace potential" is a phrase. We've heard it before. An ace is what an ace does. Which brings me to the pitchers you named. For people of that quality, and considering that Ellsbury probably does not have a long-term future in Boston, I'd make the deal, and then worry about the outfield. But only for pitchers at 1 or 2 level. I think that the chances of a deal like that are very slim anyway. It's reasonably certain that Ellsbury will start the season in center for Boston.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Speed would have the same effect - base runners cannot commit to going first to third, if they are not sure if the ball will drop in.  Also, the value of a caught ball is much higher - stopping a runner from going first to third does not result in an out - just the runner being in a lesser scoring position.

    Jurrjens had a 2.96 ERA in 152 innings in 2011.  You could argue he has already put up ace numbers - at age 25, there's no reason to think he can't improve, and he is unlikely to regress.

    I think right now an Ellsbury deal is 50/50, but the Sox have reported interest in both Beltran and Cespedes.  If they sign either, I think they deal Ellsbury.

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    Elles for Brian McCann straight up baby!  Elles will be moved next winter if they do plan not to re-sign him. I think the team stands to benefit big time by keeping Elles here for 2012 and seeing if he can repeat ...

    But, 2012 is half of his total value in trade, and the potential of what could be will be tantalizing to many teams looking to bolster their offense with a CF'er. (And, softy must now think he is a great fielder since he won the jeter...ummm, I mean... the Gold Glove Award.) If he does nor repeat his 2011 numbers in 2012, his value will be less than half of what it is now.

    Two years of Ells in his prime does have a lot of value to us, but it may have more value to another team thinking they are one offensive piece away from serious ring contention. We'd likely get a list of super prospects in return, which could, in theory, be flipped to get a great starting pitcher, perhaps with 3 or more years of team control.

    I'd much rather find another way to get a top starter in trade.  I know there are some here who downgrade youk's value due to his age and injuries, but there are a few teams who need or may need (STl & Milw) a 1Bman badly. His abiltiy to play 3B is a bonus that some teams may need as well. If we keep Papi or sign Beltran, then losing Youk is not the end of our offense. We could get some top prospects for Youk, and package them with Lowrie, Salty, Iggy and/or Reddick for something special. If not, no harm looking.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : Speed would have the same effect - base runners cannot commit to going first to third, if they are not sure if the ball will drop in.  Also, the value of a caught ball is much higher - stopping a runner from going first to third does not result in an out - just the runner being in a lesser scoring position. Jurrjens had a 2.96 ERA in 152 innings in 2011.  You could argue he has already put up ace numbers - at age 25, there's no reason to think he can't improve, and he is unlikely to regress. I think right now an Ellsbury deal is 50/50, but the Sox have reported interest in both Beltran and Cespedes.  If they sign either, I think they deal Ellsbury.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    Now you are pushing it. I specified singles. That means the ball has already dropped. We have yet to see how Crawford might use his speed in right. Stopping a runner going from second to home prevents a run. No noodles in right.
    One year does not make an ace. For Ellsbury, you either get one, or close to one, or pass.


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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : Now you are pushing it. I specified singles. That means the ball has already dropped. We have yet to see how Crawford might use his speed in right. Stopping a runner going from second to home prevents a run. No noodles in right. One year does not make an ace. For Ellsbury, you either get one, or close to one, or pass.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Not all singles are created equal - some of the singles that fall in front of JD Drew would be caught by Carl Crawford.  And others that drop in front of both would be in doubt if Crawford was in pursuit.  The doubt would have the same effect as a RF with a rifle arm - keep the runner close to first, preventing an advance to third. 

    I don't understand the 2nd to home argument - Crawford can play the exact same distance from home in right as he could in left.

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

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In case anybody thought Jurgens (and his 5.88 ERA  for $5.1 MM) would be cheap, here's his asking price:
    "The Braves are looking for a Zack Greinke-like return in a deal for Jair Jurrjens, according to Heyman (on Twitter). The Royals obtained Jake Odorizzi, Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar and Jeremy Jeffress for Greinke and Yuniesky Betancourt last offseason."
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRedStain. Show TheRedStain's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    "I don't understand the 2nd to home argument - Crawford can play the exact same distance from home in right as he could in left."

    Except in Fenway. The right fielder has to throw from 380 feet away, the center fielder from over 400 on rare occasions but the left fielder has a much shorter field, between 300' and 350' depending how far toward center. A strong arm, utilized in right, is squandered in left.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block

    In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jair Jurrjens and Martin Prado on the Trading block : Not all singles are created equal - some of the singles that fall in front of JD Drew would be caught by Carl Crawford.  And others that drop in front of both would be in doubt if Crawford was in pursuit.  The doubt would have the same effect as a RF with a rifle arm - keep the runner close to first, preventing an advance to third.  I don't understand the 2nd to home argument - Crawford can play the exact same distance from home in right as he could in left.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]
    No he can't. Not with the expanse behind him in right. And with the curious configuration to deal with.
    Indeed, not all singles are created equal. Many are ground balls, for which speed in the outfield is no defense. 
    There you go again. Drew got a great jump on balls and normally went right to where they would fall or sink. You cannot say for certain ( again ) that Crawford would catch balls that drop in front of Drew. Drew was very quick and had a quick release. He was also excellent charging ground-ball singles. You've made an unfortunate comparison. We are not talking about sprinters but ballplayers.
    Let's see first whether Crawford can improve his game in left, which has always been his standard position.
    On questionable balls, runners are supposed to hesitate no matter who is in the outfield -- unless the man is a notorious brown dog.  Do you really think that Crawford would make that much of a difference, as opposed to the difference in arms? I mean day in and day out. You are trying to rewrite all the calculations made over time that have put the best arm in right, all things considered. You don't change all of that to accommodate a really bad arm. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share