SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Letting Ellsbury and Drew go...Is it worth it for the picks?
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 15, 2013 15:06:41 GMT -5
I think Bradley is absolutely ready, by the way. But even if he isn't, it's not like the Red Sox will be in a terrible position. One more point-- knowing Boras' negotiation techniques (dragging out the process, playing one team off another), the Red Sox might not be able to afford to wait for Ellsbury's decision before moving on to Plan B. I'd rather them make the best offer they think is appropriate to Ellsbury early in the free agent process, and when he inevitably rejects it, see whether Hart or Cruz might be willing to sign for cheap. Even with Gomes' resurgence, this roster is starving for some RH power. These two moves shouldn't be related. I would certainly like to take out a flyer on Hart as he should be avoidable and can play either LF or 1B(or RF on the road). But the Red Sox will have plenty of money to get both of these guys and much more. Hart/Cruz are likely looking at 1 year deals (maybe 2 at most). So there won't be any long term dollar implications there either. They could even sign Choo AND keep Ellsbury in theory. But this may be more of an either/or situation due to the long-term dollars required.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 15, 2013 15:45:07 GMT -5
I think Bradley is absolutely ready, by the way. But even if he isn't, it's not like the Red Sox will be in a terrible position. One more point-- knowing Boras' negotiation techniques (dragging out the process, playing one team off another), the Red Sox might not be able to afford to wait for Ellsbury's decision before moving on to Plan B. I'd rather them make the best offer they think is appropriate to Ellsbury early in the free agent process, and when he inevitably rejects it, see whether Hart or Cruz might be willing to sign for cheap. Actually, I see the fact that we have JBJ and Shane-O as benefitting us in the process. Boras will want to maintain the illusion that the Red Sox are involved for as long as possible. That doesn't necessarily hurt us, either with Ellsbury or with other OF FAs. If I'm the Red Sox and I know Boras' proclivity to drag out the process, I give Jacoby the QO and I go about my other business (C, 1B/LF) while the market for Ellsbury develops. If I find my 3rd OF, I can always go back to Boras to see whether he is willing to move the process forward or is willing to shop Ellsbury without the Red Sox being involved. We don't need to re-sign Ellsbury; that is important in determining the leverage between the parties.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 15, 2013 15:55:00 GMT -5
Mod Edit: Large portions of this post were removed to prevent this thread from devolving into a pissing match. Please stay on point. - chavopepe2
To say something on-topic, 5 years is obviously the length you stop at, but I'm not sure that $100 mill is the top dollar value; I think I'd go somewhat higher. Jacoby's on his way to being worth $30 mill this year, according to my open tabs. People are underestimating how large the downgrade to JBJ will be because they are comparing player-to-player in general, rather than player at peak to rookie. I'm high on Bradley and think he can put up a 3.0 or 3.5 WAR as Jacoby's replacement -- but that's 2.5 or 3.0 wins off the top of the team, and that is harder to make up then you might think. You'd hate to wind up well under the tax limit and short of those wins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 16:40:52 GMT -5
Boras always likes to make the point that many top players are undervalued by the market. Yes the point is self-serving but it is often correct. Jacoby is on his way to a 6 win season and he's doing it despite likely spending the first part of the year still recovering from his 2012 shoulder injury. How many 6 win outfielders are there on the open market? Not many and I firmly believe he can do better than that.
Josh Hamilton got 5/125 last year and if you look at it objectively he was coming off of a lower FWAR season than Ellsbury will be. 5/100 that's a steal if you can get him for that and you might be able to because the market undervalues defense and base-running and will likely discount his 2011 season as a fluke.
As far as spending the money in other places. Where exactly are you going to spend it? Would you really rather give a big contract to Brian McCann or a 1B who has never played in the majors?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 15, 2013 16:43:17 GMT -5
I can agree with you there Eric. I think everyone knows there will be a win drop off from Ells to JBJ if both are healthy and playing next year. The hope is to make up some wins having Buch in the rotation, a better pen, 3B can't be any worse and who's to say that Xander doesn't go on to a rookie of the year and improve on Drew/Iglesias from this year. The money allocated for Ells could go to a FA C or Abreu. Besides two years from now JBJ could be a better all around player in CF than a 16-20 a year Ells.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 15, 2013 16:50:29 GMT -5
Mod Edit: Large portions of this post were removed to prevent this thread from devolving into a pissing match. Please stay on point. - chavopepe2To say something on-topic, 5 years is obviously the length you stop at, but I'm not sure that $100 mill is the top dollar value; I think I'd go somewhat higher. Jacoby's on his way to being worth $30 mill this year, according to my open tabs. People are underestimating how large the downgrade to JBJ will be because they are comparing player-to-player in general, rather than player at peak to rookie. I'm high on Bradley and think he can put up a 3.0 or 3.5 WAR as Jacoby's replacement -- but that's 2.5 or 3.0 wins off the top of the team, and that is harder to make up then you might think. You'd hate to wind up well under the tax limit and short of those wins. I agree with your general point that the drop off from Ellsbury to Bradley hasn't been recognized to the extent it probably should be. I also agree that Bradley can put up a 3.0-3.5 fWAR next season driven largely by the defensive value he brings to the table. The area I'm not sure I agree with is in projecting Ellsbury's value. You mention that he would add 2.5 to 3.0 WAR to Bradley - so 5.5 to 6.5 WAR. He's projected to finish this year with a 5.6 fWAR according to ZIPS. I think he's been a bit on the lucky side - perhaps accounting for about 1 WAR. He's in the tail end of his prime, so you should probably project some regression into his numbers. With that, I'd probably project him to about a 4.5 fWAR, maybe a touch less. The projection for Bradley might be a touch optimistic, so I'd say the expected drop off to be about 1.5 to 2 fWAR. Still a major factor if we're considering letting Jacoby walk, but not quite the 2.5 -3.0 WAR drop you project.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 15, 2013 17:11:46 GMT -5
Again the drop off from Ellsbury to Bradley is not as stark when you know they'll upgrade 1B perhaps offensively at SS and who knows what else they can do by not resigning Ellsbury. Hold on, let me summarize your argument: There is no drop off because said non-existent drop off can be compensated? Is that what you're saying? It's almost as if it would be a crime if the Red Sox were to actually get even better...
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Aug 15, 2013 17:27:42 GMT -5
I am not really sure how the fWAR is computed but if you add up the fWAR of all the players that played on a team, will it be equal to that teams win total for the year?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 15, 2013 17:43:58 GMT -5
I am not really sure how the fWAR is computed but if you add up the fWAR of all the players that played on a team, will it be equal to that teams win total for the year? You'd also have to add the expected number of wins for a team full of replacement-level players, about 47½ wins, and then it still wouldn't be entirely correct, because WAR tries to eliminate some of the luck elements, but you'd be getting close. As an example, if Player A walks and then Player B hits a home run, you tend to get more points than if Player A hits a home run and then Player B walks, but the sum of their individual contributions (= WAR) would be the same.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Aug 15, 2013 20:01:12 GMT -5
Here's something interesting:
Dustin Pedroia got a seven year extension to a massive round of applause. He's been worth 4.9 wins so far this season. People are poo-pooing the idea of giving Jacoby Ellsbury a 5 or 6 year extension. He's been worth 4.8 wins so far.
Jacoby is a month younger.
I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 15, 2013 20:15:33 GMT -5
Here's something interesting: Dustin Pedroia got a seven year extension to a massive round of applause. He's been worth 4.9 wins so far this season. People are poo-pooing the idea of giving Jacoby Ellsbury a 5 or 6 year extension. He's been worth 4.8 wins so far. Jacoby is a month younger. I don't get it. I see what you are saying, as many of the differences are intangible, but there are also many that aren't. The AAV of Pedroia's extension was $13.75M. The AAV of Ellsbury's next contract could be as much as 50% higher than that. Also, Ellsbury has been worth more than 2.1 fWAR only three times (in 6 seasons). Pedroia has been worth at least 3.1 fWAR in seven consecutive seasons. I think the reason people are okay with the length of Pedroia's extension has to do with two things. First, he is viewed as the face of the franchise (or will be when Papi retires) so no one wants to see him in a different uniform. Second, the AAV of the contract is far below what his current market value is. I think if Ellsbury signed an 8 year/$110M extension that was front loaded (say - $16M in years 1-3, $14M in years 4-6, and $10M in years 7-8) most people would be surprised by the length but happy with the value due to the below market AAV.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 15, 2013 20:24:51 GMT -5
I know you purposefully glossed over many of the differences between Pedroia and Ellsbury to prove a point, but the differences in consistency alone is enough to explain the difference. If we look at their best seasons by fWAR, Ellsbury has the best season (9.1 fWAR in 2011), but Pedroia has exceeded 3 WAR in all seven of his seasons to date, while Ellsbury has only reached that mark in three of six seasons.
Best seasons by fWAR, non-chronological order (* = current season) Pedroia: 7.6, 6.5, 4.7, 4.3, 3.8*, 3.6, 3.1 Ellsbury: 9.1, 4.6*, 4.1, 2.1, 1.4, 1.3, -0.2
So basically, Ellsbury has had one MVP-caliber season, two All-Star level seasons, and not much else, while Pedroia has performed at an All-Star or better level each year in his career. Even on a rate basis, Pedroia has performed to a 4.49 fWAR per 600 PA level across his career, while Ellsbury is at 4.35.
There's also the fact that not everyone was thrilled with the Pedroia extension (I wasn't, for instance) and that fact that Ellsbury isn't going to sign for an AAV as low as Pedroia's 7/$100m, even if he does get six or seven years.
EDIT: Scooped.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 15, 2013 22:09:12 GMT -5
The area I'm not sure I agree with is in projecting Ellsbury's value. You mention that he would add 2.5 to 3.0 WAR to Bradley - so 5.5 to 6.5 WAR. He's projected to finish this year with a 5.6 fWAR according to ZIPS. I think he's been a bit on the lucky side - perhaps accounting for about 1 WAR. He's in the tail end of his prime, so you should probably project some regression into his numbers. With that, I'd probably project him to about a 4.5 fWAR, maybe a touch less. The projection for Bradley might be a touch optimistic, so I'd say the expected drop off to be about 1.5 to 2 fWAR. Still a major factor if we're considering letting Jacoby walk, but not quite the 2.5 -3.0 WAR drop you project. ZiPS is a wonderful tool, but it's actually just a bunch of lines of computer code that doesn't know a thing about baseball. Whenever you know something about a player that ZiPS doesn't, your projection should take that into account. In this case, we know the following: .056 -- Jacoby's HR / Contact in 2011 (567 times made contact) .009 -- his HR / Contact in 2012 and through July 3 of this year (555 contact) .050 -- his HR / Contact since July 4 (121 contact) (His 2012 and start of 2013 HRC have no statistically significant difference, so we lump them together. In contrast, the split between the last two lines has a 1 in 719 chance of happening in a random simulation like Diamond Mind that was programmed with his combined rate of .016, while the split between the first two lines has a 1 in 115,333 chance of happening randomly in a sim programmed with the combined .033 rate. That's a simple chi-square test, BTW.) We also know that he suffered a shoulder injury in 2012 that sapped his power, and anyone watching him hit this year can see that his stroke since July 4 is different, and a return to his earlier form. Now, ZipS doesn't know any of this, which is why it's projecting an .029 HRC the rest of the way. But .050 would be a much better guess. (And we're not catching him at a particularly good time; 8 days ago his post-July 4 HRC was .066.) So I'd peg Jacoby to finish with more like 5.8 or 5.9 WAR rather than the 5.6 that ZiPS projects. And I don't see where the luck is. When I compared him to Bradley, I was assuming 6.0 WAR for Jacoby playing a full season with his current approach. I don't think that's at all too rosy.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 15, 2013 23:05:11 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many people consider resigning Ellsbury to be a real option. I thought the JBJ move with the resultant pick when Ellsbury leaves would be perceived of as a no brainer but I think you guys are absolutely on target in your analysis. Ellsbury is a special player and there will probably be a big drop off if he leaves and is replaced by JBJ, as much as many of us want to see Jackie roam CF in Fenway. It probably does reduce our chances to win, particularly in the short term. It's a more difficult decision than I think some were projecting, until they actually thought it through. I know it was for me at first.
Re signing Ellsbury and keeping JBJ doesn't net us a pick but we would want to sign Ellsbury if he were a FA on another team, even if he cost us a pick ...right? I think that may be the case. The team improvement factor is probably worth the pick...depending upon the size of that contract.
A big factor is how much is Ellsbury worth to us, as compared to another hypothetical team. For example a team like Philly or the Yanks with a short porch in RF. Possibly a national league team which could benefit more from Ellsbury's speed. I don't think Ellsbury is optimized in Fenway. The short LF area actually hurts him ( I think ) as he is largely still a guy who takes the ball to left field with a lot of pitches and he still can't reach the wall with his opposite field power. Left fielders can play more shallow against him in Fenway, cutting down some of his hits. Its also tough for him to hit a HR in Fenway to CF and to RF overall. There are fan appeal and marketing issues but overall he is potentially more valuable to another team.
Therefore I don't think we are going to be able to sign him to a reasonable deal. Someone is going to throw more than $100 mil at him and he's going to take it. I do think we should make a run at him though. He's worth it. Unfortunately he's worth more probably to another team.
So as much as I'd like to keep Ellsbury, I think he and Drew will move on. At least we can get 2 picks potentially and use the cash saved for other options.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Aug 16, 2013 5:26:24 GMT -5
All these "Bradley is not ready" guys were either taking a nap towards the end of Spring Training when people were demanding that he be in the line up openning day or they have changed their tunes. Of course being ready and replacing Ellsbury's production are two completely different things.
All of this is moot though because the only way the Sox resign Ellsbury is if they extend themselves beyond what they feel comfortable giving him in terms of years and AAV. This is a bad contract waiting to happen and I hope the Sox let some other team deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 16, 2013 8:28:20 GMT -5
You'd think half the users here are Scott Boras seeing how they're hyping up how much Ellsbury is going to earn.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Aug 16, 2013 8:43:14 GMT -5
All these "Bradley is not ready" guys were either taking a nap towards the end of Spring Training when people were demanding that he be in the line up openning day or they have changed their tunes. Of course being ready and replacing Ellsbury's production are two completely different things. All of this is moot though because the only way the Sox resign Ellsbury is if they extend themselves beyond what they feel comfortable giving him in terms of years and AAV. This is a bad contract waiting to happen and I hope the Sox let some other team deal with that. Are you saying Bradley WAS ready on opening day? I think most of us were saying that spring training stats don't matter (they dont) and he shouldn't have started the year on the big league club (he shouldn't have).
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 16, 2013 8:55:32 GMT -5
Here is another possibility to get a pick. I mentioned a while ago that Lester has a option next year for 14 million. So the Sox decline it and instead offer a QO. That's 13 million . If he leaves that's another pick. I am just throwing that out there since they have extra starters next year.
I think they should decline it and offer Lester 2 years and 20 million. He isn't worth 14 million to me. You can see the Sox are gearing for a transition since they have there starters only tied up for 1 to 2 years. No more crazy 5 year deals.
I know Hatfield isn't too high on our starters but I feel the FO is.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 16, 2013 9:13:45 GMT -5
Here is another possibility to get a pick. I mentioned a while ago that Lester has a option next year for 14 13 million with a .25 mil buyout. So the Sox decline it and instead offer a QO. That's 13 .3 million . If he leaves that's another pick. I am just throwing that out there since they have extra starters next year. This is not a bad idea. On the one hand, you can never have too much pitching, but on the other hand, you could really use the pick, and it's only a .55 million cost difference if he accepts. Also, Lester has been mediocre, and he has been cankerous (just painful, not cancerous) in the clubhouse.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 16, 2013 9:32:43 GMT -5
Wouldn't Lester have more value on the trade market than a pick in the 30-40 range? Probably another thread topic but a SP could net us a LFer, C or 1B for 2014.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 9:46:08 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying and I do sort of agree.
However a contract is signed for future projected performance and consistency not past performance and consistency. The reason for the difference in consistency is Ellsbury's injury history. Hence key assumption in your conclusion is that whatever caused Ellsbury's injury history over the past six seasons, will continue into his 30s. I think there is an argument to be made that Ellsbury's injury history was caused by factors that are unlikely to be repeated.
Ellsbury has had two major tramatic injuries. One was because he was run over Adrian Beltre and the other was because Reid Bringac landed directly on his shoulder. Since neither of these occurrences were due to a chronic problem, I think you could argue that the case for Ellsbury's future susceptibility to future injury is overblown.
One last thing. Part of the difference in consistency you cite was caused by Pedroia's one traumatic injury occurring mid way through the season, while Ellsbury's injuries both occurred in early April. You might be able to make the argument that Pedroia will be less injury prone in the future, though in my opinion it would be a thin one, but I don't see how you could argue on the timing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 16, 2013 9:46:43 GMT -5
Here is another possibility to get a pick. I mentioned a while ago that Lester has a option next year for 14 million. So the Sox decline it and instead offer a QO. That's 13 million . If he leaves that's another pick. I am just throwing that out there since they have extra starters next year. I think they should decline it and offer Lester 2 years and 20 million. He isn't worth 14 million to me. You can see the Sox are gearing for a transition since they have there starters only tied up for 1 to 2 years. No more crazy 5 year deals. I know Hatfield isn't too high on our starters but I feel the FO is. A) If you lose Lester, a pitcher that I think we can at least all agree is a MLB-quality starter, then this is a massive backfire and not worth the pick. Remember, Edwin Jackson got 4/52 this offseason. Lester isn't Kyle Lohse and teams will deem him worth a pick to sign. To say you'd rather have a draft pick at the end of the first round than Jon Lester is to say you care more about having exciting players in the lower levels of the farm system than winning in the majors. Fortunately, MLB franchises don't operate this way. Also, what's the point of saving 4 million? You're going to have a bunch of players making six figures on the 25-man next year that'll offset that monetarily, so even if he's a slight overpay, I don't get why the maneuvering is necessary to save a few bucks. Like you said, there's a transition point for this rotation. Why accelerate it? B) What do you mean by "isn't too high on our starters?" Ranaudo - probably where the biggest variance lies in projections, but we can probably agree he's not ready to be handed a rotation spot on opening day next year regardless, yes? I project him to be on I-95 duty to start the season. Workman - projections have had him headed to the bullpen for years. He might have some Justin Masterson in him, role-wise (and before you tell me he was an all-star this year, note that he has still been below league average for Cleveland for his career). I think that'd be a great use for Workman. I'm not ready to give him a rotation spot full-time though, not by a long shot. Three MLB starts didn't change what I've heard from scouts for years. Sue me. Britton - same thing re: projections. De La Rosa - I think we can agree that if he's in MLB next year to start the season, it's as a reliever. Jury's out for me on which role to use him in. He just hasn't shown the consistency mentally this year with his approach to starting to succeed as an MLB starting pitcher, so I'm currently thinking he makes more sense as a high-leverage bullpen arm. Webster - After the way his MLB audition went this year, you'd be crazy to hand him a rotation spot out of the gate next year. Remember, a mechanical adjustment in ST this year had apparently temporarily solved some of his control issues, which later come back. Show me half a season of improvement here, and I'll be ready to try him in a rotation spot full-time. So if you meant "doesn't think they're all going to be aces like you apparently do", then yeah, I'm not too high on them. Also, if you meant "is going by more than just his gut and what he hopes will happen as a fan", that'd be right too. C) You feel the front office is high on the guys that I'm low on, eh? By that, do you mean the ones that they have pitching out of the bullpen? Seriously, point me to a single piece of evidence to show that this isn't just you wishcasting like you do constantly. Is the front office going to rush Ranaudo, the most dominant pitcher in the system in April and May who still didn't get promoted until August, conveniently after the trade deadline when they didn't have to worry about Triple-A hitters potentially exposing some weaknesses? Is the front office suddenly going to give Workman a chance to start after they traded for Peavy specifically to replace him in the rotation? Then there's Britton, who barely even had the chance to start in Pawtucket before moving to the bullpen. Seriously, show me anything beyond your gut instinct that says the front office is higher on these guys than I am.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 10:09:49 GMT -5
There's a misconception here that is not just put out here but is put off all across the media. That somehow Ellsbury will be overpaid because Scott Boras is his agent. Scott is very good at his job, and if I had a kid that threw 98 he'd be my first call. However the notion that teams pay more for his clients is ludicrous.
Boras is not a magician and he cannot inflate a market. In the case of Ellsbury, Boras might have a difficult time convincing teams of the value of Ellsbury's defense, and piercing the notion that his client is injury prone.
Just most other free agent, Ellsbury will accept the offer that he believes will make him the most money after taxes and discounting for present value. If the Red Sox are the team that makes that offer he will resign. The only question should be is if that offer will be a good investment given everything we've discussed.
At 5/100 I think the answer to that is yes and that may very well be the top offer regardless of who his agent is.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 16, 2013 10:19:36 GMT -5
The area I'm not sure I agree with is in projecting Ellsbury's value. You mention that he would add 2.5 to 3.0 WAR to Bradley - so 5.5 to 6.5 WAR. He's projected to finish this year with a 5.6 fWAR according to ZIPS. I think he's been a bit on the lucky side - perhaps accounting for about 1 WAR. He's in the tail end of his prime, so you should probably project some regression into his numbers. With that, I'd probably project him to about a 4.5 fWAR, maybe a touch less. The projection for Bradley might be a touch optimistic, so I'd say the expected drop off to be about 1.5 to 2 fWAR. Still a major factor if we're considering letting Jacoby walk, but not quite the 2.5 -3.0 WAR drop you project. ZiPS is a wonderful tool, but it's actually just a bunch of lines of computer code that doesn't know a thing about baseball. Whenever you know something about a player that ZiPS doesn't, your projection should take that into account. In this case, we know the following: .056 -- Jacoby's HR / Contact in 2011 (567 times made contact) .009 -- his HR / Contact in 2012 and through July 3 of this year (555 contact) .050 -- his HR / Contact since July 4 (121 contact) (His 2012 and start of 2013 HRC have no statistically significant difference, so we lump them together. In contrast, the split between the last two lines has a 1 in 719 chance of happening in a random simulation like Diamond Mind that was programmed with his combined rate of .016, while the split between the first two lines has a 1 in 115,333 chance of happening randomly in a sim programmed with the combined .033 rate. That's a simple chi-square test, BTW.) We also know that he suffered a shoulder injury in 2012 that sapped his power, and anyone watching him hit this year can see that his stroke since July 4 is different, and a return to his earlier form. Now, ZipS doesn't know any of this, which is why it's projecting an .029 HRC the rest of the way. But .050 would be a much better guess. ( And we're not catching him at a particularly good time; 8 days ago his post-July 4 HRC was .066.) So I'd peg Jacoby to finish with more like 5.8 or 5.9 WAR rather than the 5.6 that ZiPS projects. And I don't see where the luck is. When I compared him to Bradley, I was assuming 6.0 WAR for Jacoby playing a full season with his current approach. I don't think that's at all too rosy. Which goes to show that A) this variable can change with a quickness (-0.016 in 8 days) when your sample size is this small, and B) his last 8 days resemble his HR/Contact rates of 2012. Bottom line, I'm going to need the rest of the year to be convinced that Jacoby's power stroke resembles what we saw in 2011, and basically I'm skeptical. I personally think the last line in your analysis simply represents one small power surge (6 HR?) in a relatively small sample.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 10:20:33 GMT -5
Great post as usual Chris. Though we are getting off topic, I do think the OP you responded to does have a point in that they should approach Lester about an extension before exercising his option. I would absolutely sign him for 3/30 but I think Lester would be crazy to take that and play for the option instead. Am I too low?
|
|
|