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 jdb on Aug 17, 2013 13:07:18 GMT -5
I'd rather stick to a Nava/Gomes platoon than pay Choo. He is brutal vs LHP. .186/.327/.214 for a .542 OPS.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 17, 2013 15:40:27 GMT -5
Is it reasonable to say (not sure what to look up to confirm or squash the idea) that lead off hitting is not for everybody, and that Ellsbury is pretty darn good at it? I don't think so, why would you think that?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 17, 2013 15:41:25 GMT -5
I'd rather stick to a Nava/Gomes platoon than pay Choo. He is brutal vs LHP. .186/.327/.214 for a .542 OPS. But perhaps we can at least agree that a Choo/Gomes platoon would be an upgrade?
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 17, 2013 16:12:26 GMT -5
If we assume we don't bring back Napoli, it opens up 1st for Nava/Carp. I'm down with that even if we do not bring Ellsbury back. We do need some RH hitting pop though and maybe that is better performance from Middlebrooks and a decent first year from Bogaerts.
|
|
kman22
Veteran
Posts: 948
Member is Online
|
Post by kman22 on Aug 17, 2013 16:15:09 GMT -5
With Ellsbury you are also going to pay more for the fact that he plays a premium defensive position, not just being a leadoff hitter. In a perfect world I'd rather use the money on Shin-Soo Choo who I think would be a great fit (don't see why he couldn't replace Jacoby's current production as leadoff) and plays a corner OF position, likely saving a bit on years and $$ compared to Ellsbury. I'm indifferent with a switch from Ellsbury to Choo - but how do we know that Choo is going to be paid less? Premium positions tend to pay better but so do HRs, where Choo has an advantage. Also, don't forget that Choo is a huge step down from Ellsbury when it comes to base-running. If the Red Sox simply waited both of them out and took whoever was willing to take the lower deal - it could work out well for them; depending on the competition for their services. If you went with Choo and let Ellsbury walk, you also downgrade your draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 17, 2013 16:19:58 GMT -5
Why pay a guy top dollar who ends up a platoon guy. For example, Victorino. It's a factor. Roster flexibility is a real factor in overall team success. I'd rather not sign Choo to a $60 mil type contract, lose a pick and then have him hit .182 against LH. I know what really counts are the overall numbers but guys with extreme splits present a problem also.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 17, 2013 16:22:26 GMT -5
My gut feeling is that the Redsox are going to be extremely hesitant to lose picks from here on out. They certainly showed that last year. Maybe for a top guy and considering that the outfield FA options don't look good in 2015 either maybe they look at Ellsbury that way.
Or maybe they just throw their hands up and stick Cechinni in LF by the end of 2014. That would be my move probably.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Aug 17, 2013 18:05:37 GMT -5
My gut feeling is that the Redsox are going to be extremely hesitant to lose picks from here on out. They certainly showed that last year. Maybe for a top guy and considering that the outfield FA options don't look good in 2015 either maybe they look at Ellsbury that way. Or maybe they just throw their hands up and stick Cechinni in LF by the end of 2014. That would be my move probably. My thought was Choo would come noticeably cheaper than Ellsbury, perhaps closer to 4/52. This may be wishful thinking but if he's seen around the league as a platoon guy his price tag won't be on par with Ellsbury, who I agree that despite the injury history is likely to be an elite player for most or all of the next 5 years. A Gomes/Choo platoon or even Choo/Hassan by year's end with JBJ in CF would work for me, and his 3 year splits vs LHP are not as extreme as this year's (Still sub .700 OPS though). The savings would go directly to offensively upgrading 1B/C (McCann, Morales if he can play 1B or something like that), thus giving us a stronger 1-9 assuming Bogaerts, WMB and JBJ are decent contributors. As far as the draft picks, with QO's to both Ellsbury and Drew you would still net a pick despite signing Choo.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 17, 2013 18:14:47 GMT -5
If you went with Choo and let Ellsbury walk, you also downgrade your draft pick. Given the fact that the Red Sox should finish around the top five in baseball in wins, it'll be a very minor downgrade-- something like from 25 to 32. I'm not sure this really matters much in terms of deciding what course of action to take.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 17, 2013 19:56:44 GMT -5
My gut feeling is that the Redsox are going to be extremely hesitant to lose picks from here on out. They certainly showed that last year. Maybe for a top guy and considering that the outfield FA options don't look good in 2015 either maybe they look at Ellsbury that way. Or maybe they just throw their hands up and stick Cechinni in LF by the end of 2014. That would be my move probably. So you would be willing to go for a sub-par OF for most of 2014 in the hopes that BOTH Middlebrooks works out at 3B and a AA thirdbaseman can become your solution at a new position by the end of the year. To me, this is both wishful thinking and choosing to practically throw the 2014 season in order to horde money and prospects. (If Middlebrooks flops then they will already be 'hoping' that Cecchini can fill in at 3B - which means they are thin enough on the infield) If this team is a perennial competitor and financial powerhouse (which they should be - especially in 2014 which projects to be a down year for the Yankees) then they can't go into the season throwing so many questions marks into starting roles. I think that you would agree that C, 3B, SS, 1B, CF and LF are all currently questions marks. It appears that the Red Sox are committed to Bogaerts and Middlebrooks at 3B/SS in which case Cecchini would be their only desperation safety net (maybe he is ready much sooner - but this is not a sure thing). C will likely be Salty (or with any luck a McCann upgrade) and 1 OF spot will be filled by a talented rookie in Bradley (another question mark - like any rookie). This leaves 2 spots which are complete question marks; Carp, Hassan, Nava, Kalish, Brentz and Gomes 'may' give you 1 or 2 good players - but this is also not a sure thing. With so many question marks, letting Ellsbury go and not replacing him with a probably 3+ win player would put the Red Sox into a 'let's wait and hope' position. Not something appropriate for a well-managed major-market team. If Choo/Ellsbury isn't the answer then who? (Abreu would be an exciting signing but he's another question mark)
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan22 on Aug 17, 2013 21:10:19 GMT -5
if ellsbury does go, does that mean we get their 1st round pick or they give us one in the CBA?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 17, 2013 21:14:53 GMT -5
if ellsbury does go, does that mean we get their 1st round pick or they give us one in the CBA? End of the round.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 17, 2013 21:15:18 GMT -5
Is it reasonable to say (not sure what to look up to confirm or squash the idea) that lead off hitting is not for everybody, and that Ellsbury is pretty darn good at it? I don't think so, why would you think that? Even if it were, Bradley's been hitting leadoff all year for Pawtucket. He doesn't steal bases even remotely as well, but as far as being a leadoff "hitter," he can handle it.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 18, 2013 0:34:34 GMT -5
My gut feeling is that the Redsox are going to be extremely hesitant to lose picks from here on out. They certainly showed that last year. Maybe for a top guy and considering that the outfield FA options don't look good in 2015 either maybe they look at Ellsbury that way. Or maybe they just throw their hands up and stick Cechinni in LF by the end of 2014. That would be my move probably. So you would be willing to go for a sub-par OF for most of 2014 in the hopes that BOTH Middlebrooks works out at 3B and a AA thirdbaseman can become your solution at a new position by the end of the year. To me, this is both wishful thinking and choosing to practically throw the 2014 season in order to horde money and prospects. (If Middlebrooks flops then they will already be 'hoping' that Cecchini can fill in at 3B - which means they are thin enough on the infield) If this team is a perennial competitor and financial powerhouse (which they should be - especially in 2014 which projects to be a down year for the Yankees) then they can't go into the season throwing so many questions marks into starting roles. I think that you would agree that C, 3B, SS, 1B, CF and LF are all currently questions marks. It appears that the Red Sox are committed to Bogaerts and Middlebrooks at 3B/SS in which case Cecchini would be their only desperation safety net (maybe he is ready much sooner - but this is not a sure thing). C will likely be Salty (or with any luck a McCann upgrade) and 1 OF spot will be filled by a talented rookie in Bradley (another question mark - like any rookie). This leaves 2 spots which are complete question marks; Carp, Hassan, Nava, Kalish, Brentz and Gomes 'may' give you 1 or 2 good players - but this is also not a sure thing. With so many question marks, letting Ellsbury go and not replacing him with a probably 3+ win player would put the Red Sox into a 'let's wait and hope' position. Not something appropriate for a well-managed major-market team. If Choo/Ellsbury isn't the answer then who? (Abreu would be an exciting signing but he's another question mark) I think I effectively said that maybe they would look at Ellsbury as a top FA OF type and sign him considering the other options all the way through 2015. Choo is not ideal and the FA appear limited for OF. Maybe a Carlos Beltran or someone else. I don't have a big problem with the OF options being Victorino, Carp, Nava, Bradley, Gomes in 2014 although I would certainly prefer a better situation. If they don't bring Napoli back they would be more likely to bring back Ellsbury. 2015 is a long way away but it is possible that Cechinni is contributing by the end of 2014, I would even say likely. I think he is the best bat we have had coming up besides Bogaerts and he even has a better floor to me than Bogaerts. I'm pretty confident he is going to hit and be a solid defensive OF. So, I stand by my "probably" statement for Cechinni in the late 2014 OF. They probably will sign an OF this winter though right, but they could also keep Napoli and go with JBJ and stand pat in the OF.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Aug 18, 2013 9:26:43 GMT -5
if ellsbury does go, does that mean we get their 1st round pick or they give us one in the CBA? End of the round. Might be reading this out of context. The Sox get the signing team's pick unless they have a top ten pick right?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 18, 2013 9:28:12 GMT -5
Not anymore. The signing team will lose their first round pick unless it is in the top 10. The Sox would gain a pick at the end of the first round.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Aug 18, 2013 10:00:17 GMT -5
Not anymore. The signing team will lose their first round pick unless it is in the top 10. The Sox would gain a pick at the end of the first round. Interesting dynamic. What was the logic behind that change in the compensation rules? Attempt to increase the incentive to resign your own FA?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 18, 2013 10:50:19 GMT -5
Not anymore. The signing team will lose their first round pick unless it is in the top 10. The Sox would gain a pick at the end of the first round. Interesting dynamic. What was the logic behind that change in the compensation rules? Attempt to increase the incentive to resign your own FA? Well, between that change and the replacement of the Type A/Type B system with the qualifying offer system, they pretty clearly wanted to scale back compensation for departing free agents. As for what specifically led to each piece of the CBA, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 18, 2013 11:37:03 GMT -5
Under the old system, it was a huge incentive to sign another team's free agent rather than keep one of your own, with all else being equal. I think the old draft pick compensation was put in place to reward less affluent teams that couldn't afford to resign free agents with draft picks, but the consequence ended up being that teams like the Red Sox and Yankees and other rich teams, who would tend to have the most Type A free agents, would basically play musical free agents and end up stockpiling draft picks. The Red Sox maneuvering post-2004 was probably the best example of that. They let Pedro, Lowe, and Cabrera walk and signed Wells, Clement and Renteria, and gave up picks 28, 76 and 108 while getting numbers 23, 26, 42, 45, 47, and 57.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 18, 2013 20:03:49 GMT -5
Note: I have deleted the off-topic posts (including my own). Let's stick to the subject of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Aug 19, 2013 1:21:20 GMT -5
I understand Ellsbury is a dynamic player and hit 32HR once and may have potential to hit 20HR. However 2011 is the one and only year Ellsbury has ever hit more than 10HR. At this point for whatever reasons he has not reached that potential in other years and may be 2011 is the outlier.
Bradley has not hit in majors (SS) so far but he has shown better track record in the minors. He hit 9HR last year and 10HR this year so far while putting up .872OPS in AAA. He is an excellent defender and has plus arm. Hopefully teams will not run from 1B-3B on singles to CF as often as they do now.
I am in the camp of letting Ellsbury go and allocate that money to plug other holes. This is exactly the situation where you let your expensive FA's leave and let your prospect take over.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 19, 2013 1:34:23 GMT -5
has plus arm. Hopefully teams will not run from 1B-3B on singles to CF as often as they do now. Is there any evidence that the CFer has a significant influence on this? Seems to me the quality of the hit and the speed of the runner have a much larger impact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 11:20:54 GMT -5
See this is the part of the "don't sign Ellsbury" argument that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even if you believe that JBJ can play the Red Sox are likely going to have to sign at least one free agent OF either in 2014 or 2015. They may very well have to sign two.
#1 JBJ as a rookie seems likely to be a good player. But expecting him to be as good as Ellsbury right away seems like wishful thinking to me.
#2 Either way it's a false choice. The Red Sox don't have any OF prospects in the minors that project as starters. I suppose you could argue that Ceccini might play LF or RF, but doing that puts a lot more pressure on his bat and he really doesn't hit for a ton of power.
#3 Shane Victorino is falling apart. He can no longer bat left handed and seems a fair bet to miss significant time over the next couple of years. He's supporting most of his value through his excellent defense.
#4 The idea that you can reallocate your resources better by not signing Ellsbury is also a misnomer. Where is the OF who is free in 14 or 15 that you would rather have?
#5 The Red Sox by my count are just over $111M in commitments. They have $78M to go and the only arbitration eligible players are Carp, Tazawa, Morales and Miller. Considering that they are also likely to trade a starter, saving another $6M-$12M., they will probably have plenty of room to sign Ellsbury. Further after next year, Lester, Dempster, Oritz, and Lackey all come off the books.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 19, 2013 11:36:17 GMT -5
See this is the part of the "don't sign Ellsbury" argument that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even if you believe that JBJ can play the Red Sox are likely going to have to sign at least one free agent OF either in 2014 or 2015. They may very well have to sign two. #1 JBJ as a rookie seems likely to be a good player. But expecting him to be as good as Ellsbury right away seems like wishful thinking to me. #2 Either way it's a false choice. The Red Sox don't have any OF prospects in the minors that project as starters. I suppose you could argue that Ceccini might play LF or RF, but doing that puts a lot more pressure on his bat and he really doesn't hit for a ton of power. #3 Shane Victorino is falling apart. He can no longer bat left handed and seems a fair bet to miss significant time over the next couple of years. He's supporting most of his value through his excellent defense. #4 The idea that you can reallocate your resources better by not signing Ellsbury is also a misnomer. Where is the OF who is free in 14 or 15 that you would rather have? #5 The Red Sox by my count are just over $111M in commitments. They have $78M to go and the only arbitration eligible players are Carp, Tazawa, Morales and Miller. Considering that they are also likely to trade a starter, saving another $6M-$12M., they will probably have plenty of room to sign Ellsbury. Further after next year, Lester, Dempster, Oritz, and Lackey all come off the books. Why can't "other positions" be the other outfielder you're talking about? At least that's how I take it. It's not Bradley in CF vs. Ellsbury in CF that's the question. To me, it's whether the club is better off with Ellsbury and Bradley in the same outfield or putting Bradley in CF and signing someone who can play a corner, like maybe a Beltran.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 19, 2013 11:40:37 GMT -5
The obvious answer to the thread is - if it hasn't been given - of course not. Losing a good player isn't worth the compensation pick.
For that reason I'm sure the Sox will seriously consider re-signing Ellsbury, even though I think he will end up elsewhere for two reasons: I believe he'll have serious suitors willing to pay him a ton of money, and with JBJ in the wings it's not optimal roster construction to have both (+Victorino).
(Let's consider that the pick is a wash when comparing the motivation of the Sox or another team signing Ells - the signing team probably gives up a mid- to late-1st or early 2nd for signing him, the Sox 'give up' the end-of-1st comp pick by resigning him.)
|
|
|