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 19, 2013 12:03:34 GMT -5
Beltran would be a great fit. Power bat without much of a platoon split. I would guess he's a near lock for a QO though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 12:15:49 GMT -5
Beltran is seven years older than Ellsbury and has a long history of chronic injuries (note Ellsbury's injuries were traumatic). It is highly questionable that if you sign him, he would be able to play the OF for the length of his contract.
If the choice is Ellsbury at 5/20 or Beltran at 2/15 I think Ellsbury wins that one. Ellsbury would be younger at the end of his contract than Beltran is today.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 19, 2013 13:05:06 GMT -5
Beltran is seven years older than Ellsbury and has a long history of chronic injuries (note Ellsbury's injuries were traumatic). It is highly questionable that if you sign him, he would be able to play the OF for the length of his contract. If the choice is Ellsbury at 5/20 or Beltran at 2/15 I think Ellsbury wins that one. Ellsbury would be younger at the end of his contract than Beltran is today. Fair, and I can say that as a Beltran fantasy owner, they're giving him days off about once every week or two to keep him healthy. I don't necessarily agree that Beltran at 2/15 in that case is better - he has much different skills, and I'm worried that Ellsbury, whose elite tool is his speed, will not age nearly as well. At least as Beltran slowed down he was able to slug .500. Ellsbury can't do that right now, even including the triples he gets with his wheels. If Ellsbury slows down in, say, three years, you're paying a slightly above-average hitter 20 million for 2 years. If Beltran comes and only plays for two half-seasons, they're at least rid of him after 2015. And just to be clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't re-sign Ellsbury. I'd love to re-sign him. I just think someone else will give him more money than he's worth re-signing for when there's a great plan B in CF in Bradley. Honestly, I think the best option for the Sox will be to get creative on the trade market and re-make a lot of the lineup given the openings they'll have at first, one outfield spot (likely), and places to potentially upgrade at catcher and third base. They've got chips in the high minors/near majors to deal from with the likes of Ranaudo, Webster, Britton, Workman, etc. I don't really have suggestions, but it's not a great FA market, to be honest, at some of those positions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2013 13:28:10 GMT -5
I read a lot that players who rely on speed and athleticism as their main tool don't play well in their 30s. I am not sure that's true. In fact I distinctly remember a study in the Bill James books that such players have longer careers not shorter ones.
Annecdotally, there are a lot of players who relied mainly on speed and played well into their late 30s and early 40s. (Morgan, Lofton, and Butler) off the top of my head. I am not sure where this argument comes from or if the evidence actually supports it.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,122
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 19, 2013 15:10:17 GMT -5
Nate Silver: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2248"That chart isn't as clear as it could be, but it's consistent with the trends that we've observed already. Among the eligible fast players, eight of 38 (famously including Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa) peaked at age 30 or later, compared with just three of the 36 slow players. The average fast player peaked at age 26.7, the average slow player at 25.8; conservatively speaking, good speed is worth at least a year or so in age. I know that I'm not the first person to suggest that speed players age better, and while a study like this isn't meant to be determinative--there are lots of exceptions on both sides of the ledger--I was surprised at the extent of the difference. It's also crucial to keep in mind that we're only looking at a subset of speed players--specifically those who, like Bobby Bonds, displayed prodigious power at an early age. It isn't true that a player in the Roger Cedeno mold, whose only plus skill is his speed, is likely to age well (quite the opposite). But speed is a wonderful complementary skill to have, especially for a power hitter." alas, also the painful claim: "guys like Alex Rodriguez and Nomar Garciaparra seem to be on their way to long, graceful careers" discussion of Silver, of Bill James, etc, by this guy scoresheetwiz.tripod.com/id127.html
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 19, 2013 15:43:29 GMT -5
Fair, and I can say that as a Beltran fantasy owner, they're giving him days off about once every week or two to keep him healthy. I don't necessarily agree that Beltran at 2/15 in that case is better - he has much different skills, and I'm worried that Ellsbury, whose elite tool is his speed, will not age nearly as well. At least as Beltran slowed down he was able to slug .500. Ellsbury can't do that right now, even including the triples he gets with his wheels. If Ellsbury slows down in, say, three years, you're paying a slightly above-average hitter 20 million for 2 years. If Beltran comes and only plays for two half-seasons, they're at least rid of him after 2015. And just to be clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't re-sign Ellsbury. I'd love to re-sign him. I just think someone else will give him more money than he's worth re-signing for when there's a great plan B in CF in Bradley. Honestly, I think the best option for the Sox will be to get creative on the trade market and re-make a lot of the lineup given the openings they'll have at first, one outfield spot (likely), and places to potentially upgrade at catcher and third base. They've got chips in the high minors/near majors to deal from with the likes of Ranaudo, Webster, Britton, Workman, etc. I don't really have suggestions, but it's not a great FA market, to be honest, at some of those positions. I think that this is a funny debate because between the years of 2001 and 2008 Beltran's BsR netted him 64.5 runs. And in case anyone is checking, that was the best in baseball over that time. Since he has slowed down, he has still been quite good. But this doesn't mean that the same is true of Ellsbury or that Ellsbury will show improved plate discipline. My only concerns with Beltran is that his fielding and base-running have each regressed substantially and his walk rate is 5.3% (down from a 10.4% career rate). I fear that the end-of-the-road for Beltran may be much closer than his BA/Slg numbers imply. The Red Sox need to sign/resign/trade for a player and the top priorities should be: 1. Stanton (fat chance - but let me dream a little longer) 2. Ellsbury 3. Choo 4. Beltran/Pence (1-2 year deals) 5. ....Cruz...maybe (1 year deal) Keep in mind that if Ellsbury leaves then the Red Sox will only have a rookie and a beat-up veteran who can man center-field (and in Fenway they almost need 2 CFers anyway). A Ellsbury/Bradley combo would push Victorino into a LF platoon - which I'm alright with (assuming Bradley works out). Chris: What other OFers do you have in mind for trades? Past the Stanton pipe dream I don't see much, but I agree with the concept. I like Gordon if the Royals choose to rebuild (unlikely) otherwise Ethier seems to be the only obtainable guy out there.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2013 17:16:02 GMT -5
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. It used to be a bad idea to move a CF to a corner, because the defensive value you gained would be more than offset by the offensive value lost. But since teams ave started valuing defense more, this is no longer so clearly true for RF, and not true at all in LF. Back in 2009 when I last looked at the UZR data, a CF playing RF typically gained 6 runs of defense per 150 games. Here are the values of offensive runs lost for each year, making this switch, starting in 2002: CF->RF: 11.5, 10.8, 5.4, 6.8, 8.1, 8.8, 8.8, 8.1, 10.8, 10.2, 1.4, 6.8 Taking the last 10 years and weighting them 10 through 1, the average is 7.4 (whereas I believe the historical average was more like 12). So this move costs you, on average 1.4 runs, or about 0.1 WAR. It's not worth going through roster machinations, or signing a generally inferior player, to recover a tenth of a win. Back in 2009, a CF to LF conversion, on average, gained 12 runs of defense (there's reason to believe it's less now, as we shall see) . Here are the values of offensive runs lost, again from 2002. CF->LF: 10.2, 11.5, 10.2, 5.4, 10.2, 7.5, 6.8, 6.8, 8.8, -2.0, -0.7, 2.0. Yes, in 2011 and 2012 CF actually outhit LF. The 10-year weighted average is down to 3.9. This has probably been accompanied by a reduction in the defensive difference, as teams fill LF with better defenders who are weaker hitters, but it doesn't come close to offsetting the decline in LF hitting. There may be a glut of quality MLB setup men, but there is a shortage of good outfielders, and it's showing up in LF. The last time I looked (also 2009), it had actually become the position with the lowest percentage of games started by identifiable regulars -- even less so than catcher. That's how many teams were platooning there, or shuffling guys up from the minors. It currently doesn't make any sense to try to find a traditional Jim-Rice type LF. If you have two quality CFers, consider yourself lucky that you have two quality OFers, and just play one in LF (as the Sox did for a year with Ellsbury and the Yankees have been doing with Granderson and Gardner; I'm sure there are other examples). The same logic applies to acquiring guys on the FA market, of course. And the above analysis ignores the fact that, all things being equal, defense wins championships, which is to say that given two clubs with equal pitching and equal positional talent according to WAR, the better defensive club should always be favored in a post-season series. (I do intend to argue / explain that at some point!)
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,838
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 24, 2013 11:28:46 GMT -5
You all are worrying me about having to change my logo!
Oh well, Nomar used to be my favorite player and we all know what happened there. Maybe I should pick someone I don't like. How about a group photo of AROD and Boras. Such is life as a baseball (sports) fan. As Dorothy said when she dropped into Munchkin Land: "people come and go so quickly". I miss having players we groom staying for their career.
Hello Jackie Bradley!
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 25, 2013 9:43:09 GMT -5
Keep in mind that if Ellsbury leaves then the Red Sox will only have a rookie and a beat-up veteran who can man center-field (and in Fenway they almost need 2 CFers anyway). A Ellsbury/Bradley combo would push Victorino into a LF platoon - which I'm alright with (assuming Bradley works out). I'm not so sold on Bradley in Boston next season. He is slumping at Pawtucket and absolutely cannot handle inside pitches.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 25, 2013 11:24:05 GMT -5
You all are worrying me about having to change my logo! Oh well, Nomar used to be my favorite player and we all know what happened there. Maybe I should pick someone I don't like. How about a group photo of AROD and Boras. Such is life as a baseball (sports) fan. As Dorothy said when she dropped into Munchkin Land: "people come and go so quickly". I miss having players we groom staying for their career. Hello Jackie Bradley! I remember watching the "Faith Rewarded" DVD of the 2004 Sox. Nomar had this really smug look and said "See you later guys" when he was traded and walking out of the club house. That really bothered me at the time and I ended up really liking Cabrera better. At the end of the day, letting Cabrera go netted us the pick that landed Ellsbury. Letting Ells walk could net us a similar player in the future. It took letting go of Pedro to get us Buchholz as well.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 25, 2013 11:25:55 GMT -5
I'm not so sold on Bradley in Boston next season. He is slumping at Pawtucket and absolutely cannot handle inside pitches. We're gonna need to start saving up money to spend it on LF/1B/ locking up guys in the future.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 25, 2013 21:41:07 GMT -5
This series got me thinking.
Would you give Ellsbury exactly what Crawford has left in order to get him back but at a much shorter term?
4 years, $85,928,000?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 25, 2013 21:56:07 GMT -5
This series got me thinking. Would you give Ellsbury exactly what Crawford has left in order to get him back but at a much shorter term? 4 years, $85,928,000? Probably, but the "give him more money for less years" contracts happen approximately never.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 25, 2013 21:58:32 GMT -5
This series got me thinking. Would you give Ellsbury exactly what Crawford has left in order to get him back but at a much shorter term? 4 years, $85,928,000? Probably, but the "give him more money for less years" contracts happen approximately never. Happened all last summer for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 25, 2013 21:59:23 GMT -5
So you think Ells is on par with Gomes and Napoli?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 25, 2013 22:36:47 GMT -5
Probably, but the "give him more money for less years" contracts happen approximately never. Happened all last summer for the Red Sox. Wait, what?
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Aug 26, 2013 15:56:16 GMT -5
Happened all last summer for the Red Sox. Wait, what? By "happened all last summer for the Red Sox" he meant last winter when Victorino reportedly turned down a 4/$44M offer from the Indians. Given Ellsbury's production, representation, and recent/favorable economics I think it's crazy to imagine him accepting anything less than the Werth contract. I'd prefer less years/money for Choo and his superior ability to get on base.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 26, 2013 17:31:57 GMT -5
By "happened all last summer for the Red Sox" he meant last winter when Victorino reportedly turned down a 4/$44M offer from the Indians. Given Ellsbury's production, representation, and recent/favorable economics I think it's crazy to imagine him accepting anything less than the Werth contract. If the choice was $44m/4 or $39m/3, I think a lot of players would take the three years deal assuming they can get more than 5 million after the contract is over. Making some suppositions, if a 30 year old player is offered $100M/5 or $85M/4, I would think many of the players would take the five year contract knowing that they are unlikely to receive a salary of 15 million dollars for their age 34 season, especially if they have an injury history.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Aug 26, 2013 17:49:40 GMT -5
By "happened all last summer for the Red Sox" he meant last winter when Victorino reportedly turned down a 4/$44M offer from the Indians. Given Ellsbury's production, representation, and recent/favorable economics I think it's crazy to imagine him accepting anything less than the Werth contract. I'd prefer less years/money for Choo and his superior ability to get on base. Happened with Dempster. And certainly overpaid Drew to avoid having to put in option terminology in his contract.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 26, 2013 18:23:07 GMT -5
I read a lot that players who rely on speed and athleticism as their main tool don't play well in their 30s. I am not sure that's true. In fact I distinctly remember a study in the Bill James books that such players have longer careers not shorter ones. Annecdotally, there are a lot of players who relied mainly on speed and played well into their late 30s and early 40s. (Morgan, Lofton, and Butler) off the top of my head. I am not sure where this argument comes from or if the evidence actually supports it. Not always. Yes, some do like Henderson Ozzie Smith, Davey Lopes and some others. Then many won't think of the guys who were gone from the game by the age of 30-31 that made a living with their legs, like Ells.. Omar Moreno 487SB, gone by the age of 31. Gene "BB" Richard who actually put up numbers nearly exactly like Ells has early in his career, even at the old Jack Murphy stadium believe it was that was huge. His career fell apart, as well as speed at the age of 31 and he was gone, after 8 seasons.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,122
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 26, 2013 18:51:43 GMT -5
I read a lot that players who rely on speed and athleticism as their main tool don't play well in their 30s. I am not sure that's true. In fact I distinctly remember a study in the Bill James books that such players have longer careers not shorter ones. Annecdotally, there are a lot of players who relied mainly on speed and played well into their late 30s and early 40s. (Morgan, Lofton, and Butler) off the top of my head. I am not sure where this argument comes from or if the evidence actually supports it. Not always. Yes, some do like Henderson Ozzie Smith, Davey Lopes and some others. Then many won't think of the guys who were gone from the game by the age of 30-31 that made a living with their legs, like Ells.. Omar Moreno 487SB, gone by the age of 31. Gene "BB" Richard who actually put up numbers nearly exactly like Ells has early in his career, even at the old Jack Murphy stadium believe it was that was huge. His career fell apart, as well as speed at the age of 31 and he was gone, after 8 seasons. Omar Moreno was never a good player, and Gene Richards never had "numbers nearly exactly like Ells has"; e.g. HR high of 5 as a rookie and never more than 4 after that.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 26, 2013 20:58:50 GMT -5
Not always. Yes, some do like Henderson Ozzie Smith, Davey Lopes and some others. Then many won't think of the guys who were gone from the game by the age of 30-31 that made a living with their legs, like Ells.. Omar Moreno 487SB, gone by the age of 31. Gene "BB" Richard who actually put up numbers nearly exactly like Ells has early in his career, even at the old Jack Murphy stadium believe it was that was huge. His career fell apart, as well as speed at the age of 31 and he was gone, after 8 seasons. Omar Moreno was never a good player, and Gene Richards never had "numbers nearly exactly like Ells has"; e.g. HR high of 5 as a rookie and never more than 4 after that. Think you kind of cherry picked that out on Ells there Jimoh. Other than the one flukey 2011 season, BB Richards had as many XBH in any of his early years as Jacoby did and he knew how to take something called "ball 4" also. Will notice the career OBP, Avg, SB, OPS etc.. About the same also, even both were 1st rounders. BB was a 1st overall a difference. Yes on Moreno, he was a pretty atrocious hitter. Teams like Pittsburgh back then still hit this type leadoff on occasion. Amazing huh? He was decent with the glove and when he was young, was almost like a blur, though was apparent that when his legs went, he was a goner from the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 15:45:23 GMT -5
What do all the guys you mentioned have in common besides their speed and athleticism?
That's right they were all good hitters. Ellsbury isn't Tom Goodwin, or Omar Moreno, players who couldn't hit and were mainly playing because of their speed. He's a good hitter and one who had a history of hitting for power before he hurt his shoulder and has flashed that power in 2013.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 16:21:50 GMT -5
Cliff Lee aged 32. Turned down 6/132 with $16M player option which would have made it 7/148 at least...AAV $21M. Took 5yrs/120 w extra 15 baked in for 6th year if he makes milestones making it 6/135. Difference is $13M total, but difference in tax rates makes up for about $7.76M of that and this isn't counting PV. Pretty good bet he makes the milestones and is able to make $5-$8M somehow in age 38 season.
So yes it would make sense for Ellsbury to accept a contract for approximately $10M less to give himself an earlier bite at FA, especially given the inflation in the market. I see no reason why he wouldn't make $15M at age 34. Besides, I think that this thread has pretty much debunked the idea that Ellsbury is somehow injury prone.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 27, 2013 17:15:59 GMT -5
Ellsbury's primary offensive weapon is his speed. Unless he has a body different from most men, he is going to start losing speed in another year or two. By the time he is 35 he won't be stealing bases as easily as he can now. I think GMs know this, and it is likely to keep down the number of years he gets in an offer.
The situation would be much different if Ellsbury showed that his one power year was not a fluke. He hasn't done that.
Also, considering the record of the long contracts, I think most teams now would rather pay more per year than have the longer deals. This is especially true with any player likely to lose some key skills during the course of the contract.
|
|
|