Here's an idea: Trade Ellsbury?

[bostonule25]

Now before everyone jumps on my back ad goes blah bla blah. Let me try to explain.
Rumors have been swirling that Theo is talking an agon deal with the lackey and Cameron signings it's being hinted even more.the thing is Clay would need to be involved as well as Kelly/westy possibly both. That's a hefty price

However, the Padres do have a need in CF. I also think they need a leadoff guy (not 100% sure about that) why not move Ellsbury? His value is easily the highest out of the 4 I mentioned since he's been the only one to have for 1 entire MLB consistent. His 300 avg and 70 SB makes him appealing to other teams. The most important thing: it means at maximum we give up 1 of buccholz/Kelly/westy if not none.


I know ellsbury is a hit in Boston. But with his obp I can not consider him a real leadoff hitter

[JimEdHOF2009]

I would rather see Ellsbury go than Westy... Westy has power potential and a rocket arm.. and he is just as fast as Jacoby. And my best friend is CLOSE family friends with Westy and his clan(coached Ryan's Basketball Team at Portsmouth High). In fact, I should be getting an autographed bat soon.. I am going to wrap that baby in plastic and keep it for my infant! Hopefully he is the star I believe he will be.

[Emmz]

I wouldn't want to trade Westy, but if it means getting A-Gon, then by all means go for it. I'd rather give up Kelley than Westy or Ellsbury, though, and add in Anderson.

[Plumpamania]

Ellsbury is surely an interesting option to have taken a look at. Personally Ellsbury in the #9 slot as he continues to develop would be a much better idea IMO than trading him. He's the only speed we have in the line up and steals at a good rate as well, so for all the runs he's creating via SB, he's not losing as much as he made.

If AGonz is going to happen Hoyer wants who he wants.

[BSN07]

And who leads off if Ellsbury is traded?

There's no sense in trading Ellsbury unless your bringing in someone that is a better leadoff/defensive player. Cameron Maybe a better defender, but I don't believe he is a leadoff hitter.

And don't give me Scutaro either. He's had one good year and I don't want them relying on him as the lead off hitter. He should be 8th or 9th IMO.


Also, nice to see you back my Dominican brother from another mother ;)

[TheMino007]

I don't understand trading Ellsbury when the kid has just begun to show off his talents. He is only going to get better as a leadoff hitter and his OBP will continue to rise as he learns to take more pitches and work the count better. If we trade Ellsbury we have no viable option to bat leadoff, I guess Pedrioa could do it, but I like him in the two hole. Who plays CF or LF if Ellsbury is traded? Cameron would play center and I don't think the Sox will drop the $ to pay Holliday to play LF

[callandor1000]

Now before everyone jumps on my back ad goes blah bla blah. Let me try to explain.
Rumors have been swirling that Theo is talking an agon deal with the lackey and Cameron signings it's being hinted even more.the thing is Clay would need to be involved as well as Kelly/westy possibly both. That's a hefty price

However, the Padres do have a need in CF. I also think they need a leadoff guy (not 100% sure about that) why not move Ellsbury? His value is easily the highest out of the 4 I mentioned since he's been the only one to have for 1 entire MLB consistent. His 300 avg and 70 SB makes him appealing to other teams. The most important thing: it means at maximum we give up 1 of buccholz/Kelly/westy if not none.


I know ellsbury is a hit in Boston. But with his obp I can not consider him a real leadoff hitter


Ellsbury makes no sense. As you said Ellsbury is MLB proven. So lets go with your scenario. We trade Ellsbury and lets say Kelly. Now we know Ellsbury is proven and he's not that close to his full potential and this Kelly guy is a completely unproven prospect. Ellsbury only gets better and Kelly doesn't live up to his potential but still becomes a proven Major Leaguer, solid, fundamentally sound and a good guy to have on your team. Lets say Bucholz never gets where we want him and West-I-Got-Too-Much-Love-For-Me-By-Sox-Fans-Despite-Not-Proving-Anything-Yet turns out to be what I kind of have a feeling he will be, a bust. So we lose completely.

Now we could trade three prospects, stick with Ellsbury who is proven (and is one of the better leadoff guys and centerfielders in the league) and only has more he can prove and even if the other three do well or even live up to their full potential we still wouldn't lose completely. I can just see too many scenarios in which us sending Ellsbury would make us lose out completely.

As it is, we're going to stick with Lowell because of physicals that can't be passed which I think is the better deal overall. I don't want to see Bucholz go, especially with the potential of Beckett, Papelbon and Dice-K (who I've always felt was a waste but whatever) becoming FA's in the next couple seasons. I happen to think that Bucholz has the most upside out of all the Sox young players or prospects.

[Dipre]

Ellsbury makes no sense. As you said Ellsbury is MLB proven. So lets go with your scenario. We trade Ellsbury and lets say Kelly. Now we know Ellsbury is proven and he's not that close to his full potential and this Kelly guy is a completely unproven prospect. Ellsbury only gets better and Kelly doesn't live up to his potential but still becomes a proven Major Leaguer, solid, fundamentally sound and a good guy to have on your team. Lets say Bucholz never gets where we want him and West-I-Got-Too-Much-Love-For-Me-By-Sox-Fans-Despite-Not-Proving-Anything-Yet turns out to be what I kind of have a feeling he will be, a bust. So we lose completely.

Now we could trade three prospects, stick with Ellsbury who is proven (and is one of the better leadoff guys and centerfielders in the league) and only has more he can prove and even if the other three do well or even live up to their full potential we still wouldn't lose completely. I can just see too many scenarios in which us sending Ellsbury would make us lose out completely.

As it is, we're going to stick with Lowell because of physicals that can't be passed which I think is the better deal overall. I don't want to see Bucholz go, especially with the potential of Beckett, Papelbon and Dice-K (who I've always felt was a waste but whatever) becoming FA's in the next couple seasons. I happen to think that Bucholz has the most upside out of all the Sox young players or prospects.

While i agree that trading Ellsbury makes no sense, what evidence do you have to support your premise that Westmoreland will be a bust?

Also, do you know enough about the Sox system to make the Bucholz claim?

Number three, since you're talking about proven, then Bucholz in an Adrian Gonzales package makes total sense, so why wouldn't you want to trade him for the proven bat that makes our lineup nearly as deadly as the Yanks'?

[callandor1000]

While i agree that trading Ellsbury makes no sense, what evidence do you have to support your premise that Westmoreland will be a bust?

Far more prospects go bust than become proven. On that alone gives the edge to him going bust. I need results before I believe any prospect won't go bust and for that he needs MLB experience.


Also, do you know enough about the Sox system to make the Bucholz claim?

Well it stands to logic that Bucholz has had time to play in the Majors and show that he can pitch. He's shown that even when he gets into a tough streak of games, he's able to reevaluate himself and become better. Again, without MLB experience the other guys just can't be compared to him. So, in truth it might have been unfair of me to say he was better than the other guys who haven't gotten the chance to prove themselves, but its also unfair to rank any of them above him.


Number three, since you're talking about proven, then Bucholz in an Adrian Gonzales package makes total sense, so why wouldn't you want to trade him for the proven bat that makes our lineup nearly as deadly as the Yanks'?

Bucholz is semi-proven and it's always been my opinion that pitching trumps hitting in importance. It was pitching that beat the Yankees in '04, and got us a ring in '07. With the potential to lose key pitching in the coming seasons, its best to not just toss away a guy who is starting to prove himself worthy of the hype he's been given. Trade unproven prospects for AGon. That makes a significant amount of more sense and teams are happy to get high-rated unproven prospects.

[Dipre]

Far more prospects go bust than become proven. On that alone gives the edge to him going bust. I need results before I believe any prospect won't go bust and for that he needs MLB experience.

When a prospect is as coveted as Westmoreland, and has shown the tools he has shown, and the GM of a team who used to work specifically with this farm system asks for him in a trade for a player of A-Gon's caliber, you should re-evaluate the way you're valuing said prospect, which, by the way, seems to be done exclusively on opinion and not stats, following said player, or watching his tools in play. This is a mistake.


Well it stands to logic that Bucholz has had time to play in the Majors and show that he can pitch. He's shown that even when he gets into a tough streak of games, he's able to reevaluate himself and become better. Again, without MLB experience the other guys just can't be compared to him. So, in truth it might have been unfair of me to say he was better than the other guys who haven't gotten the chance to prove themselves, but its also unfair to rank any of them above him.

It doesn't stand to logic, i'll explain why: It's not that they're rated above Buch, but that the organization views all three of them as integral parts of the future on equal grounds, like you said, although Buch has some experience,they can't be rated above, but they can't be rated below either, and none of us has a knowledge as refined about them as the organization, so if they value them on equal terms, there has to be a reason.


Bucholz is semi-proven and it's always been my opinion that pitching trumps hitting in importance. It was pitching that beat the Yankees in '04, and got us a ring in '07. With the potential to lose key pitching in the coming seasons, its best to not just toss away a guy who is starting to prove himself worthy of the hype he's been given. Trade unproven prospects for AGon. That makes a significant amount of more sense and teams are happy to get high-rated unproven prospects.

You're both contradicting yourself and going on a tangent. Gonzales is far more proven than Bucholz, which is where you contradict yourself, and for the tangent, "pitching beats hitting" , i would concur with you if Buch wasn't the number five starter at this time, and they weren't hot on the heels of Aroldis Chapman. The bottom line is you need to give quality players to get quality players, specially in this case.

[Dojji]

The idea of trading Ellsbury because we have Cameron will not look so good in 3 years.

[Dipre]

The idea of trading Ellsbury because we have Cameron will not look so good in 3 years.

It won't be done, because it's not a good idea.

Three reasons:

1) Who leads off?

2) Ellsbury makes next to nothing and is under team control for the long term.

3) He has not reached his full potential. Theo knows this.

[callandor1000]

You're both contradicting yourself and going on a tangent. Gonzales is far more proven than Bucholz, which is where you contradict yourself, and for the tangent, "pitching beats hitting" , i would concur with you if Buch wasn't the number five starter at this time, and they weren't hot on the heels of Aroldis Chapman. The bottom line is you need to give quality players to get quality players, specially in this case.

I go off on lots of tangents. I'm afraid my posts will always be messy because of that :P

As far as the proven thing, I guess we're talking about degrees of proven. Gonzales is indeed proven. Bucholz is less proven than Gonzales but more proven than the prospects. Follow? So when you give pitching an edge over hitting (which is what Gonzales is proven at) they still don't quite line-up but they're pretty close.

I agree you have to give up quality to get quality. But as I said, with the potential of losing key pitching pieces in the coming seasons, I think giving up a quality pitcher now will hurt them in the long run. As a side, since you dropped Bucholz as a 5 starter (which he is as a Sox), Bucholz is a 5 pitcher as a Sox. On likely all but a few teams in baseball (the Yankees and Angels, maybe one or two more) he might well be a 4 pitcher or 3 pitcher and on a good amount of teams he'd be a 3 or 2. We have a pitcher with proven toughness, why trade that for a bat at a position that we'd do better to keep the player we already have playing it at that position?

[Dipre]

I go off on lots of tangents. I'm afraid my posts will always be messy because of that :P

As far as the proven thing, I guess we're talking about degrees of proven. Gonzales is indeed proven. Bucholz is less proven than Gonzales but more proven than the prospects. Follow? So when you give pitching an edge over hitting (which is what Gonzales is proven at) they still don't quite line-up but they're pretty close.

I agree you have to give up quality to get quality. But as I said, with the potential of losing key pitching pieces in the coming seasons, I think giving up a quality pitcher now will hurt them in the long run. As a side, since you dropped Bucholz as a 5 starter (which he is as a Sox), Bucholz is a 5 pitcher as a Sox. On likely all but a few teams in baseball (the Yankees and Angels, maybe one or two more) he might well be a 4 pitcher or 3 pitcher and on a good amount of teams he'd be a 3 or 2. We have a pitcher with proven toughness, why trade that for a bat at a position that we'd do better to keep the player we already have playing it at that position?

The problem is that Gonzo's a special, cheap, and young player. I believe that trading Buch will not be damaging to the organization so long as they get Chapman, but let me tell you one thing, a 3-4-5 of V-Mart, A-Gon and Youk would be a thing of beauty, and A-Gon solves our cleanup hitter spot for quite some time, while with Buch you hope he turns into the ace we all expect him to be.

[callandor1000]

The problem is that Gonzo's a special, cheap, and young player. I believe that trading Buch will not be damaging to the organization so long as they get Chapman, but let me tell you one thing, a 3-4-5 of V-Mart, A-Gon and Youk would be a thing of beauty, and A-Gon solves our cleanup hitter spot for quite some time, while with Buch you hope he turns into the ace we all expect him to be.

I don't like Youk at third. He's not defensively sound there. I think this tells the story:

TC E
3b 527 18
1b 3870 10

The hitting line-up sounds well. I would love to have Gonzales bat, I don't like how the positions would line up with him on the team. You're essentially losing a Gold Glove at 1b and placing a defensive liability at third.

[Dipre]

I don't like Youk at third. He's not defensively sound there. I think this tells the story:

TC E
3b 527 18
1b 3870 10

The hitting line-up sounds well. I would love to have Gonzales bat, I don't like how the positions would line up with him on the team. You're essentially losing a Gold Glove at 1b and placing a defensive liability at third.

Gonzales is also a GG 1B.

Youk is a massive improvement over Lowell at third, and visit this site:

www.fangraphs.com

Check out their defensive ratings for Youk at third, since errors are the absolutely worst way to measure the defensive ability of a ballplayer.

[Dojji]

I can think of a worse one. An average fan trying to judge based on "how they look at the position."

I use numbers because I know I can't tell bad defense from good unless it's blindingly obvious.

[Dipre]

I can think of a worse one. An average fan trying to judge based on "how they look at the position."

I use numbers because I know I can't tell bad defense from good unless it's blindingly obvious.

:lol::lol::lol:

Well done, sir.

[Rdsxmbnt]

I can think of a worse one. An average fan trying to judge based on "how they look at the position."


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[BSN07]

I can think of a worse one. An average fan trying to judge based on "how they look at the position."

I use numbers because I know I can't tell bad defense from good unless it's blindingly obvious.

:lol::lol:

Nicely done mate :D

[callandor1000]

I can think of a worse one. An average fan trying to judge based on "how they look at the position."

I use numbers because I know I can't tell bad defense from good unless it's blindingly obvious.

So you think if Youk moves, he'll be just as good at 3B as he has been when playing 1B? In every faucet of the game? I mean, if not, that means we're essentially trading away more than just Buchholz and prospects.

[Jasonbay44]

So you think if Youk moves, he'll be just as good at 3B as he has been when playing 1B? In every faucet of the game? I mean, if not, that means we're essentially trading away more than just Buchholz and prospects.
Answering the question, no he will not be as good at 3rd as he is at first.
However, Youk is an upgrade at 3B over Lowell fielding wise. You also have to remember, Gonzalez is a gold glover himself. So, fielding wise, we lose nothing at 1B and upgrade over Lowell at 3rd.

[Dipre]

So you think if Youk moves, he'll be just as good at 3B as he has been when playing 1B? In every faucet of the game? I mean, if not, that means we're essentially trading away more than just Buchholz and prospects.

He'll be a bit above-average defensively, but as we know, his bat will play anywhere.

[Dojji]

No, I don't. In fact I know that Youk is a better 1B than he is as a 3B.

That doesn't necessarily make him a bad 3B. In fact his defense at third is about average and he gets enough reps there to keep current. Remember, he came up as a third baseman initially.

[callandor1000]

No, I don't. In fact I know that Youk is a better 1B than he is as a 3B.

That doesn't necessarily make him a bad 3B. In fact his defense at third is about average and he gets enough reps there to keep current. Remember, he came up as a third baseman initially.

I remember, I saw him play for the Sea Dogs. He almost got his head taken off by a broken bat during that game. But I believe he hit a homer, scored 2 runs and batted in like 3 or something.

And either way, you're still diminishing Youks overall value with the trade. Right? I mean he's a great 1b but an average 3b. And do we really know that he hits as well when he plays 3b?

[Dojji]

Well it kind of depends on which you consider more valuable, a GG 1B with 25-30 HR power, or a good 3B with 25-30 HR power.

I don't necessarily want to judge definitely which is more valuable, but I do know which is rarer.

[Dipre]

I remember, I saw him play for the Sea Dogs. He almost got his head taken off by a broken bat during that game. But I believe he hit a homer, scored 2 runs and batted in like 3 or something.

And either way, you're still diminishing Youks overall value with the trade. Right? I mean he's a great 1b but an average 3b. And do we really know that he hits as well when he plays 3b?

Nope, because his offensive value is much greater at 3B. His defensive value diminishes somewhat, but his offensive value raises tremendously.

[Dowerk17]

i didnt read every reply here so i dont know if its been said but the fact that hes young and growing means he will only get better at time with his OBP and average. his speed also makes him very valuable in our outfield and im hoping no ones forgotted it on the basepaths. we have one solid guy for getting on base and moving into scoring position and with the other team 100% knowing hes going to do it, he generally still gets away with it. Id rather that in a heartbeat. As for Westy, hes not expected to play in the majors till 2013, hes really not ready and we wouldnt see a solid speedy/hitting replacement for ellsbury for a while.

[Dojji]

Actually we do still have Che-Hsuan Lin, Ryan Kalish, and Oscar Tejeda in various stages of development as far as speed goes. None of them are quite in Ellsbury's league as a raw speed burner though.

[bostonule25]

And who leads off if Ellsbury is traded?

There's no sense in trading Ellsbury unless your bringing in someone that is a better leadoff/defensive player. Cameron Maybe a better defender, but I don't believe he is a leadoff hitter.

And don't give me Scutaro either. He's had one good year and I don't want them relying on him as the lead off hitter. He should be 8th or 9th IMO.


Also, nice to see you back my Dominican brother from another mother ;)

I'm not saying trade Ellsbury for freakin Jose Reyes like they were at the deadline but if we're talking A-Gon and the price is Ellsbury Kelly/clay and a couple B guys you take it. It's a lot easier to find a high obp leadoff guy than an affordable mid 20's power bat. Ellsbury's speed is great. Gonzalez's power is better (especially in Fenway)


I agree we'd have a problem at the leadoff spot. But what's our 3-4-5 right now? VM-Youk-Drew? Give me a break. Youk-A-Gon-VM is a lot more appealing.

I don't see what's wrong with Cameron as a leadoff hitter. In 4 of the last 5 years he's had an OBP over 365 to ellsbury's 350? Obviously ellsbury's speed is a big plus, but keeping westy for the future and adding A-Gon makes any damage minimal

[SoxSport]

The time to trade Ellsbury is in a couple of years closer to contract time. His agent is Boras and he tends to overrate his clients--to put it mildly. They'll know better at that time if Ellsbury is worth re-signing, and their CF prospect?, Westmoreland, might be ready at that time if they haven't traded him. They certainly aren't going to trade both.

[Dojji]

I still think Westmoreland is our LF of the future. He can help convince me otherwise by having a healthy season next year. He's been with the team for 6 months and 2 injuries already. And not minor ones either, IIRC both required surgery, and I'm not even sure that includes his labrum surgery in 2008. That's Rocco Baldelli bad, and if it doesn't straighten out he might move to the corners in ao effort to stay on the field.

Under those circumstances I wouldn't mind trading the guy for the right price. If this continues, "Westy" might not see a single big league at bat.

[bostonule25]

Actually we do still have Che-Hsuan Lin, Ryan Kalish, and Oscar Tejeda in various stages of development as far as speed goes. None of them are quite in Ellsbury's league as a raw speed burner though.
Not to mention that our 1st round pick this year Fuentes IS ALREADY being compared to ellsbury

[bostonule25]

The time to trade Ellsbury is in a couple of years closer to contract time. His agent is Boras and he tends to overrate his clients--to put it mildly. They'll know better at that time if Ellsbury is worth re-signing, and their CF prospect?, Westmoreland, might be ready at that time if they haven't traded him. They certainly aren't going to trade both.
Why trade him then when you know his value is going to be higher now than when he is nearing FA

[bostonule25]

Ellsbury makes no sense. As you said Ellsbury is MLB proven. So lets go with your scenario. We trade Ellsbury and lets say Kelly. Now we know Ellsbury is proven and he's not that close to his full potential and this Kelly guy is a completely unproven prospect. Ellsbury only gets better and Kelly doesn't live up to his potential but still becomes a proven Major Leaguer, solid, fundamentally sound and a good guy to have on your team. Lets say Bucholz never gets where we want him and West-I-Got-Too-Much-Love-For-Me-By-Sox-Fans-Despite-Not-Proving-Anything-Yet turns out to be what I kind of have a feeling he will be, a bust. So we lose completely.

Now we could trade three prospects, stick with Ellsbury who is proven (and is one of the better leadoff guys and centerfielders in the league) and only has more he can prove and even if the other three do well or even live up to their full potential we still wouldn't lose completely. I can just see too many scenarios in which us sending Ellsbury would make us lose out completely.

As it is, we're going to stick with Lowell because of physicals that can't be passed which I think is the better deal overall. I don't want to see Bucholz go, especially with the potential of Beckett, Papelbon and Dice-K (who I've always felt was a waste but whatever) becoming FA's in the next couple seasons. I happen to think that Bucholz has the most upside out of all the Sox young players or prospects.
That is really bad logic. You’re just looking at one-half of the story and not the other. What if it was a fluke season? What if ellsbury doesn’t end up being a high obp guy? 1 MLB season means he has more value than Kelly/Westmoreland doesn’t mean it’s better. I mean just as easily, we might trade Kelly Westmoreland and Buchholz become the next Grienke Sizemore and Hamels (in terms of prime production wise)
Ellsbury will NEVER be a complete player. Buchholz and Kelly have the “stuff” to be an ace. Westy has the “tools” to be a 5 tool player, and a great bat. Ellsbury doesn’t have that stuff to be a premiere OF, nothing more than a very good leadoff hitter at best.

[SoxSport]

Trading Ellsbury right now would dump CF into the lap of a 37 year old player. That's Cameron's best position, but I don't think they want to do that right now. They probably see him as a platoon player, and none of their CF prospects are ready yet. Besides, Ellsbury still has some upside if he works on his deficiencies.

[ehaz]

I could consider trading Ellsbury for Gonzalez, but Ellsbury + Buchholz is too much IMO.