Should we resign Jacoby Ellsbury?

[User Name]

Even $100/4 would hamstring the budget for next year though. Taking into account Peavy's 2014 full salary and Lester's option, the Sox are not going to have a huge amount of room under the $189 M threshold. Much also depends on what they do about Napoli, Salty & Drew of course.

 

They will have so much more flexibility by letting Ellsbury walk.

 

Yeah but then they would likely replace Drew's 13 million with Bogaert's league-minimum salary, and would only have a need at 1B, which would probably be a wash. Not to mention they could (and should) eat part of Dempster's salary so they can flip him to an NL team. If they decide to keep Ellsbury at such a price (won't happen), they would have options to maintain their payroll flexible.

[NativeBostonian]

Ok .. how about a compromise ... Sox sign Jose Abreu and put JBJ in Center ... let Ellsbury walk. On second thought ... sign Abreu and Ellsbury

 

Are you talking about this Abreu that the White Sox just signed? http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/white-sox-announce-signing-of-cuban-first-baseman-jose-abreu?ymd=20131028&content_id=63441434&vkey=news_mlb

[Jasonbay44]

Are you talking about this Abreu that the White Sox just signed? http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/white-sox-announce-signing-of-cuban-first-baseman-jose-abreu?ymd=20131028&content_id=63441434&vkey=news_mlb

 

That post you quoted was like 2 months old. He posted it way before Abreu signed.

[vjcsmoke]

Barry Bonds? WTF?

 

Seriously. Ellsbury plays nothing like Bonds. Even if Bonds wasn't stealing bases, he'd be hitting homeruns. And even when he wasn't hitting homeruns he was getting on base through walks at an astronomical rate. Not going to even get into Bonds slugging, but his career OBP alone is .444. Ellsbury career OBP is .350. They aren't even CLOSE.

 

As for should we keep Ellsbury. No, not if it will cost us a 100m+ deal. And I am sensing his agent wants something like 7 years 140m or even 7/150. The Red Sox should not put that much payroll into ONE player. Haven't they learned their lesson already with Carl Crawford?

 

If Jackie Bradley Jr is even 80% of Ellsbury, his MUCH reduced payroll rate means we should give him a shot. We can't completely replace Ellsbury and I will always be thankful for what he has given to Boston but not at the monster price tag being demanded.

 

Remember when we thought - what will we ever do without Johnny Damon? Well we got over that. We'll get over Ellsbury as well.

If Ellsbury was demanding 15m per year, I'd say keep him, but his agent is going to be asking for a TON more.

[redsoxrules]

Speculation that the Mariners are willing to go 7/ 130

[Dojji]

Jackie Bradley Jr will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury.

 

I don't think people realize the level of innate talent Ellsbury brings to the table. His speed is a generational tool, and unlike the overwhelming majority of speed guys, Ells has enough power and plate discipline to maximize it. That's not an easy combination to find.

 

Sometimes it's worth taking the hit now when you're in a contention window -- and I honestly think we're in one for at least the next 2-3 years, especially with our ability to reload in a hurry when the situation calls for it.

[sk7326]

Almost all free agent signings are negative return the way the system is drawn up. It's the idea of the winner's curse (in game theory) - you pay more than the asset's worth in order to win the auction. Does that mean you NEVER offer a giant contract? No - but you do have to weigh the consequences carefully. How much peak are you buying vs decline - for a big free agent you are going to buy decline, but is it enough to offset the upfront production? Ellsbury, as a 30 year old without a ton of history of corner-hitter production (in case his defense slips to corner outfielder levels), let alone a ton of history of staying healthy (regardless of reason) ... is a very risky buy. This is not Alex Rodriguez 2000, where the 25-year old best player in the AL was hitting the market ... there you were buying a lot of peak), this is a much more standard 30-ish guy. There are guys worth breaking the bank (and the Red Sox' relatively deep pockets) for - Mike Trout's UFA class (if he does not sell off his freedom to the Angels) or for that matter Xander Bogaerts if he is who we hope he is - but they are VERY rare.

[vjcsmoke]

Jackie Bradley Jr will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury.

 

I don't think people realize the level of innate talent Ellsbury brings to the table. His speed is a generational tool, and unlike the overwhelming majority of speed guys, Ells has enough power and plate discipline to maximize it. That's not an easy combination to find.

 

Sometimes it's worth taking the hit now when you're in a contention window -- and I honestly think we're in one for at least the next 2-3 years, especially with our ability to reload in a hurry when the situation calls for it.

 

What is this power of which you speak? Are you talking about that one outlier year where Ells hit 32 homeruns, slugged .552 and has thereafter NEVER eclipsed double digit dingers in a season since? You overestimate Ellsbury and I'll take a professional scout's opinion over that of a message board poster, no offense.

 

Jackie Bradley scouting report 2012:

Hit 50/60

Power 40/40

Arm 50/50

Fielding 70/70

Speed 50/50

 

 

In other words JBJ should be above average in just about every major league category. Don't know where you took math but that doesn't add up to be 50% of Ellsbury. Ellsbury is GOOD but he's no Rickey Henderson.

 

And like I said before, we got over losing Johnny Damon, who was a better hitter than Ellsbury btw, we'll get over Ells. I'm not saying I want to lose him, but you have to be financially practical when building a team.

Edited October 30, 2013 by vjcsmoke

[sk7326]

Jackie Bradley Jr will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury.

 

I don't think people realize the level of innate talent Ellsbury brings to the table. His speed is a generational tool, and unlike the overwhelming majority of speed guys, Ells has enough power and plate discipline to maximize it. That's not an easy combination to find.

 

Sometimes it's worth taking the hit now when you're in a contention window -- and I honestly think we're in one for at least the next 2-3 years, especially with our ability to reload in a hurry when the situation calls for it.

 

Jackie Bradley will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury ... in 2014. After all half of Ellsbury in 2013 would have gotten you something like Michael Bourn or Austin Jackson, or even Coco Crisp. But if I could get you Austin Jackson next year + 5 years or so of better than that, for about 1/3 of the price tag (if that) - that'd be pretty a pretty good deal.

[Dojji]

What is this power of which you speak? Are you talking about that one outlier year where Ells hit 32 homeruns, slugged .552 and has thereafter NEVER eclipsed double digit dingers in a season since? You overestimate Ellsbury and I'll take a professional scout's opinion over that of a message board poster, no offense.

 

Honestly, the day fans lose the idea that a player has to hit 20 HR's or they "have no power" will be a great day for sanity, logic, and good baseball talk.

 

If you want an example of a guy who doesn't have enough power to maximize his speed, take a look at a guy like Jarrod Dyson, who's probably nearly as fast as Ellsbury, and actually has decent plate discipline, but because he hits the ball with a wet paper bag, can't return anywhere near the level of offense. By contrast, Brett Gardner is a great example of a guy you wouldn't call a traditional power hitter, but he can definitely hit for enough gap power to maximize his speed, which is all he needs to be valuable. I could be mistaken but I believe that Gardner was second among Yankees position players in WAR this year with 4.1

 

You don't need the power to hit it out, to make the best use of your speed. What you need is the ability to plug the gap and run. Ellsbury can do that, and consistently, and so can Gardner. Dyson can't, and the difference between the two is enormous even disregarding the HR column.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Dojji

[Dojji]

Jackie Bradley will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury ... in 2014. After all half of Ellsbury in 2013 would have gotten you something like Michael Bourn or Austin Jackson, or even Coco Crisp. But if I could get you Austin Jackson next year + 5 years or so of better than that, for about 1/3 of the price tag (if that) - that'd be pretty a pretty good deal.

 

Of the names you mentioned, I know I'd take Coco Crisp over Jackie Bradley going forward, at least for the next 2 years.

 

This isn't a team where a player can afford to be playing his way into proficiency. He needs to produce at some kind of level initially. We're seeing that with Middlebrooks, and we saw it with Josh Reddick too.

 

I won't mind dealing with Bradley as long as he's at least somewhat productive, but he's going to have to do something at the plate to convince me he's ready. So far I'm still waiting.

 

Pretending he's ready because we're in a position where we need him to be ready is an example of magical thinking, and it's a major error in logic. I'm not on board. At least you can make the argument for Bogaerts that he's ready to go based on what he's shown in the playoffs. you can't make that same argument with bradley, which is why Quintin Berry is on the roster and Bradley is not.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Dojji

[Station 13]

Speculation that the Mariners are willing to go 7/ 130

 

Please link where to pick that up.

[Dojji]

here ya go

[sk7326]

Of the names you mentioned, I know I'd take Coco Crisp over Jackie Bradley going forward, at least for the next 2 years.

 

This isn't a team where a player can afford to be playing his way into proficiency. He needs to produce at some kind of level initially. We're seeing that with Middlebrooks, and we saw it with Josh Reddick too.

 

I won't mind dealing with Bradley as long as he's at least somewhat productive, but he's going to have to do something at the plate to convince me he's ready. So far I'm still waiting.

 

Pretending he's ready because we're in a position where we need him to be ready is an example of magical thinking, and it's a major error in logic. I'm not on board. At least you can make the argument for Bogaerts that he's ready to go based on what he's shown in the playoffs. you can't make that same argument with bradley, which is why Quintin Berry is on the roster and Bradley is not.

 

We have Berry in because we know who the starting CF is, and Berry has a specialized skill. The playoff decisions are made completely outside of the "who is on the team next year". Bogaerts is on the 25 because the team wants to carry 11 pitchers and needed somebody who could play both 3B and SS. He has had a good October - although this would not be sufficient for me to give him the SS job next year (I'd be happy to give it to him in general, just saying the October production is not magical here).

 

Bradley has raked and caught the ball at every level - I am not sure there is much to be learned left in the minors for him. I do disagree with the idea that we can't give him a serious 300 or so PAs to show us whether he has the chops for real or not - we did that in 2007 with our second base position and it worked out ok. You just have to see the guy who has cranked out .280/.370 seasons in his organized baseball career - and ignore the pitchforks and torches if he is not achieving your wildest dreams by May 15. He put together good, high quality big-league at-bats from his first days with the big club. He has not shown he can hit big league breaking stuff - but the only way to address that is to see lots of big league breaking stuff until you fix it.

[Dojji]

Bradley hasn't hit over .275 above the A ball level.

[Bellhorn04]

Bradley hasn't hit over .275 above the A ball level.

 

I fail to see what's wrong with a 275/374/469 line for his first season in AAA.

[sk7326]

Bradley hasn't hit over .275 above the A ball level.

 

He hasn't had an on-base average below .370 (not counting the cups of coffee in Boston) ... offensively he is more like a "three true outcomes" sort of hitter ... he walks a lot, he strikes out quite a bit, and he hits the ball hard when he puts it in play.

[redsoxrules]

Dojji, your missing the fact that Elssbury will be useless with his speed in a few years.

And because he has no power what is he going to be good for?

[seabeachfred]

Personally I'd love to have Napoli and Drew back next year. I'd like to have Ellsbury back too, of course, but re-signing him doesn't make sense economically. Just hope that JBJ is the real deal.

 

That's the problem right there. First of all, there is some concern as to whether Bradley can consistently hit Major League pitching. It was only a mini-sample but he didn't look too swift in his appearances for us at the plate this year. Again, though, it is not a big sample so who knows. As for Napoli and Drew....Napoli most certainly. We must not allow him to get away. Drew? Not so much in my opinion. Nap gives us power and run production in the middle of the lineup and plays a solid first base. We have Bogaerts for shortstop and I don't want to stifle Middlebrook's development any further. He has the ability to be a 30 homer, 90 RBI type of third baseman and those kind don't grow on trees. Again my opinion.

 

I keep hearing reports out of New York that the Mets are talking about signing a "show stopper", a catalyst for their offense and Ellsbury's name is mentioned prominently. If the price goes sky high we will not meet it despite my opinion that we should resign him. He will not give us a hometown discount. You can bank on that.

[seabeachfred]

Seriously. Ellsbury plays nothing like Bonds. Even if Bonds wasn't stealing bases, he'd be hitting homeruns. And even when he wasn't hitting homeruns he was getting on base through walks at an astronomical rate. Not going to even get into Bonds slugging, but his career OBP alone is .444. Ellsbury career OBP is .350. They aren't even CLOSE.

 

As for should we keep Ellsbury. No, not if it will cost us a 100m+ deal. And I am sensing his agent wants something like 7 years 140m or even 7/150. The Red Sox should not put that much payroll into ONE player. Haven't they learned their lesson already with Carl Crawford?

 

If Jackie Bradley Jr is even 80% of Ellsbury, his MUCH reduced payroll rate means we should give him a shot. We can't completely replace Ellsbury and I will always be thankful for what he has given to Boston but not at the monster price tag being demanded.

 

Remember when we thought - what will we ever do without Johnny Damon? Well we got over that. We'll get over Ellsbury as well.

If Ellsbury was demanding 15m per year, I'd say keep him, but his agent is going to be asking for a TON more.

 

Well we got over Damon all right but there was almost two full years of pain to suffer with Coco Crisp who was a disaster at the plate for us those two years he manned CF and the third where Epstein refused to trade him and halted Ellsbury's progress. In fact, when Coco was traded after the '78 season to KC he promptluy lost his starting job to Mitch Maier of all people. He only revived his career when he got to Oakland. If Jackie Bradley becomes a strikeout machine and cannot hit close to 300 consistently we are going to witness a real deep drop in our lead off hitter's effectiveness. Ells is a royal pain in the neck when he gets on base and a strikeout prone replacement could impact our lineup severely. Bradley might turn out to be a solid player but he has some potentially deep holes in his game. He certainly is no Bogaerts.

[Orange Juiced]

Of the names you mentioned, I know I'd take Coco Crisp over Jackie Bradley going forward, at least for the next 2 years.

 

This isn't a team where a player can afford to be playing his way into proficiency. He needs to produce at some kind of level initially. We're seeing that with Middlebrooks, and we saw it with Josh Reddick too.

 

I won't mind dealing with Bradley as long as he's at least somewhat productive, but he's going to have to do something at the plate to convince me he's ready. So far I'm still waiting.

 

Pretending he's ready because we're in a position where we need him to be ready is an example of magical thinking, and it's a major error in logic. I'm not on board. At least you can make the argument for Bogaerts that he's ready to go based on what he's shown in the playoffs. you can't make that same argument with bradley, which is why Quintin Berry is on the roster and Bradley is not.

 

Nobody knows what JBJ will end up becoming. But this team absolutely can withstand having a guy "play his way into proficiency". Witness Will Middlebrooks and Daniel Nava.

 

Let's say the Sox have this as their starting lineup. You're telling me that it can't be very productive?

 

1. Victorino, RF

2. Pedroia, 2b

3. Ortiz, DH

4. Napoli, 1b

5. Nava, LF

6. Bogaerts, SS

7. Saltalamacchia, C

8. Middlebrooks, 3b

9. Bradley, CF

 

That team should be a top 3 offensive team. And they could choose to spend some $$ in the short term (maybe, say, a 3/51 deal) and add Carlos Beltran to play LF. They could afford that, it doesn't handcuff them for the long term, and he'd be pretty sweet to have in the 5-hole behind Napoli.

[sk7326]

Well we got over Damon all right but there was almost two full years of pain to suffer with Coco Crisp who was a disaster at the plate for us those two years he manned CF and the third where Epstein refused to trade him and halted Ellsbury's progress. In fact, when Coco was traded after the '78 season to KC he promptluy lost his starting job to Mitch Maier of all people. He only revived his career when he got to Oakland. If Jackie Bradley becomes a strikeout machine and cannot hit close to 300 consistently we are going to witness a real deep drop in our lead off hitter's effectiveness. Ells is a royal pain in the neck when he gets on base and a strikeout prone replacement could impact our lineup severely. Bradley might turn out to be a solid player but he has some potentially deep holes in his game. He certainly is no Bogaerts.

 

He's got a pretty good chance to be BOTH a strikeout machine and an on-base one.

[User Name]

Who gives a s*** about his batting average if he can maintain his OBP around the .370 level Dojji?

 

You are such a hypocrite. You were making the same argument everyone else is making when you had your fixation on the highly inferior Che-Hsuan Lin. Be consistent.

[redsoxrules]

I think Drew will be a Mets next Year

[User Name]

The whole point being, he doesn't have to do much more than bat .270 and keep working the at bat the way he does to be useful offensively as a starting player, and even if he can't even do that, he's still valuable on the bench.

 

Dojji, on his binky Che-Hsuan Lin and his ability to be a regular. Bradley, however, needs to hit .340 or he can't be a regular in Boston.

[vjcsmoke]

Well we got over Damon all right but there was almost two full years of pain to suffer with Coco Crisp who was a disaster at the plate for us those two years he manned CF and the third where Epstein refused to trade him and halted Ellsbury's progress. In fact, when Coco was traded after the '78 season to KC he promptluy lost his starting job to Mitch Maier of all people. He only revived his career when he got to Oakland. If Jackie Bradley becomes a strikeout machine and cannot hit close to 300 consistently we are going to witness a real deep drop in our lead off hitter's effectiveness. Ells is a royal pain in the neck when he gets on base and a strikeout prone replacement could impact our lineup severely. Bradley might turn out to be a solid player but he has some potentially deep holes in his game. He certainly is no Bogaerts.

 

Why can't Victorino lead off and JBJ bat at the bottom of the order until he gets fully acclimated?

His numbers are quite similar to Ellsbury and he even offers a little more pop at the plate.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/victosh01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/ellsbja01.shtml

 

If you compare the two, Victorino has pretty good speed and OBP. I don't see why he couldn't bat leadoff in an ellsbury-less lineup.

Also consider that Xander Bogaerts will likely make huge strides in the near future. It wouldn't surprise me to see him as our #3 hitter in a couple years.

 

1. Victorino

2. Pedroia

3. Bogaerts

4. Ortiz

5. Napoli

 

That's not a bad top of the order. And JBJ should be fully ready in a couple of years time as well.

[marklmw]

Why can't Victorino lead off and JBJ bat at the bottom of the order until he gets fully acclimated?

His numbers are quite similar to Ellsbury and he even offers a little more pop at the plate.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/victosh01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/ellsbja01.shtml

 

If you compare the two, Victorino has pretty good speed and OBP. I don't see why he couldn't bat leadoff in an ellsbury-less lineup.

Also consider that Xander Bogaerts will likely make huge strides in the near future. It wouldn't surprise me to see him as our #3 hitter in a couple years.

 

1. Victorino

2. Pedroia

3. Bogaerts

4. Ortiz

5. Napoli

 

That's not a bad top of the order. And JBJ should be fully ready in a couple of years time as well.

 

I am a fan of Ellsbury but if his demands are too high it makes sense to give JBJ the opportunity. I agree with your lineup ... same lineup that I spoke about last week. Ortiz is have a record setting postseason and some fans still consider Lester for WS MVP ... its all about pitching and I would rather the Sox spend money on pitching rather than Ellsbury. Enter Tanaka. Again we are fortunate to have JBJ and he can bat at the back of the order.

If Ellsbury gave Boston a discount ... the reports say that won't happen ... a discount might be considered 18M per ... While we can have JBJ for 500K. Victorino can lead off the next two years and by then JBJ should be ready to inherit that lead off spot. Now I am rambling

[Dojji]

Dojji, your missing the fact that Elssbury will be useless with his speed in a few years.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/loftoke01.shtml

 

Ells doesn't quite have Lofton's plate discipline but otherwise is a very similar player.

[Dojji]

Who gives a s*** about his batting average if he can maintain his OBP around the .370 level Dojji?

 

 

Can he? He hasn't done it yet.

 

let's just say that I consider that the single biggest breaking point for Bradley. He needs to hit at least .260 at the big league level to bring his other talents to full effect,, and not killing it for average in the minors makes me nervous about just handing him a starting job in Boston. Plate discipline is 2/3 contact, if your contact skills aren't up to scratch your plate discipline won't manifest the way you think it ought to.

 

Again, my comp for Bradley is Dejesus, and when Dejesus hit over .270 he was borderline elite. When he didn't, it was mediocre. It was just that simple.

 

Until Bradley can be effective at the big league level in part time play, I don't want him penned in as the #1 go to option in center. No problem with him being on the 25-man paying his dues and learning on the job, but let's learn from the problems we're having with Middlebrooks -- and don't just GIVE the rookie a job.

 

I'd rather ride Victorino and go looking for an RF or bring in a guy who can play part time at a solid level, like Coco Crisp, to shelter the team from any risk of a Bradley implosion, than just trot him out there as a putative Ellsbury replacement. Have nothing against the kid, I just don't want to give him the starting job sight unseen.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Dojji

[Dojji]

Dojji, on his binky Che-Hsuan Lin and his ability to be a regular. Bradley, however, needs to hit .340 or he can't be a regular in Boston.

 

And Lin's inability to meet the benchmark I listed here that wasn't supposed to be informative?

 

Worth mentioning is that I was saying Lin had to hit .270 at the big league level. Not in triple freaking A. And in the end he couldn't even do that. And if a guy can't top .270 in triple freaking A, against pitchers that aren't ready for the big lights what are his chances to exceed that in the bigs against the best of the best? Not that great.