example1

I would definitely NOT give him that money, as long as we have Beckett and Matsuzaka signed for less money. My bet is that he will end up signing for closer to 18-19m a season, which is much more reasonable. Santana is not worth 25 million a year. Sorry.

That's the only difference and I (along with many other fans, as well as likely most GMs in baseball) think it may be insignificant. His lack of a proven MLB track record? Wouldn't the same criticism apply to Clay Buchholz or Phil Hughes, Ryan Howard 3 seasons ago? How about just his actual track record? Did you need an extensive track record to know that Jose Reyes belonged in the majors, or that Ryan Zimmerman could field at an above MLB level? This is the same conservative approach that so many people used when talking about Matsuzaka, as if he would immediately become a completely different pitcher when he came to the USA, despite his actual track record of success at a high level. The fact that teams are willing to trade away their players with established MLB track-records (Lowell, Beckett, Pierzinski, Slocumb) for guys without a track record (Hanley Ramirez/Anibal Sanchez, Joe Nathan/Francisco Liriano, Varitek/Lowe) should indicate that what you are saying isn't even an accurate representation of how the game actually works. There is something to be said for MLB experience, it certainly is a better predictor of how good a player will be. However, there is also a time in a player's life when he has no experience but will be given the chance. At some point a team needs to make the leap of faith and just give a kid a chance to prove himself. The "Hype" you talk about is nothing more than me thinking Ellsbury will eventually reach his career averages, which would be very exciting for a team that has struggled to replace Damon as a good leadoff hitter. He's not going to be superman, but he should contribute to this team and, I think, help them win a World Series. What is bunk is assuming that all players are going to struggle with that adjustment. It is like talking about a pitcher who gets a lot of strikeouts in the minors or Japan and assuming that their numbers are going to take a dramatic hit because of the improvement of the league. Buchholz may be missing bats by a foot and a half in AA, a foot in AAA and 6 inches in MLB. But who cares, as long as he's missing bats in the MLB? How would you even measure that sort of thing? The same is true for Ellsbury. You can see how he plays, he sprays the ball around with ground balls or linedrives, beats out a lot of balls in the infield, and turns singles into doubles and doubles into triples on balls in the gaps. He may beat them out by 10 feet in AA, 5 feet in AAA and 1 foot in MLB. Who knows? He's not the type to suddenly stop competing and being successful if he struggles early. Again, I don't think he's going to be Willie Mays but he can contribute. That's not hype, it is as plain as day. The only enthusiasm I have had is that I have advocated that Ellsbury could possibly contribute to this team this season and he should not be prevented because he is young or because he doesn't have an MLB track record. I agree with Pat Casey that he could become a superstar. A good portion of that would be because of his production on the field, but he also has a certain charisma about him that has been infectious at every level. Add to that the fact that he's playing in Boston, and add to that how Boston has treated it's home grown players who turned out to be good (Nomar, Youkilis, Pedroia) and the words superstar and icon could easily apply.

I guarantee that if Hanley were having a decent year for the Sox right now we would gladly give him up for Beckett, who we would still enviously watch from afar. Beckett has top 5 stuff. The grass is often greener. I coveted Beckett when he was in FLA and I was salivating when I heard the Sox may get him. When they got him I was so excited I couldn't care about Hanley and I haven't looked back since.

I'm fine with that. They are doing that because they don't have a spot for Ellsbury, NOT because they feel he is overmatched at the MLB level or that he can't compete.

So... 2-out, 2-on double today for an RBI, against a slider from a guy who had just thrown a 98 mph fastball. He sure looks overmatched to me.

Ellsbury didn't strike out yet.

51.1 million dollars is how this was allowed to happen. They blew every other team out of the water and paid the rest of what Matsuzaka was worth in his contract. Absolutely brilliant move at the time, absolutely brilliant move now. The plus/minus on the Matsuzaka deal is HUGE when comparing the Sox and Yankees. The Sox gain a pitcher who will be rookie of the year at this rate. The Yankees watch their rotation get older and have to settle for Igawa. And by "settle" I mean "throw money down the drain".

It is fun to read some of these predictions. Nay-Sayers please stand up. Dude is an absolute stud. The last few starts it looked like what Matsuzaka usually looks like. He's not pitching out of his mind, he's doing what he has done his whole life. He is simply baffling guys.

I just don't care how many home runs he hits. Maybe he will develop more power when he is less concerned about getting on base, or maybe Damon was on 'roids. Who the hell knows? :dunno: While HRs are nice a double or triple contribute something to the offense as well. It is nearly impossible to find a CF who hits for power, has a great glove and gets on base when not hitting for power. Ellsbury may not have the power. But that doesn't reduce his ability to be valuable and certainly has nothing to do with whether he is ready for the MLB.

There have been times in the last 4 days that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez have seemed over matched. It happens some times in baseball. Ellsbury had a hard hit single in one game, a hard line out in another, and a number of ground balls. He has had 10 ABs, and has not struck out. You can call it over matched, I will just call them at-bats. Coco or Lugo or WMP or Ortiz or Drew or Varitek could have done the EXACT SAME THING and you wouldn't bat an eye. The idea that guys need some long adjustment period every time they come into the majors is bunk. Guys DESERVE a long adjustment period, in the sense that the fans shouldn't get on them if they are slow, but the idea that a guy necessarily has to go through one and his playing on the team would therefore be detremental to the success of the team is speculative at best. So? The point is that people say Ellsbury doesn't have much power and therefore can't be a superstar. I say that we measure power with SLG, and Ellsbury has had the same SLG as Ichiro has. If we acknowledge that Ichiro has been an extremely effective superstar despite not having power, and if we acknowledge that it is likely that Ellsbury will continue his career SLG avg when he's in the bigs, then it seems realistic to think of Ellsbury as an extremely effective superstar. The lack of power doesn't seem to preclude other such players. I agree. But when people are saying that his lack of power will not only keep him from being a superstar, but also that it will keep him from even matching Damon's value, I happily point to other players who produce with their non-power tools.

let him get into his prime, in a big league setting, with a big league weight program and natural maturity. we will see what his upside is in a few years.

The polish he needs is the same polish that every MLB player ultimately needs. Let's give it to him now so that the runs and SBs he gets count for the Sox, not the PawSox.

My guess is that someone with his reputation and ability to judge talent those are meaningful words. He wasn't like "Jacoby will be pretty good" he said he will be a superstar. He didn't mince words and isn't one for hyperbole and exaggeration.

This was nearly the exact same rap on Dustin Pedroia, roughly 10 months ago and throughout the offseason. No matter how much some of us tried, people would not get off his back, talking about how he looked like he was overmatched and swinging for the fences, while also making good contact. His minor league numbers speak for themselves. If you are talking about a guy who makes excellent contact despite looking overmatched, then you're talking about a guy who will hit linedrives and hard groundballs when he's comfortable. This guy is an amazing athelete and has been successful at every level and he will be successful at the MLB level soon. There is a reason that many scouting sites and experts claim that he could be the Sox CF by the 08 season. He looks like he is pressing to not waste his ABs while also wanting to rip the ball. Sox hitters are notorious for taking the first pitch and pitches not right in their zone. Ellsbury is a sox hitter, through and through. Again, Pedroia does the same thing. Ellsbury has a .430 SLG in the minors this season to go with his .390 OBP. That gives him an OPS of .826. Ichiro has a career .380/.440/.820 OPS. I think Ellsbury is quite a bit faster than Damon. Ichiro could be a better comparison, with a lower AVG. Pat Casey (Oregon State Head Coach) said this about him last week: Johnny Damon is a great player," Casey said yesterday. "But Jacoby Ellsbury is going to be a superstar player. I love the comparison, but Jacoby Ellsbury's ceiling is even higher. I say this with all respect in the world for what Johnny Damon has done, but this guy is going to be a superstar." That's a two-time College World Series coach saying that. The only place we really disagree is whether he's ready yet.

So far I feel pretty good about what I've seen from Ellsbury. I was right, he is already the best athelete on this team, as soon as he steps on the field. God damn he's fast. First 2 base passed-ball run since 1997. Speed lights up a team and a crowd in the same ways that strike outs and home runs do. He is an electric player and should start on the big club next season.

I agree in the hitter vs. pitcher thing. He's fine to bring up right now. He's fine to bring up any time. He knows he's a damn good athelete and he knows where he belongs. I disagree,however, about Hanley Ramirez vs. Ellsbury and being traded. If I recall, Hanley was brought up when the roster was expanded to 40 at the end of the year. It is just now July and Ellsbury is up. Also, why would they bring Ellsbury up to showcase his skills? It isn't like whatever potential GM wants to find Ellsbury can't find a recording of him playing at AAA, or send a scout or twelve to watch him play. Any start he has--whether good or bad--will be taken with the 'small sample size grain of salt'. If there is a deal somewhere it could be one that makes Ellsbury need to come up and contribute sooner than later. Or we're reading way too much into it. :dunno:

I put Ellsbury in my 'reasonable to be traded' section. It may be reasonable, but it seems highly unlikely. Whether he likes the move in retrospect, we all know that Theo wouldn't have pulled the trigger on the Josh Beckett deal had he been the GM and not wearing a gorilla suit. That move worked out okay for both sides, but with the troubles at SS we can see why Theo may have been attached to Hanley. Anyway, I make the comparison because Ellsbury is a multi-tool player in a high defensive-spectrum position (CF) who is owned for 6 years and is cheap as hell. He is valuable as a trade piece. Would the Sox have brought up Ellsbury if they were planning on moving him, or trying very hard to move him for the right return? I guess I don't think so. They brought him up as more than a CF replacement, because we know that WMP can play CF as can Drew (though perhaps less skillfully with his nagging leg problems this season). Should we expect murphy back up as soon as he is able, or is this an introduction to and sign of confidence in, Ellsbury as this team's CF of the future? Crisp could be on the move, at least by next year, and Ellsbury may get the Pedroia treatment: Jacoby Ellsbury will be the starting CF for our team when spring training opens despite not much experience in the 'bigs. It is just a very curious move to bring him up at this point. I support it, but I am also trying to read something into it in terms of how it affects their trade picture. The two cannot be unrelated.