Dojji

I'd offer him a 10M AAV with an incentive that adds $8M in every year he reaches 125 games played.

*dives into his sources and actually does some serious research* Hang on -- anyone know what the latest is on A. J. Pierzynski? A short term (2 year max) contract there might be an interesting Plan C. He seems to have gotten the job done on both sides of the ball last year and I can't see a catcher his age attracting big years from anyone.

Do you have any idea how few of the available free agent catchers are actually better than replacement level? beyond the obvious 3 (McCann, Salty, Ruiz) there isn't really that guy who's consistently above 0 WAR. If we assume Salty's gone, Ruiz is over 35 so that's not a great risk, and McCann is going to be courted by every team not happy with their catching situation -- which is pretty much every team. I just don't see that really smart bet out there right now.

Oh there's little doubt that the days of elite speed are numbered, they always are, the question is can he do what Kenny Lofton did, and turn elite speed into great timing and savvy with the speed he does have. He'll have to transform himself into a smarter hitter as his generational speed fades into merely being above average but there's more than a few veterans who demonstrate how that transition can be made.

I'm bucking your premise because I don't think it's a good one, UN.

The fact is that there isn't a lot out there that isn't either too expensive to be cost-effective, or really not even as dependable as those young players. if they don't believe in those youngsters, it still might be the best bet to take the least flawed one and trot him out there as if they did, and see what happens Personally I think you're slightly asking the wrong question. the question isn't about whether they're comfortable or confident with these rookies. They're rookies, there's only so comfortable you an possibly be with them. The question is about whether the risk taken in those young catchers is worth the reward. And the fact is, we simply don't know. But we also don't know what we'd get out of any of the veterans we could reasonably acquire to catch fulltime for us. Especially with Mauer moving to first base next year. It's *all* a crapshoot, might as well gamble on the guys who cost the least and are the easiest to set aside if something better comes along.

I would too, but let the FO do its due dilligence. Besides, before our infield is settled, we need to know who's backing up at SS. I don't really see that guy on the team or in the system at the moment, which is why I'm pulling for an investment in a professional utility guy like Willie Bloomquist.

How many of those guys make it to the show the way Jeff Bailey did, or Devern Hansack, or Jonathan Van every, or any one of a dozen others that come by in any given year, stay one year, maybe two, maybe three if they're very lucky and are then gone, frequently through no actual fault of their own. Just making the show is a great accomplishment of coure, but if you want to talk about the odds of these guys pulling down multiple productive, healthy above average seasons, I'd say the odds have to be lower than that.

No one is going to give Ellsbury a CC type contract. Put simply he hasn't earned it. Crawford was consistently effective for many years and cashed in in a low-talent market -- and had a big market team with a major hard-on for him driving up the price to boot. None of these factors necessarily apply to Ellsbury. Everyone's terrified of the big payout Ellsbury's going to get because his agent asks for 10 to get 5. No one is going to bite on 6-7 years for Ellsbury because people see too many object lessons floating around the league on what happens when you commit to talent-first guys and they start to lose that elite edge in raw skill, and Ellsbury doesn't have the track record of durability or consistently to suggest that he's sufficiently different to tempt teams to ignore these lessons. You've given all the reasons why yourselves. I see ellsbury coming down with a 5 year contract in the 15-18 million dollar AAV range and I suspect I may be aiming high That's a price the team has to think about matching if they can do it without sacrificing too many other priorities.

Just as long as you remember that that's what you're doing.

I would want Stanton only to play LF if he came to Boston. Let him fill Manny's role and focus on hitting as much as possible. besides, not the best RF in history and our RF asks for a player who's defensively up to code in ways that most offense first guys aren't. Before he came to Fenway Manny was an RF too after all. But I don't put any stock in the rumor. It seems too fantastic to believe that Cherington is going to meet the Marlins' price.

I'd be surprised if he wasn't back really. I think napoli is still a very good fit here. it's worth going over what our other options are, because you never know what can happen, but really, fun games of roster speculation aside, I don't see them failing to bring him back. There's plenty of time to get something done.

I don't think that Ellsbury "declining fast" is the risk you're making it out to be -- or the real reason you're concerned about retaining him. Everyone wants the new toy. It's natural. but a team that has a player with an elite skillset in a highly applicable area generally doesn't throw that player away just because of the new toy. This plays into years-old issues between Ellsbury and the fanbase, and possibly Ellsbury and the team as well. There's been a rather guarded take on Ellsbury from the moment he ran into Beltre and smashed his ribs in 09, that's just a fact. The lion's share of the eagerness to move on, therefore, lies in the hope that we can have a centerfielder next year who is not Jacoby Ellsbury. One without some of the bad memories Ellsbury's picked up while he's bee I'm sure the pick helps, but we don't even know what that pick will turn into. Draft picks are a crapshoot making that argument a minor factor at best. The money helps, but it's mostly an excuse to hide behind -- that money comes out of the FO's profit margins, if they want to spend it, it's there to be spent. I'd call that a nonfactor for the most part, except for perhaps how it plays into our pet theories about the guys we think the team should sign. No, get down to meat of it, the real issue is that years-old antipathy for Ellsbury -- not really a hatred even, more of an unexpected ambivalence as near as I can determine. Certainly we should be more excited to have a player of that skill level than it turns out we are. The lion's share of the eagerness to move on, therefore, lies in the hope that we can have a centerfielder next year who is not Jacoby Ellsbury. One without some of the bad memories Ellsbury's picked up while he's been here. Draw your own reasonings on why, all of them are at least partly applicable, and none of them fully explain the issues that happen on a visceral level between a fanbase and a player. The mere fact that we don't know whether or not JBJ has the same warts is the real core reason people are so anxious to move on here, whether they'll admit it or are even aware of it or not. And it's not a very good argument.

And if you overpay 2-3 million a year to keep a better player around in CF than you can find on the free agent market under normal conditions, exactly why is that such a horrible thing? ' You and I both know that by conventional measures of value, Victorino was underpaid last year. He provided a career best 6.2 WAR at a very reasonable price tag by free agency standards. We got our money's worth and more there, I'd be all for making another similar move if a similar player -- or especially a younger player who we already know is a fit with team chemistry -- came available on the open market.

You guys want to know a secret? I don't care that much about Jacoby Ellsbury. I like him, and I think he's a critical part of the team, but am I going to lose a lot of sleep if JBJ is playing CF next year? No. No, it'll probably be fine really. What I care about is groupthink. there's a difference between consensus and groupthink, and I've learned to tell the difference in my own way. People have a tendency to want to be agreed with, and when consensus happens a tendency exists to start outdoing each other in proclaiming agreement with that consensus. And when the group reaches a certain level of consensus rational thought starts being replaced by a feedback loop, which starts spiraling out of control and creates a mob mentality. I don't like to see that starting to happen to the impressions of a player who's given us good service over the years and helped lead us to two World Series. And I will fight it every time I see it happening and feel it goes too far. I've fallen on this sword many times in the past and I will again. This time it happens to be Ellsbury, who knows who the heck it'll be next year, Uehara, Victorino, or even Ortiz for all we know. but when the groupthink starts to surpass common sense and people stop giving any consideration to the other side in an argument with two sides, expect me to move in and do my rather loopy, scatterbrained best to amend the problem. Every time.

yes, by all means base your entire argument around one failed example. There's a number of speed players who retain their usefulness deep into their 30's, replacing timing and experience for what they lose in terms of natural talent. Victorino for one. Damon for another. Lofton for a third. It's not like these guys all die and get burried the minute the clock strikes 30 the way Crawford did As a matter of fact I did not, because I didn't think Crawford was good value as a corner outfielder. However, predicting Ellsbury bombs because of an unreasonable, unpredictable event like the complete Crawford flop isn't sane. He's already proven he can perform here in ways that Crawford did not. And need I remind you, we've had trouble in the past finding centerfielders that can thrive here. Ellsbury being one is not something I'm prepared to give up on lightly.

Why would they trade Ellsbury at any point during his run here? The idea that we need to maximize our return by trading all our players at their peaks is only part of the picture -- at some point that equation needs to break down and you need to be worried about maximizing the talent on your roster, rather than playing the game of numbers as if the max return for any one player is the most important consideration at all times.

I think you're overthinking it. You've built these arguments up in your mind until they're bigger than they should be. That's the way with consensus, people go out of their way to agree with each other and accidentally start going over the top on each other until it creates an exaggerated groupthink that resembles reality only incidentally. you're right that it is risky to retain Ellsbury, but the risks you've created are not as drastic as you're making them out to be. He's going into his age 30 season, not his age 40 season, for pity's sake. a 5-6 year contract isn't going to be the world-ending bust that people have decided it will be. He's a pretty decent bet to retain most of his value through year 5.

Lavarnway. He's no bigger a risk than anyone else we'd bring in on a budget, and I don't want a contract blocking the catcher's position if it can be avoided without hamstringing the team..

AFL doesn't make up for a bad result in full season minors. I have no faith in Shaw until he proves otherwise.

And if they don't, I'd be hard pressed to see why they'd be comfortable with Navarro.

They started testing him at 1B this season. It's a good question, and it definitely seems to be one the Sox are asking. Given our position getting a guy who can hit first base experience was a no-brainer this offseason. We don't seem to draft for 1B anymore and there's no real 1B talent in the pipes. The FO has demonstrated repeatedly that they don't really feel there actually is such a thing as a first base prospect -- and the players they have drafted for first base certainly havent' changed their minds. I'm of the opinion at the moment that our next solution at first base is probably going to be Garin Cecchini. We'll see how that works out for us.

Ehhh... if we didn't have a bunch of interesting B level prospects at catcher maybe, I don't see how one great half year from navarro makes him that much better an option from our own younguns

Alex Hassan perhaps? He's shown quite the advanced approach in Pawtucket last year, he'd be worth giving a look this Spring if we need an RHH. I could see him as a Brandon Moss type.

Gonna be laughing my head off next year when Ellsbury and JBJ are both on the roster at the expense of one of Gomes and Nava.