Teixeira to Atlanta; No One to Boston; No One to New York

According to Ken Rosenthal, Tex is heading to the NL, where he will probably destroy that league’s inferior pitching.

Where does that leave the Sox and Yanks? Well, the same place they’ve been — looking at role players and rentals that can be had without giving up either club’s Big Three.

We’re not expecting any big news for our beloved (and hated) teams. A Bobby Kielty, perhaps. An Octavio Dotel at the most. Nevertheless, on this penultimate day of the trading season, feel free to comment on any and all rumors and happenings.

Update: Minutes ago, Gordon Edes posted word from one of his sources that "chances were ‘pretty good’ that the Red Sox would complete a deal with the Chicago White Sox for outfielder Jermaine Dye."

The deal would be Dye for Wily Mo Pena and a minor-league pitcher that is not Lester or Buccholz. (And hopefully not Bowden.) Color me skeptical. While Dye is an improvement over Pena, I’m still struggling to see how either he or Drew receives enough at-bats to be happy.

79 comments… add one

  • I know it’s a useful fiction and all to assume Ellsbury is part of some big three (while Buchholz and Lester are great but not quite Chamberlain and Kennedy – both younger and more advanced), but let’s look at the facts (apart from the hype):
    Career minor league numbers:
    Jacoby Ellsbury (23 years old): .306 .387 .423 (911 AB) 99 SB 26 CS
    Brett Gardner (23 years old): .291 .388 .378 (985 AB) 98 SB 19 CS
    So their birthdays are two weeks apart and they show almost identical numbers (against the same opponents) except for a bit more power from Ellsbury while Gardner is more adept at stealing bases. The only real differences are the 200 ABs extra at-bats Ellsbury has had in the International League and the overblown hype (for a 23 yo).
    If Ellsbury is a part of a “big three” then Gardner is a part of a “big four”.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 12:41 pm
  • I think this means that the Sox plan on resting Manny and Ortiz a bunch during the stretch run. When you have an 8 game lead, you can afford to do such things. Also, Dye has been very good of late. He’s a good bat to have in an offense that has been inconsistent. Finally, he’s a type A free agent, so the Sox will get a first rounder when he leaves.

    Nick-YF July 30, 2007, 12:43 pm
  • Yanks need Dye more. Abreu is slugging .268, while Damon is at .340, against left-handed pitching. It’s why guys like Burres (to say nothing of Gabbard and Lester) can shut the Yankees down. And if they’re never going to let Duncan play the OF, then they need another right-handed bat or a series against the Tigers (Miller, Robertson, Rogers) could be very ugly – again.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • Edes’s update is that ther pitcher would be Delcarmen or Masterson.

    Nick from Washington Heights July 30, 2007, 1:07 pm
  • Who cares if JD “Not Trot” Drew is unhappy? I can think of nothing better for the Sox than to enter the off-season with JD demanding a trade. The Sox need to make room for Ellsbury, Moss, and Murphy. Time to send JD on his way.

    Adam July 30, 2007, 1:24 pm
  • That’s silly. No one will take him at the price we have him, and comparing Drew to Nixon this year puts it in Drew’s favor (sad as that is for both players).

    Devine July 30, 2007, 1:31 pm
  • If it’s Delcarmen the Sox must have another trade in place for a relief pitcher, particularly with Timlin hurting. Delcarmen has been really quite excellent (excluding yesterday), so dumping him for a fourth outfielder makes little sense to me, particularly when paired with a high-level prospect. This can’t be the only deal. It doesn’t make sense.

    SF July 30, 2007, 1:42 pm
  • “Pretty Good” Chance Of Red Sox Getting Dye
    UPDATE: Edes says it would be Manny Delcarmen or Justin Masterson as the pitcher.
    Things are heating up…Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe has a Major League source indicating that the Red Sox have a “pretty good” chance of completing a trade for Jermaine Dye.
    The White Sox would apparently receive Wily Mo Pena and a pitching prospect other than Jon Lester or Clay Buccholz. That could still leave Michael Bowden, Daniel Bard, Bryce Cox, or Craig Hansen. All four have struggled this year but still have plenty of promise. Justin Masterson is another intriguing name, but he’s pitched well in four starts at Double A.
    Where the heck would he play? This trade makes little sense to me unless there is one on it’s heels. You are going to platoon either Coco or Drew? Color me confused!

    John - YF (Trisk) July 30, 2007, 1:45 pm
  • “This can’t be the only deal. It doesn’t make sense.”
    anyone else thinking what I’m thinking?
    Manny Ramirez for Farnsworth!

    Nick-YF July 30, 2007, 1:47 pm
  • Trisk:
    There is some speculation that Ortiz is really hurting, so if he has to take three weeks off before the end of the season to rest (or worse, have an arthroscopy), then Dye is insurance at DH, and thus no position issue. This would obviously be bad news, the Sox making a deal because of Ortiz’ contingent health.
    Also, it could be that they just have no faith in Drew, and there’s a platoon situation out in RF.

    SF July 30, 2007, 1:52 pm
  • I can see a scenerio where he plays LF twice a week, one for Manny getting a day off a second where Manny DH’s. That gives Ortiz a day off each week. Then he plays 3 games in RF each week moving Drew to CF once a week to give Crisp a breather and 2 days off a weeek for Drew (atleast)

    TJ July 30, 2007, 1:52 pm
  • Bite your tongue NICK!!! AS if this season hasn’t been nightmarish enough!!!

    John - YF (Trisk) July 30, 2007, 1:53 pm
  • SF, if Ortiz is hurt my fantasy hopes are dead! This is what I get for trading for players I hate. Please Papi, play through the pain!!!

    John - YF (Trisk) July 30, 2007, 1:57 pm
  • Does anyone have any numbers or reports on Masterson? I have never heard of him till now.
    Also that first round draft pick has to be why Epstein is thinking seriously about this trade, the guy loves draft picks. Resting stars for a stretch run as well as a first round draft pick? Not to mention Dye’s name buzz I think this is potentially a good deal. I just hope it isn’t Delcarmen especially after that game yesterday I think it would do a number on him.

    SF Kevin July 30, 2007, 2:17 pm
  • The Market For Eric Gagne
    Matthew Cerrone of MetsBlog has the latest regarding Texas closer Eric Gagne. It seems the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Indians, Mariners, and Dodgers may all be in on him depending on who you listen to. We’ve heard the Tigers in on him previously but not so much anymore. We’ve heard the Diamondbacks and Cubs connected to Gagne in the past but not as much lately.
    There still seems to be some confusion about which teams Gagne can be dealt to without his consent. To review what’s been published:
    Gagne can be traded to the Yankees, Mets, Angels, and nine other clubs without his consent.
    If Gagne is to be traded to the Tigers, Indians, Phillies, Red Sox, or thirteen other unknown clubs, he must consent. That means additional concessions on the part of the acquiring team.
    So, we don’t know where the Mariners, Dodgers, Cubs, or Diamondbacks fall. But I don’t know why the Yankees would have to worry about Gagne missing his incentives if they acquire him. Being on the first list is a big plus for the Yanks.
    Great is there a way to include Damon and Farnsworth in that deal? LOL.

    John - YF (Trisk) July 30, 2007, 2:34 pm
  • Now they are saying they don’t want to give up Masterson or Delcarmen
    26 hours to go, Sox not close to a deal
    By Gordon Edes, Globe Staff
    Remember, these situations are fluid, but while the White Sox remain hopeful of persuading the Sox to make a deal for outfielder Jermaine Dye, the price remains too high for Boston. Chicago would take Wily Mo Pena but want either Manny Delcarmen or Justin Masterson. The Red Sox will not part with either for a rent-a-player like Dye, who is eligible for free agency after the season. There is a decent chance that the Red Sox will not make a substantive deal before tomorrow’s 4 p.m. deadline, but stay tuned.

    NeffSox July 30, 2007, 2:54 pm
  • I think Dye makes a lot of sense given Ortiz’s severe lack of power against LHP this year, especially if Murphy-for-Dotel or the like happens to replace MDC. It sounds like Theo is holding out to try to drive the price down one more notch, though, which is fine… who’s gonna blink?

    Froggywomp July 30, 2007, 2:56 pm
  • SF Kevin: http://tinyurl.com/295myv
    That’s a link to Dewey’s House (also on YFSF sidebar). Basically, he compares well to D-Lowe in terms of his sinker and his ability to get enough Ks to satisfy the kind of people who think CMW’s success just can’t go on.

    QuoSF July 30, 2007, 3:03 pm
  • “the kind of people who think CMW’s success just can’t go on.”
    those people still exist?

    Nick-YF July 30, 2007, 3:05 pm
  • Nick, they’re in some dark corner somewhere, probably muttering to themselves, but I’m sure they do.

    QuoSF July 30, 2007, 3:10 pm
  • My understanding of the Gagne contract makes me believe its very unlikely that the sox would land him since he would need to waive his limited no trade for them. He has incentives in his contract that pay him by the number of game he finishes, not appears in. Going to the sox as a set up man would thus cost him some cash. He doesnt have the luxury of killing a trade to either of the NY teams even though he wouldnt be closing for either of them. No matter what any player says about their desire to win, its pretty rare to see them make a move that will cost them money. It also seems to me the sox dont really need pen help too much anyway. This situation does beg the question as to why the sox were among his teams he couldnt be traded to in the first place.

    sam YF July 30, 2007, 3:13 pm
  • Gagne would be a nice fit in Boston, and I can’t imagine why the “not closing” thing would be a hindrance. If I were his agent, I would remind him that this year he has a) already established that he can still close and b) re-established his health. Those were the two key items for him this year as far as getting a big payday and returning to closing for a big-time team in ’08. Spending the last 60 days of the season on a contender, perhaps helping a team in the post-season in a massive way, those would contribute to Gagne’s marketability, not hurt them, even if he isn’t in a closer’s role. I have to imagine that Boras has told Gagne that if a move to Boston presents itself he should consider it very strongly, regardless of which teams he didn’t pre-approve before the season started.

    SF July 30, 2007, 3:17 pm
  • sam: Because of exactly what you said, he’ll most out on closer-type incentives. Wasn’t he signed after Papelbon was moved back to the pen?
    Just looking at it from his standpoint, both NY closers are much older, so the chances of those teams needing a replacement closer mid-season might’ve looked higher to him.
    Either way, if the Sox really want Gagne, then sitting down and figuring out the incentives he’d likely miss out on and then just paying him that money might be a possibility. I don’t know.

    Anonymous July 30, 2007, 3:20 pm
  • No, Gagne was signed in December, long before Papelbon became closer.

    SF July 30, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • The discussion involving Gagne points to the whimsical nature of constructing a bullpen, the chance of it all. Theo passed on offering Gagne the same package as Texas, it was widely reported that the Sox just didn’t want to risk the money on a guy coming off injuries, and that the price was too steep. So instead they spent money on Joel Pineiro. Just imagine if the Sox had been more adept in assessing Gagne’s health and/or risk level, they could be staring at a bullpen with Okajima and Gagne, with Papelbon in a starter’s role, or, scary thought, a troika of Papelbon, Okajima, and Gagne.
    Of course it is completely silly to assume that the Sox would be in the same position that they are in now, or better off, or whatever, just by replacing relief pitcher X with Gagne, leaving all the roles and responsibilities as they are today as I did above (who knows, maybe Paps would have blown his shoulder out starting, etc.), but in the end the Sox passed on Gagne and signed Pineiro instead, moved Papelbon back to the pen and slotted Oki into the setup man role. It’s amazing how much chance there is in this part of the game.

    SF July 30, 2007, 3:28 pm
  • also papelbon was hurt last year so he wasnt a sure thing as a closer. Just as risky in a sense as an older NY closer. I think its amazing that he cant nix a trade to the yanks or the mets, id think those teams would be on the list precisely bc of his contract and their established closers.

    sam YF July 30, 2007, 3:29 pm
  • The Sox may very well just stay put and give Hinske/Willy Mo more at bats while resting the outfield and Ortiz. And who knows they could end up producing. Not to worried about there not being a trade, because the Yanks don’t look to do much either.
    Side note who thinks the Yankees should sell instead of buy?
    Examples: Abreau, Farnsworth and OMG! A-Rod

    SF Kevin July 30, 2007, 4:17 pm
  • sell while only 4.5 games back in the WC? Not a chance.

    Nick-YF July 30, 2007, 4:22 pm
  • Im glad kevin isnt the GM of the yankees….
    The yankees have as much of a chance of being sellers as the Sox!

    sam YF July 30, 2007, 4:27 pm
  • “Selling” doesn’t have to just be trading guys off the major league roster who have big contracts, in my opinion. Selling can also be trading guys who are at max value, who may only regress. For the Sox, were they to trade someone like Javy Lopez (or, for some, Manny Delcarmen or maybe even Mike Lowell), that could be considered “selling”, moving a contributor off a playoff-contending roster. Certainly it’s not “selling” like trading Manny might be “selling”, but it’s all relative to the success of the team; breaking up a very good roster, even at the fringes (or in from the fringe, like Lowell), could be considered selling, in a way.

    SF July 30, 2007, 4:39 pm
  • If Texas gets the Braves top 3 prospects, including Saltamachia, one of the few blue-chip catching prospects anywhere, for Tex, then they’ve made out like bandits. Wow.
    Dye seems a smart bench addition. He’s likely to improve his OB to something closer to career average (which isn’t great, but not terrible either) as the year continues, and he’s a nice big bat to have around either to pinch or as an alternate who gets a lot of time. But it depends on the cost. Doesn’t everything?

    YF July 30, 2007, 4:43 pm
  • The Sox didn’t sign Gagne not because they mis-evaluated his health, but because Boras wouldn’t let ANYONE evaluate his health. Anyone who signed him did so on the hope he could pitch again (or based on Boras’ word, which isn’t advisable). Now that it turns out he can indeed pitch again, of course, everyone wants him.
    Woosta, that’s a nice try. But Gardner’s .321 BA in high-A ball does a pretty good job obscuring his decent-but-unspectacular numbers at AA, unlike Ellsbury, who hit .347 with a .412 OBP at the higher level.

    Paul SF July 30, 2007, 5:32 pm
  • Buster Olney reports (insider required.. sorry) that the Dodgers and Yankees are discussing the trade of Scott Proctor for Wilson Betemit with an eye for potential usage at first and other positions (according to Olney) along with consideration of life P.A.(post-Alex). Failing that, Olney also reported that the Yankees may pursue the A’s Dan Johnson to have yet another option not named Andy at first. Phillips has hit safely in 23 of 25 games in July, currently has an 11-game hitting streak, and has yet to commit an error this season. This maneuver seems like a solution looking for a problem.

    attackgerbil July 30, 2007, 6:45 pm
  • Oh, I see now Paul.
    Ellsbury had a .308 AVG with .387 OBP in 198 at-bats in AA last year.
    Gardner had .300 AVG with .392 OBP in 203 at-bats in AA this year.
    Makes perfect sense to me.

    Anonymous July 30, 2007, 7:29 pm
  • Paul, my research seems to show that the Sox offered four or five million, regardless of the physical situation, while the Rangers offered six and the Sox refused to match that number. I haven’t found a caveat.

    SF July 30, 2007, 7:30 pm
  • Woosta (I assume that anon is you) — they are the same age, but Gardner is a level behind, basically, as your own post seems to indicate.

    SF July 30, 2007, 7:32 pm
  • In fact, Paul, the below linked story seems to indicate that Gagne was certainly subject to an intense physical prior to a deal being finalized. In this case, the Sox were simply not willing to offer the money to get Gagne in the fold; they could have always reviewed the physical, found a quirk, and gotten out of the deal.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2702380

    SF July 30, 2007, 7:35 pm
  • BTW: Speaking of “higher” levels:
    In 2007 at AAA (same age, same opponents):
    Ellsbury: .268 .343 .354 in 257 AB with 27 SB 5 CS
    Gardner: .254 .371 .305 in 98 AB with 5 SB and 0 CS
    The difference? YF’s recognize Gardner for what he is (4th OF with an outside shot at being a CF) while SF’s think of Ellsbury as a future superstar. It’s amazing what hype can do, in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 7:40 pm
  • SF –
    Actually, he’s 158 ABs “behind” – as I pointed out in the first post of the thread.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 7:41 pm
  • It’s not YFs and SFs that recognize this, it’s also baseball experts, Woosta. Ellsbury has been ranked highly in many places, not just by fans. But whatever, that probably doesn’t matter to you.

    SF July 30, 2007, 7:52 pm
  • Come on SF, you can do better than that! When the numbers don’t support your argument you allude to the “experts”.
    Meh. Baseball America also ranked Ruben Rivera ahead of Derek Jeter two years running.
    And after Ellsbury’s “performance” this year, he won’t be ranked next year.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 8:18 pm
  • Woosta, you need to take a chill. Ellsbury has put up stellar numbers throughout his limited time in the minors. It’s irrelevant what Gardner has done; they are two different players being evaluated separately. Ellsbury has great speed. He has shown an amazing ability to get on base, and has moved up three levels in just over a full season in the minor leagues. He’s young. He apparently is phenomenal defensively. He steals bases at a great rate. He’s a tremendous prospect. Guaranteed success? Hell no, there’s no such thing.
    But to somehow just pull out numbers, ages, and say “see, they are the same player” shows no understanding that players are different, despite numerical similiarities. Ellsbury is highly rated because many people, not just hype-buying fans, have watched him play, seen him perform. To be utterly dismissive of this fact, and to simplistically reduce players to their stats with no regard for a greater context, is shallow.

    SF July 30, 2007, 8:27 pm
  • So you say. They’re the exact same player – 2007 in AAA has shown that – except Ellsbury hits for a bit more power and Gardner actually has better speed (see SB/CS throughout their careers).
    Whatever. I can see how SF’s take offense when reality intervenes in fantasy. We’ll find out soon enough especially since according to your “experts” Ellsbury won’t be ranked in 2008.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 9:09 pm
  • Who is taking offense? Ellsbury is a tremendous prospect with upside. That’s it. He’s not guaranteed to be a superstar, he may never be one. But he’s a top prospect with potential to be a major league player, and perhaps a very good one.
    If you want to argue that that’s not the case, have a field day. I frankly don’t care how he compares to a Yankee farmhand, only you are making that comparison.

    SF July 30, 2007, 9:42 pm
  • has better speed (see SB/CS throughout their careers)
    that has largely to do with the delivery of the pitcher and the accuracy/power of the catchers throw and jump of the runner rather than solely the speed.

    Ric July 30, 2007, 9:51 pm
  • “…to simplistically reduce players to their stats with no regard for a greater context, is shallow…”
    sf, you made this comment in jest right?…is sabermetrics about “a greater context” or stats?…if by “context” you’re accusing woosta of cherry-picking stats, then that’s a different matter, but one he appears to have defended…
    i have to admit that i haven’t actually seen ellsbury play, and i’ve never heard of gardner…neither of them are relevant at this point frankly, unless they can come up right now and make a difference…but your aggravation with woosta for not buying the ellsbury hype seems a bit unfair, given sox fans chiding of yf’s for hyping hughes on this site…

    dc July 30, 2007, 10:01 pm
  • I know SFs hate feeling inferior in any respect but to compare the Sox’ “Big Three” to the Yanks’ “Big Three” – as Paul implies in the post – is just plain overstating what the Sox have.
    That’s the only reason to bring up Gardner. If Ellsbury is in your “Big Three”, then the Yanks have a legit “Big Four” – even as Gardner and Ellsbury will be lucky to start consistently for either team. Tough pill to swallow, I’m sure, but there’s nothing in reality that suggests anything different. But you can have what’s in the heads of experts.
    Meanwhile – based on the “experts” (and the stats too!)
    Chamberlain > Buchholz
    Kennedy > Lester
    Sorry, mate, but it’s time to make the Donuts.

    Woosta YF July 30, 2007, 10:05 pm
  • “Sorry, mate, but it’s time to make the Donuts. ”
    Wow- thats gotta be one of the worst finisher lines I’ve ever read.

    Ric July 30, 2007, 10:27 pm
  • This is getting a little out of hand. Evaluating prospects is a pretty sketchy science and minor league stats don’t always tell the same story, if you want to play the stats game take a look at the stats for Pawtucket’s Brandon Moss, who is also 23 and whose hitting #s compare favorably to both Ellsbury and Gardner (to be fair Moss isn’t a speedy player, but I’m just trying to prove a point).
    The reason that Ellsbury grades out higher with most front offices is probably percieved potential, fair or unfair. And to be fair, Ellsbury definitely impressed during his cameo in Boston, the guy’s speed is off the charts. The truth of the matter is you don’t hear many people asking for Gardner, but almost every Red Sox rumor includes Buchholz or Ellsbury.
    Furthermore, any team would be happy to have Chamberlain, Buchholz, Lester, or Kennedy, but to say that any one is better than the other is getting a little ahead of yourself. Right now Chamberlain certainly looks excellent, but this is his first full professional season and there are injury concerns with him. Buchholz throws smoke, but who knows what will happen when he gets to the big leagues (a lot of teams see him as a potential ace) and Lester has shown flashes of brilliance in the bigs, but it’s early to tell.
    Yankees prospects carry a ton of hype (Brandon Claussen anyone) and Sox prospects not usually so much (How many people though Pedroia would be a ROY candidate) I personally think it will be exciting as a Sox fan to potentially see a rotation next year of Beckett (27) Dice-K (27) Lester (24) Buchholz (23)and Wakefield (ageless)with Michael Bowden and Justin Masterson down the road and Yankees fans should be excited to see all their young guns taking over for stiffs like Mussina

    Bob July 30, 2007, 10:44 pm
  • Well, Ric, topped only by the couple lines he added right before that.
    Let’s take this slowly.
    A- Ball
    Ellsbury (2005): .317/.418/.432 — .850
    Gardner (2005): .284/.377/.376 — .753
    A+ Ball
    Ellsbury (2006): .295/.375/.414 — .789
    Gardner (2006): .321/.435/.420 — .855
    AA Ball
    Ellsbury (2006-07): .346/.412/.491 — .903
    Gardner (2006-07): .285/.375/.367 — .742
    AAA Ball
    Ellsbury (2007): .268/.343/.354 — .697
    Gardner (2007): .254/.371/.305 — .676
    MLB
    Ellsbury (2007): .375/.444/.438 — .882
    Gardner: None.
    Gardner has outperformed Ellsbury at exactly one level, whereas Ellsbury outperformed Gardner by 160 points at AA and despite struggling to adjust to AAA and being injured, is still outperforming Gardner at that level. Your comparison by career numbers is faulty because it flattens all levels into one, when Gardner’s totals are inflated by his ability to rake low-level pitching, while Ellsbury’s is enhanced because he hs done much better against tougher opponents.
    That’s why Ellsbury is a top prospect and Gardner is not.

    Paul SF July 30, 2007, 10:46 pm
  • I was pretty sure I remembered something about Boras not letting teams see Gagne work out in December before he signed. Sure enough:
    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2006/12/decision_day_fo.html
    “The Sox were reviewing Gagne’s medical records, but without the chance to see him pitch — and Boras has no inclination to audition his client, who saved 152 games from 2002-04 with the Dodgers — a Gagne signing comes with significant risk.”
    Reviewing physicals is different from actually seeing a guy pitch. His MRI could show a clean arm, but his velocity still could have been down 5 mph. Don’t get me wrong. The Sox could afford to take risks, and really, was a $5m risk on Eric Gagne worse than a $4m risk on Joel Pineiro? I don’t think so, and I don’t think many people outside the Sox FO thought so at the time. I was just saying earlier there was very little information to go on as far as Gagne’s health went, so I don’t think it was a mis-evaluation of health as it was a mis-evaluation of the risk/reward benefits of each potential closer. The mistake the Sox made was choosing the wrong picher on whom to take a $4m-$5m risk.
    And, Woosta, I’m still unclear why you seem intent on bashing Ellsbury and his status as one of the Sox’ Big Three. I didn’t say the Yanks-Sox Big Three, or the Sox’ Big Three Which Is Better Than the Yanks’ Big Three. Yet you acted as if I smeared the whole Yankee farm system when I was merely dicussing Red Sox prospects. That’s an awful lot of hypersensitivity…

    Paul SF July 30, 2007, 11:10 pm
  • Ack, I hate doing three posts in a row, but I realized I was unclear before when I was talking about Gagne’s health. I was referring specifically to teams not being able to see if he could pitch, not to physicals, MRIs and the like. I realize my comment made it sound like teams were flying COMPLETELY blind. Didn’t mean to do that…

    Paul SF July 30, 2007, 11:30 pm
  • Paul:
    The Sox expecting Gagne to audition his arm in a live pitching display for them was an unrealistic expectation, even considering Gagne’s injuries. Can you think of any other pitchers coming off of arm troubles who have done a live exhibition for teams? I can’t.
    As for Woosta, I am pretty sure we’ve had this poster here before, and I am disengaging. It’s an endless, brainless cycle, facts are useless in debates like this.

    SF July 31, 2007, 12:00 am
  • Really, nice job leaving out the number of at-bats at each level, Paul. There’s nothing quite like obscuring facts with small sample sizes. You know cause Ellsbury has had all of 16 ABs in the majors. And otherwise, the only other leagues he’s had even 240 ABs in one season (A+ and AAA) – he been exposed as the 4th OF he is.
    Meanwhile – thanks for proving my point. And glad to know about the Yankee “Big Four”.

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 12:12 am
  • “we’ve had this poster here before”
    What the hell’s that supposed to mean?
    “facts are useless in debates like this”
    You mean the facts you don’t agree with or the ones you ignore?
    You and Paul slant the “facts” to your suit your perspective. No surprise there.
    The point was only: There’s no way Ellsbury is leaps and bounds ahead of Gardner, as the hype would lead folks to believe. And I’m satisfied I’ve made my case, thanks. I don’t need approval from you.

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 12:29 am
  • Isn’t “Big Three,” as was used in the original post, a relative and somewhat arbitrary term, meaning the 3 best or most-targeted prospects on each team? Does it in any way effect one team’s concept of the Big Three if another team has a seemingly comparable player that is not in that particular team’s Big Three?
    For example, and humor me for a moment, but say the Red Sox currently had a pitcher in AA whose AA stats are far superior than the AA pitching stats put up by each of the Yankees Big Three. Not roughly equivalent, as you make the case in regards to Ellsbury/Gardner, but _far superior_. Like half the ERA, 2/3rds the WHIP, and a better K/BB ratio, even though the guy is a sinkerballer and not a strikeout guy. Would the existence of such a Red Sox prospect somehow effect the standing of the Yanks Big Three vis a vis the Yanks? Or would the existence such a prospect force the powers that be to reassess their decision to use the arbitrary category “Big Three” and expand it into “Big Four” for the Red Sox but keep the Yanks’ “Big” number fixed at 3? Or is it okay if the powers that be want to continue to cap the arbitrary number of “Big” prospects relative to each team at 3, even though their might be other players on a particular team whose numbers are roughly equivalent or far superior to the Big Three on the other team.
    Just asking.

    Tyrel SF July 31, 2007, 1:18 am
  • Colter Bean has a sparkling 3.04 minor league ERA, with excellent peripherals to boot. And he dominated AAA in 2006!
    Statheads have something of a bad reputation because some of us have the nasty habit of holding statistics above anything and everything else…and for being quite obnoxious and loud about it, too. It’s easy for fans to look at numbers on a page and act like we know exactly what’s going on…but guys like Bean just sort of illustrate why teams still rely so heavily on traditional scouting. Stats are a fun way to track player development and definitely something to argue about…but it’s not a science, like Bob said earlier. Beane and James alike have both stated, repeatedly, the need for both forms of player analysis, simply ignoring the ‘experts’ because the consensus has been wrong in the past is a foolish thing to do.
    And besides…the numbers don’t support the Gardner = Ellsbury argument, anyway. It’s hard to compare two players who haven’t spent a similar and healthy amount of time at the same level. That said…the only reason they aren’t on the same track is that Ellsbury absolutely dominated AA, and Gardner simply didn’t.
    Gardner AA (420 AB’s): .286/.378/.366; 71/60 K/BB
    Ellsbury AA (271 AB’s): .347/.423/.564; 32/30 K/BB
    So, to recap…Ellsbury struck out less, hit for a far greater average, showed better power, and in his 2007 season, more or less forced a promotion by hitting over .450 and virtually never striking out. And he played plus defense. Gardner took longer and performed at a lower level. Not an awful AA career, but not great, either. Since reaching AAA, Ellsbury’s been battling hamstring problems–he’s on the DL now–and I don’t know anything about Gardner.
    Oh…Jon Lester is about 11 months younger then Ian Kennedy. He’s over a year and a half younger then Chamberlain. Buchholz is about a year younger then Joba and six months younger then Kennedy. I’m not going to argue about ceilings, but the words “both younger and more advanced” are simply wrong, in every possible way.

    desturbd1 July 31, 2007, 3:52 am
  • “we’ve had this poster here before”
    What the hell’s that supposed to mean?

    We had a commenter here previously who was nothing but a problem, who basically ignored every intelligent, fact-based post put up, and was effectively reviled by both SF and YF alike for his/her argumentative, confrontational, and specious and sometimes circular/goalpost-moving commentary. Your posts have the almost identical tone of those, and I made a presumption. If I am wrong, then you’ve got a kindred soul out there somewhere.

    SF July 31, 2007, 5:58 am
  • Sure, desturbd1, leave out the fact that Ellsbury did that in AA over 198 at-bats one year and in 73 at-bats the next. The only level where they’ve had even close to the same number of at-bats in one continuous stretch?
    A+
    Ellsbury (2006): .295/.375/.414 — .789 (244 AB)
    Gardner (2006): .321/.435/.420 — .855 (224 AB)
    Otherwise, it’s apples and oranges all over the place including AA. Ellsbury has been exposed wherever he’s gotten alot of playing time, and otherwise the Sox have quickly moved him along to prevent that. Meanwhile, Gardner still has time to catch up to AAA pitching and still have a much better season. Ellsbury’s already been exposed.
    And hard to trust someone’s assessments who can’t figure out ages (in order of age):
    Lester: January 7, 1984
    Buchholz: August 14, 1984
    Kennedy: December 19, 1984
    Chamberlain: September 23, 1985
    So not only are Chamberlain and Buchholz better, but they’re WAY younger too! Especially Joba!!!
    SF –
    I love how when you and Paul ignore facts to suit your argument, you keep on steam-rolling right through any alternatives that don’t agree with it. And talk about “goal-post moving” – all I’ve consistently done is point out the statistical similarities. When those weren’t good enough YOU brought in the “experts”. And when I pointed out that even they will significantly devalue Ellsbury in 2008, YOU went ad hominen.
    But if by kindred spirit, you mean someone not willing to swallow the Sox-approved BS and point out the relevant stats to justify my case, then I’m happy to fill that role. I’m more than satisfied just showing how close Ellsbury and Gardner are. Any objective mind can plainly see that.
    P.s. You and Paul both getting significantly riled by this topic shows how much Ellsbury is hyped by RSN. Sorry to burst that bubble.
    And since small samples are par for the course around here:
    Last ten games in AAA:
    Ellsbury – 44 AB .182 AVG
    Gardner – 39 AB .256 AVG
    Oh, but I forgot – Ellsbury’s been “battling injuries”.

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 8:05 am
  • Not sure why “battling injuries” is in quotes since Ellsbury’s actually on the DL. And I see why SF is disengaging, First you limit the at-bats at one level to 240, but when it’s shown that Ellsbury actually had 270 at-bats at AA and was promoted quickly while Gardner had to stay essentially a full season before getting prmoted, you shift the rules to “mot at-bats in one, noniinterrupted season.” Unfortunately, small samples are par for the course when you’re dealing with minor-leaguers who rise quickly through an organization. Ellsbury rose quickly through all levels and has seen success at the major leagues. Gardner has not. Since you decided to compare partial lines and different seasons at AA (Ellsbury last year, Gardner this year), it seems interesting that you’re trying to uphold the standards of honesty in this debate. You clearly have no prblem cherry-picking the stats to try to make your weak and ridiculous case.
    Again, this whole argument was started by you (for reasons I don’t understand), has been lost by you, and the only one here unwilling to recognize that fact is you. You can keep saying your point is made until the end of time, but it doesn’t change the fact that Ellsbury is a top-flight prospect — regardless of Gardner’s standing, which you brought up out of some apparent insecurities of your own and which so happens to not be nearly as good. This isn’t my opinion; it’s the opinion of scouts and observers far more knowledgeable than I, and the stats in this case back them up. Thanks for playing. Don’t come back.

    Paul SF July 31, 2007, 8:26 am
  • Wow, just wow, Paul. This whole thing started cause I dared suggest that Ellsbury doesn’t belong in a Big 3 or if he does then Gardner belongs in a Big 4. You guys are the ones that took, and continue to take, it personally.
    On sample sizes, there are no good comps except for A+. Ellsbury’s AA at-bats have been split over two seasons while Gardner has almost twice as many. In AAA, Ellsbury has three times as many and his stats were terrible even before his callup (with you citing his 16 MLB at-bat as somehow indicative of something). The injury excuse may work for the last ten games, but not for his entire dreadful season.
    Hey, I’m still very happy I’ve made my case and learned a bunch in the process – most especially: For a rivalry site, you guys have paper-thin skins. Good luck with that.

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 8:39 am
  • is it possible to have a discussion without running off folks we don’t agree with paul?…woosta’s style is a bit grating [i think he's annoyed with you], but it takes all kinds of folks to make a discussion…this kinda reminds me of the melky’s better than wilymo and coco [before his resurgence] debate i engaged in with a few of you several months ago…i was being belittled and insulted, so i felt like i won…the argument about who’s dog’s bigger will go on whether we want to engage or not, but it’s always point in time…a few years ago we’d have had a doozy about jeter and nomar…not so much anymore…woosta’s only crime is stretching a point in an attempt to provoke…but, i haven’t heard anyone dispute his claim that the “experts” will “devalue” ellsbury next season [how does he know that?], but for the record, who cares?…as a yf, i’ll concede that ellsbury is a top prospect and is better than gardner even if i base it only on anecdotal evidence…and thanks to d-1’s comments about stat-heads not using just stats to evaluate, i think i understand now what sf meant about taking everything into context [i get it now]…the point i made earlier is that both players are largely irrelevant [for me anyway, remember i'm with the team that has to win now, screw next year 'til next year]…bottom line is that we’re basing the arguments largely on the “potential” of very young players with very limited experience at higher levels of play, so we don’t know how it will play out over a long stretch of high level baseball…that’s why gm’s don’t sleep at night thinking about what to do with their prospects…and hype is something both yf’s and sf’s are guilty of…i just try not to get too excited about prospects until they prove they can get it done in the majors…

    dc July 31, 2007, 9:24 am
  • Can someone explain to me why Gagne has to ok a deal to the Sox, but not the Yankees? Is he pissed about the way he was treated in the offseason? Just curious.
    (The answer could certainly be here, but there are 200 comments on Gardner and Ellsbury to weed through)
    Also anyone opposed to the Scott Proctor for Wilson Betimit trade like I am???
    Why not explore Loretta who they could have had via free agency.

    John - YF (Trisk) July 31, 2007, 9:33 am
  • DC, I have no problem with discussion. What you saw here wasn’t a discussion. It was one side starting an argument, the other attempting to ebut it, and the instigator holding his hands over his ears and screaming, “I’m not listening anymore!”
    As for the Melky debate, I jsut went back and read through at least the first part of it (http://yanksfansoxfan.typepad.com/ysfs/2007/02/bernies_cold_sp.html), and that was conducted rationally by all parties. The only time I saw where you were “belittled” was when SF called you “nuts” for suggesting Mely Cabrera would have less difficulty cracking the Sox starting outfield as it was currently constructed (Manny-Coco-Drew) than the Yankees’. Frankly, that was a crazy thing to say. You then accused him of “resorting to insults” when he had been engaging you civilly for numerous posts before that, and even the post in which he called you “nuts” was civil.
    So in the sense that both these conversations involve Yankee fans wildly overreacting to the rational, salient points offered up by Sox fans, then yes, this was reminiscent of the Melky debate.

    Paul SF July 31, 2007, 9:47 am
  • Trisk, i’ve wondered that, too. I haven’t heard an answer either, but I was assuming it was because he figured if the Sox didn’t want him in December, screw ‘em. But, yeah, I really don’t know.

    Paul SF July 31, 2007, 9:48 am
  • I’d imagine that Gagne wanted the right to veto a trade to every team, but because of negotiations had to provide a short list of teams that he wouldn’t veto. Could be something as simple as liking NYC.

    Nick-YF July 31, 2007, 10:00 am
  • If Gagne can be had for something short of Joba, Phil, Ian, I would pull the trigger. Obviously if it included one of those 3 I would pass. Even with his health issues Gagne gives the Yankees a safety net in case Mo tests the waters.
    I really think an upgrade at 1B is where we should go, but I don’t know who that would be? Loretta? Glaus?

    John - YF (Trisk) July 31, 2007, 10:01 am
  • and Trisk, I like a Proctor for Betemit deal. I think Torre has destroyed Proctor’s arm, and Betemit is a useful bench player with nice upside. The deal would probably be done in tandem with another move to improve the bullpen. So, are we ready to argue now!

    Nick-YF July 31, 2007, 10:01 am
  • Oh, I see, so clearly now, Paul.
    On the one hand, all I did was offer stats of the largest possible sample, in the very first post. It was a fine back and forth until 8:27pm when SF:
    1) Told me I need to “chill” (for what?)
    2) Then call an argument based purely on stats – “shallow”
    Then he follows it up by calling the discussion “brainless”
    Meanwhile, though none of this have I gone ad hominen.
    Just the stats ma’am – and no need to slice and dice them to prove a point. Ellsbury’s 2007 shows he’s far, very far, from a “tremendous” prospect. And Gardner has been his equal. I’ll leave the man-love and hype to you guys.

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 10:03 am
  • I don’t know Nick, I think it’s deeper then that. I think Gagne felt scourned and has a deep hatred for the Sox already. At least that’s what I’d like to think, LOL.
    Al Reyes for Jeff Clement? New rumor. Awful for the Mariners!
    Jack Wilson to Tigers?
    Dye to Sox to be done by this morning?

    John - YF (Trisk) July 31, 2007, 10:07 am
  • Largest possible sample, cribbing from D1:
    Gardner AA (420 AB’s): .286/.378/.366; 71/60 K/BB
    Ellsbury AA (271 AB’s): .347/.423/.564; 32/30 K/BB
    No need to lie to try to make yourself look good. It’s too late by this point anyway.

    Paul SF July 31, 2007, 10:09 am
  • Nick, I don’t mind trading Proctor, I just would rather it be for someone other then Betemit.

    John - YF (Trisk) July 31, 2007, 10:09 am
  • Uh…largest possible sample is their career numbers:
    Jacoby Ellsbury (23 years old): .306 .387 .423 (911 AB) 99 SB 26 CS
    Brett Gardner (23 years old): .291 .388 .378 (985 AB) 98 SB 19 CS
    You’re the one, Paul, that’s now slicing and dicing the numbers to best fit your hopes and dreams for young Jacoby.

    Anonymous July 31, 2007, 10:12 am
  • But thanks for bringing us back around to my point from the first post:
    “If Ellsbury is a part of a “big three” then Gardner is a part of a “big four”.”

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 10:13 am
  • Meanwhile, you’re citing numbers from a guy who can’t even figure out age from date of birth.

    Woosta YF July 31, 2007, 10:16 am
  • c’mon guys, time to make the donuts.

    Ric July 31, 2007, 10:29 am
  • I don’t mind the Proctor-Betemit trade (if that means less Cairo), but why are they looking at Dan Johnson?

    attackgerbil July 31, 2007, 10:30 am
  • Ric, very funny:)

    Nick-YF July 31, 2007, 10:36 am
  • paul, you’re obviously missing some of the melky debate[s] because it wasn’t just sf and i involved…i got heat from a number of you, unfairly i’d say in retrospect, especially with wilymo in the discussion…like i said it’s point in time…you’re missing the point that a discussion involves making a case, then listening to what the other folks have to say…you are the one with your “hands over your ears” for trying to toss woosta from the discussion, simply because he questioned your prospect’s potential…if you want rational and salient, go back and read my post…ignore the melky reference if it’s a sticking point for you…

    dc July 31, 2007, 11:37 am

Leave a Comment