Two Modest Proposals

To the Blue Jays:

  • Jacoby Ellsbury
  • Michael Bowden 
  • Justin Masterson 
  • Nick Hagadone 
  • Felix Doubrant 
  • Cash 

For Roy Halladay, Alex Rios (and his contract)

To the Padres:
  • Clay Buchholz 
  • Lars Anderson 
  • Ryan Kalish 
  • Stolmy Pimentel
  • Kyle Weiland
  • Cash

For Adrian Gonzalez 

56 comments… add one

  • Whether you think they will be good or not, Masterson has shown he can be a ML starter. Bowden probably could be one. So any trade involving those guys (to say nothing of Buchholz) is giving a team two major-league-ready starters who are cost-controlled for years. I imagine in Petco Masterson might be a pretty strong pitcher, I have little idea about Bowden. Add in someone like Anderson, Kalish, or Hagadone, and the take is reasonably strong. What sane GM would not trade a lame duck like Halladay for major-league ready talent and a heap of financial savings? Gonzalez is a different beast, since he’s millions cheaper and far younger.
    I wonder what is really going on in these talks. Does Theo (or Cash, or any other reasonably decent GM) hang up on JP and then just shake his head like he just had 20th century history explained to him by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?

    SF July 31, 2009, 8:48 am
  • Also, I don’t want Theo to trade Pimentel, if only because I think any organization is funnier with a guy whose name is “Stolmy Pimentel” in it. And we could all use a laugh nowadays.

    SF July 31, 2009, 8:49 am
  • The Blue Jays would never accept that, nor should they. Masterson may be an okay starter in the National League, but all he’s proven is that he can’t get lefties out. He’s a ROOGY. Bowden hasn’t proven anything whatsoever, except that he’s not been that great at AAA this year. They’re simply not centerpieces for any high-end deal.
    But that’s a fairly good start for Adrian.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 8:51 am
  • The Halladay proposal is a joke, the Gonzalez trade is much more reasonable.
    They’d be better off taking their chances with comp draft picks then ending up with Bowden and Masterson.

    Albert July 31, 2009, 8:56 am
  • They’d be better off taking their chances with comp draft picks then ending up with Bowden and Masterson.
    That’s just an asinine comment. If a team got comp picks who turned out the way Bowden and Masterson have so far, they’d be pretty darn happy.
    I agree the proposal for Halladay is not as good as the one for Gonzalez — but that also reflects that Halladay’s price is lower, for several reasons: The Jays need to trade him, the bidders appear to have dropped a bit for him, and the Sox should be able to use their financial advantage to take on salary in return for lowering the quality of prospects.
    I think it’s funny that my proposal on Halladay was met with resistance from a Soxfan saying it was too much and a Yanksfan saying it was too little.
    I, for one, do not see Masterson as a future starter, certainly no more than a 4/5, and everyone seems to agree that Bowden is a 3/4. The Sox have Junichi Tazawa coming through the system, perhaps as early as next year, and if they need one, they can acquire a back-end starter in the offseason. But with Beckett, Halladay, Lester, plus Matsuzaka and Wakefield, the Sox would be heading into 2010 in pretty good shape, even if they are short on depth.
    In return, the Sox would have the best 1-2-3 rotation for the next season-plus (and two postseasons), as well as one of the game’s best hitters entering his prime and playing at Fenway Park, solidifying both the lineup and the troublesome left-side defense for years to come. They’d also be upgrading in center field, certainly on offense and potentially on defense, as well (Ellsbury’s got better range, but Rios has a better arm).

    Paul SF July 31, 2009, 9:14 am
  • “In return, the Sox would have the best 1-2-3 rotation for the next season-plus (and two postseasons), as well as one of the game’s best hitters entering his prime and playing at Fenway Park, solidifying both the lineup and the troublesome left-side defense for years to come.”
    Right, and you think teams don’t know this? They know exactly what they are giving up, and what it would mean to the Red Sox. What the Sox are giving them in these deals doesn’t even come close to the value they are getting.
    And, really? Teams should be ecstatic with two likely bullpen arms as first round picks? Puh and Leeze. The Jays already have plenty of starters who are or project better than Masterson and Bowden. The price for Halladay starts at Buchholz and another high-end piece like Anderson. Starts.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 9:19 am
  • Agree with Andrew on this.

    YF July 31, 2009, 9:24 am
  • Ditto.
    You are dreaming Paul if you think that gets it done. Think about how Jays fans would feel if that was the package they got back for their top gun. Not even a top-level prospect!
    Even if you feel that the price goes down in the off-season, its not a 100% thing which is what most of your argument is based on. I can imagine easily a situation where another team gets interested in making a splash over the winter and decides to pony up a few good prospects to instantly transform their team into a contender.

    sam-YF July 31, 2009, 9:32 am
  • I think it’s funny that my proposal on Halladay was met with resistance from a Soxfan saying it was too much and a Yanksfan saying it was too little.
    Who is the SF that your refer to in this comment?
    As for the Halladay deal, the YFs are conveniently ignoring the inclusion of Ellsbury in Paul’s proposal, and solely focusing on the pitching going back to the Jays. If you turn Masterson or Bowden into Buchholz, then what are the opinions? I’d say that Ellsbury, Buchholz, Bowden/Materson, and Hagadone would be a pretty damn strong haul for a lame duck, $15M-$20M semi-rental like Halladay.

    SF July 31, 2009, 9:41 am
  • Let me put it this way, regarding Ellsbury. Do you think if the Yankees included Gardner in a deal that didn’t include Hughes or Joba that the Jays would really care?
    The Jays, rightly, are looking for a stud, close-as-can-be-to-can’t-miss stud. Buchholz is like that. So is Hughes, or Joba. They asked for Smoak AND Holland from the Rangers. Drabek AND Taylor from the Phillies (who, amusingly, still have both after dealing for Cliff Lee). Not even one of the guys in that proposed deal is at that level. Now, if the Red Sox took on the toxic Vernon Wells contract instead of Rios’, then maybe you’d be on to something.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 9:48 am
  • All this talk. I guess we’ll find out today what other GMs value these players.
    If other GM’s value Masterson as a “roogy”, then we’ll see.
    If they value Bowden as a back of the rotation guy because of some bumps this year, then we’ll see that too.
    I just want it to be done – I hate this time of year when everyone feels the need to shat on other teams prospects as if they’re worthless.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 9:49 am
  • Agreed, Brad. It’s also a time where everyone feels the need to describe the other teams’ situation as ‘desperate’ and should be ‘glad’ to take on their expendable guys.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 9:51 am
  • “the YFs are conveniently ignoring the inclusion of Ellsbury in Paul’s proposal,”
    Im not ignoring him whatsoever, I just dont think this is a player that the Jays are gonna be doing cartwheels for. Id agree you are getting closer by substituting Buccholz in for one of the the other pitchers. But original “modest proposal” was just that modest in what it was offering for Halladay to be moved within the division…

    sam-YF July 31, 2009, 9:56 am
  • Do you think if the Yankees included Gardner in a deal that didn’t include Hughes or Joba that the Jays would really care?
    No, because Gardner isn’t as good a player as Ellsbury.

    SF July 31, 2009, 10:06 am
  • Not even a top-level prospect!
    Except Jacoby Ellsbury, who was the centerpiece of discussions for Johan Santana. Perhaps his stock has slipped because of his struggles in MLB, but he’s performed quite well this season on the whole.
    And Ellsbury holds more value than a prospect — he’s already in the league and producing.
    Teams should be ecstatic with two likely bullpen arms as first round picks?
    If we were discussing two “likely bullpen arms,” then maybe I’d agree with you. But we’re not.
    Also, the deal is predicated on the fact that what the Jays actually NEED to do is shed payroll. Ricciardi can ask for top-flight starting pitchers all he wants, but ultimately he’ll make the deal that both cuts the most payroll AND gets the best return possible. The Sox have the flexibility to trade one for the other. Other teams who aren’t taking on additional salary would have to give up more in prospects. If the Sox wanted to take on Wells’ contract, they could give up even less.
    I don’t think this will happen because I agree that either Ricciardi will hold out for a big-time arm until it’s too late (and ultimately settle for less than even this package in the offseason) or the Sox won’t be able to convince SD to give up Gonzalez and give up Buchholz for Halladay and try to use a lesser package for Victor Martinez. But I think it’s reasonable, and I think it’s possible. I can’t imagine the Sox aren’t at least trying to make a combo like this work out.

    Paul SF July 31, 2009, 10:07 am
  • If the Sox take on Wells’ contract I will jump out my office window.

    SF July 31, 2009, 10:13 am
  • “No, because Gardner isn’t as good a player as Ellsbury.”
    Actually, Gardner has been a full win better than Ellsbury this year, and he’s played in 9 fewer games.
    ref: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=n&type=6&season=2009&month=0

    Mark-YF July 31, 2009, 10:15 am
  • But Jacoby is less valuable than a prospect in some sense since he already has the clock ticking for MLB service time reducing both his minimum wage time and his cost controlled time. The sox trading Halladay effectively says they arent trying to compete next year too. His value to the teams that they are building in the future is thus greatly reduced.

    sam-YF July 31, 2009, 10:16 am
  • Has anyone heard anything about Ben Sheets rehab? I have been wondering if maybe he’s a guy you could grab on the cheap for the remainder of the season. Being that we haven’t heard anything that could mean the rehab has been delayed or slowed, just curious.
    My 2 cents, the Gonzalez deal is the better of the two.

    John - YF July 31, 2009, 10:21 am
  • “Except Jacoby Ellsbury, who was the centerpiece of discussions for Johan Santana.”
    Also, Paul you are better than this. Just because a guy was the centerpiece of a trade discussion 2 years ago that has little to no effect on his value today. His abilities at the MLB level are much clearer now that he has almost 2 full years under his belt.

    sam-YF July 31, 2009, 10:25 am
  • I will acknowledge that I neglected the intradivision “tax” when considering the Halladay deal. I do wonder how much this applies if Ricciardi has been told to shed payroll however he can or else…

    Paul SF July 31, 2009, 10:32 am
  • But Jacoby is less valuable than a prospect in some sense since he already has the clock ticking for MLB service time reducing both his minimum wage time and his cost controlled time.
    But much more valuable to the Jays than Rios, who is older and costs a lot more for longer.
    I think we’re obviously looking at this deal in a fundamentally different light. You are assuming Ricciardi has the freedom to not deal Halladay. I believe he must trade him for the best offer, and that his ownership will see the best offer as whatever will cut the most payroll.

    Paul SF July 31, 2009, 10:36 am
  • It wouldn’t shock me if Halladay stayed put (nor the opposite). Ricciardi isn’t that competent, so why would a bad decision surprise us?

    SF July 31, 2009, 10:58 am
  • Actually, Gardner has been a full win better than Ellsbury this year, and he’s played in 9 fewer games.
    yes, this is true, but in reality, Gardner was subbed in several of those games late for defensive abilitites. He hasn’t been a full-time player.
    A better argument would be plate appearances which is:
    Jacoby:416
    Brett: 231
    Meaning, that Jacoby has played almost twice as much as Brett Garnder, thus allowing Brett to even be in the same atmosphere.
    There is a reason he keeps losing his position, and it’s not becuase he’s as good as Jacoby Ellsbury.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 11:06 am
  • I was thinking of comps for Ellsbury, and I came to Scott Podsednik, off the top of my head. Podsednik was traded for Carlos Lee in 2004. At the time Lee was a reasonably regarded player with solid performance behind him; Podsednik was a speedster with a less-than-stellar OBP for a leadoff guy.
    I don’t know where I am going with this, and that trade was years ago. But the idea that Ellsbury is not a valuable player, not better than some unproven prospect, is silly. And even further, the idea that his services, inexpensive for the near/mid-term, if packaged with several other high-quality prospects, aren’t worth something significant, is also silly.
    Look at it this way: if Theo put out a general email and said “give me your best offer for Jacoby Ellsbury, Justin Masterson, Michael Bowden, Nick Hagadone, and two others”, I think he’d get some pretty damn fine offers back. Whether they’d equal Roy Halladay I have no idea.

    SF July 31, 2009, 11:08 am
  • I guess the question would be:
    Whos better: The guy who plays nine innings every day, makes great defensive plays, steals a ton of bases and floats around .300 most of the time.
    or
    A guy who plays half as much, makes great defensive plays, doesn’t hit nearly as well in a much better lineup, and steals a ton of bases.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 11:08 am
  • It would be a worse decision to trade Halladay and Rios for that package, though, when they could very easily get a better package from many other teams, either now or in the offseason. You assume everyone else sees these players in your extremely optimistic light. I 99% guarantee you that they don’t. I don’t think even SoSH would consider these trade proposals anywhere near realistic.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 11:09 am
  • It would be a HUGE inclusion for any team to get a player like Ellsbury, who in reality, is still very good, still very cheap, and makes the plays in CF that should be made.
    It’s not as if it’s “toss in” on any deal whatsoever.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 11:11 am
  • It’s not a HUGE inclusion, just like Gardner or Melky (whether you like it or not, they’re all at the same level of comparison) wouldn’t be a HUGE inclusion. These players might be better than simply throw-ins, but they’re certainly not high-level prospects, which is exactly what Toronto is looking for.
    You can’t just compile a list of expendable players and expect teams to jump all over themselves to acquire them in exchange for the best pitcher in the game. What sport have you guys been following?

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 11:15 am
  • “There is a reason he keeps losing his position, and it’s not becuase he’s as good as Jacoby Ellsbury.”
    The Yanks have better outfield depth? Zing!
    If the Sox were able to pull off Paul’s proposed deal, let’s just say I wouldn’t be too happy. I’d imagine a Toronto fan would even be less so. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad proposal, I guess. But the question is how desperate are the Jays to shed payroll. If they are indeed desperate and want to cut payroll by next season, then I can see this happening, especially with the inclusion of Rios. But then where are the Yanks on this one if this is just a matter of taking on financial “burdens”?

    Nick-YF July 31, 2009, 11:16 am
  • Remember that if the baseball economy stays the way it is, Halladay could be even more valuable NEXT midseason, where he doesn’t have the ‘stigma’ of $15.75 million left on his deal. Many more contending teams would be able to afford him.
    In any case, the Jays would go back to Philly, Texas and the Dodgers and lower their demands before they even thought about that (very) modest package.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 11:22 am
  • This is a question I ask sincerely and because I haven’t been tracking his game. Is Ellsbury’s game progressing? Is there a sense that he’s going to be an all-star in a year or 2? Or is he already one. In other words, is there still room for growth.

    Nick-YF July 31, 2009, 11:22 am
  • when they could very easily get a better package from many other teams
    Really, how do you know this? The Phillies walked away, right? We simply don’t know what it will take to get Halladay. I for one have no idea what the dynamics are right now. Like I have said on numerous occasions, there is typically universal surprise at the supposed inequity of deadline deals for star players.
    As for Ellsbury, I am trying to figure out why, other than predictable bias, he is looked at so poorly by YFs, why there seems to be such a negative attitude towards his value in absolute terms, to another team. The raw statistics, at least at Fangraphs, show him to be a steal at his wages, major league minimum. And he’s not yet arb-eligible either.

    SF July 31, 2009, 11:23 am
  • On what planet is Melky or Gardner the same level of comparison as Jacoby Ellsbury?
    One was sent to the minors last year, and the other keeps losing his job to that one this year.
    It’s a stretch, and you know it.
    Just as you guarantee that other GM’s won’t value our prospects as highly as we do, I can guarantee you that any deal involving Brett, Melky, or Jacoby on the table, Jacoby gets the nod by every single one of them – icluding Cashman.
    I know you’d like to think that they’re equal in an attempt to downplay the fact that Jacoby is a solid young player, who’s only getting better at what he does, but that’s not the case Andrew.
    Jacoby is the better player in every statistic short of power (Melky) and assists (Melky) when you factor in the issue that he actually plays every game, all game, and isn’t substituted in for anyone. It takes both Melky and Gardner to do what Jacoby does.
    I would however take Melky in a final at bat of a big game.
    As far as “expendable players” go, that’s a hat tip to Boston’s front office, not the value of the player to the organization. Bowden, and most of the other players being listed here would be playing for lesser run teams. Just as Austin Jackson would probably be starting if he were in Texas or Arizona – it’s not because he’s expendable due to low value, it’s because he’s expendable due to position and the plethora of talent already there.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 11:25 am
  • Seriously, Melky Cabrera? To quote your own words, Andrew, you’re better than this. My lying eyes, along with the statistics, don’t favorably compare Ellsbury and Cabrera, remotely.

    SF July 31, 2009, 11:26 am
  • For the record, I don’t think Paul’s deal would get it done for Halladay either, but that’s due to the JP, not the players involved.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 11:26 am
  • You can’t just compile a list of expendable players
    You can’t just dismiss the players from the team you hate as “expendable players” and expect everyone to agree with you. I don’t consider Masterson, Ellsbury or Bowden “expendable” by any stretch, and I suspect every MLB front office would agree.
    But then where are the Yanks on this one if this is just a matter of taking on financial “burdens”?
    The Yanks apparently asked KC to eat the remaining $670,000 of Brian Bannister’s salary. Sounds like they’re not in the market for expanding their payroll. Joel Sherman’s been reporting this, as well.

    Paul SF July 31, 2009, 11:27 am
  • Nick
    Jacoby is solid all the way around. He makes good contact, plays excellent defense, plays very good fundamental baseball, but really only has warning track power. Once he starts taking the walks, he’s going to be a very solid player.
    No, he doesn’t have the game that Carlos Beltran has, but I think once he starts being more selective, he’s going to put up great numbers. His arm sucks though.

    Brad July 31, 2009, 11:29 am
  • my friend just texted: washburn to tigers. So i gues that’s no longer an option.

    Nick-YF July 31, 2009, 11:30 am
  • And so go my hopes of landing Washburn…he’s a Tiger.

    John - YF July 31, 2009, 11:32 am
  • In other words, is there still room for growth.
    It’s an excellent question, and the answer is why I consider Ellsbury to be good value going forward. He has grown as a player before our eyes this year, and is a much better hitter now than he was in April and May.
    FYI, new post up top about Washburn being traded.

    Paul SF July 31, 2009, 11:32 am
  • Nick:
    Having seen a lot of Ellsbury this season, and admitting that I am no scout nor anything remotely resembling someone with any high-level baseball experience, I’d say that Ellsbury still has some upside, particularly plate-discipline wise. And I think, no matter what the numbers say, that he’s gotten better at recognizing pitches this year. Last year it was like he was guessing at everything. Honestly, it was like playing PS3 baseball, where you just have to guess right on the spot and hope you get a hit. This year, at least to my eyes, he’s been a bit better at laying off borderline stuff, at hitting pitches that last year he might have let go or swung right through. He’s on a pace to cut his Ks this year, and potentially increase his BBs. Not sure if he’ll develop much more power, but I do think he’ll get on base more often by BB. Is there a statistic that factors in steals on top of singles/walks and adjusts for this?
    He’s a wonderful base-stealer, improved over last year in both raw quantity and also efficiency. His fielding – arm is still really crappy, probably never going to improve.
    I’d guess that Ellsbury is more likely to become more productive at the plate than less. How much I don’t know.
    Repeat disclaimer: I am just an amateur observer.

    SF July 31, 2009, 11:35 am
  • “My lying eyes, along with the statistics, don’t favorably compare Ellsbury and Cabrera, remotely.”
    I have no idea how fangraphs creates its value stat, but it says there that Cabrera has been more valuable than Ellsbury this season. And it says that Gardner has been more valuable than both by nearly double. (I think). Looks like Ellsbury’s fielding stats aren’t strong.

    Nick-YF July 31, 2009, 11:35 am
  • The problem, SF, is that there are plenty of players who are ‘steals’ at the minimum. Melky and Gardner are, too, but you don’t see teams falling over themselves to acquire them. Lots of teams have them, it’s the nice part of not having to pay major leaguers anything for their first two or three years. Ellsbury is a nice player to be sure, but really, he is not nice enough to replace a stud prospect in a deal.
    Look at what they demanded from teams. Hughes and Joba. Smoak and Holland. Drabek and Taylor. Billingsley or Kershaw and others. Those deals are two rungs higher than the one in this post. They’d go back to those guys and say “okay, just include one of those prospects” before they looked at the Sox’s proposal, which includes zero top prospects.
    And even Buchholz might not entice JP, who was rumored to not like Clay as much as everyone else. But, that was just a rumor.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 11:38 am
  • And, jeez, talk about bias. So YFs are biased against Ellsbury but SFs aren’t biased against Melky or Gardner? They ARE comparable players, all centerfielders, all have flaws which keep them from being top players. No, maybe you don’t trade Ellsbury for Melky or Gardner straight up, but their value is not nearly as far apart as you’d like to think.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 11:41 am
  • Nick, I was looking at career numbers, and it’s really not close, without even considering how much more Cabrera has played (1930PA for MC vs 1153 for Jacoby). Add in service time, upside potential, and I don’t really seem them as close to equal.
    But then again I am a Sox fan so nothing I say should be taken seriously.

    SF July 31, 2009, 11:44 am
  • Paul – those are expendable players in the sense that it wouldn’t hurt in the least to lose them for the best pitcher in the majors. No, of course they’re not players that have no value, but they’re not centerpieces of any top-end deal by any stretch of the imagination.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 11:44 am
  • Ellsbury is a nice player to be sure, but really, he is not nice enough to replace a stud prospect in a deal.
    Look at what they demanded from teams.

    First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some GMs want/need prospects to restock systems, some need ML-ready players. Some are seeking stars, and some are seeking guys playing above their pay-grade. Ellsburys are NOT a dime a dozen, I just do not agree with this, the way you portray him or a player of his type.
    Second, look what JP’s (supposed) demands have gotten him: one less suitor. If these demands have been reported accurately, then JP is setting a market for a player that has not and might not be met. One can look at this at least two ways. First, it could be said that JP is not understanding the market. When I played rotisserie baseball my partner was the JP of our league, and I constantly had to have parallel discussions with other teams because he overvalued our players to a comical degree. He wasn’t ever going to consummate a deal on his terms because they were laughable, no matter what any other team needed they couldn’t satisfy his own valuation. So JP might be overestimating the value of his own player, however great he might be. Or, one could conversely say that teams that have a number of high-level prospects value the cumulative value of those prospects more highly than they do the stud player they are pursuing.
    So far nobody has discussed a scenario where the Phillies were offering up a player making the major league minimum but contributing several million dollars of value to the team. And I think that is because the Phillies weren’t willing to sacrifice that type of value off their current roster. That would be the comp to including Ellsbury in a deal, along with a slew of prospects. Trades between the Phillies and the Blue Jays almost universally mentioned Phillies minor leaguers.
    With regards to Paul’s proposal, I seriously doubt the Sox would want to include Ellsbury in a deal like this for the reasons above: it sacrifices value off their current roster, or nets them very little upside. I don’t believe that stud minor leaguers are, as a rule, more valuable.

    SF July 31, 2009, 12:07 pm
  • Remember that if the baseball economy stays the way it is, Halladay could be even more valuable NEXT midseason
    Absolutely not. Remember that if the Jays hold on to him they will have paid another $10M to the player by then.

    SF July 31, 2009, 12:32 pm
  • Yeah, so, no team is getting Halladay for a below average OF, two bullpen arms, and a pu pu platter. Even Casey Kelly doesn’t get that deal done. Ricciardi would lose his job within a year if he didn’t get Buchholz or, gasp, Lester. They would run him out of town – money saved be damned. You guys, and Jays fans, would be furious if the Yankees were giving up Melky, Coke, and Melancon with Romine and Betances.
    I agree that they’ll sooner hold onto him until December or next year. Toronto was competitive earlier this year. They can sell their fans that they can be again if all their young pitchers are healthy and a bat or two bounce back.

    Rob July 31, 2009, 12:48 pm
  • Ricciardi would lose his job within a year
    I don’t gamble, but if I did I’d take the under if Ricciardi was given a 365 day over/under on his tenure, whether he trades Halladay or not.

    SF July 31, 2009, 12:55 pm
  • “Absolutely not. Remember that if the Jays hold on to him they will have paid another $10M to the player by then.”
    I’m saying, he would be more valuable to other teams.

    AndrewYF July 31, 2009, 12:59 pm
  • I don’t gamble, but if I did I’d take the under if Ricciardi was given a 365 day over/under on his tenure, whether he trades Halladay or not.
    He bet wrong, big time, on Rios and Wells, but they’ve been decent for most of his tenure given the disadvantage of being in the East and never getting the top picks the Rays did. With Litsch, Marcum, and McGowan back next next they could be much better. That’s what’s easy to forget. They were holding their own to begin the season even though they were missing three-fifth’s of their rotation. They have the pitching. They need another bat or two. And, no, Ellsbury ain’t it.

    Rob July 31, 2009, 1:06 pm
  • John, they actually have a need for Duncan given Damon’s road and lefty struggles. They have that need even more than Hinske who they rightly haven’t allowed anywhere near 3B.

    Rob July 31, 2009, 1:33 pm
  • Sorry, wrong thread.

    Rob July 31, 2009, 1:33 pm
  • Brad said, w/r/t Gardner: “There is a reason he keeps losing his position, and it’s not because he’s as good as Jacoby Ellsbury.”
    Well, it’s actually because Melky is also
    having a nice, statistically-better-than-Jacoby-Ellsbury, year.
    I mean, you can just look at the flipside and say Ellsbury wouldn’t play as much if the Sox had another viable CF.
    Gardner’s been a win better in limited time this season. That is a LOT.
    Also: your argument that Gardner being subbed and having fewer at bats that would diminish his value takes a bit of a hit when you see that Gardner’s a better offensive player, too this year:
    Garner 2009 OPS+ – 99*
    Ellsbury 2009 OPS+ – 94
    Oops. Gardner has been better all around than Jacoby this year, and it’s not Yankee Propaganda, a dream, or an imaginary story.
    SF said: “My lying eyes, along with the statistics, don’t favorably compare Ellsbury and Cabrera, remotely.”
    Really, SF? Let’s go with the same comps for Melky/Ellsbury OPS+:
    Melky: 109
    Ellsbury: 94
    Throw in Ellsbury’s poorly rated defense this year, and you’re right it’s not remotely close. Melky is MUCH BETTER. Using career comps is fine, but if looking at career context we should also note that Melky is a year younger than Ells.
    I think there are some SFs who really, really overvalue Ellsbury as a player. Probably because of his excellent play for two months down in September and October 2007 (also incidentally the likely reason whhy he was discussed in the Johan talks that offseason).
    (*also, despite that OPS+ is park adjusted, I checked Gardner’s road stats to make sure he wasn’t getting a huge NYS boost, and wasn’t too surprised to see he’s actually a better hitter – higher overall OPS- on the road, as he is a singles/doubles guy w/o HR power, and NYS actually supresses doubles while boosting HRs – so in Gardner’s case NYS works against him)

    Mark-YF July 31, 2009, 1:51 pm

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: