PDA

View Full Version : Ellsbury to the Yankees for 7 years $153M?



-Lavigne43-
12-03-2013, 09:33 PM
‏@FeinsandNYDN 4m
The Yankees' deal with Ellsbury is done, pending a physical. I'm told the contract is bigger than Crawford's 7 year/$142M deal.

What a horrible contract, don't know what they're thinking. Also credit to Bags for saying this for years.

Celtic AL
12-03-2013, 09:36 PM
I saw this coming. I should be shocked and pissed but a part of me is glad that the yankees signed him and now have to deal with his contract for the next 7 years when he keeps getting hurt. sure his HR numbers will probably go up but still tho

SirHizz
12-03-2013, 09:40 PM
I gotta say...it hurts more than expected.

Yanks were probably serious about having a limit on Cano and now moved on. Ells for 150 and Kendrick/Infante at 2B + 2 SP. I knew the yanks wouldn't care about the 189 at all

Bye Ells, it was nice knowing ya

B'sCeltsPatsSox
12-03-2013, 09:42 PM
Thanks for all of the SBs and nice plays in center Jacoby.

This has to make Cano's price to re-sign with the Yankees much bigger now though.

Sweet_Caroline
12-03-2013, 09:42 PM
:( this hurts but the contract is going to hurt too.

Soxfan85
12-03-2013, 09:43 PM
Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 1m

The #Yankees have reached a tentative agreement with Jacoby Ellsbury on a seven-year deal in excess of $150 million.

-Lavigne43-
12-03-2013, 09:45 PM
@FeinsandNYDN 2m
Yankees deal with Ellsbury is seven years and $153 million. That's $12 million more than Crawford's contract.

Talk of an 8th year option too

AI
12-03-2013, 09:48 PM
Why are you guys hurt? The writing has been on the wall for years. We all knew he'd take the largest contract he could find. I'm actually glad it was the Yanks. 7 year deal ($20M+ per) for an injury prone CF that relies on his speed? They'll regret this soon enough.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
12-03-2013, 09:51 PM
Why are you guys hurt? The writing has been on the wall for years. We all knew he'd take the largest contract he could find. I'm actually glad it was the Yanks. 7 year deal ($20M+ per) for an injury prone CF that relies on his speed? They'll regret this soon enough.

I'm not really hurt, even though I'll miss his base running and fielding, that isn't worth the contract he's getting.

-Lavigne43-
12-03-2013, 09:51 PM
@Joelsherman1 1m
Ellsbury deal is 7-$153M, pending physical #Yankees will try for speed/on-base atop order and defense with Gardner/Ellsbury in OF


I have to say 'I told you so' to all the people I admonished for thinking contracts well under $100M were possible. This is way more than even I anticipated. Like I said in that thread(s), free agency always surprises for how outrageous contracts can get.

Nomar
12-03-2013, 09:52 PM
What were they thinking?

Thanks for the memories though bud. Been real.

AI
12-03-2013, 09:54 PM
So, does he get booed from now on at Fenway?

Tragedy
12-03-2013, 09:55 PM
Not sure why this hurts for any of you?

Ellsbury has always seemed like the type that would go anywhere, winner or loser, for the money.

As for the actual deal. I've said my thoughts in the MLB forum and I don't feel like typing it again. But wow, what an awful contract.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
12-03-2013, 09:59 PM
So, does he get booed from now on at Fenway?

He'll probably get cheered his first game back. Imagine all of the confusion that will ensue out of the female pink hats:laugh2:

A couple of things to note, the Yankees have already spent nearly $240 million this off-season and they have yet to sign Cano as well as fix their pitching staff. And when does Trout become FA eligible? Because this deal might end the possible nightmare of Trout becoming a Yankee. Then again, they could always play one of them in LF, bleh.

-Lavigne43-
12-03-2013, 09:59 PM
I'm relieved that we didn't keep him at an idiotic price. Hate to see any of our players wear that uniform though, the Yankees love doing that though. I think next week or so will say a lot about Ben. Will he do a panic counter move just because of all the media attention this will get? I think he won't, he seems to be a patient guy who waits for the right move.

Soxfan85
12-03-2013, 10:00 PM
They will regret in in ST if not opening day. Why the He!! do teams dish out 7 year deals. Name 1 player that has earned it AND stayed healthy. Lets see

Albert Pujols: 10 years 254M

Carl Crawford: 7 Years 142M

A-Rod: 10 years $275M

Ellsbury: 7 years $153M

Teixeira: 8 Years $180M

List goes on

-Lavigne43-
12-03-2013, 10:02 PM
He'll probably get cheered his first game back. Imagine all of the confusion that will ensue out of the female pink hats:laugh2:

A couple of things to note, the Yankees have already spent nearly $240 million this off-season and they have yet to sign Cano as well as fix their pitching staff. And when does Trout become FA eligible? Because this deal might end the possible nightmare of Trout becoming a Yankee. Then again, they could always play one of them in LF, bleh.

ARod's contract will probably finally be ending when Trout is a FA, lol. I can't help but think of a scenario where Trout and Harper end up on the Red Sox and Yankees. I think they are both free agents the same year.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
12-03-2013, 10:04 PM
I'm relieved that we didn't keep him at an idiotic price. Hate to see any of our players wear that uniform though, the Yankees love doing that though. I think next week or so will say a lot about Ben. Will he do a panic counter move just because of all the media attention this will get? I think he won't, he seems to be a patient guy who waits for the right move.

I don't think he won't either. The big difference that was pointed out when Ben replaced Theo was that Ben is seen as a more patient guy while Theo was a bit more aggressive. Although Ben was one of the co-GM's for the Beckett-Hanley trade, I'm pretty sure it came out later that Hoyer was the one that pushed that deal, right?

redsox0717
12-03-2013, 10:06 PM
Damn, dat contract.

Sucks that he is still in the division, though.

bagwell368
12-03-2013, 10:10 PM
To me he was never one of "ours". He always seemed like a high buck contractor doing his job that was going to walk when he could.

He'll have some real great games and really good seasons, but overall, he won't earn his contract by a long shot. Watching the Yanks stumble around like this year and the next few with this idiot contracts and failing players with idiot contracts - well I would have thought I'd love it, but actually when the bully is lying prone on the ground it's not as much fun as beating him mano-a-mano. Whatever, I'm sure I'll derive enough sadistic pleasure from this mess to make up for it.... :laugh2:

Fla.SticKy
12-03-2013, 10:17 PM
A little part of me is saying damn this sucks........Then there's that huge part of me that's saying WHEWWW I'm glad we didn't pay him off like that!!!!

trentman1155
12-03-2013, 10:23 PM
Let's sign cano and move either pedy or cano to SS and have bogarts play 3b and have middlebrooks at 1st or other 3b. This would be great for us and show that we are ready to beat the Yankees for years to come

MagicBucsSox
12-03-2013, 10:23 PM
I wanted the trade him that (robbed of) MVP season he had. Guy is a mega talent but plays every other year.
Go get Shoo

bagwell368
12-03-2013, 10:26 PM
Let's sign cano and move either pedy or cano to SS and have bogarts play 3b and have middlebrooks at 1st or other 3b. This would be great for us and show that we are ready to beat the Yankees for years to come

We beat them just fine this year w/o a $305M prima donna on the roster.

Tragedy
12-03-2013, 10:26 PM
I'm relieved that we didn't keep him at an idiotic price. Hate to see any of our players wear that uniform though, the Yankees love doing that though. I think next week or so will say a lot about Ben. Will he do a panic counter move just because of all the media attention this will get? I think he won't, he seems to be a patient guy who waits for the right move.
Not a chance. Our franchise philosophy is luckily about being smart and not going against the plan. Unlike the Yankees. Who signed Kei Igawa because we signed Marsuzaka.

SirHizz
12-03-2013, 10:29 PM
No to Cano. We don't even have a position for him and he will easily top 200 million

No to Choo. Ells just assured that the korean will get 9 figures as well.

I'd be glad if Ben stays patient. No need to counter the move, but somehow I got the feeling that we will get Kemp within the next 7 days.

trentman1155
12-03-2013, 10:34 PM
I'm fine with Kemp as long as we don't over pay which I pray to god we don't ! I also think we need to trade peavy or dempster because we have Webster Barnes ranaudo all coming up and will def be in rotation come 2015 I think we could and will trade for kemp and I do also think we will trade a sp for OF or specs

tc2deuce
12-03-2013, 11:09 PM
Granderson to Boston---------make it happen!!!

BostonBoy
12-03-2013, 11:10 PM
That is an absurd contract. Ellsbury is going to be one of those players that kills it when he plays us, but overall, that contract is horrendous once he loses a step.

bagwell368
12-03-2013, 11:11 PM
Granderson to Boston---------make it happen!!!

Awful idea.

Celtic AL
12-03-2013, 11:12 PM
I believe they won't counter and make an outrageous. Like Lav says i think Ben will stay cool and target what he wants to fit in his next plan.

tc2deuce
12-03-2013, 11:15 PM
Awful idea.

of course you would say that........why...nice numbers clubhouse guy

Celtic AL
12-03-2013, 11:16 PM
Granderson to Boston---------make it happen!!!

No to Kemp No to Choo and defiantly No Granderson.

corky831
12-03-2013, 11:18 PM
yanks winning the off season just like the jays did last yr.....that really worked out huh? Yanks need to concentrate on their SPing and finding a replacement for Mo. And I agree with Bags.....ells never enjoyed playing for Boston, he only had one friend said to be Jed Lowrie and we traded his *** so Ells was good as gone.....good riddance at that price too.

tc2deuce
12-03-2013, 11:23 PM
Choo's numbers are nice too so what is your beef?
OBP (389) OPS (854) BA (288)

gcoll
12-04-2013, 12:23 AM
I have confidence in Jackie Bradley Jr. No need to overpay for an Ellsbury replacement when we have him.

I am very content with a Nava-Bradley-Victorino outfield.

Melo15
12-04-2013, 12:33 AM
Lololololololololololol

Station 13
12-04-2013, 12:39 AM
Good luck living up to that deal.

-Lavigne43-
12-04-2013, 01:57 AM
@GordonEdes 1m
Source close to negotiations said Sox offered Ellsbury a six-year deal for less than $120 million. A 5 yr/100m offer also was on table

Glad he didn't accept, unless it was a token offer when they knew he would get way more.

Tragedy
12-04-2013, 02:02 AM
I feel like that was a token offer, one just to keep the pink hats happy. I think they knew those figures weren't going to get it done.

And I'm happy it didn't.

MagicBucsSox
12-04-2013, 05:48 AM
Choo's numbers are nice too so what is your beef?
OBP (389) OPS (854) BA (288)

He doesn't know who he is that's why

bagwell368
12-04-2013, 07:27 AM
Choo's numbers are nice too so what is your beef?
OBP (389) OPS (854) BA (288)

Choo career vs LHP: .243/.340/.341 OPS+: 073

So he has to sit 40-50 games a year, and be pinch hit for?

His fielding has gone to hell the past 2 years. He's a very poor percentage base stealer.

Granderson sucks:

Last two seasons: .231/.319/.469 averaging 25 HR's per in a launching pad home park. He'll be 33 in March.

The Sox don't go for low OBP hitters except maybe C and SS. He's a LHH on a team crying out for RH power. He's probably not able to play CF or RF in Fenway. DO you think he's better cost/performance than what we have in LF now? I hope your answer is no.

bagwell368
12-04-2013, 07:31 AM
I have confidence in Jackie Bradley Jr. No need to overpay for an Ellsbury replacement when we have him.

I am very content with a Nava-Bradley-Victorino outfield.

Anyone that thinks Bradley is going to make us forget JE in '14 if he plays 135+ games is basing it on hope or PR because what I saw last year is a guy that's not ready and lacks confidence. We need a RHH CF platoon type bat to get JBJ to the bench against LHP to protect him from long painful slumps (and protect the team too).

bagwell368
12-04-2013, 07:34 AM
He doesn't know who he is that's why

I'll put my money on what Celtic Al knows any day of the week - over quite a few here. Choo is a horrible fit here and I've already given the reasons in two threads this AM.

wolf82
12-04-2013, 09:11 AM
I am happy that Cherington is staying the course. 154 Mil for a oft injured CF? No Thanks. I say get a right handed OF to platoon with JBJ to protect him.

todu82
12-04-2013, 11:05 AM
The Yankees are certainly going all out this off-season. You have to wonder if this will work out for them or not though.

Fla.SticKy
12-04-2013, 11:12 AM
Please don't start up this crazy Cano, Granderson, and Choo talk, those are moves of panic! We will be just fine finding some lower price guys to fill in. There is no need to go overboard and get crazy with a huge contract (especially one that Cano's going to demand), be patient and stick to the plan. It's obvious with the deals we offered Ells that we had no intention of signing him from the start, which leads me to believe that the Sox are content with moving on without him.........And for a 7/153 contract, I'm fine with that too!

Vincent33
12-04-2013, 11:13 AM
Good for Ellsbury. I enjoyed watching him play and happy that he was able to help Boston win 2WS, now he gets that big $$$$ contract he's been wanting to get. Best of luck Ellsbury.

Now that you're a NYY....Go **** yourself you dick licker. ;)

ccspence8
12-04-2013, 12:51 PM
So we're looking at signing Beltran, Ibanez or Rajai Davis...am I right? Bradley will need to platoon starting out and LF is already a platoon, injuries will work themselves out. But we need to sign a veteran OF on like a 1-2 year deal.

poprocksncoke
12-04-2013, 01:07 PM
Awful idea.

I concur.........

MiamiBoy77
12-04-2013, 01:16 PM
PLEASE no to Granderson. Seriously. I used to love when he'd come up. He literally cannot hit a lefty. How would a Grandy Bradley platoon work?? Come on man.

If the Dodgers are willing to eat some cash, I'd be okay with Matt kemp. Not sure what it would take. Maybe Ranaudo and Betts?? Against RHP out outfield could be Kemp--Bradley--Victorino, vs lefties Gomes/Nava--Kemp--Victorino.

Nomar
12-04-2013, 01:31 PM
Betts could be a nice chip for the Dodgers. Not sure about Kemp but if we could buy low on him and stick him in LF that's fine by me honestly. I think his bat would come back just fine at fenway in LF.

Soxfan85
12-04-2013, 01:51 PM
Pete Abraham ‏@PeteAbe 13m

The 2014 draft is the deepest in several years according to @jimcallisMLB. #RedSox could have 3-4 high picks.

RedSoxtober
12-04-2013, 02:57 PM
Why are you guys hurt? The writing has been on the wall for years. We all knew he'd take the largest contract he could find. I'm actually glad it was the Yanks. 7 year deal ($20M+ per) for an injury prone CF that relies on his speed? They'll regret this soon enough.
+1


I'm relieved that we didn't keep him at an idiotic price. Hate to see any of our players wear that uniform though, the Yankees love doing that though. I think next week or so will say a lot about Ben. Will he do a panic counter move just because of all the media attention this will get? I think he won't, he seems to be a patient guy who waits for the right move.
I don't think he'll make a panic move. I think he's actually got more resolve against the marketing-machine that holds sway in JH's ear than Theo did. I could see them push a little harder for Beltran but that's less desperation than sweetening their offer to target.


ARod's contract will probably finally be ending when Trout is a FA, lol. I can't help but think of a scenario where Trout and Harper end up on the Red Sox and Yankees. I think they are both free agents the same year.
Exactly what I was thinking about the timing... and it's accurate. A-Rod's deal expires after 2017 and Trout is a FA after 2017 as well. Harper will be a FA the following year.



If the Dodgers are willing to eat some cash, I'd be okay with Matt kemp. Not sure what it would take. Maybe Ranaudo and Betts?? Against RHP out outfield could be Kemp--Bradley--Victorino, vs lefties Gomes/Nava--Kemp--Victorino.

I'm not interested in Kemp on that contract although I might be interested if it was discounted. Regardless, I wouldn't include Ranaudo in a deal for him. I might include Lackey, whose presence might help LAD win a WS over the next two years.

BSF101
12-04-2013, 03:17 PM
The Yankees to me overpaid for him. I would of been happy if Boston would of signed him to a max three years and $65 million. But I knew that wouldn't happen. The Yankees always do these kinds of things they overpay for players. As much as I like Ellsbury I hope this deal bites them in the ***.

BSF101
12-04-2013, 03:23 PM
So we're looking at signing Beltran, Ibanez or Rajai Davis...am I right? Bradley will need to platoon starting out and LF is already a platoon, injuries will work themselves out. But we need to sign a veteran OF on like a 1-2 year deal.

I wouldn't mind these guys in a Red Sox uniform.

AI
12-04-2013, 03:47 PM
Betts could be a nice chip for the Dodgers. Not sure about Kemp but if we could buy low on him and stick him in LF that's fine by me honestly. I think his bat would come back just fine at fenway in LF.

If the Dodgers eat a significant portion of what's left? Sure, why not.


Pete Abraham ‏@PeteAbe 13m
The 2014 draft is the deepest in several years according to @jimcallisMLB. #RedSox could have 3-4 high picks.

Reading stuff like this gets me excited. :)

bruins>habs
12-04-2013, 04:05 PM
This may have been answered already, but what's the compensation for Ellsbury?

AI
12-04-2013, 04:11 PM
This may have been answered already, but what's the compensation for Ellsbury?

Comp pick at the end of the first.

bagwell368
12-04-2013, 04:28 PM
So we're looking at signing Beltran, Ibanez or Rajai Davis...am I right? Bradley will need to platoon starting out and LF is already a platoon, injuries will work themselves out. But we need to sign a veteran OF on like a 1-2 year deal.

Rajai makes the most sense. Beltran costs a pick and we'd have to blow up the LF platoon for him. Ibanez will be 42! in June and the 3 years prior to his decent '13 season he was a meh: .255/.317/.437. How does a LHH DH/LF do us any good at all?

Bo Sox Fan
12-04-2013, 04:44 PM
Ibanez is still under contract with the Mariners is he not?

I'm pretty sure.

bagwell368
12-04-2013, 04:46 PM
Ibanez is still under contract with the Mariners is he not?

I'm pretty sure.

Nope. FA. I also forgot to mention he's a brutal fielder too. No way on him unless it's a make good camp deal.

Walligans
12-04-2013, 05:09 PM
The new Yankees ownership isn't giving up $50 million in luxury tax payments to go over the cap. This just means that they won't be able to sign one of Cano, Tanaka and Kuroda. It was an overpay, but fast players do tend to age well and the Yankees already gave up their first round pick. I'm not too worried about it, I didn't think Ellsbury would be back anyways and I knew the Yankees would be spending serious cash to try to replace some of the production they're losing to free agency and retirement.

bagwell368
12-04-2013, 05:33 PM
The new Yankees ownership isn't giving up $50 million in luxury tax payments to go over the cap. This just means that they won't be able to sign one of Cano, Tanaka and Kuroda. It was an overpay, but fast players do tend to age well and the Yankees already gave up their first round pick. I'm not too worried about it, I didn't think Ellsbury would be back anyways and I knew the Yankees would be spending serious cash to try to replace some of the production they're losing to free agency and retirement.

So, you think the Yanks will realize say 85%+ of the value in this deal?

Defense and base stealing both decline earlier than hitting. OTOH, he should find NYY's home park to his liking.

Walligans
12-04-2013, 08:29 PM
So, you think the Yanks will realize say 85%+ of the value in this deal?

Defense and base stealing both decline earlier than hitting. OTOH, he should find NYY's home park to his liking.

Not sure how much of the value they'll retain. Most of what I've read has said that power tends to peak much earlier than speed (early to mid 20's) and speedy players tend to retain more of their value.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-slow-decline-of-speedy-outfielders/

I believe I also read that he'll hit 7 more home runs at most from being in Yankee Stadium.

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/jacoby-ellsbury-now-with-pinstriping/

filihok
12-05-2013, 12:40 AM
I believe I also read that he'll hit 7 more home runs at most from being in Yankee Stadium.
Hmmm

this website allows one to overlay a player's batted balls from one stadium to another.

http://katron.org/projects/baseball/hit-location/

7 of Ellsbury's non-home run batted balls in Fenway last year were beyond the outfield walls in Yankee Stadium.

Note: Does not attempt to adjust for various conditions which might alter the flight path of batted balls. And locations are where the ball was fielded, not where it landed.

RedSoxtober
12-05-2013, 12:05 PM
This topic is one Nick and I have disagreed on over the last few years and we'll have to again. There was more of a chance that Carl Crawford would light the Christmas tree at Faneuil Hall than Ellsbury would come back.

Ellsbury followed the Jonathan Papelbon plan to perfection. Refuse all offers for a contract extension, go to free agency, sign with the first team that offers you big money and never look back at Boston.

Like Papelbon, Ellsbury didn't even bother to call the Red Sox and tell them he was leaving. Team executives found out the same way you did, via the media.

...


I never got the impression Ellsbury much liked Boston. He rarely interacted with fans or in the community. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a photo of him in something other than a baseball uniform? This was the team that happened to draft him, that's all. Strictly business.

...

Be heartened with the knowledge that the Red Sox are better off long-term. Jackie Bradley Jr. will give the team 75 percent of the production Ellsbury did at, literally, 2 percent of the price for the next three years. The Sox can take the money and better spend it elsewhere. Extending Lester would be a good place to start.

Nice article from Peter Abraham at the Globe. Picked a few pieces here that show (a) why I like Abraham, (b) why Cafardo is a bafoon, and (c) why I'm not the least bit worried about Ellsbury leaving. Seeing him in a NYY uniform won't be fun and the pink hats will be whining over the next few seasons when he does some damage but $22M/yr is FAR too much for what he'll produce over the next seven years.

-Lavigne43-
12-05-2013, 12:15 PM
Rob Bradford ‏@bradfo 3h
Can confirm RT @KenDavidoff I hear the #RedSox's talks with Jacoby Ellsbury didn't get beyond the $80 million (over 5 years) range

Good. That's probably the most I would have offered.

MiamiBoy77
12-05-2013, 12:28 PM
+1


I don't think he'll make a panic move. I think he's actually got more resolve against the marketing-machine that holds sway in JH's ear than Theo did. I could see them push a little harder for Beltran but that's less desperation than sweetening their offer to target.


Exactly what I was thinking about the timing... and it's accurate. A-Rod's deal expires after 2017 and Trout is a FA after 2017 as well. Harper will be a FA the following year.



I'm not interested in Kemp on that contract although I might be interested if it was discounted. Regardless, I wouldn't include Ranaudo in a deal for him. I might include Lackey, whose presence might help LAD win a WS over the next two years.

I've seen lackey to the dodgers brought up a couple times but that makes zero sense. They have Kershaw, Ryu, Beckett, Haren, Billingsly, Grienke

RedSoxtober
12-05-2013, 12:44 PM
I've seen lackey to the dodgers brought up a couple times but that makes zero sense. They have Kershaw, Ryu, Beckett, Haren, Billingsly, Grienke

They have some nice names but several question marks. Beckett is anything but a lock given his surgery. Similarly, given that Billingsly had TJ in April he's also no guarantee for 2014, certainly not for Opening Day.

As for Haren vs Lackey, would you rather pay $21M/2yrs for a pitcher with a lot 4s ERA in the AL or $20M for a pitcher with a high 4s era in the NL? Lackey would give them a much stronger rotation with a chance to win NOW which is the sense that I get from them. They'd find something to do with Haren if necessary. Lackey's deal also provides a BIG financial incentive in 2015.

filihok
12-05-2013, 01:02 PM
As for Haren vs Lackey, would you rather pay $21M/2yrs for a pitcher with a lot 4s ERA in the AL or $20M for a pitcher with a high 4s era in the NL? Lackey would give them a much stronger rotation with a chance to win NOW which is the sense that I get from them. They'd find something to do with Haren if necessary. Lackey's deal also provides a BIG financial incentive in 2015.
Since the Dodgers singed Haren this offseason they can't trade him until, I believe, June 15th.
I suppose the Dodgers could keep them both in the rotation and then trade Haren when Billingsley returns, but...that's a lot of moving parts.

STEAMER and Oliver projections have Haren putting up 15.35 runs in 182 innings.
STEAMER, Oliver and ZiPS projections have Lackey putting up 24.6 runs in 174 innings.

That's about a 10 run difference for the same price.

That price, of course, would come in the form of prospects being traded to the Red Sox. So how much would those 10 runs be worth to the Dodgers? Not much, I don't think. First, I think the Dodgers are heavy favorites to win the NL West. None of the other teams seem particularly strong so the 10 run advantage that Lackey provides isn't all that helpful in the grand scheme of things. Second, how about playoff time. Kershaw and Greinke are clear #1 and #1A in the playoff rotation. Is Lackey an upgrade over Ryu. Ryu's projected for 23.8 runs for the season. That's a 1 run difference between him and Lackey over a season, which is completely negligible amount over a few playoff starts. Third, the Dodgers have bigger holes to fill at 3B and the bench. If they're going to move prospects I'd rather see them moved for those upgrades.


I don't see a fit here

theGhost-isGone
12-06-2013, 07:11 AM
STEAMER and Oliver projections have Haren putting up 15.35 runs in 182 innings.
STEAMER, Oliver and ZiPS projections have Lackey putting up 24.6 runs in 174 innings.

That's about a 10 run difference for the same price.

That price, of course, would come in the form of prospects being traded to the Red Sox. So how much would those 10 runs be worth to the Dodgers? Not much, I don't think. First, I think the Dodgers are heavy favorites to win the NL West. None of the other teams seem particularly strong so the 10 run advantage that Lackey provides isn't all that helpful in the grand scheme of things. Second, how about playoff time. Kershaw and Greinke are clear #1 and #1A in the playoff rotation. Is Lackey an upgrade over Ryu. Ryu's projected for 23.8 runs for the season. That's a 1 run difference between him and Lackey over a season, which is completely negligible amount over a few playoff starts.

By breaking down the word "projection" you can see where one may be skeptical of these stats. The term projection means an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones. So these estimations or forecasts are based on player's numbers throughout their careers - Hyun-Jin Ryu has one year in the league and Lackey has 12 (11 if you don't count 2012) - how can any algorithm find enough data to compare these two? To say the least, projections are not set in stone, anything can happen in baseball. Ryu could be the next Hideo Nomo and 2013 could have been Lackey's last solid season, though I imagine that's highly unlikely.

To get back to the point, Lackey would certainly make the Dodgers better on paper. With doubt of Billingsley's return date, any depth would be good. Say you could add to your already deep rotation by acquiring John Lackey - doesn't that sentence make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Then consider his value in 2015 based on how much you'd be paying him. There's no doubt in my mind that nobody will be more underpaid than John Lackey 2015.

filihok
12-06-2013, 02:20 PM
By breaking down the word "projection" you can see where one may be skeptical of these stats. The term projection means an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones. So these estimations or forecasts are based on player's numbers throughout their careers - Hyun-Jin Ryu has one year in the league and Lackey has 12 (11 if you don't count 2012) - how can any algorithm find enough data to compare these two? To say the least, projections are not set in stone, anything can happen in baseball. Ryu could be the next Hideo Nomo and 2013 could have been Lackey's last solid season, though I imagine that's highly unlikely.
You're right. Projections are not crystal balls with 100% accuracy.
No that the obvious is out of the way


To get back to the point, Lackey would certainly make the Dodgers better on paper.
Based on what? An estimate based of a future situation based on a study of the present one?
The projection that I presented clearly indicated that the Dodgers would be about 10 runs better, on virtual paper, with Lackey next season.


With doubt of Billingsley's return date, any depth would be good.
We have depth.
Billingsley
Becket
Fife
Magill
Zach Lee
for the 5th-9th starters spots.



Say you could add to your already deep rotation by acquiring John Lackey - doesn't that sentence make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
No.
Lackey would be a good addition. But the 10 runs in 2014 he's likely to provide just aren't worth that much.



Then consider his value in 2015 based on how much you'd be paying him.
That's exactly what I considered - with the price of the prospect included


There's no doubt in my mind that nobody will be more underpaid than John Lackey 2015.
That depends on what assets are given up to acquire him.

The difference between what Lackey is likely to produce for $20 million and what Haren is likely to produce for $20 million just isn't enough to justify the Dodgers giving up that much.

theGhost-isGone
12-06-2013, 09:12 PM
You're right. Projections are not crystal balls with 100% accuracy.
No that the obvious is out of the way


Based on what? An estimate based of a future situation based on a study of the present one?
The projection that I presented clearly indicated that the Dodgers would be about 10 runs better, on virtual paper, with Lackey next season.


We have depth.
Billingsley
Becket
Fife
Magill
Zach Lee
for the 5th-9th starters spots.



No.
Lackey would be a good addition. But the 10 runs in 2014 he's likely to provide just aren't worth that much.



That's exactly what I considered - with the price of the prospect included


That depends on what assets are given up to acquire him.

The difference between what Lackey is likely to produce for $20 million and what Haren is likely to produce for $20 million just isn't enough to justify the Dodgers giving up that much.

My point is, Lackey would push all these guys down to the 6th-10th starter spots, making your depth that much more stable. I wouldn't rely on Beckett at all next season, and Billingsly may bounce back nicely with his TJ surgery but it could take him upwards of half a season to get back on track. If you were swapping Lackey for Kemp, would that help your team moving forward because of financial implications? I would think so, considering you have to pay Koufax Jr eventually. All I'm saying is Lackey would make any team's rotation better, no matter how deep they are or where he'll be pitching in the rotation as far as playoff starts go. You never know, someone might go down with an injury and then you'll need a guy like Lackey to step in and be a workhorse.

RedSoxtober
12-07-2013, 11:21 AM
Based on what? An estimate based of a future situation based on a study of the present one?
The projection that I presented clearly indicated that the Dodgers would be about 10 runs better, on virtual paper, with Lackey next season.
Again, you're falling prey to the fact that projections assume certain things to be equal including home park advantages. However, check out the boost that your beloved Dodger Stadium provides to most pitchers who call it home. Beckett was mired in a terrible season but went from 5.19=>2.93 ERA with largely the same peripherals. Derek Lowe had four of his five best seasons as a SP after two consecutive years of decline for the Sox and after averaging ~120 ERA+ in LA he immediately dropped to 88 in ATL and never peaked above 100 thereafter. Of course, it doesn't work just for Sox making the switch. Nolasco was 10% better after his midseason switch. Harang posted consecutive 3.60ish seasons in the pitchers' parks of the big west... sandwiched by mid-5s ERAs before and after. I'm sure you've got counter examples but I've seen this effect often enough to be VERY wary of pitchers leaving LAD in search of big contracts.

The point? Those 10 or 11 runs from the omniscient STEAMER could be an extremely conservative estimate for Lackey who seems to be back to the form that he was in circa 2002-03. Your projections won't show that.



We have depth.
Billingsley
Becket
Fife
Magill
Zach Lee
for the 5th-9th starters spots.
Two of those guys are coming off injury. That's depth but not getting you to the WS kinda depth.



Lackey would be a good addition. But the 10 runs in 2014 he's likely to provide just aren't worth that much.
The financial flexibililty would.



That's exactly what I considered - with the price of the prospect included
Prospects don't have prices, no matter what FG says.

filihok
12-07-2013, 05:24 PM
My point is, Lackey would push all these guys down to the 6th-10th starter spots, making your depth that much more stable. I wouldn't rely on Beckett at all next season, and Billingsly may bounce back nicely with his TJ surgery but it could take him upwards of half a season to get back on track. If you were swapping Lackey for Kemp, would that help your team moving forward because of financial implications? I would think so, considering you have to pay Koufax Jr eventually. All I'm saying is Lackey would make any team's rotation better, no matter how deep they are or where he'll be pitching in the rotation as far as playoff starts go. You never know, someone might go down with an injury and then you'll need a guy like Lackey to step in and be a workhorse.
Beckett and Billingsley have to be on the 25-man roster. So moving them both out of the rotation is a problem. I could see the Dodgers DFAing Beckett or paying some time $12/$13 million to take him, but not Billingsley.

The reasons that you prefer the Red Sox with Kemp and without Lackey are quite similar to the reasons that I prefer the Dodgers with Kemp and without Lackey.




Again, you're falling prey to the fact that projections assume certain things to be equal including home park advantages.
WAR calculation based on the projections take park effects into consideration.


However, check out the boost that your beloved Dodger Stadium provides to most pitchers who call it home. Beckett was mired in a terrible season but went from 5.19=>2.93 ERA with largely the same peripherals.
Beckett's defense independent numbers (FIP, xFIP, SIERA) were almost exactly equal with the Red Sox and Dodgers in 2012 when factoring in the .4 run differential between AL and NL ball.



The point? Those 10 or 11 runs from the omniscient STEAMER could be an extremely conservative estimate for Lackey who seems to be back to the form that he was in circa 2002-03. Your projections won't show that.
2002 - 2003?
No. I don't think that Lackey is the same pitcher that he was over a decade ago.



Prospects don't have prices, no matter what FG says.
What are you talking about? Of course they do.

But since you don't think so, I assume you'll be happy to swap Bogaerts and Cecchini for 2 randomly selected names out of the Dodger minor leagues.

ruckus16969
12-08-2013, 05:02 AM
Good for Ellsbury. I enjoyed watching him play and happy that he was able to help Boston win 2WS, now he gets that big $$$$ contract he's been wanting to get. Best of luck Ellsbury.

Now that you're a NYY....Go **** yourself you dick licker. ;)

Yes true

ruckus16969
12-08-2013, 05:40 AM
The Yankees are certainly going all out this off-season. You have to wonder if this will work out for them or not though.

No shyt huh they already spent 299M and still have to get a pair of SP

AI
12-08-2013, 12:11 PM
No shyt huh they already spent 299M and still have to get a pair of SP

And a relief ace to replace Mariano.

filihok
12-08-2013, 01:00 PM
No shyt huh they already spent 299M and still have to get a pair of SP
They probably just need 1
Sabathia
Kuroda
Nova
ADDITION
Warren/Pineda/Phelps/Nuno should be enough depth to round out the rotation.

RedSoxtober
12-08-2013, 04:44 PM
WAR calculation based on the projections take park effects into consideration.Actually, no. WAR tries to REMOVE park effects (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/). And the projections that you bandy about DO NOT try to take park effects into account at all; how could they if they've projected ANY FA before they're signed? Or a trade target's production before the trade?


Beckett's defense independent numbers (FIP, xFIP, SIERA) were almost exactly equal with the Red Sox and Dodgers in 2012 when factoring in the .4 run differential between AL and NL ball.But his actual results were quite different, weren't they? The difference between 5-11, 5.23 and 2-3, 2.93 is a lot more than the differentials between the leagues. That's why I said that the peripherals were similar but the results were different. What do you suppose accounts for such a dramatic difference in ERA so quickly?



2002 - 2003?
No. I don't think that Lackey is the same pitcher that he was over a decade ago.
Your opinion, but I've read others who concur.


What are you talking about? Of course they do.

But since you don't think so, I assume you'll be happy to swap Bogaerts and Cecchini for 2 randomly selected names out of the Dodger minor leagues.
I did not say that they did not have VALUE, I said that they do not have PRICE. I know that FG and other sites have attempted to fix a dollar value to draft picks and prospects in a manner similar to WAR$. Perhaps I read too much into your comment but it does seem to comport with your general approach to use a prospect price and wave it around as if it were gospel.

filihok
12-08-2013, 06:14 PM
Actually, no. WAR tries to REMOVE park effects (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/). And the projections that you bandy about DO NOT try to take park effects into account at all; how could they if they've projected ANY FA before they're signed? Or a trade target's production before the trade?
By removing them, WAR considers them, no?
WAR doesn't see a .300/.400/.500 season in Colorado and in San Diego as the same. So, WAR absolutely considers park effects.
This is so simple, that even an idiot like me can understand it.

Free agents are projected for the last team that they played on.

I really don't mind providing people with information, but you could do some of this research yourself. I'm not your personal Google or wikipedia.


But his actual results were quite different, weren't they? The difference between 5-11, 5.23 and 2-3, 2.93 is a lot more than the differentials between the leagues. That's why I said that the peripherals were similar but the results were different. What do you suppose accounts for such a dramatic difference in ERA so quickly?
What do I suppose accounts for such a dramatic difference in ERA so quickly? Random variation.
From May 15th to June 30th (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=beckejo02&t=p&year=2012&share=2.25#286-292-sum:pitching_gamelogs) Beckett pitched 49.7 innings with a 2.72 ERA.
Yes, he faced 2 National League clubs during that time. In those two games he had a 3.07 ERA, so, obviously his ERA against AL teams during that stretch was even lower than 2.72.

You stat only guys, if you'd watch some games you'd see that just because a pitcher has a 5 ERA over a certain amount of time that doesn't meant the he gives up exactly 5 runs every 9 innings. Pitchers have stretches where they give up more runs, pitchers have stretches where they give up less runs. Sometimes that stretches coincides with things like being traded, or growing a beard. That in no way means that those things are responsible for the difference in performance.



I did not say that they did not have VALUE, I said that they do not have PRICE. I know that FG and other sites have attempted to fix a dollar value to draft picks and prospects in a manner similar to WAR$. Perhaps I read too much into your comment but it does seem to comport with your general approach to use a prospect price and wave it around as if it were gospel.
What's the difference between a price and value?
A price is the amount paid for something.
The value is the amount that something is worth.
Hopefully, the price that teams pay for something is close to its value.

PatsSoxKnicks
12-12-2013, 03:46 AM
I never really gave 2 ***** about Ellsbury- always seemed like a prima dona who was in it for the most money. So I can honestly say good riddance and enjoy the Yankees Ells, not in the least bit upset (seriously, out of all my favorite sox players, he was near the bottom). You two deserve each other, you get plenty of money and the Yankees get to massively overpay for a former Red Sox. I will laugh in a few years when the Yanks are horribly overpaying Ells.

And for people comparing it to Damon leaving on sports radio (no one here), it's not at all similar. For one, I actually liked Damon when he was here. He seemed to genuinely enjoy himself and always played hard. Not sure that I can say that about Ells. Dude always seemed like he was high maintenance who just wanted the $$$$.

Bo Sox Fan
12-12-2013, 04:36 AM
If Jackie Bradley can come flyin outta the gate again like he did last spring (almost forcing his way onto the team with his performance) Ellsbury will be forgotten very quickly if he hasn't been already.

I'm very excited to see what JBJ and Bogaerts can do on an everyday basis now being handed the keys to an everyday position. The farm is about to make an impact! This is gonna be more exciting than seeing Adrian Gonzalez in a Red Sox uniform for the first time.

Rivera
12-13-2013, 12:18 PM
Jacoby looks dirty with a pin stripes Jersey and hat on

bagwell368
12-13-2013, 02:16 PM
Jacoby looks dirty with a pin stripes Jersey and hat on

He's even worse in front of cameras than Cano was.... look elsewhere for Reggie Jackson MFY

bagwell368
12-13-2013, 02:18 PM
If Jackie Bradley can come flyin outta the gate again like he did last spring (almost forcing his way onto the team with his performance) Ellsbury will be forgotten very quickly if he hasn't been already.

I'm very excited to see what JBJ and Bogaerts can do on an everyday basis now being handed the keys to an everyday position. The farm is about to make an impact! This is gonna be more exciting than seeing Adrian Gonzalez in a Red Sox uniform for the first time.

The farm already made an impact with XB. JBJ is no match for JE - except on D, anyone figuring him for a 4.5 WAR in '14 is dreaming.

RedSoxtober
12-13-2013, 02:24 PM
He's even worse in front of cameras than Cano was.... look elsewhere for Reggie Jackson MFY

I actually laughed during the press conf because they had a hard time getting the jersey on him. It was harder to literally put him in a Yankee jersey than figuratively.

-Lavigne43-
12-13-2013, 02:43 PM
Didn't watch it, but Jacoby has always been terrible with the media. Despite being here for the last 6 years, I don't know his personality at all because he only says generic things.

Rivera
12-13-2013, 03:08 PM
I actually laughed during the press conf because they had a hard time getting the jersey on him. It was harder to literally put him in a Yankee jersey than figuratively.

Girardi had so much trouble UN buttoning that Jersey. It's like he never saw a Jersey with buttons on

Soxfan85
12-13-2013, 03:57 PM
I wanted to ask. Lets play the "What if game" What if JE stayed healthy never broke ribs etc. And had all that high stolen base % great plats etc? Do you think the RS would have given JE a big contract?

RedSoxtober
12-13-2013, 04:29 PM
Didn't watch it, but Jacoby has always been terrible with the media. Despite being here for the last 6 years, I don't know his personality at all because he only says generic things.
Favorite movie: Bull Durham?


Girardi had so much trouble UN buttoning that Jersey. It's like he never saw a Jersey with buttons on
True of most girls in Jersey


I wanted to ask. Lets play the "What if game" What if JE stayed healthy never broke ribs etc. And had all that high stolen base % great plats etc? Do you think the RS would have given JE a big contract?

I don't think so. Personally I'm not giving that kind of deal to someone other than a more traditional slugging OFer or a front of the rotation pitcher. He has some excellent tools right now but ones that are likely to decline early in the deal. They're also ones that you can reproduce at 90% but for 50 cents on the dollar.

Soxfan85
12-13-2013, 04:32 PM
Favorite movie: Bull Durham?


True of most girls in Jersey



I don't think so. Personally I'm not giving that kind of deal to someone other than a more traditional slugging OFer or a front of the rotation pitcher. He has some excellent tools right now but ones that are likely to decline early in the deal. They're also ones that you can reproduce at 90% but for 50 cents on the dollar.

Thank you for explaining it.

filihok
12-14-2013, 02:41 AM
Thank you for explaining it.
Except don't believe that the tools that Ellsbury has are the type to decline early.

Rickey Henderson, Kenny Lofton, Tim Raines, Devon White, Steve Finley, Ichiro...those guys didn't decline early.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yankees-sign-jacoby-ellsbury-bet-on-speed-aging-well/

This study found that 'fast players' age better than the average player.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/5/31/2199146/hitter-aging-curves

3. Fast players age extremely well from their peaks at 26 to 31, then they lose on average fewer then five runs over five seasons.

bagwell368
12-14-2013, 12:15 PM
Except don't believe that the tools that Ellsbury has are the type to decline early.

Rickey Henderson, Kenny Lofton, Tim Raines, Devon White, Steve Finley, Ichiro...those guys didn't decline early.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yankees-sign-jacoby-ellsbury-bet-on-speed-aging-well/

That list is cherry picked. During the debate on signing CC to the Red Sox I produced a study (10/2010) of elite base stealers since 1955 (looked at peak 3 year SB's and also longer term SB's with non top 3 or 5 finishes too):

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?558697-Why-CC-will-never-steal-50-bases-for-the-Sox&highlight=tolan

post #11 & #19 (should have left Tolan off)

The only real objection is I included some players that fell off the map after age 30. Well if a player is productive in his 20's, there is always a chance he will fall off due to injuries or other reasons. We can't just look at guys with over 8500 PA's can we?

Much like Damon before him, a lot of Ellsbury's value to the Yanks will switch from SB's and defense to HR's. Ells makes good contact, and he could have real power in NYY through age 34 or 35. If healthy I would anticipate an average of at least 18 HR's a year from '14-'17, perhaps as high as 23-24. Add that to a .290-.305 BA with a 5-6.5% BB/HBP rate, and just slightly below average D - he'll be productive. It's the last 2 years when all of his skills will in decline that could get ugly - even if he's healthy.

filihok
12-15-2013, 01:58 AM
That list is cherry picked.
How is it cherry picked?

Your comps seemed to focus on stolen bases while Cameron's comps focused on overall skills.

homie564
12-15-2013, 02:46 AM
That list is cherry picked.
How is it cherry picked?

Your comps seemed to focus on stolen bases while Cameron's comps focused on overall skills.

Thing is ells really isn't on those guy's level. Ellsbury's defense will die the second he loses one notch of speed. His defense already only appears good because his speed makes up for his mistakes. His speed won't last him forever.. I'm not there in age yet, but I doubt running gets any easier after you hit 30. I'm also not familiar with the yanks base coaches, but I know sometimes ells had the tendency to be a "free runner". If the yanks are ****** coaching wise on the bp, ells could have some trouble. Hes a good base runner though if they let him do his thing. His arm will just get worse too, and eventually hell have to move to the short RF in Yankee stadium because that arm will be a liability out of death valley. As bags said, his value to the yanks will he if he can get the power to that short porch as we expect him to. If not, hell be a really expensive, league average player.

bagwell368
12-15-2013, 07:03 AM
How is it cherry picked?

Your comps seemed to focus on stolen bases while Cameron's comps focused on overall skills.

No. Not his list. Your list.

Here is an excerpt from Cameron's comps:


There are a few busts in there, and you can throw Crawford into that mix as well if you want even though we don’t technically know how his entire 30-36 span is going to go, but by and large, these guys held a large chunk of their late 20s value. Offensively, they hardly declined at all. Their defense got worse, but it didn’t become useless. They got slower, but were still better baserunners than most. They played fewer games, but most of them played enough to still be productive.

Not including Crawford these guys put up an average of 17 WAR age 30-36. That's supposed to be in Ells favor? Compared to that list the only guy with an arm as bad or OF instincts as meh is Henderson. Ells has missed more games due to injury at this stage of his career than all the players on the list + Crawford.

GrkGawdofWalkz
12-15-2013, 11:59 AM
Go Jackie Bradley! LOL.

-Lavigne43-
12-15-2013, 01:50 PM
No. Not his list. Your list.

Here is an excerpt from Cameron's comps:


There are a few busts in there, and you can throw Crawford into that mix as well if you want even though we don’t technically know how his entire 30-36 span is going to go, but by and large, these guys held a large chunk of their late 20s value. Offensively, they hardly declined at all. Their defense got worse, but it didn’t become useless. They got slower, but were still better baserunners than most. They played fewer games, but most of them played enough to still be productive.

Not including Crawford these guys put up an average of 17 WAR age 30-36. That's supposed to be in Ells favor? Compared to that list the only guy with an arm as bad or OF instincts as meh is Henderson. Ells has missed more games due to injury at this stage of his career than all the players on the list + Crawford.

This to me is the big issue about this argument. Yes you see a lot of these athletic players stick around a long time, but they are not very good players anymore. The players in this category who age the best are just nice complementary pieces for your roster. Nothing you want huge money tied up to. What is Jacoby with significantly worse baserunning and fielding value, but the same offense? A mediocre player.

I'm not sure Jacoby can even repeat the baserunning he did this year. I think our coaching staff had a huge influence on the efficiency of our baserunning. Baserunning was the main focus in spring training, and our entire team was very efficient. Jacoby is a great baserunner, but he has never been as valuable as he was in 2013 before. Compare him to Gardner, who has the tools to be a phenomenal baserunner, and I wonder if Gardner has terrible instincts or if the Yankee coaching staff has done a lousy job.

Jacoby has gotten much better defensively the last couple years, but you see him misread balls initially all the time. I do think his bad routes could cut significantly into his defensive value as he ages.

Walligans
12-16-2013, 01:15 PM
There's overwhelming evidence that fast players age better than the typical player. But it still didn't make sense to re-sign Ellsbury given his contract demands, the draft pick we stood to lose and the fact that we have Jackie Bradley Jr. I expect Ellsbury to be a productive player for the Yankees.

bagwell368
12-16-2013, 02:01 PM
Ellsbury will not meet the FWAR salary $ for his contract because:

1. His D range is based on speed and not good jumps or proper routes will decline at or before the mid point of his contract. His arm isn't going to get any better either. His defensive value on balance at the end of his contract will be below average. Plus points for playing CF, but negative points for being below average (maybe quite a bit so his last few years).

2. On average elite base stealers start to steal less - at about 31 years old than their prime. The few that beat this trend are more than matched by those that are well below matching it. He'll remain a good base runner - even late in his career, but if won't yield a lot of positive value.

3. He will hit for more HR's partially due to the park and where he hits his deep balls, partially due to increasing strength - for a time - my bet in the first 3.5 years. However mitigating this to a solid extent will be the loss of wall ball 2B's and more foul out's.

So, I project these fWAR numbers for Ells:

'14: 6.5
'15: 6.5
'16: 5.2
'17: 4.4
'18: 3.5
'19: 2.5
'20: 1.0

Looks good? That's at a 145 games per season basis. Now injuries: Carve out 50 games from his last two years combined, and 125 from the prior 5 years in some pattern or other - that could be down 6 fWAR. So 24.6 WAR for 7 years (or 3.5 WAR per year on average). What's that? $16M per? $16M * 6 = $96M (round up to $100M) not $153M. I'll bet my guess to his value for the NYY's in this contract is closer than his contract's value.

Comment: I've played around with a lot of measure of fast and slow players and "old" and "young" skills. What can be concluded is that heavy players and players from injury plagued positions (C, 3B) age badly - once they are remove "fast" players follow the norm much more closely - except that speed expressed as SB and defense expressed as defensive runs gained or lost vs the average both start to decline for "fast" players between 29-32 which is earlier than very good hitters with no particular speed or defensive skills decline which comes at ~34 on average.

RedSoxtober
12-16-2013, 03:04 PM
^^ Yes, I think that what often gets blurred in the discussion about players with "his skills" is the connection between his defense and his speed. Many of the other speed players were decent defenders apart from their speed but with his very weak arm and bad jumps on balls, his defensive prowess depends heavily on his speed. For Ellsbury in particular, a drop from elite speed to above average speed will effect him more dramatically than other speedsters.

Walligans
12-16-2013, 05:02 PM
^^ Yes, I think that what often gets blurred in the discussion about players with "his skills" is the connection between his defense and his speed. Many of the other speed players were decent defenders apart from their speed but with his very weak arm and bad jumps on balls, his defensive prowess depends heavily on his speed. For Ellsbury in particular, a drop from elite speed to above average speed will effect him more dramatically than other speedsters.

Two things that are true of fast player skills like basestealing and defense, is that players can learn to get better jumps or time pitchers as they get older. That's how players like Rickey Henderson stick around longer than guys like Frank Thomas. Once a player loses their raw power (which starts to decline at age 24-25 by the way), they have very little value in the way of defense or baserunning. Whereas a guy like Henderson was still a better than average baserunner at ages 40-44, even if he wasn't stealing 50 bases a year.

Walligans
12-16-2013, 05:09 PM
By the way, that dropoff in production from catchers is also a myth.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/catcher-aging-is-a-curve-not-a-cliff/

RedSoxtober
12-16-2013, 09:50 PM
Two things that are true of fast player skills like basestealing and defense, is that players can learn to get better jumps or time pitchers as they get older. That's how players like Rickey Henderson stick around longer than guys like Frank Thomas. Once a player loses their raw power (which starts to decline at age 24-25 by the way), they have very little value in the way of defense or baserunning. Whereas a guy like Henderson was still a better than average baserunner at ages 40-44, even if he wasn't stealing 50 bases a year.

And what do you do with the fact that Ellsbury STILL has not learned how to read balls hit at him? He STILL gets bad jumps all the time and uses his speed to make up for it. Do you really mean to suggest that he's going to suddenly figure out in year 10 what has eluded him in years 1-7?

bagwell368
12-17-2013, 09:36 AM
Two things that are true of fast player skills like basestealing and defense, is that players can learn to get better jumps or time pitchers as they get older. That's how players like Rickey Henderson stick around longer than guys like Frank Thomas. Once a player loses their raw power (which starts to decline at age 24-25 by the way), they have very little value in the way of defense or baserunning. Whereas a guy like Henderson was still a better than average baserunner at ages 40-44, even if he wasn't stealing 50 bases a year.

RH was a poor fielder after age 31. If he had a bit better arm and a better read, he'd have been a CF with his speed and been worth even more - but he didn't stick as a CF.

Frank Thomas had a great career. He played 19 years and was a force as a hitter through age 39.5. He piled up 73.6 rWAR (even with the DH and meh 1B play and meh base running) good for 51st all time. There are many sluggers up higher on the list than he is: Ruth, Musial, Williams.

If fielding and baserunning start a notable decline age 31, and hitters hit their notable decline at age 34 the best best if the old "5 tool player". Well if baseball was confined to just them, there wouldn't be too many players or teams.

bagwell368
12-17-2013, 09:48 AM
By the way, that dropoff in production from catchers is also a myth.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/catcher-aging-is-a-curve-not-a-cliff/

This study is misguided. Catchers are players like other players and without the wear and tear of the position would be expected to age similarly. I.E a catcher that debuts at age 22 and catches 1350 games in 11.5 years is going to give (on average) a different curve that a catcher that debuts at age 25 and puts up 1350 in 11 years - because age is a factor. But it is not THE key factor for catchers.

So the key factor with catchers is exposure to what makes catching difficult, not chronological age.

Go ahead and collect offensive and defensive stats for all catchers that started over 1350 games at catcher. Put the 1-1350th game results in one bucket and the after 1350 games caught stats in another bucket and I can assure you that what you'll be looking at is much more cliff like than the curve in that study. Better yet collect stats by 100 game increments based on games started (with catchers that hit 1350 games) not age, and again the drop is more extreme than that study. Imagine that a SABR study that isolated one factor and ignored the more important one!

filihok
12-17-2013, 12:10 PM
This study is misguided. Catchers are players like other players and without the wear and tear of the position would be expected to age similarly. I.E a catcher that debuts at age 22 and catches 1350 games in 11.5 years is going to give (on average) a different curve that a catcher that debuts at age 25 and puts up 1350 in 11 years - because age is a factor. But it is not THE key factor for catchers.


So the key factor with catchers is exposure to what makes catching difficult, not chronological age.


Go ahead and collect offensive and defensive stats for all catchers that started over 1350 games at catcher. Put the 1-1350th game results in one bucket and the after 1350 games caught stats in another bucket and I can assure you that what you'll be looking at is much more cliff like than the curve in that study. Better yet collect stats by 100 game increments based on games started (with catchers that hit 1350 games) not age, and again the drop is more extreme than that study. Imagine that a SABR study that isolated one factor and ignored the more important one!
Have you seen/done this study or is this speculation?
I'm curious how this study/hypothetical study accounts for catching at the minor league/amateur level. Surely we can't just leave out games played at catcher in the minor leagues. I can't imagine that the body reacts differently to catching in Toledo, Pawtucket or Albuquerque than it does to catching in Detroit, Boston or Los Angeles.

bagwell368
12-17-2013, 12:54 PM
Have you seen/done this study or is this speculation?
I'm curious how this study/hypothetical study accounts for catching at the minor league/amateur level. Surely we can't just leave out games played at catcher in the minor leagues. I can't imagine that the body reacts differently to catching in Toledo, Pawtucket or Albuquerque than it does to catching in Detroit, Boston or Los Angeles.

It was my research in '10 in reaction to something I read. The assertion was (probably re: Posada) that catchers (on average) fell over a cliff at 1400 games played in the Majors.

After combing over all the live era catchers looking at games played at catcher, injuries, moves away from catcher with age (much like CF's becoming LF's or SS's becoming 3B's), defensive and offensive metrics, and games played I amended it to 1350, and even 1300 is very viable.

Walligans
12-17-2013, 08:22 PM
And what do you do with the fact that Ellsbury STILL has not learned how to read balls hit at him? He STILL gets bad jumps all the time and uses his speed to make up for it. Do you really mean to suggest that he's going to suddenly figure out in year 10 what has eluded him in years 1-7?

He's clearly better at getting jumps on balls and stealing bases than he was when he was first called up. And I don't think he's gotten any faster. It's not sudden, it's been happening.


This study is misguided. Catchers are players like other players and without the wear and tear of the position would be expected to age similarly. I.E a catcher that debuts at age 22 and catches 1350 games in 11.5 years is going to give (on average) a different curve that a catcher that debuts at age 25 and puts up 1350 in 11 years - because age is a factor. But it is not THE key factor for catchers.

So the key factor with catchers is exposure to what makes catching difficult, not chronological age.

Go ahead and collect offensive and defensive stats for all catchers that started over 1350 games at catcher. Put the 1-1350th game results in one bucket and the after 1350 games caught stats in another bucket and I can assure you that what you'll be looking at is much more cliff like than the curve in that study. Better yet collect stats by 100 game increments based on games started (with catchers that hit 1350 games) not age, and again the drop is more extreme than that study. Imagine that a SABR study that isolated one factor and ignored the more important one!

I'll stick with what facts and statistics say, you can stick with your theories.

bagwell368
12-17-2013, 11:18 PM
He's clearly better at getting jumps on balls and stealing bases than he was when he was first called up. And I don't think he's gotten any faster. It's not sudden, it's been happening.

And he'll be entering his decline phase on defense and base running shortly - perhaps exacerbated by his propensity for injuries.

I notice that you didn't take my bet that he's going to earn closer to $100M in FG WAR $ than his contract number.


I'll stick with what facts and statistics say, you can stick with your theories.

You come here and expect us to give automatic credence to your posts. I notice many of your views are based on other peoples research, and that you seldom stray far from them. So we should give respect to regurgitated hair balls? Do you have any views of your own? Ideas? Theories? Data?

Oops. Citation requested - please don't submit an answer until you can document it all.

RedSoxtober
12-18-2013, 12:19 AM
I'll stick with what facts and statistics say, you can stick with your theories.

Agree with Bags here. The numbers he pulled together are more extensive (and with a greater degree of correlation) than the FG article that you mentioned. Why is it that FG is seemingly taken as fact (it certainly was passed off that way) while this data is simply dismissed?

bagwell368
12-18-2013, 10:42 AM
As I was considering how to document catcher decline by games, I came across this. Note that since it was published on FanGraphs - it must be sacrosanct.

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/old-catchers-and-jorge-posada/

Login - Register?
Old Catchers and Jorge Posada

by Brian Joura - February 10, 2009

Everyone talks about how fortunate that Francisco Rodriguez was to set the all-time single-season saves mark in the last year of his contract. It certainly was ideal, but Rodriguez at 26-years old and a reliable closer for years, was going to get a nice contract, regardless. Instead, the person people should point to for coming up big prior to free agency is Jorge Posada.

In 2007, at the age of 35, Posada put up a .338-20-90-91-2 line, which earned him a four-year, $52.4 million contract. The good news is that on the Yankees, that is just another contract. The bad news is that there is no way he is going to earn that salary, either in 2009 or the final two years of the deal.

In baseball history, there have been only 18 seasons in which a player 37 or older has amassed 400 or more plate appearances in a season in which they appeared at 50 percent or more of their games as a catcher. And six of those belong to Carlton Fisk.

In only one of those seasons did the player hit over .300, and that was during World War II, when Ernie Lombardi hit .307 against competition that was not really major league caliber. Only three times did a player hit 20 or more home runs under these conditions, two of those by Fisk in seasons in which he batted .238 and .256, respectively.

Catching is hard. And Posada is climbing the ranks of most games caught in a career. He has played 1,390 games at catcher, which ranks in the top 40 in MLB history. Last year, Posada broke down. He had season-ending shoulder surgery and before he shut it down for the season, Posada was a liability behind the plate.

There is no guarantee that he can bounce back in 2009. And even if he can be a productive hitter, can he play well enough defensively to stay at catcher? And if not, does Posada still have enough bat for the Yankees to carry at DH?

All of these things combine to push Posada out of the top 10 in catchers for 2009. Yes, the possibility exists that he might be one of the top three at the position if he rebounds completely. But do you really like those odds? Because of his previous level of performance, Posada has more upside than only a handful of catchers. But he is much more likely to repeat his 2008 numbers, which means fantasy players should look elsewhere.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++

Highly suggestive of a big cliff related to games played. Pesky SABR's !!

BTW, Posada earned $13.3M of FG WAR $ in those 4 years ($3.325M per). So, Posada failed in spectacular fashion to meet his contract as the writer asserted.

filihok
12-22-2013, 01:21 AM
Highly suggestive of a big cliff related to games played.
All of those references to his age?



AYou come here and expect us to give automatic credence to your posts. I notice many of your views are based on other peoples research, and that you seldom stray far from them. So we should give respect to regurgitated hair balls? Do you have any views of your own? Ideas? Theories? Data?
Silly.
Do you get up every morning and reinvent the wheel?
Stand under the apple tree to make sure there's still gravity?

Studying the existing literature is an important part of the scientific process.


As for your own study, I'd like to see it.

But, I'll ask again, what of the impact of minor league/amateur games? I find it unlikely that the human body differentiates between playing a major league game at catcher and a minor league game at catcher.

bagwell368
12-22-2013, 07:14 PM
But, I'll ask again, what of the impact of minor league/amateur games? I find it unlikely that the human body differentiates between playing a major league game at catcher and a minor league game at catcher.

That wasn't part of the research that I found that got me started on the topic, so it was never a consideration. It could well be an important fctor, maybe someone should look into it.

Super.
12-29-2013, 05:24 PM
It's kinda obvious Walligans is North Country...how he is still here?

Lackeyfan41
12-29-2013, 09:19 PM
It's kinda obvious Walligans is North Country...how he is still here?

North County? what..

Super.
12-30-2013, 02:48 AM
North County? what..

Previously banned user. Keeps coming back

almost like FH (If anyone remembers him)

penuch
12-30-2013, 03:01 AM
Previously banned user. Keeps coming back

almost like FH (If anyone remembers him)

Don't mention him, he might return!!

Super.
12-30-2013, 03:17 AM
Don't mention him, he might return!!

He legit like stalked me at one point. Got my facebook and ****, it was scary

RedSoxtober
12-30-2013, 11:23 AM
It's kinda obvious Walligans is North Country...how he is still here?

If Walligans and NC are one in the same then he's become pretty technically savvy to avoid detection. I don't want to say more just because I don't want to suggest bad behavior.

Super.
12-31-2013, 05:58 PM
If Walligans and NC are one in the same then he's become pretty technically savvy to avoid detection. I don't want to say more just because I don't want to suggest bad behavior.

It's really really not that hard to avoid the technical detection that you're talking about.