.
POINT: Ellsbury has benefitted from playing at Fenway. Safeco would eat him up.
COUNTERPOINT: Actually, Fenway doesn't help lefties that much, and Ellsbury's HR splits are like 32-33 home and road.
DR's R/X: His home splits look like pure noise to me. Making a long story short: I wouldn't worry about this one. If you want to worry, see the next section.
.
POINT: The guy is injury-prone. He's Franklin Gutierrez waiting to happen. (This is the view of my man Geoff Baker.)
COUNTERPOINT: His defenders will tell you that "his entire injury history consists of having Adrian Beltre run him over once, and having a second baseman jump on his shoulder."
DR's R/X: Nada. This is a fragile player. (Though would be interested in G's, and others', take here.)
You figure him for 80% playing time, and go from there. With the M's, that's fine: we want a 9-to-make-5 anyway. Remember the Josh Hamilton debate? We all sat in the same bleacher section on that one.
Balancing that - you've got the possibility of UPside. The guy did have the 9-WAR season. He looks capable of reprising, to me anyway.
...........
Ron Shandler's comment on Ellsbury, prior to this year, was terse: "Probably the toughest projection in the game right now." If Ellsbury seems volatile, that's because he is. He could give you a 3-WAR year, or he could give you an 8-WAR year.
.
POINT: Take away Ellsbury's One Huge Year and what is he, really?
COUNTERPOINT: He has averaged 5.8 WAR per 600 at-bats the last three years. (Not per 700 at-bats.)
His career stats per 162 games, next to Johnny Damon's:
| AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | RC/27 | |
| Ellsbury | .297 | .350 | .439 | 108 | 5.9 |
| Damon | .284 | .352 | .433 | 104 | 5.8 |
Also, Ellsbury averages 108 runs and 55-for-65 stolen bases per year. Damon averaged 109 runs and 27-for-34 stolen bases. (Granted, the SB's slow down in your 30's.)
He did have one huge year, but ... single-year stats fluctuate. You've got to smooth them out over the course of large numbers of AB's. In Ellsbury's case, the averaged career stats are critical. Don't take your eyes off them!
DR's R/X: Again, Ellsbury isn't really my kind of player; he is sort of in the "soft WAR" basket. But I've got to admit that he is as good a player as Damon was. Compared to Damon:
Kenny Lofton is another good comp for Ellsbury -- Lofton was a little bit better player. Not much. Now Kenny Lofton, I'll show you the money for that guy, any time. So...
.
POINT: If Ellsbury is discounted -- say to 5/$85M -- why would he take Seattle's discount money?
COUNTERPOINT: You got me there!
DR's R/X: Anybody seriously recommending an Ellsbury signing would have to Sudoku this little problem out for us.
.
POINT: Michael Saunders could conceivably give us an Ellsbury. Or Ackley could.
COUNTERPOINT: Saunders 1.2 WAR last year. Ackley 0.5 WAR.
DR's R/X: You pay the guys who have proven it. I'm fine with that.
Bring in the one 5-WAR player, and if somebody else becomes a 5-WAR player, then you have two 5-WAR players.
.
POINT: He's not a Straw That Stirs.
COUNTERPOINT: You got me there, again! MUCH rather have Stanton. Or somebody.
DR's R/X: Like we sez ... we want Ellsbury in this scenario:
Hey, guys. Oakland has won the division twice in a row. Their 2nd-best player was Coco Cripsx.
I'm all about Stars & Scrubs, but a semi-discounted Ellsbury could be part of a Billy Beane-style plan that wayyyy out-muscled Beane.
.
POINT: Are you saying you covet Ellsbury?
COUNTERPOINT: No, I'm not.
DR's R/X: Ellsbury would be a more dynamic add for the M's than he gets credit for. I think that -- if Ellsbury is a character guy, I dunno -- he'd probably be Pat Gillick's first move. But then again, Pat wouldn't limit himself to one move.
B'lee DAT,
Dr D
That would be an exciting scenario, except that both are pretty weak against lefties. I'm wondering where the thump is gonna come from when we face the southpaws. Kendry's gone in your scenario. Zunino? I suppose we could platoon Smoak with a real thumping part time right handed hitter, but then we need a corner outfielder to do the same.Frankie? I can see that. I would want another Merv Rettenmund on my bench in this case as well.
Expecting the M's to land two of the top 5 free agents available is expecting a bit much.
Is there any evidence that it's a more defensively challenging position than 3B?
I think Guti will be healthy enough now (with a diagnosis ant treatment) to be a vL player in OF and DH. Maybe keep him out of CF for the most part just to be safe. He's always looked good when healthy.
That would be pretty close for me. The guy is a player. He's not $120M man, is what I've been saying. The advantage he has over Kemp is that you don't have to shed young value to get him. I always like that, if it can be done. The Kemp advantage (if he's available) is he eats lefties for breakfast.
I'm not much worried about Safeco killing Ellsbury's offensive game......and he will look like Willie Mays or Paul Blair playing CF in Safeco. GG, baby! And his downside is a good leather 2.5 WAR CF. A nice downside.
Price must be very right, however. I'm not overpaying for him. Buying pretty and expensive things just because they are on the shelf and you have cash in the pocket is not a plan for winning.
Actually, I think the best bet is he ends up staying in Boston.
While I am not dead set against Elsbury, (who I view as a solid MLB player ... I was really surprised to see you hand wave away the Park Effects concern with a HR comparison. This is especially disconcerting when you're dealing with a guy with 7 years in the Majors and ONE (1) season where he managed to break double digits in HRs.
Fenway has always been primarily about the Green Monster and doubles - not HRs. In THAT category, the home/road split is 93 to 62.
Moreover, the OPS comp is .833 in Fenway and .749 on the road.
While park effects are not perfect - and some guys play better at home, just because it's home - (and not because the park itself makes a lot of difference). So, while I can see cases where one might want to minimize park effect concerns ... I would think after a full decade of imports coming to Safeco to die, it would not be quite so easy to dismiss them.
For his entire career - over 3000 total PAs - Elsbury has a .749 *ROAD* OPS. That Road OPS completely takes Fenway out of the mix. For me, the best place to *start* looking at park effect is to focus on the road OPS. For Jacoby, with 1522 home PAs (160 FEWER chances than his 1682 road PAs), the single HR edge itself is deceptive. Through happenstance and injury, Ellsbury has a pretty large skew in PAs ... an extra 10% share of production was on the road.
But that actually means the 93 - 62 doubles edge (and 19-12 triples edge) are UNDER-stating the park effect. How many more XBHs does Ellsbury amass if he gets and extra 160 PAs to even things out?
It is true that in his 4 healthy seasons, his WAR totals have been good:
Year - Gm - WAR
2008 - 145 - 3.0
2009 - 153 - 2.7
2011 - 158 - 8.1
2013 - 134 - 5.8
And THAT makes him an intriguing potential - especially given the CF struggles of Ackley and the underwhelming WAR profile for Saunders in Center.
In this case, I think the argument *I* would make to mitigate the park concerns would be to focus on 2013.
The home/road split this year is pretty small: .790 home and .773 on the road. You comp that to Saunders' and Ackley's road OPS.
Saunders: .707 (career) -- .759 (2013)
Ackley : .688 (career) --- .645 (2013)
NOW ... we can actually see a comp with BOTH parks removed from the equation.
But ... here's why Ellsbury really interests me.
OBP = .350
That's for his career. His four healthy seasons? .336; .355; .376; .355
The power is meaningless. That's not where Jacoby brings value. The Ms finished 2nd in the AL in team HRs ... and a fat lot of good it did them, (Baltimore finished first, by the way, and they saw just as many playoff games as the Mariners did).
You sort AL offenses by OBP ... you know what you see? Seven teams with an above average OBP ... and 6 of them had playoff games, (if one includes the play-in tie breaker). The ONLY team that finished in the top half in offensive OBP to not play 163 or more games this year? The Angels - thanks a lot for the putrid pitching to support the massive FA spending binge.
While I still believe Ackley has 350+ OBP potential - (especially with Wedge gone), Saunders is a Guti like player - nice combo of power and speed, but he just doesn't have the natural patience where I believe a .350 OBP is going to happen easily.
The downside risk with Ellsbury, however, is the Chone Figgins face plant. While he's not completely devoid of power like Chone, the risk is similar. He's been producing a .350 OBP mostly off a .300 average and 50 points of patience. *IF* that .300 average takes a particularly harsh Safeco hit, you end up with a .260 hitter with a .310 OBP. That's pretty much what you've got with Saunders and Ackley already - (only Ackley still has some upside).
=========
All that said - the *cost* for bringing in Jacoby is you lose Almonte - who may well be a 24-year-old version of Ellsbury.
Me? I personally like Ackley better at second. But, you've got to surrender on Franklin to make that move. And Franklin is your youngest prospect - which means he's got the most upside AND the likeliest chance for long term success.
Yeah, you can bring in Ellsbury and make Almonte your #4 OF ... but what about Ibanez? If Morales sticks when and where does Ibanez play?
In the end, the 2014 offense lives or dies on the progression or regression of the kids. Most of the dead weight (sub .300 OBP) guys are gone.
Ryan (.254)
Morse (.283)
Chavez (.290)
Bay (.298)
Shoppach (.293)
Montero (.264) ???
Blanco (.215)
Andino (.253)
You get a couple of the young guys to blossom like Seager did in his first full season ... the offense could be scary good. You get too many young guys regressing like Ackley after his first full season ... it will be an ugly season.
The tricky part of a big FA contract for an outsider is the risk to messing up the internal chemistry and potential for fostering jealousy. If Morales gets a nice pay day AFTER producing for the Ms - the dynamic is different than if Ellsbury is brought in making 8 figures a year. At some point you have to take those risks. Is now the time? I dunno. I'd RATHER spend big on a pitcher - (lucrative pitcher contracts tend to be less disruptive than every day player acquisitions).
But, of course, Seattle has a lot of young talent it WANTS to get a look at for a full season.
I think the bullpen desperately needs an infusion of external talent to create an atmosphere to turn around the horrid bullpen performance from 2013.
I still believe pitching is the #1 priority for 2014. Even with all the talent in the wings - the bullpen needs a leader. For me, the guy I would target would be Paplebon.
I would love to have a .350 OBP guy with speed playing plus defense in CF. I just hope if Ellsbury does come, he is not squashed by the Safeco Effect and turns into a second act of Chone Figgins. I don't think it "likely". But, that's the downside risk.
Whatever Ellsbury does for the M's, Choo would do it better. Ellsbury is a nice player. Choo is a legit batting star. If we like Ellsbury's .350ish OBP, we should love Choo's .389 lifetime OBP. If we like Ellsbury's .439 slugging percentage, we should love Choo's .465 lifetime slugging percentage. Choo crushed right handers for 1.011 OPS last year. We haven't had a hitter OPS better than 1 in any split since the dawn of time.
We could use a guy like that.
Plus, Choo steals 20 bags a year. That is better than any of our guys.
You say that Ellsbury plays CF? So did Choo! If he is a fringe CF, then he can certainly man left field competently enough to keep the OF from dropping catcheable balls.
Who is more fragile, Ellsbury or Choo? They are about the same. They both suffer traumas from running into stuff through hard play. Neither has long term injury risks.
I'm preaching to the choir here, but I honestly don't even understand the MLBtraderumor power rankings that have Ellsbury rated higher than Choo.
Of course, with the Mariners, we should be happy if they are able to sign any good player. But, if its time to break open the piggy bank for the big add, I'd prefer the fast version of John Olerud.
...whose highest-paid and best player was a leadoff man, I'm game. I can't remember: was even the Greatest, Rickey, the highest paid player on his teams? And Ellsbury is NOT Rickey, regardless.
Damon had Manny Ramirez, Nomah and then Big Papi on those teams.
Lofton ALSO had Manny, and Belle, and Thome.
When your 6 WAR CF is the 4th best player on his team, you're getting somewhere. When Ichiro was on a team with Roid-Boone and the aging Edgar and Olerud, we were competitive. When those bats dropped away, Ichiro was throwing out his leadoff performances like spitting into the ocean... or against the wind. Didn't make a lot of difference either way.
I still maintain that you CANNOT win with a cost-conscious FO making a leadoff man their major bat investment. If we trade for Stanton and Kemp to play next to him, sure - play Ellsbury in CF.
That ain't gonna happen. Which leaves the option that several of our cost-controlled players become above-average run producers if all our cash is tied up in Felix and Ellsbury. Based on what we've seen from Smoak, Ackley and Saunders the last few years, I don't like those odds.
~G
Because their best player was their Opening Day Starter. Their second-best player was Don Drysdale. On that basis, a lineup of 8 average players, led by Maury Wills, served just fine.
What's 50 years between friends? C'mon G.
..........
;- ) You remember that a pennantwinning Mariners team would be a pitching team, right.
While I am not admantly against Ellsbury (in the current situation), in all honesty, I'm actually leaning in your direction, G.
I'm still hyper nervous about the impact of making ANY imported FA your highest paid ("best") every day player.
I was really hoping that SOMEBODY among all the Mariner prospects would've crashed through and pulled a Puig or Trout and presented an obvious every day player to build around. Unfortunately, as good as Seager has been, he just doesn't fit that bill. I think part of that is park - but part of that is still likely the residue of 10 years of development atrophy.
The good news for the Ms is this season suggests the ice is finally melting away from the glacier that has been hitter development. But, as I quietly feared, the process is one that really cannot vanish over night.
My belief is there are probably a hundred different variables that go into good player development. If I'm assessing the Mariners, I'd say since the late '90s, of those hundred variables, the Ms farm was probably getting about 4 right and 96 wrong for most of the decade. In the last 3 years, they may be up to 50 / 50 ... but, I suspect they are still fighting their own ingrained (and wrong) tendencies and attitudes.
This is all 'Spec-ulation (puns with me are always intended) - but think about the results. You get the college hitter of the decade, plus the #1 prospect out of both the Ranger and Yankee farm systems, and all 3 face plant?
The success stories are the 2nd tier "dirt dog" types. These are guys SELF-motivated to improve ... but likely ones getting far LESS attention paid to them by the Mariner Brain Truss (sic).
That said - I give them credit for Saunders. But, MS was a case where the flaws in the swing were so widely known and understood that it was really just a matter of whether the kid could manage to rebuild his swing.
I know Mariner fans are still craving a .300 / .400 / .550 bat. But, 2013 screamed about as loudly as humanly possible that the problem with the team was pitching far more than hitting. Mostly, I'm hoping the unquenched thirst for a .950 bat that continues to draw the attention of fans and pundits does not distract the team from its largest problem - the bullpen. Because I don't see how fixing what is already working while leaving what is broken broken moves Seattle any closer to the playoffs.
Honestly, I like Choo better than Ellsbury, because Choo actually has a Seattle hook, which means his return can be viewed from a perspective of he's not "completely" an outsider coming to be a savior. I think from a chemistry standpoint, he's far less dangerous.
In the end, while Ellsbury "might" work out - my general sense would be that Ellsbury in Seattle would end up being a lot like Werth when he went to Washington. A lot of money spent which mostly just had the impact of ticking off the guys who had been working so hard to rebuild a flawed franchise. That, IMO, remains the big risk of bringing in a "best player" from outside the organization.