Ellis to sign: 3 years, $11 million

by Faust on Jan 28, 2006 6:54 AM PST

That's according to Susan Slusser in today's Chronicle. I'd love to see a club option on the end of that, but it doesn't appear that's part of it. This must have come together quite quickly, because only a week or so ago there had been no discussions along those lines, according to reports at the time.

I love this deal, which buys out Ellis's remaining arbitration years. That's a pretty good price for the last 3 arb years of a fine middle infielder, especially given that Ellis was a super-2 (meaning he had four arb years instead of the usual 3, inflating his salary development).

Here's what we've had from Ellis so far in his career (in addition to consistently outstanding defense):

.272/.359/.394 .753 OPS
.248/.313/.371 .684 OPS
Did Not Play
.316/.384/.477 .861 OPS

That's a solid rookie season at age 25, with a particularly fine OBP. That was followed by an inadequate sophomore season that was out of line with his development arc (including his minor league days), so there was a pretty good chance for a bounce-back season. Instead, there was the collision with roller derby guy and the season was lost. In 2005 he got back to where he would have got with normal development in 2003-2004, and then some: it was a hell of a year. Certainly he's due for some regression in his batting average; you'd expect that from someone hitting .316 in any case, and there are BABIP and PrOPS figures to back that up. So be it; he should still get on base plenty often, and I think his power will surprise a lot of people. Given the occasional pop he'd shown in the past (which showed he has no trouble getting the ball over the fence when he makes good contact), a normal power development curve, and the way he drove the ball harder and harder the farther he got away from that injury, I tend to take his power development as real and wouldn't be surprised to see him hit 20 HRs this year.

That 2003-2004 period makes it difficult to project Ellis with confidence, but I think it also leads a lot of ANers (among others) to undervalue him, to see him as possibly a one-year wonder. He snuck up on us all. But in truth, his 2005 is not really out of line with his record from his minor league days through his rookie year; it's the two years in between that seem anomalous to me. Anyway, we've already gone through the early, teething, semi-effective years for Mark Ellis (and hopefully for Crosby as well), and now we've got ourselve a fully-developed, championship-caliber ballplayer. Let's not be too eager to shove him out the door so we can quickly get to the early, teething, semi-effective years for Melillo or Pennington, who one day hope to be as good as Mark Ellis is right now.

Mark Ellis is going nowhere for at least 2 years (I can see a possible trade when he heads into his walk year). Let's enjoy him while we can.

On another topic completely, I was highly amused by a tidbit in Tim Kawakami's feel-good piece It's not too early to board A's bandwagon in the Mercury News this morning: Acccording to Ken Macha, the A's lineup now has ``a little more bling to it, so to speak.'' Kenny!

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It's a good deal

Since he brings defense and offense at a primarily no offense position.

But this begs the question: What about Kevin Melillo? I like him a lot, and he's got a better bat than Ellis. Does he now become trade bait? I'd like to keep both, but there is no position. There is one type of solution though...

That would be: Trade Dan Johnson after next year. Barton comes into the 1B and Melillo takes over as DH. Either way, someone is going to have to be traded.

Of course, there is also Melillo moving to third and trading Chavez, but i don't want to think about that.

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Jan 28, 2006 7:16 AM PST reply actions

Ellis trade

You can't discount an Ellis trade either.

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 7:28 AM PST up reply actions

Speaking of discounts...

...buying out his last few years of arb eligibility make him more attractive in a trade one day. I'm just sayin'.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Jan 28, 2006 7:49 AM PST up reply actions

But why?

Why do people want to talk about that? After all, Bobby Crosby is also under contract through his arb years, he'd make damn attractive trade bait, too. As a shortstop he'd have even more trade value than Ellis. And though Crosby's potential is wonderful, Ellis's 2005 is easily the best season either of them has actually produced so far. Crosby's only under the club's control for one year longer than Ellis is, and Pennington is a shortstop. Why isn't there a contingent of ANers eagerly speculating about "flipping" Crosby in a year or two?

The whole point of this speculative game we like to play about trading this guy or that guy is, or should be, to wind up with players as good as Crosby and Ellis. Once you've got them in place, stop! You don't continue on saying, hey look, we've got a prospect here who (after a couple below-par years getting his feet wet) might (or might not!) be able to establish himself at the level of productivity that Mark Ellis has already established for himself--so let's "flip" Ellis and insert the new guy!

Hell no, I don't want to trade Crosby. And I like Melillo and Pennington, too. But they've got a lot of developing to do before they're ready to contribute to a big league club, let alone a big league club that has championship aspirations. There's plenty of time to wait and see whether they are up to the challenge. Meanwhile, Ellis's breakout season was a gift, like hitting on a high draft choice. We had four rookies establish themselves as players, but in addition to that we had Mark Ellis reestablish himself as a player when there were questions about whether he had any value left at all. He showed that not only is he a player, he's a true asset, not just a placeholder. I think he deserves a bit more respect than he tends to get here.

I'm just sayin', too.

by Faust on Jan 28, 2006 8:32 AM PST up reply actions

well

If you are bringing up Crosby:

Crosby is three years younger and has higher upside. Ellis probably won't repeat this year, and he's already 28. That's the downside. I could see him traded after next year.

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Jan 28, 2006 9:05 AM PST up reply actions

We talk about it

Because it is a possibility. Ramon? T-Long? Mulder? All were locked up then traded. Say we have Melillo bashing away in AAA, yet we are in dire need of a LF or SP after a free agency departure or two... we can trade Ellis for another MLB piece to fill that gap, just like the Ramon/T-Long for Kotsay deal did for us in CF.

And since you mentioned him, Crosby's fair game too, as is anybody on the team, really. You can't predict the future, which is why we're not signing Ellis or Crobsy to a 10-year deal. You gotta be prepared to be flexible when sh*t happens, or even when good things happen, like a prospect breaking out.

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 9:21 AM PST up reply actions

Plus

We don't have to replace Ellis with a prospect. Say a good MLB-proven 2B is on the trade or free agent market... we can trade Ellis to fill a hole and acquire a new MLB-proven 2B. Let's just say Ellis is not untouchable.

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 9:28 AM PST up reply actions

Sure

Under the right circumstances, anybody can be traded. But you only look to trade someone if some compelling reason exists: he sucks and you can replace him with someone better (T Long), he's blocked (Teahen), he's coming up on free agency (Hudson, maybe Zito), he's expensive relative to the value he provides (Redman, maybe Byrnes, maybe Payton), he's a risk to decline significantly (Mulder). Ellis is in his peak years, inexpensive for a player of his caliber, it will be 2 years before he's even entering his walk year, and (unless he declines way more than I think he will) can't be replaced without almost certainly weakening the team's performance at the position for 1-2 years. The best trades are ones that solve your problems without opening up new holes, and those don't generally involve someone who is where Ellis will be in 2006-2007.

That's all I'm saying. Barring no-trade provisions, anyone can be traded, but there are conditions that make a player "ripe" for trade, and those don't apply to Ellis. Heading into his walk year in 2008? That's another story.

by Faust on Jan 28, 2006 9:55 AM PST up reply actions

It's not a big deal

I was just pointing out to Ohad that he shouldn't automatically assume that Melillo or Pennington were going to be traded. I just told him that an Ellis trade is still a possibility in the next three years.

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 11:23 AM PST up reply actions

Fair enough

I don't want to sound strident (if I did). It surprises me a bit how much I've come to like Ellis, after wailing as much as I did in 2003 about all those soft easy flies to right he used to hit.

by Faust on Jan 28, 2006 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

re

Melillo still has plenty ways to go, and a lot to prove. He probably needs a bare minimum of another year and a half in the minors, and more likely two seasons, or two and change. I assume he's going back to Midland to start this year, and not likely to be promoted before the ASB, if at all (only if he's playing exceptionally well). No need to rush him whatsoever. Let him show .200 ISO before any talk of DH or 1B either (or bat .320, or maintain the Midland ISO, but get the BB rate back to Kane County levels). Let's not forget that Brant Colamarino slugged nearly .600 in his 200 ABs at Midland (he's my A's AAA sleeper btw; I think he just needed some adjustment time).

by 31Boots on Jan 28, 2006 8:35 AM PST up reply actions

Ellis = Stability

To see a pending 3 year deal for Mark Ellis is highly encouraging. Ellis, a former shortstop I believe is being viewed by Beane as yet another versatile player who can handle SS duties if pressed.We are all aware of his All-Star caliber play at 2nd. But if injuries were to recur to Crosby, the infled defense won't suffer too much. While the rash of injuries as we saw last year highly unlikely to happen again, Beane has really placed empahasis on versatility this off-season. Last year's injury plagued season made him keenly aware of how difficult and dangerous it can be to the health of a ballclub to run (even the younger ones) into the ground by playing them too much.
While Ellis arm strength will be questioned, it is not unreasonable to think that with rest this off-season as well as further conditioning he will return closer to his norm. We have back-ups for SS which continue to prove capable, I just see Ellis' intelligence, leadership and ability as a stabilizing factor that Beane realizes as well and thus prompted him to lock up through the prime years of his baseball career. This is yet another facet to this team that will keep opposing managers scratching their heads about as they try to match up to ours.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Jan 28, 2006 7:44 AM PST reply actions

Funny thing

A little while back I remember somebody on AN proposed a similar contract for Ellis, but he got laughed at. Anybody remember?

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 7:49 AM PST reply actions

Well, Scut the Great's

proposal was 4/11, which many of us pointed out as being too little for Ellis. There's a big difference between 3/11 and the more likely cost of a four year deal of 4/16.

This deal is really wash. We're buying out his first year of free agency for about 5.5-6 million, which is probably something of a 1 million deiscount in the final year of the contract. Cost certainty is nice, but is it really necessary to save 1 MM and assume the risk of collapse and/or injury?

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Jan 28, 2006 8:56 AM PST up reply actions

Nope

I don't think we are buying out any free agency years. Ellis was a super two, which means he has 4 years of arb eligibility- last year, and now three more. The three year contract would take him right through the arb eligible years. Slusser even says as much.

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 9:25 AM PST up reply actions

No, we're not

We're buying out his arb years, not any of his FA years. His 2002 was not a full season, so he doesn't hit 6 years service time until early in the 2008 season and his FA opportunity doesn't come until the following offseason.

He'd make about $2.5M this year from arbitration, a good $4.5 next year unless he really took a nosedive, and then another hefty raise in his 4th arb year. This deal saves more money than you acknowledge (in exchange for risk assumption, naturally).

Of course, it comes down to how good you think he is. Evidently Billy Beane thinks more highly of his value than you do.

by Faust on Jan 28, 2006 9:27 AM PST up reply actions

I stand corrected.

You can ignore my post.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Jan 28, 2006 9:29 AM PST up reply actions

Full season

How many games is considered a full season for arbitration?

by Scutaro The Great on Jan 28, 2006 11:09 AM PST up reply actions

It depends

Free agency is cut and dried -- need 6 full years major league service time.

Arbitration kicks in after 3 full years service time--except for the super twos. After any given season you select the 2-year service class (at least 2 full years of major league service time but less than 3 full years), and the top one-sixth (in terms of years & days of service time) of the guys in that group are also arbitration eligible. Hence, "super twos." But you never know until after the season exactly how many guys are in the 2-year class and exactly how much service time they have, so you can't say exactly how much time you need to spend in the big leagues to land in that top one-sixth.

In any case, Ellis's 2002 started early enough to count as the first of his three pre-arb years, but it wasn't a full season so it didn't count as the first of his six pre-FA years.

by Faust on Jan 28, 2006 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

re

I love this. All we need is something like the 03 season to get good value here. Something between 03 and 05 and we make off like bandits.

And besides that, Ellis is my favorite player.

by 31Boots on Jan 28, 2006 8:37 AM PST reply actions

He's my favorite player too

I got laughed at for suggesting, before the 2005 season, that Ellis would be a good #2 hitter. He's one of those guys who is so quiet about what he does that he has to hit .316 to get people's attention. Sadly, now he has people's attention and probably won't hit .316 again. But that's ok.

by Nico on Jan 28, 2006 8:54 AM PST up reply actions

dont you remember

AN hates mark ellis

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Jan 28, 2006 9:09 AM PST up reply actions

That would be me with the proposal a while

back but it's all good. I am glad that the A's gave Ellis this contract. Not too much money and even if he might not improve like some feel on AN (offensively) we still will have one the better double-play combos in the AL with Crosby and Ellis and definitley the best in the AL West.
I just had this hunch that the A's were moving in the direction of a multi-year deal with Ellis when he was not signed to a deal at the same time that the other arbitration eligable players were this offseason.

by Scutaro The Great on Jan 28, 2006 8:41 AM PST reply actions

Ellis

Its a good deal when looking at the big picture. Ellis had a great year offensively, but has played awesome defense ever since he put on an A's uniform. That alone makes this signing good. If the A's are serious about making a run this year, they will need his glove.

Penington or Melillo still have at least 2 yrs to go IMO. Trade bait or just more seasoning in the minors, either way Ellis at 2B works for me.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Jan 28, 2006 9:26 AM PST reply actions

So if I only had one great season...

...or should I say "half a season," I would be rewarded with an eleven million dollar contract, eh? What a country!

"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out" - Vaclav Havel

by Czech Micah on Jan 28, 2006 11:58 AM PST reply actions

Uh, no

This isn't about "rewarding" anybody. This is about paying for what you're expected to do, not what you've done

by OaktownTribesman on Jan 28, 2006 12:20 PM PST up reply actions

Let us hope he earns it...

...because I second base is clearly the coolest position in all of baseball.

"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out" - Vaclav Havel

by Czech Micah on Jan 28, 2006 1:16 PM PST up reply actions

So happy

I am so happy about this. I love Mark Ellis and am very happy not only to see him with the A's for years to come, but also happy to see a hard worker get rewarded. It was probably hell rehabbing that injury and it is such a wonderfl thing to see him reap the rewards.

"Don't be an ass!" --Bill King

by batgirl on Jan 28, 2006 12:03 PM PST reply actions