Mark Ellis: The Poll

by mikeA on Jul 14, 2008 2:46 PM PDT Comment 44 comments

I am curious as to the predictive powers of AN. The question is: will Mark Ellis be resigned? Not should he be, etc., etc., but will he be? Many think the acquisitions of Weeks and Patterson, not wanting to spend money, and the desire to "go young" indicate that he will not. I think that he will, the reason being that it makes sense, and the FO generally does things that make sense. Also, he appears to want to stay.

So, what do you think?

Poll

Mark Ellis will resign with the A's:

Yes

165 votes

No

108 votes

273 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Fingers crossed

But I’m pessimistic

by nevermoor on Jul 14, 2008 3:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But my inner school marm wants you to hyphenate re-sign.

How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jul 14, 2008 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

your inner schoolmarm has some extra space between her ears

closed: 188,000 plus accord with dictionary.com

open: 63,000

(And, of course, Cubs fans have an inner schoolmarmol. Nihilists have an inner schoolmarmot. And I have an inner schoolmarmoset.)

I told them 'My game is like a blog.' Because I don't know what a blog is, but it don't sound good. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 14, 2008 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

British boys have inner schoolmarmolade... for breakfast

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice marmot

"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006

by flipgatey3 on Jul 14, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant "retire with"

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 14, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love the tags!

Mark Ellis: sent down from Heaven to rob Evil of hits and hand out rainbows

by Jennifer on Jul 14, 2008 3:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No

If they were going to, they would have ironed it out in Spring Training before this season. And eventually the guy should win a gold glove award. That could be this year in which case his value will go up. Now that I mention it, I could see his agent telling him: “Mark you’re one of the best defensive infieders in the game and have been close to winning the gold glove over the past 2 or 3 seasons. If you hold out on signing a contact and win it this year that could mean millions of dollars more for you (...and me).”

by GusanoQuemador on Jul 14, 2008 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Unpopular as it may sound

I’d prefer he goes on to bigger and better things. He is at the point in hsi career where he will begin to decline soon, if he hasn’t already. I’d prefer to let Patterson have a shot next season.

by jeffro on Jul 14, 2008 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As long As ESPN is not covering Mark

He will remain the radar and be able to re-up with the A’s.

by asfansince1989 on Jul 14, 2008 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm in the camp

that thinks the acquisition of Patterson was a sign that Ellis’ time in Oakland is ending. I really hope I’m wrong.

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jul 14, 2008 4:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That is plausible but:

assuming,
1)Gallagher was the main target
2)Only the Cubs (or maybe 1 other team) were in the running,
3)No chance at Vitters

Once they got Gallagher, the Cubs only had 3 at all plausible position player prospects, out of which Patterson was the best (and Donaldson was another.) So I think picking up Patterson had a lot less to do with positional need than with the fact that that was where the Cubs’ talent happened to be. That said, it remains to be seen whether the fact that they have Patterson now will make them less inclined to devote money to 2B.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 14, 2008 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you really see the A's changing 2B philosophy that radically?

Or has Ellis been an anomaly?

I told them 'My game is like a blog.' Because I don't know what a blog is, but it don't sound good. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 14, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well our pre-Ellis philosophy was

“lets have an absolutely garbage prospect play” he’s certainly an anomaly.

by nevermoor on Jul 14, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not convinced that there is a 2B philosophy, per se

The A’s certainly found/developed an excellent player in Ellis, and probably recognize his value more than some other teams. But when given an option that offers 75% of the production for 5% of the price, Beane tends to take it.

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jul 14, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

75% of the production?

More like 40%... and the least important 40% at that…

(Speaking in WARP terms, anyway.)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

Ellis rates to be about 20 runs above replacement offensively, and 35 runs above replacement defensively. They may figure Patterson will be a tick better offensively (25 runs above replacement) and just below average defensively (15 runs above replacement).

That might be a bit pessimistic for Ellis or a bit optimistic for Patterson but not wildly so.

You seem to be suggesting that Ellis will be a 7 win player going forward, which is about what he has been in his best years, and that Patterson will only be a 3 win player. Those estimates aren’t wildly unrealistic either, but they seem to be skewed in the opposite direction, especially considering that Ellis is 31 and we’re talking about the next 3-4 years, not just 2009.

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jul 14, 2008 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm skeptical that Ellis will continue as a 35 RAR defender

I’m not aware of any precedents for that in the 31-35 age range. Even if he averages 25 RAR the next 4 years, that’s not a huge improvement over Patterson/Weeks for a lot more money. I think that was your point as well. Was it?

There’s also the significant risk of collapse for Ellis as a 30+ 2B, e.g. Green, Alomar. I wouldn’t re-sign him, but I think the A’s will. They seem to like these previously very good 30+ players, e.g. Kotsay, Kendall, Justice…I guess Loaiza.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 14, 2008 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, the above was poorly phrased

I didn’t mean literally in terms of WARP, the BP stat. The replacement level on that stat is way too low, because you can typically find replacement level offense with average defense (or vice versa).

I’m figuring Patterson as a league-average player, about 20 runs above replacement. Ellis is about 5 runs above average as a hitter (actually he’s an average hitter playing second, which is basically the same thing) and 25 above average as a fielder. 5+25+20=50. Hence the 40% figure.

Let’s assume Ellis is going to decline by 5 runs a year as he ages. Under that scenario he only averages 20 RAA (120 RAR) over the next 3 years. Let’s also assume Patterson improves by 5 runs a year from average in 2009 to 10 RAA in 2011. That’s 75 RAR, or still less than 2/3 of the Ellis production—and that’s a pretty damn optimistic scenario for Patterson.

If the A’s are serious about contending, they cannot afford to just willfully throw away 4-6 wins which are being presented to them on a silver platter. It’s very rare that a small-payroll team gets this chance to buy such a clear, obvious upgrade on the free agent market. If you’re not spending money on Ellis, frankly, you might as well just pocket it and stop pretending you’re trying to field a winning baseball team.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2008 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forget about percentages

It seems like we agree (more or less) on the numbers. In your aging scenario, Ellis is an average of 1.5 wins/year better than Patterson over the next three years, which is the same as my estimate. You seem to think the gap will likely be a little bit more than that, but it’s somewhere in that ballpark.

In isolation, paying an extra $7-8 million or so for an extra one and a half wins is not a particularly good bargain, even by free agent standards. As a fan, I really want to see Ellis stick around. But as an armchair GM, I don’t think the case for re-signing him (either “should” or “will”) is particularly strong.

On your last point, again I agree. Free agents are rarely good values, but if you never pay full price for a player you’re likely to end up with a team which is a “good value” but ultimately mediocre. Much like what we have now.

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jul 15, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm probably missing (or misinterpreting) something

[A]s an armchair GM, I don’t think the case for re-signing him (either "should" or "will") is particularly strong.

Isn’t the case for re-signing him exactly what you go on to say two sentences later?

Free agents are rarely good values, but if you never pay full price for a player you’re likely to end up with a team which is a "good value" but ultimately mediocre. Much like what we have now.

You have to occasionally overpay for those extra wins, no? Championships aren’t ~~always~~ ever precisely correlated with good value, as you say. So why wouldn’t this maxim apply to Ellis?

by 74mk on Jul 15, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

They will certainly need to spend some money somewhere to make this team competitive with the likes of the Red Sox. Whether they choose to do spend it on Ellis probably depends on a number of other factors like:
what they think the real odds are of Patterson (or Pennington or, a little farther out, Weeks) turning into an average+ second baseman (an issue I’m semi-skirting here);
whether they anticipate bigger needs or bigger free-agent bargains at other positions; and
how serious they are about competing in the short run.

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Jul 15, 2008 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

depends on what other (nonmarginal) upgrades are available for similar-ish money, and what the budget is

I agree with andeux’s logic there, and I don’t think it necessarily leads to “ought to re-sign Ellis” as you do.

If the overall perf downgrade from Ellis-Patterson isn’t all that big, I’d rather “we” let Ellis go and, say, trade Street/Blanton/Murton to the Sox for Manny and use the Ellis cost savings to defray some (obv., not all) of the cost of picking up Manny’s ‘09 and ‘10 options.

And if not Manny, some other elite talent. I’m still agnostic on PT’s valuation scheme for Ellis; I don’t consider him to be an “elite talent,” which I think is the sort of expenditure that andeux was talking about—after all, we’ve seen the folly of Beane overpaying for his own proprietary valuations on non-elite players the last several years. (Which proprietary valuation scheme is why I think Beane likely will, perhaps inadvisably, re-sign Ellis.)

I told them 'My game is like a blog.' Because I don't know what a blog is, but it don't sound good. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 15, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I find this a confusing position

because Manny really does not project as a good value at all over the next few years unless he’s DHing (in which case you have Jack Cust fielding instead, not much of an improvement), and even if he is, he’s still not a sizable upgrade. He’s probably 15 RAA as a DH right now. Cust is about average as a DH, but I think he’s a below average LF because he’s so bad in the field. That probably eats a few runs off that 15 run figure.

I mean, Mark Ellis is better than Manny right now, AND cheaper, AND younger. I know we’re all frustrated about the A’s seemingly impotent offense, but a run is a run whether you’re saving it on defense or scoring it on offense.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 15, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is very little elite FA talent to be had in the next few years

especially at SS and 3B where the need is greatest. Also, Ellis is better than Manny.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 15, 2008 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I voted "no"

as part of my ongoing program of bracing myself, which I began in March 2004.

And thanks for the tags, since I always search for my name first before deciding whether or not something’s worth reading… ;)

There's no textbook for how to treat a geriatric tapir.

by Poppy on Jul 14, 2008 4:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

you’re mychael urban?

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jul 14, 2008 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that kind of "bracer"

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 15, 2008 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he'll be re-signed.

by #14fan on Jul 14, 2008 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he will be re-signed.

With Patterson, Pennington, Guzman, Petit knocking on the door for the near future I don’t see Beane offering much for Ellis.
It is a shame that Bankston can’t play 2nd or SS.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Jul 14, 2008 6:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or anything else, for that matter

Dude is kind of a butcher with the glove. And I doubt his bat would be credible at DH.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 14, 2008 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wes Bankston is basically DJ with slightly different skills

but similar replaceability.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Highly doubt that Beane will re-sign Ellis

Article here says that Ellis and Patterson are pretty much equal offensively, with Ellis having the advantage in defense, proven MLB track record, and Patterson having the advantage in age and cost.

Procrastinators unite....tomorrow

by muffinpryde on Jul 14, 2008 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No.

It’s not like Billy Beane has suddenly decided that expensive 4-year contracts for guys in their 30’s are a good idea. He will probably command one of those on the open market.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 14, 2008 7:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I also voted no

basically for the reason you said. Maybe there’s a chance that Mark will sign a one or two year deal, and if so the A’s could do that. But if he wants more than two years, he’s going elsewhere.

The glare was not practiced. I would get into the game situations, and when that happens, there comes a level of concentration that most can only imagine but can never achieve. You become what you are doing, and that is what you see on my face. -Dave Stewart

by Hegenberger Road on Jul 14, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jul 14, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs