SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jackie Bradley
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 2, 2013 18:43:03 GMT -5
From that article: " And with seven hits in his last three games, the 22-year-old will force the team to make a difficult decision in a few weeks." Seven hits, folks. Seven! Tell Cooperstown to get a head start on his plaque.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Mar 2, 2013 19:24:56 GMT -5
Tim Raines is a more relevant model of a high OBP, low ISO leadoff hitter. To paraphrase Bill James, if you cut Tim Raines in half, you'd have two players better than Jackie Bradley Jr. This is getting silly. Is it really unrealistic to project that Bradley walk less and steal less than Tim Raines? I'm not sure what your objection is other than the typical hysterical bed-wetting every time a (soon-to-be) HOFer is mentioned. Cut Tim Raines into three players, trade off some hitting for elite fielding in center, and you get my comment: Freaking Denard Span is sometimes mentioned as a comp and has averaged 3.5 fWAR with a .357 OBP and a .105 ISO, he lacks even doubles power and his minor league record at a similar age was vastly inferior to Bradley's in college/minors. In short, there's nothing wrong with being very bullish on Bradley.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 2, 2013 20:03:57 GMT -5
I think the real danger here is the papal vacancy. I heard they are looking for a non-European. How could they pass him up?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 2, 2013 20:35:02 GMT -5
Cut Tim Raines into three players, trade off some hitting for elite fielding in center, and you get my comment So in other words, take Tim Raines and then chance him into an entirely different ballplayer? Yes, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 3, 2013 7:58:52 GMT -5
I think the only real relevant question is whether Jackie Bradley, Jr or Allen Webster gives the better Hall of Fame induction speech.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 3, 2013 13:23:19 GMT -5
I think the only real relevant question is whether Jackie Bradley, Jr or Allen Webster gives the better Hall of Fame induction speech. I assume that this is because you expect Rubby to use a translator for his speech?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 3, 2013 17:41:50 GMT -5
Rubby's going to be so sublime, his induction ceremony will simply be him throwing a single pitch, while the attending audience watches and weeps quietly.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 3, 2013 18:01:03 GMT -5
I think JBJ gets a tad shafted on the prospects lists basically he is a much better prospect than Desmond Jennings ever was, and Jennings was rated the sixth prospect overall by BA in their 2010 list. That's sad.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 3, 2013 19:27:02 GMT -5
I think JBJ gets a tad shafted on the prospects lists basically he is a much better prospect than Desmond Jennings ever was, and Jennings was rated the sixth prospect overall by BA in their 2010 list. That's sad. Really? Their age 22 years were fairly similar, except that JBJ was at A+ and AA, while Jennings was at AA and AAA, and also stole 52 bases, plus at 6' 2" he might project for more power. How is it not reasonable to rank Jennings higher? JBJ is "much better" than Jennings ever was? You could argue for a tad better, but you could also lose that argument.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 3, 2013 20:07:41 GMT -5
I think JBJ gets a tad shafted on the prospects lists basically he is a much better prospect than Desmond Jennings ever was, and Jennings was rated the sixth prospect overall by BA in their 2010 list. That's sad. Really? There age 22 years were fairly similar, except that JBJ was at A+ and AA, while Jennings was at AA and AAA, and also stole 52 bases, plus at 6' 2" he might project for more power. How is it not reasonable to rank Jennings higher? JBJ is "much better" than Jennings ever was? You could argue for a tad better, but you could also lose that argument. Much better was a bit of homerism of my part. But very much in the same league as prospects, and for my tastes I like JBJ package better than I liked Jennings.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 3, 2013 20:51:30 GMT -5
and for my tastes I like JBJ package better than I liked Jennings. Eewww. Don, you don't need to share these things with this board.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 4, 2013 11:14:30 GMT -5
Really? Their age 22 years were fairly similar, except that JBJ was at A+ and AA, while Jennings was at AA and AAA, and also stole 52 bases, plus at 6' 2" he might project for more power. How is it not reasonable to rank Jennings higher? JBJ is "much better" than Jennings ever was? You could argue for a tad better, but you could also lose that argument. Much better was a bit of homerism of my part. But very much in the same league as prospects, and for my tastes I like JBJ package better than I liked Jennings. I'm glad you accept my calling you on the homerist exaggeration. If JBJ does as well as we hope at AA and AAA this year, having him ranked as high as #10 like Jennings would be reasonable. But we should also remember that Jennings has not taken off like a rocket in mlb, though he still projects to be quite good.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Mar 5, 2013 10:34:28 GMT -5
woe woe woe.... wait a minute, I missed this whole discussion? So we're cutting Tim Raines in half, maybe even into thirds? When does this happen and more importantly does Tim Raines know about this.
If you cut Tim Raines in half , he wouldn't be anywhere close to the ballplayer that Jackey Bradley Jr. is , that's just stupid. JBJ is easily better then two one-legged , one-armed , one-eyed Tim Raines's.....
|
|
larrycook
Veteran
Posts: 2,471
Member is Online
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 5, 2013 14:22:17 GMT -5
I have not seen much of Bradley this spring, but it seemed to me that last year, he did not like being pitched inside. I thought if he could figure that out, he would be ready for Boston.
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Mar 8, 2013 12:26:31 GMT -5
If Ortiz isn't ready to start the season do we start JBJ in the majors and move Gomes to DH? I have been against bringing JBJ up before he has a chance for more AA/AAA at bats but if he is our best option do we sacrifice that development and take a shot at him in the majors? All of our other options seem to add another RH bat to the equation (Lavarnway, Gomez, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 8, 2013 13:04:34 GMT -5
If Ortiz isn't ready to start the season do we start JBJ in the majors and move Gomes to DH? I have been against bringing JBJ up before he has a chance for more AA/AAA at bats but if he is our best option do we sacrifice that development and take a shot at him in the majors? All of our other options seem to add another RH bat to the equation (Lavarnway, Gomez, etc.). I know he's looked good against pitchers throwing a bunch of fastballs in spring training, but you can't count of Bradley being immediately productive in the majors this year. Bradley has a good bat, but there's plenty of prospects with even better bats that struggle in their first exposure to the majors. I don't the difference between him and one of the quad-A types is worth rushing him AND throwing away a year of service time.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 8, 2013 13:23:20 GMT -5
"Better bat" doesn't necessarily mean better suited to adjust to major league pitching quickly. He has a mature approach at the plate. The reason Bradley isn't considered an elite offensive prospect is because people feel his ceiling is limited compared to some others. That doesn't mean he's not more advanced.
I think we get caught up in going through all the stages of development. Honestly, the kids makeup is off the charts. He's incredibly grounded and not a high risk to shrink if he's hit with some struggles or early failure. He's also the type of player who we could actually be losing one of his most productive years by not taking advantage of this one.
Back before performance enhancing drugs, a players prime was mid 20's through about 31ish. Then guys started taking all sorts of stuff and the early to mid 30's became extended primes. That's not so much the case anymore. I'm not telling you he's ready, but I'm saying don't be so quick to say he's not. Slowing the clock down, isn't such a good idea either. This is his age 23 season. Would you rather be deciding to give him his extension when he's 29/30 or when he's 30/31?
I don't know the right answer, but it's worth considering.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 8, 2013 13:29:01 GMT -5
"Better bat" doesn't necessarily mean better suited to adjust to major league pitching quickly. He has a mature approach at the plate. The reason Bradley isn't considered an elite offensive prospect is because people feel his ceiling is limited compared to some others. That doesn't mean he's not more advanced. I mean, fine. Maybe he is ready. But if that's really the case, he's not going to be any less ready after crushing AA or AAA for a couple months. Back before performance enhancing drugs, a players prime was mid 20's through about 31ish. Then guys started taking all sorts of stuff and the early to mid 30's became extended primes. That's not so much the case anymore. I'm not telling you he's ready, but I'm saying don't be so quick to say he's not. Slowing the clock down, isn't such a good idea either. This is his age 23 season. Would you rather be deciding to give him his extension when he's 29/30 or when he's 30/31? Dude, says who? Do you have even a shread of evidence to back this up? Or for that matter any evidence that guys aren't taking "stuff" anymore? Also, I seem to recall that back in the Canseco days, the prevailing wisdom was that steroids would make you break down earlier. Then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens happened and we decided that, no, wait, steroids to the opposite thing. That's the nice thing about steroids; since there's no real answer to what they do, you can just imagine them to be whatever it is that best suites your arguement at the time. Don't do that, it's intellectually lazy.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Mar 8, 2013 22:04:36 GMT -5
Thinking outside of the box a little....
1) Bradley is ready now defensively for sure.
2) Bradley does appear to have a very advanced hitting approach already, particularly in terms of getting on base.
3) Bradley has produced in high pressure situations in college and seems to be a mature young man emotionally, capable of dealing with adversity and a big market.
4) Considering the wear and tear a center fielder often takes in MLB, are the normal "prime" years the same for a center fielder? Would he be better now rather than at 29? Look at other CF who have aged quickly in mlb and had difficulty staying on the field, for example Grady Sizemore.
5) What are our needs THIS YEAR? Would he not fit in as a solid outfielder against all RH pitching and as a defensive replacement for THIS TEAM? The kid would potentially get into almost every game if he were also subbed as a defensive replacement in left field and he would probably play against most RH pitching considering the extreme splits of our normal LF and RF starters.
6) He's a young player who is not used to playing 155 games anyway. He may be better off playing with some periodic rest in order to optimize his performance. Would he not develop just as fast in this situation, playing in at least 2/3 the games?.
7) It could just be that Bradley is one of our best lead off options already. Enabling us to slot Ellsbury at #3. Significantly changing the entire lineup.
*** I'm not saying go with Bradley at the start of the year but after we arrange to keep him from being a super 2, I have no problem bringing him up if he starts off well in AAA. The key to me is why did he slump the last month in AA ball? Was it a pitching adjustment which he just couldn't handle? Or was it fatigue and/or injuries or just a slump? To me that is a huge aspect of this decision.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 8, 2013 22:10:05 GMT -5
Bill James says a players peak years are between 25 and 29. Others state 27-31. If you are going to argue that there is no evidence players peak years extended far later into their 30s during what is wildly considered the steroid era then go right ahead. Maybe my perception is off, but offensive numbers have changed a lot the last 3 years. My prediction is its going to be more of a younger mans game going forward. If guys are ready, I want as many of their good years as possible. I'm not interested in delaying the clock so I have to decide whether to resign a guy at 30 or 31. Would much prefer to do it earlier.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 8, 2013 23:11:25 GMT -5
I think it's really, really silly to hinge promotion decisions on what age Bradley would be if the Red Sox wanted to re-sign him in free agency six years down the road.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 9, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5
5) What are our needs THIS YEAR? Would he not fit in as a solid outfielder against all RH pitching and as a defensive replacement for THIS TEAM? The kid would potentially get into almost every game if he were also subbed as a defensive replacement in left field and he would probably play against most RH pitching considering the extreme splits of our normal LF and RF starters. And that's why I don't think it makes sense to bring him up right away. Bradley needs to get put in situations that are sub-optimal so that he can do some trial-and-error learning - like getting run out there against tough lefties - to get better. And that's not necessarily the way to maximize wins for the Boston Red Sox this year. Probably he can help as a left-handed platoon outfielder and defensive whiz right now, but that might retard his development as an everyday outfielder. His (hopeful) future is as an anchor player, a guy who holds down center field every day. But, the reality is that he's the primary backup in case of injury to Ellsbury or Victorino unless they keep Sweeney (and/or Nava doesn't look completely lost in RF). So I think it's pretty likely that he sees some significant time on Boston this year no matter what the initial decision is.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 9, 2013 10:32:16 GMT -5
Agree with this. Bradley seems to have potential but let's be real, 1) it's spring training, a small sample illusion against uneven talent; he can still strongly benefit from AAA at bats. 2) unless there's a catastrophic run of OF injuries between now and April 1 he's not seeing time on the MLB roster before late April even if he bats .500 in his first three weeks at Pawtucket because they want to maximize control - especially this regime, and especially with the way the CBA has shaken out.
Now, if someone wants to talk to me about why they should plan on Bradley for the OF next year (or even from mid June onward if he really does thrive in AAA up to that point) AND giving Ellsbury a 5 year deal, then Im all ears. However, they'll also need to talk to me on how you talk Scott Boras and Ells into that, too.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Mar 9, 2013 12:20:15 GMT -5
I have always loved Bradley and was thrilled that we got him. But to me his value is as a center fielder so I see absolutely no reason to rush him unless there is an injury. If he tears it up at AAA a mid season call up makes sense. I think everyone would agree it is highly likely that we will need a center fielder next year and he should be ready to take over then.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 9, 2013 15:27:45 GMT -5
Bill James says a players peak years are between 25 and 29. Others state 27-31. If you are going to argue that there is no evidence players peak years extended far later into their 30s during what is wildly considered the steroid era then go right ahead. Maybe my perception is off, but offensive numbers have changed a lot the last 3 years. My prediction is its going to be more of a younger mans game going forward. If guys are ready, I want as many of their good years as possible. I'm not interested in delaying the clock so I have to decide whether to resign a guy at 30 or 31. Would much prefer to do it earlier. That's not how this works. You're the one making a claim, the burdon of presenting evidence is on you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
|
|
|