A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : Do you really see Brentz as a starting right fielder for a championship caliber team?  I will have to use my MiLB membership to scout some more games of him... I haven't seen him play but once so I don't have a good sample size.
    Posted by RedSoxDOrtiz[/QUOTE]

    Depends on how his power continues to develop.  I certainly wouldn't write off anyone who's hit 30 HR's in a season (just 115 games!) and is showing the ability to adjust to more advanced pitching.  He could benefit from working more walks, but I'd be happy with a home grown Adam Dunn type player, with better fielding although slightly fewer walks to go with fewer K's still about 1 per game, but less than Dunn who has never had more games than K's at the MLB level.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    Gee Willikers, aren't all the Red Sox players great?   I mean, Jiminy Crickets, they all used to be so darsh gone good, and wholesome too!

    It makes you wonder why the Sox have retired Nbr 1....is it in honour of Jackie Robinson?  Nope, he was nbr 26, and anyway failed his tryout at Fenway for not being....something...not good enough anyway.  That makes no sense. 

    Why is it nbr 1 is retired?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to  Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : Excellent post & thread. On a related issue: for those of you guys who are lamenting the loss of VMart and Beltre, we got Barnes and Owens as comp picks for losing VMart, and we got Bradley and Swihart as comp picks for losing Beltre. Posted by moonslav59 It'll be interesting to see who we get with the comp pick for Papelbon. We actually get 2 picks:  #31 and #37.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Hopefully Ben C can score with them like it looks like Theo did last year.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxDOrtiz. Show RedSoxDOrtiz's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : Depends on how his power continues to develop.  I certainly wouldn't write off anyone who's hit 30 HR's in a season (just 115 games!) and is showing the ability to adjust to more advanced pitching.  He could benefit from working more walks, but I'd be happy with a home grown Adam Dunn type player, with better fielding although slightly fewer walks to go with fewer K's still about 1 per game, but less than Dunn who has never had more games than K's at the MLB level.
    Posted by JB-3[/QUOTE]

    That's a good point, but keep in mind Dunn has a career 374 OBP because he strikes out a ton as well as walks a ton.  I think what you would end up with is closer to Wily Mo Pena than Adam Dunn without the walks.  So you might have your Adam Dunn minus the OBP.  I think this year is the real test for Bryce since he made the toughest jump in the minors to AA... but it does concern me that he only has 8 total walks in 149 at bats.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    I think K's are over-rated.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : That's a good point, but keep in mind Dunn has a career 374 OBP because he strikes out a ton as well as walks a ton.  I think what you would end up with is closer to Wily Mo Pena than Adam Dunn without the walks.  So you might have your Adam Dunn minus the OBP.  I think this year is the real test for Bryce since he made the toughest jump in the minors to AA... but it does concern me that he only has 8 total walks in 149 at bats.
    Posted by RedSoxDOrtiz[/QUOTE]

    The walks will come as he matures as a hitter (or at least that's what I"m going to keep telling myself).  Would you take a .340 OBP from a guy who can hit 30 HR's and drive in 85 runs a year?  He still has to show that the power will carry to AA and beyond, but his OBP is sitting at .342 right now, even after his horrible start.

    Brentz's May numbers (15 games): .426/.453/.656 3 HR, 7 RBI, 2 BB, 16 K.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    Where do you get monthly numbers for minor leaguers?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]Where do you get monthly numbers for minor leaguers?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?p

    BDC doesn't let me post the link because it has "P O S"..... So you'll have to combine the 2 lines above.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : Do you really see Brentz as a starting right fielder for a championship caliber team?  I will have to use my MiLB membership to scout some more games of him... I haven't seen him play but once so I don't have a good sample size.
    Posted by RedSoxDOrtiz[/QUOTE]

    I sure do if he keep up his progression..Some people wrote off Middlebrooks because of his K rate while in AA...He has improved on that and is still getting better...To write off a kid, who by the way jacked 30 bombs in 115 games last year, and call him trade bait without even seeing him play premature at best...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes


    Moon, I agree with you about K's--the only things about K's that I see as a negative is you don't have the opportunity to advance a base runner with a K or the opportunity to have the opposing team make a misplay.
    That being said--when you look at Mark Reynolds numbers, over the years, his HR and RBI totals are pretty good even though he is a K machine. To me he would be a fine addition to a team if he were even a mediocre fielder and strikes out a lot.

    Re: Bradley--like Barnes what good is it having him spend a whole season at Low A, a whole season at High A, then a season split, perhaps between AA and AAA.
    He's been around the High A--a couple of times by now--move Bradley to where he's going to be tested. If he's a Pedroia type I want to see if he can compete--it's not like he's 18--the kid has played on a competitive college team---let's see how he copes with really being challenged by better pitchers. It was mentioned earlier that Brentz has had to make adjustments at AA--he was also a college player now reaching a challenge--how he adjusts is what the talent scouts want to see.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]Moon, I agree with you about K's--the only things about K's that I see as a negative is you don't have the opportunity to advance a base runner with a K or the opportunity to have the opposing team make a misplay. That being said--when you look at Mark Reynolds numbers, over the years, his HR and RBI totals are pretty good even though he is a K machine. To me he would be a fine addition to a team if he were even a mediocre fielder and strikes out a lot. Re: Bradley--like Barnes what good is it having him spend a whole season at Low A, a whole season at High A, then a season split, perhaps between AA and AAA. He's been around the High A--a couple of times by now--move Bradley to where he's going to be tested. If he's a Pedroia type I want to see if he can compete--it's not like he's 18--the kid has played on a competitive college team---let's see how he copes with really being challenged by better pitchers. It was mentioned earlier that Brentz has had to make adjustments at AA--he was also a college player now reaching a challenge--how he adjusts is what the talent scouts want to see.
    Posted by MadMc44[/QUOTE]

    Hes already starting to adjust well MM...in the last 10 games Brentz is batting .452 and 19 for his last 42 ab's...Only 5 xtra base hits 1 HR and 4 rbi, but Im sure that will pick up...I think its ok to have a couple free-er swingers in this lineup since there are already some really patient hitters...Like Middlebrooks, I think Brentz will have better pitch recognition as he develops more, but will still have his share of K's...If he keeps his OBP around 340-360 (currently .342, even with a terrible start) and a slugging pct over .500, which he should, then I dont see any reason why he couldnt be our FT RHH RF'er with some pop starting in 2014...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]It was mentioned earlier that Brentz has had to make adjustments at AA--he was also a college player now reaching a challenge--how he adjusts is what the talent scouts want to see.
    Posted by MadMc44[/QUOTE]

    See Brentz' May numbers that I posted previously in this thread.  The adjustment has happened, it's now that pitchers turn to make the next adjustment.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TitleTown11. Show TitleTown11's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    As an organizational philosophy, the Red Sox encourage hitters to take pitches and display solid discipline. The benefit is two-fold.

    1) Tire out starting pitchers and remove them from the game early and face the soft under belly that is middle relief.

    2) Work to a hitter's count and swing at hittable pitches.

    That being said, I have no problem with the Sox having a few hitters that don't follow this trend. When Lars was the #1 prospect, the overall sentiment from Sox fans was that the organization was unable to develop power hitters. Granted - Middlebrooks' plate approach still needs refinement and that will come with time, but to have a free-swinging power hitter amongst a patient, on-base focused lineup seems like a good idea to me. His athleticism and solid to great defense is only gravy on top. He may never be a 0.300/0.400 guy who walks more than he strikes out, but few power hitters are. If he can become a 1BB/2K type hitter then I would be thrilled. Let's just hope he doesn't turn out like Mark "200 K and 0.200 AVG" Reynolds...

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]As an organizational philosophy, the Red Sox encourage hitters to take pitches and display solid discipline. The benefit is two-fold. 1) Tire out starting pitchers and remove them from the game early and face the soft under belly that is middle relief. 2) Work to a hitter's count and swing at hittable pitches. That being said, I have no problem with the Sox having a few hitters that don't follow this trend. When Lars was the #1 prospect, the overall sentiment from Sox fans was that the organization was unable to develop power hitters. Granted - Middlebrooks' plate approach still needs refinement and that will come with time, but to have a free-swinging power hitter amongst a patient, on-base focused lineup seems like a good idea to me. His athleticism and solid to great defense is only gravy on top. He may never be a 0.300/0.400 guy who walks more than he strikes out, but few power hitters are. If he can become a 1BB/2K type hitter then I would be thrilled. Let's just hope he doesn't turn out like Mark "200 K and 0.200 AVG" Reynolds...
    Posted by TitleTown11[/QUOTE]

    I think it is actually beneficial to have a free swinger type in our line-up (see: Beltre). It kind of messes up the pitcher, and sometimes when a pitcher finds a groove against us, a guy like Beltre breaks it up with a dinger.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes


    Nothing wrong with a couple of free swinging batters in the line-up but there's a big difference between not working the count and striking out in 30% of your ABs.  Beltre is not a paragon of patience but he has a career 16-17% K rate and I don't think he's ever gone over 20% in a season.  Yes, the power can help make up for it but there aren't many guys with enough power to cover for 180-200 Ks per season.  More importantly, if you look at the ones who strike out that much (without getting shipped out of the MLB), most of them also draw a decent number of walks.  WMB has a bright future, but only if he either significantly decreases Ks, dramatically increases BB or something in between.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]Where do you get monthly numbers for minor leaguers?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Probably at www.milb.com. You can do game logs and probably summarize yourself if they don't already do so.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    Calling someone trade bait is a compliment not an insult.  Rival GMs know what they are doing (for the most part) and won't trade for someone unless they are getting a good prospect.  So to say a prospect is trade bait is to say that a rival GM would want to trade for this guy.

    Big market teams move quality prospects all the time when they are in "win now" mode.  This isnt a bridge year.  This team is built to compete in 2012 , not 2014, so if a move can be made to help 2012, it should be made.

    We arent the pirates, we dont need to field a team of home grown players.  There are always free agents.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]Calling someone trade bait is a compliment not an insult.  Rival GMs know what they are doing (for the most part) and won't trade for someone unless they are getting a good prospect.  So to say a prospect is trade bait is to say that a rival GM would want to trade for this guy. Big market teams move quality prospects all the time when they are in "win now" mode.  This isnt a bridge year.  This team is built to compete in 2012 , not 2014, so if a move can be made to help 2012, it should be made. We arent the pirates, we dont need to field a team of home grown players.  There are always free agents.
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]

    I'll assume were still talking about Brentz...It is a compliment IF other Gm's are in fact looking at him, not if a fan of the team designates him as trade bait... In the context it was presented, it didnt seem like a compliment...I dont mind if a player in AA has a higher K rate, depending on the player...For as bad a start as he has had, Brentz has a good obp (.342). I believe it will get better. Not stellar, but better...I also dont mind a couple free-er swingers in the lineup to offset the patient hitters we already have...Middlebrooks and Brentz would be those guys..Both should have decent enough OBP's (.340-.360) to make up for the K's they will have..Also think they will both more than make up for the K's in HR's, RBI and defense...Both are smart, hard working ballplayers that show consistant progress in their game...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : I'll assume were still talking about Brentz...It is a compliment IF other Gm's are in fact looking at him, not if a fan of the team designates him as trade bait... In the context it was presented, it didnt seem like a compliment...I dont mind if a player in AA has a higher K rate, depending on the player...For as bad a start as he has had, Brentz has a good obp (.342). I believe it will get better. Not stellar, but better...I also dont mind a couple free-er swingers in the lineup to offset the patient hitters we already have...Middlebrooks and Brentz would be those guys..Both should have decent enough OBP's (.340-.360) to make up for the K's they will have..Also think they will both more than make up for the K's in HR's, RBI and defense...Both are smart, hard working ballplayers that show consistant progress in their game...
    Posted by southpaw777[/QUOTE]

    I wasnt referring specifically to Brentz, just noting that a smart GM considers everything in his organization as trade bait.  Even current superstars.  Noone is untouchable.  Everyone has a price.

    I like Brentz too, but I'd trade him for pitching help in a second.  And I mean that as a compliment because I believe that we could get a good pitcher for him.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : I wasnt referring specifically to Brentz, just noting that a smart GM considers everything in his organization as trade bait.  Even current superstars.  Noone is untouchable.  Everyone has a price. I like Brentz too, but I'd trade him for pitching help in a second.  And I mean that as a compliment because I believe that we could get a good pitcher for him.
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]

    As would I if the deal made sense, see Adrian gonzalez deal...Although I am usually prone to let certain kids develop a little bit more if i think they are going to be better than most to get maximum return...With those players it would just depend on who was offered in the deal...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxDOrtiz. Show RedSoxDOrtiz's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : I'll assume were still talking about Brentz...It is a compliment IF other Gm's are in fact looking at him, not if a fan of the team designates him as trade bait... In the context it was presented, it didnt seem like a compliment...I dont mind if a player in AA has a higher K rate, depending on the player...For as bad a start as he has had, Brentz has a good obp (.342). I believe it will get better. Not stellar, but better...I also dont mind a couple free-er swingers in the lineup to offset the patient hitters we already have...Middlebrooks and Brentz would be those guys..Both should have decent enough OBP's (.340-.360) to make up for the K's they will have..Also think they will both more than make up for the K's in HR's, RBI and defense...Both are smart, hard working ballplayers that show consistant progress in their game...
    Posted by southpaw777[/QUOTE]

    The reason why I said he was trade bait was that he doesn't seem to follow the mold of a Red Sox mold player.  I wasn't dissing him, I just don't think that he fits into the team philosophy that has been set for the past decade.  Now I don't know if Ben is going to change that a bit, so he might make it to the Sox.  I am merely saying that if he continues to rake then the most likely situation would be to see him traded away.

    The Sox have a habbit of keeping their highest prospects and sell on hot hitting sub prospects that are still good prospects that don't fit the Red Sox mold or are injured too often.  See Casey Kelly, Bowden,  Raul Alcantara,  Miles Head,  Josh Reddick,  Josh Reddick, Jed Lowrie etc.

    I see Bradley as the type of Red Sox hitter that we have grown accustomed to having on the team like Youks, Pedroia, Ells etc.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : The reason why I said he was trade bait was that he doesn't seem to follow the mold of a Red Sox mold player.  I wasn't dissing him, I just don't think that he fits into the team philosophy that has been set for the past decade.  Now I don't know if Ben is going to change that a bit, so he might make it to the Sox.  I am merely saying that if he continues to rake then the most likely situation would be to see him traded away. The Sox have a habbit of keeping their highest prospects and sell on hot hitting sub prospects that are still good prospects that don't fit the Red Sox mold or are injured too often.  See Casey Kelly, Bowden,  Raul Alcantara,  Miles Head,  Josh Reddick,  Josh Reddick, Jed Lowrie etc. I see Bradley as the type of Red Sox hitter that we have grown accustomed to having on the team like Youks, Pedroia, Ells etc.
    Posted by RedSoxDOrtiz[/QUOTE]You subscribe to MiLB TV? I haven't had a chance to see Bradley play yet, but reading the reports on him he sounds a little like a young Reggie Smith.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxDOrtiz. Show RedSoxDOrtiz's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes : You subscribe to MiLB TV? I haven't had a chance to see Bradley play yet, but reading the reports on him he sounds a little like a young Reggie Smith.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    I subscribe to MLB TV and they had an option to add MiLB TV to the subscription for an extra 20 bucks so I added it.  Pretty darn cheap for a whole season compared to the 120 I paid for the MLB subscription.

    I have read nothing but glowing reports on Bradley but the Reggie Smith comment is a new one I haven't read yet.  He doesn't have the power of Reggie, but he is a true five tool player.  
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxDOrtiz. Show RedSoxDOrtiz's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    Just saw this article on ESPN about Jackie Bradley by Keith Law


    • Salem's Jackie Bradley Jr. (Red Sox) looked good, finally healthy after a lost 2011, although his stat line probably overstates where he really is in terms of mechanics and approach. His swing is back to where it was in 2010 before the hand injury; he gets his front foot down late but has his old bat speed back and enough rotational action for gap power. His approach has improved both in differentiating pitches and, more important, in greater willingness to use the whole field instead of just trying to pull the ball, since power will likely never be a large part of his game. He showed plus range in center as well. He's 22 in high-A and came from the best conference in college baseball; that resume, combined with his performance, should have him on the fast track for a promotion to Double-A Portland in the next month or so.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes

    In Response to Re: A look at the kids Jackie Bradley and Matt Barnes:
    [QUOTE]Just saw this article on ESPN about Jackie Bradley by Keith Law http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=law_keith&id=7946436&_slug_=jackie-bradley-jr-xander-bogaerts-ronny-rodriguez-shine-matchup-red-sox-indians-prospects&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dlaw_keith%26id%3d7946436%26_slug_%3djackie-bradley-jr-xander-bogaerts-ronny-rodriguez-shine-matchup-red-sox-indians-prospects • Salem's  Jackie Bradley Jr.  (Red Sox) looked good, finally healthy after a lost 2011, although his stat line probably overstates where he really is in terms of mechanics and approach. His swing is back to where it was in 2010 before the hand injury; he gets his front foot down late but has his old bat speed back and enough rotational action for gap power. His approach has improved both in differentiating pitches and, more important, in greater willingness to use the whole field instead of just trying to pull the ball, since power will likely never be a large part of his game. He showed plus range in center as well. He's 22 in high-A and came from the best conference in college baseball; that resume, combined with his performance, should have him on the fast track for a promotion to Double-A Portland in the next month or so.
    Posted by RedSoxDOrtiz[/QUOTE]That Portland outfield will be sick with Bradley and Linares in it.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share