1. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to ADG's comment:

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:

     

    heres the thing, sending him down to AAA is not going to do him much good, why? because AAA is filled with a variety of levels of competition which would not help him improve much as a hitter. the pitching is so inconsistent in AAA that it may not even help him improve as a hitter. thats why alot of top notch prospect go right to the bigs from AA. having him face consistent big league pitching would be more beneficial as he would learn to adjust to it. and it has become pretty evident that jackie bradley jr is the kind of hitter than learns to make adjustments and is very professional. i have no doubt that he would be able to handle the big leagues right now.

     



    But if sending him down for the first three or four weeks of the season will give the Sox another year of control, that would be the smart thing to do for a number of reasons. In addition to that extra year of control, it gives the Sox the chance to see how the new acquistions are doing. That's hardly going to make or break the season for the Sox.

     

     




    What's more important? A year of control for a big market team like the Red Sox or putting your best lineup out there that has a chance to make the playoffs?

     

    The Angels left Trout at AAA last year for 20 games and they went 6-14. If he started the year in the majors and they go 10-10, they make the playoffs and get millions in playoff revenue, which theoretically would outweigh the amount of money spent a year earlier.

    The bottom line is worrying about gaining the extra year doesn't mean anything. Winning does.

     



    This team has a chance to make the playoffs ONLY if the starting rotation performs much better than expected. Having Bradley in the dugout to start the year is not going to make any significant difference. Sure it will be fun to watch him when he finally gets here, but having the extra year of team control is a better strategy than satisfying the curiosity of impatient fans. Once the date has passed where the Sox have assured themselves of that extra year of team control and IF he can play every day in the majors only then should bringing him up be considered.

     




    That extra year will come half way through the season if they want to avoid "super 2" status with JBJ, which is fine by me. If hes not playing 100% of the time and being moved all around the OF, it makes no sense at all to bring him up.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    The extra year really shouldn't be an issue, for me if anything it's an afterthought, maybe a tie-breaker at best.

    But if you advocate JBJ being on the starting day roster then I hope you were advocating for that back in January or the end of 2012.  Otherwise what do you base that notion on? The only grounds to base this argument off of is spring training stats, which are virtually useless. 

    Lets see (of course we won't actually get to see this because the Sox will break camp and send JBJ to presumebly Pawtucket) how he will hit against MLB pitchers every day who are actually pitching to him and trying to get him out.  If there are holes in his swing (which there were last year) Pitchers expose that.  Pitchers are throwing pitches that THEY NEED to work on, ramp up, make adjustments too....they are not pitching to the hitter, they are not pitching to the scouting reports that say who hits what and what they struggle on.

    If you don't know that....then you just don't really know baseball. 

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

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    Fenway - the home of the 27 year old rookie

     


    That'd be bad if it was true...

     

    Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Bard, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Middlebrooks...average age 23 when they started playing for Red Sox.

     



    Please, you're not expecting Geo to know the age of our players, are you?

     


    We have taken a very conservative approach historically to the advancement of players in our minor league system,” Lucchino added. “I think that's just an undeniable fact. I hope that as we focus more on scouting and player development in the next few years in particular, that will change -- that there will be a presumption for slightly more rapid growth.”  (http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2012/11/13/fishing-trout-do-red-sox-prospects-move-too-sl)

    You should call LL and tell him he's wrong about what he thinks he's doing...

    [/QUOTE]


    The thing is, this is the first time you've mentioned conservative or even very conservative. What you said was "Fenway home of the 27 year old rookie". You were shown to be wrong and tried to change the terms of the debate. :-)

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    Conservative, yes.  But I can't see anything there about 27-year old rookies.

     



    very conservative...it must be tough to eat your own words....

     

     



    Nothing to eat, geo.  I already knew Larry said that.  You were the one who used the '27 year old rookie' line and we showed you that it was really 23.

     

     



    the only thing you showed is that you were wrong....your argument then is that a conservative age for call ups is 23? if not then you are saying LL is wrong about his own decisions...

     



    What LL said has nothing to do with 27 yr old rookies, as you suggested.

    LL may believe they' handle their minor leaguers more conservatively than, say, the A's.

    It doesn't make you correct. Not even close.

    Face it.

    You tried to exaggerate, to prop up a weak point, and you got called on it,...again.

    Some people know when to quit.

    You're obviously not in that group.

    [/QUOTE]

    congrats - you just entered the JoeyB weasel zone for refusing to admit what you said was wrong - and contradicted by a  key sox official....I said the organization is slow to move young players into the majors (hence the 27 yr old remark)...you said that wasnt true and provided an avg age of 5 guys you cherrypicked to support your argument...LL was quoted as saying the organization is slow to move folks up....this is not my argument - this is his - once again you should write him and explain that either (1) he's misinformed about his own leadership in re to rookies being sent up, or (2) 23 years old is indeed a ripe old age to be promoted (if this is indeed the case) or (3) perhaps you got it wrong and my point is valid....either way it is quite apparent your shovel is busy and youre going deeper and deeper

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    Conservative, yes.  But I can't see anything there about 27-year old rookies.

     



    very conservative...it must be tough to eat your own words....

     

     



    Nothing to eat, geo.  I already knew Larry said that.  You were the one who used the '27 year old rookie' line and we showed you that it was really 23.

     

     



    the only thing you showed is that you were wrong....your argument then is that a conservative age for call ups is 23? if not then you are saying LL is wrong about his own decisions...

     

     



    What LL said has nothing to do with 27 yr old rookies, as you suggested.

     

    LL may believe they' handle their minor leaguers more conservatively than, say, the A's.

    It doesn't make you correct. Not even close.

    Face it.

    You tried to exaggerate, to prop up a weak point, and you got called on it,...again.

    Some people know when to quit.

    You're obviously not in that group.

     



    congrats - you just entered the JoeyB weasel zone for refusing to admit what you said was wrong - and contradicted by a  key sox official....I said the organization is slow to move young players into the majors (hence the 27 yr old remark)...you said that wasnt true and provided an avg age of 5 guys you cherrypicked to support your argument...LL was quoted as saying the organization is slow to move folks up....this is not my argument - this is his - once again you should write him and explain that either (1) he's misinformed about his own leadership in re to rookies being sent up, or (2) 23 years old is indeed a ripe old age to be promoted (if this is indeed the case) or (3) perhaps you got it wrong and my point is valid....either way it is quite apparent your shovel is busy and youre going deeper and deeper

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, so you said the organization is slow to move guys through, but you needed to exagerate to make a point. 23 isn't a ripe old age. There wasn't any cherry-picking that was done. We named all the impact players in recent years who were brought up. And they made an immediate impact, so to me, it shows their development plan was right -- they were ready when they came up.

    So tell us, who was left in the minors too long? 

    And for that matter, how does that compare with other teams? The way I see it, the 20-, 21-year-old rookie isn't unheard of, but they are more of the exception, rather than the norm. I would bet guys who come up like the Sox rookies -- around 22 for a cup of coffee then to stay at 23 -- would be more of the norm.

    Here are the ages of rookie of the year going back to 2002:

    AL -- 24, 23, 24, 21, 23 (Verlander), 22, 25, 22, 23, 20.

    The 21-year-old and one of the 22-year-olds were relief pitchers, far different than having to develop enough pitches to be a starter or learn to hit advanced pitching.

    NL -- 23, 21, 25, 25, 22, 23, 25, 24, 23, 23, 19.

    The 21 was Dontrelle Willis. His last good year was 24 and he basically had just three good season. You really think the Marlins handled him correctly?

    Except for a couple of phenoms, guys around the league are coming just like the Red Sox players.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    Conservative, yes.  But I can't see anything there about 27-year old rookies.

     



    very conservative...it must be tough to eat your own words....

     

     



    Nothing to eat, geo.  I already knew Larry said that.  You were the one who used the '27 year old rookie' line and we showed you that it was really 23.

     

     



    the only thing you showed is that you were wrong....your argument then is that a conservative age for call ups is 23? if not then you are saying LL is wrong about his own decisions...

     

     



    What LL said has nothing to do with 27 yr old rookies, as you suggested.

     

    LL may believe they' handle their minor leaguers more conservatively than, say, the A's.

    It doesn't make you correct. Not even close.

    Face it.

    You tried to exaggerate, to prop up a weak point, and you got called on it,...again.

    Some people know when to quit.

    You're obviously not in that group.



    congrats - you just entered the JoeyB weasel zone for refusing to admit what you said was wrong - and contradicted by a  key sox official....I said the organization is slow to move young players into the majors (hence the 27 yr old remark)...you said that wasnt true and provided an avg age of 5 guys you cherrypicked to support your argument...LL was quoted as saying the organization is slow to move folks up....this is not my argument - this is his - once again you should write him and explain that either (1) he's misinformed about his own leadership in re to rookies being sent up, or (2) 23 years old is indeed a ripe old age to be promoted (if this is indeed the case) or (3) perhaps you got it wrong and my point is valid....either way it is quite apparent your shovel is busy and youre going deeper and deeper

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL

    You're easily confused, aren't you....

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    Conservative, yes.  But I can't see anything there about 27-year old rookies.

     



    very conservative...it must be tough to eat your own words....

     

     



    Nothing to eat, geo.  I already knew Larry said that.  You were the one who used the '27 year old rookie' line and we showed you that it was really 23.

     

     



    the only thing you showed is that you were wrong....your argument then is that a conservative age for call ups is 23? if not then you are saying LL is wrong about his own decisions...

     

     



    What LL said has nothing to do with 27 yr old rookies, as you suggested.

     

    LL may believe they' handle their minor leaguers more conservatively than, say, the A's.

    It doesn't make you correct. Not even close.

    Face it.

    You tried to exaggerate, to prop up a weak point, and you got called on it,...again.

    Some people know when to quit.

    You're obviously not in that group.

     



    congrats - you just entered the JoeyB weasel zone for refusing to admit what you said was wrong - and contradicted by a  key sox official....I said the organization is slow to move young players into the majors (hence the 27 yr old remark)...you said that wasnt true and provided an avg age of 5 guys you cherrypicked to support your argument...LL was quoted as saying the organization is slow to move folks up....this is not my argument - this is his - once again you should write him and explain that either (1) he's misinformed about his own leadership in re to rookies being sent up, or (2) 23 years old is indeed a ripe old age to be promoted (if this is indeed the case) or (3) perhaps you got it wrong and my point is valid....either way it is quite apparent your shovel is busy and youre going deeper and deeper

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You (no surprise there) and LL are wrong.

     

    "Despite the extreme youth of Harper and Trout—their combined age of 39 is younger than 12 active big leaguers—both the batting and pitching rookies skew older at an average age of 24 years old. The Athletics, Rangers and Reds each placed multiple rookies on the midseason team, including Oakland No. 1 prospect Jarrod Parker, Texas No. 1 Darvish and Cincinnati No. 5 Zack Cozart."

     

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/category/stat-pack/mlb-rookies/

     

    I would take what LL says publicly with a grain of salt.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to ADG's comment:

    These are players in same age area as the 22 (soon to be 23) year old Bradley:

    Trout, Harper Heyward, Stanton, Machado, Castro, Lawrie, S. Perez, Profar.

    Play him. He's better than any other option in LF, and he's hitting .500 in ST!

    Get with it Red Sox.



    The Sox already paid guys like Gomes and Victorino to play the OF, Bradley won't be playing every day unless Ells is gone, or we feel hes a better option than others in the event of injury.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    The Super 2 cutoff date has typically been in early/mid June.  

    I'm not a strict advocate of teams taking advantage of this loophole, but to ignore it is folly.  It has to be part of the business decision which, like it or not, is what the decision is.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to ADG's comment:

     

    These are players in same age area as the 22 (soon to be 23) year old Bradley:

    Trout, Harper Heyward, Stanton, Machado, Castro, Lawrie, S. Perez, Profar.

    Play him. He's better than any other option in LF, and he's hitting .500 in ST!

    Get with it Red Sox.

     



    The Sox already paid guys like Gomes and Victorino to play the OF, Bradley won't be playing every day unless Ells is gone, or we feel hes a better option than others in the event of injury.

     

     



    LF. Don't compare Gomes to Bradley. Baseball America voted Bradley as the best fielding outfielder of all prospects.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    Oh hey...here's a nice article.

     

    http://wickedclevah.com/2013/03/14/jbj-the-time-is-not-now/

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    The Red Sox are making both bad business decisions and labor selection decisions. Whether they have to pay Bradley a few more dollars because they don't bean count to the CBA dates for arbitration, they need to be fired for the business reasons that they are incompetently spending 150 million a year on labor and winning zero playoff wins for a half a decade.



    You still don't get.  It's not about years of control, it's about finishing his development.  Which I know is obviously finished by looking at his ST stats. (obvious sarcasm)

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    The Red Sox are making both bad business decisions and labor selection decisions. Whether they have to pay Bradley a few more dollars because they don't bean count to the CBA dates for arbitration, they need to be fired for the business reasons that they are incompetently spending 150 million a year on labor and winning zero playoff wins for a half a decade.




    Because Stiffy cares soooo  much about how OUR Red Sox will do this coming year???

    OK.....

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    The Red Sox are making both bad business decisions and labor selection decisions. Whether they have to pay Bradley a few more dollars because they don't bean count to the CBA dates for arbitration, they need to be fired for the business reasons that they are incompetently spending 150 million a year on labor and winning zero playoff wins for a half a decade.

     



    You still don't get.  It's not about years of control, it's about finishing his development.  Which I know is obviously finished by looking at his ST stats. (obvious sarcasm)

     



    It looks to me like Bradley is ready for the ML. Thats what other people are saying here too. Of course, its a matter of opinion. The reason I want him in the minors is a business one: we are not going to compete this year and I would rather have him up after we are assured of one more year of team control, a year, ostensibly, that we will have a shot at a ring.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    Well we will see what the experts in player development think.  The experts, the sox, and the scoutjeans everyone in the know how.....says he needs to go back to Pawtucket.  

    Only arm chair GM's and box score scouts are advocating for him to start the season in Boston.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Wrong. The decision is based upon bean counting and the garbage they signed in the off season. They spent an embarrassing amount of money on Shane and didn't trade the 10 million dollar costs on soon to be FA Ellsbury.

    The silly notion that "I want a year more of control because we aren't going to compete this year" fails on more than one front. Bradley will need MLB experience, and a full season is part of that experience. The notion that the Red Sox can't afford to retain Bradley about a half a decade from how is absurd. They are wasting money like idiots, then pretending to save a penny.

    The Red Sox didn't plan at all, they reacted. 10 million on Drew, 13 million for 3 years on Shane, 10 million on one more year of Ellsbury, and 12.5 million a year on Dumpster is not a plan. It's wasting money on players who didn't fit and are black holes on value.

    There's a reson why the Red Sox stink for the last half a decade, despite spending about 150 million a year on labor. And it's not because they know when to bring up prospects.

    Bonzo could do better than these idiots, much less an arm chair cheerleader like you.



    I'm no expert, but neither are you.  But I am a sox junkie, and an even bigger Prospect junkie.  I spend more time over at soxprospects.com sonsofsamhorn.net baseball prospectus, minor league ball etc etc etc, I follow the twitter accounts of all the scouts, the player development people, i listen to their podcasts, and follow their talking points.  So yes I am not a scout, but neither you, you by no means are an expert.  I will take all ALL! of their opinins over yours.  That's a no brainer.  I'm not a doctor, but if 95 out of a 100 doctors told me I needed treatment Y to cure condition x I'm going to take their opinion over some BOZO online reading from the mayo clinic.  I know nothng about law, you are a lawyer, if you told me something about a law I know nothing about I would take your word for it.  Of course all things considered I'd do my own research, but I know what IM an expert at and what I am not.  You are an arrogant know it all who thinks he knows everything about baseball but what are your crudentials? You have NONE you have zero, youhave no clue what you are talking about.

    Im not pretending to be a professional scout, but when I hear them talking about a player needing more time to adjust ill take their word over yours.  When my cousin (catcher in the royals system back in the early 90's). Tells me the same thing about spring training that I hear from them I believe THEM over you.  Pitchers throw many more fastballs, and they pitch to ramp up and specific locations and NOT to scouting reports to get people out.  This is why every, every, every EVERY single year a bunch of non MLB ready players, guys fighting for roster spots, non roster invites that will enevitabley get cut and have little value MASH it in spring training. Because they know that fastball is coming.  This is why guys like DARNELL MCDONALD become our best hitters in spring training, but when they break camp and pitchers pitch to get guys out, when they time their change, their cutter and they spot it to weaker spots they become much much much more effecient to guys that have holes in their swings.

    All young players have, to some degree, holes in ther swings.  JBJ is a quickly rising prospect, who may not only be a top sox prospect but a top 25 20 in all of baseball. But he still has holes in his swing, and they are not being exposed right now. That is what the SCOUTING says about him, not you who sits home watching him on tv and sees that he is hitting .500 in less than 40 AB's in the first couple weeks of spring training.  So before you call me the arm chair cheerleader (good job stealing my line, that's probably the closes you've come to referencing a source in your life) keep in mind I have at least some degree, the opinions of those "in the know" while you have nothing but your own warped uneducated view of how you personally think the Sox should be run

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Are the Red Sox that Good Where Jackie Bradley, Jr. Shouldn't Be Starting the Season as the LF?

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Wrong. The decision is based upon bean counting and the garbage they signed in the off season. They spent an embarrassing amount of money on Shane and didn't trade the 10 million dollar costs on soon to be FA Ellsbury.

    The silly notion that "I want a year more of control because we aren't going to compete this year" fails on more than one front. Bradley will need MLB experience, and a full season is part of that experience. The notion that the Red Sox can't afford to retain Bradley about a half a decade from how is absurd. They are wasting money like idiots, then pretending to save a penny.

    The Red Sox didn't plan at all, they reacted. 10 million on Drew, 13 million for 3 years on Shane, 10 million on one more year of Ellsbury, and 12.5 million a year on Dumpster is not a plan. It's wasting money on players who didn't fit and are black holes on value.

    There's a reson why the Red Sox stink for the last half a decade, despite spending about 150 million a year on labor. And it's not because they know when to bring up prospects.

    Bonzo could do better than these idiots, much less an arm chair cheerleader like you.

     



    I'm no expert, but neither are you.  But I am a sox junkie, and an even bigger Prospect junkie.  I spend more time over at soxprospects.com sonsofsamhorn.net baseball prospectus, minor league ball etc etc etc, I follow the twitter accounts of all the scouts, the player development people, i listen to their podcasts, and follow their talking points.  So yes I am not a scout, but neither you, you by no means are an expert.  I will take all ALL! of their opinins over yours.  That's a no brainer.  I'm not a doctor, but if 95 out of a 100 doctors told me I needed treatment Y to cure condition x I'm going to take their opinion over some BOZO online reading from the mayo clinic.  I know nothng about law, you are a lawyer, if you told me something about a law I know nothing about I would take your word for it.  Of course all things considered I'd do my own research, but I know what IM an expert at and what I am not.  You are an arrogant know it all who thinks he knows everything about baseball but what are your crudentials? You have NONE you have zero, youhave no clue what you are talking about.

     

    Im not pretending to be a professional scout, but when I hear them talking about a player needing more time to adjust ill take their word over yours.  When my cousin (catcher in the royals system back in the early 90's). Tells me the same thing about spring training that I hear from them I believe THEM over you.  Pitchers throw many more fastballs, and they pitch to ramp up and specific locations and NOT to scouting reports to get people out.  This is why every, every, every EVERY single year a bunch of non MLB ready players, guys fighting for roster spots, non roster invites that will enevitabley get cut and have little value MASH it in spring training. Because they know that fastball is coming.  This is why guys like DARNELL MCDONALD become our best hitters in spring training, but when they break camp and pitchers pitch to get guys out, when they time their change, their cutter and they spot it to weaker spots they become much much much more effecient to guys that have holes in their swings.

    All young players have, to some degree, holes in ther swings.  JBJ is a quickly rising prospect, who may not only be a top sox prospect but a top 25 20 in all of baseball. But he still has holes in his swing, and they are not being exposed right now. That is what the SCOUTING says about him, not you who sits home watching him on tv and sees that he is hitting .500 in less than 40 AB's in the first couple weeks of spring training.  So before you call me the arm chair cheerleader (good job stealing my line, that's probably the closes you've come to referencing a source in your life) keep in mind I have at least some degree, the opinions of those "in the know" while you have nothing but your own warped uneducated view of how you personally think the Sox should be run



    nomination for post of the year.

    way to put the dunce in his place. Talk about a CHECKMATE

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share