1. 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?

    You just got cyber-slapped

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

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

    I certainly think we could have done better for our longterm future than:

    $39M/3 Victorino

    $26.5M/2 Dempster

    $26M/2 Ortiz

    $9.5M/1 Drew

    $9M/1 Ellsbury

    That's $110M for nobody that will be helping us in 2015 and beyond. No top prospect for Ellsbury- only a comp pick in 2014. 

    It's not shocking that 2 of these guys will probably start the season on the DL. It's not surprising to me that 2-3 capable kids will be blocked for another year, and we'll be in the same boat next year. We basically just punted to next winter.

    Unlike some posters here, I get the reasoning behind maximizing years of service in the normal prime years of a player's career, and I have no problem waiting until those dates to call the kids up this year, but what upsets me most is that the Dodger trade set us up for so much promise beyond 2013 that Ben seemed to take his eye off the top priority, and instead concentrated all efforts on making us appear like we are 2013 contenders but at the expense of not further building the longterm future. I'm hoping some of these signed players net us some prospects this deadline or next winter, and I'm giving Ben more time to show us the plan and the results. If we go back to the Dodger trade things look a little better to me, but as I've made myself clear enought imes already, this winter was dissapointing.

     
  3. 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:

    You just got cyber-slapped




    Effin A.

    you nailed him.

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

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

    ...god forbid another human being doesn't have the same opinion as you. 

    softy was raised to believe tolerance is a bad word, but at least he seems to be OK with the fact that only BILL and a handful of others tolerate him.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow'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 dgalehouse's comment:

           Question : What is the exact date that he could be brought up without losing a year of control ?  Is it June 1 or something else ?




    April 12 is the cut off date for JBJ. He's currently not on the 40 man, so different rules apply. If he's on RS roster prior to 4/12 he's elegible for FA after the 2018 season, if after 4/12 RS have control til the 2019 FA.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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 garyhow's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

           Question : What is the exact date that he could be brought up without losing a year of control ?  Is it June 1 or something else ?

     




     

    April 12 is the cut off date for JBJ. He's currently not on the 40 man, so different rules apply. If he's on RS roster prior to 4/12 he's elegible for FA after the 2018 season, if after 4/12 RS have control til the 2019 FA.



    So, how foolish would it be for him to be on the opening day roster?

    We'd lose 1 year to gain less than 2 weeks of his service during a bridge year.

     

    (What's the cutoff date for the arb clock year change?)

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow'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 moonslav59's comment:

    I certainly think we could have done better for our longterm future than:

    $39M/3 Victorino

    $26.5M/2 Dempster

    $26M/2 Ortiz

    $9.5M/1 Drew

    $9M/1 Ellsbury

    That's $110M for nobody that will be helping us in 2015 and beyond. No top prospect for Ellsbury- only a comp pick in 2014. 

    It's not shocking that 2 of these guys will probably start the season on the DL. It's not surprising to me that 2-3 capable kids will be blocked for another year, and we'll be in the same boat next year. We basically just punted to next winter.

    Unlike some posters here, I get the reasoning behind maximizing years of service in the normal prime years of a player's career, and I have no problem waiting until those dates to call the kids up this year, but what upsets me most is that the Dodger trade set us up for so much promise beyond 2013 that Ben seemed to take his eye off the top priority, and instead concentrated all efforts on making us appear like we are 2013 contenders but at the expense of not further building the longterm future. I'm hoping some of these signed players net us some prospects this deadline or next winter, and I'm giving Ben more time to show us the plan and the results. If we go back to the Dodger trade things look a little better to me, but as I've made myself clear enought imes already, this winter was dissapointing.




    Have to think Ben is thinking about the future of the RS w/ every move he makes. Signed a bunch of useful high character guys to short term deals over winter to buy time til kids are ready, also to help a toxic clubhouse. The worst possible thing you can do for a prospect is try to move them along to fast or before they are ready, chance they lose confidence for ever if overwhelmed by talent @ mlb and good luck trying to get that confidence back, many never do. The only prospect that is knocking down the door for me is JBJ and possibly Webster. But as noted above why would Ben bring JBJ up prior to 4/12 to lose a yr of control? this is where Ben is thinking about the future. Many on this board where screaming on this board for Iggy to be starting SS when he got a few hits to start ST [including you Moon], now he's gone hitless for March basically and back down to hitting .200 again, obviously not ready for mlb pitching which is what he's seeing at this time in ST. While Drew might not be Tulo he will be a good 1 yr fill in til either Iggy or Boegarts is ready. But throw Iggy out there after hitting .118 last yr would be foolish, let him go to AAA hopefully have some success get his confidence back up then hopefuly he gets a chance sometime late in the yr to prove he's capable, throwing him out there on OD would be like feeding him to the wolves after how last yr went!

     
  8. 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?

    We have what we have. Time to move on from what moves were or werent made this offseason. This is the team we have, like it or not.

    JBJ will be available for the 40-man roster April 12th, at which time he can be brought up without losing a year of control.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse'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 garyhow's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

           Question : What is the exact date that he could be brought up without losing a year of control ?  Is it June 1 or something else ?

     


    Thanks. In that case , it is a no brainer that he start off in Pawtucket. How well he plays there should determine when , after April 12 , that he is promoted.  That really should end this discussion.  Not that it will , but it should.

     

    April 12 is the cut off date for JBJ. He's currently not on the 40 man, so different rules apply. If he's on RS roster prior to 4/12 he's elegible for FA after the 2018 season, if after 4/12 RS have control til the 2019 FA.




     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow'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 moonslav59's comment:

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

           Question : What is the exact date that he could be brought up without losing a year of control ?  Is it June 1 or something else ?

     




     

    April 12 is the cut off date for JBJ. He's currently not on the 40 man, so different rules apply. If he's on RS roster prior to 4/12 he's elegible for FA after the 2018 season, if after 4/12 RS have control til the 2019 FA.

     



    So, how foolish would it be for him to be on the opening day roster?

     

    We'd lose 1 year to gain less than 2 weeks of his service during a bridge year.

     

    (What's the cutoff date for the arb clock year change?)




    Saw this in an article by Bleacher Report will see if I can find it and post it for reading. But doesn't make sense for him to be on RS OD. But if Gomes or SV fail or Ells hurt sure he will be up shortly and he deserves to be up. Have to like it when a prospect forces his way up.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut'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:

    There's a pontificating poster on here who likes to say "the Red Sox are in phase 1 of the plan". Does anyone know that the plan is?



    Yes.  The plan is to return as quickly as possible to being a team that wins 95 games a year, just like the 2003-2009 Red Sox teams.  That's a realistic and attainable goal.

     
  14. 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?

    Bradley will be on the opening day roster and be in LF. Look at the stats, they don't lie.

    Whoever called for Mike Carp should be ashamed of themselves. If Seattle releases someone, what does that tell you? Spring training average of .214 with 11 K's in 28AB.

    And forget Lyle Overbay.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. 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?

    I just heard that if JBJ is on the opening day roster, as long as he is sent down for at least 20 games he wont lose that year of control.

    Just to set the record straight, I am all for JBJ starting in Boston. I just think its pretty dumb to not wait 12 days if in fact he will lose a year of control calling him up before that. But like I said above, and if I heard Rob Bradford correctly, as long as hes sent back down for at least 20 games the Sox will NOT lose that extra year of control making JBJ a FA in 2019 instead of 2018.

    If I got something wrong will someone who knows 100% what their talking about please fill me in on these rules.

     
  17. 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 southpaw777's comment:

    I just heard that if JBJ is on the opening day roster, as long as he is sent down for at least 20 games he wont lose that year of control.

    Just to set the record straight, I am all for JBJ starting in Boston. I just think its pretty dumb to not wait 12 days if in fact he will lose a year of control calling him up before that. But like I said above, and if I heard Rob Bradford correctly, as long as hes sent back down for at least 20 games the Sox will NOT lose that extra year of control making JBJ a FA in 2019 instead of 2018.

    If I got something wrong will someone who knows 100% what their talking about please fill me in on these rules.




    If that's the case, I don't have a problem with JBJ starting the season in Boston, with Ortiz probably not being ready to go yet.

    If JBJ looks like he's struggling, send him down and reset his clock.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35'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 southpaw777's comment:

     

    I just heard that if JBJ is on the opening day roster, as long as he is sent down for at least 20 games he wont lose that year of control.

    Just to set the record straight, I am all for JBJ starting in Boston. I just think its pretty dumb to not wait 12 days if in fact he will lose a year of control calling him up before that. But like I said above, and if I heard Rob Bradford correctly, as long as hes sent back down for at least 20 games the Sox will NOT lose that extra year of control making JBJ a FA in 2019 instead of 2018.

    If I got something wrong will someone who knows 100% what their talking about please fill me in on these rules.

     



    I think you have it right 777

    U might find this is worth reading

     

     

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20130314-sox-plan-to-keep-an-eye-on-the-clock-with-jackie-bradley-jr..ece

     

     

    Here’s how it works: Since Bradley is not on the 40-man roster yet, he needs to spend only 11 days in the minor leagues at the start of the season to prevent him from accruing a full season of service time. If the Red Sox call Bradley up on April 12 and keep him up all season, he won’t hit free agency until at least after 2019.

    Boston, of course, might have a need for Bradley before then, though, because of the injury to David Ortiz. If Bradley is placed on the 40-man roster and promoted before April 12 — for instance, on Opening Day — he would need to spend at least 20 subsequent days in the minor leagues to preserve that extra year of team control. If Bradley breaks camp with the Sox and doesn’t get sent down for that minimum amount of time, he can be a free agent after 2018.

     
  19. 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 pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    I just heard that if JBJ is on the opening day roster, as long as he is sent down for at least 20 games he wont lose that year of control.

    Just to set the record straight, I am all for JBJ starting in Boston. I just think its pretty dumb to not wait 12 days if in fact he will lose a year of control calling him up before that. But like I said above, and if I heard Rob Bradford correctly, as long as hes sent back down for at least 20 games the Sox will NOT lose that extra year of control making JBJ a FA in 2019 instead of 2018.

    If I got something wrong will someone who knows 100% what their talking about please fill me in on these rules.

     



    I think you have it right 777

    U might find this is worth reading

     

     

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20130314-sox-plan-to-keep-an-eye-on-the-clock-with-jackie-bradley-jr..ece

     

     

    Here’s how it works: Since Bradley is not on the 40-man roster yet, he needs to spend only 11 days in the minor leagues at the start of the season to prevent him from accruing a full season of service time. If the Red Sox call Bradley up on April 12 and keep him up all season, he won’t hit free agency until at least after 2019.

    Boston, of course, might have a need for Bradley before then, though, because of the injury to David Ortiz. If Bradley is placed on the 40-man roster and promoted before April 12 — for instance, on Opening Day — he would need to spend at least 20 subsequent days in the minor leagues to preserve that extra year of team control. If Bradley breaks camp with the Sox and doesn’t get sent down for that minimum amount of time, he can be a free agent after 2018.




    Thanks zac

     
  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?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I just heard that if JBJ is on the opening day roster, as long as he is sent down for at least 20 games he wont lose that year of control.

    Just to set the record straight, I am all for JBJ starting in Boston. I just think its pretty dumb to not wait 12 days if in fact he will lose a year of control calling him up before that. But like I said above, and if I heard Rob Bradford correctly, as long as hes sent back down for at least 20 games the Sox will NOT lose that extra year of control making JBJ a FA in 2019 instead of 2018.

    If I got something wrong will someone who knows 100% what their talking about please fill me in on these rules.



    I don't know if I 100% know what I'm takling about, although I'm sure there are some posters who are narracistic enough to make such claims.  But I think you got it right.  Personally I am one of those guys who thinks JBJ may need a little bit more time to develop his bat.  I do however see him as the kind of kid that even if he struggles to hit in the MLB he still might get one base at a decent clip.   I can see him facing MLB pitchers who are pitching to scouting reports and his weakness and fully ramped up but still being able to walk alot just because approach at the plate.

    But regardless, those who disagree with us are essentially saying that TWO WEEKS!!!! when the only proof that he can hit at the MLB level comes from appx 40 spring training at bats is more valuable than ONE WHOLE YEAR in his prime.  That just doesn't add up. 

    No team has ever started the year with their best player on the D.L. for the first two weeks and said "oh no, now we can't make the playoffs"  Not saying JBJ is our best player, just trying to put things in perspective.  If we need two weeks of an unproven rookie to compete, then we really are in no position to compete in the first place.  So then why rush him and waste the year?  keep him in Pawtucket, and if he is mashing it and we were all wrong, then you bring him up and you get an extra year out of him.

     

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

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

    Yes.  The plan is to return as quickly as possible to being a team that wins 95 games a year, just like the 2003-2009 Red Sox teams.  That's a realistic and attainable goal.

    That's a goal, not a plan. Spending 50 million a year on 3 dumpster rejects (Dumpster, Shane and S. Drew) and an old veteran in decline (Ortiz) is not a plan to reach the goal of 95 wins a year. It's a plan of incompetence.

    The biggest mistake was not signing bridge players like these (although I'd rather us pass on all of them), but the total lack of any move to strengthen us in 2015 or beyond.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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 pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    I just heard that if JBJ is on the opening day roster, as long as he is sent down for at least 20 games he wont lose that year of control.

    Just to set the record straight, I am all for JBJ starting in Boston. I just think its pretty dumb to not wait 12 days if in fact he will lose a year of control calling him up before that. But like I said above, and if I heard Rob Bradford correctly, as long as hes sent back down for at least 20 games the Sox will NOT lose that extra year of control making JBJ a FA in 2019 instead of 2018.

    If I got something wrong will someone who knows 100% what their talking about please fill me in on these rules.

     



    I think you have it right 777

    U might find this is worth reading

     

     

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20130314-sox-plan-to-keep-an-eye-on-the-clock-with-jackie-bradley-jr..ece

     

     

    Here’s how it works: Since Bradley is not on the 40-man roster yet, he needs to spend only 11 days in the minor leagues at the start of the season to prevent him from accruing a full season of service time. If the Red Sox call Bradley up on April 12 and keep him up all season, he won’t hit free agency until at least after 2019.

    Boston, of course, might have a need for Bradley before then, though, because of the injury to David Ortiz. If Bradley is placed on the 40-man roster and promoted before April 12 — for instance, on Opening Day — he would need to spend at least 20 subsequent days in the minor leagues to preserve that extra year of team control. If Bradley breaks camp with the Sox and doesn’t get sent down for that minimum amount of time, he can be a free agent after 2018.



    11 days vs a full year.

    Sounds obvious to all but the "patriotic" clowns.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share