1. This post has been removed.

     
  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?

    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.

     
  3. 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?

    And if the Red Sox nickel and dime the situation worrying about 2019, and by not putting him in LF immediately costs them a playoff spot, how much money does that cost them?


    What happens in year 7 is irrelevant in 2013. Play him now.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. 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 ADG's comment:

    And if the Red Sox nickel and dime the situation worrying about 2019, and by not putting him in LF immediately costs them a playoff spot, how much money does that cost them?


    What happens in year 7 is irrelevant in 2013. Play him now.



    ...and that's the attitude that got us to 69 wins last year.

     

    11 days is worth giving up a whole year 7 years from now? Are you 94 years old or soemthing and aren't expecting to be around in 7 years?

    Look, I want JBJ, Iggy and more kids playing FT this year, but I can wait 11 days, especially since we have virtually no chance of going anywhere this year.

     
  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 UnionFallsNY's comment:

    The GM has to balance whether to put a Moonslav or Pumpsie team on the field and dissappoint RSN and the forum  this year and next vs. or taking a comprimise alternative and being competitive for two years while keeping prospects and preserving draft picks. There are two sides to the issue. I have heard both sides of the issue here . I prefer a competitive roster and being patient. It does provide great debate material but don't waste your life debating it daily.



    Newsflash: we are neither.

    We are not competitive and we are not rebuilding (since the Dodger deal).

    We won 69 games last year, most of the wins occured with the players before the Dodger trade.

    We did nothing since the trade to help us in 2015 or beyond.

    We pretended to make ourselves competitive this year.

    We punted all major decisions to the deadline or next winter.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. 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 softlaw2's comment:

    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.

    If the Red Sox didn't waste 23 million on Shane and Drew, they might have a case in approaching this season as a bunch of exhibition games. But that's not how it works. The last thing they need to be worrying about is having to pay Bradley as a FA in 2018 vs. 2019. Comical! 



    So, we were stupid this winter, so let's be stupid about 7 years from now as well.

    Brilliant clown logic.

     
  11. 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 softlaw2's comment:

    Anyone claiming that bean counting on Red Sox prospects is needed, then you should complain that Ellsbury's last year of control "saved" should have been traded during a year in which the Red Sox will approach the start of the season as an exhibition prelude to next year.



    I did argue that.

     
  12. 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 UnionFallsNY's comment:

    If I was the owner I would consult Bill James and tell him to put Bradley's stats from his previous history into the black box, have it spin around, and generate a result as to whether having Bradley in the lineup for eleven games is worth $15-20 mil down the road? I am surprised that Hill doesn't have that answer for us already.

    The decision is up to the owners since it is their risk and their money that is at stake. As a fan, I might have different opinion such as I prefer to see Iglesias at SS, Ellsbury in CF, and Bradley in the lineup. But then I am not Bill James or John Henry.



    The best player in MLB isn't worth losing a full year of service for just 11 days.

    I could see if it was 3 months or something, but this isn't even worthy of debate.

     
  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?

    IF JBJ does play in Boston it should be in centerfield.....that shouldn't even be a debate.  As for what softy has to say.....debating him is like talking to a wall.

     
  14. 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 ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    IF JBJ does play in Boston it should be in centerfield.....that shouldn't even be a debate.  As for what softy has to say.....debating him is like talking to a wall.



    I think JBJ should be our FT CF'er this year... after 11 days.

    We should still be looking to deal Ellsbury before day 1 takes away the attached comp pick value for the recipient.

    Nobody will take Drew at this point and at that cost, so start Iggy and use Drew as the DH and PH'er for Iggy when not DH'ing (yes, a sad reflection on the signing).

    We're stuck with Dempster and Shane until at least the deadline, but with Iggy and JBJ playing FT, maybe they can light a spark under some of these vets.

     

     
  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 moonslav59's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    IF JBJ does play in Boston it should be in centerfield.....that shouldn't even be a debate.  As for what softy has to say.....debating him is like talking to a wall.

     



    I think JBJ should be our FT CF'er this year... after 11 days.

     

    We should still be looking to deal Ellsbury before day 1 takes away the attached comp pick value for the recipient.

    Nobody will take Drew at this point and at that cost, so start Iggy and use Drew as the DH and PH'er for Iggy when not DH'ing (yes, a sad reflection on the signing).

    We're stuck with Dempster and Shane until at least the deadline, but with Iggy and JBJ playing FT, maybe they can light a spark under some of these vets.

     



    Agreed. Iggy at SS and Bradley in center.  that will be a very impressive up the middle defense. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. 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?

    Yeah...let's start a kid who played in single A for most of last season.  It is obvious that those wanting him to start are focusing on his spring training stats...

    Spring training stats.

    They say spring training stats should be taken with a grain of salt, but 40 at bats in spring training is all softy needs to determine a kid who split time between Portland and single A is MLB ready.

    If you don't realize the ridiculousness of this notion, then I feel very very sorry for you. Following baseball must be very frustrating to you at times. 

     
  19. 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 ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    IF JBJ does play in Boston it should be in centerfield.....that shouldn't even be a debate.  As for what softy has to say.....debating him is like talking to a wall.

     



    I think JBJ should be our FT CF'er this year... after 11 days.

     

    We should still be looking to deal Ellsbury before day 1 takes away the attached comp pick value for the recipient.

    Nobody will take Drew at this point and at that cost, so start Iggy and use Drew as the DH and PH'er for Iggy when not DH'ing (yes, a sad reflection on the signing).

    We're stuck with Dempster and Shane until at least the deadline, but with Iggy and JBJ playing FT, maybe they can light a spark under some of these vets.

     

     



    Agreed. Iggy at SS and Bradley in center.  that will be a very impressive up the middle defense. 

     



    It might shave a half run off the staff ERA!

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. 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 moonslav59's comment:

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    The GM has to balance whether to put a Moonslav or Pumpsie team on the field and dissappoint RSN and the forum  this year and next vs. or taking a comprimise alternative and being competitive for two years while keeping prospects and preserving draft picks. There are two sides to the issue. I have heard both sides of the issue here . I prefer a competitive roster and being patient. It does provide great debate material but don't waste your life debating it daily.

     



    Newsflash: we are neither.

     

    We are not competitive and we are not rebuilding (since the Dodger deal).

    We won 69 games last year, most of the wins occured with the players before the Dodger trade.

    We did nothing since the trade to help us in 2015 or beyond.

    We pretended to make ourselves competitive this year.

    We punted all major decisions to the deadline or next winter.



    You keep adding, "since the trade".

    Why is that distinction so important to you?

    How many pitchers like De La Rosa and Webster do you expect to pick off from other teams?

     
  22. 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 ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    The GM has to balance whether to put a Moonslav or Pumpsie team on the field and dissappoint RSN and the forum  this year and next vs. or taking a comprimise alternative and being competitive for two years while keeping prospects and preserving draft picks. There are two sides to the issue. I have heard both sides of the issue here . I prefer a competitive roster and being patient. It does provide great debate material but don't waste your life debating it daily.

     



    Newsflash: we are neither.

     

    We are not competitive and we are not rebuilding (since the Dodger deal).

    We won 69 games last year, most of the wins occured with the players before the Dodger trade.

    We did nothing since the trade to help us in 2015 or beyond.

    We pretended to make ourselves competitive this year.

    We punted all major decisions to the deadline or next winter.

     



    You keep adding, "since the trade".

     

    Why is that distinction so important to you?

    How many pitchers like De La Rosa and Webster do you expect to pick off from other teams?



    Because a team that is coming off a 69 win season that traded away its best player should be in rebuild mode for the winter. We didn't rebuild for the future, but instead signed placeholders and put off the big decisions until later.

    I loved the Dodger trade, so that is why I bring up the post trade era of doing nothing to further the cause of 2015 and beyond.

    We could have "picked off" Bauer for Ellsbury and cash. We could have "picked off" a few younger FA SPs. We could have traded our FAs to be for decent prospects. We could have packaged multiple lower level prospects for better prospects.

     
  23. 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 moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    The GM has to balance whether to put a Moonslav or Pumpsie team on the field and dissappoint RSN and the forum  this year and next vs. or taking a comprimise alternative and being competitive for two years while keeping prospects and preserving draft picks. There are two sides to the issue. I have heard both sides of the issue here . I prefer a competitive roster and being patient. It does provide great debate material but don't waste your life debating it daily.

     



    Newsflash: we are neither.

     

    We are not competitive and we are not rebuilding (since the Dodger deal).

    We won 69 games last year, most of the wins occured with the players before the Dodger trade.

    We did nothing since the trade to help us in 2015 or beyond.

    We pretended to make ourselves competitive this year.

    We punted all major decisions to the deadline or next winter.

     



    You keep adding, "since the trade".

     

    Why is that distinction so important to you?

    How many pitchers like De La Rosa and Webster do you expect to pick off from other teams?

     



    Because a team that is coming off a 69 win season that traded away its best player should be in rebuild mode for the winter. We didn't rebuild for the future, but instead signed placeholders and put off the big decisions until later.

     

    I loved the Dodger trade, so that is why I bring up the post trade era of doing nothing to further the cause of 2015 and beyond.

    We could have "picked off" Bauer for Ellsbury and cash. We could have "picked off" a few younger FA SPs. We could have traded our FAs to be for decent prospects. We could have packaged multiple lower level prospects for better prospects.

     



     

    I disagree.

    Gonzo may have been the Sox best player.

    But, his numbers in Boston aren't that difficult to replaced.

    In spite of last year's disaster, this team din't need to be blown up.

    Trading all the Fas and half the farm is the wrong way to go about it.

     

     
  24. 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 ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    The GM has to balance whether to put a Moonslav or Pumpsie team on the field and dissappoint RSN and the forum  this year and next vs. or taking a comprimise alternative and being competitive for two years while keeping prospects and preserving draft picks. There are two sides to the issue. I have heard both sides of the issue here . I prefer a competitive roster and being patient. It does provide great debate material but don't waste your life debating it daily.

     



    Newsflash: we are neither.

     

    We are not competitive and we are not rebuilding (since the Dodger deal).

    We won 69 games last year, most of the wins occured with the players before the Dodger trade.

    We did nothing since the trade to help us in 2015 or beyond.

    We pretended to make ourselves competitive this year.

    We punted all major decisions to the deadline or next winter.

     



    You keep adding, "since the trade".

     

    Why is that distinction so important to you?

    How many pitchers like De La Rosa and Webster do you expect to pick off from other teams?

     



    Because a team that is coming off a 69 win season that traded away its best player should be in rebuild mode for the winter. We didn't rebuild for the future, but instead signed placeholders and put off the big decisions until later.

     

    I loved the Dodger trade, so that is why I bring up the post trade era of doing nothing to further the cause of 2015 and beyond.

    We could have "picked off" Bauer for Ellsbury and cash. We could have "picked off" a few younger FA SPs. We could have traded our FAs to be for decent prospects. We could have packaged multiple lower level prospects for better prospects.

     



     

    I disagree.

    Gonzo may have been the Sox best player.

    But, his numbers in Boston aren't that difficult to replaced.

    In spite of last year's disaster, this team din't need to be blown up.

    Trading all the Fas and half the farm is the wrong way to go about it.

     



    Half the team?

    The FAs to be list is not even 5% of the 40man roster:

    Ellsbury

    Salty

    I did mention trading some players that may not be in our longterm plans or that are going to be FAs after 2014:

    Aceves

    Bailey

    Morales

    Miller

     

    Speaking of replacing AGon's numbers with the Sox last year, how hard would it be to replace the 2012 numbers from Ellsbury, Bailey, and Aceves? I'd hardly call losing them "blowing u the team". Besides, I wasn't giving them away. We'd actually get something in return- something that helps us in 2015 and beyond.

    I also said we could use the money saved from these guys to get another FA or 2 to bridge us to the kids... more kids though.

     

     
  25. 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 moonslav59's comment:

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    The GM has to balance whether to put a Moonslav or Pumpsie team on the field and dissappoint RSN and the forum  this year and next vs. or taking a comprimise alternative and being competitive for two years while keeping prospects and preserving draft picks. There are two sides to the issue. I have heard both sides of the issue here . I prefer a competitive roster and being patient. It does provide great debate material but don't waste your life debating it daily.

     



    Newsflash: we are neither.

     

    We are not competitive and we are not rebuilding (since the Dodger deal).

    We won 69 games last year, most of the wins occured with the players before the Dodger trade.

    We did nothing since the trade to help us in 2015 or beyond.

    We pretended to make ourselves competitive this year.

    We punted all major decisions to the deadline or next winter.

     



    You keep adding, "since the trade".

     

    Why is that distinction so important to you?

    How many pitchers like De La Rosa and Webster do you expect to pick off from other teams?

     



    Because a team that is coming off a 69 win season that traded away its best player should be in rebuild mode for the winter. We didn't rebuild for the future, but instead signed placeholders and put off the big decisions until later.

     

    I loved the Dodger trade, so that is why I bring up the post trade era of doing nothing to further the cause of 2015 and beyond.

    We could have "picked off" Bauer for Ellsbury and cash. We could have "picked off" a few younger FA SPs. We could have traded our FAs to be for decent prospects. We could have packaged multiple lower level prospects for better prospects.

     



     

    I disagree.

    Gonzo may have been the Sox best player.

    But, his numbers in Boston aren't that difficult to replaced.

    In spite of last year's disaster, this team din't need to be blown up.

    Trading all the Fas and half the farm is the wrong way to go about it.

     

     



    Half the team?

     

    The FAs to be list is not even 5% of the 40man roster:

    Ellsbury

    Salty

    I did mention trading some players that may not be in our longterm plans or that are going to be FAs after 2014:

    Aceves

    Bailey

    Morales

    Miller

     

    Speaking of replacing AGon's numbers with the Sox last year, how hard would it be to replace the 2012 numbers from Ellsbury, Bailey, and Aceves? I'd hardly call losing them "blowing u the team". Besides, I wasn't giving them away. We'd actually get something in return- something that helps us in 2015 and beyond.

    I also said we could use the money saved from these guys to get another FA or 2 to bridge us to the kids... more kids though.

     




    So your position is that Ben should have sold low on Ellsbury, Bailey and Aceves, and that he should just give up on Salty just as he's approaching the age where Tek put it all together? You're usually a lot more sensible than that moon.

     

Share