In response to georom4's comment:

I agree with this notion.  This whole debate comes down to how much people weight Spring Training results vs. Entire-Body-of-Work.  For myself, I do not discount ST, but I certainly have seen enough abberations in either directions to know that ST performance is not a very reliable source for predicting performance.  I think the proper approach is to weeight a good or bad ST with a players' overall output.

I am extremely excited about Bradley, and Bradley's camp has only heightened my excitement.  But, I temper my enthusiasm with the knowledge that he struggled in adapting to the AA level last season.  Now, could it be that he a kid with that much talent and awesome approach put in unreal work over the winter and morphed into a major league stud?  Yes.  I grant that, at this juncture, that looks like a distinct possibility.  An equal possibility is that he is doing what many kids do: locked-in from working all winter, feasting on pitchers working the kinks out.  First step, lets see if he keeps up this level of performance for a little while in AAA to start the season.  Find out if his hot camp was smoke and mirrors or the real deal.  Then, call him up if he is still showing readiness.  What is the harm in that?  

I understand the enthusiasm.  I am feeling it too.  But, assuming that Player With The Most Potential equals Player Who Give Sox Best Chance To Win is a big assumption.  

People keep bringing up Mike Trout.  Mike Trout freakin' raked in his brief tenure in the minors.  Yeah, the Angels should have had him on the roster at the start of last season.  But that is a no-brainer.  Not only did he have a good camp in 2012, in 2011 he had 400+ ABs in AA and had a freakin' .958 OPS.  Apples and oranges.

       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 ?

In response to dgalehouse's comment:

I thought I read or heard somewhere that it was just through the third week of April. If that's the case, then definitely hold him back three weeks.

If it is the middle of the season then I'm more simpathetic to the idea of keeping him at the start of the season if they think he's ready.

In response to royf19'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 ?

 

I thought I read or heard somewhere that it was just through the third week of April. If that's the case, then definitely hold him back three weeks.

 

If it is the middle of the season then I'm more simpathetic to the idea of keeping him at the start of the season if they think he's ready.

 

      Thanks.   If it is only three weeks, then I would absolutely start him in Pawtucket.  I was thinking it was longer than that.  The details of that rule are not really widely known.

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

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

This post has been removed.

In response to selenium-'s comment:

Thanks.

The Red Sox will look at Boesch, since they can't use Bradley before he can't claim "super 2" status or reach FA a year earlier. Next year, they will ignore this.

In response to royf19's comment:

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.

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

Correct, but you are dealing with a management team who worries about saving a few million dollars a half a decade now, while it spends 150 million a year for zero playoff wins.

In response to Joebreidey's comment:

 

 

The whiners use no facts.

In response to dgalehouse's comment:

If he came up in April and stayed up he probably would qualify as a "super 2" player

The exception to the three-year rule is a "Super 2" player. A player who has only played two full major league seasons and part of a third can qualify for arbitration if he:

• Played in the majors for at least 86 days in the previous season
• Is among the top 17 percent for cumulative playing time in the majors amongst others with at least 2 years, but less than 3 years experience

In response to ADG's comment:

Trout comparisons are bad.

 

 

2012 was not Trout's debut. He played 40 gamein 2011 and posted a .672OPS.

 

Trout played all levels of minor league ball and had over twice as msny PA's ad Bradley.

 

Trout was far more successful in the minors.

 

Might as well make Webster-Verlander comparisons wjile wr are at it I

Of course, notin, but for the kneejerk complainers, 'Bradley = Trout' keeps things nice and simple for them.  They don't like to have to think about this stuff that much.  It makes their noggins hurt.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

 

Of course, notin, but for the kneejerk complainers, 'Bradley = Trout' keeps things nice and simple for them.  They don't like to have to think about this stuff that much.  It makes their noggins hurt.

 

it also works against their mindless rants

 

 

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?

 

[/QUOTE]
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...

In response to georom4's comment:

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]

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

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

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

[/QUOTE]

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

In response to georom4's comment:

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

[/QUOTE]

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.

I'm agnostic on these types of debates. Obviously, like most people, I'd love to see guys like Bradley, Bogaerts, Webster, whoever in Boston sooner rather than later, but I think the team knows its prospects a lot better than we do and knows who's ready for the Show and who needs more seasoning. And without a doubt, excoriating the team for not jumping a guy who has a half-season of Double-A ball under his belt straight to the major leagues because he's played great in a few spring training games is silly.

Also, I'm not sure about the notion that the Red Sox keep their prospects down too long. If you look at recent years, Pedroia and Middlebrooks reached the majors and were starting at 23. Lester first won a spot in the rotation at 22...Buchholz was 23 I believe. Reddick was up and down in his age 22-23 seasons with mixed results. I don't know what's considered league-average age for a young player to break into the majors, but I'd guess the Red Sox aren't terribly out of the norm. I'm not sure who these much-discussed prospects who were held back til they were 26 when they should have been in the majors are.

I'd love to see our prospects play, and would be receptive to the idea of, say, putting Brentz in RF instead of signing Vic, letting Iggy prove he deserves the SS job, or letting Wright and Webster and RDLR compete for a rotation spot...but I have a feeling a lot of the posters who clammor to see these guys in the majors RIGHT NOW are the same ones who would proclaim that they are bums who are never going to make it in MLB and must be demoted/released/traded if they have a rough first month.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

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.

[/QUOTE]

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...

In response to georom4's comment:

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...

[/QUOTE]

What did I say that was wrong?  Show me.

In response to ADG's comment:

 

Tiny sample size.

Practice games.

All ABs against non-MLB pitchers / poor MLB pitchers / preparing MLB pitchers.

1/2 season above A ball under his belt.

Our LF platoon should be fine, offensively at least.

Super 2 status does matter.

 

In other words, all the things you don't understand, or at least pretend not to understand.

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...

 

[/QUOTE]

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.

In response to ADG's comment:

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.