Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

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

    Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Both centerfielders who also both got their shot during pennant races, but a huge difference in performance.  Make no mistake, Ellsbury in 2007 and Bradley in 2013 were/are called up to help the club after an injury took out the starting centerfielder--Ellsbury this year, Crisp in 2007.

    Right now Bradley has played 29 games with 78 at bats and an OPS of .540.  At the same age, 23, in 2007 Ellsbury played 33 games with 118 at bats and an OPS of .902.  Both, I agree are/were small sizes, but at the same time they are no doubt indicators for the front office.  Thus Ellsbury returned to Boston in 2008 as a regular, albeit one who moved around in the outfield because Crisp was still in Boston. 

    With Ellsbury about to be a very expensive free agent, this is a golden opportunity for Bradley, especially since we already know he is a good outfielder.  Not much of a basestealer, he does need to show he can hit, and so far he hasn't.  Last night's game thread had at least two complaining Farrell should have started Bradley in CF against a righty starter, but they ignored the fact that Carp and Nava are both much hitters against righties.  Moreover, the Sox are still in a race to get the home field advantage against Detroit and Oakland, so Farrell was going with his best lineup to win the game.   Implicit in that lineup, however, is his doubt about starting Bradley, against even a righty starter. 

    A word more about sample sizes.  Yes, they are small, but the Sox also look at how the player conducts himself in an at bat.  Plus they get to watch him in batting practice, and they know what he has done at Pawtucket and Portland.  So they actually know a lot more about him than just those bare statistices for 29 or 33 games, which is why, when they brought Pedroia up in 2007 to be the regular secondbaseman, they stayed with him despite the bad early spring.

    One more piece of evidence is Iglesias-- last year when he played 25 games with an OPS of .391.  Again, another small sample size, but all those other insights would apply to him.  As a result, the Sox went after Drew despite having already committed $10M to Iglesias as a minor league player.  That's a huge investment, suggesting he was the heir apparent to the SS position, but they were ready to walk away from it or at least take a couple of steps.  Drew only has a one year contract.  On the other hand, Bogaerts might just be a decent fielder and his OPS with three years less experience than Bradley or Ellsbury (in 2007), is a decent .779.  This year Iglesias started out like a house afire at the plate, but hit a big slump in July.  So, with Drew and Bogaerts as good options, it wasn't hard to give Iglesias up for a front line starter, Peavy.

    The same thing could happen to Bradley if he can't hit.  So far he is helping to make the case for keeping Ellsbury or making a deal for a good hitting outfielder.  One other factoid helps Bradley, however, and that is the Sox ability to win without Ellsbury.  So maybe they will still let Ellsbury go and give Bradley another shot next year with Vic, Nava, Carp, and Gomes holding the fort in the outfielder. 

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Bradley started declining in Pawtucket from July on, in hitting. (.244 Post All-Star break) Which makes it less of a small sample size. Ellsbury constantly stayed at the .300 level throughout that season in Pawtucket, before call up. Then took off when he was called up, thats pretty revealing.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Win regular season games. It will be a different story in the playoffs. I think we all would prefer Ellsbury against the likes of Price/Moore/Cobb or Verlander/Scherzer/Sanchez/Fister or Colon/Parker/Griffen, the most likely teams standing in the Red Sox way from getting to the WS.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    I don't see JBJ on the PS roster

    We get 5 bench players


    Ross - C

    Gomes - RHPH/OF

    Carp - LHPH/OF/1B

    Boegarts - Extra IF

    That leaves one more slot.  I got w/ Berry because he is the base stealer.

    You keep Lava, JBJ, and MacD around in case you have an injury.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    Bradley started declining in Pawtucket from July on, in hitting. Which makes it less of a small sample size. Ellsbury constantly stayed at the .300 level throughout that season in Pawtucket, before call up. Then took off when he was called up, thas pretty revealing.



    But in Ellsbury's first full season, 2008, he fell back considerably, to an OPS of .729.

     

     

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007


    Good grief.  I expected a lot of push back.  I actually like Bradley, but do have my doubts. 

    Will anyone stand up for him? 

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    I don't see JBJ on the PS roster

    We get 5 bench players


    Ross - C

    Gomes - RHPH/OF

    Carp - LHPH/OF/1B

    Boegarts - Extra IF

    That leaves one more slot.  I got w/ Berry because he is the base stealer.

    You keep Lava, JBJ, and MacD around in case you have an injury.



    I wonder if they might take McDonald over Bogaerts. Pros and cons to each. But they had to have SOME reason for acquiring him beyond giving him 3 ABs.

     

    I do agree Berry would be a smart inclusion...

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I don't see JBJ on the PS roster

    We get 5 bench players


    Ross - C

    Gomes - RHPH/OF

    Carp - LHPH/OF/1B

    Boegarts - Extra IF

    That leaves one more slot.  I got w/ Berry because he is the base stealer.

    You keep Lava, JBJ, and MacD around in case you have an injury.

     



    I wonder if they might take McDonald over Bogaerts. Pros and cons to each. But they had to have SOME reason for acquiring him beyond giving him 3 ABs.

     

     

    I do agree Berry would be a smart inclusion...

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't you think it's possible that MacD is there in case there is an inury to Drew/Boegarts/Middlebrooks either in Sept or in Oct (for a roster move)?

    I think you have to go w/ Boegarts because of his bat.  For example, he could PH for Drew against a tough left handed reliever.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    Good grief.  I expected a lot of push back.  I actually like Bradley, but do have my doubts. 

    Will anyone stand up for him? 



    You posted this only 19 minutes after your OP.  Impatient much?

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazyworldoftroybrown. Show crazyworldoftroybrown's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    08 hit .280 scored 98 runs, stole 50 bases in 61 attempts for a lead-off hitter in his first Full season as starting Centerfielder. Funny. I'll take that any day for a Rookie.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    08 hit .280 scored 98 runs, stole 50 bases in 61 attempts for a lead-off hitter in his first Full season as starting Centerfielder. Funny.



    Not saying he was terrible in 2008, but his .336 OBP and his 88 OPS+ were mediocre. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    Let it be noted that I didn't bring this up, someone else did.

    One more piece of evidence is Iglesias-- last year when he played 25 games with an OPS of .391.  Again, another small sample size, but all those other insights would apply to him.  As a result, the Sox went after Drew despite having already committed $10M to Iglesias as a minor league player.  That's a huge investment, suggesting he was the heir apparent to the SS position, but they were ready to walk away from it or at least take a couple of steps.  Drew only has a one year contract.  On the other hand, Bogaerts might just be a decent fielder and his OPS with three years less experience than Bradley or Ellsbury (in 2007), is a decent .779.  This year Iglesias started out like a house afire at the plate, but hit a big slump in July.  So, with Drew and Bogaerts as good options, it wasn't hard to give Iglesias up for a front line starter, Peavy.



    The fact that people keep trying to justify this boneheaded trade shows just how bad it is.

    Iggy's BA was an unsustainable .500+ at one point and everyone knew it was going to fall to a more reasonable level.  Everyone knew this was going to happen so it still amazes me that people are using the downslide to "prove" that the guy can't hit. Since he's gone to Detroit he's hitting .287 with a .716 OPS.  Go ahead, scream, "Small sample size", but he's hitting 106/367 or .289 for the year and 367 AB's is more than half a season. 

    I was asked a couple days ago what I thought was going to become of Iggy when Peralta comes back.  Now it seems apparent.  Peralta has been taking reps in LF.

    This trade may work out well for the Sox this year but it's going to come back and bite us in the very near future. 

    I'm ready to dismiss it as a boneheaded trade that I have to live with.  As long as you don't keep telling me what a great trade it was I'll stop proving to you what a bad one it was.   Deal?  

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to S5's comment:


    The fact that people keep trying to justify this boneheaded trade shows just how bad it is.

    Iggy's BA was an unsustainable .500+ at one point and everyone knew it was going to fall to a more reasonable level.  Everyone knew this was going to happen so it still amazes me that people are using the downslide to "prove" that the guy can't hit. Since he's gone to Detroit he's hitting .287 with a .716 OPS.  Go ahead, scream, "Small sample size", but he's hitting 106/367 or .289 for the year and 367 AB's is more than half a season. 

    I was asked a couple days ago what I thought was going to become of Iggy when Peralta comes back.  Now it seems apparent.  Peralta has been taking reps in LF.

    This trade may work out well for the Sox this year but it's going to come back and bite us in the very near future. 

    I'm ready to dismiss it as a boneheaded trade that I have to live with.  As long as you don't keep telling me what a great trade it was I'll stop proving to you what a bad one it was.   Deal?  



    LOL yes, calling it 'boneheaded' a couple of times is sure to settle things.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Henderson's first full season, is funny. He blew out Ellsbury in BB's. and stolen bases. Ellsbury had more HR's, Triples, and tied for Doubles as Henderson's first full season. 

    Walks are important for lead-off hitter with speed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    The fact that people keep trying to justify this boneheaded trade shows just how bad it is.

    Iggy's BA was an unsustainable .500+ at one point and everyone knew it was going to fall to a more reasonable level.  Everyone knew this was going to happen so it still amazes me that people are using the downslide to "prove" that the guy can't hit. Since he's gone to Detroit he's hitting .287 with a .716 OPS.  Go ahead, scream, "Small sample size", but he's hitting 106/367 or .289 for the year and 367 AB's is more than half a season. 

    I was asked a couple days ago what I thought was going to become of Iggy when Peralta comes back.  Now it seems apparent.  Peralta has been taking reps in LF.

    This trade may work out well for the Sox this year but it's going to come back and bite us in the very near future. 

    I'm ready to dismiss it as a boneheaded trade that I have to live with.  As long as you don't keep telling me what a great trade it was I'll stop proving to you what a bad one it was.   Deal?  



    LOL yes, calling it 'boneheaded' a couple of times is sure to settle things.

    [/QUOTE]


    I just call 'em like I see 'em!  :-)

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    Henderson's first full season, is funny. He blew out Ellsbury in BB's. and stolen bases. Ellsbury had more HR's, Triples, and tied for Doubles as Henderson's first full season. 

    Walks are important for lead-off hitter with speed.




    Walks only get you so far.  If you are a speedster with no power you better be able to hit for average.  Because soon enough, pitchers will throw you more strikes and attack you because they know that a BB = a double. Therefore, if you are batting 250 w/ no power you going to see a lot more strikes than if you are a .300 hitter w/ some pop...That's what made Rickey so great.....

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    While I like and still believe in Bradley (look at Pedroia's first ~100 ABs in the majors), all of the preseason uproar over him seems pretty silly now. I remember some posters making it sound like if JBJ was not placed on the opening day roster the team was giving up on the season, spitting in the faces of the fans, should be ashamed of themselves, etc.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    Bradley started declining in Pawtucket from July on, in hitting. (.244 Post All-Star break) Which makes it less of a small sample size. Ellsbury constantly stayed at the .300 level throughout that season in Pawtucket, before call up. Then took off when he was called up, thats pretty revealing.



    No it's not.  Bradley's OPS at AAA this year was .842.  Ellsbury's was .740.  Bradley's already the better defender.  Ellsbury was hot for 30 games in September.  It wasn't indicative of his ability.  Bradley will be the better player.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Ellsbury had a great September.  His #'s in the 07 PS were inflated:  there was a small base size and he got a few cheap hits that really increased his "OPS" significantly.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    JBJ is not even close as JE when they were at the same age.  JE have batted around.300 from minor league toward to today.  So therefore, he is a much talent player than JBJ and will alway be.  I think JBJ is more like Gardner of the Yankees.  

    Seriously, Ellsbury have not gone on the decline yet.  He is still going to have another 4 to 5 good baseball years ahead of him!!   Why risk to get rid of him and bring in JBJ.  What if JBJ is a busted player and who will back him up.  I do not want Victorino playing in CF with the hamstring problem he is having now.   

    Plus JBJ batted 78 times this year and only have one stolen base.  That is not a good sign if you want to see him to be the next year lead off hitter!!

    I am telling you all, Boston will be so aggressive on resiging Ellsbury.  Then use JBJ as a trade bait to make a trade for valuable player in return.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to GoUconn13's comment:

    JBJ is not even close as JE when they were at the same age.  JE have batted around.300 from minor league toward to today.  So therefore, he is a much talent player than JBJ and will alway be.  I think JBJ is more like Gardner of the Yankees.  

    Seriously, Ellsbury have not gone on the decline yet.  He is still going to have another 4 to 5 good baseball years ahead of him!!   Why risk to get rid of him and bring in JBJ.  What if JBJ is a busted player and who will back him up.  I do not want Victorino playing in CF with the hamstring problem he is having now.   

    Plus JBJ batted 78 times this year and only have one stolen base.  That is not a good sign if you want to see him to be the next year lead off hitter!!

    I am telling you all, Boston will be so aggressive on resiging Ellsbury.  Then use JBJ as a trade bait to make a trade for valuable player in return.




    JBJ would be a very good - and very CHEAP - 4th OFer for the next 4 years....Why deal him unless he'd be in a package for a Starting Pitcher....

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

     

     

     

    Bradley started declining in Pawtucket from July on, in hitting. (.244 Post All-Star break) Which makes it less of a small sample size. Ellsbury constantly stayed at the .300 level throughout that season in Pawtucket, before call up. Then took off when he was called up, thats pretty revealing.

     

     



    No it's not.  Bradley's OPS at AAA this year was .842.  Ellsbury's was .740.   Bradley's already the better defender.  Ellsbury was hot for 30 games in September.  It wasn't indicative of his ability.  Bradley will be the better player.

     

     

     



    Id argue that.

     

    Theres no reason to believe JBJ wont have success in MLB. Of course right now theres no reason to believe he will because he hasnt shown anything.

    When JBJ can man CF in Fenway as good as Ellsbury, THEN I will say hes the better, or as good of, a defender. Until then, hes just a good prospect with good potential.

    If I had to choose between the 2? Id take Ells ALL DAY over JBJ for the next 4-5 years.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    Ellsbury had a great September.  His #'s in the 07 PS were inflated:  there was a small base size and he got a few cheap hits that really increased his "OPS" significantly.



    "cheap hits"

    I didn't realize when a guy hits a line drive it's a "cheap hit" 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Let it be noted that I didn't bring this up, someone else did.

    One more piece of evidence is Iglesias-- last year when he played 25 games with an OPS of .391.  Again, another small sample size, but all those other insights would apply to him.  As a result, the Sox went after Drew despite having already committed $10M to Iglesias as a minor league player.  That's a huge investment, suggesting he was the heir apparent to the SS position, but they were ready to walk away from it or at least take a couple of steps.  Drew only has a one year contract.  On the other hand, Bogaerts might just be a decent fielder and his OPS with three years less experience than Bradley or Ellsbury (in 2007), is a decent .779.  This year Iglesias started out like a house afire at the plate, but hit a big slump in July.  So, with Drew and Bogaerts as good options, it wasn't hard to give Iglesias up for a front line starter, Peavy.

     



    The fact that people keep trying to justify this boneheaded trade shows just how bad it is.

     

    Iggy's BA was an unsustainable .500+ at one point and everyone knew it was going to fall to a more reasonable level.  Everyone knew this was going to happen so it still amazes me that people are using the downslide to "prove" that the guy can't hit. Since he's gone to Detroit he's hitting .287 with a .716 OPS.  Go ahead, scream, "Small sample size", but he's hitting 106/367 or .289 for the year and 367 AB's is more than half a season. 

    I was asked a couple days ago what I thought was going to become of Iggy when Peralta comes back.  Now it seems apparent.  Peralta has been taking reps in LF.

    This trade may work out well for the Sox this year but it's going to come back and bite us in the very near future. 

    I'm ready to dismiss it as a boneheaded trade that I have to live with.  As long as you don't keep telling me what a great trade it was I'll stop proving to you what a bad one it was.   Deal?  

    [/QUOTE]

    I brought up Iglesias, so of course it's fair to defend him. There are plenty of Sox fans who continue to dislike the Iglesias trade, and I was definitely in that camp when it happened. 

    The thrust of my OP, however, is about the decision-making process of the FO, specifically Ben Cherington and his team, including the manager John Farrell. 

    Let me say that again.  We fans focus primarily on the stats, but those guys look at a whole lot more.   And it is remotely possible they know the players better than we do because they are professionals, as we are not. 

    Moreover, you glossed over this fact big time:   the Sox had already invested $10M in Iglesias as a minor leaguer.  That's how much they believed in his potential, which you appear to think they were totally ignorant of and that only you could recognize. 

    So the Sox got Drew as a hedge for one year and to give Iglesias more time.  Then five things happened. 

    1.  Drew got beaned and missed ST and three or so weeks, so Iglesias filled in and fielded well and also hit well.   

    2.  Nevertheless, Farrell announced Drew would be the SS when he returned, and that's what happened.  Iglesias back to AAA, but turned back around when MBR went back to AAA and Iglesias filled in at 3B, still hitting well. 

    3. The team as a whole played great ball and quickly became a contender.  Attendance, now honestly counted, picked up, and the fans responded to this team big time.    This is a giant fact which you again ignore.  So let me say it again, the Ben C regime, including Farrell, turned this team around in just one year.  They have to be doing something right.  Moreover, there is an old military expression that goes:  reinforce success, not failure.  Once this team picked up  steam, the boneheaded move by Cherington would have been not to make it better for the stretch run. 

    4.  By the time August 1 rolled around, Iglesias was in a month long slump, the Sox were still winning but in a dogfight, Drew was looking pretty good in the field and at bat, Bogaerts was too at AAA, and Peavy became available at a time when the rotation was problematical with Buchholz on the 60 day DL.   And Middlebrooks looked ready to return. 

    5.  Since Iglesias's departure, the Sox have played great ball.  Middlebrooks is back.  Bogaerts looks good.  Drew is hitting and fielding well.  Peavy is a solid starter with a lot of experience.  The Sox are sure to get the AL East and a decent bet to keep the home field advantage in the playoffs, including the WS if they get there.  Ben C reinforced success in just the right way. 

    Given those five points, to me the Iglesias trade in the short term is officially a no brainer. 

    Long term, I grant you, many of us will pine for Iglesias because he is a magical defensive SS, and he just might prove to be a decent hitter.  I absolutely did not want to lose him.

    But this Sox regime to me has demonstrated they know what they are doing.  Unlike the Tigers, they have no shortage of capable SS's.  Re-signing Drew could be a smart move.  So could handing that job to Bogaerts, who is still only 20 years old and is sure to improve in the field and at bat.  Peavy will be coming back next year to a team which should be pretty good.  Re-signing Ellsbury, Napoli, Salty, and Drew will be tricky, and I'm guessing only two will be re-signed, but overall it should be a solid team with a solid rotation.  I do not believe Iglesias will be missed except by idiots like me who love to watch great fielding. 

    As for Bradley, surely he must see the importance of the Iglesias precedent.  Time is running out for him. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share