Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to GoUconn13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Cuz Boston will have Kalish coming back (hopefully), Brentz who is probalby as good as JBJ, and Nava and Gomes are coming back for next season.  So therefore, JBJ is going to be either a 4th to 6th OF of the team.  While his value is high just like Iggy, why not to trade him for something such as to find a good young catcher if Salty leaves or LF or etc.

     

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    I am starting to wonder if you guys saw the 2007 PS at all?  Ellsbury had at least 3 BLOOPERS that just fell in.  One was like an inch from the foul line.  Take away those 3 hits and his OPS goes down given it was a small sample size.  I believe 2 of those hits ended up being doubles - thus an over inflated SLG% as well as OPS....I love Ellsbury and he's developed into a strong pull hitter but let's be honest here - in 2007 he wasn't hitting frozen ropes all day long - he was kind of an opposite field slap hitter.......

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



    Go back and compare JE and JB at similar ages and at similar levels on the farm. Saying they were "not even close" is an overstatement.

    Ellsbury:

    age 21 A- (165 PA) .850 OPS

    age 22 A+/AA (281/225)  .808 OPS

    age 23 AA/AAA *83/401) .811 OPS

    Totals:

    A-  .850

    A+  .797

    AA  .906

    AAA .743

     

    Bradley:

    age 21  A-/A  (25/15 PAs)  .686 OPS in just 40 PAs total

    age 22 A+/AA (304/271)  .911 OPS

    age 23 AAA (374)  .842 OPS

    totals:

    A-  .510  (25 PAs)

    A  .933 (15 PAs)

    A+ 1.006

    AA   .809

    AAA .842

     

    Both were in A+ and AA at age 22, but JBJ was in AAA all of age 23, while Jacoby spent some time in AA at age 23.

    Jacoby had better AA numbers (.906 to .809),

    but JBJ had better AAA numbers (.842 to .743).

     

    The small sample size major league numbers in their first years do have meaning, but certainly not enough to make any diffinitive judgement about what they were or are to become.

     

     
  5. 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:

     

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

     

     

     

    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....

     

     

     

     

     



    Cuz Boston will have Kalish coming back (hopefully), Brentz who is probalby as good as JBJ, and Nava and Gomes are coming back for next season.  So therefore, JBJ is going to be either a 4th to 6th OF of the team.  While his value is high just like Iggy, why not to trade him for something such as to find a good young catcher if Salty leaves or LF or etc.

     

     RESPONSE:

     

    You lost me at Kalish.  Really?  Why would anyone count of that guy for anything?




     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    I am starting to wonder if you guys saw the 2007 PS at all?  Ellsbury had at least 3 BLOOPERS that just fell in.  One was like an inch from the foul line.  Take away those 3 hits and his OPS goes down given it was a small sample size.  I believe 2 of those hits ended up being doubles - thus an over inflated SLG% as well as OPS....I love Ellsbury and he's developed into a strong pull hitter but let's be honest here - in 2007 he wasn't hitting frozen ropes all day long - he was kind of an opposite field slap hitter.......



    I agree with this.  Ellsbury's performance in the 2007 PS was overhyped.  He had 9 hits and 4 RBI in the 2007 PS.  His first start wasn't until Game 6 of the ALCS.  And many of the hits were flares. 

    He made a positive contribution, no question, but like I say things got a little overhyped. 

     

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    .

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I am starting to wonder if you guys saw the 2007 PS at all?  Ellsbury had at least 3 BLOOPERS that just fell in.  One was like an inch from the foul line.  Take away those 3 hits and his OPS goes down given it was a small sample size.  I believe 2 of those hits ended up being doubles - thus an over inflated SLG% as well as OPS....I love Ellsbury and he's developed into a strong pull hitter but let's be honest here - in 2007 he wasn't hitting frozen ropes all day long - he was kind of an opposite field slap hitter.......

     



    I agree with this.  Ellsbury's performance in the 2007 PS was overhyped.  He had 9 hits and 4 RBI in the 2007 PS.  His first start wasn't until Game 6 of the ALCS.  And many of the hits were flares. 

     

    He made a positive contribution, no question, but like I say things got a little overhyped. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Bingo

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    I know it's a small sample size but Ellsbury did have double the Line Drive percentage he did in the regular season in 2007.  So yes a few bloop hits may have fallen in but every player has bloop hits fall in just like some players sometimes hit the ball hard right at someone.

    Say what you want to say, but he was making great contact during the 2007 playoffs.  You don't hit double the amount of line drives in your at bats by making weak contact and struggling at the plate. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to GoUconn13's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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.

     



    Go back and compare JE and JB at similar ages and at similar levels on the farm. Saying they were "not even close" is an overstatement.

     

    Ellsbury:

    age 21 A- (165 PA) .850 OPS

    age 22 A+/AA (281/225)  .808 OPS

    age 23 AA/AAA *83/401) .811 OPS

    Totals:

    A-  .850

    A+  .797

    AA  .906

    AAA .743

     

    Bradley:

    age 21  A-/A  (25/15 PAs)  .686 OPS in just 40 PAs total

    age 22 A+/AA (304/271)  .911 OPS

    age 23 AAA (374)  .842 OPS

    totals:

    A-  .510  (25 PAs)

    A  .933 (15 PAs)

    A+ 1.006

    AA   .809

    AAA .842

     

    Both were in A+ and AA at age 22, but JBJ was in AAA all of age 23, while Jacoby spent some time in AA at age 23.

    Jacoby had better AA numbers (.906 to .809),

    but JBJ had better AAA numbers (.842 to .743).

     

    The small sample size major league numbers in their first years do have meaning, but certainly not enough to make any diffinitive judgement about what they were or are to become.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    moonslav,

    You and I may not be able to make a definitive judgment, but the Sox were capable of doing that or at least felt they had too.  After Ellsbury's good showing in 2007--granted, a small sample--he was a regular in 2008.  The Sox seem to have done something similar after Iglesias weak hitting last Aug-Sep--they signed Drew for a season, then Farrell made it clear he would stick with him. When Iglesias had a bad hitting month in July, the Sox did not hesitate to pull the trigger on the Peavy trade.  It helped that Drew was playing and is playing well and Bogaerts was/is in the wings. 

    And I think the same thing may be happening with Bradley, who has not looked good at the plate.  Yes, small sample size, but an indicator.  Plus they have watched him a lot at AA and AAA, in batting practice, etc.  Most importantly, they need to make a decision about Ellsbury, and right now his stock has to be rising for Boston.  He may still leave because of the price tag, but my point is the front office can't always wait another year or so to be sure about a AAA prospect like Bradley.   

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to BigPapiforever's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to GoUconn13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     



    Go back and compare JE and JB at similar ages and at similar levels on the farm. Saying they were "not even close" is an overstatement.

     

     

     

    Ellsbury:

    age 21 A- (165 PA) .850 OPS

    age 22 A+/AA (281/225)  .808 OPS

    age 23 AA/AAA *83/401) .811 OPS

    Totals:

    A-  .850

    A+  .797

    AA  .906

    AAA .743

     

    Bradley:

    age 21  A-/A  (25/15 PAs)  .686 OPS in just 40 PAs total

    age 22 A+/AA (304/271)  .911 OPS

    age 23 AAA (374)  .842 OPS

    totals:

    A-  .510  (25 PAs)

    A  .933 (15 PAs)

    A+ 1.006

    AA   .809

    AAA .842

     

    Both were in A+ and AA at age 22, but JBJ was in AAA all of age 23, while Jacoby spent some time in AA at age 23.

    Jacoby had better AA numbers (.906 to .809),

    but JBJ had better AAA numbers (.842 to .743).

     

    The small sample size major league numbers in their first years do have meaning, but certainly not enough to make any diffinitive judgement about what they were or are to become.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    moonslav,

     

     

    You and I may not be able to make a definitive judgment, but the Sox were capable of doing that or at least felt they had too.  After Ellsbury's good showing in 2007--granted, a small sample--he was a regular in 2008.  The Sox seem to have done something similar after Iglesias weak hitting last Aug-Sep--they signed Drew for a season, then Farrell made it clear he would stick with him. When Iglesias had a bad hitting month in July, the Sox did not hesitate to pull the trigger on the Peavy trade.  It helped that Drew was playing and is playing well and Bogaerts was/is in the wings. 

    And I think the same thing may be happening with Bradley, who has not looked good at the plate.  Yes, small sample size, but an indicator.  Plus they have watched him a lot at AA and AAA, in batting practice, etc.  Most importantly, they need to make a decision about Ellsbury, and right now his stock has to be rising for Boston.  He may still leave because of the price tag, but my point is the front office can't always wait another year or so to be sure about a AAA prospect like Bradley.   

     

    [/QUOTE]


    you better get used to JBJ and the sox will invest another year.  If you don't see jbj in center you will see him somewhere in the outfield.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If they sign Ellsbury, I would probably never see him again!!

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Go back and compare JE and JB at similar ages and at similar levels on the farm. Saying they were "not even close" is an overstatement.

     

     

    Ellsbury:

    age 21 A- (165 PA) .850 OPS

    age 22 A+/AA (281/225)  .808 OPS

    age 23 AA/AAA *83/401) .811 OPS

    Totals:

    A-  .850

    A+  .797

    AA  .906

    AAA .743

     

    Bradley:

    age 21  A-/A  (25/15 PAs)  .686 OPS in just 40 PAs total

    age 22 A+/AA (304/271)  .911 OPS

    age 23 AAA (374)  .842 OPS

    totals:

    A-  .510  (25 PAs)

    A  .933 (15 PAs)

    A+ 1.006

    AA   .809

    AAA .842

     

    Both were in A+ and AA at age 22, but JBJ was in AAA all of age 23, while Jacoby spent some time in AA at age 23.

    Jacoby had better AA numbers (.906 to .809),

    but JBJ had better AAA numbers (.842 to .743).

     

    The small sample size major league numbers in their first years do have meaning, but certainly not enough to make any diffinitive judgement about what they were or are to become.

     

     




    I agree with your small sample size.  Stats only tell so much. Watching Bradlley at the plate is much more revealing.  

     

    However watching Bradley at bat its obvious he's not ready  .As of now he's just a prospect and one that has probably fell a little with his play this year.

    Boggy looks far more composed at the plate than Bradley.

     

    The problem with small sample size judgements is that let's say JBJ is just in a slump- nothing more. Of course, batters look bad when slumping, so making judgements based on "what he looks like" in a small sample size, is not always going to be the correct analysis.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    moonslav,

     

    You and I may not be able to make a definitive judgment, but the Sox were capable of doing that or at least felt they had too.  After Ellsbury's good showing in 2007--granted, a small sample--he was a regular in 2008.  The Sox seem to have done something similar after Iglesias weak hitting last Aug-Sep--they signed Drew for a season, then Farrell made it clear he would stick with him. When Iglesias had a bad hitting month in July, the Sox did not hesitate to pull the trigger on the Peavy trade.  It helped that Drew was playing and is playing well and Bogaerts was/is in the wings. 

    We do not know if these decisions were based on the small sample size MLB, in fact, they were probably based on a larger projected outlook.

    They traded Iggy after a nice small sample size. Wouldn't that go against your theory?

     

    And I think the same thing may be happening with Bradley, who has not looked good at the plate.  Yes, small sample size, but an indicator.  Plus they have watched him a lot at AA and AAA, in batting practice, etc.  Most importantly, they need to make a decision about Ellsbury, and right now his stock has to be rising for Boston.  He may still leave because of the price tag, but my point is the front office can't always wait another year or so to be sure about a AAA prospect like Bradley.   

    I don't know how Ben & the organization views JBJ. They probably have a better idea of his outlook than you and me, and I seriously doubt his small MLB sample size has made much of an impact on their analysis. Maybe some, but not much, IMO>

    Sox4ever

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to BigPapiforever's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to GoUconn13's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     



    Go back and compare JE and JB at similar ages and at similar levels on the farm. Saying they were "not even close" is an overstatement.

     

     

     

    Ellsbury:

    age 21 A- (165 PA) .850 OPS

    age 22 A+/AA (281/225)  .808 OPS

    age 23 AA/AAA *83/401) .811 OPS

    Totals:

    A-  .850

    A+  .797

    AA  .906

    AAA .743

     

    Bradley:

    age 21  A-/A  (25/15 PAs)  .686 OPS in just 40 PAs total

    age 22 A+/AA (304/271)  .911 OPS

    age 23 AAA (374)  .842 OPS

    totals:

    A-  .510  (25 PAs)

    A  .933 (15 PAs)

    A+ 1.006

    AA   .809

    AAA .842

     

    Both were in A+ and AA at age 22, but JBJ was in AAA all of age 23, while Jacoby spent some time in AA at age 23.

    Jacoby had better AA numbers (.906 to .809),

    but JBJ had better AAA numbers (.842 to .743).

     

    The small sample size major league numbers in their first years do have meaning, but certainly not enough to make any diffinitive judgement about what they were or are to become.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    moonslav,

     

     

    You and I may not be able to make a definitive judgment, but the Sox were capable of doing that or at least felt they had too.  After Ellsbury's good showing in 2007--granted, a small sample--he was a regular in 2008.  The Sox seem to have done something similar after Iglesias weak hitting last Aug-Sep--they signed Drew for a season, then Farrell made it clear he would stick with him. When Iglesias had a bad hitting month in July, the Sox did not hesitate to pull the trigger on the Peavy trade.  It helped that Drew was playing and is playing well and Bogaerts was/is in the wings. 

    And I think the same thing may be happening with Bradley, who has not looked good at the plate.  Yes, small sample size, but an indicator.  Plus they have watched him a lot at AA and AAA, in batting practice, etc.  Most importantly, they need to make a decision about Ellsbury, and right now his stock has to be rising for Boston.  He may still leave because of the price tag, but my point is the front office can't always wait another year or so to be sure about a AAA prospect like Bradley.   

     

    [/QUOTE]


    you better get used to JBJ and the sox will invest another year.  If you don't see jbj in center you will see him somewhere in the outfield.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You could be right.  But right now, despite his obvious skills in CF, he can't make the lineup against a righty starter in a game that counts.  Right now Farrell would rather go with Vic, Nava, and Carp.  All three will be back next year.  Maybe he is just slumping and the Sox still believe he is the future.  And maybe not. 

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    JBJ had a .752 OPS in August and over .800 in June and July (including time in MLB)...batting average aside, I don't know if it's fair to call those months a "slump" rather than a deviation from very lofty expectations.

    He finished his Triple-A season with .375 OBP and .470 slugging, and I guess I'm not seeing how that is supposed to be a disappointment for a kid who has been advanced very aggressively (from Single-A to the major leagues in about a year).

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007


    Bradley's "slump" since the All Star break might have a .244BA, but also hasa .348OBP.  There is a lot of value in that untld by BA alone.  For example, while Ellsbury has a .295BA since the ASB, but only has a .341OBP.

     

    Obviously, Bradley's is an AAA number, and Ellsbury's is in MLB.  But really, the point is to not look solely into BA for a slump...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin'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]


     

    No one is “justifying” the trade.  (Well, I think Peavy is.)  The Sox appear comfortable with Bogaerts at SS and Middlebrooks at 3B in the immediate future, and viewed Iglesias as expendable, regardless of the career he continues to have.  They had a chance to win this year, and saw an opportunity to increase their chances short term, regardless of the “plans” of the fanbase.   It was a good trade for everyone involved.  The Sox gave quality and got quality, receiving a very good starting pitcher for one and a half years and a potential draft pick, the Tigers got a SS of the present who is controllable longer than FA-to-be Peralta.  The White Sox probably hurt themselves, getting a young player to build around, but with no farm system to do any actual building with.  But, hey, who cares about them anyway?  Certainly not Chicago baseball fans.

     

    Had the Red Sox not made the deal and missed the post-season this year, they might never have had another chance in Iglesias’ stay in Boston.  Better shortstops have spent their careers without seeing the post-season.  Rick Burleson only went his first full season in Boston, despite playing on teams from 1976 through 1980 that never had fewer than 4 future Hall of Famers.  (He did play in the post-season one more time in 1986, but that was against Boston.)

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    Ellsbury was very lucky as well his first year, with his .380BABIP.  Bradley has a .200BABIP and has been a even unluckier than Ellsbury has been lucky.

     

    Using the numbers from each ridiculously small sample size (Ellsbury 153PA, Bradley 89PA and counting)  over that first season, age 23 for both players, they are closer than you realize.

     

    Ellsbury had a xBABIP of .311, which means his BA of .353 should have .289 and his OBP .340.  Bradley has an xBABIP of .275.  This means his .154 / .258 really should be .200 / .301.  While those numbers are certainly not good, it does close the gap between the two seasons significantly.  The  -.069 difference for Ellsbury between xBABIP and BABIP does show he was VERY lucky, and the 0.075 difference for Bradley shows he has had had even more luck, and it has all been bad.  (Hey! I supported that statement from the first paragraph with actual mathematical proof!)

     

    The killer for Bradley to date has been his low line drive rate and high ground ball rate – 12% and 66% respectively.  Again, 89 plate appearance.  Ellsbury was more balanced with his 21% LD, 54% GB, 25% FB splits.  Bradley needs to hit a few more line drives, and fewer ground balls.  Both were similar fly ball hitters at this stage in their careers (22% and 25%).

     

    I have no idea how aggressively the Sox will pursue Ellsbury, and more importantly, how aggressively any other team will pursue him.   The fact remains, his intent was always to sign the biggest contract.  This was made loud and clear when he hired Scott Boras.  And the biggest obstacle towards retaining hi won’t be ellsbuy or Boras; it will be those other teams who will establish his market value.  The Sox presumably signed Crawford because they figured Ellsbury might be too difficult to retain.  Now they find themselves positioned similarly with Bradley.  If they do bring Ellsbury back, Bradley certainly becomes expendable.  He will be worth more to this team as a trade chip than a bench bat, although Ellbury’s injury history and inability to stay on the field might be weighed in differently.

     

    I think that since part of the MO of this regime is to minimize, if not avoid, crazy long term deals for free agents, Ellsbury is a longshot.  It’s easy to say this MO is working out just fine, but, really, it has only been one season…

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

    Re: Bradley and Ellsbury, 2013 and 2007

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to GoUconn13's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

     

     



    Go back and compare JE and JB at similar ages and at similar levels on the farm. Saying they were "not even close" is an overstatement.

     

     

    Ellsbury:

    age 21 A- (165 PA) .850 OPS

    age 22 A+/AA (281/225)  .808 OPS

    age 23 AA/AAA *83/401) .811 OPS

    Totals:

    A-  .850

    A+  .797

    AA  .906

    AAA .743

     

    Bradley:

    age 21  A-/A  (25/15 PAs)  .686 OPS in just 40 PAs total

    age 22 A+/AA (304/271)  .911 OPS

    age 23 AAA (374)  .842 OPS

    totals:

    A-  .510  (25 PAs)

    A  .933 (15 PAs)

    A+ 1.006

    AA   .809

    AAA .842

     

    Both were in A+ and AA at age 22, but JBJ was in AAA all of age 23, while Jacoby spent some time in AA at age 23.

    Jacoby had better AA numbers (.906 to .809),

    but JBJ had better AAA numbers (.842 to .743).

     

    The small sample size major league numbers in their first years do have meaning, but certainly not enough to make any diffinitive judgement about what they were or are to become.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    moonslav,

     

    You and I may not be able to make a definitive judgment, but the Sox were capable of doing that or at least felt they had too.  After Ellsbury's good showing in 2007--granted, a small sample--he was a regular in 2008.  The Sox seem to have done something similar after Iglesias weak hitting last Aug-Sep--they signed Drew for a season, then Farrell made it clear he would stick with him. When Iglesias had a bad hitting month in July, the Sox did not hesitate to pull the trigger on the Peavy trade.  It helped that Drew was playing and is playing well and Bogaerts was/is in the wings. 

    And I think the same thing may be happening with Bradley, who has not looked good at the plate.  Yes, small sample size, but an indicator.  Plus they have watched him a lot at AA and AAA, in batting practice, etc.  Most importantly, they need to make a decision about Ellsbury, and right now his stock has to be rising for Boston.  He may still leave because of the price tag, but my point is the front office can't always wait another year or so to be sure about a AAA prospect like Bradley.   

    [/QUOTE]


     

    First of all, I really do not think they traded Iglesias because he slumped, which you certainly imply but might not actually mean.  They did trade him because Detroit wanted him, and Detroit was willing to give up the player the White Sox wanted for Peavy.   I am sure Drew’s play in 2013 and their faith in Bogaerts were both contributing factors, and probably bigger ones than Iglesias’ slump, which everyone knew was inevitable for a variety of reasons.

     

    However the Sox FO feels about Bradley, I am sure will not be reflected by the fans.  Too many want immediate impact from a rookie – the next Mike Trout, although many will actually “settle” for the next Wil Myers.  However, in a lot of cases it can come down to patience.  And I am not talking about the kind of patience the team had with Pedroia, where after like a month of Mendozing, the guy morphed into an MVP candidate. People talk about his slow start like it was some sort of ordeal and the beginning of his career was devoid of hope.  The guy did win ROY!  He had a bad April.  That's all.

     

    Sometimes players take longer, like a season or two.   Sometimes, longer.  For example, over the first 5 years of his career, Roberto Clemente hit .282 / .311 / .395.   Nice, but no one was thinkng "Cooperstown!!" at that time, I am very certain.   Over the next 11 seasons, he hit .330 / .377 / .504.  Imagine if the Pirates gave up on him after 89 plate appearances.  

     

    I am not old enough to ever see Clemente play, but it would be interesting to know what Pirate fans thought of those first 5 years.   I am not saying Bradley deserves 5 full seasons, but it does not always happen right away…

     

     

     

Share