Daniel Nava

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

    Daniel Nava

    Does anyone know what happened to him?  I thought he was major league ready and would take over one of the OFer job by now.  I still remember that
    1st AB grand slam...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]Does anyone know what happened to him?  I thought he was major league ready and would take over one of the OFer job by now.  I still remember that 1st AB grand slam...
    Posted by seannybboi[/QUOTE]

    I just looked him up.  He spent all season in AAA and put up decent numbers.  .268 AVG, 10 HRs, 48 RBIs.  He has good defensive skills.  Can he be a fit at RF? He's switch hitter with good glove.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rgmfick. Show rgmfick's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Maybe what happened to Daniel Nava is what happened, as an example, to Darnell McDonald. Of course, have read that McDonald did not pursue a collegiate football instead signing a Contract to play organized baseball.  And in order to get signed to play organized baseball, Nava played collegiate baseball, even 1 college originally having recognized his persistance by Daniel serving as the team manager, eventually he played independent league baseball like Kevin Mallar before being signed by the Marlins.  Players get labeled, don't know who labeled Nava, but it seems Reddick, McDonald, Kalish, maybe Linares, maybe Lin, maybe a number of other outfielders have bypassed Nava.  Positive and negative labels, whatever the reason, often impact how many ML looks, if any, are given. Know a good hitter who langered in the Red Sox organization, probably more than any reason cause he was below Mo Vaughn on the depth chart, and another, almost infamous player, who has topic named for him on Son of Sam Horn, Rick Lancellotti, played in the Red Sox system for just about his whole career.  Some will say if this player is or was a good enough hitter, the team would have found a position for him, and while that may be true, much of it has to do with the depth chart. Lars Anderson may or may not be a Major League hitter, when he played when Kevin Youkilis was injured in 2010, Lars looks like a decent 1B. With Adrian Gonzalez and Kevin Youkilis, also a gold glove 1B, probably someone like Jarrod Saltalamacchia also in front of Lars at 1B on the depth chart, it seems unlikely Lars will ever get a serious opportunity to be the Red Sox regular 1B. Lars is much more likely to be traded and could someday be a regular with another ML team.  As it is said, most of us cannot come up with the names of the 1B(s) who were behind Lou Gehrig. 

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

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Nava was the third best OF behind Reddick and Kalish.  So that was why he couldnt move up!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]Nava was the third best OF behind Reddick and Kalish.  So that was why he couldnt move up!!
    Posted by GoUconn13[/QUOTE] In baseball speak it means his career has been blocked by other players who are more favaored by their GM's or team owners. Kind of like the little leaguer who doesn't get selected to the All-Star team because the Mgr and volunteer coaches have to put their sons on the team regardless of their actual talent. Or like when you go to a bar and see the girl of your dreams and your best bud C'ock blocks you if you know what I mean.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Nava is a horrible fielder.

    His only real hope is as a DH or LF'er.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]Nava is a horrible fielder. His only real hope is as a DH or LF'er.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    hor·ri·ble

    [hawr-uh-buhl, hor-] Show IPA
    adjective
    1.
    causing or tending to cause horror; shockingly dreadful: a horrible sight.
    2.
    extremely unpleasant; deplorable; disgusting: horrible living conditions.

    Makes one wonder how he made it to the big leagues, or was signed at all.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Daniel Nava : In baseball speak it means his career has been blocked by other players who are more favaored by their GM's or team owners. Kind of like the little leaguer who doesn't get selected to the All-Star team because the Mgr and volunteer coaches have to put their sons on the team regardless of their actual talent. Or like when you go to a bar and see the girl of your dreams and your best bud C'ock blocks you if you know what I mean.
    Posted by sportsbozo1[/QUOTE]

    Aren't you glad or feel fortunate that the Red Sox organization has the knowledge / experience to properly rate the outfield prospects? Why in the world would you think that you are better qualified?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]Nava is a horrible fielder. His only real hope is as a DH or LF'er.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Even though it's small smaple size, Nava had 67 chances of plays, 65 putouts and 2 assists while not committing any errors in the big league.  How is that horrible?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenwellforpresident. Show greenwellforpresident's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]Does anyone know what happened to him?  I thought he was major league ready and would take over one of the OFer job by now.  I still remember that 1st AB grand slam...
    Posted by seannybboi[/QUOTE]

    I was looking forward to seeing what he could do in 2011, but some of his antics in spring training made it difficult for him to make the team.  There were repeated instances of him missing buses, forgetting his equipment and other boneheaded moves.  This sort of thing may not be a big deal for a proven veteran, but when someone pulls these gaffs when trying to make the team it leaves serious doubts to his committment.  I seem to recall Terry actually bringing this up when explaining why he didn't make the team.  When Francona speaks poorly of a player it is definitely a bad sign.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Daniel Nava : Even though it's small smaple size, Nava had 67 chances of plays, 65 putouts and 2 assists while not committing any errors in the big league.  How is that horrible?
    Posted by seannybboi[/QUOTE]

    Trust me. I watched all the games. Saying he is "horrible" is actually a complement.

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

    Re: Daniel Nava

    You know how you have those MLB players who never meet their expectations??? Nava is the opposite, he has gone further than anyone every imagined.  If you remember correctly he was signed for close to nothing from an independent league.  He has appeared to hit his ceiling, and moon is right his defense will not win him a spot on any MLB roster.  If Nava wants to get on any MLB roster as a DH he will have to do a lot better than .268 10 HR 48 RBI's


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

    Re: Daniel Nava

    i have to agree with those that are saying that daniel nava is far from a major league quality defensive outfielder.

    he is going to have to DH his way onto any level that is beyond triple A where he already has been a "filler" type player for two years already.  i would think that he would have to have a break out type triple A season to get any further attention, and that would likely mean something like 30 HRs, 100 RBIs and at least .275.

    even though he had that absolutely perfect first major league AB he is likely to be slipping further away from his dream than getting closer to it at this time.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Daniel Nava : Trust me. I watched all the games. Saying he is "horrible" is actually a complement.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    The stats agree with you.  Nava managed to post a -4.6 UZR in just 380 innings.  His defense cost the team about 4.6 runs.  He was on pace for a UZR/150 of -15.6.  While it's too small of a sample size to accurately predict what he would do in the future, there is no denying that his defense, when given the opportunity, was bad.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from siestafiesta. Show siestafiesta's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    "Even though it's small smaple size, Nava had 67 chances of plays, 65 putouts and 2 assists while not committing any errors in the big league.  How is that horrible?"

    Wow dude.  That's a scary way to judge whether an outfielder is good defensively.  I'm going to have to assume either: A) You've never actually seen him play or B) You don't know much about baseball
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Fldg% has to be the most abused stat by casual fans.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Daniel Nava : hor·ri·ble     / ˈhɔr ə bəl , ˈhɒr- / Show Spelled [ hawr - uh -b uh l , hor - ] Show IPA adjective 1. causing or tending to cause horror; shockingly dreadful: a horrible sight. 2. extremely unpleasant; deplorable; disgusting: horrible living conditions. Makes one wonder how he made it to the big leagues, or was signed at all.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    100% correct.

    Horrible fielder. 1 big hit and nothing ever again. 10 HR in AAA is "good?" Awful player.

    If the Red Sox are so awful that they are considering dregs like MacDonald or even more horribly, Nava, this team is nothing.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]Fldg% has to be the most abused stat by casual fans.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. Same for OBP and OPS.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Daniel Nava : Agreed. Same for OBP and OPS.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    There's a HUGE difference between fldg% and OBP / OPS.

    fldg% tells you if the guy screws up plays, while OBP/OPS show if he does something to help win games.  If a player fails to make an offensive impact, it shows up in OPS and OBP, if a player doesn't get to a ball and it costs the team defensively, fldg% doesn't show it.

    Which offensive stats would you prefer?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomnev. Show tomnev's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Nava was a great story and I thought his bat had Major league potential.....hitting a GS in his first AB probably hindered him more than helped him, because it made him thought of as a HR hitter which he isnt. He has however hit at every level. His play in the OF was definitely mediocre.....I think he was actually signed and came up as a 2B/3B and was moved to the OF because he was defensively inept as an infielder, but in a small Market he could have a ML career as a low cost, Swith hitter , occasional DH, PH and in a utility role. Given some time at the ML level, his history says he could hit upwards of
    .280 with some occasional pop and good 2B power.....not alot of guys like that on benches throughout the ML. As for the Sox, they should have the payroll to have better.....though my distain for Darnell McDonal would lead me to keep Nava over him.  
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    fldg% tells you if the guy screws up plays...

    Only plays that are somewhat easy to make are judged.

    OF'ers get many breaks in decisions on errors or not. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    nava is a left handed hitter as well. nice kid but not a long term answer. neither is the other guy they picked up from Oakland.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Sweeney is a very good fielder and hits RHPs well. He's better than Nava for sure, and makes a nice platoon player.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    In Response to Re: Daniel Nava:
    [QUOTE]nava is a left handed hitter as well. nice kid but not a long term answer. neither is the other guy they picked up from Oakland.
    Posted by AL34[/QUOTE]

    Review this article and then troll on if you wish to.

    http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/ryan-sweeneys-skill-set-fits-well-in-fenway-park-red-sox-current-right-field-options-could-be-good-e.html
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from siestafiesta. Show siestafiesta's posts

    Re: Daniel Nava

    Personally, I like the Sweeney pickup.  He may not be great, but he does everything pretty well except hit for power.  I think he's fine in a platoon role if they get a decent RH bat.  Fenway is actually a very good park for LH hitters that use the whole field.  He's a career .283 hitter with a .342 OBP and he may be able to improve on that here.
     

Share