If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

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

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    It was a mistake to keep Rice in Pawtucket in 1974.

    However, the Sox did have Yaz (who started the most games for them in LF in 1974).

    They also had Tommy Harper - who sort of fell apart that year.

    They also had Bernie Carbo (26 years old).

    That was their LF. 

    Rice should have been the LF the second half of  the season with Yaz at 1B.  It may have got them over the hump - but they were concerned about his defense.

    Bradley does not have to beat out Yaz or even Harper.  He has to beat out Johnny Gomes and Nava.

    Let him play!

     

     

     



    Fred Lynn probably could have come up in 1074 as well

    Although he was only 22, he was already a great fielder and had an .857 OPS in AAA that year.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    3 for 5 today with a stolen base, pencil him in at LF

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to Bane_Capital's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    It was a mistake to keep Rice in Pawtucket in 1974.

    However, the Sox did have Yaz (who started the most games for them in LF in 1974).

    They also had Tommy Harper - who sort of fell apart that year.

    They also had Bernie Carbo (26 years old).

    That was their LF. 

    Rice should have been the LF the second half of  the season with Yaz at 1B.  It may have got them over the hump - but they were concerned about his defense.

    Bradley does not have to beat out Yaz or even Harper.  He has to beat out Johnny Gomes and Nava.

    Let him play!

     

     

     

     



    Fred Lynn probably could have come up in 1074 as well

     

    Although he was only 22, he was already a great fielder and had an .857 OPS in AAA that year.

     




    Actually, 1074 was when Tim Wakefield made his debut.

     



    excellent

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Pitiful to read these meaningless general comments about "age 23 and AA line split for part of the season".  None of you idiots have even seen Bradley, Jr. play, outside of a few times from video highlights and recently in spring training. I've seen him play, down here, over 50 games. He's been ready, defensively, to start as a MLB CF'er. He's a leader and has tremendous athletic talent and is very poised in competition. His last step is adjusting to MLB pitching, which he is showing will not be a hurdle he can't clear. Signing Victorino and keeping Ellsbury was simply management giving you idiots something to pretend and spend money on a pipe dream. It makes no sense, whatsoever!

    That said, Bradley, Jr. will need to display more consistency against MLB pitching over the full spring training. The Red Sox should have signed R. Johnson as a CF placeholder for MLB contract for 1 year and 2M, and signed Pods and Sizemore to minor league contracts. In the event Bradley, Jr. is ready for opening day, they simply trade R. Johnson. 

    The artifice of "need to save a year of control" is utterly laughable for the incompetent Red Sox management. Bradley propably needs more time hitting v. better pitching, but the knee jerk of "we decided to keep Ellsbury (Ellsbury can still be traded now)" or "we signed Shane" or any other nonsense as some artificial timeline excuse is why this managment is incompetent in building a roster.

    Right now, given what I've seen, I would simply do a public relations campaign and say that Bradley, Jr. isn't ready for the better MLB pitching but he'll get there and he's such a leader and so solid defensively. I would then put Ellsbury on the trade market and take the best trade offer for him. Time and value is better invested in Bradley, Jr., and worrying about having to pay him 5 or 10M more about a half a decade from now should only be an issue for idiots with fantasy baseball minds. The Red Sox and there massive payroll don't need to pretending to be a penny wise, when they are tons foolish.

    2013 OF opening day (not my original plan but my plan based on what's now on the books):

    LF  Gomes/Sweeney/Pinch Hitter

    CF Bradley, Jr.

    RF Shane

    Minors: Nava et al

     

    This won't happen, because Red Sox fans are still slobbering over Ellsbury, who has been a loser at every stage of baseball where he was being depended upon to be a season long starter.



    I've seen Bradley play numerous times.  I've seen him struggle and i have seen him play routine fly balls ointo triples.

    Regardless he is extremely talented and may be ready, I think they are waiting to see how he does the rest of the Spring.  As far as Ells goes he really has nothing to do with this particular situation.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to selenium-'s comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    Unless hes going to play FT in Boston, theres no need to waste a year of control and waste his development riding the pine.

     



    I wouldnt be against him playing on the long side of a platoon.

     

    If he played in LF against all righties, and subbed in for Vic and Ells occasionally, he would play ~75% of the time.

    I would submit that this would be enough to prevent stunting his development.

    But I would give the job to who wins it.  Nava, Sweeney, Bradley, Carp, Hazelbaker all fighting for the spot.

    If Bradley wins it, he wins it.

     




    Even at that, Id rather he play 100% of the time. Right now theres no need to start the arb clock and only start him 75% of the time. Just because hes hit good the first few games of ST, although promising, isnt the end all be all. His senond half of AA wasnt great last year after they adjusted to him.

     

    In his last 43 games at AA he hit .218/.340/.404...

    Id rather him start at AA with a quick track to AAA, then maybe a call-up...But thats just me.

     



    I think that was more fatigue than the league adjusting to him. Just about every college player hits the wall sometime towards the end of their first full pro season. The same thing happened to Barnes last year.

     

     




    43 games left and hes out of gas? Maybe a bit of both I would say (adjustments/fatigue). Still, If thats the case then he still should start in AA or AAA so he can build up his stamina...

     

     



    Like I said on another thread, if he really lights it up all spring I think he'll start the year in Pawtucket. Otherwise he'll go back to Portland and try to show that the way he started out in AA is more who he is than the way he finished. Also Pawtucket currently has Brentz, Linares, Hazelbaker and Hassan in the outfield, so I'm thinking that an initial assignment to Portland is probably likely. At least I hope so, because I want to get a chance to see Bradley and Bogaerts on the same team without paying $40+ per ticket. :-)

     

     




    Yeah, you and me both...I think were going to have to catch a game in Portland early in the season to do that though.

     

     




    I'm planing on opening day for now. I checked into tickets and for $10 you get just about the best seats in the house. :-)

     

     


     And for the rest of us there, we can subscribe to MiLB-TV for $40 per season and watch many Pawsox and Sea Dogs  from the comfort of our living rooms.

     

     




    Nothing like watching the "kids" live and in person at the ballpark...

     

     



    Minor league parks are where its at.  Strictly for baseball lovers.

     



    Hadlock is a great place to watch a game.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    Dewey also raked at the AAA level.

    Hey, I am excited.  I love Jackie Bradley.  

    But, I want to see him have some success hitting at AA nevermind AAA before I pencil him into the Sox lineup.  If he is still hitting great in mid-late March when pitchers start really pitching, I have already said i will take that as an acceptable substitute.  But, until he proves otherwise, he is still a AA level hitter.  Huge difference from Rice or Dewey when they were called up.

    Will he be better than Gomes. Sweeney, Nava and whatever other half-decent lunch-pail guys ahead of him on the depth chart?  YES.  Much better.  Can he hit as well as Gomes at the major league level RIGHT NOW?  My guess is no.  Your guess is yes.  this is the crux of our differeing opinion.  I think that you are over-emphasizing upside in your analysis of the present.  Now, like I said, if towards the end of ST, JBJ is still hitting, then I will easily and most happily concede that he is ready and has amazingly morphed into a big league hitter over the winter.




    True - Dewey did play great at AAA (at age 20) - but he skipped AA altogether.  Evans Rice and Lynn in the same organization all youngsters.  Burleson and Fisk also youngsters.  Wow!!  Tell me again how that team didn't win multiple WS?  (I digress)

    Agree with this also - our difference is in how we see Gomes. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

     

    Dewey also raked at the AAA level.

    Hey, I am excited.  I love Jackie Bradley.  

    But, I want to see him have some success hitting at AA nevermind AAA before I pencil him into the Sox lineup.  If he is still hitting great in mid-late March when pitchers start really pitching, I have already said i will take that as an acceptable substitute.  But, until he proves otherwise, he is still a AA level hitter.  Huge difference from Rice or Dewey when they were called up.

    Will he be better than Gomes. Sweeney, Nava and whatever other half-decent lunch-pail guys ahead of him on the depth chart?  YES.  Much better.  Can he hit as well as Gomes at the major league level RIGHT NOW?  My guess is no.  Your guess is yes.  this is the crux of our differeing opinion.  I think that you are over-emphasizing upside in your analysis of the present.  Now, like I said, if towards the end of ST, JBJ is still hitting, then I will easily and most happily concede that he is ready and has amazingly morphed into a big league hitter over the winter.

     




    True - Dewey did play great at AAA (at age 20) - but he skipped AA altogether.  Evans Rice and Lynn in the same organization all youngsters.  Burleson and Fisk also youngsters.  Wow!!  Tell me again how that team didn't win multiple WS?  (I digress)

     

    Agree with this also - our difference is in how we see Gomes. 

     




    you underestimate Gomes... if he is used properly he will have pretty damn good numbers. If he has a ton of ABs against RHP then not so much..

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    Ron Guidry, Steinbrenner $$$$ that bought the best free agents on the market. Why don't you ever obsess about that?  NYY were richer than the Red Sox so why do you hold that against the Red Sox ( "your team'). I think that the 1974-78 Red Sox was their best team. No Rings to show for it but that doesn't change my opinion. Only a fool would rate a team based on Rings.

    I agree that rings should not be the only decision maker, and the 1975 team might have been an Ed Armbrister away from 1 ring and a Bucky Dent away from another, but that Sox era team had a serious flaw: pitching.

    I loved Luis Tiant, and he almsot single-handedly led us to a ring, but we were not very deep in pitching, especially if you value WHIP as much as ERA.

    Our 1975 to 1978 teams had these staffs:

    1975: No pitcher with a WHIP lower than 1.283 (Willoughby-our 10th most IP guy)

    Tiant 18-14  4.02, Lee 17-9 3.95, and Wise 19-12 3.95 was a nice top 3 starter combo, and Reggie Cleveland and Dick pole were not horrible, but our pen was a bit weak by today's standards. (Moret went 14-3  3.60 in 16 starts.) Dick Drago was out "closer" at 3.84 and 1.376 (15 svs), Segui, Burton, Willoughby. Wow, we only used 12 pitchers in 1975 and only 8 guys with over 53 IP. Can we bring back that medical team/trainer.

    In 1976 we used 11 pitchers- 9 with more than 44 IP.  Cleveland & Pole with 14-15 GS'd and in the pen and fergie Jenkins (12-11 3.27) & Rick Jones (5-3  3.36)at starters. Willoughby to closer- No Drago. Added Tom Murpphy and Tom House as bottom pen guys.

    1977 had Fergie and Cleveland with the most IP. Bill Campbell and Don Aase added. Bob Stanley and Mike Paxton as well.

    1978 had 20 game winner Eck, a 16-13 Mike Torrez, 13-8 Tiant, 10-10 Lee and Jim Wright/Allen Ripley as starters. Stanley, Drago, Burgmeier, Campbell, and Hassler in the pen.

     

    I don't see these staffs as being close to the ones in 2004 and 2007, but they were pretty good.

     

     

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to mef429's comment:


    you underestimate Gomes... if he is used properly he will have pretty damn good numbers. If he has a ton of ABs against RHP then not so much..




    I might be.  I'll concede that -  Gomes might be better than I realize.

    Maybe its that goofy beard that has me thinking he stinks.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    1977 had Fergie and Cleveland with the most IP. Bill Campbell and Don Aase added. Bob Stanley and Mike Paxton as well.




    Oh I loved that 77 team.  They were an incredible offensive machine.

    Campbell pitched every day for 2 innings (at least it seemed like it).

    Boomer and the Crunch Bunch - one of my favorite SI cover stories.

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

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    It's the splits guys. The splits. That is the reason to call up Bradley at least by the middle of the summer. Victorino and Gomes have shown recently that they can not hit RH pitching. That is a big problem. If their splits continue the way they have been in their careers we are going to be great against LH this year but with diminished numbers against RH pitching. Bradley may well be a better option against RH pitching in our OF, from the talent we have available.

    And Bradley might prove to be a good lead off guy at some point, freeing up Ellsbury for the 3 slot. 

    I think we should give Bradley some time in AAA and one of those guys there now probably get traded ( Hassan, Hazelbacker, Linares, Brentz ). Maybe 2. Some of those guys are tieing up 40 man roster spots anyway sometime soon or they will be rule 5 picks. None of them look to be bonafide mlb studs but they all might be 4th OF types for some teams eventually. Brentz has a shot to be a rugular. But I would contend not a star probably. Keep Brentz and Linares for depth but either of the others can go without becoming a huge loss. I like Hazelbacker but year after year he just doesn't put up special numbers and it's not like he's a youngster. I really like him though. The point though is that any of those guys are basically "replacement" level mlb players long term with the possible exception of Brentz and even then that's just a possibility of him being anything more than that. None of those guys should stand in Bradley's way.

    The fact that Bradley is ready defensively is huge. And I have zero problem playing him 75% of the time. He's young. Let's keep him healthy and fresh to give him a better chance to succeed. I think a strong case could be made to keep him. He has the bonafides. 2 college WS championships. Being the top guy on 2 college WS champions. The guy who talked to the press. the guy everyone counted on and the one who came through big time under pressure when he was healthy.

    I'm not married to the concept of Bradley having to be sent down to save a year of control but I generally lean towards it. Would a month or 2 in Pawtucket kill him? I mean let's be realistic. It should help him develop and it should help us get more value from him long term. That extra year could be in his prime. Do I think Bradley could play right now? Yes, I think he is potentially that kind of guy from a skills and a maturity perspective but I still would give him 45 days in Pawtucket unless he just knocks that door down all the way to the end of spring.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    1977 had Fergie and Cleveland with the most IP. Bill Campbell and Don Aase added. Bob Stanley and Mike Paxton as well.

     




     

    Oh I loved that 77 team.  They were an incredible offensive machine.

    Campbell pitched every day for 2 innings (at least it seemed like it).

    Boomer and the Crunch Bunch - one of my favorite SI cover stories.



    Hobson hitting 9th quite often and hitting 30 homers.  I loved that team too. It was one of the first teams I really remember as a kid.

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

    Re: If Jackie Bradley, Jr. Continues to Impress...

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    1977 had Fergie and Cleveland with the most IP. Bill Campbell and Don Aase added. Bob Stanley and Mike Paxton as well.

     




     

    Oh I loved that 77 team.  They were an incredible offensive machine.

    Campbell pitched every day for 2 innings (at least it seemed like it).

    Boomer and the Crunch Bunch - one of my favorite SI cover stories.

     



    Hobson hitting 9th quite often and hitting 30 homers.  I loved that team too. It was one of the first teams I really remember as a kid.

     




    That was a great team. I always thought the 78 team was a little better because it had Eckersley in the rotation. Someone said earlier that the 78 team was a Bucky Dent away from a championship, but I believe they were a Don Zimmer away from a championship. The way Zimmer handled his pitching staff down the stretch was disgraceful.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share