JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to JoseLaguna's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The bottom line is that for Jackie to be the regular center fielder, he will have to produce on offense. If he does not, it will not be sufficient to say that he is better than Ellsbury defensively. Let's keep in mind that in his first five years in Boston, Ellsbury had a fielding percentage of .998, the highest in history. True, his arm is weak, but it is accurate. He won the Gold Glove in 2011. I know that some discount fielding percentage and Gold Gloves in favor of other metrics. But one should not simply discount those things. Again, in 2011, Ellsbury led all AL outfielders in putouts, while playing errorless ball. All that despite apparently taking bad routes, laying up on bloopers and avoiding the wall. Maybe he was just lucky that so many balls were hit right at him. I truly hope that Bradley is better. And, if he is , he will be a lot of fun to watch. The thing that concerns me here is that some may be touting his defense because they lack confidence in his offense. Personally, I think that he will hit in MLB, just as he has at every other level. The Sox should not panic if he starts slowly. The ability is there. Will he be a better all around player than Ellsbury? Possible , but maybe not probable. Only time will tell. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I will be in agony this coming season everytime that I see Ellsbury in pinstripes and playing for the EE.  I jumped three feet in the air in my living room when he stole home vs. Posada. The  Jake ,taking bad routes, laying up on bloopers, and avoiding the wall are visions in your mind and a few others on this forum in order to keep the "arguement clinic" here in recent years. Fans and other GMs don't believe that.

     The consensus amongst the FA market was that "sloppy Jake" was worth $22 mil. per year for 7 years. This is why troll Softlaw left this forum with his tail between his legs. The Yankees and Cashman obviously knew that Softlaw was a troll and his enablers were out in left field. It was a good act however resulting in  BDC profits.

    The Yankees ignore the  caps and now can go back to outspending everyone else in order to get the best team that money can buy. It is apparent that the Steinbrenners were lying about staying under the cap. In light of what the Dodgers and the  EE are doing , it appears that the penalties are not working. A sad day for baseball.

    [/QUOTE]

    (taking bad routes, laying up on bloopers, and avoiding the wall )  I guess that I didn't make myself clear. That is not my view at all.  It was supposed to be sarcasm. Pointing out the unlikelyhood of leading the league in putouts if the above was indeed true.  As for the penalties, those teams can just look at them as a part of doing business. I assume that they are making a profit. If they are losing money, then it is insanity. The only real solution would be a hard salary cap. That is not going to happen. I honestly think that MLB truly wants the New York and L.A. franchises to be successful. They are the top media markets. The Sox have done very well competing against this structure.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

     dgalehouse


     The only real solution would be a hard salary cap. That is not going to happen. I honestly think that MLB truly wants the New York and L.A. franchises to be successful. They are the top media markets. The Sox have done very well competing against this structure.

    while i agree there won't be any salary cap

    I'm just checking to make sure we agree that it's is because of the union

    and has nothing to do with what mlb or the nyy wants

     

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    Another solution would be to share 50-50 all TV and gate money.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another solution would be to share 50-50 all TV and gate money.

    [/QUOTE]


    solution 4 whom

    what would that do 2 the franchise values of these teams

    the San Diego Padres were sold  for  $800

    dodgers owners paid 2 billion

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    Jacoby WHO ???   Red Sox nation will like Jackie Bradley right out of the get-go !!



    Bill, I smile at your optimism now.  I think JBJ will do fine as will the Sox.  But I might just hold this against you if you get  all chicken-little if either part struggles to begin with.

    That being said, JBJ has excelled at every level he has played on.  It may be the need to trust JBJ the way Tito trusted Pedey when he started stone cold. 

    We'll miss Jake, no doubt.  But we will have a fine replacement ...

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another solution would be to share 50-50 all TV and gate money.




    solution 4 whom

    what would that do 2 the franchise values of these teams

    the San Diego Padres were sold  for  $800

    dodgers owners paid 2 billion

    [/QUOTE]

    My two cents...

    The current financial model in MLB since the advent of revenue sharing has served to bolster the franchise value of the smaller TV market clubs. Moneys they wouldn't otherwise be able to generate in thier respective markets. Thus impacting the competitive balance of the league, and the value of the franchises themselves. it wasn't that long ago that MLB was talking about contraction. Due to clubs losing millions and impacting the overall value of every club. If not for revenue sharing in the NFL the Green Bay Packers could not exist. A fact not lost on Selib and the owners.

    While there's still a huge gap between the larger market baseball teams and the smaller markets in terms of thier ability to generate revenues. Since the advent of revenue sharing, while not perfect, the systems has worked and has afforded teams like Milwaukee, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Oakland & Kansas City the resources to put in place an infrastructure that has lifted each of them from the ranks of perennial cellar dwellers into legit contenders and viable franchises. More important in the big picture, revenue sharing has stopped the bleeding and has positvely impacted the long term health of the league itself. 

    Perhaps the greatest single competitive dynamic that is a direct result of revenue sharing is that all teams now have the money's to sign players drafted and developed in thier respective organizations. To contracts that allow teams to keep players well into thier primes and also the funds to pay players that are arbitration eligible without having to severely cut payrolls to afford them. no way the Ray's under the old system could have even contemplated keeping David Price at 14M or for that matter signed Longoria to his current deal. 

    Looking forward, the next obstacle facing the league IMHO will be due to the new TV contracts being paid to teams with ratings qualifiers that change the amonuts of real moneys teams actually recieve and the cause and effect of the escalation of the top end salaries being paid to the superstars. Which will have a ripple effect on the smaller market clubs ability to afford paying thier arbitration eligible players and could also lead to clubs overextending themselves based on projected earnings V actuals.

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another solution would be to share 50-50 all TV and gate money.

    [/QUOTE]


    solution 4 whom

    what would that do 2 the franchise values of these teams

    the San Diego Padres were sold  for  $800

    dodgers owners paid 2 billion

    [/QUOTE]

    Since two teams are playing in every game, the home team should split the gate and TV money with the visiting team. The teams with a big gate and/or Tv contract would still make more, but it would be distributed more fairly.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another solution would be to share 50-50 all TV and gate money.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    solution 4 whom

     

    what would that do 2 the franchise values of these teams

    the San Diego Padres were sold  for  $800

    dodgers owners paid 2 billion

    [/QUOTE]

    My two cents...

    The current financial model in MLB since the advent of revenue sharing has served to bolster the franchise value of the smaller TV market clubs. Moneys they wouldn't otherwise be able to generate in thier respective markets. Thus impacting the competitive balance of the league, and the value of the franchises themselves. it wasn't that long ago that MLB was talking about contraction. Due to clubs losing millions and impacting the overall value of every club. If not for revenue sharing in the NFL the Green Bay Packers could not exist. A fact not lost on Selib and the owners.

    While there's still a huge gap between the larger market baseball teams and the smaller markets in terms of thier ability to generate revenues. Since the advent of revenue sharing, while not perfect, the systems has worked and has afforded teams like Milwaukee, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Oakland & Kansas City the resources to put in place an infrastructure that has lifted each of them from the ranks of perennial cellar dwellers into legit contenders and viable franchises. More important in the big picture, revenue sharing has stopped the bleeding and has positvely impacted the long term health of the league itself. 

    Perhaps the greatest single competitive dynamic that is a direct result of revenue sharing is that all teams now have the money's to sign players drafted and developed in thier respective organizations. To contracts that allow teams to keep players well into thier primes and also the funds to pay players that are arbitration eligible without having to severely cut payrolls to afford them. no way the Ray's under the old system could have even contemplated keeping David Price at 14M or for that matter signed Longoria to his current deal. 

    Looking forward, the next obstacle facing the league IMHO will be due to the new TV contracts being paid to teams with ratings qualifiers that change the amonuts of real moneys teams actually recieve and the cause and effect of the escalation of the top end salaries being paid to the superstars. Which will have a ripple effect on the smaller market clubs ability to afford paying thier arbitration eligible players and could also lead to clubs overextending themselves based on projected earnings V actuals.

    [/QUOTE]

    good stuff BT

    I was not aware of the ratings qualifiers

    makes sense though

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby



    Since two teams are playing in every game, the home team should split the gate and TV money with the visiting team. The teams with a big gate and/or Tv contract would still make more, but it would be distributed more fairly.




     

    I C what U R saying moon

    sure hope U never run 4 office ;-)

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Since two teams are playing in every game, the home team should split the gate and TV money with the visiting team. The teams with a big gate and/or Tv contract would still make more, but it would be distributed more fairly.




     

    I C what U R saying moon

    sure hope U never run 4 office ;-)

    [/QUOTE]

    Why shouldn't the visiting team share the gate and TV money for that series?

    Teams like the Yanks and Sox would still make out due to their tremendous drawing power on the road.

     

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby



    Since two teams are playing in every game, the home team should split the gate and TV money with the visiting team. The teams with a big gate and/or Tv contract would still make more, but it would be distributed more fairly.

    Moon,

    Not sure I agree with your use of the term "fairly". TV money's are negotiated based on a teams ability to entice thier respective fan bases to turn on the TV and watch the games. the networks sell market share and ratings to prospective clients. While the size of the market plays a large role in just how much one team can leverage the expected return vs another. End of the day, it's the product on the field and a teams ability to fill thier stadium that creates the demand. The networks based on market share and demand affix a value to each commercial spot multiplied by the number of commercial per game and season. I have no problem sharing the wealth with la team that has made every effort to field the best team within budgeted guidelines like Tampa, but struggle with the concept of further bolstering of teams like Miami and or owners like Angelo's in Baltimore.

    In the current model with revenue sharing moneys all teams are now operating in the black. My fear is that if MLB continues to prop up franchises without having checks and balances in place. Dictating a pct of those money's be spent on players and/or investing in thier minor league player development programs, too include signing draft picks, hiring qualified front office personell, coaches & scouts. We'll be right back to where we were before the recent changes in the distribution of the revenue sharing with owners pocketing the cash and not making an effort to field competitive teams or invest in thier teams infrastructure (Kansas City, Pittsburgh & Miami). 

    In the end if we're talkin purely from a competitive balance perspective then implementing a hard cap would force teams like the Yankees and Dodgers to rethink how they build thier rosters. Just not sure that MLB is ready to forfeit the multiple millions both teams pay each year in luxury tax, moneys that go directly into the coffers of the leagues growth of the game fund". 

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    out of all the starters (platoon players included) on our roster, i worry about JBJ the most.

    i'm not saying i expect him to fail but rather i have lofty expectations for everyone else. His biggest competition for this category is Middlebrooks and i feel that middlebrooks will really shine this season.

    as for JBJ, i don't think his defense will be an issue although there there is something to be said about adjusting to major league parks... in his MLB stints last season he had plenty of defensive gaffes that (knowing his defensive abilities) can only be attributed to either nerves or "rookie mistakes" as in adjusting to the lights, dimensions and such. It stnads to reason that there will be more of those head scratching plays in 2014 as he continues to adjust tto the big leagues but in that SSS he certainly didn't look like the best defensive CF'er in the league like everyone is painting him to be.

    Ellsbury, is easily a top 3 CF'er defensively and to say that JBJ will come into the league and match or exceed that is farfetched. Maybe in a season or two when he really comes into his own physically? that's up for debate but i just don't see him getting to some balls that Ellsbury can especially in the some of the blackhole stadiums we play in on the left coast (O.co, safeco etc...). Even with his fabled instincts and ball tracking skills there are just some balls that only speed can catch. While JBJ is fast, hes not Ellsbury fast.

    like it has been mentioned, we are going to be disappointed if we constantly try to compare JBJ to ellsbury. Especialy on the effensive side of the diamond. It's going to be very tough to replace Ellsbury but i am definitely not looking to 1 guy (JBJ) for that production. That is way too much pressure to put on a rookie not to mention unfair to JBJ. I'm looking forward to see exactly what he can do but i won't hold it against him that he is not and will not be Ellsbury 2.0

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to JoseLaguna's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I will be in agony this coming season everytime that I see Ellsbury in pinstripes and playing for the EE.  I jumped three feet in the air in my living room when he stole home vs. Posada. The  Jake taking bad routes, laying up on bloopers, and avoiding the wall, are visions in your mind and a few others on this forum in order to keep the "arguement clinic" here in recent years. Fans and other GMs don't believe that.

     The consensus amongst the FA market was that "sloppy Jake" was worth $22 mil. per year for 7 years. This is why troll Softlaw left this forum with his tail between his legs. The Yankees and Cashman obviously knew that Softlaw was a troll and his enablers were out in left field. It was a good act however resulting in  BDC profits.

    The Yankees ignore the  caps and now can go back to outspending everyone else in order to get the best team that money can buy. It is apparent that the Steinbrenners were lying about staying under the cap. In light of what the Dodgers and the  EE are doing , it appears that the penalties are not working. A sad day for baseball.

    [/QUOTE]


    I too will have a difficult time watching Jacoby playing for the Yanks, though I don't begrudge him for signing with the EE.  The Yankees are getting a very good player.  It will be hard for the Sox to replace his production at the top of the order.  However, even if Jacoby had stayed with the Sox, I'm not sure that he would duplicate his 2013 production.

    I'm not sure what the consensus on Jacoby's worth on the FA market was, but in terms worth to his team on the field, it is not $22 mil/yr.

    Jacoby projects to be a 17-18 WAR player over the course of the contract.  The Yankees are paying close to $9 mil per win for him.   The Sox were correct in not trying to match that contract.

     

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    out of all the starters (platoon players included) on our roster, i worry about JBJ the most.

    i'm not saying i expect him to fail but rather i have lofty expectations for everyone else. His biggest competition for this category is Middlebrooks and i feel that middlebrooks will really shine this season.

    as for JBJ, i don't think his defense will be an issue although there there is something to be said about adjusting to major league parks... in his MLB stints last season he had plenty of defensive gaffes that (knowing his defensive abilities) can only be attributed to either nerves or "rookie mistakes" as in adjusting to the lights, dimensions and such. It stnads to reason that there will be more of those head scratching plays in 2014 as he continues to adjust tto the big leagues but in that SSS he certainly didn't look like the best defensive CF'er in the league like everyone is painting him to be.

    Ellsbury, is easily a top 3 CF'er defensively and to say that JBJ will come into the league and match or exceed that is farfetched. Maybe in a season or two when he really comes into his own physically? that's up for debate but i just don't see him getting to some balls that Ellsbury can especially in the some of the blackhole stadiums we play in on the left coast (O.co, safeco etc...). Even with his fabled instincts and ball tracking skills there are just some balls that only speed can catch. While JBJ is fast, hes not Ellsbury fast.

    like it has been mentioned, we are going to be disappointed if we constantly try to compare JBJ to ellsbury. Especialy on the effensive side of the diamond. It's going to be very tough to replace Ellsbury but i am definitely not looking to 1 guy (JBJ) for that production. That is way too much pressure to put on a rookie not to mention unfair to JBJ. I'm looking forward to see exactly what he can do but i won't hold it against him that he is not and will not be Ellsbury 2.0

    [/QUOTE]

    The starter that I am most concerned with is Middlebrooks.  I think (hope) JBJ will hold his own.  That said, you make an excellent point about trying to compare JBJ to Ellsbury.  Not only is it unfair to JBJ, but we will likely be disappointed if we try to hold him to Ellbury's standards.

    What most concerns me is not any one of the 3 youngsters taken individually, but the fact that the Sox (barring additional moves) are relying heavily on 3 mostly unproven players to start the season.  That is risky.  The signing of Sizemore helps to allay my concerns a bit, but I would still feel more comfortable with some more depth on the left side of the infield.

     

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    im not really that worried about having 3 youngsters as mainstays on our roster. especially with 2 of them being among our best prospects (xander is arguably the best prospect in baseball!) middlebrooks is going into his 3rd year so i would hardly call him inexperienced. his troubles last season stemmed from injury IMO so assuming he is healthy going into 2014 i think he will hold his own and remind us why we traded Youk away to make room for him.

    there is still the possibility that we resign Drew which would push either Xander or WMB back to AAA or off the roster entirely. that reduces our "reliance" on unproven players to 2 positions. We will be in good shape no matter what direction we choose to go IMO.  

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    Ellsbury, is easily a top 3 CF'er defensively and to say that JBJ will come into the league and match or exceed that is farfetched. Maybe in a season or two when he really comes into his own physically? that's up for debate but i just don't see him getting to some balls that Ellsbury can especially in the some of the blackhole stadiums we play in on the left coast (O.co, safeco etc...). Even with his fabled instincts and ball tracking skills there are just some balls that only speed can catch. While JBJ is fast, hes not Ellsbury fast.

    Mef,

    I don't disagree that expecting Bradley to step in and play GG caliber CF and represent a significant upgrade over Ellsbury is a stretch...I also agree that there are balls that Ellsbury gets to, due to his speed, that will likely be extra base hits this year. End of the day, we're talkin maybe half dozen total chances over the coarse of a season. There's also a half dozen balls that found grass this year that fell in front of Ellsbury due to poor reads that Bradley might catch.

    No doubt Ells will be missed time will tell if young Bradley is up to the challenge. For the Red Sox it's certainly worth giving the kid a chance to prove one way or the other...

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    Gomez, pollock and rasmus.  3 CF' better in the field than Ellsbury right there.  Top 5??? arguably yes.  Admittedly I don't know will happen, but JBJ is a legit defender and that is not up for debate.

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

    Re: JBJ described as a defensive upgrade over Jacoby

    In response to Beantowne's comment:



    Since two teams are playing in every game, the home team should split the gate and TV money with the visiting team. The teams with a big gate and/or Tv contract would still make more, but it would be distributed more fairly.

    Moon,

    Not sure I agree with your use of the term "fairly". TV money's are negotiated based on a teams ability to entice thier respective fan bases to turn on the TV and watch the games. the networks sell market share and ratings to prospective clients. While the size of the market plays a large role in just how much one team can leverage the expected return vs another. End of the day, it's the product on the field and a teams ability to fill thier stadium that creates the demand. The networks based on market share and demand affix a value to each commercial spot multiplied by the number of commercial per game and season. I have no problem sharing the wealth with la team that has made every effort to field the best team within budgeted guidelines like Tampa, but struggle with the concept of further bolstering of teams like Miami and or owners like Angelo's in Baltimore.

    In the current model with revenue sharing moneys all teams are now operating in the black. My fear is that if MLB continues to prop up franchises without having checks and balances in place. Dictating a pct of those money's be spent on players and/or investing in thier minor league player development programs, too include signing draft picks, hiring qualified front office personell, coaches & scouts. We'll be right back to where we were before the recent changes in the distribution of the revenue sharing with owners pocketing the cash and not making an effort to field competitive teams or invest in thier teams infrastructure (Kansas City, Pittsburgh & Miami). 

    In the end if we're talkin purely from a competitive balance perspective then implementing a hard cap would force teams like the Yankees and Dodgers to rethink how they build thier rosters. Just not sure that MLB is ready to forfeit the multiple millions both teams pay each year in luxury tax, moneys that go directly into the coffers of the leagues growth of the game fund". 

    I see your point, but without the other team on the field, there is no game.

    I feel both teams deserve an equal share of the gate and TV money.

    Hard caps are against the American way. Let's cap CEOs then, right?

    Many scream "socialsim! when anyone tries to redistribute wealth, but when it comes to sports, all of a sudden the guys who came from the lower to middle classes to make it big are suddenly in need of having their salaries restricted.

    Supply & Demand. People will pay big money to see these guys, they deserve was a GM wants to pay them- just like the best CEOs out there- they go to the highest bidder, even if the final numbers are obscene.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share