Peter Abraham on the "Bradley conundrum"

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    Opening Day Roster is Mania Over-emaphasized.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    In reality, who cares if he is on the bench. Who cares about "why not Linares".

    You're dumb. you have a brain who dat understand.



    I love it when I get you to start hurling childish insults.

    My job is done.

    On to the next thread.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    Opening Day Roster is Mania Over-emaphasized.

     



    Mania Brain who understand.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In all honesty, I won't have a problem with either decision concerning Bradley.

    I agree it's smart to hold off for 11 games. You never know what's going to happen down the road, so this is probably the best decision. If he comes up and plays as a regular after the 11 games, he's still going to end up playing 140 to 150 games, so you'll still have him for basically the entire season, and it gives you more flexibility down the road. It's the best of both worlds.

    And really -- are we really going to whine about him missing 11 freakin' games.

    However, if the Sox want to have him up from the get-go, I really wouldn't complain. Sometimes it is more fun simply to think from a fan's perspective. My above argument works both ways -- You really don't know what's going to happen down the road. While I think it would be smarter to hold off, considering it is just 11 games, it would be fun to keep him from the start.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    In fact, it's you who injected the childish insult and the smug "who cares".

    My job was done when you lost control and said "grumpy pants".



    That wasn't me losing control you sillybilly.

    I always laugh when I go back and forth with you.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In all honesty, I won't have a problem with either decision concerning Bradley.

    I agree it's smart to hold off for 11 games. You never know what's going to happen down the road, so this is probably the best decision. If he comes up and plays as a regular after the 11 games, he's still going to end up playing 140 to 150 games, so you'll still have him for basically the entire season, and it gives you more flexibility down the road. It's the best of both worlds.

    And really -- are we really going to whine about him missing 11 freakin' games.

    However, if the Sox want to have him up from the get-go, I really wouldn't complain. Sometimes it is more fun simply to think from a fan's perspective. My above argument works both ways -- You really don't know what's going to happen down the road. While I think it would be smarter to hold off, considering it is just 11 games, it would be fun to keep him from the start.



    Exactly.

    That was my point. It really means nothing. it's just Jackie Bradley and it's just left field.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 808soxfan. Show 808soxfan's posts

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to 808soxfan's comment:

    Sorry. My opinion is best 25 players period. The RS are NOT a small market team. If you have to pay Bradley, you pay him, but that is a long way off for a team that can afford it. I would see how he does in the last few games of ST as pitchers really ramp up. If he continues to hit, he should not be sent down. 

    The bottom line is that the kid plays excellent defense and has a good bat. He came to camp ready to play. Ortiz is out for the near future. We need JBJ in the lineup.

    Ells - CF

    JBJ - LF

    Pedey - 2B

    Napoli -1B

    WMB - 3B

    Gomes - DH

    Salty - C

    Victorino - RF

    Iglesias - SS

    Besides that, I always wanted to see some mixture of the kids playing this year. Iggy starts because Drew is unknown. JBJ should play, and continue to rotate through all outfield positions to spell the starters when Papi returns. I would be happy if Ells plays a full season, but historically that does not happen.

     




    The question we should really be asking, because it is closer to reality, is what we do if Bradley does stay up and continues to be on a hot streak into May. What happens if he continues to hit .330 or above, while SV, Ells, or Gomes is in a slump below .250?


    Do RS put one of the other three in the 4th OF position?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to tomnev's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects's comment:

     

    Let me see, Bradley costs us a little over $400,000 for a year of control now. If we trade that for a year of control during year 6, as in Ellsbury's case now, that is around $10 mil if I remember correctly. In other words, it saves the team around $9.5 mil. For around 9 games of PT.

    We just signed several good free agents for a lot less than that. I want to see Bradley play as much as anyone but I can watch Nava play left field for almost a $1 mil less per game and feel quite good about that. Nava is a fairly proven commodity who has also done well this spring. 

    This is in other words, a no brainer, which is precisely why Softy doesn't support it!

    I say let's tell Bradley he's made the team but give him a few days off in AAA, tell him to stay healthy. Tell him Good JOB! And write him smaller checks. For a year longer.

     

     

     



    I don't see that math...you cannot compare this years cost to the last years cost.....this years c0st is next years cost and so on and so on. The save on the year of Control would be the difference between what he made in his 5th year from aribitration plus a raise for the 6th year via Arbitration vs what it would cost  you to resign him as a Free Agent......that could be milions or it could be very little ....it is all an unknown.

     



    We can't be precise but we can look at the probabilities. Every year the price goes up generally right, even in arbitration when a guy has a worse year than the year before his salary still generally goes up. The added cost for that last year is almost definitely going to be way higher than the 1st year at mlb minimum right. At least 6 times as high generally if they are still in the league even as a PTBNL. And if they are even a player of Ellsbury caliber's that last year is around $10 mil. The best way to look at the cost is to add up all 6 ( or 5 years ) and divide by 6 or 5 years and the net cost per year is perhaps the best way to look at it but another way of looking at it is the example of Ellsbury. Is Ellsbury worth that last year at $10 mil or would we be paying him closer to $20 mil to keep him around in a 1 year deal at this point in his career. A lot of people would not think he was worth that much but Crawford was worth more than that in a 7 year deal? Paying him roughly $20 mil per year until he was in his late 30s. A strong case could be made that Ellsbury is worth roughly what Crawford was at the time of his deal.

    Of course it is unlikely that Bradley ends up having as good a career as Ellsbury but it is certainly possible. Their profiles are not that dissimilar.

    No way I start the year with Bradley. It would take a major injury implosion for me to waste that last year of control. We could start him the year and then send him back down later but I'm not taking that risk and Bradley could well use some additional development time anyway. He goes to AAA.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    Yeah, Ellsbury would clear wavers in a heartbeat right?

     

    HAHA

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    or would we be paying him closer to $20 mil to keep him around in a 1 year deal a

    Ellsbury has zero chance of geeting a 1 year 20M deal.

    And what's this great career that Bradley has to top? Since Ellsbury became a starter, a half a decade ago, the team has won nothing and Ellsbury has had one big year and a lot of big zero years, including 2012.

    Bradley won't have to do much to have a better career than Ellsbury. Careers are not one season hitting in front of a near career year for Pedroia and big year from Agon and Ortiz. A career is average production and total production over many years, adjusted for league and ballpark and the type of hitters the players the player hits in front of.

    Good move for the Red Sox would be to run Ellsbury through waivers, before the season starts.



    The Red Sox would risk getting only salary relief in return:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/transactions-glossary/

    Scroll down to "Waivers"

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to royf19's comment:

    The Red Sox are in a no-win situation concerning Bradley.

    If they keep him down for 11 games then bring him up, you'll have plenty of posters ripping the Sox for not keeping the 'best 25' players.

    If the Sox keep him up and he stays up for the entire season, you'll have plenty of posters ripping the Sox for sacrificing the year of control for instant gratification and of the potential ratings and ticket boost they might get by keeping a flashy rookie.

    If they keep him down for 11 games, then bring him up and he struggles and has to be sent back down, you'll have posters ripping the Sox for ruining his confidence by starting him in the minors after he had such a great spring training.

    If the Sox keep him up and he struggles and has to be sent down, you'll have posters ripping the Sox for bowing to popular pressure to keep the flashy rookie when he still needed more at-bats in the minors.

     

    AND -- there will be some posters that no matter what the Sox do, they'll fall into one of those categories because it's not what the Sox do that interests them, it's simply finding a reason to rip the Sox that interests them.




    Which is precisely why the Red Sox should, and probably will, make their decision based on what makes thje most business sense...that is, sending Bradley down for two weeks to start the season, and see how the Ortiz/Carp/Sweeney/Nava thing shakes out.

    And why wouldn't the players, especially Bradley, see his demotion as a compliment to how much the Sox have come to value him?  Trout was treated the same way.  Bradley ought to be quite bolstered by the idea that the Spox value him enough to give him the Trout treatment.  Trout was considered a top 5 prospect in all of baseball.  Fact is, Bradley has not been in anyone's top 25. 

    His torrid spring has jacked everyone up, but as one of the beat writers pointed out recently, the top hitters in ST for the Sox the last few years have included Jeremy Hermedia and a few guys who never even cracked the starting lineup.  I am not saying Bradley is not going to be a very good ballplayer, because I absolutely believe he is.  But hitting .444 in spring should not change anyone's decision making process.  Personnel decisions should be based on a lot more than just a ST batting average, IMO.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    Never mind...it wasn't worth the keystrokes I was wasting, and I don't see any way to withdraw a post once sent, so I will just edit it outl

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    I'm as impressed by the 8 walks as much as the .444 average. The guy knows his role. He is capable of getting on base. Also, over time even though he is a little guy, I bet he does some damage with the bat as well. Pitchers are going to pitch to this guy because if they do not he will take the walk.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    I'm as impressed by the 8 walks as much as the .444 average. The guy knows his role. He is capable of getting on base. Also, over time even though he is a little guy, I bet he does some damage with the bat as well. Pitchers are going to pitch to this guy because if they do not he will take the walk.




    He apparently spent a whole year in high school not swinging at anything until he had 2 strikes because he wanted to be a better 2 strike hitter.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I'm as impressed by the 8 walks as much as the .444 average. The guy knows his role. He is capable of getting on base. Also, over time even though he is a little guy, I bet he does some damage with the bat as well. Pitchers are going to pitch to this guy because if they do not he will take the walk.

     




    He apparently spent a whole year in high school not swinging at anything until he had 2 strikes because he wanted to be a better 2 strike hitter.

     

     



    To boot, used to take BP only trying to foul balls back.  He is a clinician.

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    You can read it yourself, but he does a typically excellent job of presenting both sides.  He predicts Bradley will be at Pawtucket for the first 11 days, those giving the Sox control until 2019.

    But then he provides a number of good reasons why they would play him from the get go, and a big one is what the fans are thinking and showing in terms of viewership of spring training games and ticket sales for the regular season.  Starting Bradley now could help with those problems.  He even points out that Henry is a fan as well as an owner and just might say to heck with the extra year, I want to see him play now.   



    Simple solution; play JB in left opening day. Case closed!

     

Share