Peter Abraham on the "Bradley conundrum"

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Keeping him out for 9 games vs losing another full year of control is probably the smart move here.

    Add to it that the kid has yet to play AAA ball and I think the answer is obvious.

    Let him get his hacks in at Pawtucket then bring him up to aclimate him to the big leagues for next season.

    Who knows, as often as Ellsbury seems to be able to injure himself, JBJ may get a lot of ML playing time this year.

    Chris, you seem to be doing nothing more than repeating buzz phrases like "control", and spouting out the reflex company line. There is no "control", it's called arbitration award. Bradley's arbitration award, in 7 years vs. his market for one year of FA is something that you don't have a clue about. Ellsbury's getting nearly 10 million a year from arbitration awards. The notion that the Red Sox need to focus less on the best line-up for winning as many of the first or any 9 baseball games during the first half of the season, just to bean count on what would amount to 5 or 10M speculative costs 7 years from now, that's utterly incompetent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And the notion that a couple more weeks of AAA, because he hasn't done AAA yet, is lazy bugaboo! Lebron James didn't play college basketball.

    Management will actually go on the PR crusade to defend a move like this, which can't be defended because it's a big market team who spends a fortune on toilet seats and gets no points for a bureaucratic hypocritical bean counting move like this!

    I notice this guy is acting as of Bradley on the roster means that he'll be a bench OF'er because Ellsbury is in CF? What! If the Red Sox management is so stupid that they don't start Bradley in LF, they are more incompetent than I though. Gomes and Nava or Sweeney or Carp, Red Sox fans should boycott if they make a move like that.

    It's real simple. 7 years from now, if Bradley is still around and fit and playing well in MLB as a starter, it's a grain of sand on a beach for the Red Sox to spend on the difference in the arbitration award and first free agent year for Bradley, Jr. If they don't like him enough to sign him to a FA contract, they don't need to be doing this stupid nonsense they are doing with Ellsbury. They need to trade him before it gets to this nonsense.

    The best lineup to give the Red Sox the best chance to win any set of 9 games during the first half of the season to see if they want to become a minor league exhibition team like last year's 2nd half or not, the best lineup since they refuse to trade Ellsbury is:

    Bradley LF (reamins to be seen but gets on base and has speed)

    Ellsbury CF (hits LP and RP very similarly)

    Shane RF  (hits LHP decently because he's not really a switchhitter)

     

    Gomes should be the 4th OF'er, Nava should be the 5th OF'er/backup 1st base.

    Gomes and Nava should DH until Ortiz comes off the DL.

     

    Bradley gives the team charisma, excitement, the leadership of a proven championship player, and it gives them a very strong, overall, defensive OF. Better to have Shane's v. LP starting than Gomes.

    Gomes is the perfect pinch hitter bat, once Ortiz comes back. If the game is late, and they trail and they need the long ball, Gomes is perfect guy to pinch hit for everyone in the lineup except for Middlebrooks Pedroia and Napoli. Unless someone is red hot in those situations, Gomes should pinch hit for Ellsbury or Bradley or the SS and catcher slot.

    Gomes should play the OF as little as possible. Sweeney should be waived and assigned to the minors if he clears waivers, and there is a good chance he will.  



    The last place I want this kid to play is back in the minor leagues!

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    I wish Henry had to said to heck with 1 year of 10 million dollar control of S. Drew! Stop the silly hypocrisy! Stop pretending that 7 years from now anyone has a clue what the difference will be in one year of arbitration award for Bradley (Ellsbury has been getting close to 10 million year from arbitration) or his cost for one year of free agency that will be amortized over multiple years! This is management pretending to be cost efficient! It's nonsense!

    Management, how 'bout focusing on winning baseball games in the first weeks of the season! Put the best Red Sox player for the entire spring training in the OF!




    Softy, if this really is you it sure doesn't sound like you. To pay anyone a penny more than necessary is very un "softlaw" like. Usually you are 30% under market value. You must really like the kid!

    Or is it you just want to be rid of Ellsbury that bad? There has to be a reason! 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     It is a business where the astute financial decisions have to be made.

    How astute was the financial decision to guarantee 49 million dollars to S. Drew and Shane. That's not a question.

     




    So, you're saying questionable moves justify making more questionable moves?

     

    Sounds like sheer stupidity to me.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    I wish Henry had to said to heck with 1 year of 10 million dollar control of S. Drew! Stop the silly hypocrisy! Stop pretending that 7 years from now anyone has a clue what the difference will be in one year of arbitration award for Bradley (Ellsbury has been getting close to 10 million year from arbitration) or his cost for one year of free agency that will be amortized over multiple years! This is management pretending to be cost efficient! It's nonsense!

    Management, how 'bout focusing on winning baseball games in the first weeks of the season! Put the best Red Sox player for the entire spring training in the OF!

     




     

    Softy, if this really is you it sure doesn't sound like you. To pay anyone a penny more than necessary is very un "softlaw" like. Usually you are 30% under market value. You must really like the kid!

    Or is it you just want to be rid of Ellsbury that bad? There has to be a reason! 



    I think it's a little of both. softlaw claims to be from South Carolina where Bradley Jr. played his college ball, and I thimk we all know his feelings about Ellsbury.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    It was really interesting that Farrel said yesterday that he doesn't see Bradley as a Left fielder though.

    And Carl Crawford was?

    I don't get it. Defense does matter in LF also. No doubt that I would prefer to see a bopper in left field. Fenway's left field is made to order for a big bopping power hitting slugger. We can hide that sort of player defensively more than in most cities.

    All that said though, if Bradley is the best player available he needs to be in the lineup....

    in about 2 weeks!

    So now we have Victorino and maybe we don't even need him. Or we could trade Ellsbury for a player or prospects of comparable value. Hmmm.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    I just hope they keep Bradley healthy. I would be telling this kid not to dive for anything in ST or even in the minors. We need this kid to be healthy because table setters like him are worth a lot in this lineup.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    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.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    , you'll have plenty of posters ripping the Sox for sacrificing the year of control f

    Trust me, posters arren't going to spend hardly anytime "ripping the Sox for sacrificing a year of control" about 7 years from now!

    If Red Sox management were to state "Bradley will open the season as the starting LF'er", the talk about the "wasted year of control" will vanish faster than it started.



    doubtful, some fans actually have brains and some know-how on the business side of baseball. you have neither

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    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.

     

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to hill55's comment:

    What if Jackie Bradley spends 15 days at Pawtucket and then posts a .230/.290/.310/.600 line for the Red Sox in his first 150 plate appearances by early June? Do the Red Sox send Bradley back down to Triple A (or Double A)?



    Hey Hill! I worry more about SV or Ells having that line! ;-)

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    doubtful, some fans actually have brains and some know-how on the business side of baseball. you have neither

    Brains who understand the business side don't implore managment to pay Ellsbury as a FA and move Bradley to RF.




    Brains "that" understand.

    Anyway. Get back to telling people how smart you are.

    "Brains who understand". Oh man that is funny.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    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.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    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.

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    The fact that so many people are arguing about whether or not Bradley starts the year in left field is amazing.

    Who cares?

    Seriously.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Peter Abraham on the

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Why not Linares?

    Who cares!

     



    i don't think Linares should start in LF.

     

    But in reality if he did. yeah...who cares.

    Who starts the season somewhere on opening day because of injury means next to nothing.

    You're smart. you have a brain who understand.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share