Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    i understand the control aspect of the move but it would have been nice if the Sox wouldve shown as much passion/committment for keeping JB on the team as they did in signing napoli....it would have been a great message to send to sox fans everywhere that we believe in this rookie so much, and are so impressed with his play, that we want him playing NOW...

     

    jeez, when is the last time the sox had a rookie actually make the team and start? 

     

    the good news is this will be Ben's last year to play it safe and crush our team's spirit with horrible trades, bad signings, and moronic GM moves....

     



    Ellsbury

     

    Bard

    Pedey

    Middlebrooks

    Buchholz

    Lester

    Papelbon

     



    As far as I know, it has been a very long time since a ROOKIE started the season, not called up and promoted because of injury...spring training to starting spot because of their own play....

     

     



    Felix Doubront last year?

     

     



     

    he crappped out in 2011 spring training so i dont think so

     




     

    He was a rookie in 2012.  You asked the last time a rookie started the season w the big club.  It was last year.

     



    he pitched in 2010...not a rookie....and he showed up fat to camp in 2011....sorry drewski but this is exactly what im talking about..a false "rookie"...im talking about a young player with talent who makes the team and contributes from the start of the season..not a player who bounces up and down between the minors for two seasons

     



    He was still a rookie in 2012, a cup of coffee doesn't void rookie status.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    i understand the control aspect of the move but it would have been nice if the Sox wouldve shown as much passion/committment for keeping JB on the team as they did in signing napoli....it would have been a great message to send to sox fans everywhere that we believe in this rookie so much, and are so impressed with his play, that we want him playing NOW...

     

    jeez, when is the last time the sox had a rookie actually make the team and start? 

     

    the good news is this will be Ben's last year to play it safe and crush our team's spirit with horrible trades, bad signings, and moronic GM moves....

     



    Ellsbury

     

    Bard

    Pedey

    Middlebrooks

    Buchholz

    Lester

    Papelbon

     



    As far as I know, it has been a very long time since a ROOKIE started the season, not called up and promoted because of injury...spring training to starting spot because of their own play....

     

     



    Felix Doubront last year?

     

     



     

    he crappped out in 2011 spring training so i dont think so

     




     

    He was a rookie in 2012.  You asked the last time a rookie started the season w the big club.  It was last year.

     



    he pitched in 2010...not a rookie....and he showed up fat to camp in 2011....sorry drewski but this is exactly what im talking about..a false "rookie"...im talking about a young player with talent who makes the team and contributes from the start of the season..not a player who bounces up and down between the minors for two seasons

     

     




    He pitched 25 innings in 2010 and a whopping 10 in 2011.  That does not qualify as "back and forth for two seasons."  He was a rookie per the definition in 2012.    And unless you think 24 is old, he was a young rookieat 24.

     

    The whole the Red Sox hold rookies back notion is mostly a myth.  Most teams trot out 20-22 year olds because they have to.  Dont have teh money to sign a bridgning free agent.  Another factor is that we are usually drafting late in the draft.  Usually the 19 year old, will be in the majors by 22, studs are scooped by then.

    Sometimes you guys act like the Red Sox should forego all competitive advantages and operate like a small market team.  Completely ignoring the fact that the most successful team of the last 3 decades (The Yankees) dont operate the way you are pleading for the Red Sox to, while the least successful teams (Pirates, Twins, Indians, Royals, Padres) trot new rookies out every year.

    Also: was anyone paying attention during the second half of 2012?  Do you know why we couldnt win any games? Too many rookies!!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to georom4's comment:

    i understand the control aspect of the move but it would have been nice if the Sox wouldve shown as much passion/committment for keeping JB on the team as they did in signing napoli....it would have been a great message to send to sox fans everywhere that we believe in this rookie so much, and are so impressed with his play, that we want him playing NOW...

     

    jeez, when is the last time the sox had a rookie actually make the team and start? 

     

    the good news is this will be Ben's last year to play it safe and crush our team's spirit with horrible trades, bad signings, and moronic GM moves....




    Will Middlebrooks?

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    Spring training stats are meaningless.

    Players who KNOW they have a roster spot do not go all out. They try to loosen up without getting hurt.

     

    Players trying to make an impression  play much harder.  That is why the leading hitter in ST is almost always afringe guy - either a prospect or some AAAA player who hates long bus rides...

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    i understand the control aspect of the move but it would have been nice if the Sox wouldve shown as much passion/committment for keeping JB on the team as they did in signing napoli....it would have been a great message to send to sox fans everywhere that we believe in this rookie so much, and are so impressed with his play, that we want him playing NOW...

     

    jeez, when is the last time the sox had a rookie actually make the team and start? 

     

    the good news is this will be Ben's last year to play it safe and crush our team's spirit with horrible trades, bad signings, and moronic GM moves....

     



    Ellsbury

     

    Bard

    Pedey

    Middlebrooks

    Buchholz

    Lester

    Papelbon

     



    As far as I know, it has been a very long time since a ROOKIE started the season, not called up and promoted because of injury...spring training to starting spot because of their own play....

     

     



    Felix Doubront last year?

     

     



     

    he crappped out in 2011 spring training so i dont think so

     




     

    He was a rookie in 2012.  You asked the last time a rookie started the season w the big club.  It was last year.

     



    he pitched in 2010...not a rookie....and he showed up fat to camp in 2011....sorry drewski but this is exactly what im talking about..a false "rookie"...im talking about a young player with talent who makes the team and contributes from the start of the season..not a player who bounces up and down between the minors for two seasons

     

     




    He pitched 25 innings in 2010 and a whopping 10 in 2011.  That does not qualify as "back and forth for two seasons."  He was a rookie per the definition in 2012.    And unless you think 24 is old, he was a young rookieat 24.

     

    The whole the Red Sox hold rookies back notion is mostly a myth.  Most teams trot out 20-22 year olds because they have to.  Dont have teh money to sign a bridgning free agent.  Another factor is that we are usually drafting late in the draft.  Usually the 19 year old, will be in the majors by 22, studs are scooped by then.

    Sometimes you guys act like the Red Sox should forego all competitive advantages and operate like a small market team.  Completely ignoring the fact that the most successful team of the last 3 decades (The Yankees) dont operate the way you are pleading for the Red Sox to, while the least successful teams (Pirates, Twins, Indians, Royals, Padres) trot new rookies out every year.

    Also: was anyone paying attention during the second half of 2012?  Do you know why we couldnt win any games? Too many rookies!!



    You can't argue with softy. He just changes the definitions of terms.

    He should print his own glossary of terms starting with:

    median average (still don't know)

    rookie (1 inning played= rookie season)

    pop (Only HR power not doubles)

    reverse pivot (Still don't know)

    everyday player (112+ games)

    and more...

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    So for because one win now you would forefit a year in his prime? 

    You make the false assumption about "a year in his prime". Too many variable to plan for 7 years from now. Red Sox need to plan for this season.

    If the Red Sox want him, 7 years from now, Dumpster, S. Drew and Shane are proof that if his value is high (no sure thing on that) then they can afford to pay it.

    But, by all means, management should sent him back to the minors and then wait and decide what roster move they might make when the call him up and put him in a postion where they claim they don't want him to be (such as LF or in a bench role).



    JBJ is so great he needs to play right now, and not lose 12 games to the minors, yet 7 years from now, he won't be worth jack (or it is wrong to assume he is worth the arb number).  I get it.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    Its hard to take an educated guess without reading it or even taking a close look at it, but the OP really seems to have a whole lot of words.  Anyone else as impressed as I am with the sheer amount of words?



    Not as impressive as BlargyBlarg, who seems to make more sense than Softy.

     

     

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    Its hard to take an educated guess without reading it or even taking a close look at it, but the OP really seems to have a whole lot of words.  Anyone else as impressed as I am with the sheer amount of words?

     



    Not as impressive as BlargyBlarg, who seems to make more sense than Softy.

     

     

     



    Ahh, true.  Blargy is indeed more sensible and infintely more interesting.  But let us not let that take away the luster from the sheer quantity of words Softy set down in the OP.  I mean that was a lot words.  The fact that they all add up to a dull rehash of the same garbled point he has been trying to make for days only adds to the impressive output of words if you ask me.  No easy feat.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to notin's comment:

    Spring training stats are meaningless.

    Players who KNOW they have a roster spot do not go all out. They try to loosen up without getting hurt.

     

    Players trying to make an impression  play much harder.  That is why the leading hitter in ST is almost always afringe guy - either a prospect or some AAAA player who hates long bus rides...



    We need more Notins in here!

     

    The thing that upsets me is this.  I'm not 100% convinced JBJ is ready.  But I can be wrong, he may veryswell be ready.  It's not that people think he's ready that irks me, it's why they think that.  People just have little understanding for how the game is played in ST.  JBJ may start and come swinging out the gates.  And then everyone wll think that is a testament that ST stats must be accurate.  The JBJ should start now crowd may be right, but it will be for all the wrong reasons. 

    I guess we can find solace in the fact that people who think like that do not work in baseball operations.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    So for because one win now you would forefit a year in his prime? 

    You make the false assumption about "a year in his prime". Too many variable to plan for 7 years from now. Red Sox need to plan for this season.

    If the Red Sox want him, 7 years from now, Dumpster, S. Drew and Shane are proof that if his value is high (no sure thing on that) then they can afford to pay it.

    But, by all means, management should sent him back to the minors and then wait and decide what roster move they might make when the call him up and put him in a postion where they claim they don't want him to be (such as LF or in a bench role).

     



    JBJ is so great he needs to play right now, and not lose 12 games to the minors, yet 7 years from now, he won't be worth jack (or it is wrong to assume he is worth the arb number).  I get it.

     



    Because JBJ is obviously going to be Soooo good over the next few years that he obviously is going to get a very small pay raise in arbitration. 

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to notin's comment:

    Spring training stats are meaningless.

    Players who KNOW they have a roster spot do not go all out. They try to loosen up without getting hurt.

     

    Players trying to make an impression  play much harder.  That is why the leading hitter in ST is almost always afringe guy - either a prospect or some AAAA player who hates long bus rides...



    Not only do they play harder, but they have been playing ball all winter in Arizona or wherhaveyou, while the pitchers, by physical necessecity have not been working as much in the off-season.  The young position players are ahead of the curve in readiness to play when camp opens.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    Bradley Jr. - " I have been trying hard to make the team this spring. I have hit well over .400 , played flawless defense, hustled at all times and expressed a willingness to play any outfield position."  " I have been the best player in camp , and the biggest story of spring training."       Ben C.  - " Jackie , it's meaningless."

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    So for because one win now you would forefit a year in his prime? 

    You make the false assumption about "a year in his prime". Too many variable to plan for 7 years from now. Red Sox need to plan for this season.

    If the Red Sox want him, 7 years from now, Dumpster, S. Drew and Shane are proof that if his value is high (no sure thing on that) then they can afford to pay it.

    But, by all means, management should sent him back to the minors and then wait and decide what roster move they might make when the call him up and put him in a postion where they claim they don't want him to be (such as LF or in a bench role).



    Demspter, Victerono, Drew are all on short money. Bradley as a free agent at 28/29 is going to require more than a 3 year deal. No one knows how he will perform but the reward of 1 win compared to risk of one season is not there.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Bradley Jr. - " I have been trying hard to make the team this spring. I have hit well over .400 , played flawless defense, hustled at all times and expressed a willingness to play any outfield position."  " I have been the best player in camp , and the biggest story of spring training."       Ben C.  - " Jackie , it's meaningless."



    Bradley Jr " I know I have a bright future and had a really good spring. I  only played a half season in AA ball last year and I struggled. I would like to make the team this year for opening day but if I don't it's no big deal, I know I will be there soon"

    Dgalehouse "Jackie this is a big deal."

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    It's based on current contracts, most of which are big value blunders. It doesn't do any good to pretend that current guaranteed contract mistakes should serve as the basis to award starting roster spots.

    It's official, Bradley will head to the minors. I don't want the Red Sox to bring him up at all in 2013, as Gomes and Ellsbury and Shane and Nava and Sweeney and Carp will be the opeining day lineup. If that's the case, Red Sox managment has no business pretending that these roster decisions need change during the season for any reason but the true disabled list for Ellsbury, Gomes or Shane.

    There is no reason to try and exploit Bradley and compromise wins for pennies in 7 years, just to save face for fans and management.

    Bradley should not be used at all in 2013, other than starter long term DL. And nothing is gained by putting him out there when the Red Sox go into minor league exhibition mode in the last half of the season.

    Wait until 2014, and if they don't keep Bradley in the minors to start the 2014 season and "save a year of control" before calling him up for the 2014 season, then they have no business starting him in the minors for 2013.

    Folks, this is an embarrassing and tired old act that this managment keeps repeating.

    And I'm the first to call Cherry a liar, when he never mentioned the fact that the only reason they Bradley is going to the minors is becuase of this silly "same a year of control" nonsense. It will be proven once they call Bradley up while the minor league season is still in full swing.  The man has the audacity to claim that his best team for opening day includes Gomes, Ellsbury, Shane, and Nava and or Carp and/or Sweeney.

    The Red Sox are making it clear that politics trumps competition for roster spots. Anyone remember Wakefield's gifted personal roster active roster spot? Of course you do.

    The Red Sox need to change the way they do business, and the last 4 years makes that perfectly clear. This move is just one of many that shows that this management is wasting 40 million here and then making roster decisions to claim that "it won't affect early games" and "we're likely to save 10 to 20M 7 years from now".

    Anyone else tired of this losing brand that managment is responisble for?

    Anyone else tired of the way they are making decisions on roster members and contracts?

    Anyone else tired of the lack of candor when responsding to criticisms of these decisions?

    Watch and see when the 10M S. Drew comes off the DL. No matter how well Iggy is playing, and he's played well as a SS this spring, I guarantee you that S. Drew will be gifted the starting SS slot as soon as he comes off the DL.

    And watch and see how long Gomes and Nava and/or Sweeney and/or Carp lasts in LF. Once management sees that ticket sales and attendance (no sale of overpriced goods at Fenway) start to drop off from watching this garbage, they'll call up Bradley and put him in the very place or places they claimed they sent him to the minors to make sure he didn't go to the places. And that will be in a "off the bench role" and/or one of the corner OF slots.

    Other than myself and Geo and a few others, who else is tired of this incompetent management approach?



    I'm tired; NESN's ratings are down-the fans are tired.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    the same people who are saying Jb should be in the minors "learning" are the same ones who said the exact thing about Middlebrooks in 2012...

     

    shameless...

     

    wrong then and wrong again....

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to georom4's comment:

    the same people who are saying Jb should be in the minors "learning" are the same ones who said the exact thing about Middlebrooks in 2012...

     

    shameless...

     

    wrong then and wrong again....


    It's and insult to Sox Nation if JB isn't the LF.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Bradley Jr. - " I have been trying hard to make the team this spring. I have hit well over .400 , played flawless defense, hustled at all times and expressed a willingness to play any outfield position."  " I have been the best player in camp , and the biggest story of spring training."       Ben C.  - " Jackie , it's meaningless."

     



    Bradley Jr " I know I have a bright future and had a really good spring. I  only played a half season in AA ball last year and I struggled. I would like to make the team this year for opening day but if I don't it's no big deal, I know I will be there soon"

     

    Dgalehouse "Jackie this is a big deal."



    Ben C. " I'm really torn on this.  I know  Bradley deserves to make the team , but business - wise it makes sense for the future to send him to Pawtucket for a bit. We will save a year of control down the road, but on the other hand, we really need to get off to a good start. I'm just not sure what to do."         Snakeoil : " Don't worry Ben , you can do no wrong as far as I am concerned."

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to mryazz's comment:

    In response to einrac's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    the same people who are saying Jb should be in the minors "learning" are the same ones who said the exact thing about Middlebrooks in 2012...

     

    shameless...

     

    wrong then and wrong again....

     

     

     

    It's and insult to Sox Nation if JB isn't the LF.

     



    the price of beer and the price of tickets are the real insults.

     



    Excellent point.

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to einrac's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    the same people who are saying Jb should be in the minors "learning" are the same ones who said the exact thing about Middlebrooks in 2012...

     

    shameless...

     

    wrong then and wrong again....

     

     

     

    It's and insult to Sox Nation if JB isn't the LF.



    It's an insult he's not in CF.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to einrac's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    the same people who are saying Jb should be in the minors "learning" are the same ones who said the exact thing about Middlebrooks in 2012...

     

    shameless...

     

    wrong then and wrong again....

     

     

     

    It's and insult to Sox Nation if JB isn't the LF.

     



    It's an insult he's not in CF.

     



    Moon, you make an interesting point...didnt theo/ben and co demand Ells be moved out of CF to make way for 37 yr old Cameron a few years ago?  

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

    Re: Red Sox Do Not Award Starting Roster Spots Based on Merit

    Moon, you make an interesting point...didnt theo/ben and co demand Ells be moved out of CF to make way for 37 yr old Cameron a few years ago?  

    Bradley is a better defensive CF'er than Ellsbury and Cameron combined. Hands down.

    Since jacoby is walking anyways after this yer- move him.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share