That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I love it.

    Already talk of trading SV.




    But ... we can't trade Ben.

    And most unfortunately, we can't trade Softy.

     

    No - neither thought is related.  Except by absurdity.  :oD

     

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    Sending Bradley to AAA would send the following statement: We have to do business (ala Trump, Romney, et al), and to hell with the rest of you. To the fans, "wait'll next year". To Bradley, "this is business, kid. Now you know who's in control". To the rest of the players, "it is what it is, fellas".

    This ownership stopped running the Sox like a treu sportsman, and started running it as just another business venture quite some time ago. It just took us dummies (me, anyway) a while to recognize it.

    What also "gets" me, is our brilliant baseball writers go along with this philosophy. Bet they voted for Romney, too. They can't see that, in this case, logic=stupidity.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    I'll plead guilty to not being conversant with the CBA.  Do these 11 days have to happen at the BEGINNING of the season, or could they happen anytime, say, when he hits a batting slump?  Or if the Sox falter and are essentially out of the race in late August?

     

    Thanks...in advance. :-)

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to S5's comment:

    I'll plead guilty to not being conversant with the CBA.  Do these 11 days have to happen at the BEGINNING of the season, or could they happen anytime, say, when he hits a batting slump?  Or if the Sox falter and are essentially out of the race in late August?

     

    Thanks...in advance. :-)




    My understanding is that if he starts out the season in the minors he has to stay down 11 games to delay FA for one year. If he opens the season with the big club he'll have to go down for 20 games to get the extra year.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to S5's comment:

     

    I'll plead guilty to not being conversant with the CBA.  Do these 11 days have to happen at the BEGINNING of the season, or could they happen anytime, say, when he hits a batting slump?  Or if the Sox falter and are essentially out of the race in late August?

     

    Thanks...in advance. :-)

     




    My understanding is that if he starts out the season in the minors he has to stay down 11 games to delay FA for one year. If he opens the season with the big club he'll have to go down for 20 games to get the extra year.

     



    TY.  I won't say it makes sense to me but at least I know.  :-)

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    Nothing wrong with wanting Bradley to stay with the Sox on April 1.  He has had an amazing spring after already having been touted as one of the two best players in the Sox system. 

    But 11 games is a pretty small price to pay for that extra year of ownership, especially knowing Boras as we do.

    I would rather see Iglesias every day than Drew, but that is unlikely.

    And I have seen nothing from Ellsbury that would justify his batting 3d.  Not last year, and certainly not this year.  To me 2011 is simply grounds for suspecting he had some help getting those gigantic numbers.  Plus, as Abraham keeps reminding us, he no longer seems interesting in stealing bases--all about injury avoidance, no doubt. 

    My candidate for hitting 3d would be Pedroia--Bradley, Victorino, Pedroia, Napoli, Middlebrooks, etc.  Bat Ellsbury near the bottom--7th or 8th or even 9th. 

    I do not agree that the 11 days is a "small price" to pay. It's a message to fans and players alike that will never be forgotten. It's quitting before you start. It's Romney economics which ignores the human elements.


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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    Nothing wrong with wanting Bradley to stay with the Sox on April 1.  He has had an amazing spring after already having been touted as one of the two best players in the Sox system. 

    But 11 games is a pretty small price to pay for that extra year of ownership, especially knowing Boras as we do.

    I would rather see Iglesias every day than Drew, but that is unlikely.

    And I have seen nothing from Ellsbury that would justify his batting 3d.  Not last year, and certainly not this year.  To me 2011 is simply grounds for suspecting he had some help getting those gigantic numbers.  Plus, as Abraham keeps reminding us, he no longer seems interesting in stealing bases--all about injury avoidance, no doubt. 

    My candidate for hitting 3d would be Pedroia--Bradley, Victorino, Pedroia, Napoli, Middlebrooks, etc.  Bat Ellsbury near the bottom--7th or 8th or even 9th. 

     

    I do not agree that the 11 days is a "small price" to pay. It's a message to fans and players alike that will never be forgotten. It's quitting before you start. It's Romney economics which ignores the human elements.


     



    your overblowing this. Our team lives and dies on the shoulders of our starting pitchers. 11 days with or without JBJ won't make or break this team. the starting rotation WILL.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Our team lives and dies on the shoulders of our starting pitchers.

    If that were true, the Red Sox wouldn't be spending over 75 million a year on position players.



    which is less than half of our payroll. point proven. thanks for the help stiffmeister.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    I do not agree that the 11 days is a "small price" to pay. It's a message to fans and players alike that will never be forgotten. It's quitting before you start. It's Romney economics which ignores the human elements.

    It's a message to the fans that they care about the longterm future of the team, and the smart fans want this anyways.

    How dumb is it to not keep JBJ in AAA for 11 games, and lose an extra year of team control?

    It's Obama economics: spend your assets now and deal withthe " later" when you get to it.

    ;)

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Anyone have the HR per year totals for Damon's first 5 years of MLB? How about RBI"s? How about hits?

    "If he hadn't had those unfortunate" then frogs could fly.

    Top 10 MVP isn't "another monster year". But he isn't going to be in the top 10 MVP list, and you claimed he was a superstar. He's not any superstar. Superstars don't have numbers like 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, but overrated prima donnas have numbers like Ellsbury.



    1995  3  23 in 206 PAs

    1996  6  50 (566)

    1997  8  48 (524)

    1998  18 66 (710)

    1999  14 77 (660)

    Total:  .283  49  264  (110 SB/33 CS) in 2666 PAs

    .283/.342/.423/.765

     

    Ellsbury: .301  52  235  (175 SB/39 CS) in 2245 PAs (421 less PAs than Damon)

    .301/.354/.452/.807

    2007  3  18 (127 PAs)

    2008  9  47 (609)

    2009  8  60 (693)

    2010  0   5  (84)

    2011  32  105  (732)

     

     

     

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    The one season he had with the high HR total was due to a steady diet of fast balls in front of a near career year from Pedroia and oustanding career seasons from AGon and Ortiz. 

    Ells fastball %

    09     67.5

    10    63.3

    11    61.7

    17    60.8



    He was exposed for this lie over a year ago, but he keeps on spouting falsehoods in hopes that someone will fall for it.

    He also once claimed Coco Crisp had more "pop potential" than "Jake" becuae he had hit 31 HR over a 2 year stretch in Cleveland. Then Jake his 32 in one year, and the balsa wood goal post moving begins.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

     

    The one season he had with the high HR total was due to a steady diet of fast balls in front of a near career year from Pedroia and oustanding career seasons from AGon and Ortiz. 

    Ells fastball %

    09     67.5

    10    63.3

    11    61.7

    17    60.8

     



    He was exposed for this lie over a year ago, but he keeps on spouting falsehoods in hopes that someone will fall for it.

     

    He also once claimed Coco Crisp had more "pop potential" than "Jake" becuae he had hit 31 HR over a 2 year stretch in Cleveland. Then Jake his 32 in one year, and the balsa wood goal post moving begins.



    he is still sticking to the "career years by PD, Papi and Gonzo" argument. When in fact, the reverse actually happened. Pedey, Papi and Gonzo were all served a steady stream of FBs BECAUSE of ellsbury. Not the other way around. Their numbers are attributed to him, not the other way around. The one numbers of Ellsburys that were the cause of the batters behind him is runs scored. If anything, Jacobys numbers were the cause of our 7-8-9 hitters... but then Stiffy would have to give credit to Scoot, V-tek and salty.....

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

     

    The one season he had with the high HR total was due to a steady diet of fast balls in front of a near career year from Pedroia and oustanding career seasons from AGon and Ortiz. 

    Ells fastball %

    09     67.5

    10    63.3

    11    61.7

    17    60.8

     



    He was exposed for this lie over a year ago, but he keeps on spouting falsehoods in hopes that someone will fall for it.

     

    He also once claimed Coco Crisp had more "pop potential" than "Jake" becuae he had hit 31 HR over a 2 year stretch in Cleveland. Then Jake his 32 in one year, and the balsa wood goal post moving begins.

     



    he is still sticking to the "career years by PD, Papi and Gonzo" argument. When in fact, the reverse actually happened. Pedey, Papi and Gonzo were all served a steady stream of FBs BECAUSE of ellsbury. Not the other way around. Their numbers are attributed to him, not the other way around. The one numbers of Ellsburys that were the cause of the batters behind him is runs scored. If anything, Jacobys numbers were the cause of our 7-8-9 hitters... but then Stiffy would have to give credit to Scoot, V-tek and salty.....

     



    That ain't evah happen-en.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    I get the feeling JBJ is going to start seeing a lot of curveballs. Especially from LH pitching. One thing he does do though is generally put the ball in play.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    I get the feeling JBJ is going to start seeing a lot of curveballs. Especially from LH pitching. One thing he does do though is generally put the ball in play.




    He didn't do much with Lee's bender today. Of course he's hardly alone in that regard. :-)

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I get the feeling JBJ is going to start seeing a lot of curveballs. Especially from LH pitching. One thing he does do though is generally put the ball in play.

     




    He didn't do much with Lee's bender today. Of course he's hardly alone in that regard. :-)

     



    A good curveball is tough for anyone , let alone a rookie. Cliff Lee is paid big bucks for a reason. Let's not hold that against Bradley. By all indications , this kid is ready for the show a year ahead of schedule.  

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I get the feeling JBJ is going to start seeing a lot of curveballs. Especially from LH pitching. One thing he does do though is generally put the ball in play.

     




    He didn't do much with Lee's bender today. Of course he's hardly alone in that regard. :-)

     

     



    A good curveball is tough for anyone , let alone a rookie. Cliff Lee is paid big bucks for a reason. Let's not hold that against Bradley. By all indications , this kid is ready for the show a year ahead of schedule.  

     




    I actually made that post at least halfway in jest. While it's true Lee made him look pretty silly with curveballs in his last AB Lee looked pretty silly when he tried to get a fastball by him in his 1st AB. I've actually been on the Jackie Bradley Jr. bandwagon since last spring. I'm just getting a little tired of certain posters using JBJ as an excuse to bash Ben. I think you know who I mean.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I get the feeling JBJ is going to start seeing a lot of curveballs. Especially from LH pitching. One thing he does do though is generally put the ball in play.

     




    He didn't do much with Lee's bender today. Of course he's hardly alone in that regard. :-)

     

     



    A good curveball is tough for anyone , let alone a rookie. Cliff Lee is paid big bucks for a reason. Let's not hold that against Bradley. By all indications , this kid is ready for the show a year ahead of schedule.  

     

     




    I actually made that post at least halfway in jest. While it's true Lee made him look pretty silly with curveballs in his last AB Lee looked pretty silly when he tried to get a fastball by him in his 1st AB. I've actually been on the Jackie Bradley Jr. bandwagon since last spring. I'm just getting a little tired of certain posters using JBJ as an excuse to bash Ben. I think you know who I mean.

     



    I like Bradley too.  I just get tired of the hysteria about whether or not he will start the year with the team.

    It bores me to death.

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I get the feeling JBJ is going to start seeing a lot of curveballs. Especially from LH pitching. One thing he does do though is generally put the ball in play.

     




    He didn't do much with Lee's bender today. Of course he's hardly alone in that regard. :-)

     

     



    A good curveball is tough for anyone , let alone a rookie. Cliff Lee is paid big bucks for a reason. Let's not hold that against Bradley. By all indications , this kid is ready for the show a year ahead of schedule.  

     

     




    I actually made that post at least halfway in jest. While it's true Lee made him look pretty silly with curveballs in his last AB Lee looked pretty silly when he tried to get a fastball by him in his 1st AB. I've actually been on the Jackie Bradley Jr. bandwagon since last spring. I'm just getting a little tired of certain posters using JBJ as an excuse to bash Ben. I think you know who I mean.

     

     



    I like Bradley too.  I just get tired of the hysteria about whether or not he will start the year with the team.

     

    It bores me to death.




    But what would Mr. Adorable be without an overabundance of hysteria?

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    Bradley looked pretty bad on 2 straight AB when nothing but curveballs were thrown to him in the last game and he homered on a fastball in the same game. I'd keep throwing him curveballs. 

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

    Re: That's it. New factors for JBJ. I'm in.

    Obviously what they have been doing has not been working and a lot of spring training pitchers don't throw curveballs very much at all. Let's see how he does against breaking pitches in the next week because he is going to see them. MLB pitchers can generally get their breaking pitches over the plate.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share