Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to S5's comment:

    I'm of the belief that Bradley will play out his string with Boston and then try the FA waters.  I believe that because, as they say, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, he's a Boras client and that's what Boras does.  That gives us a choice of having him for 142 games this year and 162 games they year he's 29 or 162 games this year and NO games when he's 29.

    Since most players don't reach their peak until age 28-31 I'd send him down this year and preserve him for when he's in his prime.



    +1

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    If Bradley plays great ball and the Red Sox stay in the playoff chase it's going to be pretty hard to send him down.  That's 2 big ifs but the Red Sox have opened up the possibility.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    The Red Soz would buy out his arb years if they decide to lock him up to a MLB star-caliber contract anyhow... and that would happen sometime in the next 5 years. This debate is pointless, especially for the ones who want him to go down for that period.



    "Pointless", but you keep on debating.

    If Ben is the idiot you guys think he is, he'd never extend JBJ before he walks, and besides, how often does Boras let a start extend before reaching free agency.

    Also, if Ben does extend him, the amount would be lessened by the fact that his years of control would be +1, thereby affecting the extension number as well.

    Come on Burr, admit we'd pay more and argue accordingly. You position has merit on its own. You don't need to play softy's game to gain his favor.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    Bradley doesn't need to show pop to deserve his job. He brings a skill set on both sides of the ball that Gomes can only dream of.

    I agree, but that lack of "pop" might change over the years.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    An excellent in Today's Boston Herald that quotes Ben Cherrington explaining why it was a complex decision on putting Bradley on the roster  in spite of the financial factor. Worth the read.

    http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/04/gm_promotes_bradley

     

     

    It's all here in the above quotes by Ben Cherrington in the Boston Herald article.. I see no need to beat it into the ground or beat a dead horse. The pro's and con's are spelled out in detail. I'm happy with it. There are no need to make it a binary or black vs white issue. It is a bit of both. Stop the bickering and petty cat fights. Enough. Enjoy the kid, I am.

     



    Some of us can enjoy the kid and enjoy having a debate over the gray area.

     

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    No.  He's earned his spot.  Let him play.  Don't muck it up with trying to predict the big picture 7 yrs from now. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheFoe13. Show TheFoe13's posts

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to michaelsjr's comment:

    No.  He's earned his spot.  Let him play.  Don't muck it up with trying to predict the big picture 7 yrs from now. 



    we won't muck up anything... it's only 3 weeks. not 3 months. the tradeoff is too good to pass up IMO.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I vote Yes.

    Talk to me in 7 years and we'll see who was right.

     



    Not to mention the "7 years" lie.  The benefits - assuming Bradley comes good - begin in Year 4 of his career i.e. Year 4 near the minimum rather than Year 4 via arb.  Then Years 5 & 6 will also be discounted, then in Year 7 the Sox will have an extra year of control.  But when did the truth ever stop Stiffy?

     

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    An excellent in Today's Boston Herald that quotes Ben Cherrington explaining why it was a complex decision on putting Bradley on the roster  in spite of the financial factor. Worth the read.

    http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/04/gm_promotes_bradley

     

     

    It's all here in the above quotes by Ben Cherrington in the Boston Herald article.. I see no need to beat it into the ground or beat a dead horse. The pro's and con's are spelled out in detail. I'm happy with it. There are no need to make it a binary or black vs white issue. It is a bit of both. Stop the bickering and petty cat fights. Enough. Enjoy the kid, I am.

     



    Some of us can enjoy the kid and enjoy having a debate over the gray area.

     



    Nice article. Kinda the way I saw it in a previous post in another thread. The season opens with AL East games, and since the division is supposed to be so close, these games matter. 

    I vote to keep him up at the beginning of the season for this reason - these are AL East games.

    Other than that, I agree with an earlier poster that if RS are 10 games out by August, then send him down then. No harm, no foul.

    The real question is that if the Sox pitching holds up and RS are 1-2 games up on a Wild Card slot, do you keep him up if we have a legitimate shot at the playoffs. Wasn't too blown away by Toronto's offensive power today, but it is just one game. I think the AL East is wide  open. 

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    LONG before that mythical 7 years has passed, this kid will be into a new 10 year contract, and all this discussion will go into the books as "just conversation".

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    LONG before that mythical 7 years has passed, this kid will be into a new 10 year contract, and all this discussion will go into the books as "just conversation".



    His agent is Bora$$. Chances are against it.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

     

    LONG before that mythical 7 years has passed, this kid will be into a new 10 year contract, and all this discussion will go into the books as "just conversation".

     



    His agent is Bora$$. Chances are against it.

     



    You're probably right but you never know what will happen. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

     

    LONG before that mythical 7 years has passed, this kid will be into a new 10 year contract, and all this discussion will go into the books as "just conversation".

     



    His agent is Bora$$. Chances are against it.

     

     



    You're probably right but you never know what will happen. 

     



    Keeping that extra year of team control simply increases the options for the Red Sox should Bradley blossom into a real star. They can still sign him to a deal that would lock him up long term, but if a deal cannot be reached as his FA approaches, assuming he is playing well, then the extra year of team control makes him not only cheaper for us at the time but also a more attractive trade chip if the team does not believe they can sign him long term. It would be pretty short sighted not to utilize this option.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

     

    LONG before that mythical 7 years has passed, this kid will be into a new 10 year contract, and all this discussion will go into the books as "just conversation".

     



    His agent is Bora$$. Chances are against it.

     

     



    You're probably right but you never know what will happen. 

     

     



    Keeping that extra year of team control simply increases the options for the Red Sox should Bradley blossom into a real star. They can still sign him to a deal that would lock him up long term, but if a deal cannot be reached as his FA approaches, assuming he is playing well, then the extra year of team control makes him not only cheaper for us at the time but also a more attractive trade chip if the team does not believe they can sign him long term. It would be pretty short sighted not to utilize this option.

     



    especially considering the cost. 20 days out of the lineup.. not 50 or 100. twenty. just short of 3 weeks lost for a whole year in his prime. they would be incompotent NOT to take advantage of that.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

     

    LONG before that mythical 7 years has passed, this kid will be into a new 10 year contract, and all this discussion will go into the books as "just conversation".

     



    His agent is Bora$$. Chances are against it.

     

     



    You're probably right but you never know what will happen. 

     

     



    Keeping that extra year of team control simply increases the options for the Red Sox should Bradley blossom into a real star. They can still sign him to a deal that would lock him up long term, but if a deal cannot be reached as his FA approaches, assuming he is playing well, then the extra year of team control makes him not only cheaper for us at the time but also a more attractive trade chip if the team does not believe they can sign him long term. It would be pretty short sighted not to utilize this option.

     

     



    especially considering the cost. 20 days out of the lineup.. not 50 or 100. twenty. just short of 3 weeks lost for a whole year in his prime. they would be incompotent NOT to take advantage of that.

     



    I think you have to keep in mind the context. Let's say Bradley is batting over .300 when Ortiz is ready to come back -- I don't think you consider it until then -- and the Sox get off to a great start and are  in first place. You don't mess with that. 

    If you're going to keep the big picture in mind -- meaning looking down the road -- you have to see the entire picture. I certainly can see scenarios where you send him down for 20 days. But I can see scenarios where he stays up all year.

    You simply have to keep an open mind and take everything into consideration at the proper time. It's fluid, and I think the Sox will do that.

    In the spring, based on how he finished last season, Bradley was viewed as not being ready. He had the great spring, circumstances changes and the FO acted accordingly. So nothing and nothing should be in stone. You let the season play out see make decisions based on how events are playing out.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

     


    I think you have to keep in mind the context. Let's say Bradley is batting over .300 when Ortiz is ready to come back -- I don't think you consider it until then -- and the Sox get off to a great start and are  in first place. You don't mess with that. 

     

    If you're going to keep the big picture in mind -- meaning looking down the road -- you have to see the entire picture. I certainly can see scenarios where you send him down for 20 days. But I can see scenarios where he stays up all year.

    You simply have to keep an open mind and take everything into consideration at the proper time. It's fluid, and I think the Sox will do that.

    In the spring, based on how he finished last season, Bradley was viewed as not being ready. He had the great spring, circumstances changes and the FO acted accordingly. So nothing and nothing should be in stone. You let the season play out see make decisions based on how events are playing out.

     


    I agree with you here.  The FO had an open mind, and made the move that they felt was in the best interests of the ball club.  I may be wrong, but I thought I had heard that he could stay up all year this year, be sent down for 20 days sometime next year, and still save the year.  If he is doing well, he stays.  Also, Monday's game was an example of how someone can help a team despite not having a hit.  The Sox FO know this and will act accordingly, I believe.   

     

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    One other thing concerning whether or not Bradley will sign an extension with Boston with Boras as his agent.  He will be either 28 or 29 (depending on if they save the year) when he becomes a free agent.  Still in his prime.  What do you think Boras will advise him?  

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to fizsh's comment:

    One other thing concerning whether or not Bradley will sign an extension with Boston with Boras as his agent.  He will be either 28 or 29 (depending on if they save the year) when he becomes a free agent.  Still in his prime.  What do you think Boras will advise him?  




    "listen kid, you hired me because i will get you a dump truck load of cash moneyyyyy. So here's the gameplan, we go year to year with the sox and if you play your best and stay on the field we hit Free Agency and you land 9 figure contract."

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share