someoneanywhere said:
Mostly good for him. I think he let his pique get away from him there, at the end, in calling for the Sox to trade Bradley. He surely knows, first, that two voices do not make an "organization," and second, that they could belong to anyone, theoretically including a clubbie. In fact that's his point about anonymity. He shouldn't then use anonymous sources to be the basis of an insistence that they trade JBJ.
This thread is a little disappointing in what a lot of folks don't seem to grasp.... [snip]
smastroyin said:Well, it's mostly because if you work at it you can find the Darren Lewis among AAAA players and the waiver wire. I think you are overestimating the value here. I would probably rather whatever JBJ would get in trade this off-season than 5 years of Darren Lewis. At least, that's my answer.
O Captain! My Captain! said:If JBJ is MLB-ready, wouldn't the optimal alignment be JBJ in CF and Castillo in RF? Or is Castillo's arm not viable there? Does the investment in Castillo require that he play the more glamorous position?
Is it still true that you want the better fielder in CF in Fenway Park? Even with the Wall taking away a lot of opportunities in LCF? Perhaps you could play JBJ in RF at Fenway Park and in CF on the road.Savin Hillbilly said:
I don't see why. He sold himself throughout this process as a multi-position talent, after all. He seems like Betts in that he's a good enough athlete that he should be serviceable almost anywhere, but probably not extraordinary anywhere. He's going to earn that contract (or not) with his offense.
As I've said before, I think playing JBJ in RF would be absurd--you could do it, and he'd handle the position fine, but it's a colossal waste of a generational talent at the more difficult position. If he's in the lineup at all, he should be in center.
Jack Rabbit Slim said:If JBJ and Castillo can become 750 OPS hitters and Mookie can get into the 850 OPS territory, is that enough OF offense to put them all out there? The Sox could very reasonably let Cespedes walk after next year and shift Craig to 1B/DH if he ever gets back to his previous levels.
I'd say that depends on how deficient a LF you want to get away with. Bradley has ranged pretty damn far into LF at times this year for example, likely at least in part due to how many games he's played with Gomes/Craig/Nava in LF, none of whom are good range candidates.Plympton91 said:Is it still true that you want the better fielder in CF in Fenway Park? Even with the Wall taking away a lot of opportunities in LCF? Perhaps you could play JBJ in RF at Fenway Park and in CF on the road.
In today's MLB? That woudl be pretty awesome I'd think. Obviously that depends on distribution, SBs, etc. but if it's a case where JBJ is a .280/.370/.380 guy with 15 SBs on 20 or fewer attempts, Castillo is a .290/.350/.400 guy with 30 steals on 40 or fewer attempts, and Betts is a .300/.380/.470 guy with 20 steals on 30 or fewer attempts that isn't just good enough, that would be an elite OF offensively and a swarm of locusts defensively.Jack Rabbit Slim said:If JBJ and Castillo can become 750 OPS hitters and Mookie can get into the 850 OPS territory, is that enough OF offense to put them all out there? The Sox could very reasonably let Cespedes walk after next year and shift Craig to 1B/DH if he ever gets back to his previous levels.
I don't think the Sox would feel that way. They've paid >$13M a year for the majority of this decade to staff RF. They view it as a high dollar position, at least in Fenway. Castillo is supposed to have a strong arm (but then so is everyone from Cuba). I could definitely see him in RF long term should Bradley put it together. He's a CF for now because the rest of the guys log jamming the OF can't play CF for various reasons (other than Betts). Vic, Cespedes, Craig, and Nava fill up the corners so Castillo's value in 2015 is in center. The real question is how that value adds up in 2016 when Vic is definitely off the books, Cespedes might not have been retained, and Bradley/Betts will have had some level of additional resolution on their careers to factor in to the equation.O Captain! My Captain! said:If JBJ is MLB-ready, wouldn't the optimal alignment be JBJ in CF and Castillo in RF? Or is Castillo's arm not viable there? Does the investment in Castillo require that he play the more glamorous position?
Rasputin said:
I think the problem with this is that David Ortiz is old.
Which is to say, if the infield does its job, I'm fine with that outfield but we'd need to either retain Napoli or have Papi still producing for me to feel comfortable letting Cespedes go.
We could have Betts, Bradley, Castillo, Cespedes all get 120 starts or so.
Mookie with an .850 OPS and the 30+ steals at a high percentage in CF/RF is probably one of the 10 most valuable positional players in the league.
Maybe he can do it, but that's optimistic. I'm all in on Mookie though, so I fully expect it.
Plympton91 said:Is it still true that you want the better fielder in CF in Fenway Park? Even with the Wall taking away a lot of opportunities in LCF? Perhaps you could play JBJ in RF at Fenway Park and in CF on the road.
Besides, you really want your best defender in CF on the road .. And you don't want to be flipping fielders back and forth depending on H/RSavin Hillbilly said:The wall reduces range requirements, perhaps, but increases judgment/coordination requirements. And the triangle is a unique and tricky feature. It's a field that calls for skills and instincts--which JBJ has in abundance--as well as speed. So I would say you could make an argument for putting the faster outfielder in RF in Fenway, but the better OF probably belongs in CF, perhaps even more so in Fenway than most places.
I'll echo that this is a great post and I hope you are right. But the other possibility - and I'll be the first to admit that I've not watched Bradley much at all and even if I did, I wouldn't bring any kind of expertise to this endeavor - is that Bradley has a hole in his swing that hasn't been exploited up until now because pitchers either weren't good enough or didn't face him enough times as he didn't stay in any league for long. I say this for a couple of reasons. (1) He's always had good strike zone recognition and it doesn't seem like he would lose that this fast. (2) As of early August, he had something like 80+ strikeouts swinging and only 18 looking. (3) It was mentioned early in the year that he kept missing on inside fastballs; he made an adjustment; but then was getting beaten on outside fastballs. (4) There apparently is a book on him as he is OPS'ng .593 versus TOR; .574 vs. TB; and .259 vs. NYY, the three teams he has faced the most. (5) A few people have mentioned that he has a hole or holes in his swing.It's an approach that JBJ's got to get back to -- hunt the fastball. Until he does that, he's going to struggle. And when he shows he can mash the fastball, he'll then unlock a better idea of how pitchers will approach him, and be better able to think along, and better control of his mechanics. And that is all he means himself when you hear him talk about being lost, etc. He's got so much coming at him that he's got to clear out the clutter and get back to the basic fundamental approach.
Jimy Williams used to platoon Darren Lewis. He'd play CF against RH with Trot Nixon in RF and then play Lewis in RF against left handers with Damon Buford in CF.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:Besides, you really want your best defender in CF on the road .. And you don't want to be flipping fielders back and forth depending on H/R
And your point is? Jimy Williams was good at running pitching staffs .. But his greatest deficiency was lineup construction. And you're citing this as something to be emulated?Plympton91 said:Jimy Williams used to platoon Darren Lewis. He'd play CF against RH with Trot Nixon in RF and then play Lewis in RF against left handers with Damon Buford in CF.
That's not really true and EV has nothing to do with it. It's been widely reported that JBJ opened up his stance on July and in the 19 games following, he's hit .308/.357/.369 in 70 plate appearances and during that entire stretch, Bradley only struck out nine times, or 13 percent of the time.If there was a book on JBJ, it got written really fast. He didn't have the WMB-esque hot period before pitchers figured out how to pitch him, and whatever adjustments he made didn't serve him very well before pitchers adjusted back. I'm not sure you could even Eric Van this up and find a short period where JBJ hit very well, unless you included the tiniest of sample sizes. Ultimately whatever swing problems he has or had don't seem to be problems of adjustment, because there aren't any signals that any of these adjustments matter very much. Unless you believe his swing just absolutely doesn't translate between AAA and MLB, the problem is way more in his head than in his arms.
tbb345 said:I am sorry this may not be the place but is there any hope for Allen Craig? He looks fucking awful at the plate and it's not much better in the field. Is there any reason to be optimistic about him other than pie in the sky reasoning? That trade looked like a dumpster fire from the start and nothing since has made it look better
Very much agree. Maybe we can send WMB, JBJ, Craig, Bogaerts, and Koji on a bus trip with Clay driving. That would make for one helluva gif.Rsox4life said:A college coach of mine used to have a saying that "you can't fix the wheels on the bus while you are driving the bus". This is kind of my take on JBJ. While he is caught up in the season it's going to be hard for him to make the adjustments, especially the mental ones. He needs to pull that bus over this offseason and reset his mental approach. Some time off does wonders for your mental state after struggles.
Hee Sox Choi said:Wasn't it pretty common knowledge that Brady Anderson was a roider?
1. Supposedly, but then every jacked up guy in the 90's is accused of being a 'roider. If using juice is what got Anderson to hit 50 HRs however, it begs the question why he would have suddenly stopped at a time when MLB wasn't doing any real testing for it. His big single year power surge isn't wildly out of line with what has happened throughout baseball. Hell, Ellsbury's big 2011 season is pretty comparable in that he went from a single digit HR guy to 34, whereas Anderson was a 15-20 HR guy who jumped to 50.Hee Sox Choi said:Wasn't it pretty common knowledge that Brady Anderson was a roider?
Who says he stopped? Brady was injured most of the next two seasons then bounced back with 24 HR's at age 35.Drek717 said:1. Supposedly, but then every jacked up guy in the 90's is accused of being a 'roider. If using juice is what got Anderson to hit 50 HRs however, it begs the question why he would have suddenly stopped at a time when MLB wasn't doing any real testing for it. His big single year power surge isn't wildly out of line with what has happened throughout baseball. Hell, Ellsbury's big 2011 season is pretty comparable in that he went from a single digit HR guy to 34, whereas Anderson was a 15-20 HR guy who jumped to 50.
Personal attack? Very classy sir.JohntheBaptist said:Yeah, and when did you stop beating your wife, HRB?
I mean, I bet he probably did. But if what you're arguing for is relying on, for instance, your ability to read circumstantial information and draw a sound conclusion on it, I'll stick to my comfortable "I don't really know either way without any actual evidence." Admitting you don't/ can't actually know something either way is not reflective of an inability to understand a situation.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:Firebrand had interesting post on JBJ - trying to see how many position players since 1901 had on-base percentage and slugging percentage less than .300 in their first 500 major league plate appearances andstill made an All-Star roster at some point in their careers.
As you can imagine, the list is pretty short but there are some interesting names.
List here: http://firebrandal.com/baltimore-orioles/jackie-brady-jr.html
He has consistently claimed that it was good nutrition and "massive" amounts of creatine. I remember back at the time him throwing that out there and thinking I got to get some of that. I don't think anyone not died in Oriole orange has taken that claim at face value after the full extent of steroid usage in MLB came out, but there has never been anything directly or indirectly linking him to roids.Wasn't it pretty common knowledge that Brady Anderson was a roider?
HomeRunBaker said:Personal attack? Very classy sir.
You must have defended Bonds, McGuire, OJ, et al. Was Aaron home with his fiancé that night too? Gee whiz.
JohntheBaptist said:
Wait, where did I attack you personally?
HomeRunBaker said:Personal attack? Very classy sir.
You must have defended Bonds, McGuire, OJ, et al. Was Aaron home with his fiancé that night too? Gee whiz.
RIFan said:not died in Oriole orange
Wife comment. I thought that was meant to be literally. If not my apologies.JohntheBaptist said:
Wait, where did I attack you personally? Did you not read where I said "I bet he used"? I was advocating not pretending like you know something definitive without any kind of evidence--unless I'm mistaken there was absolutely evidence where Bonds, McGwire, Simpson and Hernandez are/ were concerned. I'm not saying Brady Anderson did use steroids, but I'm also not saying he didn't. I'm saying "of course I don't know," because of course I don't know. Neither do you.
Fair enough--apologies if that's how you took it HRB, that would be way over the line and never somewhere I'd go on here. Just a rhetorical device that, frankly, reading over again, not sure it really applies all that well anyway.Savin Hillbilly said:
I inferred that he was unfamiliar with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" trope and took it literally.