Whither JBJ

[nattysez]

Reviewing the "Victorino Conundrum" thread, JBJ seems to have both strong detractors and advocates.  
 
JBJ is 25 years old. He appears capable of raking AAA pitching, as he's got over 500 ABs in AAA (albeit over three years) with a cumulative OPS over .800.  However, he has thus far been almost completely incapable of hitting MLB pitching.
 
His value as a trade asset is low at the moment, as he has more than a whiff of AAAA about him.  Unfortunately, the only way to determine what he's going to be is to get him major-league ABs, however:
 
(1)  there isn't really room for him in the OF;  Castillo and Betts need ABs, so neither of them should sit for JBJ.  And Hanley's going to have to play LF until Papi is put out to pasture; and
(2)  after last year's lengthy and disastrous stint in the majors, it's hard to imagine either Farrell or the FO being willing to give him an extended look if he doesn't hit right away -- and going 0-11 in his brief time in the majors this year didn't make things any easier.
 
So what do the Sox do with JBJ?  
 
This year is easy -- I'd do what they're doing; let him get ABs in AAA all year, bring him up only when he'll get playing time due to injury, then call him up in September to shore up the D.  But what about the future?  If you were Ben & team sketching out a long-term plan for JBJ, what would it be?  In particular, if you think he's a player, how do you make that determination without taking away ABs from someone else who needs them?  
 
I suspect that he eventually is going to wind up being dealt in the off-season to an NL team with a need in CF (the Padres seem as likely a destination as any, especially if they lose Upton), but I'm curious what others think.  I was especially surprised to see multiple suggestions that JBJ is the CF of the future.  Does that assume Mookie moves to a corner, Hanley moves to DH and Papi is let go?  

 

[MikeM]

Even with last year's struggles at the MLB level (not going to read all that much into 11 AB this year), and the possibility that he'll never live up to an over-hyped potential, i'm not sure i'd go as far as to label Bradley's current value at "low". He's still a GG quality, 25 year old premium position player currently sporting a .343/.393/.465 line in AAA.
 
Sure, Bradley might not be headlining any super deals going forward, but he remains a legitimate piece that will probably move the chains in any trade talks with a team in much greater need of a young CF'er then we are. Assuming Ben was to trend away from an over-hoarding mentality, and capitalize on such a value window while it remains open, i'm reasonably hopeful on the return being of interesting quality. 

 

[ALiveH]

he's got 2 options remaining and is cost controlled for next few years.  Sox aren't compelled to move him.  No reason they couldn't use him the exact same way next year as well.  Beyond that, there may be a spot in the OF available for him in 2017, assuming Betts & Castillo are still out there, Hanley is playing 1B or DH (Ortiz retired) and Vic & Nava are gone.
 
Between now and then, however, it is likely that another team values him higher than the Sox do and he is dealt away.

 

[MikeM]

he's got 2 options remaining and is cost controlled for next few years.  Sox aren't compelled to move him.  No reason they couldn't use him the exact same way next year as well.  Beyond that, there may be a spot in the OF available for him in 2017, assuming Betts & Castillo are still out there, Hanley is playing 1B or DH (Ortiz retired) and Vic & Nava are gone.
 

 
This basically hits on what i was referring to when i stated an over-hoarding mentality. I mean if you can't trade Bradley for a value that trumps what you are looking to get out of your 4th OF'er i completely understand that. But holding on to the hope he's going to step into an open starting gig here, 2 years down the road on an already 25yo player no less,  strikes me as both overly-optimistic and a fairly bad overall bet to be making at that. 
 
For better or for worse, Castillo is already married into a spot for the foreseeable future. Assuming Betts is up to the task of taking the other, that leaves one spot currently occupied by Hanley. Except swapping Hanley out isn't a simple matter of opening up a spot for any type to fill, as he'd be doing so at the subtraction of one of our middle of the order bats. Which sure, i guess in theory might not be as big an issue if one is still projecting ceiling type potentials for all our younger guys being plugged in during this process.
 
With Nap or especially Ortiz out of the mix, i'm left speculating the probability of us ideally looking for a more offensive/power oriented option in the event that opening in the OF scenario presented itself this winter would be fairly high though.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

JBJ is stuck behind two players who are (hopefully) a lot better than he is.  That sucks for him, but not for the Red Sox.  It might make it a bit harder to get value for him in a trade if he does not have another chance to prove himself at the major league level, but the scenarios in which he gets meaningful playing time are not good ones for the Sox - Castillo or Betts flops/suffers major injury.
 
Figuring out what to do with a cheap player of questionable ability in an area of talent depth whom the Sox control for several more years is the least of this team's issues.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

I think the Red Sox messed up JBJ's development, and I think he will be traded to a place where he'll be given a little bit more patience, and a year or so to develop further. Within 2 years, he will be a very good major leaguer - just not in Boston. Hopefully we have his spot well covered (and/or get a strong return enough) that we don't have to have knots in our stomachs when we watch him on ESPN highlights.
 
Frankly, at this stage, I'm just hoping that he's a key piece in a package that brings in a real difference-maker for the sox - rather than another one of those flame-out relievers Cherington is so fond of.
 
We can only hope.

 

[Jinhocho]

Trade him to the Cubs after the season for Mike Olt...
 
Obviously would need to be more involved.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I thought it was telling that Nava started over him in RF against a right handed starter at Fenway this week (don't remember which day). Regardless of the FO's opinion of him, it certainly seems like Farrell doesn't trust him yet, rightly or wrongly.

EDIT: Actually, it was two games in the Texas series. Gallardo and Klein were the opposing starters.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

he's got 2 options remaining and is cost controlled for next few years.  Sox aren't compelled to move him.  No reason they couldn't use him the exact same way next year as well.  Beyond that, there may be a spot in the OF available for him in 2017, assuming Betts & Castillo are still out there, Hanley is playing 1B or DH (Ortiz retired) and Vic & Nava are gone.
 
Between now and then, however, it is likely that another team values him higher than the Sox do and he is dealt away.

 
I agree with this.  Unless someone comes asking for him or he makes the most sense to add in to get a deal done, there's no compelling reason to worry about "what do we do with JBJ?"  He stays in Pawtucket playing everyday unless he's needed as an injury replacement on the big league roster. There's nothing at all wrong with him being around in that capacity for the rest of this season and all of next year if need be.
 
I don't think anyone is insisting he must remain in the organization because he might be a starter in 2017. If a reasonable trade can be made that has to include him, by all means Cherington should pull the trigger.  But there's also no reason he needs to be actively shopping JBJ right now or "giving up" on him at all.

 

[gryoung]

I think the Red Sox messed up JBJ's development, and I think he will be traded to a place where he'll be given a little bit more patience, and a year or so to develop further. Within 2 years, he will be a very good major leaguer - just not in Boston. Hopefully we have his spot well covered (and/or get a strong return enough) that we don't have to have knots in our stomachs when we watch him on ESPN highlights.
 
Frankly, at this stage, I'm just hoping that he's a key piece in a package that brings in a real difference-maker for the sox - rather than another one of those flame-out relievers Cherington is so fond of.
 
We can only hope.

How did the Sox mess up his development?

 

[Toe Nash]

Yeah, I am not sure they messed up his development. They brought him up after ~90 very solid AAA games and a great spring training, and basically played him every day (starting 102 of 112 games until he was sent down in August). That's a lot of patience.
 
The only thing that may have been less than ideal was the Colbrunn injury. Can' be good to have your hitting coach miss a month and a half during your rookie season when you're struggling. But does sending him down get him better coaching? Even if it does, he wouldn't be able to "test" whatever progress he made against MLB pitching, so that's not ideal either.

 

[nvalvo]

Well, I'm a Bradley booster, and I don't think an 0/11 against Felix, Gray, and Dickey says that much about his future, honestly. 
 
The case for Bradley is that his K rate is waaaaay down to 14% in AAA in a statistically meaningful number of PA (107). It had never below 20 in any of his previous AAA stints. The various whiff percentages and contact rate are looking better also. 
 
The case against Bradley is that his BABIP is almost .400. He's posted long runs of high BABIPs before in his minor league career, but even if we accept that he has some BABIP skill — his 26% line drive rate in Pawtucket suggests that some of that is legitimate good hitting — there's a lot of air that needs to be let out of that slash line. Also, his walk rate is down and his P/PA is down by almost half a pitch. Clearly he's adopted a more aggressive approach for good or ill. 
 
He's putting the ball in play more, and he's making good contact when he does. I think he goes up and down this year. I expect him to do well and find himself a place on the big league roster next year and a major role in 2017. 

 

[Rasputin]

He's not untouchable, but there's a clear path to him being a starter on the major league team so you have to be sure you're getting value if you trade him.

You keep him where he is for now. You continue to bring him up--and use him--for brief stretches as injury replacement. When Papi retires, you make the determination of whether you want to give JBJ the job.

We already have guys who can play center and right so if JBJ fails as a starter it's only a matter of finding someone to play left.

And there's a decent chance Margot and/or Moncada will be close to MLB ready. For that matter, so will Devers.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

How did the Sox mess up his development?

 
Well, I think they brought him up too early. I understand people will differ on this, but to me, 90 games in AAA isn't enough - I get that he had a great spring training, and they really had no back-up. But the Sox are a team that's really driven by the "now" at major league level, and they have a manager who doesn't seem to like young players all that much (or maybe it's just Bradley - Farrell's commentary on him has been downright dismissive lately), and that's not a very good mix. They gave him a very long leash in 2013 though, and put a lot on him to produce - but he didn't get it done, so it's on him too.
 
But I believe there's a very good player in there, that just will not be here.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Well, I think they brought him up too early.
 

 
There is a difference between disagreeing with the Red Sox strategy of "no backup" plan, and thinking JBJ wasn't ready (or  ready enough).  Plenty of "ready" players just don't play well, it happens. The Red Sox probably shouldn't have put the entire season on JBJ and Sizemore, but thats a separate discussion. 
 
JBJ had over 1700 PA between 5+ years of college and minor league baseball.  He was 24 years old in April of last season.  If that's not enough, you have an extremely narrow window for when a player is ready and when they are obviously too old for a prospect in AAA.

 

[threecy]

 
Well, I think they brought him up too early. I understand people will differ on this, but to me, 90 games in AAA isn't enough

 
I don't think the call up is the reason for his MLB batting struggles.  I think his mechanics are still an impediment, ie the double toe tap, etc.  They seem a little less noisy right now, but still quite a few hitches that I think are easily exploited by MLB pitching.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

And there's a decent chance Margot and/or Moncada will be close to MLB ready. For that matter, so will Devers.

Kind of amazing that people still think things like this.

 

[Rasputin]

Kind of amazing that people still think things like this.

It's amazing that people think someone in Greenville in 2015 is going to stand a good chance of being close to the majors in 2017?

How the hell do you figure that?

They're fairly likely to end 2015 at Salem and end 2016 at Portland which puts them at AAA sometime in 2017. That's close to the majors. So if Papi retires after 2016 as many people think, and JBJ gets inserted as the CF and fails, whatever replacement the team gets will only have to cover the period between the determination that JBJ isn't going to do it and the determination that Moncada or Margot is ready. Plus there's the possibility that Devers will be able to play left or that he'll be able to play first allowing someone else to move to left.

 

[sean1562]

It's amazing that people think someone in Greenville in 2015 is going to stand a good chance of being close to the majors in 2017?

How the hell do you figure that?

They're fairly likely to end 2015 at Salem and end 2016 at Portland which puts them at AAA sometime in 2017. That's close to the majors. So if Papi retires after 2016 as many people think, and JBJ gets inserted as the CF and fails, whatever replacement the team gets will only have to cover the period between the determination that JBJ isn't going to do it and the determination that Moncada or Margot is ready. Plus there's the possibility that Devers will be able to play left or that he'll be able to play first allowing someone else to move to left.

 
 
maybe he is talking about how after we have seen how mightily our prospects can struggle, and how even the best of prospects can flame out and become nothing? Devers will be 20 at the start of the 2017 season, Moncada 21, and Margot 22. that is very young and they may struggle a bit on their ascension to guaranteed MLB stardom 

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Kind of amazing that people still think things like this.

 
In a thread about Jackie Bradley Jr, no less.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
 
maybe he is talking about how after we have seen how mightily our prospects can struggle, and how even the best of prospects can flame out and become nothing? Devers will be 20 at the start of the 2017 season, Moncada 21, and Margot 22. that is very young and they may struggle a bit on their ascension to guaranteed MLB stardom 

 
There's a "decent chance that [they] will be close to MLB ready".  Where in Ras' statement is any kind of locked in guarantee of anything?  All he said is that by 2017, one of those players *might* be close to being an option in LF for the Sox.
 
I get that there's a bit of over-optimism for Red Sox prospects around here, but the words "decent chance" and "close to MLB ready" are not equivalent to saying ink a guy into the everyday lineup in three years.

 

[Rasputin]

 
 
maybe he is talking about how after we have seen how mightily our prospects can struggle, and how even the best of prospects can flame out and become nothing? Devers will be 20 at the start of the 2017 season, Moncada 21, and Margot 22. that is very young and they may struggle a bit on their ascension to guaranteed MLB stardom 

Anyone who thinks I said anything about guaranteed anything needs to learn how to read.

Of course they may struggle. I actually hope they do because they need to learn how to deal with struggles.

But they are also among the best prospects in baseball. Margot is the lowest rated at #91 on the MLB.com list.

Thinking they're going to advance a level a year is not outlandish.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Anyone who thinks I said anything about guaranteed anything needs to learn how to read.

Of course they may struggle. I actually hope they do because they need to learn how to deal with struggles.

But they are also among the best prospects in baseball. Margot is the lowest rated at #91 on the MLB.com list.

Thinking they're going to advance a level a year is not outlandish.

Your implication was (still is) that one of them could be the starting LF in a couple of years. Let's let them get 100 PAs in Portland first?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Your implication was (still is) that one of them could be the starting LF in a couple of years. Let's let them get 100 PAs in Portland first?

 
Key word being could.  COULD.  The Red Sox could also trade for Mike Trout to be the starting LF in 2017.  They might not.  They likely won't.  But they could.

 

[Rasputin]

Your implication was (still is) that one of them could be the starting LF in a couple of years. Let's let them get 100 PAs in Portland first?

No.

You don't get to read something into my words that isn't there and blame me.

My statement was that they stood a good chance of being close to the majors in a couple years and it was made in the context of discussing JBJ's failing as a starter, the downside of which is dramatically ameliorated by the fact that whatever the plan B is, it need only possess the ability to play left and it won't need a long commitment. Whatever the 2017 equivalent of a Gomes/Nava platoon is, it would be more than acceptable.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

No.

You don't get to read something into my words that isn't there and blame me.

My statement was that they stood a good chance of being close to the majors in a couple years and it was made in the context of discussing JBJ's failing as a starter, the downside of which is dramatically ameliorated by the fact that whatever the plan B is, it need only possess the ability to play left and it won't need a long commitment. Whatever the 2017 equivalent of a Gomes/Nava platoon is, it would be more than acceptable.

Why bring those three up at all then? You could have just said "it is easier to find someone to play LF than CF."

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
Key word being could.  COULD.  The Red Sox could also trade for Mike Trout to be the starting LF in 2017.  They might not.  They likely won't.  But they could.

 
Oh, ok, makes perfect sense. Why don't we just say that, then? The Red Sox could trade for Mike Trout for LF in 2017.
 
The point isn't that he was saying anything cast-iron definitive, it's that using the described scenario as part of your "plan" because it passes the "could" threshold isn't really instructive or useful in May, 2015. In other words, makes much more sense to simply say this:
 

...it was made in the context of discussing JBJ's failing as a starter, the downside of which is dramatically ameliorated by the fact that whatever the plan B is, it need only possess the ability to play left and it won't need a long commitment. Whatever the 2017 equivalent of a Gomes/Nava platoon is, it would be more than acceptable.
 

 
See how we don't have all that binky projection noise in there telling us exactly nothing in this re-phrase?

 

[Rasputin]

Why bring those three up at all then? You could have just said "it is easier to find someone to play LF than CF."

Because those three played into the part you're ignoring to your own convenience, the fact that whatever the plan b is, it doesn't need to be a long term plan b.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, I do not choose my thoughts or my words to please you or anyone else. When I write a simple declarative sentence and someone else takes it to mean something else, that's not on me.

"These guys stand a good chance of being close to major league ready." does not even come close to meaning "One of these guys is going to be our starter."

If you're going to argue with me--or anyone else--can you do everyone the favor of arguing against what I actually said?

And do you really think that including their names changes the meaning of the sentence, because that's just nuts.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Because those three played into the part you're ignoring to your own convenience, the fact that whatever the plan b is, it doesn't need to be a long term plan b.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, I do not choose my thoughts or my words to please you or anyone else. When I write a simple declarative sentence and someone else takes it to mean something else, that's not on me.

"These guys stand a good chance of being close to major league ready." does not even come close to meaning "One of these guys is going to be our starter."

If you're going to argue with me--or anyone else--can you do everyone the favor of arguing against what I actually said?

And do you really think that including their names changes the meaning of the sentence, because that's just nuts.

I guess I don't get how your point that "plan doesn't need to be a long term plan b" because of those three guys (even in part) doesn't mean the same thing as "one of these three guys could be the starter." The distinction does not change my point. To me, it is premature to even consider the option. That is all I will say on the matter.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I guess I don't get how your point that "plan doesn't need to be a long term plan b" because of those three guys (even in part) doesn't mean the same thing as "one of these three guys could be the starter." To me, it is premature to even consider the option. That is all I will say on the matter.

 
Isn't it really premature to consider any option for 2017?  Ras's point only seemed to be that in the context of JBJ's future, if he (or Betts or Castillo) isn't in the starting outfield mix in 2016 and beyond, then there are three potential internal solutions that arguably reduce the necessity to bring in a long term free agent/trade solution.
 
In other words, that those three exist in the system and that one of them might be MLB ready by 2017 or 2018 means the team doesn't necessarily have to go sign someone to a Carl Crawford deal (or even a Hanley deal) in the interim.

 

[nighthob]

Why bring those three up at all then? You could have just said "it is easier to find someone to play LF than CF."

 
Because they're three top prospects, one of whom is already an OF and two more that can likely be transitioned to OF, on the fast track through the minors? There really isn't anything controversial in saying that in two years time Devers, Margot, and Moncada could be close to the major leagues. Because nothing in the statement implies that they'll be in the majors in two years time.

 

[Rasputin]

 See how we don't have all that binky projection noise in there telling us exactly nothing in this re-phrase?

Binky projection noise, my ass. The guys I mentioned are the top prospects in the organization either at the position (Margot) that we anticipate moving to the position (Moncada) or that we anticipate moving to a position that could free up a player to change a position (Devers).

That wasn't a rephrase, that was an elaboration to point out the blindingly obvious to people who aren't supposed to need it.

The idea that some of the best prospects in the game are fairly likely to advance a level a year is unremarkable. It doesn't warrant elaboration. The notion that it's on par with saying we could use for Traut is ludicrous.

I'm assuming that you and whoever else wrote the post I responded you with my last post have some kind of issue with me because I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusions you have without bringing some kind of preconception to the party.

That's fine, I'm not going to pretend that everyone has to like me, but for fuck's sake, just mute me. At the very least, if you're going to argue with me, argue with what I actually said. If you think I'm not clear, ask and I'll clarify.

I mean fuck, don't we have enough disagreements over actual baseball to talk about? Do we have to manufacture shit just because we don't like someone? This thread has been derailed and maybe ruined by this shit and that sucks. I apologize to everyone else for my part in it.

 

[Montana Fan]

Sean Berry is gonna start a thread about this thread.

 

[nvalvo]

 
Key word being could.  COULD.  The Red Sox could also trade for Mike Trout to be the starting LF in 2017.  They might not.  They likely won't.  But they could.

This is dumb.

It's uncertain whether these three particular highly-rated prospects will become good big leaguers, but highly-rated prospects become good big leaguers every year. It's something that would not only not be a surprise, it would gratify an expectation that informed people hold. That's why they're highly-touted. That's what the words mean.

No one expects the Angels to trade Trout. Players of Trout's caliber are almost never traded. It would be bad for the team to do so, and it's hard to understand what could compel them. Such an outcome would shock informed observers. Still, it's not *impossible* in the sense that the Angels are allowed to trade him.

So your hyperbolic comparison makes very little sense even as a hyperbole. It's not illuminating. These uncertain futures are actually of very different kinds.