nvalvo said:Bradley just played a double into a triple in LF by leaping for a ball that was too high for him, although in his defense, the ball was only a few inches out of his reach.
I think we should shoot him.
nvalvo said:Bradley just played a double into a triple in LF by leaping for a ball that was too high for him, although in his defense, the ball was only a few inches out of his reach.
soxhop411 said:
Tim Britton @TimBritton 1h1 hour ago
Lovullo indicated Betts and Ramirez would receive regular playing time, with Bradley and Castillo sharing in RF.
Especially since Hanley played at least one ball into a hit tonight that extended/contributed to that long inning for Barnes.Eddie Jurak said:
Well that is just dumb. Inexcusable, really.
This makes me wonder if Farrell was calling the shots before his leave of absence. If so, does Luvullo have the same philosophy or is he following Farrell's orders? If not, who is making the call from the FO? This is ridiculously stupid regardless of who is pulling the strings.Eddie Jurak said:
Well that is just dumb. Inexcusable, really.
I love the E-GM comment for how to score HR's fielding adventures.E5 Yaz said:
Peter Gammons @pgammo 2h2 hours ago
Why don't the Red Sox just play Betts-Bradley-Castillo and not see how many ways a 3 DH lineup kills them?
Eddie Jurak said:
Well that is just dumb. Inexcusable, really.
In my lifetime said:
I have been vocal in my opinion that HRam should play 1B (due to LF ineptness, FA and in house availability of OFers as compared to 1B). However, he needs the benefit of an entire off-season of practice or the risk is that he will fail spectacularly at 1B and never want to play there. So I completely understand playing him in LF for the remainder of the season. If nothing else, it will probably prove that he can't play there except as an emergency back up.
soxhop411 said:
Tim Britton @TimBritton 1h1 hour ago
Lovullo indicated Betts and Ramirez would receive regular playing time, with Bradley and Castillo sharing in RF.
Plympton91 said:If the SOSH consensus on Hanley Ramirez is correct, the the consensus should also be that Ben Cherington should be fired. It seems more and more like they paid for the 4-tool SS he was 5 years ago (he was never a great defender) instead of paying for the 2 tool player he was last season. And even the hitting for average and power hasn't been as good as expected, though I still think there's plenty of reason to.think he'll be better at that next year.
The case against Cherington is even stronger if you buy into the 3 DH meme, given that 2 of them were signed in the same offseason less than a year ago. Nothing about Sandovals weight or Ramirez's poor defense should be a surprise at all to anyone.
So, my guess is that the baseball professionals aren't as pessimistic about Ramirez and his eventual ability to play LF as the message board posters and sportswriters. Precisely because this season doesn't matter, Hanley should continue playing left field every day his body allows. The Red Sox are going to trade on of the 3 CF this offseason for pitching. That leaves LF open. Bank on it.
how does trading a CF leave LF open?
OK I get it now.The Allented Mr Ripley said:
He's saying it leaves LF open for Hanley.
It's astounding that we're talking that way (release him) but it might feel like the right thing after a couple of months go by. But, they won't, and they'll probably buy him half a dozen first baseman's gloves and hope and pray he can learn that position during ST. But, now there's Shaw who might be a higher WAR guy at 1B. If they hadn't also gotten Sandoval last winter, Hanley might have been almost passable at 3B. What a fine kettle of fish. I wonder how much sleep Cherington is getting these days. Keep sharp objects away from him and all that.Koufax said:It would solve a lot of problems if they were to release him. His salary is dead weight any way you look at it. There's no point in compounding the error by actually playing him.
I understand that, technically, releasing him is not the best way to get rid of him. Trade him for a single A fringe prospect (or PTBNL) and pay 75% of his salary. I use the R word for dramatic effect.
Plympton91 said:If the SOSH consensus on Hanley Ramirez is correct, the the consensus should also be that Ben Cherington should be fired. It seems more and more like they paid for the 4-tool SS he was 5 years ago (he was never a great defender) instead of paying for the 2 tool player he was last season. And even the hitting for average and power hasn't been as good as expected, though I still think there's plenty of reason to.think he'll be better at that next year.
The case against Cherington is even stronger if you buy into the 3 DH meme, given that 2 of them were signed in the same offseason less than a year ago. Nothing about Sandovals weight or Ramirez's poor defense should be a surprise at all to anyone.
So, my guess is that the baseball professionals aren't as pessimistic about Ramirez and his eventual ability to play LF as the message board posters and sportswriters. Precisely because this season doesn't matter, Hanley should continue playing left field every day his body allows. The Red Sox are going to trade on of the 3 CF this offseason for pitching. That leaves LF open. Bank on it.
Jeff Van GULLY said:It isn't terribly hard to get a solid rotation of all these players in for the Red Sox. Assuming the Sox want Hanley to play as much as possible and Ortiz as well you could do this to give every player a good amount of games each week. Of course, this is also assuming a game is played every day, which is actually in the cards for the Red Sox as their next off-day is in 10 days. I tried to give each player at least three days in the lineup in a row to give them some 'regular' ABs.
[tablegrid= OF/DH Red Sox Rotation ]Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Games per week ORTIZ DH DH DH DH DH DH 6 RAMIREZ LF LF LF DH LF LF 6 BETTS CF CF CF CF CF CF 6 BRADLEY RF RF LF LF CF RF 6 CASTILLO RF RF RF RF 4 [/tablegrid] 28
This easily could be adjusted to get Castillo and Bradley each 5 games and if the Sox were comfortable benching Ortiz 2 games a week or Hanley 2 games a week, that's even better. And heck this is generic, not even considering L/R matchups or historical numbers vs. pitchers.
Pretty lazy of Lovullo in my mind to say Bradley/Castillo have to split ABs in RF.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
It all looks good on paper, but where it gets complicated is adding in stuff like L/R matchups, off-days (they generally don't play 7 games a week), and of course player egos. It's one thing to tell Ortiz he's getting Friday night off because you're facing a tough lefty and he needs a blow. It's quite another to tell him he's off on Sunday when they're facing a righty he's historically hit well because "it's necessary to balance out playing time".
.
AB in DC said:
Ortiz should understand that this time of year is when youngsters are supposed to get a little extra playing time. Hell, even Cal Ripken voluntary took a seat, despite his streak, at a younger age than Ortiz is now.
Rovin Romine said:
It seems to be our only great depth, in a categorial sense. Assuming JBJ is for real this time, and Castillo really has adjusted.
On the other hand, you have to wonder if the Sox wouldn't package a good/cost-controlled player and a bad/expensive player and take another run at the FA market to plug the holes. Castillo's going to make $11m per year - but he may be a fair deal at that money. So that leaves JBJ and Betts, neither of whom I'd give up at this point. (JBJ's first arb year is 2017.)
...[snip]
WenZink said:
I understand that if any of the three CF's are to be traded, we would want it to be Castillo, since we have the least emotional attachment to him. (vs Betts or JBJ) However, any team that had wanted to guarantee Castillo $11 mil per year could have done that just a year ago, when he signed as a free agent. I understand that the Sox have already paid for his "development" year, but what has Castillo done in the last 12 months to increase his value? I just don't see the Sox moving Rusney and getting back great value for him. I'm guessing that those that were in on the bidding for his services, last summer, are relieved they missed out. He may well be a terrific player, but he's no Abreu, at this point. And he's not a 21 year old toolsy prospect either. He's just depth for the Red Sox, that makes either Betts or Bradley more dispensable.
AB in DC said:
Ortiz should understand that this time of year is when youngsters are supposed to get a little extra playing time. Hell, even Cal Ripken voluntary took a seat, despite his streak, at a younger age than Ortiz is now.
shaggydog2000 said:
Also, are we all 100% certain both Castillo and Bradley are above average major leaguers based off the last few weeks? I'm very encouraged just like most everyone else, but I think there are still decent odds one or the other player doesn't work out. Let's finish figuring out what we have before becoming obsessed with how to best utilize it next year and beyond.
Unless that CF is Mookie Betts he isn't going to be a key part of bringing back the kind of front line starter this club needs. Meanwhile, Hanley in LF or not the club has clear need for all three. Four good OFs is the goal heading into a season. With Hanley plus the 3 CF amigos this club looks like they probably have four good OFs. They've spent a ton of time trying to get there, the likely "4th" in the bunch, Bradley, is such a good defender that he can make an impact form any of the three OF positions.Plympton91 said:The Red Sox are going to trade on of the 3 CF this offseason for pitching. That leaves LF open. Bank on it.
Drek717 said:Unless that CF is Mookie Betts he isn't going to be a key part of bringing back the kind of front line starter this club needs. Meanwhile, Hanley in LF or not the club has clear need for all three. Four good OFs is the goal heading into a season. With Hanley plus the 3 CF amigos this club looks like they probably have four good OFs.
I'm talking about a scenario where the club believes (and is proven right) that Hanley will take significant steps forward as a LF. If he isn't a LF then they clearly have zero reason to trade Bradley, Betts, or Castillo short of someone giving them an overpay.nothumb said:
I would love to hear the case for how Hanley is a "good OF," now or ever.
Savin Hillbilly said:He really looks different at the plate. And the oppo homer tonight is hugely exciting--even if it remains fairly rare that he can clear the fence in that direction, if he can get it in the air with enough authority to reach the wall on a regular basis, that complicates life for pitchers that much more.
nvalvo said:Bradley's 2015 line is now .247/.349/.517, in 106 PA, for an OPS of .866. His OPS stood at .384 on August 5th. In the intervening 47 PA, his OPS has been 1.339. Basically, he took a few games after the Victorino trade to get his bearings, and then got hot.
Like everyone, I'm really excited about this, but I'm trying to figure out how it can be happening. The bear case on Bradley is that his strikeout rate is still 25%, and is in fact a touch higher in his recent tear. He *looks* like he's controlling the strike zone much better than in 2014, and his walk rate reflects that: now up to a Youkilisian 13.6%. But the underlying plate discipline and contact numbers haven't really moved as much as you'd think, although he's swinging a bit less.
Nor is he hitting the ball harder, according to fangraphs, although he's hitting it "soft" less frequently. He's actually hitting *fewer* line drives than he did in 2014. (BABIP is basically unchanged, from .284 to .293.) But he's been hitting fewer groundballs and popups, and way more flyballs. Those flyballs have been turning into XBH at a healthy clip, so so far so good on that score. But trading groundballs and line drives for flyballs should make your BABIP go down, not up, so that might eventually balance out.
The good news is that he's now walking once for every two Ks, instead of every four, and that — by demonstrating he can get the ball out of the park — he'll probably get many more opportunities to walk going forward.
Savin Hillbilly said:He really looks different at the plate. And the oppo homer tonight is hugely exciting--even if it remains fairly rare that he can clear the fence in that direction, if he can get it in the air with enough authority to reach the wall on a regular basis, that complicates life for pitchers that much more.
If he's an .800 Ops guy, he's better than Betts.mwonow said:
Ditto. If JBJ can't hit, he's the guy who "everyone" (well, me at least) sees becoming a major leaguer sometime in the future, someplace else. If he can hit, he might be the best player on the Sox, at least not named "Betts". Complicated indeed!
Weird that you should say this because I came here to say the opposite. What are we defining as "his tear?"nvalvo said:
Like everyone, I'm really excited about this, but I'm trying to figure out how it can be happening. The bear case on Bradley is that his strikeout rate is still 25%, and is in fact a touch higher in his recent tear. He *looks* like he's controlling the strike zone much better than in 2014, and his walk rate reflects that: now up to a Youkilisian 13.6%. But the underlying plate discipline and contact numbers haven't really moved as much as you'd think, although he's swinging a bit less.