Rasputin said:
If you want to argue with me, do it honestly. Don't use the same logical fallacy you're accusing me of using, especially when I'm not using it. Don't ignore what I actually said to argue against something I didn't. Don't ignore the utterly obvious facts that are in evidence.
I see no where that I argued against something you didn't say, ignored something you didn't, or accused you of using a logical fallacy. I'm just accusing you of being both:
1. Someone who is grossly overvaluing the defensive value the team can glean from LF.
and
2. Someone with a serious blind spot when it comes to recognizing just how good Daniel Nava was last year against RHP, i.e. about 2/3rds or a little better of all ML pitchers.
When there is a right handed pitcher on the mound for the opposing team Daniel Nava is one of the best hitters in the entire organization and that isn't just because of his ability to take a walk. Against RHP he's shown damn good contact skills and nice doubles power with a touch of home run pop. If he hit LHP as well as he hit RHP he'd be Matt Holliday with a few less home runs. For 500K.
And yes, he is better than Grady Sizemore. Grady Sizemore bouncing back to 100% of his former self is a better player, but that is the single most unlikely outcome of the Sizemore experiment. Nava has far less risk involved and the gap between Nava and Sizemore against RHP isn't big enough to justify taking on that risk (which is what matters since neither hit LHP as well as Gomes and Farrell isn't giving up Gomes).
This is why Nava isn't on the roster bubble. A platoon isn't an ineffective use of a roster spot when it lets you build a composite equal to All-Star production for $5.5M. The only requirement then is enough organizational depth to turn to should half the platoon get hurt, which the Sox do already have (Carp and Bradley backstopping Nava, Brentz and Hassan backstopping Gomes).
twothousandone said:
I'll disagree with this, slightly, to say there was one to sign to compete with Bogaerts, and they offered him $14 million. He turned it down.
I know they probably figured.hoped he would turn it down, but they must have had a contingency plan if Drew were to take that deal. And I'll bet if that contingency plan had been put in place, Middlebrooks would be in the Nava role of the debate.
1. Middlebrooks would be equivalent to Bradley, not Nava, as Bradley is the young guy who underperformed in limited ML action and has his roster spot in jeopardy due to veteran competition displacing him. Though in that case it would be tangential displacement.
The equivalent to Nava for the Drew/Bogaerts/WMB displacement scenario would be Dustin Pedroia. A key part of the team's offense (which Nava/Gomes was last year and is poised to be this year). The only difference is that Pedroia plays a more defensively valuable position well. But the significance of Nava/Gomes defensive deficiencies are greatly reduced because they play not just LF, but LF in Fenway park of all places.
2. Stephen Drew was offered arb by a team who still had the ability to trade WMB and was also pretty sure Drew would decline. If he'd accepted they would have had all winter to move WMB for good value. That isn't the scenario now, and it wasn't the scenario when the Red Sox signed Sizemore early this year.
I think the biggest misconception here is the notion that players are either MLB READY(r) or they're not. That isn't binary. Bradley is ready enough, thanks to his excellent defense, to where the club could live with his offensive growing pains in CF as opposed to forking out stupid money for a long term FA or paying someone like Chris Young $7M to replicate what Bradley is likely capable of right now: damn good defense and probably a .700-.750 OPS.
Sizemore was their hedge because he was cheap and he had huge upside. Now it looks like the hedge is going to pay off in the short term. That doesn't mean the view of Bradley should be fundamentally altered. Bradley is likely still capable of damn good defense and a .700-.750 OPS at the ML level this season. But when the starting RF is a proven elite defender with speed and a .750-.800 OPS bat, the LF tandem is adequate defensively and have huge offensive production in the ~.850 OPS range he isn't displacing either of those two, and neither is Sizemore.
So it comes down to who out of Bradley and Sizemore gets to play CF. Given Sizemore's massive upside, very impressive spring, and inability to be optioned it isn't hard to see why he's in front on this one. Across the board Sizemore wins the argument for opening day largely because worst case scenario he's on the DL/off the roster in a month with the original plan (Bradley) implemented.
All that leaves is Mike Carp. Which isn't a legitimate discussion because the last thing Jackie Bradley needs is to play in one or two games a week as the 5th OF. He's 23. He needs to play every day.
Besides, it's not like he probably still won't see a ton of ML time this year. I mean, he's the #1 in-house option for Grady Sizemore and Shane Victorino. We're likely arguing semantics here as Bradley will likely be the full time CF or RF by late April.