The curious case of Alejandro De Aza

[kieckeredinthehead]

Since being acquired June 4, De Aza has played in nine of the team's ten games. He has had 23 PAs, hitting 182/217/227. On Sunday, he dropped a number of balls that a good fielder gets to. JBJ, meanwhile, has been hitting 335/406/497 in AAA. For those keeping score, that's by far the best OPS at Pawtucket, just 17 pts lower than Mookie's line last year and over 80 pts higher than Xander when he was called up. Bradley also offers the only chance for the Red Sox to make a highlight reel on Baseball Tonight.

But this isn't about Jackie Bradley Jr. This is about Rusney Castillo. The reason to play De Aza, it is said, is that we don't want JBJ called up only to languish on the bench. Except apparently we already have one promising young outfielder in that role, one who's getting paid over $70 million. Since De Aza was acquired, Rusney has had 25 PAs in 8 games, hitting 304/360/478.

So what exactly is Alejandro De Aza doing on this team?

(Edit: fixed Rusney's slash line thanks Snod)

 

[Super Nomario]

Since being acquired June 4, De Aza has played in nine of the team's ten games. He has had 23 PAs, hitting 182/217/227. On Sunday, he dropped a number of balls that a good fielder gets to. JBJ, meanwhile, has been hitting 335/406/497 in AAA. For those keeping score, that's by far the best OPS at Pawtucket, just 17 pts lower than Mookie's line last year and over 80 pts higher than Xander when he was called up. Bradley also offers the only chance for the Red Sox to make a highlight reel on Baseball Tonight.

But this isn't about Jackie Bradley Jr. This is about Rusney Castillo. The reason to play De Aza, it is said, is that we don't want JBJ called up only to languish on the bench. Except apparently we already have one promising young outfielder in that role, one who's getting paid over $70 million. Since De Aza was acquired, Rusney has had 25 PAs in 8 games, hitting 304/460/478.

So what exactly is Alejandro De Aza doing on this team?

There seem to be two distinct issues here: why Castillo is getting so much time off, and why De Aza is playing so much. I don't have an answer for the first, but the second seems to be due to circumstance - he played two games when Ortiz took time off to fix his swing (shifting Hanley to DH), and he played two games after Mookie's injury. Those are his only four starts and represent 16 of his 23 PAs. Other than that, he's been just a late-inning PH or defensive replacement.
 
EDIT: I'm wrong, one of his starts wasn't in place of Ortiz, it was in place of Castillo. Still, 3 of the 4 are due to circumstance.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

SuperNomario answered it.  De Aza was acquired to be the 4th/5th OF, not a regular player.  Circumstances since his acquisition have necessitated a lot of PT for him thus far.
 
His 9 games played for the Sox:
 
6/5 started LF (Ortiz sitting)
6/6 started LF (Castillo sitting)
6/7 PH for Leon, defensive replacement LF
6/10 PH for Castillo
6/11 PR for Swihart (9th inning)
6/12 replaced Betts after he ran into the wall
6/13 started RF (Betts sitting)
6/14 started RF (Betts sitting)
6/15 PH for Leon
 
Would JBJ have been better?  Maybe.  But at the time De Aza was signed, there was no way of knowing he's need to start 4 games in his first ten and play the majority of a fifth one due to injuries.  There's also a fair chance he doesn't start either game over the weekend in place of Betts if Napoli wasn't taking his little vacation as well.  Holt probably gets those starts in RF instead of being at 1B.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

all makes sense (though still not thrilled they gave up a potential bullpen arm for him), but why not bring JBJ up now?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

all makes sense (though still not thrilled they gave up a potential bullpen arm for him), but why not bring JBJ up now?

 
Because the regular starters are presumably healthy again.  Betts played last night and went 3 for 4.  Probably safe to say he's not DL-bound for his back.  Castillo, as SuperNomario points out, has actually been good of late (no idea why he sat last night, though Holt wasn't a problem).  Doesn't seem like they're going to shut down Ramirez any time soon no matter how nicked up he might be.
 
For now, De Aza appears to be an actual 4th/5th outfielder who shouldn't see the field much at all save for the occasional pinch running gig or defensive replacement in LF.

 

[genivive]

What ever happened to Daniel Nava?  Did they drop him in a well?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

De Aza starting again and hitting seventh.

 

[E5 Yaz]

What ever happened to Daniel Nava?  Did they drop him in a well?

 
DL stint up in terms of days. Not activated yet. When he is, I suspect they will drop him in a Bucket

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

De Aza starting again and hitting seventh.

 
Ramirez sitting with a bad back.  Pedroia sitting with a sore knee, so Holt's at 2B.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

 
Because the regular starters are presumably healthy again.  Betts played last night and went 3 for 4.  Probably safe to say he's not DL-bound for his back.  Castillo, as SuperNomario points out, has actually been good of late (no idea why he sat last night, though Holt wasn't a problem).  Doesn't seem like they're going to shut down Ramirez any time soon no matter how nicked up he might be.
 
For now, De Aza appears to be an actual 4th/5th outfielder who shouldn't see the field much at all save for the occasional pinch running gig or defensive replacement in LF.

but why not bring up JBJ and make him part of a mix in the OF?  Hanley could get 1-2 games off a week to DH or rest (he probably needs more time off than that but you're right, they don't seem likely to DL him), Mookie and Castillo could also get 1-2 games off per week.  that creates some time for JBJ...of course, leaves less time for Holt, but probably still a way to get him some time at 3B and 1B or occasionally SS (or very occasionally 2B as today)

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But this isn't about Jackie Bradley Jr. This is about Rusney Castillo. The reason to play De Aza, it is said, is that we don't want JBJ called up only to languish on the bench. Except apparently we already have one promising young outfielder in that role, one who's getting paid over $70 million. Since De Aza was acquired, Rusney has had 25 PAs in 8 games, hitting 304/460/478.

 
Slight typo in your slash line. It's a .360 OBP, not .460 which is a huge difference, but I don't think this means anything in relation to the question you asked anyway. Up through June 4th, the day De Aza was picked up, Rusney was hitting 190/209/190. His performance since De Aza was traded for is irrelevant in answering why the Red Sox thought he was worth trading for and his line leading up to that was abysmal, so it does nothing to dissuade me of the notion that the Red Sox needed to add someone at that point.
 
Add that to the reasons stated above regarding keeping JBJ in a lineup every day, not disrupting him while he's rolling, and the circumstances changing immediately after the trade forcing them to get him into the lineup immediately and consistently, and I think this thread is pretty much a non starter.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Add that to the reasons stated above regarding keeping JBJ in a lineup every day, not disrupting him while he's rolling, and the circumstances changing immediately after the trade forcing them to get him into the lineup immediately and consistently, and I think this thread is pretty much a non starter.

Actually it's De Aza who should be a non starter, yet Farrell keeps managing to get him into games.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Actually it's De Aza who should be a non starter, yet Farrell keeps managing to get him into games.

 
Not including today (which is another start due to multiple starters sitting with injury), he's started four games since he was acquired and another where he was put in in the 3rd inning due to Betts' injury.  Those five games account for 19 of his 23 PA so far.  What was Farrell's alternative in each of those games?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Not including today (which is another start due to multiple starters sitting with injury), he's started four games since he was acquired and another where he was put in in the 3rd inning due to Betts' injury.  Those five games account for 19 of his 23 PA so far.  What was Farrell's alternative in each of those games?

I thought it was clear in my original post. This team has found plenty of opportunities for De Aza and Holt. Until Victorino is ready to go, why not call up JBJ and let him take the starts, pinch hitting, pinch running, and defensive replacement opportunities that have gone to the 31 year old journeyman who pinch hits for and like Sandy Leon?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I thought it was clear in my original post. This team has found plenty of opportunities for De Aza and Holt. Until Victorino is ready to go, why not call up JBJ and let him take the starts, pinch hitting, pinch running, and defensive replacement opportunities that have gone to the 31 year old journeyman who pinch hits for and like Sandy Leon?

 
Because that's not the role they want JBJ to be playing?  He's best served playing every day, not getting spot starts and the occasional pinch-running/pinch-hitting opportunity.  Taking the unusual circumstances of the last 10-11 games to say "they can find playing time for JBJ" doesn't really work.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Because that's not the role they want JBJ to be playing?  He's best served playing every day, not getting spot starts and the occasional pinch-running/pinch-hitting opportunity.  Taking the unusual circumstances of the last 10-11 games to say "they can find playing time for JBJ" doesn't really work.

 
Yeah, this.  They're not going to call up SoSH's patron saint, Jackie Bradley, until there's a full time position open.  He's building a tremendous amount of value and confidence in AAA right now, why mess with that over a lost season?   My guess is that if BrAAAAdley continues to show he can hit in AAA, then he will either be traded in a blockbuster for long-term pitching help, or called up on August 1st to be the strong half of a platoon in RF (with Castillo) after some of the deadwood is cleared at the trading deadline.

 

[grimshaw]

Couldn't it just be as simple as sending a message to Castillo that he has to earn his playing time?
He's one of the few guys they can do that to.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Sox now .500 in games in which De Aza appeared, and 3-1 since he became a regular. Mea culpa, the guy's an all star.

 

[YTF]

He would be if he were in the other dugout.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Cuzitt writes about what a good pick up De Aza has been for the Sox. 

 

[richgedman'sghost]

So I realize that was a sarcastic response but do you still he is a joke of a player? What is your opinion now? Has it changed?

 

[richgedman'sghost]

I was replying to Kickeredinthehead.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

You can put this one in the column where I don't understand baseball.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm not sure why everybody is so surprised that De Aza has done OK, or is so quick to think of the Sox' frequent deployment of him as a head-scratcher. He is what he has always been--a quintessentially league-average player. He has averaged 2.5 fWAR per 600 PA. That's not star performance, but it's solid, and better than anything we could reasonably expect from Nava or (until he can turn a corner vs. MLB pitching) Bradley. And while his prime may be in the rearview mirror, he's not exactly old: just 31 and a couple of months.
 
As long as Vic can stay on the field, a Victorino/De Aza platoon or semi-platoon should take RF off the Sox' list of problems (and if Vic can't stay on the field, promoting Rusney will hopefully keep it off the list).

 

[Devizier]

I'm not sure why everybody is so surprised that De Aza has done OK, or is so quick to think of the Sox' frequent deployment of him as a head-scratcher. He is what he has always been--a quintessentially league-average player. He has averaged 2.5 fWAR per 600 PA. That's not star performance, but it's solid, and better than anything we could reasonably expect from Nava or (until he can turn a corner vs. MLB pitching) Bradley. And while his prime may be in the rearview mirror, he's not exactly old: just 31 and a couple of months.
 
As long as Vic can stay on the field, a Victorino/De Aza platoon or semi-platoon should take RF off the Sox' list of problems (and if Vic can't stay on the field, promoting Rusney will hopefully keep it off the list).

 
De Aza's performance makes sense if you see last season as a down year and this year as a rebound to previous (not all that awesome) level of play. Yeah, he looked done in Baltimore, but that could be attributable to small sample (or injury) more than anything that the Red Sox have done.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

I'm not sure why everybody is so surprised that De Aza has done OK, or is so quick to think of the Sox' frequent deployment of him as a head-scratcher. He is what he has always been--a quintessentially league-average player. He has averaged 2.5 fWAR per 600 PA. That's not star performance, but it's solid, and better than anything we could reasonably expect from Nava or (until he can turn a corner vs. MLB pitching) Bradley. And while his prime may be in the rearview mirror, he's not exactly old: just 31 and a couple of months.
 
As long as Vic can stay on the field, a Victorino/De Aza platoon or semi-platoon should take RF off the Sox' list of problems (and if Vic can't stay on the field, promoting Rusney will hopefully keep it off the list).

 
I'm not surprised that he's done "OK." I am surprised that he's put up a 155 OPS+ while with Boston. At the time of acquisition, the Red Sox were mired in last place. He proceeded to play in 9 of his first 10 games hitting 182/217/227 and botching a bunch of defensive plays. They went 3-6 in that span. That's when I suggested that maybe we could enjoy a last place team a little more if we got a chance to watch JBJ or Castillo rather than a cast off who appeared to have no future with the team. The guy then went on a 14 game tear, hitting 404/436/846 (1283 OPS) with a .450 BABIP. The team went 10-4 in that time. Mea culpa. He's now been relegated to a platoon/bench/defensive replacement role that makes more sense, and will likely cool down (091/231/322 since). If the Red Sox continue winning, he's going to be the guy to point to as having helped them turn it around and I'm happy to look like the idiot who complained about the player who saved their season. He's been a great piece for them and I didn't see it coming.

 

[jscola85]

de Aza continues to produce even as the sample size grows in Boston.  He's up to 145 PAs on the year with the Red Sox, with a .308/.354/.504 triple slash in Boston, and even factoring in his struggles in Baltimore, he's got a wRC+ of 105 on the season as a whole.  In Boston, he's tagging the ball pretty damn well, with 89% of his balls in play either hard hit or medium hit, leading to a healthy .373 BABIP.  That's high but he's got a career .331 BABIP so not outrageous.  He's also not just riding one little hot streak to support those numbers, as his July OPS was a totally respectable .735. 
 
UZR also seems to like what he's doing defensively in Boston, albeit SSS, and he's consistently rated as an above average baserunner throughout his career, including 2015. Other than failing to hit lefties, de Aza does everything at a respectable or better level for an OF in the current run-scoring environment.
 
So, the question is, what to do about him in 2016?  Consensus around here seems to be to trade him for whatever can be attained in terms of prospects, but the 2016 OF depth chart is heavily right-handed, with all three of Rusney, Betts and Hanley (assuming he's still an OF) batting from the right side.  Holt is around but probably should be viewed more as a 5th OF / super sub for next year rather than a primary backup, given his positional versatility.  Bradley is a lefty, but still struggling to hit his way out of a paper bag.  And if Ramirez is moved back to the infield, that creates an additional hole in left needing attention.
 
What would folks pay to retain de Aza as a quasi-starter in the OF next year?  He's 31 and his struggles in Baltimore cannot be completely ignored, but even factoring them in, his season-long line is now just above his career offensive production.  Farrell and the org have clearly understood that he's best off avoiding any lefties, so it would seem they understand his potential value as a role player.  Given the organization will not have huge payroll flexibility in 2016, it's unlikely a FA like Alex Gordon, Jason Heyward or Justin Upton is on the table, especially with the gaping holes in the pitching staff.  Gerardo Parra is available and he's 2+ years younger, but is another righty like Castillo/Betts/Ramirez.
 
In looking at the 2016 projected roster and potential, realistic FA candidates, I could see why the org might decide to just keep de Aza unless a great offer comes their way, with the idea of working out a reasonable 2-year deal with him to help solidify the OF picture for next year.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

In looking at the 2016 projected roster and potential, realistic FA candidates, I could see why the org might decide to just keep de Aza unless a great offer comes their way, with the idea of working out a reasonable 2-year deal with him to help solidify the OF picture for next year.

 
Given the uncertainty around the Sox' outfield needs and options, in De Aza's shoes I'd wait to see what offers came my way in November. It seems pretty likely that somebody else will value him more than we do. At age 32, in apparently good shape and with no injury history to speak of, I wouldn't be shocked to see him get a 3-year deal from somebody. 

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

In looking at the 2016 projected roster and potential, realistic FA candidates, I could see why the org might decide to just keep de Aza unless a great offer comes their way, with the idea of working out a reasonable 2-year deal with him to help solidify the OF picture for next year.

 
The Sox need to assess how long it will take to become competitive again, and what steps would be needed to get there.
 
I could easily see ADA getting a 2-to-3 year deal from the Sox at decent money, especially if whatever FO/management team is in place finally decides to move Hanley out of left field.
 
In fact, if Margot isn't moved for pitching, then he becomes a natural platoon partner for De Aza in the 1 to 1 1/2 years it would take to get him MLB ready.
 

 

[jscola85]

 
Given the uncertainty around the Sox' outfield needs and options, in De Aza's shoes I'd wait to see what offers came my way in November. It seems pretty likely that somebody else will value him more than we do. At age 32, in apparently good shape and with no injury history to speak of, I wouldn't be shocked to see him get a 3-year deal from somebody. 

 
I agree; at the same time, he seems pretty happy playing here by all accounts, being given a new lease on life after scuffling so hard in Baltimore.  Hopefully that engenders some positive will between his camp and the Red Sox.  Something to remember regarding his deal though is he was a free agent coming into 2015 with a pretty similar line and got only one year, $5M.  He's definitely hitting noticeably better this year, but he's also a year older, so hard to tell if he's all of a sudden going to attract a lot of attention.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
I agree; at the same time, he seems pretty happy playing here by all accounts, being given a new lease on life after scuffling so hard in Baltimore.  Hopefully that engenders some positive will between his camp and the Red Sox.  Something to remember regarding his deal though is he was a free agent coming into 2015 with a pretty similar line and got only one year, $5M.  He's definitely hitting noticeably better this year, but he's also a year older, so hard to tell if he's all of a sudden going to attract a lot of attention.

 
Actually, he was not a free agent at all. He was under Oriole control.  His contract this year is the result of going to arbitration with the O's and losing (he was seeking 5.65M).  So there's nothing to be learned or gleaned from last winter as it applies to De Aza's prospects as a free agent this coming winter.

 

[jscola85]

 
Actually, he was not a free agent at all. He was under Oriole control.  His contract this year is the result of going to arbitration with the O's and losing (he was seeking 5.65M).  So there's nothing to be learned or gleaned from last winter as it applies to De Aza's prospects as a free agent this coming winter.

 
Ok got it - my apologies.  Quickly perused Spotrac and did not realize that.

 

[chawson]

This is a little oversimplified, but here are some WAR among outfielders since 2011 (min 2000 PA):
 
Nelson Cruz — 11.4
Jon Jay — 10.7
Jay Bruce — 10.6
Alejandro de Aza — 10.4
Melky Cabrera — 10.2
Gerardo Parra — 10.0
Shin-Soo Choo — 9.9
Coco Crisp — 9.2
 
I'm not sure why everyone thinks de Aza is so expendable. He had 112 crappy PAs with the O's earlier this year, but he's run a .328 wOBA since becoming more or less a full-time player. He's basically Nick Markakis (6.6 WAR since 2011) with average-plus defense and a less magazine-cover face. 

 

[jscola85]

Cabrera is an interesting comp.  He's got a modestly higher career wOBA but is a worse defender/baserunner, though he is a year-plus younger and displayed a higher peak season than de Aza ever has (even if it maybe was driven by PEDs).  Cabrera wrangled in 3/$42M from the White Sox.  I'd suspect de Aza gets either less years or less AAV due to his age and lack of the peak potential Cabrera at least flashed, though it may not be too far off.  Something like 2 years, $26M with a 3rd year that has a decent buyout or vests based on PAs could perhaps do it.  Then again, Markakis got 4/$44M coming off a similar year to what de Aza's posting at the same age, so 3 years guaranteed is probably more likely.

 

[smastroyin]

He's a free agent in 12 weeks, the Red Sox have more needs (organizationally) than a good outfielder in a shit season.  As mentioned in the JBJ thread, the difference between an all-star and playing JBJ, even if he continues to suck, is winning something like 74 games instead of 72.  With de Aza, maybe that's 73 games instead of 72.  But there's a lot of rounding error with this small of a sample.  Regardless, the point isn't whether he is expendable.  It's whether they could derive any longer term value for him, particularly in seasons where they might compete.  He's 31, it's unlikely the team he goes to is going to sign him long-term before he reaches FA.
 
The problem of course is that he is a well rounded guy instead of a guy with a particular skill, so they might not really be able to get anything for him.
 
My theme for this season is getting reinforced all the time.  Everyone is so eager to defend every tree that the forest just continues to burn.  Saying that de Aza should be traded or doesn't have a future with a competitive Red Sox team isn't necessarily a statement about his ability, it's more a statement about the overall organization and plan, and a team that may not be competitive until 2017.  

 

[jscola85]

He's a free agent in 12 weeks, the Red Sox have more needs (organizationally) than a good outfielder in a shit season.  As mentioned in the JBJ thread, the difference between an all-star and playing JBJ, even if he continues to suck, is winning something like 74 games instead of 72.  With de Aza, maybe that's 73 games instead of 72.  But there's a lot of rounding error with this small of a sample.  Regardless, the point isn't whether he is expendable.  It's whether they could derive any longer term value for him, particularly in seasons where they might compete.  He's 31, it's unlikely the team he goes to is going to sign him long-term before he reaches FA.
 
The problem of course is that he is a well rounded guy instead of a guy with a particular skill, so they might not really be able to get anything for him.
 
My theme for this season is getting reinforced all the time.  Everyone is so eager to defend every tree that the forest just continues to burn.  Saying that de Aza should be traded or doesn't have a future with a competitive Red Sox team isn't necessarily a statement about his ability, it's more a statement about the overall organization and plan, and a team that may not be competitive until 2017.  

 
There is a world in which though you can get JBJ at bats and still want to retain de Aza for next year.  As learned with Lester and Miller, it's great to talk about trading a guy then signing him back in FA, but rarely does that happen so easily.  I think there's legitimate questions about how the Red Sox OF will shake out next year - JBJ still not hitting, Rusney a near-total question mark still, and Hanley perhaps requiring a position switch.  So while it may seem like de Aza is in some sort of logjam, that's probably more of a 2-month illusion than anything else.
 
More likely than not, the Red Sox will be in the market for an OF in free agency in some form or fashion, and likely will need that OF to be a lefty who can play all three OF positions.  de Aza fits that to a T.  So it's not like the case of Victorino, where it was clear there was absolutely no future for him in Boston, which meant getting whatever you could for him.  If the market for de Aza is not strong, I don't see a great reason to just cut bait on him for whatever you can get back, however minimal.

 

[JimD]

The Red Sox worrying about re-signing de Aza right now is like having your house catch fire and worrying that the tub faucet has been dripping lately.

 

[Toe Nash]

This is a little oversimplified, but here are some WAR among outfielders since 2011 (min 2000 PA):
 
Nelson Cruz — 11.4
Jon Jay — 10.7
Jay Bruce — 10.6
Alejandro de Aza — 10.4
Melky Cabrera — 10.2
Gerardo Parra — 10.0
Shin-Soo Choo — 9.9
Coco Crisp — 9.2
 
I'm not sure why everyone thinks de Aza is so expendable. He had 112 crappy PAs with the O's earlier this year, but he's run a .328 wOBA since becoming more or less a full-time player. He's basically Nick Markakis (6.6 WAR since 2011) with average-plus defense and a less magazine-cover face. 

That's fangraphs WAR...bWAR is far less bullish giving him just 6.8 WAR in that time. The difference that UZR thinks he has been +14 runs defensively and DRS thinks he has been -22 runs defensively...a huge difference.
 
Given that he'd be playing left anyway my instinct is to combine the two and just consider him an average or slightly below-average fielder. Thus, it's probably more instructive to look at his offense compared to other OF:
 
wOBA, min 1000 PA from 2011-15:
51. Daniel Nava .334
52. Justin Ruggiano .334
53. Adam Eaton .332
54. Alfonso Soriano .330
55. Nori Aoki .330
56. Alejandro de Aza .328
57. Nick Markakis .328
58. Marlon Byrd .328
 
So...he's fine, but probably a piece you want to upgrade, especially given his age and likely cost.

 

[MikeM]

Cabrera is an interesting comp.  He's got a modestly higher career wOBA but is a worse defender/baserunner, though he is a year-plus younger and displayed a higher peak season than de Aza ever has (even if it maybe was driven by PEDs).  Cabrera wrangled in 3/$42M from the White Sox.  I'd suspect de Aza gets either less years or less AAV due to his age and lack of the peak potential Cabrera at least flashed, though it may not be too far off.  Something like 2 years, $26M with a 3rd year that has a decent buyout or vests based on PAs could perhaps do it.  Then again, Markakis got 4/$44M coming off a similar year to what de Aza's posting at the same age, so 3 years guaranteed is probably more likely.

 
I'm not sold Markakis or Cabrera really make for an all that great comp if we are speculating De Aza in market value terms. Free agency as a whole generally tends to pay out well for past performance, and both went in scoring a lot higher in that regard then De Aza would. 
 
At best there might be a team that values him enough to go 2, but without the lengthy track record of success i'd project a greater probability that he falls back a tier into the 1 year/$10m'ish type range. 

 

[smastroyin]

I guess my argument came across poorly, but I just don't think a guy like de Aza is so super valuable that you need to work on an extension now, and if you can get a A+ flyer type prospect for 6 weeks of his play I would do it.  Even better if you can get something more.  If he likes it here and they like him, and the FO and Farrell are all here in November, then they can try to sign him.
 
I understand your playing time argument, but to me the value of understanding where they stand with JBJ and Rusney at the end of September is way higher than the value of the marginal increase in odds that de Aza would sign here if he isn't traded.  Of course, the ironic part of this is that they really only need him in 2016 if those two flop.  I guess you could make a case that he would be a good 4th OF if only one of them (continue to) flop.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

What indications have you seen from either that they aren't deep into the flopping process? Neither have shown any improvement from last year or earlier this season. 2/$26m for a guy traded for scraps two months ago and will be 32 years of age is pretty insane to even comprehend. I'm guessing a 2/$14m is the max he would get on an open market.

 

[EricFeczko]

I just, I just don't understand this love for Aza. A .328 wOBA is about 5 percent better than league average right now.

As a hitter, he is trending downwards not upwards; his walk rate has dropped 1.6 percent to 5.8 this year, while his strikeout rater has climbed to 24.5 percent. While he does make hard contact and has some power, his swinging strike rate has increased over the past two years from 8.3 percent to 10.8 percent. This is not a guy one would project to perform better than his career as he progresses towards his mid 30's.

Furthermore, Bradley, despite his 63 PAs in the majors, has played extremely well at AAA and shown progression. Although he had a 338 BABIP, he also cut his strikeout rate by ~12 percent and maintained a good walk rate. He also showed some power as well (.167 ISO). He's 7 years younger and can play multiple outfield positions. Simply put, he deserves a more pedroia-like shot next year*


*IMHO, bringing up bradley in 2014 and 2013 were extremely poor moves, even in foresight, and don't reflect where he is now as a player.

 

[nvalvo]

What indications have you seen from either that they aren't deep into the flopping process? Neither have shown any improvement from last year or earlier this season. 2/$26m for a guy traded for scraps two months ago and will be 32 years of age is pretty insane to even comprehend. I'm guessing a 2/$14m is the max he would get on an open market.

 
Castillo
April-June, 2015: 77 PA, .230/.260/.284
July-Yesterday: 43 PA, .355/.394/.516
 
Bradley
AAA, 2014: 69 PA, .212/.246/.273
AAA, 2015: 318 PA, .305/.382/.472

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
Castillo
April-June, 2015: 77 PA, .230/.260/.284
July-Yesterday: 43 PA, .355/.394/.516
 
Bradley
AAA, 2014: 69 PA, .212/.246/.273
AAA, 2015: 318 PA, .305/.382/.472

I'll give you some on Castillo based on 40 AB. AAA I won't. If you want to count Rusney's super small sample for him you have to count Bradley's ML this year against him. You can't have it both ways.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I'll give you some on Castillo based on 40 AB. AAA I won't. If you want to count Rusney's super small sample for him you have to count Bradley's ML this year against him. You can't have it both ways.

I don't see how you can hold Bradley's slash line in the minors against him.  Did anyone expect him to go to the minors and hit better than: AAA, 2015: 318 PA, .305/.382/.472 ?  If he had done worse, people would have said he was a AAAA and done.  As noted, he produced that slash line while lowering the strikeouts.  I get you saying you don't believe in him, it just doesn't make sense to say that by dismissing clear signs of progress in the minors.  

 

[Drek717]

I'll give you some on Castillo based on 40 AB. AAA I won't. If you want to count Rusney's super small sample for him you have to count Bradley's ML this year against him. You can't have it both ways.

Except Castillo's turn around has come when he finally gets to start regularly over the past week and a half or so, while Bradley's ML starts by month are:
May: 3
June: 6
July: 3
August: 4
 
Not exactly consistent playing time.  He got a solid week of play in June, he posted a .211/.273/.368 line.  Not great, but by far the biggest sign of life we've seen from Jackie at the ML level in a while.  He's gotten more consistent play in August and suddenly he's got two hits and two walks in the last two games.
 
Maybe he still sucks at the plate.  Real possible.  But we won't know if the obvious alterations (both visually and statistically displayed) he made in AAA this year will translate up to the majors.  His funk last year sure did, so the fact that he's been doing quite well in AAA over a large sample should carry some real weight.
 
My biggest concern with Bradley is that the organization crushed him mentally by rushing him into a starting job with no real safety net and letting him flounder for an entire season.  He split 2012 between A+ and AA, then got about 2/3rds of a season in AAA before needing to be the man in CF for a team coming off a WS win, filling the role vacated by an All-Star.  No sense of expectation management shown by the FO there.  I kind of wonder if they've done the same to Cecchini, just a step sooner, by again only having him spend half a season at A+ and AA before moving on to AAA.  They've really been hitting the accelerator on these kids once they get to A+/AA.  Same thing with Xander and Mookie, who have both experienced some serious slumps and struggles early in their careers.  Swihart meanwhile got a full A+ stint but his AA season was cut a bit short when Vaz got called up to the ML roster last summer, and his AAA sample is obviously incredibly small.
 
Meanwhile Joc Pederson had basically a full season at every level.  Wil Myers got 1.3 seasons at AA and 1.6 seasons at AAA, Grichuk was a level per year guy with a repeat of AAA, Maikel Franco went quick through A+ and AA (half season each) but then got a season plus another ~30 games in AAA.  For a long time the problem in Boston was burying prospects but maybe they're doing the opposite now and rushing them all into spots too quickly.  You basically have a bunch of these guys on the same promotion schedule as Kris Bryant.  Does anyone really think Jackie Bradley should be promoted on-par with Kris "OPS starts with a 1 at every mL level" Bryant?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
Meanwhile Joc Pederson had basically a full season at every level.  Wil Myers got 1.3 seasons at AA and 1.6 seasons at AAA, Grichuk was a level per year guy with a repeat of AAA, Maikel Franco went quick through A+ and AA (half season each) but then got a season plus another ~30 games in AAA.  For a long time the problem in Boston was burying prospects but maybe they're doing the opposite now and rushing them all into spots too quickly.  You basically have a bunch of these guys on the same promotion schedule as Kris Bryant.  Does anyone really think Jackie Bradley should be promoted on-par with Kris "OPS starts with a 1 at every mL level" Bryant?

 
I think if you're trying to compare promotion schedules of prospects, lumping high school players (Pederson, Myers), international FAs (Franco) and 3/4 year college players at major programs (Bryant, Bradley) together is a really poor way of doing it. Bryant's OPS is of no significance, because they are not the same type of player, so even a direct comparison between the two is more complicated than that. 
 
No one said they expected JBJ to be a ML fixture 18 months after being drafted like Bryant. But he's had plenty of time and opportunity to prove himself and he hasn't done it. Part of drafting a polished college guy is that you don't expect them to need the same timetable as a high school kid. You sacrifice projection for immediacy. Accept a lower ceiling, for a higher floor.
 
We'd all love to see him succeed, but it may very possibly be that he really is a AAAA player. I'm not saying that's the case, but I find it pretty unlikely that his promotion schedule has much to do with it. If he can't handle being told "you're our guy, sink or swim", then maybe he's not meant to be a ML ballplayer. He was given tons of rope and even ignoring the stories about him turning down coaching and advice, he showed nothing. After putting up great numbers at every MiL stop, he's failed to do it at the end stage, the only one that matters. 
 
I hope they find a way to give him and Castillo a couple hundred ABs each without stepping on Betts and he excels, because there's nothing more that I would enjoy seeing than him in RF for the next 10 years. I'm just not sure that has a great chance of happening at this point. 

 

[InsideTheParker]

It's really marvelous ( I.e., something to marvel at) the way almost every thread devolves into a discussion of the struggles of Jackie Bradley, Jr.

As for ADA. He seems like a better than average fifth OF. Keeping him should come down to a matter of money, unless they get an offer of an outstanding bullpen arm.

 

[Drek717]

 
I think if you're trying to compare promotion schedules of prospects, lumping high school players (Pederson, Myers), international FAs (Franco) and 3/4 year college players at major programs (Bryant, Bradley) together is a really poor way of doing it. Bryant's OPS is of no significance, because they are not the same type of player, so even a direct comparison between the two is more complicated than that. 

The relevance of college ball to a player's promotional schedule should be entirely confined to their low minors track record, as that is the analogous competition level.  It shouldn't manifest itself in the high minors, as that consists of significantly longer schedules with a massive step up in competition.
 
I agree that there shouldn't be some set promotional template, but if anything a player like Bradley should have seen an intentionally slower track.  He possesses elite defensive skills so maximizing offensive development before accruing ML service would have maximized the overlap of team control with his peak years.  He had a big setback his senior year of college due to injury, so it wasn't like he was coming off a peak year a la Andrew Benintendi.
 
Also, maybe he just wasn't ready to be told to sink or swim at 24 and, following another full season in AAA, would have been ready at 25.  But sure, we'll never really know and this is working with the benefit of hindsight.  My point however is that while the organization has acknowledged being a little quick to promote players to ML starting jobs recently I hope that their reflection has led to them reconsidering just how quickly players move through A+, AA, and AAA, not just when it's ok to thrust them into a full time starting role.

 

[smastroyin]

But was JBJ really rushed?
 
One of the real issues that has come out of his failure in the majors is people (not necessarily you) retconning his minor league career.
 
The thing is, at age 22, he destroyed the Sally league.  359/480/526.  52 BB to 40 K in 304 PA.  That earned him an age appropriate mid-season call to Portland, where he continued in similar fashion except with replacing singles and walks with more Ks.  He hit 271/373/437, 35 BB to 49 K in 271 PA.  So, lose the average, but the IsoD and ISO basically stick.  For a mid-season promotion, I don't think there is anything particularly disturbing.
 
In 2013, he had the super hot spring training which perhaps fucked up his development and expectation path.  He started the year with the big team while Ortiz was injured, had a decent initial run.  He also hit well in AAA.  275/374/469, essentially adding power to his Portland line while going up a level.  But, he did have 75 K against 41 BB in 374 PA.  That's a pretty high K rate, but you can live with it, honestly, if his IsoD is still about 100 and his ISO is above 150.  Nevermind the defense, those are the numbers of a useful centerfielder as long as he keeps his BA above 230.  (230/330/380 is better than you are getting out of Sandoval.  Hmm, damning by faint praise I suppose).  
 
So, I'm just not sure there is a lot of evidence he was rushed.  I guess 2013 with his multiple callups with short playing time (12 G, 38 PA; 7 G, 21 PA; 4 G, 7 PA; 18 G, 43 PA) may have had a negative effect?  But it didn't really show in his minor league numbers.
 
The problem is his completely lost season last year, which if it were erased from the record everyone would still be talking about him as a massive prospect.  But, it is there, and it is rare for useful offensive players to have that kind of year at age 24. That said, there does seem to be an awful lot of talk regarding JBJ that 2014 defines him and therefore his minor league record gets re-written by some to be much worse than it actually is.