Don’t Trade Jackie Bradley for Jose Abreu

If there’s been one fairly easy prognostication this winter, it’s that the Red Sox are going to sign one of the expensive free agent hitters available in this class. Dave Dombrowski has historically not been shy about spending big to upgrade his roster, and has also shown a propensity for building rosters around power. The Red Sox ranked 27th in home runs last year. This is probably not something he wants to repeat.

So everyone has been linking the Red Sox to one of J.D. Martinez, Eric Hosmer, or Carlos Santana, the three best hitters in this class. But perhaps the assumption that the Sox would sign one of those three has been more about those guys being available than about how well any of them actually might fit in Boston.

Of those three, Martinez is the only guy who could be described as a slugger, with Hosmer and Santana creating value by making contact (and drawing walks, in Santana’s case). Saying that Dombrowski will sign Hosmer or Santana to help the team’s home run total is weird, given that the Red Sox got 21 home runs from their first baseman last year, while Santana projects to hit 28 this year and Hosmer projects to hit 26. It’s more than they got from Mitch Moreland and friends, but it’s not like either one is going to dramatically alter the team’s slugging percentage.

And Martinez, while filling the desire for dingers, would require some sacrifices on the roster to make the current team work. An OF/DH joining a team that already has three outfielders and a DH means that either Hanley Ramirez has to play first base almost everyday — which he hasn’t been healthy enough to do of late — or that Martinez has to displace either Andrew Benintendi or Jackie Bradley Jr. from the line-up. And if you’re spending north of $100 million to sign Martinez, you want to make sure you’re getting a substantial upgrade, not just swapping out one good player for another.

So perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised that the Red Sox are looking at alternative options. And this morning, Jon Heyman reported on one that might be a particularly good fit.

Abreu has hit 30+ home runs in three of his four seasons in the majors, and is coming off a particularly strong season, where he hit .304/.354/.552, good for a 138 wRC+. He’s not a great defensive first baseman, but he’s good enough to allow Hanley to stay at DH full-time. He’d give the team something similar in overall production to what they could get from signing Hosmer or Santana, only slanted more towards the home run side of things, which probably fits Dombrowski’s preferences a bit more.

And if you trade for Abreu, you aren’t signing up for a long-term commitment. Abreu has two years of arbitration eligibility remaining, and then the team could decide whether Rafael Devers is going to stick at third base long-term or if they need to shift him across the diamond. Abreu would upgrade the team’s offense in the short-term without requiring the kind of contract that could hamper the team’s efforts to win in the future. Abreu makes plenty of sense for the Red Sox, and maybe more sense than any of the free agents.

So, unsurprisingly, my chat today contained plenty of questions about what an Abreu-to-Boston trade might look like. More surprising was how many of them involved the Red Sox send Bradley to Chicago as part of the deal.

Let’s just get this out of the way, since I already wrote it in the headline: the Red Sox should not trade Jackie Bradley Jr for Jose Abreu straight up.

Abreu is a nice player who would help the team, but turning Bradley into Abreu is a lateral move at best.

Bradley and Abreu, Past 3 Seasons
2015-2017 PA AVG OBP SLG wOBA wRC+ BsR Off Def WAR
Jackie Bradley Jr. 1432 0.255 0.337 0.456 0.339 109 10.2 24.7 21.6 9.7
Jose Abreu 2038 0.296 0.351 0.508 0.362 130 -8.7 64.1 -43.8 9.1

Over the last three years, Bradley and Abreu have produced roughly equivalent WAR totals despite Bradley getting 600 fewer plate appearances. Abreu’s clearly a better hitter, but there’s a huge gap in baserunning value, so the offensive difference has only been about worth 10 runs per 600 PAs, and Bradley’s outstanding defense in center field is clearly worth more than Abreu’s mediocre defense at first base. Bradley’s WAR isn’t inflated by some huge UZR numbers either; in fact, the public perception is that Bradley is more valuable defensively than our fielding numbers suggest.

Going forward, Bradley should continue to be at least as valuable as Abreu, if not more so. He turns 28 in April, while Abreu turns 31 in January. And while one can certainly quibble with Bradley’s inconsistency, as he fell apart in the second half last year, Abreu hasn’t exactly been a steady performer himself, performing at a below-average level as recently as 2016. Steamer projects Bradley for +3.2 WAR in 2018, while Abreu is forecast for +2.8 WAR, so unless you’re dramatically overweighting offensive value, swapping the two wouldn’t really make the Red Sox better.

And then there are the financial implications. Both Abreu and Bradley are arbitration eligible this winter, but because of how arbitration rewards offense relative to defense, their projected costs are wildly different. Matt Swartz forecasts a $17.9 million salary for Abreu, a $7 million raise over what he got as a first-time eligible player last year. Bradley, meanwhile, is projected to earn just $5.9 million, a $2.3 million raise over what he got as a Super-Two last year, given that his 2017 offensive numbers won’t impress the panel.

So swapping the two straight up would add $11 million to the Red Sox payroll for 2018. That isn’t enough to sign a premium free agent, but it gets you most of the way to the AAV that a guy like Carlos Santana would require, and just signing him instead would give the team a +3 WAR first baseman while also retaining their +3 WAR center fielder.

And then there’s the service time difference. While both Bradley and Abreu are second-time arbitration eligible, Abreu has four full years of service, while Bradley is at 3 years and 159 days, meaning he won’t be eligible for free agency until after the 2020 season. So the Red Sox have three more years of Bradley’s services, while Abreu would only come with two years of control before he hit free agency.

And it’s not like the Red Sox have a starting-caliber fourth outfielder who would make it more efficient to turn a +3 WAR outfielder into a +3 WAR first baseman. Right now, we have their top outfield reserve as Bryce Brentz, a soon-to-be-29-year-old who spent all of last year in Triple-A and projects to put up an 87 wRC+ next year. The other internal option is probably Brock Holt, who was alternately terrible and injured last year, and has a career wRC+ of 88. Neither of these guys should be starting for a contender in 2018.

If the Red Sox traded Bradley for Abreu, they’d be removing roughly $11 million from their budget while simply shifting the spot at which they’d need to upgrade this winter. Oh, and this is a much deeper class of first baseman sign than outfielders, so replacing Bradley by just throwing more money at a veteran is likely more difficult than just signing someone to play first base. And they’d be getting older while reducing the number of controllable years of their best players.

Trading Bradley for Abreu would make the Red Sox worse, not better. It’s just not something the organization should want to do.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t trade for Abreu, though. If the White Sox request is more reasonable, and they can add Abreu while keeping Bradley for themselves, that’s certainly something worth exploring. But Abreu is going to cost something like $40 million over the next two years, and at that price, he’s not so much more valuable than any of the free agent alternatives that the team should surrender some high-quality asset to bring him to Boston. If he costs you a couple of not-that-close prospects, that’s interesting. If the White Sox want Bradley, though, Dombrowski should tell them to go pound sand.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

newest oldest most voted
sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

I can’t imagine why anyone would trade JBJ for Abreu (for all the reasons presented here), much less to clear a spot for Martinez in the *outfield*. Is the theory that they would just stick him in left field so he can watch balls carom off the Green Monster, figuring there’s only so much relative damage he can do where a lot of players struggle anyway?

The whole reason everyone links the Red Sox to Martinez is because he wouldn’t have to play the field except in interleague games (that, and because Dombrowski knows him and can spend gobs of money).

The Red Sox’ pitch should probably be something like “we will take the whole salary and give you Sam Travis and other possible relievers in our farm system back in return.” Not that the White Sox should even consider such an offer (someone’s gotta top that), but that’s probably closer to the offer the Red Sox will offer. Just because the White Sox are asking for JBJ and it got leaked to the media doesn’t mean the Red Sox have any interest in trading him.

jdbolick
Member

The Red Sox’ pitch should probably be something like “we will take the whole salary and give you Sam Travis and other possible relievers in our farm system back in return.”

I know that you qualified this statement by saying that the White Sox shouldn’t consider it, but it’s so ridiculous that I can’t understand why you posted it in the first place. Jose Abreu for salary relief, Sam Travis, and some relievers? Really?

Les Vegetables
Member
Les Vegetables

Not saying the trade proposal works, but did you not read Dave’s article? Jose Abreu doesn’t really have any value.

jdbolick
Member

Abreu is owed $11.5 million and $12 million over the next two seasons. Even if he repeats his worst season twice, that contract still has surplus value.

sabrtooth
Member
sabrtooth

Abreu’s contract allows him to opt in to arbitration, so he will make significantly more than that. MLBTR’s ARB calculator predicted $17m for 2018. He’d get more in 2019.

jdbolick
Member

My bad, you’re right. So if he repeated his worst year twice then he wouldn’t have surplus value, but he is expected to exceed that by quite a bit.

linxuhe
Member
linxuhe

Abreu has definite value. The point is the marginal benefit of acquiring the big bat in Abreu is non-existent. While trading away JBJ would solidify either 1B or DH, it would create a gaping hole in the OF. What do they do? Put Betts or Beni in center? Who do they plug in left/right then? I’m not too familiar with Boston’s minor league system, but it seems like their top OF prospects are both currently in A or high A. They would have to sign a FA OF, basically adding to the cost of acquiring Abreu.

jdbolick
Member

I think the idea is precisely that Benintendi’s defensive value isn’t currently being maximized by having him in left field when the organization believes that he could be a quality center fielder. Maybe they’re correct about that and maybe not.

Cool Lester Smooth
Member
Cool Lester Smooth

They plug *JD Martinez* in left or right.

Dominikk85
Member
Member
Dominikk85

He does have value, just no Surplus value. if the sox eat a Little salary he might return a decent prospect.

jdbolick
Member

Abreu has no surplus value only if he repeats his worst year twice. If he performs at his usual level, he has considerable surplus value even as his arbitration costs increase.

RonnieDobbs
Member
RonnieDobbs

If reality was constrained to Dave’s opinion, then Abreu might not have value. In the real world, he does.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

What, you want to send away Jay Groome? That’s about the only valuable prospect they have to offer. Maybe that’s worth it. But for all the reasons in the article, there’s no way in hell they should trade JBJ. Or Boegarts, or Benintendi, or any of the other people the White Sox will ask about.

Better to just resign yourself to do the ask that will get rejected, because the White Sox are not going to do a salary dump, which is pretty much all the Red Sox are able to offer in value.

Better question is whether you’d want Abreu for about 2/$40 million but subtracting Groome, or Martinez on the ridiculous 7/$150 million or whatever contract he’s going to command.

jdbolick
Member

What, you want to send away Jay Groome?

For Jose Abreu on a legitimate contender? In a heartbeat.

But for all the reasons in the article, there’s no way in hell they should trade JBJ.

As noted by multiple commenters, the reasoning employed by Dave in the article is highly suspect. Abreu has been significantly more valuable than Bradley in all but one season, we’re more confident in Abreu’s value than Bradley’s, and Benintendi’s defensive abilities aren’t currently being maximized in left field.

Better to just resign yourself to do the ask that will get rejected, because the White Sox are not going to do a salary dump, which is pretty much all the Red Sox are able to offer in value.

Or we could just agree that suggesting Jose Abreu for salary relief, Sam Travis, and some relievers wasn’t a great idea.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

Or, you could just admit there’s no deal worth having there (unless you’re willing to give up Groome). If you’re Dombrowski and you’re willing to give up Groome, there is probably a deal to be had.

(I am not at all aware of Groome’s value/prognosis right now, which is why I’m hedging on that right now. Actually, the more I think about it, the more trading Groome for Abreu seems kind of like Dombrowski’s MO, although probably not if he signs Martinez)

Trading JBJ for Abreu is a non-starter. Dave went about it in the wrong way, but he’s absolutely right. There is really no reason to trade a guy who is cheaper, has fewer years of team control, and who is projected for similar (actually better) performance on a year-by-year basis. If the deal is JBJ for Abreu, the Red Sox can, should, and most likely will walk away.

jdbolick
Member

Or, you could just admit there’s no deal worth having there

That’s not even remotely true, though. You’re doing what most people do when confronted by a mistake and doubling down with irrational excuses. Of course Boston has assets from which they could make a reasonable offer for Abreu, and you pretending otherwise just makes you look that much worse. Man up and own that you said something dumb when you suggested Jose Abreu for salary relief, Sam Travis, and some relievers.

Trading JBJ for Abreu is a non-starter.

Here again you’re making an extreme statement, even more extreme than Dave’s, because you’re defensive and trying to justify your stance. You can make a reasonable argument that the Red Sox would be better off with Abreu than Bradley, as multiple people have in this comments section. You pretending that it’s ridiculous while providing absolutely no evidence or reasoning for your adamant opposition is an emotional response, not a rational one.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

Why not make the lowball offer? Doesn’t hurt to try. Maybe it’s not worth it to try. It’s probably where Boston will start anyway. That may still make it a bad idea, but I’m not so concerned with that. It’s low-stakes. I don’t care one way or the other.

Boston’s assets basically consist of a bunch of guys where trading them would hurt other spots on the major league roster, Jay Groome, Michael Chavis, Sam Travis, their draft picks from last year (who I’m not even sure are eligible to be traded) and a bunch of FV40 guys. You’re clearly willing to take the top off the rest of the system for Abreu, that’s fine. I think there’s an argument there, given Boston’s contention window.

You’re also clearly willing to weaken CF to improve 1B, pay more to do it, and have less control, all to have a guy who is projected for *less* value next year. Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that when Jose Abreu was 26, he had a really excellent season (or alternatively, that JBJ was not very good when he was 23). Or that JBJ’s defensive value will decline substantially before 30. Both of these, in theory, should be captured by projection systems. And if the projection systems are wrong, you still have to pay more for fewer years of control for a guy who is approximately the same value on average.

So I would argue that paying more over a shorter period of time for similar (if not worse) year-by-year production is a non-starter. It’s telling that the main argument in favor of this trade is to take Dave’s initial mistake and doubling down on it.

jdbolick
Member

Why not make the lowball offer? Doesn’t hurt to try.

Because making offensively low offers hurts your reputation around the league.

Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that when Jose Abreu was 26, he had a really excellent season (or alternatively, that JBJ was not very good when he was 23).

*sigh* Well, I guess we’re at the point where you’re so defensive that you’re going to blatantly misrepresent what I’ve said even though I have provided specific reasoning multiple times. Instead of doing that, please answer the following questions.

#1) Has Jose Abreu been more valuable than Jackie Bradley Jr. in three out of the last four seasons?

#2) Can defensive value be acquired more easily in free agency than offensive value?

#3) Does defense generally decline in a player’s late 20s?

#4) Does Boston already have in-house replacements capable of handling center field?

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

#1) Yes, but who cares? It’s future production that matters.

#2) Technically yes, but finding someone with the combination of offensive and defensive prowess in center field is far harder than finding a good-hitting first baseman. This is the entire point of WAR–to make comparisons like this.

#3) Yes, but not all at once and there’s no evidence of that yet. Odds that it will make a serious dent in his defensive value by age 30 is low.

#4) We don’t know. Benintendi might be okay there, and you need a great defender for Fenway’s ridiculous right field so you can’t shift Betts over. This also requires finding a replacement in left field, who will almost certainly be a defensive downgrade.

And now some for you:

#5) Who is projected to be better over the next 3 years?

#6) Who is going to cost more over the next 2 years?

#7) Who has more team control?

#8) At which position is it cheaper to obtain a decent replacement in free agency?

I don’t think I’m being defensive. I think that I would rather pay $20 million for 9 WAR than $38 million for 6 WAR. The heart of this is that you don’t believe either of their projections (for whatever reason you employ, whether it’s because JBJ is worse than he looks or defensive WAR isn’t valuable), and you think the vast advantage Abreu has over JBJ compensates for all the better economics of keeping JBJ.

I think most observers have probably made up their mind about our respective positions at this point.

jdbolick
Member

#1) Yes, but who cares? It’s future production that matters.

The best predictor of future production is past production. Obviously you put a lot of weight in Bradley’s 2016 outlier performance whereas I and others do not. I see Bradley as a 2-2.5 WAR player and Abreu as a 3-4 WAR player. If accurate, that would give Abreu a 2-3 WAR advantage over the next two seasons combined, which would make Abreu the more valuable player even accounting for their salary differences. Perhaps I am underestimating Bradley and/or overestimating Abreu, but there is sound statistical to suggest that I am not. It’s fine for you to have a different opinion, but you have absolutely no reason to suggest that Abreu being more valuable is a “non-starter” other than you being defensive and trying to make excuses for your earlier silly comment about offering to “take the whole salary and give you Sam Travis and other possible relievers in our farm system” for Abreu.

#2) Technically yes, but finding someone with the combination of offensive and defensive prowess in center field is far harder than finding a good-hitting first baseman.

It really isn’t. Even if we use Dave’s arguably misleading three year measurement, Abreu was the 8th most valuable first baseman during that span whereas Bradley was the 13th most valuable center fielder. And as noted, you don’t have to pay anywhere near as much in free agency for defense as you do for offense.

#3) Yes, but not all at once and there’s no evidence of that yet. Odds that it will make a serious dent in his defensive value by age 30 is low.

That’s not true at all. You made a comment earlier that suggested you didn’t even know that defense declined in the late 20s, and it would be a surprise if he didn’t experience a significant decline in his defensive value by age 30. In fact, his defensive value the last two seasons is already drastically lower in UZR/150 than Bradley’s defensive value in ’14-’15. He also slipped significantly during that time in DRS once you adjust for the time he missed in 2015. So both defensive measures suggest that Bradley is already slipping, and history tells us that the average player continues to decline at these ages.

#4) We don’t know. Benintendi might be okay there, and you need a great defender for Fenway’s ridiculous right field so you can’t shift Betts over. This also requires finding a replacement in left field, who will almost certainly be a defensive downgrade.

Rusney Castillo would not be a defensive downgrade. Whether or not he would hit enough to stay in the lineup is a legitimate question, though.

#5) As noted above, I would project Abreu to have a significant advantage in WAR over Bradley during the next three seasons, and that’s without even factoring in that MLB teams very clearly believe that defensive WAR is being overestimated.

#6) Abreu will cost more.

#7) Bradley has one additional year of team control.

#8) Generally it is cheaper to find an above average center fielder than an above average first baseman simply because the market does not and never has paid as much for defense as it does for offense. Compare the contract projections for Eric Hosmer and Lorenzo Cain, despite Cain being vastly ahead in WAR over the last three seasons.

The heart of this is that you don’t believe either of their projections (for whatever reason you employ

Because 2016 stands out as a massive outlier for Jackie Bradley Jr. In no other season has he come even close to it, whereas Jose Abreu has been consistently more valuable. I am not discounting the possibility that Bradley could have another season like 2016, I just don’t believe that it’s likely. I see him as a 2-2.5 WAR player who will soon decline to a 1.5-2 WAR player, whereas you see Jose Abreu being worth only salary relief, Sam Travis, and some relievers.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

So basically, you’re figuring that Jackie Bradley will do exactly what he did in 2017 and 2018 (and be worse in 2019), and so will Jose Abreu. I don’t know why we even bother with projections, aging curves, or anything else if we just assume last year will be what happens the next two. Everything you’ve said has already been baked into those projections. The projections aren’t destiny (especially with players as volatile with JBJ), but they are a lot better than us picking and choosing random factoids about players to support our pre-existing beliefs.

I note this with some irony, since I’m usually the one interested in short sample predictions over upcoming short samples…but this isn’t exactly a short sample, nor is the distance between seasons really short.

Two other points:

I don’t know what point you were trying to make with Eric Hosmer vs. Lorenzo Cain, but I think the more salient point is that if you’re trying to pick a hole to fill you’d much rather it be at 1B. There’s lots of decent 1B options out there. But you also seem to think there’s no difference between JBJ and Jarrod Dyson, so clearly we’re not of the same mind of how people value up-the-middle position players.

Second, the drop in defensive WAR by JBJ is at least partially due to better defensive positioning across the league. 2016 was a major drop for him, but 2017 was because everyone else has improved. Also note that his great defensive season in 2015 was split between RF and CF, and he didn’t seem to do as well in CF (I suspect this has to do with the weird dimensions of Fenway’s RF).

jdbolick
Member

I don’t know why we even bother with projections, aging curves, or anything else if we just assume last year will be what happens the next two.

Clearly you’re not defensive at all. I was so wrong to suggest otherwise.

Everything you’ve said has already been baked into those projections.

No, it isn’t. As someone who has been making projections for twenty years, I can assure you that Steamer doesn’t make individual judgments about what is a fluke season or not. It’s a system that tries to minimize such subjective measurements, even if it means missing on some players, because in theory that produces more accurate results overall.

they are a lot better than us picking and choosing random factoids about players to support our pre-existing beliefs.

The facts and statistics that I have been providing are straight-forward and relevant. Abreu outperforming Bradley in all but one season is not a random factoid. Defense (and especially range) declining earlier than offense is not a random factoid. Bradley’s defense already showing decline is not a random factoid. Hitting WAR being more expensive than defensive WAR in free agency is not a random factoid.

I note this with some irony, since I’m usually the one interested in short sample predictions over upcoming short samples

I’m aware. You make definitive judgments, usually with minimal if any evidence to support them, then argue against anyone who presents evidence contradicting your position.

I don’t know what point you were trying to make with Eric Hosmer vs. Lorenzo Cain

I was directly addressing your false statements about center fielders being more valued than first basemen. History shows us very conclusively otherwise. If Jose Abreu and Jackie Bradley Jr. both became free agents tomorrow, Abreu would receive the bigger contract despite being three years older. The market simply values his skills at a much higher level than it does Bradley’s.

But you also seem to think there’s no difference between JBJ and Jarrod Dyson

*sigh* This is the second time you have blatantly misrepresented my position even though I have been explicit about what I think regarding these two players. Please stop doing that. At no point did I suggest that Bradley was interchangeable with Dyson, as Jarrod is older and doesn’t have the same offensive potential.

Second, the drop in defensive WAR by JBJ is at least partially due to better defensive positioning across the league.

The primary reason for the drop in Bradley’s UZR/150 and DRS is that his range over the last two years has not been as good as it was in ’14-’15, which is exactly what I pointed out happens to players entering their late twenties.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

1. You agree that projection systems are right more often than not. It minimizes subjective decisions about what is a “fluke,” and this is precisely why it does better.
2. All those things you cited are random factoids. They are all true (more or less…more on that later), and all selectively picked to defend your opinion. This is not unusual. This is what people do. And it is not an accident that projection systems tend to do better than we do, because projection systems don’t use motivated reasoning.
3. In general, offense is paid more than defense on the market. Center fielders with offensive potential and good defense tend to be more valuable than defensively limited (and older) first basemen. It’s probably 50/50 whether Abreu would command more on the open market than Bradley, but even if he did he certainly wouldn’t command twice as much.
4. Take a look at Dyson’s production, and what you said JBJ would do. It may not be what you said, but it is what you meant.
5. Sometime take a look at defensive WAR from last year versus the year before it, as well as the position JBJ played in those years. You might be surprised what you find. I don’t doubt his range is declining since father time is undefeated (and there was a pretty big drop a couple years ago), but he’s 27. He’s not falling off a cliff.
6. Also, counting up who had better seasons is a misleading way to determine who has been better, since it takes continuous values and makes them dichotmous, and because you’re comparing Abreu’s prime to JBJ’s early struggles (as opposed to more recent seasons). But that (and #5) are smaller points that don’t change things all that much either way.

P.S. I’m not sure why I’m still having this conversation since we’re not going anywhere, but I figure it’s because I find it interesting.

dashriprock
Member
Member
dashriprock

When negotiating always ask for more than you can or would expect and then go from there. At least worth White Sox asking…You never know, teams have made far dumber trades. P.S. Trust me I’m a lifelong Cubs fan. LOL

Green Mountain Boy
Member
Green Mountain Boy

Have you ever watched JBJ over a full season or even over a couple of months? There is absolutely NO WAY his defense makes up for what people call his “offense”. He’s one of the most inconsistent hitters I’ve ever seen, not to mention you can blow him away with high fastballs or curves in the dirt any time you want. I’ve also never seen a guy who, when he swings and misses, misses by so much. His post-season stats are a .160 avg with 13 Ks in 26 ABs!!! I’d trade him for Abreu in a heartbeat. Then you move Benintendi over to CF and sign J D Martinez. And there you go… last year’s power problem(s) solved.

Going with defense over offense is one of the biggest blunders a GM can make. The better hitting team ALWAYS does better, given a roughly equivalent pitching staff. Trading offense for defense is like a country taxing yourself into prosperity. Sounds good in theory, but has the opposite result.

I’m guessing everyone who wouldn’t trade JBJ for Abreu either a) doesn’t watch a whole heck of a lot of baseball, or b) is a member of Red Sox Pink Hat Nation, to whom JBJ is God.