Rays Put Bradford On Trade Block; Yanks Interested In Rocco
by Tommy Rancel on Dec 4, 2008 10:42 AM EST
72 comments
Two quick hits this morning from Joel Sherman of the NY Post.
First, The Rays made have put Chad Bradford on the market at least to the NY Mets.
The Rays offered Chad Bradford to the Mets because $3.5 million is too much in Tampa's world for a set-up man, and Ray officials were shocked when the Mets told them it is too much for them, as well.
With relievers like Bob Howry signing a deal for less than $3 million a year, it's going to be a tough sell for Friedman to move a specialist such as Bradford at a higher cost. I've always thought it would be a good idea to throw Bradford in the closer's mix . You're main goal is keeping the ball in the yard late in the game and Bradford's career HR/9 of 0.48 is much better than Dan Wheeler's 1.16 or Troy Percival's 1.06(1.77 in 08). I know Bradford's true value is getting that late inning double play ball, but if it's a one run game in the 9th inning and he hasn't been used yet, then why not?
The silver lining here is if a team like the Mets are balking at a $3.5 million dollar contract, the Rays could be players in a reduced reliever market much like what we've heard about in the corner OF/DH market.
Speaking of the OF/DH market, Sherman's second Rays related note is about Rocco Baldelli. We've heard of the interest from the Phillies and Red Sox, but now the Yankees seem to be getting involved.
The Yankees are among at least a half-dozen teams talking to the representatives for free agent Rocco Baldelli. The Red Sox and Phillies are among other clubs, and Tampa also wants him back in his role from last year - part of a platoon both as a right fielder and a DH. Baldelli probably will not take a big-dollar amount to sign, probably a one-year guarantee between $1 million and $2 million with a lot of incentives - and perhaps a 2010 option tied to games played.
I've gone back and forth on Rocco Baldelli this offseason. At first, I liked the idea of resigning him to platoon with Gabe Gross, and while it's still a viable option, I just think we can get similar production for less money and less of a heath risk.
0 recs |
72 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Bradford is a 0.5 WAR reliever, market tag: 2.82 mil.
Groundball heavy guys are easy to find and for less. You can get someone like Roy Corcoran, Sean Green, Chris Sampson, or Cla Meredith to replace him on the cheap.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 10:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
No analysis here
But I like Meredith simply because his first name is Cla
by Erik Hahmann on Dec 4, 2008 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh
I had written a long comment on the other Bradford article, which apparently got deleted. Too lazy to write it up again. Gist: Not in favor of trading Bradford for salary relief, OK if we get good value, but I doubt we will because MLB teams don’t seem to value a reliever who’s above average every single year properly.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry I deleted because Tommy stole my thunder...
He actually put some thought into his instead of just quoting.
by rglass44 on Dec 4, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
Any team paying more than $1M for Rocco will be grossly overpaying. I really hope he prices himself out of our market.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 11:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'll give him $100 and he can blog for us
by Erik Hahmann on Dec 4, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're going to have a player/blogger
I’d much rather have Nando. At least he’s articulate, and you know, he can actually write.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have those two Indian kids the Pirates signed
They’re money.
by Erik Hahmann on Dec 4, 2008 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They're awesome
Too bad you can’t post comments on their blog.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
how about CC?
I just love the vernacular he uses.
9=1
by mrichardkent on Dec 4, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Short Sighted
I can’t believe that you would let someone who hit home runs at a faster pace than all but Pena and Longo get away for chump change. Understand that the reason he was only able to play the limited time he did after rejoining the team was because of previous platoon situations in RF and DH. You get a minimum of 120 games a year from him at the DH position. There was no way that he should have been sitting as much as he did in the playoffs and letting Gross/Zobrist, etc. have as many meaningful AB that they had. He performed as well in the clutch as anyone on the team. He deserve to get a reasonable salary (taking into consideration his buyout) and a shot as being the regular DH. Would you like to face him in a Red Sox or Yankee uniform during the year?? I wouldn’t!!
by pauld on Dec 4, 2008 12:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Short sighted = assuming an incurable disease will likely continue to hamper the body of a person who's profession relies on his body?
He sat in the playoffs because he can’t make it through nine innings in the field. That’s really not an investment this team should make. Good person, but a horrible fit for us moving forward.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love Rocco, but
having him on the team for more than 1MM or so hurts the team. Hell, having him on at all arguably hurts the team. Having a guy who’s VERY limited in his OF/DH capabilities and only come on and pinch hit isn’t that great.
1. Having a player who you ALREADY KNOW won’t be able to play at whim on your 25-man roster, especially when the Rays aren’t obligated to him in 2009 (until they sign him, if they do), is a waste of a roster spot. A team can only have 25 guys on the active roster, and they need to pick the 25 which make them the best team for winning, not symbolic symbolism.
2. How do you know you get a minimum of 120 games from him at DH? You don’t.
3. Rocco becoming the Sox’ 4th OF weakens their team. If someone were to get hurt, which, with Papi and Drew on that team is pretty likely, Rocco can’t play every day. So, you’ll see AAAA guys like Jonathan Van Every in the mix getting regular starts. And that doesn’t help the Sox.
4. The obvious reason. It diverts money from other guys who CAN play everyday.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It also diverts a roster spot from someone who CAN play everyday
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
'Would you like to face him in a Red Sox or Yankee uniform during the year?? I wouldn’t!!"
You wouldn’t have to, plus the Rays likely wouldn’t, unless we face them in one of his 50 games.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you can get 120 games a year out of him, even at the DH position
His defense is now below-average, he can’t play on consecutive days more than occasionally, and there’s a significant chance that his condition will degrade.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's not your typical injury prone situation, a la Floyd or even Percival.
This is something that isn’t going away.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see the merits of trading Bradford in this market
Unless somebody is giving out an absolute steal of a deal(something like Gregg for Ceda, for example), and with this reliever market, its VERY unlikely.
He’s only signed for one more year, he’s somewhat effective, and he’s at market value (maybe slightly above it, but very slightly).
The Rays bullpen already needs some fortification; no need to trade off your assets when you need to bolster the same position.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 12:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Rays bullpen doesn't need fortification. It needs another stud.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh? No bullpen stud has ever cost that much
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Rays seriously think they can use Bradford's money to go get a stud
in this depreciated market, I say go for it. However, if Bradford is traded, the Rays do need to allocate funds towards that relief ace type.
Yes, groundball specialists can be picked off the scrap heap.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not groundball specialists who put up ERA+ of 150+ annually
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm against a Bradford trade unless there are subsequent moves to bolster the pen.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but mostly because we're all against doing ANYTHING unless there are subsequent moves to bolster the bullpen.
Let’s say Bradford died tonight. Who would be bumped up in the bullpen hierarchy? And who would be added to the bullpen? How much would that really cost the team? One win? RJ says Bradford’s a .5 WAR player. He’s just not all the critical.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point, good point.
I could see at least one of Niemann, Thayer, Talbot, etc. being a 0.5 WAR reliever.
Although, who would you propose the Rays target as a second bullpen stud to Balfour?
Personally, I’d rather trade Wheeler though. Signed for longer, is more likely to become a burden in the near future. He’s teetering on the line between market value and overpaid.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm up for trading both.
I’m guessing Wheeler will also return something significant in addition to dropping his salary.
Bullpen studs are tough. The established ones are overpriced. I’ll trust Friedman to continue to stockpile young arms and see what sticks.
“Cut” Bradford. Trade Wheeler for a solid prospect. Put Edwin in the bullpen. Spend savings from first two 2/3 of Giambi/Burrell salary. Price makes the rotation better. Edwin keeps the bullpen similar to last year (in talent, not in ERA, that’s a lost cause), and Giambi/Burrell are a 2 WAR gain. Win-draw-win.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that trading Jackson for something good isn't my number one priority.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the Rays can get back a solid prospect in a trade for Wheeler
although moving his salary is good enough.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
Depends on what “solid” means, naturally. But he did close 13 games last year and had a 3.12 ERA. His 2007 ERA was ugly, but 2005 and 2006 were sub-3.00. He’s only 31 and his contract is fine.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Teams could probably get the same production for the same price on the FA market
or only slightly higher, (as in not high enough to give up a prospect to get Wheeler).
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Let’s assume teams see him as a guy with a 3.25 ERA and “closing experience”. Who else fits that mold or is one step down? I’m honestly ignorant of the non-stud relief free agent market.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, one of them COULD be a .5 WAR reliever
But do you really want to waste a half a season finding out? And what if they end up being below replacement? You’ve seen what Maddon does with crappy bullpen pitchers before. He’ll keep strolling them out there…
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
116 tRA+ in Baltimore
although something happened after his trade to the Rays.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Irrelevant how?
OK then, even including his unearned runs, he’s still consistently well above average. And even looking at tRA and WPA and whatever else he’s still consistently above average. Consistency costs money and is underrated, especially for relievers, who tend to be volatile.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Consistency is underrated? Seriously?
All I ever hear in sports analysis is consistency, consistency, consistency.
By the way, the league-average ERA for relievers was 4.10 in 2008. I’m guessing that’s a lot lower than most people think. Replacement-level is about 4.75.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell are the rays doing?
Bradford was a great move for us. Under the radar. No way we would have made it as far as we did without him.
I am slowly losing faith in the Rays’ offseason moves.
by plasticman on Dec 4, 2008 1:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Reallocation of assets.
We can get the same thing for less, and then add a bat like Giambi, why SHOULDN’T we do it?
Can we save the theatrics as well? They haven’t actually made a move.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Injury concerns.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Easily replaceable for less than 1 million.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My biggest concern is that I haven't heard anything about the positions where we are lacking
I’ve heard stuff about trading Bartlett (unlike others, I think that is a bad idea—Maddon called him the difference maker, and I feel he and Aki have a great thing going). Didn’t Brignac’s glove skills go down this year?
We don’t have a replacement for Miller yet.
Selling off Bradford is not my idea of a good time.
Just sayin.
by plasticman on Dec 4, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
Brignac was named best defensive SS in his league.
Miller is replaceable with a number of candidates who could cost less than 1M per.
As for your comment ….
“My biggest concern is that I haven’t heard anything about the positions where we are lacking”
Everyday we hear about how the corner OF/DH market is wide open for the Rays. Those are the positions the Rays are lacking most.
People forget we only have 5 rotation spots and 9 possible candidates for them. Some starters are going to be relievers i.e. Niemann or Talbot. Just because the Rays aren’t “in” on many FA relievers doesn’t mean the bullpen won’t be upgraded. Don’t forget our own AAA relievers like Salas and Thayer.
by Tommy Rancel on Dec 4, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Brignac was named best defensive SS in the league"
And Rafael Palmeiro was named the best defensive 1B in the AL in a year when he DHed and didn’t play 1B. What’s your point? We all know these types of selections made by the managers are based more on reputation than reality. Scouts say he’s good but not great defensively. My eyes tell me the same thing. His metrics in his brief time in the majors don’t indicate that he’s fantastic. Basing your opinion of his defense on a poll of AAA managers isn’t the best way to base an opinion on this one.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball America
Just named him the best defensive infielder in the system. I’m not saying he’s the Cajun God of Gold Glove SS’s, but the question above was
Didn’t Brignac’s glove skills go down this year?
And this is clearly not the case.
by Tommy Rancel on Dec 4, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I realize that
But it’s not like there are hundreds of good fielding shortstop prospects in our system. I don’t think his glove got worse, I just don’t think his glove is better than Bartlett’s.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, its December 4
You’re acting like its February.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, specialists relievers don't just pop up or anything...
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 4, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They grow on some special tree in Colombia.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 4, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
trading bradford is probably percy's fault
if he let us free up his 4 million salary then we wouldnt have to trade bradfords 3.5 million salary
everything Rays,Marlins,Twins and Reds
by RaysOfHope on Dec 4, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But somehow we’re paying over $10MM to Percival, Wheeler, and Bradford, who, in total, are worth 1, maybe 2 WAR. Oops.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marginal value
The fact that the rotation is already solid but the lineup is tepid means that the marginal value of the relievers should increase. Relief corps is much more valuable when you expect to be heading into the late innings with a slim lead quite frequently.
BTW, does WAR account for leverage?
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
I’m not sure that it’s the right measure to use. How many wins is a 0 WAR team worth? Presumably about 50 or so, but I have no idea.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
48.
.300 team win%. ish.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WAR SHOULD include leverage, but doesn't here.
But for pitchers who aren’t significantly better than replacement-level or don’t see closer or main setup-guy situations, it’s not too important.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So then you agree that it should be a consideration in Bradford's case, since he typically pitches in high leverage situations?
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would he, though?
He’s behind Balfour, Howell, probably Wheeler, and maybe (ugh) Percival in the food chain, right?
His leverage might be 1.25. At 63 IP and a 3.75 ERA, that’s a (4.75 – 3.75) x 63 / 9 × 1.25 = .85 WAR.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm curious what the average leverage of the Rays bullpen was last year compared to other teams...
And it’s not a bad thing to overpay a little in one area when the other areas came more cheaply. Free agents are for filling holes, and the bullpen was a big hole. But now the team has more young MLB-ready pitching talent to plug in.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 4, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
We’re spoiled by having a lot of cheap talent, but once you’ve filled the roster with good, cheap talent, each WAR becomes incrementally more valuable (until your WAR indicates you should be a 100 win team I suppose, after which the value drops again).
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
