Making A Move: Bradford or Wheeler?

by Tommy Rancel on Jan 14, 2009 9:13 AM EST Comment 46 comments

At last count the Rays will have 16 relievers in camp fighting for seven spots. With spots guaranteed to Grant Balfour, JP Howell, Troy Percival (when healthy), Joe Nelson, Dan Wheeler and Chad Bradford, you could really have 10 guys battling for one spot. However, with a trade or two you could free up some much needed payroll space and open the competition a little bit.

So who do you trade? Obviously, it would be nice to trade Troy Percival and his $4 million dollars, but that is a pipe dream. Joe Nelson, Grant Balfour and J.P. Howell are all cheap and under team control so trading them doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That leaves us to the names we've been talking about all offseason: Dan Wheeler and Chad Bradford.

Both of them make over $3 million dollars(Bradford $3.5 and Wheeler $3.2) so the money in 2009 is a wash. However, Bradford is a FA after the season which might make him easier to move. Wheeler has a contract in place for 2010 at $3.5 million and club option for 2011 for $4 million or a $1 million dollar buyout. That could scare off a potential trade partner, unless it's Dayton Moore.

So let's take a look at some pros and cons for both.

Wheeler

The Good

Durable- Has made at least 70 appearances over the past four seasons
Respectable K/BB rate- Even with a decline in K/9 and an increase in BB/9, his rate was still 2.41 which is pretty solid.
LOB%- Has a career LOB% of 74.5 and left 78.9% of his runners on base in 2008.

The Bad

Home runs- Wheeler has always had the tendency to give up a lot of home runs and last year was no different. His HR/9 was 1.36 following 2007 which was 1.33. Out of the 44 hits he gave up in 2008, 23% of them were home runs.
Fluky BABIP-.285/.329/.202. Those are the BABIP's for Wheeler over the last three seasons. It is hard to maintain a BABIP of .202 from year to year so expect a big jump in that category for him.
Declining K rate/Increasing BB rate- Even though his K/BB ratio is still good, anytime a pitcher has less K's and more walks it should be a concern.

Bradford

The Good

WYSIWYG- Ground balls. That's his main job and he does that really well. In 2008, his GB% was 66% which is right around his career rate of 64%. Expect more of the same.
Home Runs- Typical for a ground ball pitcher, he doesn't give up many home runs. His HR/9 in 2008 was a mere 0.46 and that around his career rate of 0.48.
Durable- Like Wheeler, Bradford is reliable. He has made at least 68 appearances in six of the last seven seasons.

The Bad

K/BB rate- While he doesn't walk that many batters(career 2.40 BB/9) he also doesn't strike out a lot making for an awful K/BB rate. What makes it worse is the rate is dropping, and dropping fast. Here are his ratios for the last three seasons: 3.46/1.81/1.13. Pretty soon he's going to be walking more hitters than he's striking out.

Concerns for both.

They both have extreme splits over their careers. Bradford's OPS splits are .547 vs RHB and .847 vs LHB. Wheeler are .645 vs RHB and .827 vs LHB.

So, who do you trade? And more importantly, can you find a partner to make a deal in this market?

0 recs | Comment 46 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’d like to trade Cardiac Dan, but it’s going to be hard with that contract.

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 14, 2009 9:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

We just gave him that contract 6 months ago

Why would we be unhappy with it now? I dont really see where there is any possibility that we would even want to trade Dan Wheeler. I think its just message board fodder. If we inherited that contract like we did with Bradford it would be a different story, but we gave Wheeler that contract and it wasnt long ago that we did it.

I doubt we have any interest in moving Dan Wheeler unless someone came knocking at our door

by Rays4242 on Jan 14, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because a guaranteed 7.75 million over the next 2 seasons

for a reliever who had a bad season isn’t a good contract.

by Tommy Rancel on Jan 14, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You still havent addressed my point

If we gave him a 3 year contract 6 months ago then why does ANYONE assume there is any interest internally in trading him? Just sounds like message board fodder to me

Oh and on a sidenote I’d like to know how a 3.12 ERA in 65 innings in the best hitters division in baseball constitutes a bad season. His whip was 0.99, and his BAA was .183 — I bet it would be quite the challenge to find 5 non-closers who had a lower WHIP or BAA than Wheeler last year

I think Wheeler had his struggles at different points last year, but Im baffled as to how that is a bad year by any measurement.

by Rays4242 on Jan 14, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His BABIP was .202.

His strikeout rates were down, his walk rates up, same with his FIP, and his flyball rates up.

Believe or not, those four things mean more than ERA, BAA, and WHIP.

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 14, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Five if we're counting BABIP.

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 14, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't mean he had a bad season. All in all, he had pretty good results.

But based on the way he achieved those results (exceptionally low BABIP) and peripherals that suggest he did not pitch all that well (lower K rates, higher flyball rates, high home run rates), the figures you present are not terribly useful in projecting how he will do next year. They are likely more misleading than the sorts of stats that R.J. presents in his response.

The Rays seem very aware of sabermetric analyses, and given his contract and the fact that he may be showing signs of decline, they might now think it worthwhile to deal him rather than pay him and risk suffering that decline. I am not sure they are thinking that way, but the fact that they committed to the 3 years nine months ago does not mean they are not flexible enough to change their minds if conditions suggest they should. After all, nine months ago they had not won a pennant, did not have a payroll around $60 million, did not know that Balfour would emerge, that Howell would excel, that they would sign Nelson and trade for Bradford, that they would have 16 or so viable options for 7 spots, that they would invest $8 million in a DH. All those and many other factors have changed conditions and so may have changed their minds.

by bobr on Jan 14, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that they are willing to change their minds is impressive.

And I don’t mean in regards to Wheeler, but in general.

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 14, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Call the Tigers about Wheeler

The back end of their bullpen looks quite awful right now.

Or, check with the Cardinals as LaRussa does not seem to want to give the job to Perez or Motte and I don’t think Carpenter can stay healthy.

What's on my mind

by Jason Collette on Jan 14, 2009 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wheels

both of their splits are ugly but getting rid of a relatively sizable contract is more important, we have too many quality SP’s in our organization to not think that both Wheeler and Bradford are easily replaceable in house and at 400k in lieu of $3.2-3.5 mil.

IF only Harry Carey could be arounde for Kosuke.

by CubFanRaysaddict on Jan 14, 2009 10:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure we'd be able to find a trade partner for either of these guys.

by mittens on Jan 14, 2009 10:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Like the Gross situation

Wait until a team loses a guy they were banking on and contract size becomes less of an issue, when they have a gigantic hole to fill. Wheeler brings it and can pitch an inning 3 out of 5 games if need be. I would probably keep Chadford since he has such a clearly defined role (GBDP, Righty lawnmower). Also, he should be at least a type-B FA after this season so keeping his contract would not be so bad for a season.

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Jan 14, 2009 10:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree, I would keep Bradford

because he is better and his contract is up, but at the same time that’s why he is more tradeable. I was a fan of the Wheeler contract when it was signed, but now? Not so much.

by Tommy Rancel on Jan 14, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wheeler's the guy to trade

Bradford’s not going to face many LH hitters, where Wheeler may have to set-up for Balfour~ouch

My sleeper is Thayer~somehow he dets hitters to swing and miss

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wheeler to the Tigers for

an OF prospect with pop

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is that a joke?

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 14, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to ask that

I just figured he meant a lower level prospect not the Matt Joyce type, or that he likes to say stuff like that.. either one

IF only Harry Carey could be arounde for Kosuke.

by CubFanRaysaddict on Jan 14, 2009 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a Matt Joyce level

Maybe a couple good lower level prospects

Main thing is to clear the contract from our books, which i never understood to begin with

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What didn't you understand?

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 14, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all

Look at our minor leagues, there’s not much above A- with power potential, or even making our top 20

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sounds good

good idea, Crawford will be gone soon and Desmond Jennings is amazing but cannot be counted on.

'talkin 'bout practice?

by CubFanRaysaddict on Jan 14, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CubsRay???

what did you think of Wood leaving??

Is he worth the money, or still an injury risk?

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

injury risk

Although he said he would be willing to do a one year deal, which would negate that mostly. The Cubs needed that money, it was a clear business decision that had to be made (Hendry and Wood are like father/son) and listening to Hendry speak afterward he alluded that Wood would have been willing to take a one year deal at an amount the players union would have a strong disagreement with (way below market value). It was tough for all Cub fans I remember watching his 20k’s and thinking every time he went to the mound that he could no hit a team, but the move had to be done to free up that money, negate injury risk, and give Marmol a chance in the ninth (although relief ace was perfect for him). The Indians might get market value though and did protect themselves somewhat with a third year vesting option on Wood, he is definitely better than Fuentes. Now what the Cubs did with that money (Bradley) was not the best idea, or moving Derosa, but both moves can be defended (infusing LH bats in the lineup in Fontenot/Bradley) as being better than spending 7-8 mil. of your payroll on a crap shoot closer when you have Marmol and now Gregg (worst recent cub trade IMHO).

'talkin 'bout practice?

by CubFanRaysaddict on Jan 14, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks--i think DeRosa had a career year

and the Indians playing him at 3B is a bad move

his numbers are great for 2B—not so for 3B

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

he’s not a 20 homer guy he had more ‘luck’ home runs than anyone in the majors and his UZR (from fangraphs) is bad at third maybe the Indians saw a chance to get something for almost nothing and took it, for them they at least got a good OBP guy and maybe they will get one comp pick too.

'talkin 'bout practice?

by CubFanRaysaddict on Jan 14, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I could be wrong

but I think the plan is to play Peralta at third, Asdrubal Cabrera at short and DeRosa at 2nd. If it isn’t, it should be… but, back on topic.

by fogelberg on Jan 14, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's wht you'd suspect

but not according to Shapiro

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Tigers aren't trading anyone like that for Dan Wheeler's bad contract.

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 14, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

think they are ready to give up on Rodney or Zumaya yet?

I would think not but if we could get one of those for Wheeler and his contract plus a C level prospect then maybe?

Rays 2009 Slogan: "Come back with your shield or on it"

by PriceMultiCyYoungs on Jan 14, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s saying he wants the Tigers to trade an OF with some pop, when they already traded Joyce. They don’t have many left, and their OF is going to be slim very soon.

by Erik Hahmann on Jan 14, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take Larish

a 1B wjo may help down the line

by Raymondo on Jan 14, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Problem is that

the Tigers really have a shit system.

The other problem is that the other teams with money left to spend (LAD, ATL) don’t really need a platoon OF or bullpen help.

I still think Milwaukee makes the most sense in terms of a possible trading partner. Lots of uncertainty on their 25-man roster, and they have a decent enough system.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 14, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

screw rodney!

he almost killed riggans and almost cost bartlett a finger last year

TB Rays in 09!!!

by RaysOfHope on Jan 15, 2009 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd definitely prefer to move Wheeler.

Apart from the money issue, I think that Bradford’s strengths align greater with this team than Wheeler’s. True-talent wise Bradford is a little better, but with this defense behind him he may play a lot better.

by rglass44 on Jan 14, 2009 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Move Wheeler.

Gets rid of more money, but also, Wheeler is more like other guys in the bullpen, while Bradford provides something different that can be leveraged.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 14, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Usefulness of Chazford:

I think the Chaz is great at what he does, but his lack of dominance has to be a concern. I don’t think he can soak up the innings of Wheeler, and between the two he wouldn’t be my first choice to start the 7th or 8th. Chaz had a defined role and it is not what Wheeler does.

I talked about this in a fanpost recently, but Wheeler’s problem is an inflated FB%. Perhaps fatigue or injury was starting to get to him as he was not throwing the slider as much. Relying on the fastball, its not hard to imagine why he is getting less Ks and fewer grounders. Maybe this is something that rights itself- let’s see if Dan can get the ball down in the zone in Spring.

by Thejeffg on Jan 14, 2009 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but we don't need Bradford to do what Wheeler does

That’s what Joe Nelson is for.

by fogelberg on Jan 14, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If our budget is X and we're over X by 2-3 million, it makes sense to trade the players with that amount of salary

Who won’t hurt the team.

Wheeler/Bradford are likely 0.0 < x > 0.5 win relievers, which isn’t terribly valuable. Ideal world: we can keep both, but if we need to clear salary, they make sense to go.

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 14, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep them both.

If we’re going to make another run at the post season we’ll need a deep bullpen. Bradford and Wheeler are both integral parts of the roster in my opinion.

by floridaroar on Jan 14, 2009 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Throwing a name out there

Rich Hill. Out of options with the Cubs, started off his career as a above average starter but control problems have lead to a shuttle ride back and forth between the majors and AAA. Looking at his splits, he has done very well versus left handed hitters, including a career .210 BA. As many of you know, he has a dominant curveball. He also strikes out a batter per inning, but also walks 4.5 batters per 9 IP. As we all all know, control becomes less of an issue in the pen, especially when you are a left handed specialist only facing lefties.

Do you think we could trade Wheeler straight up for Hill. Get some salary relief and a left handed project in the process. Since letting Wood walk, they are relying a lot of Marmol to close games and Gregg to be the primary set up guy. They could use a guy like Wheeler in the back end and they have the money to take him on.

Just an idea.

by BossmanJunior333 on Jan 14, 2009 7:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This isn't a bad idea

Cot’s has him as basically league min this year and has him at 1.149 years of service time. He looks like a J. P. clone except for lacking control. Not sure if the Cubs would do this, but they have yet to really make a splash and Wheels is familiar with the NL Central.

Rich Hill Pitch F/X
J. P. Howell Pitch F/X

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Jan 15, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs