Bradley a mistake? Joe says so
Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus has never been one to pull punches. After the Cubs won the NL Central in 2003, Joe said they'd never get as far again with Dusty Baker as manager. He was right.
In his latest for BP, Joe terms the Cubs' signing of Milton Bradley a mistake, mainly because Bradley has had trouble staying on the field for large chunks of his career:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8578
If you can't get the whole deal, we'll excerpt what we can here. Sheehan begins by saying that, "in a vacuum," Bradley is just what the Cubs need: somebody who balances the lineup by switch hitting, gets on base and provides some pop. We all know that. But, Sheehan says:
"Bradley, however, has no recent track record of staying on the field at any level of skill. Since establishing himself in the majors in June of 2002, Bradley has played in 62.6 percent of his team's games. He's played in more than 100 games just three times, and in more than 100 games in the field just twice. Let's repeat that: Milton Bradley has played in 100 games in the field just twice since becoming a full-time major-leaguer. That, and not his temper, is the biggest reason to be wary of how this story ends. The Cubs have signed him to do something that he has little track record, and no recent track record, of doing...
"That's why this signing was a mistake. It has nothing to do with Bradley's anger-management issues, ones that have defined his career. It has nothing to do with Bradley's skill set as a hitter. It has nothing to do with the money, which was in line with what Adam Dunn and Raul Ibañez signed for. No, the problem is that the Cubs signed a player to do a job that he's not capable of doing. You're asking people to do things their bodies long ago stopped being able to do, and that's a recipe for failure."
It probably didn't help that Bradley had to come out of his first Cactus League game last week after feeling tightness in his leg after a walk. Milton is supposed to be in the lineup in this afternoon’s split-squad game against the Indians. We’ll see.
I think Joe Sheehan is great, and I like his strong opinion re Bradley. I think two responses by fans here were better--that 100 games of Bradley plus 62 by subs would bear out the Bradley signing and help the Cubs and be better than other offseason alternatives.
But I don't agree that his temperament is a non-issue just because playing time is probably the bigger issue.
This is MILTON BRADLEY, folks. Yeah, he's older now and probably is less nuts. But if he gets off to a bad start at the plate, and the team also is struggling, the boobirds will be on him, and he may react badly. I don't know why anyone would dismiss that possibility.
Cutting it finer, let's also watch how he does in arguably the majors' toughest RF. The opinions actually are mixed as to his defense. Some say it's erratic. Wrigley's right field is tough for anyone, especially the first couple months. If he's flailing around out there in the wind, sun and shadows, that also could bring on the boos.
in my never to be humble opinion.
...since I can't read the full article, but I'm pretty sure that Sheehen is wrong. If you look over the Cubs' backup outfield options (some combination of Gathright/Reedmonds/Hoffpauir), they're certainly above replacement level in the aggregate, and you can get creative in platooning them.
So if Bradley plays 60% of the time, and your troika of fourth-outfield types picks up the other 40% of the time, you're far better off than if you sign someone like Ibanez or Dunn to play 100% of the time. If someone's curious, I can run through the numbers with some projections.
I'm curious.
Let's take a look at Ibanez, whom the Cubs were reportedly interested in. Certainly he's been durable the past four seasons, missing only 16 games (about 4 a season). He's been a good hitter as well. But he's a liability on defense. The past three years he's been an average of -12 runs below the average LFer per 150 games, according to Fangraph's UZR.
So let's look at his projected value, courtesy of Baseball Projection:
http://baseballprojection.com/ibanera1326.htm
As a full-time player, given his defense, Ibanez is worth somewhere between 1 and 1.5 marginal wins above a replacement player (in other words, your typical AAAA player).
Milton Bradley has not been durable. But he's a completely different class of hitter than Ibanez. And he's been a good defensive outfielder when healthy - about +7 runs above average as an outfielder in 150 games. Taking a look at his projection:
http://baseballprojection.com/bradlmi1218.htm
And even if he's just an average defensive outfielder, in 114 games he's worth about 3.1 wins above replacement. Prorate that out to 97 games, which is about 60 percent, and we get 2.6 wins above replacement.
In other words, if the Cubs were to play Bradley 97 games, and play guys from AAA the rest of the games, they would be expected to win a game more than if they played Ibanez for 144 games. Even if we prorate Ibanez's playing time up a bit, Bradley still has the edge.
And the Cubs wouldn't be handing the remainder of the outfield playing time to replacement-level players. Given their superb defensive abilities, you could argue that Johnson and Gathright (both of whom Hendry has picked up for mere pennies the past two offseasons) are both as good or better than someone like Ibanez. They also have Hoffpaiur, who probably isn't as good as Johnson/Gathright, but is probably above replacement as an outfielder.
I was under the impression Baseball Prospectus is a stats-oriented site, so I'm a little surprised to see Sheehan taking such a pedestrian approach to the Bradley signing. I do agree with Sheehan that Milton's health - not his temper - is (or should be) the primary worry on Cubs fans' minds. But I don't think his health history alone has the power to make this a "bad" signing.
How one feels about Bradley is probably predicated on how risk averse one is. Strangely, I'm usually a pretty cautious guy, but I'm glad Milton is here. He strikes me as a player who could make a huge difference to this team's makeup and production - yes, even if he misses stretches of playing time because of injury.
Also, as Colin points out, the Cubs have plenty of defensive flexibility in the outfield to manage Milton's playing time (i.e., remove him late in games for a defensive replacement) and perhaps mitigate his temporary loss should he get injured.
But what if Bradley's time missed comes in October, then would you rather have a Bobby Abreu or Adam Dunn, or would we all still feel comfortable with an OF of Soriano, Reed Johnson, and Fukudome?
If there was a way to control WHEN the injuries and time off happened, I'd feel a lot better about the move, but obviously we can't do that.
Bradley is definitely the more talented of the bunch, but its the question of having him in there for October that is my biggest beef. (in addition to a 3 year deal when the guy has been on 5 different teams in 5 years!)
I don't necessarily agree with Sheehan, but I wanted to present his point of view to this audience. I received a lot of e-mails saying, "if only the Cubs had waited, they could have had Abreu cheap." First, Bradley was their No. 1 target. Second, if they had waited, there was always a chance they'd end up with neither.
Nice job, Colin.
"Upside" is a term I am getting as tired of as "towel drill" with the Cubs. Here's the truth: UPSIDE = GAMBLE. Always.
Every player is a gamble. Cal Ripken Jr.'s are few and far between.
The Cubs did pretty well with that one. The towel drill (which has legit uses) hasn't been around in a few years. But we didn't have this blog back in '04.
As far as calculated gambles go, the Cubs have done OK in that department.
It's even worse when you look at the number of innings he's played the field:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-milton-bradley-traveling-r...
He's only had 1 season where he played the field 60% of the time.
It's a huge gamble, one with a lot of potential upside, but a huge gamble nonetheless.
Hey Bruce,
Did the Dempster deal really work out? Was last year a a blip in the radar? His numbers the two years prior were below average...in 06 he had a 1.51 WHIP and was 1-9. 2-7 in 07 with an upper 4's era. Plus, he reverted to the old "Dempster" when it counted most...the playoffs.
He's fourth on the Cubs' all-time saves list with 87. He was 28-for-31 in 2007, 24-for-33 in 2006 and 33-for-35 in 2005. I'd say he's worked out. And from what I saw earlier this spring, he appears to have worked out again over the winter to keep himself in good shape. Yeah, the playoff start was not pretty, but he wasn't alone in getting the blame for that three and out.
As I always say, let's see what happens this year.