Cubs Sign Milton Bradley

by Charlie on Jan 5, 2009 4:41 PM EST Comment 16 comments

Three years and $30 million, ESPN reports. As a blogger whose only real connection to the players is watching them on the field, I've long liked Bradley a lot more than a lot of people who've had to put up with him as an actual human being, so naturally I think this is a really good deal for the Cubs. Bradley isn't old, put up a .436 OBP last year, and has generally hit like the crazy person he is since being traded from Oakland to San Diego in the middle of the 2007 season.

He's a big-time injury worry, but his good contact ability and solid strike zone judgment both bode well. Cliff Floyd was a pretty similar player in terms of his age, hitting, and injury problems when he signed with the Mets before the 2003 season; he had trouble staying on the field in New York, but for the first few years, he was good when he played. I wouldn't expect Bradley to continue to hit like he did in 2008, but he should still be very effective for 120 games or so each year.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sorry, Vlad!

by matskralc on Jan 5, 2009 5:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Eh, it happens.

If I got depressed every time we didn’t sign someone we could’ve used, I would’ve de-mapped myself years ago.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2009 6:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bradley’s 414 ABs last season was the second most in his 9 year career. He has played in over 120 games in a season twice in his career. Only one other time barely over 100 games. Forgetting about the off the field issues his real problem seems to be an inability to stay on the field. Not sure why that would change with Bradley turning 31. This seems like a pretty big overpay considering the deal Burrell is supposedly getting from the Devil Rays even when taking defense into consideration.

by haven on Jan 5, 2009 9:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I buy that.

The defensive gap between Bradley and Burrell is pretty large. Bradley’s a plus defender when healthy (he was playing DH mostly to reduce wear-and-tear), and Burrell is, well, not.

I also think that Burrell’s deal is a little below his true value, since he happened to hit FA in a year when there were a lot of other players with similar skills (Manny, Dunn, Abreu, Ibanez, etc.) on the market. As far as overpays go, Ibanez’s deal looks much worse than Bradley’s does, since he’s a terrible defender and about seven million years old.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't know about bradley over ibanez

I definitely think the Rays got a better deal in Burrell than the Phillies got with Ibanez.

Bradley has managed more ABs exactly once in his career than Ibanez has had in every one of the last seven years. And Ibanez had more ABs than Bradley’s career high in five of those years. For some reason it appeals to me to basically know what I am getting in Ibanez. Depends on what you are looking for and who you have to play when Bradley inevitably can’t take the field.

I guess I am just not that big a fan of Bradley.

by haven on Jan 6, 2009 10:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Seems like that's the case.

Bradley hasn’t been as durable as Ibanez in the past, but:

*He’s a much better hitter.
*He’s a much better defender.
*Ibanez is at an age where even durable players are a significant injury risk.

Seems like a slam dunk to me. Particularly in that when Bradley’s hurt, the Cubs can just mix in Hoffpauir and get a fairly high quality of replacement performance until he’s healthy again.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bradley has been a much better hitter over his last 623 ABs spread over 2 season. Not so much before that…… The difference in their career OPS+ is only 118 to 113. I just don’t think you can count on Bradley and feel being able to count on a player has value.

by haven on Jan 6, 2009 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why use career numbers?

There’s very little predictive value to anything more than three years old.

Bradley’s numbers over the last three years are much better than his numbers before that because the 2006-2008 period covers his age 28-30 seasons, and like most players, he showed tremendous improvement during that time.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's check the machine projections:

Bradley:
Bill James (2009) – .287/.391/.489 in 442 AB
Marcel (2009) – .293/.392/.502 in 406 AB
ZiPS (2009) – .291/.396/.511 in 354 AB

+21.9 runs per 162 in RF last year per UZR [small sample, though]

Ibanez:
Bill James (2009) – .278/.343/.448 in 623 AB
Marcel (2009) – .277/.342/.461 in 555 AB
ZiPS (2009) – .285/.350/.472 in 579 AB
ZiPS (2010) – .274/.335/.456 in 572 AB
ZiPS (2011) – .262/.324/.431 in 511 AB

-11.0 runs per 162 in LF last year per UZR

I sure as hell know which one of those I’d rather have.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bradley

ZiPS and Marcel more optimistic than James? Is that a first?

--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com

by D.Szymborski on Jan 6, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First one I've seen, for sure.

But you’d know better than I would.

Welcome to the site, Dan.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2009 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bradley’s 2006 numbers weren’t that great. And he had 209 and 414 ABs in 2007 and 2008. Seems like 2008 was an outlier on ABs based perhaps on Bradley seeking a contract. I don’t really care about the projections. Who knows though……. I just don’t like the Bradley signing. Not that I guarantee I will be right or anything.

by haven on Jan 6, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs