Should Jackie Bradley Jr be traded?

[moonslav59]

This is not the first time 28-year-old Jackie Bradley Jr. has figured it out:

 

New dad Jackie Bradley Jr. AL Player of Month

WWW.MLB.COM

---

BALTIMORE -- Jackie Bradley Jr. went 2-for-2 on Thursday and he wasn't even in the Red Sox's lineup. Thanks largely to his recent 29-game hitting streak, Bradley earned American League Player of the Month honors for the first time Thursday, but it was hardly the highlight of his afternoon.The Red

 

We should caution against cherry-picking his recent performance as indicative just as we should caution against cherry-picking his early-season performance as indicative.

 

This stretch of decent hitting has been one of his longest and steadiest in his MLB career, but your point is well-taken.

[S5Dewey]

Seriously, it was a jumping off point for starting the discussion. Was another anti- WAR diatribe really necessary?

Personally I’d rather see Bradley extended. But neither is my call...

 

It wasn't my intention for this to be "another anti- WAR diatribe". What I'd heard here is that any discussion of WAR is a jumping off point and people would be willing to listen to a differing viewpoint as long as it was based in reasonableness.

 

As I said in the OP, color me optimistic if you like, but I do think that JBJ has solved enough of his problems to warrant being given a pass on the trading block. As far as Baez goes, I think he may have solved all of his problems (whatever they may have been) and I think he may be a fine 2B but I don't see the solution to our problems as being trading away one outstanding up-the-middle ballplayer for another.

 

And I agree. I'd much rather see Bradley extended. My fear is that with this season - and if he does have his problems solved - his price may go up to the point where we lose him. That's why I would have extended him when he was hitting .200 and we probably could have extended him cheaper. Because I've always believed in him.

[harmony]

This stretch of decent hitting has been one of his longest and steadiest in his MLB career, but your point is well-taken.

Over his last 17 games, Jackie Bradley Jr. has posted an impressive .367/.400/.600/1.000 line.

 

In a 17-game stretch in May 2016, Bradley posted a .468/.542/.855/1.397 line:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=bradlja02&t=b&year=2016

[notin]

It wasn't my intention for this to be "another anti- WAR diatribe". What I'd heard here is that any discussion of WAR is a jumping off point and people would be willing to listen to a differing viewpoint as long as it was based in reasonableness.

 

 

You did start off with an entire paragraph about how we were using WAR all over again even after we all agreed it was as flawed.

 

We get it. You don’t like the stat. That’s fine. No one is forcing you to like it. But you may have to consider actually accepting the fact that many people do like it and, despite its inherent flaws, is still enormously useful, and it’s very likely to continue to make appearances in discussions on this board in the future...

[S5Dewey]

You did start off with an entire paragraph about how we were using WAR all over again even after we all agreed it was as flawed.

 

We get it. You don’t like the stat. That’s fine. No one is forcing you to like it. But you may have to consider actually accepting the fact that many people do like it and, despite its inherent flaws, is still enormously useful, and it’s very likely to continue to make appearances in discussions on this board in the future...

 

I don't know how many times I have to say this: I don't "dislike" WAR. I just think it's overused and not as valuable as most people think it is.

 

I challenge things. I'm not one to believe something just because so-and-so says it's right. IMO there are enough flaws in WAR to make it worth challenging and it appears to me that there are others here who are coming to believe that too.

So...you may have to consider that when I see something that IMO is inherently wrong with the conclusions one would draw from WAR I'm going to post about it. When I do that I'm going to piss off those people who have a different opinion. I can live with that. Can you?

[moonslav59]

It wasn't my intention for this to be "another anti- WAR diatribe". What I'd heard here is that any discussion of WAR is a jumping off point and people would be willing to listen to a differing viewpoint as long as it was based in reasonableness.

 

As I said in the OP, color me optimistic if you like, but I do think that JBJ has solved enough of his problems to warrant being given a pass on the trading block. As far as Baez goes, I think he may have solved all of his problems (whatever they may have been) and I think he may be a fine 2B but I don't see the solution to our problems as being trading away one outstanding up-the-middle ballplayer for another.

 

And I agree. I'd much rather see Bradley extended. My fear is that with this season - and if he does have his problems solved - his price may go up to the point where we lose him. That's why I would have extended him when he was hitting .200 and we probably could have extended him cheaper. Because I've always believed in him.

 

I'm with you on JBJ. I supported him through his super rough start in MLB. I always believed in him. I've never felt he needed be all that good offensively, but I find myself continually defending his offense to the point where many feel I think he needs to be good offensively to be a plus value. I don't. I've always felt like anything over about a .600 OPS is a plus, and he's almost always ended up significantly above that mark by the time each season ends.

 

Sure, he's streaky, but that doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother others.

 

I think his arb cost will not go up a whole lot, thanks to his early season slump. That's one good thing coming out of this.

[moonslav59]

Over his last 17 games, Jackie Bradley Jr. has posted an impressive .367/.400/.600/1.000 line.

 

In a 17-game stretch in May 2016, Bradley posted a .468/.542/.855/1.397 line:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=bradlja02&t=b&year=2016

 

You can probably find this sort of micro picking with many players... granted, JBJ more than others.

[notin]

I don't know how many times I have to say this: I don't "dislike" WAR. I just think it's overused and not as valuable as most people think it is.

 

I challenge things. I'm not one to believe something just because so-and-so says it's right. IMO there are enough flaws in WAR to make it worth challenging and it appears to me that there are others here who are coming to believe that too.

So...you may have to consider that when I see something that IMO is inherently wrong with the conclusions one would draw from WAR I'm going to post about it. When I do that I'm going to piss off those people who have a different opinion. I can live with that. Can you?

 

You are probably going to have to repeat that “I don’t dislike like WAR” mantra until at some point in time you can mention it in sentence that also doesn’t contain the words “is flawed.” Not following up with a question about why people use it will also help.

 

Also, your reply really didn’t point out any inherent defects in WAR. Really what you pointed out was your predictions for Bradley’s future, which is alternative method that has nothing to do with WAR. And certainly did not point out any incorrect conclusions drawn from WAR, just conclusions that didn’t agree with your personal opinions. That’s not the same as pointing out inherent flaws. Your (and my) opinions and observations are probably more flawed than WAR...

[Bellhorn04]

Over his last 17 games, Jackie Bradley Jr. has posted an impressive .367/.400/.600/1.000 line.

 

In a 17-game stretch in May 2016, Bradley posted a .468/.542/.855/1.397 line:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=bradlja02&t=b&year=2016

 

You can probably find this sort of micro picking with many players... granted, JBJ more than others.

 

A bit more to the point, over his last 53 games JBJ is hitting 290/347/512 for an 860 OPS, with 7 HR, 16 2B, 2 3B and 37 RBI.

[notin]

A bit more to the point, over his last 53 games JBJ is hitting 290/347/512 for an 860 OPS, with 7 HR, 16 2B, 2 3B and 37 RBI.

 

No doubt he should be extended. And thought given to extending Betts and Bogaerts, too.

 

All the Sox need is for Scott “No Extensions” Boras to retire....

[moonslav59]

Over his last 17 games, Jackie Bradley Jr. has posted an impressive .367/.400/.600/1.000 line.

 

In a 17-game stretch in May 2016, Bradley posted a .468/.542/.855/1.397 line:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=bradlja02&t=b&year=2016

 

The big difference here is that he hit .706 between those two 17 game stretches not .450.

 

No matter how you spin it, this has been one of JBJ's longest, decent stretch of his career.

[S5Dewey]

You are probably going to have to repeat that “I don’t dislike like WAR” mantra until at some point in time you can mention it in sentence that also doesn’t contain the words “is flawed.” Not following up with a question about why people use it will also help.

 

Also, your reply really didn’t point out any inherent defects in WAR. Really what you pointed out was your predictions for Bradley’s future, which is alternative method that has nothing to do with WAR. And certainly did not point out any incorrect conclusions drawn from WAR, just conclusions that didn’t agree with your personal opinions. That’s not the same as pointing out inherent flaws. Your (and my) opinions and observations are probably more flawed than WAR...

 

Thank you. You apparently think I need your help in cultivating my people skills. I'll give that the weight I think it deserves.

 

What I have said repeatedly is that I think WAR is useful but it's flawed, which is exactly what most people here (including you) seem to think. That's a problem...how?

 

I'll say this again. I think WAR is flawed and here's what I believe is an incorrect conclusion drawn from WAR.

 

Every years since 2015 B-R has given JBJ a higher oWAR than dWAR. I think most people would disagree with that but I doubt it since virtually every poster here thinks JBJ is one of the best defensive CF'ers in the league. However, that's what WAR says so... it must be true?

 

You may say that this doesn't agree with my personal opinion but IMO it also doesn't agree with the personal opinion of most posters here. I didn't create those two (IMO) ridiculous values, WAR did, so your gripe should be with WAR and not me. I just reported it.

[moonslav59]

There is a massive difference between bWAR and fWAR on JBJ. I guess that further confirms my belief that fWAR is better.

 

It certainly raises questions about why there is so much of a disparity, especially with JBJ. Obviously both use different methods to determine their WAR values, but that doesn't bother me all that much. I still respect both methodologies (fWAR more so), and will continue to use WAR as one tool in my evaluations of players I rarely see play.

 

JBJ Career

 

bWAR: 12.8 (dWAR 6.1/ oWAR 8.0)

 

fWAR: 11.8 (dWAR 42.0/ oWAR -7.1)

 

To me, the area I think is almost as wrong is fWAR's offense number for JBJ. It's close to being as wrong as bWAR's dWAR for JBJ.

 

 

[vegasbob]

It wasn't my intention for this to be "another anti- WAR diatribe". What I'd heard here is that any discussion of WAR is a jumping off point and people would be willing to listen to a differing viewpoint as long as it was based in reasonableness.

 

As I said in the OP, color me optimistic if you like, but I do think that JBJ has solved enough of his problems to warrant being given a pass on the trading block. As far as Baez goes, I think he may have solved all of his problems (whatever they may have been) and I think he may be a fine 2B but I don't see the solution to our problems as being trading away one outstanding up-the-middle ballplayer for another.

 

And I agree. I'd much rather see Bradley extended. My fear is that with this season - and if he does have his problems solved - his price may go up to the point where we lose him. That's why I would have extended him when he was hitting .200 and we probably could have extended him cheaper. Because I've always believed in him.

 

On balance, I would prefer to keep JBJr as well, but do not lose sleep over his departure if that leads to a situation where the Sox pitching is upgraded with younger guys. JBJ will be here through the playoffs, so no need for immediate resolution. Let the guy perform as he has recently and the future will take care of itself.

[oldtimer]

On balance, I would prefer to keep JBJr as well, but do not lose sleep over his departure if that leads to a situation where the Sox pitching is upgraded with younger guys. JBJ will be here through the playoffs, so no need for immediate resolution. Let the guy perform as he has recently and the future will take care of itself.

 

We don't maintain long running strings like this on all our players and probably it would be best to let this one expire.

[S5Dewey]

We don't maintain long running strings like this on all our players and probably it would be best to let this one expire.

 

I'll drink to that. In fact, IMO it never should have been started, for the same reason you stated.

[vegasbob]

I'll drink to that. In fact, IMO it never should have been started, for the same reason you stated.

 

If they had just traded him, then this string would not have been necessary. A 3 year dissection of the trade would have supplanted it. Goodbye to any idea of trading JBJr for 2018, he is earning his keep in a big way.

[moonslav59]

If they had just traded him, then this string would not have been necessary. A 3 year dissection of the trade would have supplanted it. Goodbye to any idea of trading JBJr for 2018, he is earning his keep in a big way.

 

I wasn't on this site for the Iggy trade. How long did the Iggy trade thread last?

[S5Dewey]

If they had just traded him, then this string would not have been necessary. A 3 year dissection of the trade would have supplanted it. Goodbye to any idea of trading JBJr for 2018, he is earning his keep in a big way.

 

And probably 2019 too, unless DD gets an offer that blows him away.

[moonslav59]

And probably 2019 too, unless DD gets an offer that blows him away.

 

For argument's sake, let's say JD says he won't opt out, if we assure he'll play the OF in 80%+of his games played?

 

[S5Dewey]

For argument's sake, let's say JD says he won't opt out, if we assure he'll play the OF in 80%+of his games played?

 

 

That certainly would put the Sox between a rock and a hard place.

 

As for me, I'd be unhappy with both JDM and the Sox FO if they agreed to that. Unhappy with JDM because he'd be putting himself ahead of the team (he's got to know that the best team has our regular three OF's out there) and the FO for agreeing to any kind of guaranteed playing time for anyone.

[moonslav59]

That certainly would put the Sox between a rock and a hard place.

 

As for me, I'd be unhappy with both JDM and the Sox FO if they agreed to that. Unhappy with JDM because he'd be putting himself ahead of the team (he's got to know that the best team has our regular three OF's out there) and the FO for agreeing to any kind of guaranteed playing time for anyone.

 

I feel the same, and I doubt JD feels that way or would make those sort of demands. I also think a ring might make him want to stay and like the idea of extending his career by DH'ing most of the time.

 

To be frank, it was one thing that worried me most about the negotiations with him and his agent.

[notin]

For argument's sake, let's say JD says he won't opt out, if we assure he'll play the OF in 80%+of his games played?

 

 

Buy him a 1b mitt and say tell him this is as close as you get...

[Bellhorn04]

This is the JBJ thread, not the JDM thread...

[moonslav59]

This is the JBJ thread, not the JDM thread...

 

I think there's a strong enough relationship between the two subjects, since many felt making JD happy by trading JBJ made the trade worth it, especially when factoring in what we might have gotten back for JBJ (improved pitching/2B/depth).

 

I like JD where he is. Keep him healthy. Keep our OF intact for as long as possible.

 

It killed me when we traded Lynn.

[S5Dewey]

Buy him a 1b mitt and say tell him this is as close as you get...

 

That sure would solve some problems!

[Kimmi]

I think there's a strong enough relationship between the two subjects, since many felt making JD happy by trading JBJ made the trade worth it, especially when factoring in what we might have gotten back for JBJ (improved pitching/2B/depth).

 

I like JD where he is. Keep him healthy. Keep our OF intact for as long as possible.

 

It killed me when we traded Lynn.

 

Agreed. Even if JBJ is traded this offseason, I would not make JD a regular OFer. Keep JD as the DH with occasional playing time in the OF to keep him happy. Not only is that the best thing to do for the team, but it's also the best thing to do for JD.

[cp176]

For argument's sake, let's say JD says he won't opt out, if we assure he'll play the OF in 80%+of his games played?

 

 

 

I guess that it is a good thing Moon that the reality of his situation really calls for no hypotheticals. He has made no demands other than being up front about his desire to play some in the outfield. I don't think that is going to change. I guess I could pose a question that is about as likely to happen as yours - If you could only keep one of the two JBJ or JD, which would it be? That is a no brainer for me.

[S5Dewey]

I guess that it is a good thing Moon that the reality of his situation really calls for no hypotheticals. He has made no demands other than being up front about his desire to play some in the outfield. I don't think that is going to change. I guess I could pose a question that is about as likely to happen as yours - If you could only keep one of the two JBJ or JD, which would it be? That is a no brainer for me.

 

Continuing the threat that refuses do die but should.....

 

That^^ is an interesting question.

 

On the one hand we have JD Martinez who's an average OF'er at best and most of his WAR comes from his offense. In fact, his dWAR has been a consistently negative value. Over the past five years he has a cumulative WAR of 15.9, with over 1/3 of it coming from the career year he's having in 2018.

 

OTOH we have Jackie Bradley Jr. who's one of the best defensive CF'ers in the AL. However, most of JBJ's WAR has come from his offense (and IMO most people think is an aberration.) His cumulative WAR over the past five years is 12.4.

 

When we consider the two 5-year WARs and allow for a 17% "variability" We find that JDM's 5-year range of WAR is between 13.2 - 18.6 and JBJ's is between 10.1 - 14.5. Since there is overlap between 13.2 - 14.5 they could be the same player although it's reasonable to assume that JDM is the slightly better player (if you ignore the fact that JBJ's WAR is questionable because of the oWAR/dWAR thing) because his range is higher.

 

The big equalizer going forward is that JBJ is 28 years old and making $6.100,000 this year and JDM is 31 and making $23.750,000 this year.

 

So the question is, if you can only keep one of them going forward.... which one do you keep? The younger one who plays better defense or the older one who's offense is better but makes almost 4x as much? And to add yet another wrinkle, if you believe that JBJ has 'found himself' offensively this year what's the REAL difference in their offense? And how much is JBJ's defense REALLY worth? Is it worth almost 4x as much to keep JDM?

[Slasher9]

See you JDM. Thanks for being part of getting this years ring.