Should Jackie Bradley Jr be traded?

[moonslav59]

I don't think JBJ takes $8.5M x 4. He'll get more than $8.5 in next year's arb and probably more for 2020.

[moonslav59]

...but also replaceable with the 3 other outfielders we have. There's no need to buy high here.

 

You're assuming JD does not opt out. He has 2 chances to do so.

[Dojji]

JD is going to get paid either way. That's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to overpay for supporting characters. I'd definitely rather risk losing JBJ than be out of options when Mookie and JD come with their hands out.

[moonslav59]

JD is going to get paid either way. That's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to overpay for supporting characters. I'd definitely rather risk losing JBJ than be out of options when Mookie and JD come with their hands out.

 

Offering $34M/4 is definitely losing JBJ.

 

If JD opts out after 2019, then the JBJ choice changes.

 

Anyways, I don't see JD as an OF'er after 2020, JBJ's last arb year.

 

I know tough choices and either/or situations are coming sooner than we want, and I can understand choosing someone else over JBJ, but I'd like to keep JBJ, if we can.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think JBJ takes $8.5M x 4. He'll get more than $8.5 in next year's arb and probably more for 2020.

 

It would probably take something like $12M or $12.5 x 4 to get him interested.

[moonslav59]

It would probably take something like $12M x 4 to get him interested.

 

Yes, and even that may not be enough, depending on how well he does the next 2 years.

 

What would it take to sign him after this winter by buying out his 2 arb years and adding 2-3 more years?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, and even that may not be enough, depending on how well he does the next 2 years.

 

Yeah, you're right. We're in an age where $50 million is chump change for a .240 hitting, superior outfielder.

[moonslav59]

Yeah, you're right. We're in an age where $50 million is chump change for a .240 hitting, superior outfielder.

 

He's more than a .240 great glove player.

 

Since 2015 (1939 PAs), his line is this...

 

.249 66 251

 

at 650 PAs rate:

 

.249 22 84

 

.330 OBP

 

.442 SLG

 

.772 OPS

 

That's a big plus when you look at the league average for CF from 2015-2018:

 

.249 BA

.320 OBP

.399 SLG

.719 OPS

 

[S5Dewey]

Yes, and even that may not be enough, depending on how well he does the next 2 years.

 

What would it take to sign him after this winter by buying out his 2 arb years and adding 2-3 more years?

 

What he does the next two years is the big question. If he does well he'd probably do better than my 5/$50 "offer" but if he does worse than that those last two years could still be worth it depending on the market for GG-caliber CF'rs. I want buy out his two arb years with $8 & $9, then give him $10, $11 & $12 for the years after his arb years.

 

They say that speed is the first thing to go. I have a lot of faith in his defense remaining outstanding because it's not based on his speed. It's based on the jump he gets and his ability to go to 'the spot'. If he doesn't exercise the opt-out because of sub-par offense during the first three years we've still got a GG CF running around out there and IMO that would be worth what he'd be getting.

[moonslav59]

What he does the next two years is the big question. If he does well he'd probably do better than my 5/$50 "offer" but if he does worse than that those last two years could still be worth it depending on the market for GG-caliber CF'rs. I want buy out his two arb years with $8 & $9, then give him $10, $11 & $12 for the years after his arb years.

 

They say that speed is the first thing to go. I have a lot of faith in his defense remaining outstanding because it's not based on his speed. It's based on the jump he gets and his ability to go to 'the spot'. If he doesn't exercise the opt-out because of sub-par offense during the first three years we've still got a GG CF running around out there and IMO that would be worth what he'd be getting.

 

He might make $9M then $12M his next 2 arb years.

[S5Dewey]

He might make $9M then $12M his next 2 arb years.

 

He might - although I'd be surprised at that $12MM in his last year. Were I DD I'd be talking to him about security over the next five years and the opt out after 3 if he chooses. Since he's bound to the Sox through 2020 he's only bound to them for the additional 2021 season and he could test the market then.

[notin]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/papeljo01.shtml

 

The Steamer was great in his day, but there is no contest here. Putting it over the top is the fact that Pap did one thing Stanley never did -- pitch the final out of a World Series victory.

 

So did Keith Foulke. Big deal. Papelbon was a one inning specialist, whereas Stanley was an all-purpose relief pitcher.

 

You could have at least countered with Dick Radatz..

Edited September 22, 2018 by notin

[OH FOY]

Anybody remember the Play by Pinella, off Remy's hit in the 8th inning in the sun field in Right? That lucky play was the reason we didn't tie the game.

By the way how many here saw that game? Got drunk real bad after that one, hurt for a long time, probably still does. That was one Great team.

Edited September 23, 2018 by OH FOY!

[Bellhorn04]

Anybody remember the Play by Pinella, off Remy's hit in the 8th inning in the sun field in Right? That lucky play was the reason we didn't tie the game.

By the way how many here saw that game? Got drunk real bad after that one, hurt for a long time, probably still does. That was one Great team.

 

I saw it. Never forget it. Piniella's play was actually in the 9th, but you're right that it prevented the Sox from scoring the tying run.

[OH FOY]

Thanks was drinking heavy. Next day was my birthday, which made it even worse.

[Dojji]

So did Keith Foulke. Big deal. Papelbon was a one inning specialist, whereas Stanley was an all-purpose relief pitcher.

 

You could have at least countered with Dick Radatz..

 

Stanley was also pretty much done as a high quality relief pitcher at age 30.

 

You don't get brownie points because your manager didn't have clue one how to manage a bullpen and manages to screw you over and destroy your career in the middle of its prime. Stanley was a solid reliever in his era, and Papelbon was an even better reliever in his.

[moonslav59]

He might - although I'd be surprised at that $12MM in his last year. Were I DD I'd be talking to him about security over the next five years and the opt out after 3 if he chooses. Since he's bound to the Sox through 2020 he's only bound to them for the additional 2021 season and he could test the market then.

 

Last year arbs are usually near market value, especially the 4 year arb guys like JBJ. He may make $10M and $15M.

[moonslav59]

Stanley was also pretty much done as a high quality relief pitcher at age 30.

 

 

He did have one more good year at age 33, but you're right.

 

His 1988 season was his best WHIP year at 1.17.

[notin]

Stanley was also pretty much done as a high quality relief pitcher at age 30.

 

You don't get brownie points because your manager didn't have clue one how to manage a bullpen and manages to screw you over and destroy your career in the middle of its prime. Stanley was a solid reliever in his era, and Papelbon was an even better reliever in his.

 

Stanley averaged over 2IP per relief appearance, but that wasn’t the fault of a clueless manager. That was how bullpens we’re used back then. No one had all these specialized bullpen roles until the late 1980’s. Teams frequently used their best reliever as often as they needed him as opposed to making him solely a ninth inning specialist. And it was very common for a reliever to face the same hitters twice in the same game, something I would bet Papelbon never did as a reliever in Boston.

 

The 1978 Red Sox used a four man bullpen (Stanley, Dick Drago, Bill Campbell, and Tom Burgmeier) for the majority of the season, meaning they had to rely heavily on the four pitchers they had. Can you imagine a team doing that today? It was actually common in the 70’s...

Edited September 23, 2018 by notin

[cp176]

Stanley averaged over 2IP per relief appearance, but that wasn’t the fault of a clueless manager. That was how bullpens we’re used back then. No one had all these specialized bullpen roles until the late 1980’s. Teams frequently used their best reliever as often as they needed him as opposed to making him solely a ninth inning specialist. And it was very common for a reliever to face the same hitters twice in the same game, something I would bet Papelbon never did as a reliever in Boston.

 

The 1978 Red Sox used a four man bullpen (Stanley, Dick Drago, Bill Campbell, and Tom Burgmeier) for the majority of the season, meaning they had to rely heavily on the four pitchers they had. Can you imagine a team doing that today? It was actually common in the 70’s...

 

In that era, how many innings did the starting pitcher tend to throw per game?

[notin]

In that era, how many innings did the starting pitcher tend to throw per game?

 

Oh they threw a lot. Complete games were not rarities.

 

But in 1978 Bob Stanley threw 120 IP from the bullpen (and 21 more in 3 starts). How many relievers top 100 IP from the pen today?

 

Overworking relievers was commonplace. The Dodgers once used reliever Mike Marshall in 106 games AND FOR 208 IP!!! And, despite it being a still-standing record, no one thought it was a big deal.

 

For some perspective, Eddie Guardado was called “Everyday Eddie”, but maxed out at 83 appearances (for 73.2 largely ineffective innings)...

Edited September 23, 2018 by notin

[Jasonbay44]

I wish we would've DFA'd him, or even released him as some people wanted, he definitely wasn't important in the ALCS at all!

[harmony]

Last year arbs are usually near market value, especially the 4 year arb guys like JBJ. He may make $10M and $15M.

MLB Trade Rumors projects Jackie Bradley Jr. with a 2019 salary of $7.9 million:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/10/mlb-arbitration-salaries-2019.html

[Sox75]

Can you believe????

 

Like Lackey's come back in 2013!

 

f***ing GOOD ON JBJ! What a humble kid! Not one ounce of "take this MVP and shove it up your arsses!" As so many guys would be want to do!

 

 

GREAT KID! What a come back year! It took all year, but GOD DAMNED if he wasn't ready?!

[iortiz]

Pay him!

[Youk Of The Nation]

I wish we would've DFA'd him, or even released him as some people wanted, he definitely wasn't important in the ALCS at all!

 

I agree 100%. I miss Ellsbury. Remind me again, how did Ellsbury do this season with the Yankees?

[illinoisredsox]

Stanley averaged over 2IP per relief appearance, but that wasn’t the fault of a clueless manager. That was how bullpens we’re used back then. No one had all these specialized bullpen roles until the late 1980’s. Teams frequently used their best reliever as often as they needed him as opposed to making him solely a ninth inning specialist. And it was very common for a reliever to face the same hitters twice in the same game, something I would bet Papelbon never did as a reliever in Boston.

 

The 1978 Red Sox used a four man bullpen (Stanley, Dick Drago, Bill Campbell, and Tom Burgmeier) for the majority of the season, meaning they had to rely heavily on the four pitchers they had. Can you imagine a team doing that today? It was actually common in the 70’s...

 

Stanley pitched 8+ innings in relief in a game twice; he went more than 7 two more times and 6+ at least one other time.

 

As you said, the bullpen was used a lot differently back then.

[Dojji]

In that era, how many innings did the starting pitcher tend to throw per game?

 

In that era, the debate was between a 3 man or a 4 man rotation, and the 4th starter got skipped at times, like the 5th starter today. If there was a need for an extra man in the rotation to make an occasional start, a reliever was frequently tapped.

 

That said the extra roster spot was usually used for a bench player rather than an additional pitcher, so the bullpen workload on the bullpen wasn't that big. However at the time there were a lot fewer pure relievers, a bullpen might have only 3-4 guys whose job was to take the ball after the starter was done with it, and 1-2 backup starters that would often be in the plan as starters and thus not always available to pitch in relief

 

In other words, individual relievers would be given the ball a LOT. And as much as you can claim that it was the product of the times, it probably ended a few careers prematurely.

[cp176]

In that era, the debate was between a 3 man or a 4 man rotation, and the 4th starter got skipped at times, like the 5th starter today. If there was a need for an extra man in the rotation to make an occasional start, a reliever was frequently tapped.

 

That said the extra roster spot was usually used for a bench player rather than an additional pitcher, so the bullpen workload on the bullpen wasn't that big. However at the time there were a lot fewer pure relievers, a bullpen might have only 3-4 guys whose job was to take the ball after the starter was done with it, and 1-2 backup starters that would often be in the plan as starters and thus not always available to pitch in relief

 

In other words, individual relievers would be given the ball a LOT. And as much as you can claim that it was the product of the times, it probably ended a few careers prematurely.

 

I don't think there is any question about pitcher's careers being shortened back in the day. It is a big money issue now obviously.

[Slasher9]

I don't think there is any question about pitcher's careers being shortened back in the day. It is a big money issue now obviously.

 

spot on.