About a month ago, I advocated trading for Milton Bradley after reading a piece from Patrick Hayes proposing it. Nothing has dissuaded me from still hoping Bradley comes to Motown and now we have CHONE projections to use to see how good he could be next year.
How does Bradley look for 2010? And what about other Tigers of interest? Find out after the jump...
Milton Bradley is expected to rebound nicely next year and post a triple slash line of .275/383/.461. That would be good for a Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) of .372. CHONE has him worth 16 runs per 150 games in 2010. In my post about him a month ago, I roughly projected Bradley to have a wOBA of .350 -- grossly underestimating him when compared to CHONE. My projections had him totaling just 10 runs above average in 2010 with the bat. I also had him at +1 run saved defensively, but the UZR projections from Jeff Zimmerman have him at -0.2 -- essentially average. Negligible difference there, to say the least.
Now if we take the UZR projections and the CHONE projections, I'm getting a 2.18 WAR projection in 2010 based on 60% playing time (because of his limited time in the past and for his injury history as well). 2.18 WAR would roughly be $10 million on the open market if the market stays the same as the 2009 market. There's a chance a win will be worth $4.8 mil, however, which would make him valued at $10.86 million. Bradley is slated to make $9 million in 2010 and then $12 in 2011.
If you take aging into account, you probably knock off 0.5 WAR from him in the following years. So 2011 projection would put him roughly at 1.68 WAR -- $7.8 million in value on the 2009 market place and $8.46 million if the cost of a win goes up about $400K.
If you total up his 2009 production of 1 WAR and $4.7 million with the projected numbers from above, he's looking at being worth $22.5 million on the low end and $24.02 on the high end. His 3 year deal was for 3 years, $30 million. He was submarined in 2009 by injuries and duels with the media and fans and umpires and that led to his worst offensive season (as judged by wOBA) since 2004. He very likely would've been worth his contract had his 2009 season not been so poor.
I'll gladly take on his deal for the next two season for the right price (like a Jeremy Bonderman).
Moving on.
The Tigers projections are also up. The Tigers are projected to be led by Miguel Cabrera's 37 runs above average per 150 games. Next closest are Curtis Granderson at 14 runs and Ryan Raburn also at 14 runs.
I'm very intrigued by Raburn. He was my breakout player of the year when I voted for the DIBS awards (at least, I think he was) because how he came out of no where offensively last year.
In 2009, Raburn's wOBA was a robust .378 which was worth 11.6 runs above average. That's quite the feat considering he only had 291 plate appearances. If you extrapolate his offensive production out to even just 500 PA's, we're looking at an offensive season worth 21 runs. And that's above the average hitter. Very nice.
Using his CHONE projection, I'm looking at a projected wOBA of .350. That equates to being worth 12 runs over 700 PA's (which is 100% playing time). Obviously, we don't expect him to play 100% of the games, so we'll adjust for that later.
His UZR projection is in left field and it sits at +1 runs defensively. So now we've got 13 runs in offense and defense for Raburn. Subtract 7.5 runs for playing a corner outfield position and then add in 20 for replacement, and we're looking at 25.5 Runs Above Replacement. Divide by 10.5 for the runs-to-win conversion and if given 700 PA's, I'm comfortable projecting Raburn out to being worth 2.43 WAR. Multiply by whatever playing time adjustment you'd like. I'm going to do tiers.
If given 500 PA's, Raburn would be worth 1.73 WAR
If given 400 PA's, Raburn would be worth 1.39 WAR
If given 300 PA's, Raburn would be worth 1.04 WAR
I really like the idea of giving him as much playing time as possible to test if he's a real-deal player or not. I'll be honest, I'm not particularly hopeful that the Tigers are a game away from the postseason in 2010, so I'm fine with figuring out what a player like Raburn is capable of. If we can get 1.5 WAR production out of him over 450 PA's, then I'll gladly take it.
Replacing Polanco
One of the other challenging parts of the off season is letting Placido Polanco walk, or resigning him to a shorter-termed deal (1-2 years). We've got Scott Sizemore in the wings ready to take over and that is what it sounds like Dave Dombrowski is planning on doing. His leg/ankle should be fine come spring training by all accounts, too, so I doubt plans have changed.
How does CHONE view it?
Polanco's projected for a wOBA of .322 while Sizemore is projected at .317. Over 700 PA's, we're looking at a difference of 3 runs (in Polanco's favor).
But the meat of Polly's value is defensively. He's projected to post a UZR in 2010 of +5.8 -- we'll call it +6. I know, I know, he posted a +11 number last year, but defensive numbers swing wildly from year-to-year. Taking a multi-year, regressed version is better; and that's what these UZR projections I've got are.
Scott Sizemore doesn't have a projection, so let's just assume he's an average defender.
2010 projections I've got for Polanco and Sizemore put Polly at 1.9 WAR -- we'll just call it 2 -- if given 85% playing time. For Sizemore, if he's an average defender with the above projected wOBA, we're looking at 1.17 WAR.
However, it's not as simple as just a WAR comparison between these two. You must take into account that Polanco would likely make the same amount as he made on his last contract which was $4.6 million annually. Say we resigned him for 2 years and a total of $9.2 million. Polanco's giving us 1.9 WAR in 2010 and 1.4 WAR (if you use the 0.5 WAR aging penalty) in 2011. That is worth $8.76-9.5 million in value for 2010 and $6.56-7.12 million in 2011 (depending on how the market shakes out). His salary of $4.6 in each of those years would give Placido Polanco a surplus value of $4.16-4.92 million in 2010 and $1.96-2.52 in 2011.
2 year deal for Placido Polanco gives the Tigers a total surplus value of $6.12 to 7.44 million.
Now, if we take the 1.17 WAR projection for Scott Sizemore and make an assumption that his bat is better than it's projected for his rookie season, we can safely add 0.25 WAR on over the next 3 years (before he reaches arbitration). That would make his projections, if he's an average fielder over the next 3 years, at 1.17 in 2010, 1.42 in 2011 and 1.67 in 2012. I think these are conservative, however. But let's roll with them.
He'll make $400K in each of those seasons. If we assume $4.4 million per win (which was the going rate in 2009) for a low-end projection and then $4.8 million (what the going rate for a win could become in 2010) for a high end, I get the following:
2010: $5.55-6.02 million
2011: $6.65-7.22 million
2012: $7.75-8.42 million.
So low-end projection gives Sizemore a surplus value of $19.95 million over the next three years and on the high end $21.66 million. Or, for the next two years (which would be the equivalent length of the hypothetical Polanco deal), he'd be a surplus value of $12.2 to $13.24 million.
Recap: Polanco's total surplus value for the next two years if he signed a 2 year deal worth $4.6 annually is $6.12 to 7.44 million.
Scott Sizemore's total surplus value for the next two years is $12.2 to $13.24 million.
I'll take Scott Sizemore and Milton Bradley into the lineup in 2010, please!
Later in the week I'll take a look at some of the other projections for Tigers hitters in 2010.
Posts
No way on Milton Bradley, WAY too much baggage. There is a reason he has been on 5 different teams in his career and it has nothing to do with talent. Chemistry can be overrated, but Bradley is to baseball as TO is to football, an incredibly talented individual who despite some glossy stats will make any team worse.
ReplyDeleteSam, that's fine. I haven't seen anyone agree with me and I 100% understand the reasoning everyone has for not wanting him -- he certainly hasn't helped his case with the things he's said in the media and things he's done like getting into it with the fans.
ReplyDeleteBut, for me, I'm just all about whatever helps the team win. So, for better or worse, I'm like the NFL coach/gm that thinks they can "reign in T.O." and think Bradley would behave here. Sheffield didn't have any problems here aside from not getting to play when his shoulder was shredded -- but that's a pride thing. I'd expect any veteran to do the same.
For what it's worth, I haven't read anything from a Bradley teammate bad-talking him. So there is that (unless I've missed it, which is possible).