Bradford-- trade or keep?

by Trocmagic on Nov 27, 2004 3:29 AM PST Comment 8 comments

Looking at the posts made, there's been a lot of suggestions to trade Bradford, possibly to ditch the million or so he'll make in arbitration. I dunno... just to me, that really seems like a sad decision. Admittedly, Bradford has an inflated value to me because of the whole Moneyball story-- and how he wasn't the star in HS, got underestimated-- and dude, how can you not love the ultra-submarine style :) Actually, I found AN while trying to surf for Bradford news (been more of a lurker than anything else), and his ERA before this year hovered around 3, and I remember also that he had an insanely high percentage of inherited runners left on base in '03, so I'm hard-pressed to believe it's been just a fluke. I don't have the hard numbers to confirm more thoughts, just that I think the relatively bad ERA and occasional ineffectiveness this year was more of a fluke and forced stretching into new roles.

Which leads to '04 and him being partially sidelined with a back injury, etc. etc. He's also a soft-tosser that's always been more subceptible to lefties, but righties have a .546 OPS against him in the past three years. Always use for a guy like that on my staff :) While the back is troublesome news, it just seems a shame that Bradford hasn't earned more loyalty for what's been an awesome run until this year. And maybe it's just helpless optimism, but I can't seem to shake the feeling that the past year was kind of a down-year with the injury and everything, and that he's due for a bounceback.

I understand that he seems more of a spare part with all the excitement we have about our reliever prospects, but I really think that with all the power arms we could be having (Dotel/Street/Garcia), the two-headed monster of Rincon/Bradford will become a lot more effective to balance it with the soft stuff.

But I was more curious of feeling out AN's attention on the guy, because I've heard stuff about trading him. True, if he was the key to get someone insanely good like a Mark Prior, then I'd be able to understand, but just to trade him to relieve salary? That's kind of iffy to me. But I'm just one person, so what do all of ya think? I added a poll as well, if all you want to do is vote instead of leaving a comment :)

Poll

Bradford-- should he be traded or no?

Yes-- Bradford's expendable for the next year

6 votes

Maybe-- We could hold on to him, but we can deal him for equal value

13 votes

No-- Or at least, the offer would have to be a really, really sweet one

18 votes

37 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Keep Bradford

There are two sides to keeping Bradford. One, A's do have limited money so we can not pay him to much more than last year. The second part I think is important. We need him in that we need some pitchers in the pen that are not rookies. Rincon, Dotel are not and Duch has one year but if the A's have six pitchers I want one or two more that have pitched in the bigs and a playoff game. Street, Garcia...are nice but do we want that much youth? What if they are all not ready, do you want a AAAA guy pitching in Yankee statium? Also back to the money for a second, the A's could easily trade Bradford half way into the year if Street, Blanton and others are just great, because he is a good pitcher and does not make that much.

by dougald1 on Nov 27, 2004 5:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Keep Bradford

if we can keep him out of arbitration. If he insists on "arb" in the hopes of making a few more bucks,I'd try to trade him. What he's offered and what he expects should not be that far apart,I'd guess. Arbitration can cause bad feelings sometimes.

by sommers on Nov 27, 2004 6:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Garcia not likely to be ready in 2005

at least not at first. So Bradford is probably needed.

by OaklandSi on Nov 27, 2004 7:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Before last year

Bradford had been a big part of our bullpen, getting the outs we needed. Keep him, he is still useful

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Nov 27, 2004 7:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

sorry,

i answered this question prior to reading this diary.

so, because what i said in the above diary- i say keep him.

ElephantCrew Rules

by bigelephant on Nov 27, 2004 8:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Keep him, but...

sure, if something comes up the A's should deal him. But Bradford was really overused last season. In 2004 his role was expanded due to short outings by starters. In previous years he was used in a limited "specialist" role and performed very well. The A's starters need to get deeper into games. I am still on Bradfords side as long as we have Rincon.

by DC in WC on Nov 27, 2004 9:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like him at the right price

I agree with your assessment that with a couple of hard-throwers in the back of the bullpen in Dotel, Street, and eventually Garcia, the Bradford/Rincon combination should be especially effective (if Macha learns how to manage). There's probably no reliever in MLB you'd rather have on the mound when a right-handed batter is up and you need a DP ball.

The problem, as always with the A's, is salary. If he's reasonable, I say we keep him. If not, there are other options.

by jmoney on Nov 27, 2004 2:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

For me its simple:

First of all BB has to want to want to keep Bradford, and I belive BB will want a slow throwing right hander, and will want to see if he can regain his form of previous seasons.
Bradford (and his agent) must agree to negotiate and avoid arbitration.
If the above happens he will be an A in '05 as it should not be difficult to come to an appropriate agreement on price. If Bradford insists on arbitration he will be long gone.

by robertmelvin on Nov 27, 2004 4:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs