Willy Taveras

[Caveat Emperor]

At the outset, I feel compelled to make this point: I am not advocating the Reds sign Milton Bradley. I don't think the Reds want him, and I don't think he wants to play for a team like Cincinnati. Frankly, I think the Reds have a better chance of getting Milton Berle to come back from the dead and play CF.

Having said that, the mere fact that Milton Bradley isn't the best fit for this team doesn't mean that Juan Rivera is. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Originally Posted by edabbs44

MB played a combined 157 games in 2005-2006. In 2007, he had a BABIP of .388.

MB was DFA'ed from Oakland in 2007 and was then dealt to SD, where his season ended when he tore his ACL after going after an umpire.

He then went to Texas, where he played in ballpark notorious for pumping up the home team's stats. His numbers were no different. He also played the vast majority of his season as a DH.

Just to make sure we're operating with full facts here, these were Bradley's H/R splits from '08 --

HOME: .358 / .466 / .679
ROAD: .290 / .410 / .462

Home in Arlington was very, very good to Milton Bradley -- but he wasn't a total slouch on the Road either. His OBP remained over .400, it was his SLG that took a nose dive. He was still a .870+ OPS player on the road.

By comparison, Juan Rivera has had exactly 1 seasons where he has posted an OPS that high for the season.

While Rivera has some questions, so does Bradley. But for both it is difficult to look at only the recent history to project what might happen this year. And it is even more difficult to assess when you factor in likely committment you will need to make to both ballplayers.

MB will likely see a dip in production compared to 2008 where Rivera will likely see production rise over the same time period. The only question is whether the gap will close a little or a lot.

They both have questions, but here is what they boil down to:

Bradley: Can he keep doing it?
Rivera: Can he do it?

I know which of those two questions I like a lot better.

I also don't see where you think Rivera will see a major production rise. He had one great year in 2006 after two so-so years. He's 30 years old, going to turn 31 mid-season, with at least one major injury in his past. While he's likely better than his line from '08, you have to wonder whether his improvement will be to his '05 or to his '06, somewhere in between, or someplace else. There's a huge range on Rivera, and that would give me pause before tendering a multi-year commitment to him.

When you add in the fact that he doesn't walk and draws all of his value from power and making contact, I think the risk greatly outweighs the possible reward. I don't want to be left holding the bag and hoping that a 31/32 year old Rivera can keep cranking out enough base hits to avoid being an out-machine on a guaranteed deal.

If Bradley is "buy, buy, buy", as some might say, I can't see Rivera being the polar opposite.

Neither player is "Buy, buy, buy" from me -- but Bradley is probably a normal "buy" and Rivera is a "sell, sell."

I don't see a lot of good things in Rivera's profile, JMO.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Why do you think that Bradley has such tremendous offensive value? I think he is becoming somewhat overrated.

Compared to Juan Rivera and Willy Taveras, Milton Bradley has tremendous offensive value.

Career line of .280 / .370 / .457 is certainly better than

.284 / .331 / .468

and there's no argument it's better than

.283 / .331 / .337


... and the reason it's better is b/c of the ability to get on base other than putting bat on ball. Both Rivera and Taveras rely on their AVG to get on base, as their career AVG and OBP numbers are identical. What else is identical about them? Neither of them walks at all. So, if either of them gets cold at the plate, slumps, what have you, they aren't getting on base b/c they don't walk. Even if Bradley isn't putting bat on ball, he's still getting on base via the walk.

Since 2003, Milton Bradley has OPS'd North of .817 in every year except 2004 (which his OBP was still .362, so he was still getting on base, he just wasn't acquiring bases). I like the upward trend of Bradley's OPS, whereas I don't like inconsistent fluctuations of Rivera's OPS.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Compared to Juan Rivera and Willy Taveras, Milton Bradley has tremendous offensive value.

Career line of .280 / .370 / .457 is certainly better than

.284 / .331 / .468

and there's no argument it's better than

.283 / .331 / .337


... and the reason it's better is b/c of the ability to get on base other than putting bat on ball. Both Rivera and Taveras rely on their AVG to get on base, as their career AVG and OBP numbers are identical. What else is identical about them? Neither of them walks at all. So, if either of them gets cold at the plate, slumps, what have you, they aren't getting on base b/c they don't walk. Even if Bradley isn't putting bat on ball, he's still getting on base via the walk.

Except that Juan Rivera can actually hit and Willy Taveras can't. The only thing comparable about them is their walk rate. Nothing else they do at the plate is really comparable.

[Krusty]

When I think of Willy Taveras, I see former Pirates' centerfielder Omar Moreno. Moreno was never the greatest leadoff hitter but he was patroling centerfield when the Bucs won the World Series back in 1979.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/morenom01.shtml

People have to realize that Taveras would be a one or two year bridge till Drew Stubbs is ready to take over in center. He has his flaws but it isn't like you're paying 5 million + for his services.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Milton Bradley has equaled or bested his career OBP in each of the last three seasons -- in the last two seasons, by a substantial margin.

Juan Rivera has failed to equal or best his career OBP in 3 of the previous four seasons (admittedly, his leg injury plays a part with this).

If you're going just on the basis that both guys will play to their career averages, the debate is close. If you look at the recent history of each ballplayer, it's Bradley in a landslide. The question becomes: will Rivera, at age 30, ever replicate his .310 / .362 / .525 season from 2005, or will he settle into the player he was in 2004 and 2008 -- a sub-.320 OBP guy that is a threat to dip below the .300 mark?

Simply put, that's not a gamble I want the Reds taking for the next 2 to 3 years. That's why Rivera is a "stay far, far away" in my book.

I get your point but you have the years mixed up there. And since I am gonna put his stats up I might as well put up his whole line.

'01 - Age 22 - 4 PA's ---
'02 - Age 23 - 091 PA's - .265/.311/.361/.672 - OPS+ 79 - .288 BABIP
'03 - Age 24 - 185 PA's - .266/.304/.468/.772 - OPS+ 102 - .279 BABIP
'04 - Age 25 - 426 PA's - .307/.364/.465/.829 - OPS+ 109 - .323 BABIP
'05 - Age 26 - 376 PA's - .271/.316/.454/.770 - OPS+ 104 - .274 BABIP
'06 - Age 27 - 494 PA's - .310/.362/.525/.887 - OPS+ 126 - .312 BABIP
'07 - Age 28 - 044 PA's - .279/.295/.442/.737 - OPS+ 91 - .270 BABIP
'08 - Age 29 - 280 PA's - .246/.282/.438/.720 - OPS+ 86 - .233 BABIP

I think if we look at the BABIP we can see that when he done well he didn't have a whole lot of luck in fact his '04 season is the only season in which his BABIP got over nuetral luck, '06 his luck was basically nuetral and the rest of those years are all well below nuetral. Yet he still managed pretty respectable BA's despite his bad luck. I can only gather from those #'s that he has a pretty good line drive swing otherwise he wouldn't have hit for those averages. Granted one might argue small sample size for his good seasons and they may have a point. But I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he just can flat out hit. Is it a gamble worth taking with other more established bats on the market? Probably not but to say he is definitely not worth the gamble at some point is probably not wise either. He simply put looks like a special case that I think demands more careful consideration at the very least.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Krusty

He has his flaws but it isn't like you're paying 5 million + for his services.

So it's ok if he's an offensively challenged black hole of sucktastic crappyness at the plate, as long as he doesn't cost too much money?

Sounds like something Schott/Linder would say.

By the way, who is this Stubbs fellow you mention? Never heard of him.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Since 2003, Milton Bradley has OPS'd North of .817 in every year except 2004 (which his OBP was still .362, so he was still getting on base, he just wasn't acquiring bases). I like the upward trend of Bradley's OPS, whereas I don't like inconsistent fluctuations of Rivera's OPS.

So (if he were to come to Cincy) you would project him to trend upwards or maintain his current level of production, even though there would be a number of variables in play, such as the fact that he is leaving Arlington, wouldn't be able to DH and is due for a large drop in "luck"?

And that isn't even considering the injury/insanity factor.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

If Juan Rivera could take a walk...

Come on dude, ballplayers aren't paid to walk. That's a girlie way of playing the game, and we all know walks are icky.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Except that Juan Rivera can actually hit and Willy Taveras can't. The only thing comparable about them is their walk rate. Nothing else they do at the plate is really comparable.

Their career AVG and OBP tell me that Rivera hits for more power than Taveras, and that's it.

Aside from that, neither of them walk, and they both get on base thanks to their AVG.

I'm curious as to why you say that Juan Rivera can hit and Willy Taveras cannot when they have the same career AVG and OBP.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

So (if he were to come to Cincy) you would project him to trend upwards or maintain his current level of production, even though there would be a number of variables in play, such as the fact that he is leaving Arlington, wouldn't be able to DH and is due for a large drop in "luck"?

And that isn't even considering the injury/insanity factor.

I would easily project Bradley to OPS between .825 and .875 should get come to Cincinnati.

Replacing Arlington with GABP is a lateral move, IMO.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

I would easily project Bradley to OPS between .825 and .875 should get come to Cincinnati.

Replacing Arlington with GABP is a lateral move, IMO.

So you would pay up to $10MM per year for a guy who will most likely:

• Project to have an OPS falling in the 40-75 overall rankings
• Miss around one-third of the season with a plethora of ailments, suspensions or the like
• Cause the team to carry a material amount of reputational risk, based on his well documented history
• Be required to play the field every day, when he spent most of his time last season at DH

IMO, too much risk.

[OnBaseMachine]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

I would easily project Bradley to OPS between .825 and .875 should get come to Cincinnati.

Replacing Arlington with GABP is a lateral move, IMO.

Juan Rivera - Career OPS+ of 106

Willy Taveras - Career OPS+ of 72

Juan Rivera has been a slightly above average hitter throughout his career.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by nate

The latter. Really. If we're not going all-in, let a youngster get some seasoning. Let's quit wasting money and resource on one-trick ponies like Wily Taveras.

I can respect that opinion. I just have a different view. IMO, wasting resources is giving guys like Olmedo, Janish, etc playing time on the hope that somehow a light bulb goes off and they become ok players. Most prospects wash out. Smart organizations don't waste a lot of ML playing time on marginal prospects. Brandon Larson is a good example. The Reds wasted a lot of playing time on him, and even moved Aaron Boone to accomodate him (which hurt Boone's production).

Think in pure isolation. Who is likely to produce more in 2009, Taveraz or the next best option? It's a hard question to answer because the roster is in flux.
Some people are convinced Stubbs would outproduce Taveras, but I don't think so. Remember Bill James lofty predictions for Jay Bruce last year? The guy didn't even OPS 800. That's because young players will struggle.

I completely acknowledge that Tavaraz is likely to be a below average player.
He has some upside which we can debate. But the bottom line is that we need some OF depth to avoid rushing minor leaguers up before they are ready. I'm not really pumped that right now Nix is looking to get significant playing time either.

I'd love to add a premium CF to this roster, I just don't see it realistically happening without trading Volquez or Ceuto.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

Question. Willy is 26. He'll be 27 on Christmas. Is it possible that he develops any further or are players with his skillset pretty much a done deal by 27?
.

I certainly hope development doesn't stop at 27. Dickerson turns 26 in April.

For some reason, people consider Dickerson young and up and coming, while Taveras is old and washed up. If Taveras spent as much time in the minors as Dickerson did, he'd probably have pretty guady minor league numbers as well.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by BRM

Not to defend Willy but Colorado does have Ryan Spilborghs to play CF. They have no real need to keep Willy.

Also, Tavarez was making pretty decent money last year, and due for arbitration. He's going to get a lot less as a FA than he would in arb.