Bradley Signs with Cubs 3/$30 million (p. 33)

[haubrich91]

I'd rather not make the playoffs knowing I'd be heart broken at the end.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd rather not make the playoffs knowing I'd be heart broken at the end.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

You'd rather the Cubs not regularly be a playoff team?

[RynoRules]

Any chance we can get Mark Lemke out of retirement. What about Sid Bream?

 

Don't forget about Eddie Perez and the immortal Jeff Treadway. Hell, while we are at it, I wonder if the ageless Alejandro Pena is available. Pete Smith? Steve Avery?

[mopapa]

By Cubs standards, 2 years in a row is a long run. :-))

 

If the Cubs can make the playoffs again in 2009, it would be the first 3 year run of playoff appearances since 1906, 1907 & 1908.

 

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless.

 

I'd still take that over 5-10 year droughts between playoff appearances. If they can keep getting to the playoffs with a high level of frequency, sooner or later they are bound to get hot at the right time. At least that is how I look at it.

 

Add my name to this list. When I first started watching the Cubs in 1985, we'd get excited when they came close to, or actually finished at, .500. I've never based my like or dislike of a team on how much they won - good thing, or I'd have missed out on a lot of years of Cubs fun. Heartbreaks, sure, but overall, lots of fun.

[flynnhicks03]

So, are we getting Milton Bradley, or what?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Has anyone else moticed ther lack of Milton Bradley talk in general since the reports that The Cubs cant do anythign until ther sale? Could it be that since they are each other first choice, they have a deal with him to wait until mid January whennthe sale is projected, and if they cant make it happen, he should look elsewhere? Its not like i he waits until mid January he wont be able to find work.

[Soul]

By Cubs standards, 2 years in a row is a long run. :-))

 

If the Cubs can make the playoffs again in 2009, it would be the first 3 year run of playoff appearances since 1906, 1907 & 1908.

 

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless.

 

I'd still take that over 5-10 year droughts between playoff appearances. If they can keep getting to the playoffs with a high level of frequency, sooner or later they are bound to get hot at the right time. At least that is how I look at it.

 

Exactly. I'll take regular or semi-regular playoff heartbreaks like we've had 3 times in the last 5 years (and just barely missed a 4th) than the huge droughts that Cubs had since their last WS appearance. Hell, 5-10 years would have been nice compared to some of the gaps. The more often they go, sure, the more often we could see collapses...but it also drastically increases the odds of them breaking through and winning it all. "Meaningless" implies there's little to no difference between a Cubs team that wins 97 games or 57 games. If the playoffs are all that matters, why even watch or follow baseball before September?

 

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it's meaningless that they had a good season. I'm saying it's not going to have any further meaning unless they actually break through. Nobody's going to care in 20 years if the Cubs made the playoffs 3 years in a row if they got swept out each time. They will care if they do something once they get there, if only in one of those 3 years.

 

And I do agree, the more you make it the more you give yourself a chance. I'm just saying, let's cash in here at some point.

[SCCubbieFAN]

By Cubs standards, 2 years in a row is a long run. :-))

 

If the Cubs can make the playoffs again in 2009, it would be the first 3 year run of playoff appearances since 1906, 1907 & 1908.

 

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless.

 

I'd still take that over 5-10 year droughts between playoff appearances. If they can keep getting to the playoffs with a high level of frequency, sooner or later they are bound to get hot at the right time. At least that is how I look at it.

 

Exactly. I'll take regular or semi-regular playoff heartbreaks like we've had 3 times in the last 5 years (and just barely missed a 4th) than the huge droughts that Cubs had since their last WS appearance. Hell, 5-10 years would have been nice compared to some of the gaps. The more often they go, sure, the more often we could see collapses...but it also drastically increases the odds of them breaking through and winning it all. "Meaningless" implies there's little to no difference between a Cubs team that wins 97 games or 57 games. If the playoffs are all that matters, why even watch or follow baseball before September?

 

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it's meaningless that they had a good season. I'm saying it's not going to have any further meaning unless they actually break through. Nobody's going to care in 20 years if the Cubs made the playoffs 3 years in a row if they got swept out each time. They will care if they do something once they get there, if only in one of those 3 years.

 

And I do agree, the more you make it the more you give yourself a chance. I'm just saying, let's cash in here at some point.

 

 

It may be meaningless how they did during the regular season once they bow out of the playoffs in the sense that the season is over for them at that point, but from a fan's point of view, at least this fan, when the Cubs are winning and having a good season and making a run for the post season, a long hot summer is so much more enjoyable than knowing in May or June that its just another "wait again till next year" season. I want to see the Cubs make it to the WS just as much as anyone on this board, but I'll take them making it to the post season and bowing out in the first round every time over them being out of it by the summer solstice.

[E.J.]

Crazy Bruce Levine is saying on ESPN 1000 that this is a done deal. No specifics.

[Outshined_One]

Crazy Bruce Levine is saying on ESPN 1000 that this is a done deal. No specifics.

 

I'm guessing the money saved with Marquis being traded has something to do with this.

[third eye]

Crazy Bruce Levine is saying on ESPN 1000 that this is a done deal. No specifics.

 

 

Wow. After weeks of silence, if both Bradley and Peavy end up being on board, it will have been a pretty sweet offseason.

 

Sounds like Levine felt pretty confident about these rumors. Did he have a different tone this time than with previous stories?

[Roast]

Huh, interesting.

[ctcf]

Holy crap.

 

I'm really glad we got Bradley.

[PrimeTime]

Some guy just said this on MLBTR..Can anyone confirm this is true?

 

ate to do this to you Rays fan.. But Bruce Levine had a 6:00 interview on ESPN 1000 that said the following:

 

 

"Here's what Levine said:

 

-Cubs deal with Rockies will happen in next 3-4 days

 

-Cubs will save 5.5 mil or so

 

-Peavy deal IS BACK ON

 

-2 or 3 teams are talking to Cubs about DeRosa

 

-Could use the money from that to sign milton bradley, which he said is a DONE DEAL and will happen next week

 

-Next 3-5 days could be the move of DeRosa

 

-Prospect from that could be added to a deal for Peavy

 

-Vizcaino may NOT stay with the Cubs: He could be moved again

 

-Derosa WILL leave

 

-Hendry is moving money around so we can make these deals happen

 

-BRADLEY DEAL IS DONE."

[17 Seconds]

SOmebody on another board said Levine said the deal "might be announced next week", which is pretty funny.

 

so it's a done deal

 

but we'll hear about it next week

 

maybe

 

sounds about right.

[sneakypower]

sweeeeet

[17 Seconds]

If they do sign Bradley it would be pretty stupid to trade DeRosa. The only reason I'd find signing Bradley acceptable would be because of the ability to put Fontenot in the lineup when he's injured

[UMFan83]

Sweet, but seriously keep DeRosa unless you have a decent backup.

 

Actually we might get some really good value for Dero. We all rip JH for not trading when their value is the highest, and if you can get some good prospects for him, thats a really high value for a 34 year old utility man.

[CUBZ99]

Wow. I listened to the entire Levine segment and totally missed him saying that Bradley was a done deal. I thought he said that the Peavy deal and the Bradley signing were likely to follow.

[17 Seconds]

Wow. I listened to the entire Levine segment and totally missed him saying that Bradley was a done deal. I thought he said that the Peavy deal and the Bradley signing were likely to follow.

 

Hmm. Will this be archived later or something? I want to hear it for myself

[RedFlash]

If they do sign Bradley it would be pretty stupid to trade DeRosa. The only reason I'd find signing Bradley acceptable would be because of the ability to put Fontenot in the lineup when he's injured

 

I can't disagree with you about keeping DeRosa, but one of the biggest complaints I've heard about Hendry is that he often sells low on players, ie Patterson, Sosa, Barrett. This might be a case of Hendry selling high on a player. I agree with you that keeping DeRosa and adding Bradley improves the Cubs offense and makes it deeper, but I can see why Hendry would trade DeRosa.

[17 Seconds]

If they do sign Bradley it would be pretty stupid to trade DeRosa. The only reason I'd find signing Bradley acceptable would be because of the ability to put Fontenot in the lineup when he's injured

 

I can't disagree with you about keeping DeRosa, but one of the biggest complaints I've heard about Hendry is that he often sells low on players, ie Patterson, Sosa, Barrett. This might be a case of Hendry selling high on a player. I agree with you that keeping DeRosa and adding Bradley improves the Cubs offense and makes it deeper, but I can see why Hendry would trade DeRosa.

 

I'd have no problem dealing DeRosa if he wasn't going to sign a guy who is pretty much a lock to miss half the season. If he wants to trade DeRosa then he shouldn't be looking at Bradley IMO

[Butterscup1679666578]

Hot damn.

[Post Count Padder]

Damn, finally.

[Derwood]

so does this finally mean that Lee will be dropped in the order, or is Bradley going to be slotted in at #2 or #5?