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

[17 Seconds]

if the Cubs traded DeRosa and Marquis and end up with neither Bradley or Peavy.....

 

The DeRo trade is terrible if we don't end up with Peavy.

 

i wouldn't call it terrible. i'd sall the miles contract terrible. the derosa trade is kinda "eh".

 

We were downgrading no matter who we signed once we traded DeRo. If you're not moving him to be able to vastly upgrade elsewhere, then trading him is a terrible decision.

 

Bradley is not a vast upgrade, Peavy is.

 

when healthy, bradley is a vast upgrade to fukudome.

[dew1679666265]

if the Cubs traded DeRosa and Marquis and end up with neither Bradley or Peavy.....

 

The DeRo trade is terrible if we don't end up with Peavy.

 

i wouldn't call it terrible. i'd sall the miles contract terrible. the derosa trade is kinda "eh".

 

We were downgrading no matter who we signed once we traded DeRo. If you're not moving him to be able to vastly upgrade elsewhere, then trading him is a terrible decision.

 

Bradley is not a vast upgrade, Peavy is.

 

when healthy, bradley is a vast upgrade to fukudome.

 

And he might - might - be healthy half the year. The rest of the time we have Gathright/Hoffpauir/Reed to look forward to. Those numbers have to be factored in to the right field situation.

[17 Seconds]

That's true, but I don't you think can call trading a 34 year .800 OPS 2B/utility player in te last year of his contract "terrible". I lvoe DeRosa and I agree that I don't like the trade if it doesn't lead to Peavy (and I doubt it does), but I wouldn't call it "terrible". We're selling high and getting a few halfway decent pitching prospects. Ultimately, an .800 OPS guy (albeit valuable because of flexibility) should not be the difference in whether or not we win the World Series next year. It's not like we traded a stud hitter with multiple years left on his deal. We dumped a good-but-not-great 34 year old with one year left on his deal.

[dew1679666265]

That's true, but I don't you think can call trading a 34 year .800 OPS 2B/utility player in te last year of his contract "terrible". I lvoe DeRosa and I agree that I don't like the trade if it doesn't lead to Peavy (and I doubt it does), but I wouldn't call it "terrible". We're selling high and getting a few halfway decent pitching prospects. Ultimately, an .800 OPS guy (albeit valuable because of flexibility) should not be the difference in whether or not we win the World Series next year. It's not like we traded a stud hitter with multiple years left on his deal. We dumped a good-but-not-great 34 year old with one year left on his deal.

 

For prospects who are more likely than not to flame out. When your intent is to win now (which is the assumption I'm working under), you don't trade a key part of your team for guys who may or may not help you out a few years from now. It's a great trade if we're rebuilding, but we're not.

 

Our stated goal is to win a championship this year. How does trading DeRosa for high risk prospects who may help 2-3 years from now help us achieve that goal?

[RedFlash]

when healthy, bradley is a vast upgrade to fukudome.

 

The thing is.....Milton Bradley isn't replacing Fukudome int he lineup, he's replacing Edmonds/Johnson in the lineup.

[cubsfan26]

For prospects who are more likely than not to flame out. When your intent is to win now (which is the assumption I'm working under), you don't trade a key part of your team for guys who may or may not help you out a few years from now. It's a great trade if we're rebuilding, but we're not.

 

Our stated goal is to win a championship this year. How does trading DeRosa for high risk prospects who may help 2-3 years from now help us achieve that goal?

 

 

For a guy like DeRosa you're probably gonna get a good to average prospect at best. Hendry decided to take a good relief prospect, and two low level guys with good arms and high upside. Instead a good or average prospect who might be in Double A or Triple A, but don't have high celing. In a year or two Gaub or Archer might be one of our better prospects like Ceda was. So to say these guys will flame out is a bit unfair. I understand what your saying about trying to win a championship, and trading good players away. But you gotta look at the big picture, of improving the team as a whole. The production gained from Bradley and possibly another good starter, is greater then the production lost from going with Fontenot/Miles over DeRosa.

 

 

The thing is.....Milton Bradley isn't replacing Fukudome int he lineup, he's replacing Edmonds/Johnson in the lineup.

 

Which will also be a nice upgrade when Bradley is healthy. I know the key word is if healthy, but from what I heard the Cubs have put Bradley through many test, and he's passed them all with flying colors. So the guy is currently 100 percent healthy, and had no major health issues last year. How long that will last who knows, but it's not a sure thing he will miss 70 games, just likely he will miss some.

[dew1679666265]

For prospects who are more likely than not to flame out. When your intent is to win now (which is the assumption I'm working under), you don't trade a key part of your team for guys who may or may not help you out a few years from now. It's a great trade if we're rebuilding, but we're not.

 

Our stated goal is to win a championship this year. How does trading DeRosa for high risk prospects who may help 2-3 years from now help us achieve that goal?

 

 

For a guy like DeRosa you're probably gonna get a good to average prospect at best. Hendry decided to take a good relief prospect, and two low level guys with good arms and high upside. Instead a good or average prospect who might be in Double A or Triple A, but don't have high celing. In a year or two Gaub or Archer might be one of our better prospects like Ceda was. So to say things guys are all more then likely to flame out is a bit unfair. I understand what your saying about taking to win a championship, and trading good players away. But you gotta look at the big picture, of improving the team as a whole. The production gained from Bradley and possibly another good starter, is greater then the production lost from going with Fontenot/Miles over DeRosa.

 

Again, when you look at Bradley's production you have to take it as only probably 80-90 games. The rest will be numbers produced by Gathright, Reed and Hoffpauir - that makes the upgrade much less than getting a guy who can stay healthy.

 

And the other starter is completely up in the air. Maybe we can afford a Peavy, Sheets, etc. when we get a new owner, but apparently we can't now. I'd have preferred to keep DeRosa until we knew we could get the improved starter.

 

The thing is.....Milton Bradley isn't replacing Fukudome int he lineup, he's replacing Edmonds/Johnson in the lineup.

 

Which will also be a nice upgrade when Bradley is healthy. I know the key word is if healthy, but from what I heard the Cubs have put Bradley through many test, and he's passed them all with flying colors. So the guy is currently 100 percent healthy, and had no major health issues last year. How long that will last who knows, but it's not a sure thing he will miss 70 games, just likely he will miss some.

 

He played in 117 games last year - mostly as a DH. The last time he played most of his games in the field (07) he played 61 games. He played 96 games in 06 and 75 games in 05.

 

It's a really good bet that he won't play 100 and more likely that we'll get half a season out of him.

[17 Seconds]

when healthy, bradley is a vast upgrade to fukudome.

 

The thing is.....Milton Bradley isn't replacing Fukudome int he lineup, he's replacing Edmonds/Johnson in the lineup.

 

we're not talking about guys from last year or last year's production. we're talking about right now and how are team would look going into spring training. edmonds is not part of the picture in 2009 either way. that's in the past. you'tre right though that he's not fully replacing fukudome since he'll still play a lot on center. really he's replacing some sort of fukudome/johnson/gathright/miles/hoffauir combination.

[dew1679666265]

when healthy, bradley is a vast upgrade to fukudome.

 

The thing is.....Milton Bradley isn't replacing Fukudome int he lineup, he's replacing Edmonds/Johnson in the lineup.

 

we're not talking about guys from last year or last year's production. we're talking about right now and how are team would look going into spring training. edmonds is not part of the picture in 2009 either way. that's in the past. you'tre right though that he's not fully replacing fukudome since he'll still play a lot on center. really he's replacing some sort of fukudome/johnson/gathright/miles/hoffauir combination.

 

And he's not even really replacing it. Just taking about half of those at bats.

[17 Seconds]

so he's replacing him for half the time

[dew1679666265]

so he's replacing him for half the time

 

Correct, though, without the DeRosa trade you could add him to the options (thus making that group look a good bit better).

 

Gathright/Reed/Hoffpauir are going to get plenty of RF ABs sadly.

[Monco]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

[dew1679666265]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

 

You would be right.

[17 Seconds]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

 

why are we thinking it's 3/30 now?

[Monco]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

 

why are we thinking it's 3/30 now?

 

Thats what i've seen mentioned. If not, what ?

[17 Seconds]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

 

why are we thinking it's 3/30 now?

 

Thats what i've seen mentioned. If not, what ?

 

The only place I've seen 3/30 mentioned was the chicagocubsonline.com post, and that was just the guy guessing. Everything I've seen has been more along the line of 2 years with maybe an option on a 3rd year

[cubsfan26]

Gathright/Reed/Hoffpauir are going to get plenty of RF ABs sadly.

 

 

Which I think the Cubs are actually ok with. I think they believe Hoffpauir can be productive in a limited role, facing mostly RH pitching. Then you have Reed Johnson who is very good against LH pitching. But that puts alot of faith in Fukudome being the first half Fukudome and not the second half guy. In all honestly there's not a huge difference from 06-07 DeRosa to Reed Johnson starting in the outfield if we have a injury. But you need to be able to get some offense from Fukudome then. I think the problem with this DeRosa stuff people are thinking he will be the 850s OPS 20 HR guy next year. But his power numbers were most likely a fluke thing and he will be a 790-800 OPS guy and 10-12 HR hitter. Having guys like Fontenot/Miles at 2b and Johnson/Hoffpauir filling in the outfield instead of 06-07 DeRosa isn't a major difference. Of course even 06-07 DeRosa is better, but not alot better then the depth we have. The depth on this team made DeRosa expandable in their eyes. I still don't think we can only count Milton Bradley for 80-90 games either, yes a full season is very unlikely. But 100-120 games isn't out of the question at all if the Cubs baby him right.

[dew1679666265]

Gathright/Reed/Hoffpauir are going to get plenty of RF ABs sadly.

 

 

Which I think the Cubs are actually ok with. I think they believe Hoffpauir can be productive in a limited role, facing mostly RH pitching. Then you have Reed Johnson who is very good against LH pitching. But that puts alot of faith in Fukudome being the first half Fukudome and not the second half guy. In all honestly there's not a huge difference from 06-07 DeRosa to Reed Johnson starting in the outfield if we have a injury. But you need to be able to get some offense from Fukudome then. I think the problem with this DeRosa stuff people are thinking he will be the 850s OPS 20 HR guy next year. But his power numbers were most likely a fluke thing and he will be a 790-800 OPS guy and 10-12 HR hitter. Having guys like Fontenot/Miles at 2b and Johnson/Hoffpauir filling in the outfield instead of 06-07 DeRosa isn't a major difference. Of course even 06-07 DeRosa is better, but not alot better then the depth we have. The depth on this team made DeRosa expandable in their eyes. I still don't think we can only count Milton Bradley for 80-90 games either, yes a full season is very unlikely. But 100-120 games isn't out of the question at all if the Cubs baby him right.

 

There's extremely little evidence to support this. It's possible, but unlikely.

 

And maybe, just maybe, those guys will give us the same numbers but it's a big gamble. We seem to be gambling a whole lot after winning 97 games last year.

[dew1679666265]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

 

why are we thinking it's 3/30 now?

 

Thats what i've seen mentioned. If not, what ?

 

The only place I've seen 3/30 mentioned was the chicagocubsonline.com post, and that was just the guy guessing. Everything I've seen has been more along the line of 2 years with maybe an option on a 3rd year

 

Your man Churchill seems to be under the assumption we're going three years.

 

Mike says, off the record, that he's 90% sure they land Milton Bradley, and bases that on conversations he had with some Tampa people. Doesn't sound like the Rays want to guarantee two years, let alone three.

 

The bolded makes it sound like the Rays would have to go three years guaranteed to match the Cubs offer. I could be reading it wrong and he may be implying incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing.

[cubsfan26]

In the past,many people have said the the reason the Cubs lose is because they won't spend money. I've argued with them that they were wrong. I've said the Cubs have spent the money,but have made poor decisions in how they spend it. 3/30 for a part time player.....

 

 

Because when Bradley has played the last two years, he's been very good and better then any other free agent outfielder. You could look at the injuries he had in 05-07, and the off the field issues he had before that caused him to miss games. But if you're doctors tested him out, and the guy is 100 percent healthy. It's hard not to want a hitter like him in your line-up. So if your doctors clear him and say he's healthy now, and he looks good. Thats pretty much the thing you have to go on, because it's not like other guys in the past had two or three years of poor health and then had a good run of health. Before 2005 Bradley health was pretty good, he just missed games due to off the field issues or didn't get playing time. I don't think the Cubs are giving Bradley this type of contract unless their getting very good reports from their doctors.

Edited January 1, 2009 by cubsfan26

[cubsfan26]

Gathright/Reed/Hoffpauir are going to get plenty of RF ABs sadly.

 

 

Which I think the Cubs are actually ok with. I think they believe Hoffpauir can be productive in a limited role, facing mostly RH pitching. Then you have Reed Johnson who is very good against LH pitching. But that puts alot of faith in Fukudome being the first half Fukudome and not the second half guy. In all honestly there's not a huge difference from 06-07 DeRosa to Reed Johnson starting in the outfield if we have a injury. But you need to be able to get some offense from Fukudome then. I think the problem with this DeRosa stuff people are thinking he will be the 850s OPS 20 HR guy next year. But his power numbers were most likely a fluke thing and he will be a 790-800 OPS guy and 10-12 HR hitter. Having guys like Fontenot/Miles at 2b and Johnson/Hoffpauir filling in the outfield instead of 06-07 DeRosa isn't a major difference. Of course even 06-07 DeRosa is better, but not alot better then the depth we have. The depth on this team made DeRosa expandable in their eyes. I still don't think we can only count Milton Bradley for 80-90 games either, yes a full season is very unlikely. But 100-120 games isn't out of the question at all if the Cubs baby him right.

 

There's extremely little evidence to support this. It's possible, but unlikely.

 

And maybe, just maybe, those guys will give us the same numbers but it's a big gamble. We seem to be gambling a whole lot after winning 97 games last year.

 

 

In the last five years he play over 120 games twice, and three years he didn't. Before 2005 he didn't have major injury issues, and was mostly not playing due to not being that good yet or off the field issues. So when the guys done it in his past, and is currently healthy I dunno how we can say book it he's playing 80-90 games next year. Nobody can predict injuries, they can just be cautious about a guys past, but if you're doctors say he's health passed all your work out test. Like Bradley reportly went though up in Arizona a few months back. You gotta think the guy is healthy right now, but you still gotta be cautious with him because of his past, and I think the Cubs will. Bradley probably won't be playing alot games when weather is bad, and Lou will give him a decent amount of days off I'm sure.

[dew1679666265]

Gathright/Reed/Hoffpauir are going to get plenty of RF ABs sadly.

 

 

Which I think the Cubs are actually ok with. I think they believe Hoffpauir can be productive in a limited role, facing mostly RH pitching. Then you have Reed Johnson who is very good against LH pitching. But that puts alot of faith in Fukudome being the first half Fukudome and not the second half guy. In all honestly there's not a huge difference from 06-07 DeRosa to Reed Johnson starting in the outfield if we have a injury. But you need to be able to get some offense from Fukudome then. I think the problem with this DeRosa stuff people are thinking he will be the 850s OPS 20 HR guy next year. But his power numbers were most likely a fluke thing and he will be a 790-800 OPS guy and 10-12 HR hitter. Having guys like Fontenot/Miles at 2b and Johnson/Hoffpauir filling in the outfield instead of 06-07 DeRosa isn't a major difference. Of course even 06-07 DeRosa is better, but not alot better then the depth we have. The depth on this team made DeRosa expandable in their eyes. I still don't think we can only count Milton Bradley for 80-90 games either, yes a full season is very unlikely. But 100-120 games isn't out of the question at all if the Cubs baby him right.

 

There's extremely little evidence to support this. It's possible, but unlikely.

 

And maybe, just maybe, those guys will give us the same numbers but it's a big gamble. We seem to be gambling a whole lot after winning 97 games last year.

 

 

In the last five years he play over 120 games twice, and three years he didn't. Before 2005 he didn't have major injury issues, and was mostly not playing due to not being that good yet or off the field issues. So when the guys done it in his past, and is currently healthy I dunno how we can say book it he's playing 80-90 games next year. Nobody can predict injuries, they can just be cautious about a guys past, but if you're doctors clear him in big tests. Like Bradley reportly went though up in Arizona a few months back. You gotta think the guy is healthy now, but you gotta be cautious with him because of his past, and I think the Cubs will. Bradley probably won't be playing games when its bad weather, and Lou will give him a decent amount of days off I'm sure.

 

I'm not saying book anything, I'm saying the most likely outcome is that Bradley will give us slightly more than half a season. One of the two years he's played more than 120 games he was DHing the vast majority of the time.

[17 Seconds]

Your man Churchill seems to be under the assumption we're going three years.

 

Mike says, off the record, that he's 90% sure they land Milton Bradley, and bases that on conversations he had with some Tampa people. Doesn't sound like the Rays want to guarantee two years, let alone three.

 

The bolded makes it sound like the Rays would have to go three years guaranteed to match the Cubs offer. I could be reading it wrong and he may be implying incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing.

 

I didn't catch that before. Hmm. Well hopefully if he's getting 3 guaranteed years then it will be less than 10 a year. Mayube 3/25 of somethingl ike that... hwich wouldn't be that awufl

[dew1679666265]

Your man Churchill seems to be under the assumption we're going three years.

 

Mike says, off the record, that he's 90% sure they land Milton Bradley, and bases that on conversations he had with some Tampa people. Doesn't sound like the Rays want to guarantee two years, let alone three.

 

The bolded makes it sound like the Rays would have to go three years guaranteed to match the Cubs offer. I could be reading it wrong and he may be implying incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing.

 

I didn't catch that before. Hmm. Well hopefully if he's getting 3 guaranteed years then it will be less than 10 a year. Mayube 3/25 of somethingl ike that... hwich wouldn't be that awufl

 

Been celebrating the new year again? :wink:

 

I do hope we give him less than 10 a year, but somehow I doubt it.

[waffle]

Is it really that bad a deal when you consider that MD was going to be moved, no matter what? That 2nd base was one of the only opportunities to slot in a lefty starter? That in the cubbies midset a middling lefty (any lefty) is > than the possibility of a productive MD? And based on our playoff performance, you can kinda see their logic?

 

I like the deal, but I don't claim to be able to see into the future....