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

[dew1679666265]

I was under the impression that Dunn was looking for a bigger deal than Bradley.

 

I didn't realize that Bradley was one of the offensive players in the AL last year.

 

1st in OBP

1st in OPS

3rd in BA

4th in SLG

 

IF he can stay healthy, there is no question he would be a great addition.

 

Dunn, from what I recall hearing, was looking for no more than $3-4 million more than Bradley. That's a definite issue, but instead of signing Aaron Miles for $2.5 million, use that to up the offer to Dunn. It could have been done.

 

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

[CUBZ99]

I was under the impression that Dunn was looking for a bigger deal than Bradley.

 

I didn't realize that Bradley was one of the offensive players in the AL last year.

 

1st in OBP

1st in OPS

3rd in BA

4th in SLG

 

IF he can stay healthy, there is no question he would be a great addition.

 

Dunn, from what I recall hearing, was looking for no more than $3-4 million more than Bradley. That's a definite issue, but instead of signing Aaron Miles for $2.5 million, use that to up the offer to Dunn. It could have been done.

 

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

 

Would Dunn have accepted a 3 year deal? I thought I heard 5 or 6. That is a long time to commit to someone, especially with all of the money the Cubs have on the books in the future.

[17 Seconds]

I highly dbout anyone gives DUnn 5-6 years. Even if it was, I think it'd be easier to commit 5-6 years to a guy who is always healthy and just entered his prime, than giving 3 years to a guy who is constantly hurt.

[dew1679666265]

I was under the impression that Dunn was looking for a bigger deal than Bradley.

 

I didn't realize that Bradley was one of the offensive players in the AL last year.

 

1st in OBP

1st in OPS

3rd in BA

4th in SLG

 

IF he can stay healthy, there is no question he would be a great addition.

 

Dunn, from what I recall hearing, was looking for no more than $3-4 million more than Bradley. That's a definite issue, but instead of signing Aaron Miles for $2.5 million, use that to up the offer to Dunn. It could have been done.

 

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

 

Would Dunn have accepted a 3 year deal? I thought I heard 5 or 6. That is a long time to commit to someone, especially with all of the money the Cubs have on the books in the future.

 

Dexter's right on here. If he's asking for 5-6 years (which I honestly don't recall hearing), he won't get it. He's barely being pursued as is.

 

Plus, 5 years guaranteed to him is better than 3 years guaranteed to Bradley because we know Dunn will be productive most, if not all, of his contract. We might get a year and a half of production out of 3 years of Bradley.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Maybe Hendry just feels that with the addition of Bradley, The Cubs are hands down the best team in the division, especially with the lack of movement from the Cards and Brewers, and when the time comes, and the trade deadline approaches, he'll get what he needs for cheaper.

 

Players don't come cheaper at the deadline, they get more expensive because of higher demand.

 

Need will be greater and more teams will be willing to take a chance on players - thus we'll have to pay more.

 

While you may or may not end up paying more, by the time that time rolls around, there may be players available that were not in the offseason, and especially if your going for a rent a player whose about to be a free agent, a team thats all but out of the post season picture may want to unload him for some prospects.

 

But why pass up good options like Adam Dunn and Jeremy Hermida for a hypothetical player that might become available around the trade deadline and might be cheaper than the current options?

 

If there's a chance to improve the team now (which there is) you don't make it worse with the thought that you can improve it later. You make it better now and then further improve if the opportunity is there and you can take advantage of it.

:confused:

 

I see what he's saying now. Sorry West Side Rooter, I misread it the first time.

 

I still say trading away DeRosa for iffy prospects and Marquis for crap in order to acquire a player who will only play 85-90 games for you is not an improvement. Thus, there's no reason to make the move unless you feel very confident you can make another move very, very soon (before the season).

 

I think it was all about money. Lou was putting pressure on JH to land him a lefty one way or another. The only way to afford a quality player was to move some salary, and aside from Marquis, DeRosa was the easiest to move, with the most amount of potential trade partners. It is my honest opinion that the rushing into the Dempster contract screwed a lot of things up. Even if someone else would have gobbled him up, Lowe would still be on the market, as well as several plan Bs, such as Oliver Perez, Jon Garland, and Ben Sheets if we were feeling lucky, which may not have mattered, as we may have already had Peavy by now.

[dew1679666265]

I think it was all about money. Lou was putting pressure on JH to land him a lefty one way or another. The only way to afford a quality player was to move some salary, and aside from Marquis, DeRosa was the easiest to move, with the most amount of potential trade partners. It is my honest opinion that the rushing into the Dempster contract screwed a lot of things up. Even if someone else would have gobbled him up, Lowe would still be on the market, as well as several plan Bs, such as Oliver Perez, Jon Garland, and Ben Sheets if we were feeling lucky, which may not have mattered, as we may have already had Peavy by now.

 

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B.

 

Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production.

 

Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I think it was all about money. Lou was putting pressure on JH to land him a lefty one way or another. The only way to afford a quality player was to move some salary, and aside from Marquis, DeRosa was the easiest to move, with the most amount of potential trade partners. It is my honest opinion that the rushing into the Dempster contract screwed a lot of things up. Even if someone else would have gobbled him up, Lowe would still be on the market, as well as several plan Bs, such as Oliver Perez, Jon Garland, and Ben Sheets if we were feeling lucky, which may not have mattered, as we may have already had Peavy by now.

 

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B.

 

Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production.

 

Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done.

 

The Marlins already made it clear that an offer for Hermida would have to blow them away, and MacPhail reportedy loves Scott, and we've already learned how fun it is to deal with him, especially over a player he loves.

 

While I do like Bradley, I wouldnt have minded going after DeJesus from KC, they were trying to pawn off Teahen on us, and he wouldnt be an upgrade over anyone.

[mcgoobs]

I didn't realize that Bradley was one of the offensive players in the AL last year.

 

1st in OBP

1st in OPS

3rd in BA

4th in SLG

 

IF he can stay healthy, there is no question he would be a great addition.

 

He greatly enjoyed hitting in Arlington.

 

Home: .358/.466/.679/1.145

Away: .290/.410/.462/.872

[Little Slide Rooter]

I didn't realize that Bradley was one of the offensive players in the AL last year.

 

1st in OBP

1st in OPS

3rd in BA

4th in SLG

 

IF he can stay healthy, there is no question he would be a great addition.

 

He greatly enjoyed hitting in Arlington.

 

Home: .358/.466/.679/1.145

Away: .290/.410/.462/.872

 

While his home stats were pretty amazing, his away stats were damn good too.

[dew1679666265]

I think it was all about money. Lou was putting pressure on JH to land him a lefty one way or another. The only way to afford a quality player was to move some salary, and aside from Marquis, DeRosa was the easiest to move, with the most amount of potential trade partners. It is my honest opinion that the rushing into the Dempster contract screwed a lot of things up. Even if someone else would have gobbled him up, Lowe would still be on the market, as well as several plan Bs, such as Oliver Perez, Jon Garland, and Ben Sheets if we were feeling lucky, which may not have mattered, as we may have already had Peavy by now.

 

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B.

 

Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production.

 

Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done.

 

The Marlins already made it clear that an offer for Hermida would have to blow them away, and MacPhail reportedy loves Scott, and we've already learned how fun it is to deal with him, especially over a player he loves.

 

While I do like Bradley, I wouldnt have minded going after DeJesus from KC, they were trying to pawn off Teahen on us, and he wouldnt be an upgrade over anyone.

 

He'd have been much better than Aaron Miles. :D

 

Honestly, I'd have preferred to blow the Marlins away for Hermida than trade DeRosa for decent prospects (at best) and sign a humongous injury risk.

 

Scott would be at the bottom of the list of what I'd like to see Hendry do, with trading DeRosa and acquiring Dunn likely at the top.

 

The DeRosa/Dunn moves or the Hermida trade should be the direction Hendry went. Instead, he went the worst way he could have.

[cubswin2009]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-03-cubs-demspterjan03,0,6084825.story

[Illini Iceman]

I think it was all about money. Lou was putting pressure on JH to land him a lefty one way or another. The only way to afford a quality player was to move some salary, and aside from Marquis, DeRosa was the easiest to move, with the most amount of potential trade partners. It is my honest opinion that the rushing into the Dempster contract screwed a lot of things up. Even if someone else would have gobbled him up, Lowe would still be on the market, as well as several plan Bs, such as Oliver Perez, Jon Garland, and Ben Sheets if we were feeling lucky, which may not have mattered, as we may have already had Peavy by now.

 

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B.

 

Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production.

 

Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done.

 

The Marlins already made it clear that an offer for Hermida would have to blow them away, and MacPhail reportedy loves Scott, and we've already learned how fun it is to deal with him, especially over a player he loves.

 

While I do like Bradley, I wouldnt have minded going after DeJesus from KC, they were trying to pawn off Teahen on us, and he wouldnt be an upgrade over anyone.

 

He'd have been much better than Aaron Miles. :D

 

Honestly, I'd have preferred to blow the Marlins away for Hermida than trade DeRosa for decent prospects (at best) and sign a humongous injury risk.

 

Scott would be at the bottom of the list of what I'd like to see Hendry do, with trading DeRosa and acquiring Dunn likely at the top.

 

The DeRosa/Dunn moves or the Hermida trade should be the direction Hendry went. Instead, he went the worst way he could have.

 

If you love Hermidia so much you must also really like Fukudome since they pretty much were the same player last year except Fukudome being a bit better getting on base and Hermidia having slightly more power. I would like to see Hermidia actually come close to matching his 2007 production before considering "blowing away" the Marlins with an offer.

[BCVM22]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-03-cubs-demspterjan03,0,6084825.story

 

In town to attend the Winter Classic, Dempster planned to skate on the ice surface at Wrigley Field on Friday. While he enjoyed the New Year's Day game and liked the look of the ballpark, he said he doesn't believe Cubs fans will ever accept the idea of a Jumbotron in Wrigley.

 

"And if we get a Jumbotron, I can't pull the instant replay thing on all the rookies," he said. "Every time there's a good play, we're like, 'Oh, look at the replay,' and you get the rookies to look at the scoreboard. It's a pretty neat little thing, but I kind of like the nostalgia of Wrigley."

 

Demp :-))

[17 Seconds]

I think it was all about money. Lou was putting pressure on JH to land him a lefty one way or another. The only way to afford a quality player was to move some salary, and aside from Marquis, DeRosa was the easiest to move, with the most amount of potential trade partners. It is my honest opinion that the rushing into the Dempster contract screwed a lot of things up. Even if someone else would have gobbled him up, Lowe would still be on the market, as well as several plan Bs, such as Oliver Perez, Jon Garland, and Ben Sheets if we were feeling lucky, which may not have mattered, as we may have already had Peavy by now.

 

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B.

 

Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production.

 

Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done.

 

The Marlins already made it clear that an offer for Hermida would have to blow them away, and MacPhail reportedy loves Scott, and we've already learned how fun it is to deal with him, especially over a player he loves.

 

While I do like Bradley, I wouldnt have minded going after DeJesus from KC, they were trying to pawn off Teahen on us, and he wouldnt be an upgrade over anyone.

 

He'd have been much better than Aaron Miles. :D

 

Honestly, I'd have preferred to blow the Marlins away for Hermida than trade DeRosa for decent prospects (at best) and sign a humongous injury risk.

 

Scott would be at the bottom of the list of what I'd like to see Hendry do, with trading DeRosa and acquiring Dunn likely at the top.

 

The DeRosa/Dunn moves or the Hermida trade should be the direction Hendry went. Instead, he went the worst way he could have.

 

If you love Hermidia so much you must also really like Fukudome since they pretty much were the same player last year except Fukudome being a bit better getting on base and Hermidia having slightly more power. I would like to see Hermidia actually come close to matching his 2007 production before considering "blowing away" the Marlins with an offer.

 

Inplying that 2 guys are the same just because they put up similar numbers last season is pretty ridiculous. HERMIDA and Fukudome are in 2 completely different situations in pretty much every aspect.

[cubsfan26]

I personally would love to add Hermida, but I don't see the Marlins trading him to us unless Vitters is included. Which I feel is too much of a risk for Hermida right now. No thanks to Scott though, he's a platoon player and not a impact bat like Bradley.

[17 Seconds]

Well to be fair, Scott and Bradley both have an almost identical career OPS+

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Well to be fair, Scott and Bradley both have an almost identical career OPS+

 

Mostly because Scott has been protected from left handed pitching. He's faced around a 4:1 ratio of RHP to LHP in his career, Bradley is a little less than 2.5:1.

[17 Seconds]

Well to be fair, Scott and Bradley both have an almost identical career OPS+

 

Mostly because Scott has been protected from left handed pitching. He's faced around a 4:1 ratio of RHP to LHP in his career, Bradley is a little less than 2.5:1.

 

I meant to mention that. My point stands though. I think Bradley is a better hitter, but I don't think you can call one a platoon partner and the other an "impact bat". To me that implies that they're far apart, and I'm not sure they are.

 

Plus it's also better that Bradley has faced RHP less, as he does not hit them well. He rakes against lefties and is not so good against RHP

[cubsfan26]

Well to be fair, Scott and Bradley both have an almost identical career OPS+

 

Mostly because Scott has been protected from left handed pitching. He's faced around a 4:1 ratio of RHP to LHP in his career, Bradley is a little less than 2.5:1.

 

I meant to mention that. My point stands though. I think Bradley is a better hitter, but I don't think you can call one a platoon partner and the other an "impact bat". To me that implies that they're far apart, and I'm not sure they are.

 

Plus it's also better that Bradley has faced RHP less, as he does not hit them well. He rakes against lefties and is not so good against RHP

 

 

Also keep in mind that Bradley numbers are held back due to all the pitcher parks he's played in. Look at his splits from 04-06, and there's a huge difference in his OPS. Plus Scotts career numbers are kinda due to small sample size. He's the same age as Bradley but only played in two and half seasons. His numbers also appear to have gotten worse every seasons.

[haltz]

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

Counting stats or rate? Since 2002, they've both amassed a little over 20 WAR.

[17 Seconds]

Well to be fair, Scott and Bradley both have an almost identical career OPS+

 

Mostly because Scott has been protected from left handed pitching. He's faced around a 4:1 ratio of RHP to LHP in his career, Bradley is a little less than 2.5:1.

 

I meant to mention that. My point stands though. I think Bradley is a better hitter, but I don't think you can call one a platoon partner and the other an "impact bat". To me that implies that they're far apart, and I'm not sure they are.

 

Plus it's also better that Bradley has faced RHP less, as he does not hit them well. He rakes against lefties and is not so good against RHP

 

 

Also keep in mind that Bradley numbers are held back due to all the pitcher parks he's played in. Look at his splits from 04-06, and there's a huge difference in his OPS. Plus Scotts career numbers are kinda due to small sample size. He's the same age as Bradley but only played in two and half seasons. His numbers also appear to have gotten worse every seasons.

 

Well I specifically used OPS+ because it accounts for parks.

[dew1679666265]

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

Counting stats or rate? Since 2002, they've both amassed a little over 20 WAR.

 

I'll be honest and admit I don't know what WAR is. Is it Wins Over Replacement perhaps?

 

And I was wrong on the similar stats comment anyway. Bradley will be better, but are his stats so much better that he'll be worth Dunn even though he'll likely only play 85-90 games and the rest we'll be stuck with Gathright/Hoff/Reed?

 

I tend to doubt that.

[haltz]

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

Counting stats or rate? Since 2002, they've both amassed a little over 20 WAR.

 

I'll be honest and admit I don't know what WAR is. Is it Wins Over Replacement perhaps?

 

And I was wrong on the similar stats comment anyway. Bradley will be better, but are his stats so much better that he'll be worth Dunn even though he'll likely only play 85-90 games and the rest we'll be stuck with Gathright/Hoff/Reed?

 

I tend to doubt that.

Yeah, from fangraphs "Value Wins".

 

Historically yes, that's exactly how valuable he's been. I think it's a stretch to say he'll still be a real plus defender after the last couple of years and general aging, but he was legitimately talented there and is going to be solidly better than Dunn regardless. That's more or less a scouting/medical call and I have no idea. I know I'd prefer Bradley just based on his upside.

[dew1679666265]

And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

Counting stats or rate? Since 2002, they've both amassed a little over 20 WAR.

 

I'll be honest and admit I don't know what WAR is. Is it Wins Over Replacement perhaps?

 

And I was wrong on the similar stats comment anyway. Bradley will be better, but are his stats so much better that he'll be worth Dunn even though he'll likely only play 85-90 games and the rest we'll be stuck with Gathright/Hoff/Reed?

 

I tend to doubt that.

Yeah, from fangraphs "Value Wins".

 

Thanks. I hadn't heard the WAR term before.

 

Historically yes, that's exactly how valuable he's been. I think it's a stretch to say he'll still be a real plus defender after the last couple of years and general aging, but he was legitimately talented there and is going to be solidly better than Dunn regardless. That's more or less a scouting/medical call and I have no idea. I know I'd prefer Bradley just based on his upside.

 

Even accounting for the many, many at bats Gathright/Hoff/Reed will get?

[haltz]

Those guys aren't below replacement, so yep.