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

[jersey cubs fan]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series.

 

Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious.

 

I don't think the bolded is what will happen, but we shall see.

 

Anyway, I agree with your point entirely. Hell, you could probably argue that the Cubs chances of winning the central going into 2009 are better than they were going into 2008. At this point, they're decreased from what they would have been had we not made these moves, I guess, but I think that's a pointless argument to make when there are still more moves to be made. It matters now, but it probably won't mean a whole hell of a lot come April. Or even next week.

 

I think it's pointless to assume other good moves will be made to make this team better. The only thing we know is what the team looks like today, and it looks worse than it was last year.

[David]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series.

 

Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious.

 

I don't think the bolded is what will happen, but we shall see.

 

Anyway, I agree with your point entirely. Hell, you could probably argue that the Cubs chances of winning the central going into 2009 are better than they were going into 2008. At this point, they're decreased from what they would have been had we not made these moves, I guess, but I think that's a pointless argument to make when there are still more moves to be made. It matters now, but it probably won't mean a whole hell of a lot come April. Or even next week.

 

I think it's pointless to assume other good moves will be made to make this team better. The only thing we know is what the team looks like today, and it looks worse than it was last year.

 

I'll grant you that, but there's no reason not to take into consideration the fact that there are reports/rumors (well, to varying degrees, I guess) of other dominoes to fall. It's not an assumption. It's taking things into account that, apparently, have a fairly significant chance of happening between now and opening day.

[ConstableRabbit]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series.

 

Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious.

 

I don't think the bolded is what will happen, but we shall see.

 

Anyway, I agree with your point entirely. Hell, you could probably argue that the Cubs chances of winning the central going into 2009 are better than they were going into 2008. At this point, they're decreased from what they would have been had we not made these moves, I guess, but I think that's a pointless argument to make when there are still more moves to be made. It matters now, but it probably won't mean a whole hell of a lot come April. Or even next week.

 

I think it's pointless to assume other good moves will be made to make this team better. The only thing we know is what the team looks like today, and it looks worse than it was last year.

You really need to look at the offseason as a process. Of course the team is worse off at this particular juncture (the extent to which it is is of course debatable), but I don't think Hendry would downgrade if it meant he didn't have other plans.

 

He's not as stupid as you think. There is still a lot of time left to make moves and I think looking at it day-by-day isn't the best strategy. A better idea would be to wait until Spring Training to pass judgment.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'll grant you that, but there's no reason not to take into consideration the fact that there are reports/rumors (well, to varying degrees, I guess) of other dominoes to fall. It's not an assumption. It's taking things into account that, apparently, have a fairly significant chance of happening between now and opening day.

 

We see similar reports every year. I see no reason to assume they will happen before they do happen.

 

The Cubs are worse right now than they were last year.

[Warren Brusstar]

I'll grant you that, but there's no reason not to take into consideration the fact that there are reports/rumors (well, to varying degrees, I guess) of other dominoes to fall. It's not an assumption. It's taking things into account that, apparently, have a fairly significant chance of happening between now and opening day.

 

We see similar reports every year. I see no reason to assume they will happen before they do happen.

 

The Cubs are worse right now than they were last year.

 

No one contends otherwise (at least in this thread). Thankfully, they're not scheduled to play anyone today. Or tomorrow. Or the next day.

[Skyballer]

Umm when is this going to be officially announced?

[cubsfan26]

Umm when is this going to be officially announced?

 

 

Probably a day or two after the Marquis trade is offical. Marquis is reportly out of the country until next week, so thats whats holding up that trade.

[PrimeTime]

Umm when is this going to be officially announced?

 

 

Probably a day or two after the Marquis trade is offical. Marquis is reportly out of the country until next week, so thats whats holding up that trade.

 

Even when he not on the mound sucking, he finds a way to piss me off..Get back here,Jason so we can get rid of you and continue our offseason.

[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.

[mcgoobs]

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.

 

So there's a 15% chance Edmonds comes back again?

[PrimeTime]

MLBTR

 

Chico Harlan of the Washington Post believes the Cubs will win the sweepstakes for free agent outfielder Milton Bradley.

 

The Nationals made it known earlier this week that they also have serious interest in signing Bradley. But Harlan spoke to a source in Chicago who "thinks it's just a matter of time before Bradley puts on the C-- especially because Chicago just dumped some salaries to clear space for the 30-year-old free agent." Bradley is thought to be looking for a three-year, $30MM contract. The Cubs have cleared around $8MM from their '09 payroll, so they should have no problem reaching his demands.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2009/01/a_last-minute_run.html?wprss=nationalsjournal

[imb]

the cubs have won the "80 games of 115 ops+" sweepstakes

 

sweet

[dew1679666265]

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.

[dew1679666265]

MLBTR

 

Chico Harlan of the Washington Post believes the Cubs will win the sweepstakes for free agent outfielder Milton Bradley.

 

The Nationals made it known earlier this week that they also have serious interest in signing Bradley. But Harlan spoke to a source in Chicago who "thinks it's just a matter of time before Bradley puts on the C-- especially because Chicago just dumped some salaries to clear space for the 30-year-old free agent." Bradley is thought to be looking for a three-year, $30MM contract. The Cubs have cleared around $8MM from their '09 payroll, so they should have no problem reaching his demands.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2009/01/a_last-minute_run.html?wprss=nationalsjournal

 

Yay. :x

[dew1679666265]

the cubs have won the "80 games of 115 ops+" sweepstakes

 

sweet

 

And that's apparently better than winning the "152 games of 130 ops+" sweepstakes.

[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.

[dew1679666265]

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.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

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:

[dew1679666265]

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).

[craig]

I'm not all that upset about Hendry's moves. I think they've been logical, given the following four premises (none of which is necessarily true, but it's my hypothetical logic train:)

 

1. Cubs will sign Bradley

2. Cubs are budget tight, and could not have signed Bradley while keeping DeRo

3. Cubs already knew they were going to be facing budget wall during midseason when they acquired Harden. Picking up Harden was essentially borrowing from moneys otherwise spent this winter.

 

From those premises, the choice was to go for it with Harden while 2008 seemed like a prime chance to win it all. But if we count Harden as kind of counting on this winter's team-building, and if I assume Bradley will be signed, then the change of faces might look like:

 

DeRosa-Wood-Murton-Ceda-Murton/Gallagher/Patterson out

Harden-Bradley-Gregg-Miles-Vizcaino-Stevens/Gaub/Archer in

 

Overall I wouldn't criticize that overall exchange of outs and ins. The "ins" all have risk, Harden and Bradley especially durability-wise. But if you'd asked me on June 1 whether I'd rather have the top group on the roster come Jan 10, or the bottom group, I'm pretty sure I'd have chosen the bottom group.

 

Getting Harden came with a cost. It really pinched the winter budget, big-time, and I think in large part you can see the DeRosa/Wood/Marquis money-driven moves rooted in the Harden pickup.

[CUBZ99]

How would one rate Bradley's durability? Is he Rondell White-esque?

[dew1679666265]

I'm not all that upset about Hendry's moves. I think they've been logical, given the following four premises (none of which is necessarily true, but it's my hypothetical logic train:)

 

1. Cubs will sign Bradley

2. Cubs are budget tight, and could not have signed Bradley while keeping DeRo

3. Cubs already knew they were going to be facing budget wall during midseason when they acquired Harden. Picking up Harden was essentially borrowing from moneys otherwise spent this winter.

 

From those premises, the choice was to go for it with Harden while 2008 seemed like a prime chance to win it all. But if we count Harden as kind of counting on this winter's team-building, and if I assume Bradley will be signed, then the change of faces might look like:

 

DeRosa-Wood-Murton-Ceda-Murton/Gallagher/Patterson out

Harden-Bradley-Gregg-Miles-Vizcaino-Stevens/Gaub/Archer in

 

Overall I wouldn't criticize that overall exchange of outs and ins. The "ins" all have risk, Harden and Bradley especially durability-wise. But if you'd asked me on June 1 whether I'd rather have the top group on the roster come Jan 10, or the bottom group, I'm pretty sure I'd have chosen the bottom group.

 

Getting Harden came with a cost. It really pinched the winter budget, big-time, and I think in large part you can see the DeRosa/Wood/Marquis money-driven moves rooted in the Harden pickup.

 

But why did Hendry have to go with an overpaid RF? If he had no other choice and was forced into it, then I could understand. But there were other options.

 

There was Adam Dunn. Still would have necessitated the DeRosa trade, but having as good or better a player in Dunn (compared to Bradley) who can also stay healthy makes that trade look a whole lot better.

 

There was also Jeremy Hermida. Yes, we would have paid a dear price in young talent, but we're trying to win now, we could have kept DeRosa and we'd have a cheap, young budding star in RF instead of a $10 million health risk. If the payroll crunch is that bad and we have to improve in RF (which I think we did) then the cheaper player in terms of money, but more expensive in prospects would seem the most logical choice.

 

There were numerous other options that would not have necessitated forcing a bad deal just to dump DeRosa and Marquis' salaries - and in place add Aaron Miles.

 

Signing Bradley was not the only option and Hendry was not forced into it. If he made up his mind that Bradley was the only player he'd target, then that's not logical and it shows a flaw in him.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

How would one rate Bradley's durability? Is he Rondell White-esque?

 

[-(

[dew1679666265]

How would one rate Bradley's durability? Is he Rondell White-esque?

 

He's played more than 100 games three times in his career - and one of those he played the vast majority of his games as a DH. The most games he's ever played in one season is 141, then 126 (DH year) and 101.

 

He hasn't played 100 games in the field since 2004, when he played 138 games out there. As a point of reference, Rondell White played six seasons of 100+ games. The most he was a DH in a season was 53 times.

 

Rondell White was a much, much better bet to be healthy than Milton Bradley.

[CUBZ99]

I'm not all that upset about Hendry's moves. I think they've been logical, given the following four premises (none of which is necessarily true, but it's my hypothetical logic train:)

 

1. Cubs will sign Bradley

2. Cubs are budget tight, and could not have signed Bradley while keeping DeRo

3. Cubs already knew they were going to be facing budget wall during midseason when they acquired Harden. Picking up Harden was essentially borrowing from moneys otherwise spent this winter.

 

From those premises, the choice was to go for it with Harden while 2008 seemed like a prime chance to win it all. But if we count Harden as kind of counting on this winter's team-building, and if I assume Bradley will be signed, then the change of faces might look like:

 

DeRosa-Wood-Murton-Ceda-Murton/Gallagher/Patterson out

Harden-Bradley-Gregg-Miles-Vizcaino-Stevens/Gaub/Archer in

 

Overall I wouldn't criticize that overall exchange of outs and ins. The "ins" all have risk, Harden and Bradley especially durability-wise. But if you'd asked me on June 1 whether I'd rather have the top group on the roster come Jan 10, or the bottom group, I'm pretty sure I'd have chosen the bottom group.

 

Getting Harden came with a cost. It really pinched the winter budget, big-time, and I think in large part you can see the DeRosa/Wood/Marquis money-driven moves rooted in the Harden pickup.

 

But why did Hendry have to go with an overpaid RF? If he had no other choice and was forced into it, then I could understand. But there were other options.

 

There was Adam Dunn. Still would have necessitated the DeRosa trade, but having as good or better a player in Dunn (compared to Bradley) who can also stay healthy makes that trade look a whole lot better.

 

There was also Jeremy Hermida. Yes, we would have paid a dear price in young talent, but we're trying to win now, we could have kept DeRosa and we'd have a cheap, young budding star in RF instead of a $10 million health risk. If the payroll crunch is that bad and we have to improve in RF (which I think we did) then the cheaper player in terms of money, but more expensive in prospects would seem the most logical choice.

 

There were numerous other options that would not have necessitated forcing a bad deal just to dump DeRosa and Marquis' salaries - and in place add Aaron Miles.

 

Signing Bradley was not the only option and Hendry was not forced into it. If he made up his mind that Bradley was the only player he'd target, then that's not logical and it shows a flaw in him.

 

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.