Adam Dunn to the Nationals per XM 175...

[badnews]

Dukes and Milledge plz

 

yes, plz, let's get Elijah Dukes, Lastings Milledge and Milton Bradley in the same clubhouse.

Dukes & Milledge were in the same clubhouse last year and they didn't go on any gang banging rampages.

 

Dukes has HOF talent. its worth the gamble.

 

That's over the top.

[JeffH]

Maybe we could trade one of our 3 dozen middle infielders for one of their 3 dozen outfielders.

 

Who are these many middle infielders of whom you speak?

[Garwilly]

Maybe we could trade one of our 3 dozen middle infielders for one of their 3 dozen outfielders.

 

Who are these many middle infielders of whom you speak?

 

Walker, Rnez, Perez, Bellhorn, Macias and DeRosa of course.

[Tracer Bullet]

Maybe we could trade one of our 3 dozen middle infielders for one of their 3 dozen outfielders.

 

I think you have an extra "dozen" in there.

[Tyrant]

Dukes and Milledge plz

 

yes, plz, let's get Elijah Dukes, Lastings Milledge and Milton Bradley in the same clubhouse.

Dukes & Milledge were in the same clubhouse last year and they didn't go on any gang banging rampages.

 

Dukes has HOF talent. its worth the gamble.

 

He told his wife (on multiple occasions) that he was going to murder her.

[sneakypower]

well, then your problem is having him in any clubhouse.

 

That's over the top.

in what way?

[SouthSideRyan]

Dukes and Milledge plz

 

yes, plz, let's get Elijah Dukes, Lastings Milledge and Milton Bradley in the same clubhouse.

 

What exactly has Lastings Milledge done to deserve being lumped in with those 2? Pissed off the old white guys in the Mets locker room?

[Gingerballs Lives]

So the Nats get Dunn for 2/20 yet Hendry signed Bradley for 3/30.

 

Does this look wrong to anybody else?

 

I know Hendry had dinner with Bradley and "looked into his eyes" and all, but he surely could have got Bradley cheaper than that if he had waited.

 

Good thing he dumped those high salary losers Wood and DeRosa.

[fromthestretch]

So the Nats get Dunn for 2/20 yet Hendry signed Bradley for 3/30.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that third year is guaranteed for Bradley at this point.

[CubColtPacer]

So the Nats get Dunn for 2/20 yet Hendry signed Bradley for 3/30.

 

Does this look wrong to anybody else?

 

I know Hendry had dinner with Bradley and "looked into his eyes" and all, but he surely could have got Bradley cheaper than that if he had waited.

 

Good thing he dumped those high salary losers Wood and DeRosa.

 

Bradley was wanted by another team while Dunn wasn't. That makes a huge difference in salary expectations.

 

If Hendry had waited on Bradley, he would have lost him to the Rays. There of course is certainly a debate on whether waiting for the players who very few teams wanted (in this case Abreu and Dunn, and would have been Burrell as well if Bradley had been signed by TB) would have been a better approach by Hendry, but to sign Bradley he almost certainly had to do what he did.

[The Other 15]

So the Nats get Dunn for 2/20 yet Hendry signed Bradley for 3/30.

 

Does this look wrong to anybody else?

 

I know Hendry had dinner with Bradley and "looked into his eyes" and all, but he surely could have got Bradley cheaper than that if he had waited.

 

Good thing he dumped those high salary losers Wood and DeRosa.

I know it's mostly the function of this site to bitch for the sakes of bitching but at least have the common courtesy to look up facts before said bitching.

 

The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue.

 

Additionally, nothing seems wrong to you with a outfield of Soriano, Johnson/Fuku, and Dunn? Nice, force the offense to win more 9-8 games than they already have to.

 

Now, without further ado, let's wait for Griffey to sign with the Mariners for another round of really pointless complaining about Miles, Bradley, Gregg or whoever.

[The Other 15]

So the Nats get Dunn for 2/20 yet Hendry signed Bradley for 3/30.

 

Does this look wrong to anybody else?

 

I know Hendry had dinner with Bradley and "looked into his eyes" and all, but he surely could have got Bradley cheaper than that if he had waited.

 

Good thing he dumped those high salary losers Wood and DeRosa.

I know it's mostly the function of this site to bitch for the sakes of bitching but at least have the common courtesy to look up facts before said bitching.

 

The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue.

 

Additionally, nothing seems wrong to you with a outfield of Soriano, Johnson/Fuku, and Dunn? Nice, force the offense to win more 9-8 games than they already have to.

 

Does every damn player, that overvalued their worth early in the FA process, and forces teams to look elsewhere, then signs a bailout "please pay me anything deal" much later, has to be construed as Hendry not doing his job?

 

Relax, it was a rhetorical question to which I know the answer. Now, without further ado, let's wait for Griffey to sign with the Mariners for another round of really pointless complaining about Miles, Bradley, Gregg or whoever.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue.

 

All I've read is that Bradley's option is tied to his health, and that he could still miss a significant amount of time(i.e. nothing about 2010 impacts the 2011 option) and still vest his 2011 money.

[17 Seconds]

I read that he only has to spend less than 75 days on the DL in 2009 to guarantee the entire 30. I have no idea if that's true since I never saw it anywhere else, but if it's true that means he can go down with a season ending injury in July and still get the entire 30 million.

[The Other 15]

The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue.

 

All I've read is that Bradley's option is tied to his health, and that he could still miss a significant amount of time(i.e. nothing about 2010 impacts the 2011 option) and still vest his 2011 money.

I think it's Cubs option if he plays less than 250 games in the first two years. I'll try to find the exact number. But seriously, aren't these constant complaints about every late signings pat the point of ridiculous already?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue.

 

All I've read is that Bradley's option is tied to his health, and that he could still miss a significant amount of time(i.e. nothing about 2010 impacts the 2011 option) and still vest his 2011 money.

I think it's Cubs option if he plays less than 250 games in the first two years. I'll try to find the exact number. But seriously, aren't these constant complaints about every late signings pat the point of ridiculous already?

 

250 games over '09-'10 sounds a lot better than what I heard, which is what Dexter said. If you can find a link that'd be a great help.

 

And like it or not, there is a logic to being upset with Hendry for not holding out a little bit until the market was less saturated to see if a better deal could be had(especially with the payroll restrictions he had). Personally I wouldn't be comfortable waiting until a week before ST to do something as major as get my starting RF in order, but if others are they have a right to think Hendry should have done so.

[17 Seconds]

The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue.

 

All I've read is that Bradley's option is tied to his health, and that he could still miss a significant amount of time(i.e. nothing about 2010 impacts the 2011 option) and still vest his 2011 money.

I think it's Cubs option if he plays less than 250 games in the first two years. I'll try to find the exact number. But seriously, aren't these constant complaints about every late signings pat the point of ridiculous already?

 

Oh well. Just ignore it I guess. This stuff usually happens late in the offseason when there is nothing to talk about.

 

Oh, and where did you see the 250 games thing? I haven't heard anything about that.

[cubbinalltheway]

i too would be interested to know the exact details of the vesting 2011 option, if anyone has a link documenting it.

[The Other 15]

I'm still trying to find it. I either read it or heard it on the radio. Not sure where. I do remember thinking it was good protection if Bradley misses a lot of time.

 

I know that you're saying TT, but how's that different to seeing a move done next year and then bitching that Hendry should have waited till the? What's the proper time to wait for the market to dilute vs players you like signing elsewhere? There is none. You do what you think is best for your team. I would think that the complete idiot that Hendry is made out to be by some rank amateurs here would be diminished by a slight degree after two division titles.

 

Now I duck and brace for the complementary, "Just because they won the division two years in a row, doesn't mean I have to like every move," post. of course it doesn't mean that, it just menas that Hendry has a method to his moves that have worked so give it a little time before ridiculing everything immediately.

[17 Seconds]

Winning 2 divisions doesn't make a guy exempt from criticism though, especially when the first one of those was an 85 win team that only snuck into the playoffs because of an awful division.

 

It kind of goes along when people said we couldn't criticize Dusty because "he's a 3 time MOY and you guys are just kids on the internet".... or saying we can't criticize George Bush because he's the president and we're not.

 

Plus Hendry has had a ton of resources to work with. I don't see how anything he's done has earned him the right to be exempt from criticism on individual moves.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm still trying to find it. I either read it or heard it on the radio. Not sure where. I do remember thinking it was good protection if Bradley misses a lot of time.

 

I know that you're saying TT, but how's that different to seeing a move done next year and then bitching that Hendry should have waited till the? What's the proper time to wait for the market to dilute vs players you like signing elsewhere? There is none. You do what you think is best for your team. I would think that the complete idiot that Hendry is made out to be by some rank amateurs here would be diminished by a slight degree after two division titles.

 

Now I duck and brace for the complementary, "Just because they won the division two years in a row, doesn't mean I have to like every move," post. of course it doesn't mean that, it just menas that Hendry has a method to his moves that have worked so give it a little time before ridiculing everything immediately.

 

I think you'd be better off addressing the topics that are present rather than trying to discredit the people who have opinions on those topics that you find irrational.

[rocket]

Hendry's not an idiot. I don't think the Bradley deal was bad even considering what Dunn and Abreu have got. Bradley for 3 years and 30 million is a great deal.

 

But I can't find any reason to defend Hendry signing Miles to the deal he did. Even in a great market, bench players shouldn't get 5 million dollar deals. He really overpaid for Miles, when the only thing Miles offers is some versatility, which Hendry has an obsession with.

[17 Seconds]

Bradley for 3 years and 30 million is a great deal.

 

That completely depends on how healthy he is. If he plays half of each season, is that still a great deal?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Bradley for 3 years and 30 million is a great deal.

 

That completely depends on how healthy he is. If he plays half of each season, is that still a great deal?

 

In 2006 and 2007 combined, Bradley played 157 games and was worth about $19.9 million dollars. Link

 

EDIT: 153 of those games were played in the outfield.

[17 Seconds]

llie

Bradley for 3 years and 30 million is a great deal.

 

That completely depends on how healthy he is. If he plays half of each season, is that still a great deal?

 

In 2006 and 2007 combined, Bradley played 157 games and was worth about $19.9 million dollars. Link

 

Are we still using that? This is the same formula that said Willie Harris was worth 14.6 mil last year.

 

Not to mention he's almost certainly not going to have a .999 OPS here.