How about this Solution to the Bradley Mess?

[dew1679666265]

Adam Dunn cost the Nats over 35 runs on defense this year (a feat he managed playing mostly LF and 1B) and his net contribution to the team was worth $5.4 million dollars.

 

For anybody who doesn't remember, that's exactly how much Bradley was worth this season.

 

does that feel right to you? 35 runs? he played 84 games in the of and 67 at first base.

 

just because we have easy access to uzr doesn't mean we should just accept it as gospel.

 

Yeah, I like UZR and realize Dunn is an atrocious defender, but 35 runs in that many games seems a bit too high.

[biittner77]

Wasn't part of the reason for bringing in Bradley that the Cubs leadership (Lee, Ramirez) were too quiet and they wanted to spice things up?

[Tarver]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Daves_insanity_sauce.jpg

 

A little more spice than he bargained for.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Adam Dunn cost the Nats over 35 runs on defense this year (a feat he managed playing mostly LF and 1B) and his net contribution to the team was worth $5.4 million dollars.

 

For anybody who doesn't remember, that's exactly how much Bradley was worth this season.

 

does that feel right to you? 35 runs? he played 84 games in the of and 67 at first base.

 

just because we have easy access to uzr doesn't mean we should just accept it as gospel.

 

Yeah, I like UZR and realize Dunn is an atrocious defender, but 35 runs in that many games seems a bit too high.

 

UZR consistenly has Dunn as a -20 defender or worse. Even if 35 is an outlier, the crux of Rob's point is still true. Dunn's defense destroys most of his overall value, to the point where he's not worth his contract.

[dew1679666265]

Adam Dunn cost the Nats over 35 runs on defense this year (a feat he managed playing mostly LF and 1B) and his net contribution to the team was worth $5.4 million dollars.

 

For anybody who doesn't remember, that's exactly how much Bradley was worth this season.

 

does that feel right to you? 35 runs? he played 84 games in the of and 67 at first base.

 

just because we have easy access to uzr doesn't mean we should just accept it as gospel.

 

Yeah, I like UZR and realize Dunn is an atrocious defender, but 35 runs in that many games seems a bit too high.

 

UZR consistenly has Dunn as a -20 defender or worse. Even if 35 is an outlier, the crux of Rob's point is still true. Dunn's defense destroys most of his overall value, to the point where he's not worth his contract.

 

I agree his poor defense hurts his overall value, but the 35 runs seems a bit high.

[Rob]

He was at -28 runs last year, and that was (mostly) without adjusting to a new ballpark and a new position.

 

Maybe UZR isn't giving him a fair shake, but from the admittedly low number of Nats games I saw (20-25), 35 runs doesn't seem far off the mark.

[Tarver]

, but from the admittedly low number of Nats games I saw (20-25), 35 runs doesn't seem far off the mark.

 

Damn. That's some serious masochism. I'm not sure I could handle more than two.

[dew1679666265]

He was at -28 runs last year, and that was (mostly) without adjusting to a new ballpark and a new position.

 

Maybe UZR isn't giving him a fair shake, but from the admittedly low number of Nats games I saw (20-25), 35 runs doesn't seem far off the mark.

 

I'm admittedly not a big statistician (though I like following some of the SABR stats), so 35 runs surrendered defensively just seems like an incredible number to give up. It may be accurate, it just seems really, really high.

[Guest]

He was at -28 runs last year, and that was (mostly) without adjusting to a new ballpark and a new position.

 

Maybe UZR isn't giving him a fair shake, but from the admittedly low number of Nats games I saw (20-25), 35 runs doesn't seem far off the mark.

 

I'm admittedly not a big statistician (though I like following some of the SABR stats), so 35 runs surrendered defensively just seems like an incredible number to give up. It may be accurate, it just seems really, really high.

It's not a real number. It's a number in comparison to the mythical average player. It says he was pretty bad, I don't think it has any worth in quantifying just how bad to an exact degree. Also, UZR sucks and it sucks the worst for outfielders. So in conclusion, I wouldn't put much of anything in using the number for an argument. We all know Dunn is a pretty bad defender, I don't think anyone can tell how bad in relation to most of the league.

[dew1679666265]

He was at -28 runs last year, and that was (mostly) without adjusting to a new ballpark and a new position.

 

Maybe UZR isn't giving him a fair shake, but from the admittedly low number of Nats games I saw (20-25), 35 runs doesn't seem far off the mark.

 

I'm admittedly not a big statistician (though I like following some of the SABR stats), so 35 runs surrendered defensively just seems like an incredible number to give up. It may be accurate, it just seems really, really high.

It's not a real number. It's a number in comparison to the mythical average player. It says he was pretty bad, I don't think it has any worth in quantifying just how bad to an exact degree. Also, UZR sucks and it sucks the worst for outfielders. So in conclusion, I wouldn't put much of anything in using the number for an argument. We all know Dunn is a pretty bad defender, I don't think anyone can tell how bad in relation to most of the league.

 

Ah, that's right. I think I remember that now. Dunn's defense is really bad, but like I've been saying, 35 runs below average seems to be too much.

[Rob]

He was at -28 runs last year, and that was (mostly) without adjusting to a new ballpark and a new position.

 

Maybe UZR isn't giving him a fair shake, but from the admittedly low number of Nats games I saw (20-25), 35 runs doesn't seem far off the mark.

 

I'm admittedly not a big statistician (though I like following some of the SABR stats), so 35 runs surrendered defensively just seems like an incredible number to give up. It may be accurate, it just seems really, really high.

It's not a real number. It's a number in comparison to the mythical average player. It says he was pretty bad, I don't think it has any worth in quantifying just how bad to an exact degree. Also, UZR sucks and it sucks the worst for outfielders. So in conclusion, I wouldn't put much of anything in using the number for an argument. We all know Dunn is a pretty bad defender, I don't think anyone can tell how bad in relation to most of the league.

 

Oh, this is gonna be interesting...

 

Tell me, oh wise one. What exactly is mythical about average? I can understand having qualms with replacement level, but average?

 

Also, why do you feel UZR sucks. And is there any reason you find it to be especially bad for outfielders (aside from the obvious, less chances = more yearly variation thing)?

[soapy]

Not sure which Bradley thread to put this, so I'll go here.

 

Bruce has an article up opining that the Cubs won't have that hard of a time moving Bradley and likely won't have to eat a huge part of the contract. He goes on to support his argument citing Bradley's OBP and relatively healthy season. All it did is for me was re-inforce the notion that he shouldn't even be traded to begin with, but whatever.

 

It's sort of funny though how later in the article he notes that the Cubs would like to upgrade the top of the lineup with some better OBP. Hmmmm...I wonder what "available" player fits that description. Maybe even someone on your very own roster, Jim. Maybe even someone you're dying to ship out of town.

[Backtobanks]

Not sure which Bradley thread to put this, so I'll go here.

 

Bruce has an article up opining that the Cubs won't have that hard of a time moving Bradley and likely won't have to eat a huge part of the contract. He goes on to support his argument citing Bradley's OBP and relatively healthy season. All it did is for me was re-inforce the notion that he shouldn't even be traded to begin with, but whatever.

 

It's sort of funny though how later in the article he notes that the Cubs would like to upgrade the top of the lineup with some better OBP. Hmmmm...I wonder what "available" player fits that description. Maybe even someone on your very own roster, Jim. Maybe even someone you're dying to ship out of town.

 

A couple of posters have expressed the same opinion as Bruce. but I still have my doubts. I think the "interest" in Bradley is based on two thoughts: 1. I can get him for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract. 2. I can dump a really bad contract (worse than Bradley's) on the Cubs because the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him. If Hendry can pull off another bit of Todd Hundley magic, he ought to be picked executive of the year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Screw the rumors saying as much, and screw Bruce Miles explicitly saying it. BacktoBanks knows best.

[inari]

Not sure which Bradley thread to put this, so I'll go here.

 

Bruce has an article up opining that the Cubs won't have that hard of a time moving Bradley and likely won't have to eat a huge part of the contract. He goes on to support his argument citing Bradley's OBP and relatively healthy season. All it did is for me was re-inforce the notion that he shouldn't even be traded to begin with, but whatever.

 

It's sort of funny though how later in the article he notes that the Cubs would like to upgrade the top of the lineup with some better OBP. Hmmmm...I wonder what "available" player fits that description. Maybe even someone on your very own roster, Jim. Maybe even someone you're dying to ship out of town.

 

A couple of posters have expressed the same opinion as Bruce. but I still have my doubts. I think the "interest" in Bradley is based on two thoughts: 1. I can get him for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract. 2. I can dump a really bad contract (worse than Bradley's) on the Cubs because the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him. If Hendry can pull off another bit of Todd Hundley magic, he ought to be picked executive of the year.

 

I mean, every reputable source disagrees with you. There is literally nothing to indicate you're right on this. In fact, there's a lot of evidence to indicate you're wrong. But you keep saying it. But I've already tried arguing this three times, so I think I'll just stop here.

[jersey cubs fan]

They should just platoon Kosuke and Bradley in RF next year. Kosuke's bounceback year was barely better than Bradley's disappointing season, and they have a L/R platoon split that fits.

[SouthSideRyan]

They should just platoon Kosuke and Bradley in RF next year. Kosuke's bounceback year was barely better than Bradley's disappointing season, and they have a L/R platoon split that fits.

 

That seems like a waste of Bradley and a good way to ensure he loses his mind.

[jersey cubs fan]

They should just platoon Kosuke and Bradley in RF next year. Kosuke's bounceback year was barely better than Bradley's disappointing season, and they have a L/R platoon split that fits.

 

That seems like a waste of Bradley and a good way to ensure he loses his mind.

 

He's no guarantee to get more than 300 PA anyway and he's already lost his mind. Between Soriano's health and the questionable situation that will be in CF, he'd wind up playing much more than just the games in RF against LHP.

[biittner77]

They should just platoon Kosuke and Bradley in RF next year. Kosuke's bounceback year was barely better than Bradley's disappointing season, and they have a L/R platoon split that fits.

 

Would that be the most expensive platoon in history? I'd have to think it would be up there. So they do that, sign Cameron to play CF and then go with Baker/ Fontenot at 2nd. Works for me.

[inari]

There is literally no way Bradley is back next year. We might as well talk about platooning Manny Ramirez. It's just as likely.

[Guest]

There is literally no way Bradley is back next year. We might as well talk about platooning Manny Ramirez. It's just as likely.

I'd like to add that I find it almost impossible to believe that the Cubs will trade Bradley and not pay some portion of his salary (and a large portion of it).

 

Think about it this way:

 

If "There is literally no way Bradley is back next year"

Other teams GMs must know this to be true if it is so self evident

 

Then, why would GM take on Bradley and pay all his salary?

 

I suppose the only way for this to happen is an exchange of bad contracts, but then that puts the Cubs in the same situation, or worse.

[CubColtPacer]

There is literally no way Bradley is back next year. We might as well talk about platooning Manny Ramirez. It's just as likely.

I'd like to add that I find it almost impossible to believe that the Cubs will trade Bradley and not pay some portion of his salary (and a large portion of it).

 

Think about it this way:

 

If "There is literally no way Bradley is back next year"

Other teams GMs must know this to be true if it is so self evident

 

Then, why would GM take on Bradley and pay all his salary?

 

I suppose the only way for this to happen is an exchange of bad contracts, but then that puts the Cubs in the same situation, or worse.

 

If more than one GM feels that Bradley is worth his salary, than they aren't going to stubbornly stick to paying very little of his contract and risk losing him to another team.

 

I think that most GM's believe that Bradley is not worth that type of contract, but I think the Cubs will only end up having to pay a decent part of the contract and not the overwhelming majority of it. Or if the Cubs do pay an overwhelming majority (say if it's the Padres with the best offer who can't take on contracts) it will mean they get pretty decent talent coming back.

[Guest]

There is literally no way Bradley is back next year. We might as well talk about platooning Manny Ramirez. It's just as likely.

I'd like to add that I find it almost impossible to believe that the Cubs will trade Bradley and not pay some portion of his salary (and a large portion of it).

 

Think about it this way:

 

If "There is literally no way Bradley is back next year"

Other teams GMs must know this to be true if it is so self evident

 

Then, why would GM take on Bradley and pay all his salary?

 

I suppose the only way for this to happen is an exchange of bad contracts, but then that puts the Cubs in the same situation, or worse.

 

If more than one GM feels that Bradley is worth his salary, than they aren't going to stubbornly stick to paying very little of his contract and risk losing him to another team.

 

I think that most GM's believe that Bradley is not worth that type of contract, but I think the Cubs will only end up having to pay a decent part of the contract and not the overwhelming majority of it. Or if the Cubs do pay an overwhelming majority (say if it's the Padres with the best offer who can't take on contracts) it will mean they get pretty decent talent coming back.

 

I don't disagree, but I don't see how any GM wouldn't see this as an opportunity for a bargain.

[inari]

There is literally no way Bradley is back next year. We might as well talk about platooning Manny Ramirez. It's just as likely.

I'd like to add that I find it almost impossible to believe that the Cubs will trade Bradley and not pay some portion of his salary (and a large portion of it).

 

Think about it this way:

 

If "There is literally no way Bradley is back next year"

Other teams GMs must know this to be true if it is so self evident

 

Then, why would GM take on Bradley and pay all his salary?

 

I suppose the only way for this to happen is an exchange of bad contracts, but then that puts the Cubs in the same situation, or worse.

 

If more than one GM feels that Bradley is worth his salary, than they aren't going to stubbornly stick to paying very little of his contract and risk losing him to another team.

 

I think that most GM's believe that Bradley is not worth that type of contract, but I think the Cubs will only end up having to pay a decent part of the contract and not the overwhelming majority of it. Or if the Cubs do pay an overwhelming majority (say if it's the Padres with the best offer who can't take on contracts) it will mean they get pretty decent talent coming back.

 

I don't disagree, but I don't see how any GM wouldn't see this as an opportunity for a bargain.

 

They all do, but they still have to bid against each other.

[Backtobanks]

Not sure which Bradley thread to put this, so I'll go here.

 

Bruce has an article up opining that the Cubs won't have that hard of a time moving Bradley and likely won't have to eat a huge part of the contract. He goes on to support his argument citing Bradley's OBP and relatively healthy season. All it did is for me was re-inforce the notion that he shouldn't even be traded to begin with, but whatever.

 

It's sort of funny though how later in the article he notes that the Cubs would like to upgrade the top of the lineup with some better OBP. Hmmmm...I wonder what "available" player fits that description. Maybe even someone on your very own roster, Jim. Maybe even someone you're dying to ship out of town.

 

A couple of posters have expressed the same opinion as Bruce. but I still have my doubts. I think the "interest" in Bradley is based on two thoughts: 1. I can get him for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract. 2. I can dump a really bad contract (worse than Bradley's) on the Cubs because the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him. If Hendry can pull off another bit of Todd Hundley magic, he ought to be picked executive of the year.

 

I mean, every reputable source disagrees with you. There is literally nothing to indicate you're right on this. In fact, there's a lot of evidence to indicate you're wrong. But you keep saying it. But I've already tried arguing this three times, so I think I'll just stop here.

 

 

Well, I'm looking for any "source" (reputable or not) that says there's a lot of teams interested in Bradley. The strongest source so far says the Padres are "open-minded" about Bradley and they seem to be the front runners right now. Obviously the low-budget Padres are expecting Hendry to pay most of Bradley's contract. Some of the original speculation mentioned 3-4 teams that might be interested and a couple of those have said they're not interested since then. As for the "evidence" that i'm wrong, I will gladly admit I'm wrong when I see it. I have yet to see any "evidence" or "source" that says I'm wrong, just a whole lot of speculation and opinion that Bradley might not be as hard to get rid of as originally thought and there might be more teams interested. As I posted before, we'll have to wait and see.