How about this Solution to the Bradley Mess?

[Guancous]

While we're discussing the Padres, let me throw this name out there: Chase Headley.

[Guest]

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.

 

It won't be hard to move Bradley. If the Cubs pick up most of his contract, any one of about 29 teams should jump at the opportunity. If he doesn't work out, they can simply dump him since they aren't paying him in the first place.

 

I'd much rather than set up a pow wow between the players and the NEW GM and hope that everyone can air out their grievances and get them all out of the way during the offseason so that they can focus on winning baseball games in 2010.

[jersey cubs fan]

It won't be hard to move Bradley. If the Cubs pick up most of his contract, any one of about 29 teams should jump at the opportunity. If he doesn't work out, they can simply dump him since they aren't paying him in the first place.

 

I'd much rather than set up a pow wow between the players and the NEW GM and hope that everyone can air out their grievances and get them all out of the way during the offseason so that they can focus on winning baseball games in 2010.

 

It won't be hard if they eat most of the money. But some people are suggesting it won't be hard to move him without eating money. Those are very different things.

[soapy]

It won't be hard to move Bradley. If the Cubs pick up most of his contract, any one of about 29 teams should jump at the opportunity. If he doesn't work out, they can simply dump him since they aren't paying him in the first place.

 

I'd much rather than set up a pow wow between the players and the NEW GM and hope that everyone can air out their grievances and get them all out of the way during the offseason so that they can focus on winning baseball games in 2010.

 

It won't be hard if they eat most of the money. But some people are suggesting it won't be hard to move him without eating money. Those are very different things.

 

I'm sure reality is probably somewhere in between. They'll probably end eating half of it or something, unless they just take a bad contract in exchange (or some garbage prospects).

[jersey cubs fan]

It won't be hard to move Bradley. If the Cubs pick up most of his contract, any one of about 29 teams should jump at the opportunity. If he doesn't work out, they can simply dump him since they aren't paying him in the first place.

 

I'd much rather than set up a pow wow between the players and the NEW GM and hope that everyone can air out their grievances and get them all out of the way during the offseason so that they can focus on winning baseball games in 2010.

 

It won't be hard if they eat most of the money. But some people are suggesting it won't be hard to move him without eating money. Those are very different things.

 

I'm sure reality is probably somewhere in between. They'll probably end eating half of it or something, unless they just take a bad contract in exchange (or some garbage prospects).

 

And if you ask me, either of those scenarios are bad, so even if it's "easy" to do, the lack of gettiing quality value for the asset means it was hard to make a good move.

[soapy]

Agreed, which is why I wish they weren't so hell-bent on trading him. They should only do so if they get a reasonable return, but I won't hold my breath on that one.

[Backtobanks]

Agreed, which is why I wish they weren't so hell-bent on trading him. They should only do so if they get a reasonable return, but I won't hold my breath on that one.

 

That's the problem, you're asking for "reasonable return" for a player that's damaged goods. Every GM in baseball knows that Bradley is a good hitter that's going to cause problems in the dugout, with the media, with the front office, and with the fans. In other words, trading anything of value for Bradley will end up a public relations disaster for the GM.

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

[RedFlash]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

$7 million dollar man for the set up role? No thank you. Lou has already stated that Marmol will be his closer going into next season, so acquiring Jenks would be acquiring an awfully expensive set up man. So no thank you.

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

$7 million dollar man for the set up role? No thank you. Lou has already stated that Marmol will be his closer going into next season, so acquiring Jenks would be acquiring an awfully expensive set up man. So no thank you.

 

As we've said before, we're not going to get much of anything that's going to help the Cubs. I think $7 million for a decent setup man is a better option than a $7 million DH (Burrell) for a NL team.

[SouthSideRyan]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value.

[17 Seconds]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value.

 

How could someone with no concept of value work out realistic 5-team trades on a regular basis?

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value.

 

I assume you're talking about Bradley's value. Bradley without the baggage is a valuable trade chip. Bradley with the baggage has very little trade value. Unfortunately he can't get rid of the baggage. A few posters keep bringing up Bradley's value and how easy it will be to trade him (without eating a big chunk of his contract and/or taking a bad contract in return) and I am still waiting to see any evidence of that. So far the speculation has centered on the low-budget Padres and the Rays (for a bad contract DH).

[soapy]

Okay, if you're going to keep insisting that the Cubs can only get absolute garbage for Bradley without getting any salary relief then I'm going to keep insisting that they don't trade him.

 

We'll call it even.

[daske17]

I'm not sure if someone else has already proposed this, but how about Matthews Jr. + b-level prospect for Bradley? Their contracts are essentially a wash and the Angels could use Bradley to replace Abreu. The Cubs would still need a replacement for Bradley as Matthews isn't the answer to any outfield question they have.

 

It would just be a bad contract for a bad contract.

[SouthSideRyan]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value.

 

I assume you're talking about Bradley's value. Bradley without the baggage is a valuable trade chip. Bradley with the baggage has very little trade value. Unfortunately he can't get rid of the baggage. A few posters keep bringing up Bradley's value and how easy it will be to trade him (without eating a big chunk of his contract and/or taking a bad contract in return) and I am still waiting to see any evidence of that. So far the speculation has centered on the low-budget Padres and the Rays (for a bad contract DH).

 

Why would the White Sox tender Jenks an offer if they have to dump him for Bradley? Why does EVERY SINGLE TRADE of yours end with "tweak with prospects and/or money?

[Guest]

I don't know how anyone can suggest with a straight face that Milton Bradley will net a decent return AND won't cost the Cubs most of the remainder of his contract.

 

The Padres and Rays are two of the 3 cheapest teams in the entire league. The Padres aren't even a year removed from taking anything they could get for Jake Peavy. They dumped just about anyone else who was making 7+ digits last year as well. All of a sudden, they are going to break the bank for Milton Bradley?

 

Seriously?

 

The only way you can potentially get anything of value for Milton Bradley would be to stick him back out there in RF and hope for the best.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not sure if someone else has already proposed this, but how about Matthews Jr. + b-level prospect for Bradley? Their contracts are essentially a wash and the Angels could use Bradley to replace Abreu. The Cubs would still need a replacement for Bradley as Matthews isn't the answer to any outfield question they have.

 

It would just be a bad contract for a bad contract.

 

Not all bad contracts are created equal. GMJ is owed a little more money, is three years old, and a much worse baseball player. Bradley disappointed people with an OPS+ of 101, GMJ was at 82 this year. For their careers GMJ has a line of .258/.333/.408 while Milton has a .277/.371/.450.

 

The Cubs would be getting considerably worse, and spending a little more money to do it. Why in the world would we even consider it?

[daske17]

I'm not sure if someone else has already proposed this, but how about Matthews Jr. + b-level prospect for Bradley? Their contracts are essentially a wash and the Angels could use Bradley to replace Abreu. The Cubs would still need a replacement for Bradley as Matthews isn't the answer to any outfield question they have.

 

It would just be a bad contract for a bad contract.

 

Not all bad contracts are created equal. GMJ is owed a little more money, is three years old, and a much worse baseball player. Bradley disappointed people with an OPS+ of 101, GMJ was at 82 this year. For their careers GMJ has a line of .258/.333/.408 while Milton has a .277/.371/.450.

 

The Cubs would be getting considerably worse, and spending a little more money to do it. Why in the world would we even consider it?

 

To me, it seems like the type of deal Hendry would make trying to capture lightning in a bottle similar to Grudz/Karros. And I'm certainly not advocating that he be our starting RF.

[fromthestretch]

Not all bad contracts are created equal. GMJ is owed a little more money, is three years old, and a much worse baseball player.

 

That 82 OPS+ is actually pretty impressive for a toddler.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not all bad contracts are created equal. GMJ is owed a little more money, is three years old, and a much worse baseball player.

 

That 82 OPS+ is actually pretty impressive for a toddler.

 

Not in comparison to his 120 as a fetus. Blatant steroid use involved here.

[Guest]

Not all bad contracts are created equal. GMJ is owed a little more money, is three years old, and a much worse baseball player.

 

That 82 OPS+ is actually pretty impressive for a toddler.

 

Not in comparison to his 120 as a fetus. Blatant steroid use involved here.

 

Umm, nice recovery?

 

:yahoo:

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate

 

If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

 

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value.

 

I assume you're talking about Bradley's value. Bradley without the baggage is a valuable trade chip. Bradley with the baggage has very little trade value. Unfortunately he can't get rid of the baggage. A few posters keep bringing up Bradley's value and how easy it will be to trade him (without eating a big chunk of his contract and/or taking a bad contract in return) and I am still waiting to see any evidence of that. So far the speculation has centered on the low-budget Padres and the Rays (for a bad contract DH).

 

Why would the White Sox tender Jenks an offer if they have to dump him for Bradley? Why does EVERY SINGLE TRADE of yours end with "tweak with prospects and/or money?

 

I put that at the end of each trade proposal because a lot of posters think the trade is too one-sided (for or against the Cubs). My thought is that if adding money and/or a prospect is all that's wrong with the deal, then do what's necessary to complete the deal.

[jersey cubs fan]

I put that at the end of each trade proposal because a lot of posters think the trade is too one-sided (for or against the Cubs). My thought is that if adding money and/or a prospect is all that's wrong with the deal, then do what's necessary to complete the deal.

 

Perhaps that's not all that's wrong with your deals.

[Backtobanks]

Not that a deal with the White Sox is going to happen, but now Wise has opted out to be a FA.

The WS will need to find 1-2 OFs from somewhere with Dye, Posednick (probable), and now Wise leaving.