How about this Solution to the Bradley Mess?

dew1679666265 · September 28, 2009

Using career stats, they're not close. Using recent stats, they're even further apart. What in the world stats are you looking at?

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748
Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790

Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point.

It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime.

This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's.

Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season.

Rob · September 28, 2009

Take your pick, the Rowand discussion, the Lowe discussion, or any other discussion. Posters use stats to prove something and then someone else uses some other stats to disprove the initial point. In other words, you can find statistics to prove whatever point you want to make. When in doubt, select a smaller sample size (or argue that someone who disagrees with you has used a smaller sample size) to prove your point.

Hey, I stick to the exact same methodologies. If somebody were to use them to prove I was wrong about something, I'd concede it.

hossdriver · September 28, 2009

The largest difference lies in the fact that Milton Bradley has eclipsed 500 PA in a season only twice due to injury, suspension, taking himself out, being benched, etc...

Rowand has accomplished it 5 times and in doing so, eclipsed 600 3 of them...

Give me a healthy Aaron Rowand over a sulking, pouting, oft-injured Milton Bradley ANY day, and in a double header on Sunday...

And to the guy who mentioned Bradley's 'pitcher's parks'... His best season was last year at Texas and he also spent significant time in Cleveland.

In 9 seasons, Rowand's cumulative counting stats are almost all better than what Milton has done in 10 seasons. Why? Even though his RATE stats are higher, he spends more time on the field to give a greater contribution...

Bradley = 10 seasons, 941 games

Rowand = 9 seasons, 1140 games, +200 games in 1 less full season...

SouthSideRyan · September 28, 2009

Neifi Perez stayed healthy too

hossdriver · September 28, 2009

Neifi Perez stayed healthy too

Really?

So all things being equal (number of years in a contract, equal money, etc)... Who's going to produce MORE over the next 3 years? The guy with slightly better rate stats who gets suspended, brings down the team, and calls the fans and media racist? Or the guy who quietly goes about his business, gives all of himself on the field, plays a tougher position and is ready to play 90+% of the time?

Neifi Perez? Really dude?

Serge · September 28, 2009

The largest difference lies in the fact that Milton Bradley has eclipsed 500 PA in a season only twice due to injury, suspension, taking himself out, being benched, etc...

Rowand has accomplished it 5 times and in doing so, eclipsed 600 3 of them...

Give me a healthy Aaron Rowand over a sulking, pouting, oft-injured Milton Bradley ANY day, and in a double header on Sunday...

And to the guy who mentioned Bradley's 'pitcher's parks'... His best season was last year at Texas and he also spent significant time in Cleveland.

In 9 seasons, Rowand's cumulative counting stats are almost all better than what Milton has done in 10 seasons. Why? Even though his RATE stats are higher, he spends more time on the field to give a greater contribution...

Bradley = 10 seasons, 941 games
Rowand = 9 seasons, 1140 games, +200 games in 1 less full season...

Yeah, but the question is whether Bradley for ~100-120 games plus someone like Jake Fox for 40-60 is better than Rowand for 150 and someone like Jake fox for 10. And in a typical Milton Bradley year the answer to that is an overwhelming "Yes!"

Backtobanks · September 28, 2009

Using career stats, they're not close. Using recent stats, they're even further apart. What in the world stats are you looking at?

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748
Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790

Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point.

It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime.
This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's.

Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season.

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

September 28, 2009

lol, really, just lol.

hossdriver · September 28, 2009

The largest difference lies in the fact that Milton Bradley has eclipsed 500 PA in a season only twice due to injury, suspension, taking himself out, being benched, etc...

Rowand has accomplished it 5 times and in doing so, eclipsed 600 3 of them...

Give me a healthy Aaron Rowand over a sulking, pouting, oft-injured Milton Bradley ANY day, and in a double header on Sunday...

And to the guy who mentioned Bradley's 'pitcher's parks'... His best season was last year at Texas and he also spent significant time in Cleveland.

In 9 seasons, Rowand's cumulative counting stats are almost all better than what Milton has done in 10 seasons. Why? Even though his RATE stats are higher, he spends more time on the field to give a greater contribution...

Bradley = 10 seasons, 941 games
Rowand = 9 seasons, 1140 games, +200 games in 1 less full season...

Yeah, but the question is whether Bradley for ~100-120 games plus someone like Jake Fox for 40-60 is better than Rowand for 150 and someone like Jake fox for 10. And in a typical Milton Bradley year the answer to that is an overwhelming "Yes!"

I assume you're talking about Jake Fox circa May, June, and July, and not Jake Fox circa August and September? You know, the Jake Fox that has batted .238 since July with 3 homers 17 RBI in 100 ABs?

Doesn't look so overwhelming considering you can't even tell me what a 'typical Milton Bradley year' is... Give me a healthy Rowand, Fukudome, and Soriano with Reed Johnson and Sam Fuld backing them up.

davell · September 28, 2009

Seriously, can someone please tell me what makes Rowand an awful baseball player? I've looked over his stats and truly can't figure it out. I admit he's not worth 12 mill a year, but I really don't see how he'd be a horrible acquisition for Bradley. Please, not being an ass either, I just want to see what stats are being used here. Go ahead and include Cameron as well, since he's the 3rd guy in this discussion. Thanks in advance.

dew1679666265 · September 28, 2009

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better.

All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years.

dew1679666265 · September 28, 2009

Seriously, can someone please tell me what makes Rowand an awful baseball player? I've looked over his stats and truly can't figure it out. I admit he's not worth 12 mill a year, but I really don't see how he'd be a horrible acquisition for Bradley. Please, not being an ass either, I just want to see what stats are being used here. Go ahead and include Cameron as well, since he's the 3rd guy in this discussion. Thanks in advance.

The biggest problem I'd have with acquiring Rowand for Bradley is that he's worse than Bradley and is signed for a year longer. Bradley is signed through 2011, while Rowand is signed through 2012. That extra year is pretty significant when we're already downgrading.

I don't think Rowand is awful, he's just well down the list of options I'd like to replace Bradley. Cameron is at the top of my list with making an effort for Crawford/Upton right behind it. As for why Cameron would be better than Rowand, Cameron's a better hitter, better fielder and would cost similar money for a year or two less.

Past 3 years OPS (decent sample size, still recent enough to be relevant):

Rowand: .889, .749, .744

Bradley: .947, .999, .775

Cameron: .759, .809, .793

UZR past 3 years:

Rowand: 10.3, -6.5, 0.6 (CF)

Bradley: -2.3 (RF, DH in 2007-2008)

Cameron: -10.2, 11.3, 13.0 (CF)

Bradley's the best hitter of the three, while Cameron is better than Rowand. Cameron is easily the best fielder of the three.

Rob · September 28, 2009

Using career stats, they're not close. Using recent stats, they're even further apart. What in the world stats are you looking at?

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748
Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790

Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point.

It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime.
This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's.

Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season.

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

You do realize how silly you're making yourself look, right?

Serge · September 28, 2009

The largest difference lies in the fact that Milton Bradley has eclipsed 500 PA in a season only twice due to injury, suspension, taking himself out, being benched, etc...

Rowand has accomplished it 5 times and in doing so, eclipsed 600 3 of them...

Give me a healthy Aaron Rowand over a sulking, pouting, oft-injured Milton Bradley ANY day, and in a double header on Sunday...

And to the guy who mentioned Bradley's 'pitcher's parks'... His best season was last year at Texas and he also spent significant time in Cleveland.

In 9 seasons, Rowand's cumulative counting stats are almost all better than what Milton has done in 10 seasons. Why? Even though his RATE stats are higher, he spends more time on the field to give a greater contribution...

Bradley = 10 seasons, 941 games
Rowand = 9 seasons, 1140 games, +200 games in 1 less full season...

Yeah, but the question is whether Bradley for ~100-120 games plus someone like Jake Fox for 40-60 is better than Rowand for 150 and someone like Jake fox for 10. And in a typical Milton Bradley year the answer to that is an overwhelming "Yes!"

I assume you're talking about Jake Fox circa May, June, and July, and not Jake Fox circa August and September? You know, the Jake Fox that has batted .238 since July with 3 homers 17 RBI in 100 ABs?

Doesn't look so overwhelming considering you can't even tell me what a 'typical Milton Bradley year' is... Give me a healthy Rowand, Fukudome, and Soriano with Reed Johnson and Sam Fuld backing them up.

No, actually it doesn't refer to any specific Jake Fox, it doesn't even have to be Jake Fox. I just mean a decent backup outfielder. It can be a Colvin or Fuld or whoever who will have above average defense and below average hitting or Fox who's the opposite. As for a "typical Milton Bradley year" I'd have to say something like .290/.390/.480 since that's what he's put up the past 4 years. Think of it this way, since 2006 Bradley has hit .289/.398/.483 and averaged just over 400 PA's a year, and played a little above average D in RF according to UZR. Rowand over that time has hit .279/.341/.448 over 567 PAs a year and played a little above average CF defense. Now let's for the sake of argument say that our backup outfielders will put up a .280/330/.420 line and play average D. Over 650 PA's, Bradley plus the backups would put up .286/.366/.456 with average D in RF, Rowand and co. would put up .279/.340/.445 with average CF D in CF.

So even using a conservative estimate for Bradley's playing time of 400 PA's(he averaged 491 the past two years), he still ends up helping the team more than Rowand. Now, I'll admit the difference isn't "overwhelming" like I said it was earlier, but when you consider Rowand's contract as opposed to Milt's I think it starts leaning a lot closer that way. Another thing to keep in mind is that if he take 2006 out it helps out Bradley even more.

Backtobanks · September 28, 2009

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better.

All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years.

As I said Bradley is the better hitter, but it's hard to compare them when Bradley has played the field because he's hardly ever put together a long streak of playing the field. As for your preference on trading Bradley, I really don't think Hendry can trade him "for significant savings or a prospect or two". I think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact Hendry is going to pay a big chunk of his contract or take a bad contract in return.

davell · September 28, 2009

Seriously, can someone please tell me what makes Rowand an awful baseball player? I've looked over his stats and truly can't figure it out. I admit he's not worth 12 mill a year, but I really don't see how he'd be a horrible acquisition for Bradley. Please, not being an ass either, I just want to see what stats are being used here. Go ahead and include Cameron as well, since he's the 3rd guy in this discussion. Thanks in advance.

The biggest problem I'd have with acquiring Rowand for Bradley is that he's worse than Bradley and is signed for a year longer. Bradley is signed through 2011, while Rowand is signed through 2012. That extra year is pretty significant when we're already downgrading.

I don't think Rowand is awful, he's just well down the list of options I'd like to replace Bradley. Cameron is at the top of my list with making an effort for Crawford/Upton right behind it. As for why Cameron would be better than Rowand, Cameron's a better hitter, better fielder and would cost similar money for a year or two less.

Past 3 years OPS (decent sample size, still recent enough to be relevant):

Rowand: .889, .749, .744
Bradley: .947, .999, .775
Cameron: .759, .809, .793

UZR past 3 years:

Rowand: 10.3, -6.5, 0.6 (CF)
Bradley: -2.3 (RF, DH in 2007-2008)
Cameron: -10.2, 11.3, 13.0 (CF)

Bradley's the best hitter of the three, while Cameron is better than Rowand. Cameron is easily the best fielder of the three.

Thanks a bunch. I agree with pretty much everything you just said as far as how to rank these guys. I would honestly much rather have Crawford or Upton than Cameron, because of the age factor, even with them costing an arm and a leg's worth of prospects most likely.

That said, the ONLY reason I think Rowand could be a decent answer for us, is because he could be dealt straight up for Bradley. Yes, he's a downgrade. But, is there an option potentially out there better that he can be traded for straight up? Yes, it's an extra year that we'd have to absorb, but we have lots of money coming off the books between now and then too. I'm really only saying this because I am of the belief that we will have to pay all or damn near all of Bradley's contract, unless we take on someone else's problem. And trading for Rowand, or someone else for that matter(up for suggestions here) fills the hole created by losing Bradley(not really adding to the payroll for the upcoming season either) and would then leave us money to add a second basemen or starting pitcher.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of Rowand and I hate the 3rd year as well. But, trading for him(or preferrably someone else actually) really seems to me a better allocation of funds, than trading him for a B prospect, paying all/most of his salary AND then paying Cameron or someone else to play the same position as well. To me, it seems like by finding a trade for Milton, absorbing a guy like Rowand in the process, could still leave us the money to go after Hudson, Figgins, or even a Reyes, if he were to be made available.

All of this hopefully winds up as useless conjecture anyway and Ricketts comes in and gives us the OK to go after Holliday and whoever else we could possibly want too. :D I'm just expecting the worst.

dew1679666265 · September 28, 2009

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better.

All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years.

As I said Bradley is the better hitter, but it's hard to compare them when Bradley has played the field because he's hardly ever put together a long streak of playing the field. As for your preference on trading Bradley, I really don't think Hendry can trade him "for significant savings or a prospect or two". I think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact Hendry is going to pay a big chunk of his contract or take a bad contract in return.

Not according to what Tim said. And I'd be surprised if no team was willing to pay half of Bradley's salary or so. There was interest in him before this season and as long as Hendry at least puts up the front that the Cubs would be willing to run with him in 2010, I think a team would pay a portion of his salary.

dew1679666265 · September 28, 2009

Thanks a bunch. I agree with pretty much everything you just said as far as how to rank these guys. I would honestly much rather have Crawford or Upton than Cameron, because of the age factor, even with them costing an arm and a leg's worth of prospects most likely.

Yeah, it's the prospects that keep me from being completely gung-ho for the Crawford/Upton idea. Both are good, young players, but I don't know that I'd clear out the farm system for one of them. I could potentially be persuaded, though.

That said, the ONLY reason I think Rowand could be a decent answer for us, is because he could be dealt straight up for Bradley. Yes, he's a downgrade. But, is there an option potentially out there better that he can be traded for straight up? Yes, it's an extra year that we'd have to absorb, but we have lots of money coming off the books between now and then too. I'm really only saying this because I am of the belief that we will have to pay all or damn near all of Bradley's contract, unless we take on someone else's problem. And trading for Rowand, or someone else for that matter(up for suggestions here) fills the hole created by losing Bradley(not really adding to the payroll for the upcoming season either) and would then leave us money to add a second basemen or starting pitcher.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of Rowand and I hate the 3rd year as well. But, trading for him(or preferrably someone else actually) really seems to me a better allocation of funds, than trading him for a B prospect, paying all/most of his salary AND then paying Cameron or someone else to play the same position as well. To me, it seems like by finding a trade for Milton, absorbing a guy like Rowand in the process, could still leave us the money to go after Hudson, Figgins, or even a Reyes, if he were to be made available.

The Rays have expressed interest in Bradley and I'd much prefer one year of Pat Burrell to three more years of Rowand. They also might be an option to take Bradley in a package for one of Crawford/Upton. There are other bad contracts I'd take before I took on Rowand. His decline in OPS the past three years makes me that much more apprehensive about him.

All of this hopefully winds up as useless conjecture anyway and Ricketts comes in and gives us the OK to go after Holliday and whoever else we could possibly want too. :D I'm just expecting the worst.

That would be fantastic. :D

I kind of expect payroll to be raised under Ricketts, but I have no idea how much he'll raise it.

Backtobanks · September 28, 2009

Using career stats, they're not close. Using recent stats, they're even further apart. What in the world stats are you looking at?

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748
Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790

Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point.

It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime.
This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's.

Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season.

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

You do realize how silly you're making yourself look, right?

Why because you disagree with my opinion? As others have pointed out, putting in a sub for Bradley for 200+ AB certainly lowers the production from RF whereas Rowand's 500 AB covers most of the season. My original point was that Rowand was a better choice of bad contracts (Burrell, Perez, etc.) rather than paying Bradley's contract to play elsewhere.

As a hitter: Cameron>Bradley>Rowand

As a position player:Cameron>Rowand>>>>>Bradley

SouthSideRyan · September 28, 2009

Why because you disagree with my opinion? As others have pointed out, putting in a sub for Bradley for 200+ AB certainly lowers the production from RF whereas Rowand's 500 AB covers most of the season. My original point was that Rowand was a better choice of bad contracts (Burrell, Perez, etc.) rather than paying Bradley's contract to play elsewhere.

As a hitter: Cameron>Bradley>Rowand
As a position player:Cameron>Rowand>>>>>Bradley

Bradley's a better hitter than Cameron. Rowand is the worst of the 3 players, and you want to spend 14M more on him than we're paying Bradley. If you have to do a bad contract swap, you trade for Burrell and his 1 year commitment rather than locking yourself into an extra year of bad contract.

Transmogrified Tiger · September 28, 2009

Seriously, can someone please tell me what makes Rowand an awful baseball player? I've looked over his stats and truly can't figure it out. I admit he's not worth 12 mill a year, but I really don't see how he'd be a horrible acquisition for Bradley. Please, not being an ass either, I just want to see what stats are being used here. Go ahead and include Cameron as well, since he's the 3rd guy in this discussion. Thanks in advance.

It was in the other thread, but going by value, Cameron has been worth 18M per year the last 2 years, 13M the last 8 years. Rowand has been worth 7M the last 2 years, 10M the last 8 years. Going forward, the difference in value between them makes it about the same to pay all of Bradley's contract and sign Cameron as it would be to trade Bradley for Rowand. If you get anything of value at all for Bradley(which is likely considering the rumored suitors and that he'd be completely free of salary) OR if you sign Cameron for less than 2/20 OR get a suitor for Bradley to take on at least part of his contract. Then you come out ahead. Furthermore, when you talk about a lesser outfielder(compared to Cameron) like Rowand, there isn't a huge dropoff between the likes of say, a Fuld/Johnson platoon, so it's another reason to stay away from his big contract. Oh, and signing Cameron would make it only a 2 year commitment, compared to 3 for Rowand.

Backtobanks · September 28, 2009

You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better.

All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years.

As I said Bradley is the better hitter, but it's hard to compare them when Bradley has played the field because he's hardly ever put together a long streak of playing the field. As for your preference on trading Bradley, I really don't think Hendry can trade him "for significant savings or a prospect or two". I think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact Hendry is going to pay a big chunk of his contract or take a bad contract in return.

Not according to what Tim said. And I'd be surprised if no team was willing to pay half of Bradley's salary or so. There was interest in him before this season and as long as Hendry at least puts up the front that the Cubs would be willing to run with him in 2010, I think a team would pay a portion of his salary.

I hope you (and Tim) are right, but I still think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact other GMs think they can get Bradley for a low prospect and Hendry will pay a big chunk of his contract the next two years. Contrary to what many of you think, I agree that Bradley is a good hitter and if a team has a spot for him, they would have to be interested if they thought they could get him for next-to-nothing.

davell · September 28, 2009

Seriously, can someone please tell me what makes Rowand an awful baseball player? I've looked over his stats and truly can't figure it out. I admit he's not worth 12 mill a year, but I really don't see how he'd be a horrible acquisition for Bradley. Please, not being an ass either, I just want to see what stats are being used here. Go ahead and include Cameron as well, since he's the 3rd guy in this discussion. Thanks in advance.

It was in the other thread, but going by value, Cameron has been worth 18M per year the last 2 years, 13M the last 8 years. Rowand has been worth 7M the last 2 years, 10M the last 8 years. Going forward, the difference in value between them makes it about the same to pay all of Bradley's contract and sign Cameron as it would be to trade Bradley for Rowand. If you get anything of value at all for Bradley(which is likely considering the rumored suitors and that he'd be completely free of salary) OR if you sign Cameron for less than 2/20 OR get a suitor for Bradley to take on at least part of his contract. Then you come out ahead. Furthermore, when you talk about a lesser outfielder(compared to Cameron) like Rowand, there isn't a huge dropoff between the likes of say, a Fuld/Johnson platoon, so it's another reason to stay away from his big contract. Oh, and signing Cameron would make it only a 2 year commitment, compared to 3 for Rowand.

Thanks man. I knew you had brought this up somewhere, but I thought it was in this thread and couldn't find it. Is the difference in age from Cameron to Rowand of any concern in looking at it from this perspective?

Backtobanks · September 28, 2009

Why because you disagree with my opinion? As others have pointed out, putting in a sub for Bradley for 200+ AB certainly lowers the production from RF whereas Rowand's 500 AB covers most of the season. My original point was that Rowand was a better choice of bad contracts (Burrell, Perez, etc.) rather than paying Bradley's contract to play elsewhere.

As a hitter: Cameron>Bradley>Rowand
As a position player:Cameron>Rowand>>>>>Bradley

Bradley's a better hitter than Cameron. Rowand is the worst of the 3 players, and you want to spend 14M more on him than we're paying Bradley. If you have to do a bad contract swap, you trade for Burrell and his 1 year commitment rather than locking yourself into an extra year of bad contract.

My original point was Rowand plus $6 million or more for Bradley. Another option might be Rowand plus a prospect for Bradley. I'm sure Hendry would consider getting Rowand plus cash (or a prospect) to get rid of Bradley a victory. My guess is that a deal for someone like Burrell would involve the Cubs sending money to the Rays to balance out the financial obligations.

dew1679666265 · September 28, 2009

Is the difference in age from Cameron to Rowand of any concern in looking at it from this perspective?

From a purely offensive standpoint, Rowand's OPS has declined each of the past three years and Cameron's has stayed pretty steady. I haven't seen much to expect a huge decline from Cameron.

How about this Solution to the Bradley Mess?

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs