Bradley for Rowand?

[RedFlash]

That other incentive part was only a way for Bradley to guarantee it again if it became a club option in the first place. Since it didn't become a club option, that part is irrelevant.

 

Ok, but doesn't change the fact that if we are to take the inferior player (although he grit-o-meter has to be through the roof) with the worse contract, I would demand a solid prospect in return if I was Hendry. I wouldn't demand somebody like Bumgardner, but someone like Joaquin or Sosa would suffice.

 

I tried to point out that Rowand isn't necessarily an inferior player compared to Bradley. He does have a worse contract, which is why I included the money coming back to the Cubs. Another option to receiving money would be to get a decent prospect in return.

 

I prefer getting a good prospect back instead of cash....

[Cubbie Swagger]

Well... Rowand did have a couple good years... so it would be possible for the move to pay off. Not saying I would do it for sure, but if we traded Bradley for a CF who put up an OPS over .900 in 2010....I'd have to call that a victory.

[dew1679666265]

I tried to point out that Rowand isn't necessarily an inferior player compared to Bradley.

 

The problem with using career stats is that you're weighting the players' 22-25 year old seasons as much as the past 2-3. Neither Bradley nor Rowand are the same player today as they were 10 years ago, thus using stats that compare them from 10 years ago is flawed.

 

Over the past three seasons - which is a decent sample size - Rowand has posted an .889, .749 and .744 OPS. Bradley, in the same time frame, has posted a .947, .999 and .775 OPS. EqA also has Bradley as a better player in most seasons.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well... Rowand did have a couple good years... so it would be possible for the move to pay off. Not saying I would do it for sure, but if we traded Bradley for a CF who put up an OPS over .900 in 2010....I'd have to call that a victory.

 

LULZ

 

Only .900?

 

Glad to see your expectations are so reasonable, especially towards a guy who has managed that only once in his career.

[Lefty]

See the "Channeling Jim Hendry" thread from September 1st.

[treebird]

the bad thing about trading for rowand would be that we would probably play him. i'd rather trade mb for junk and save whatever tiny amount of money we can compared to trading for rowand and then go get someone who might be good to play in the outfield for us.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah that's why i don't want rowand. unless he magically reproduces his 2007 season he's going to provide, at best, average defense and average offense, which means that we're no closer to having a legitimate offense than we were this year.

[Backtobanks]

yeah that's why i don't want rowand. unless he magically reproduces his 2007 season he's going to provide, at best, average defense and average offense, which means that we're no closer to having a legitimate offense than we were this year.

 

The legitimate offense for 2010 is probably going to come from a healthy Ramirez and Soriano, a rebound from Soto, and a full season of Baker or Baker/Fontenot platoon. I don't think Bradley/Rowand discussion will affect the offense as much as health from the key offensive players.

[Jehrico]

I wouldn't call Bradley for Rowand horrible.

 

More like meh. Hendry's going to move Bradley come hell or high water this offseason. There's alot of worse possibilities out there. I hope he holds out for something better, as I'm rather ambivalent to the possibility of trading him for Rowand. Save the money on the last year, I think. Unless, that is, they throw in a legit prospect to go with him, then I'd reconsider depending on the prospect.