Re: Rosenthal: Multiple teams after Bradley

[erik316wttn]

Does anyone have the combined OBP of Kouske and Bradley for the games in which they batted 1-2?

 

Fukudome 2/13 with 5 BB

Bradley 3/15 with 2 BB and a HBP

 

so that is a combined OBP of .361 over the 4 games that they were in the top 2 spots in the lineup.

 

Small sample size, but I think that could be sustained for an entire season.

[Guest]

Yeah...teams could be interested in Bradley only because they think the Cubs will give him away. If they they hold out for value, interest could shrink quickly.

 

I'm sure they don't want to pay his entire salary or give up top flight young talent, but there's no way all the interest is from the idea that the Cubs will pay 80-90% of his salary. Especially after the comments from Ricketts.

I already told you guys there was significant interest. I don't know how much we'll get back, but I'm pretty sure we won't be eating 80-90% of the deail

 

On the other hand, Hendry may take back what we perceive to be a bad contract.

[jersey cubs fan]

Does anyone have the combined OBP of Kouske and Bradley for the games in which they batted 1-2?

 

Fukudome 2/13 with 5 BB

Bradley 3/15 with 2 BB and a HBP

 

so that is a combined OBP of .361 over the 4 games that they were in the top 2 spots in the lineup.

 

Small sample size, but I think that could be sustained for an entire season.

 

Considering both of them have career and 2009 OBPs in excess of .361, yes, I would think they could sustain that for an entire season.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah...teams could be interested in Bradley only because they think the Cubs will give him away. If they they hold out for value, interest could shrink quickly.

 

I'm sure they don't want to pay his entire salary or give up top flight young talent, but there's no way all the interest is from the idea that the Cubs will pay 80-90% of his salary. Especially after the comments from Ricketts.

I already told you guys there was significant interest. I don't know how much we'll get back, but I'm pretty sure we won't be eating 80-90% of the deail

 

On the other hand, Hendry may take back what we perceive to be a bad contract.

 

Eating 20% and getting back mediocrity is still a horrible move. If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

[A-Cal]

Yeah...teams could be interested in Bradley only because they think the Cubs will give him away. If they they hold out for value, interest could shrink quickly.

 

I'm sure they don't want to pay his entire salary or give up top flight young talent, but there's no way all the interest is from the idea that the Cubs will pay 80-90% of his salary. Especially after the comments from Ricketts.

I already told you guys there was significant interest. I don't know how much we'll get back, but I'm pretty sure we won't be eating 80-90% of the deail

 

On the other hand, Hendry may take back what we perceive to be a bad contract.

 

Eating 20% and getting back mediocrity is still a horrible move. If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

 

prepare to be disappointed

 

what you have outlined is absolutely impossible

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah...teams could be interested in Bradley only because they think the Cubs will give him away. If they they hold out for value, interest could shrink quickly.

 

I'm sure they don't want to pay his entire salary or give up top flight young talent, but there's no way all the interest is from the idea that the Cubs will pay 80-90% of his salary. Especially after the comments from Ricketts.

I already told you guys there was significant interest. I don't know how much we'll get back, but I'm pretty sure we won't be eating 80-90% of the deail

 

On the other hand, Hendry may take back what we perceive to be a bad contract.

 

Eating 20% and getting back mediocrity is still a horrible move. If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

 

prepare to be disappointed

 

what you have outlined is absolutely impossible

 

Only if they insist on trading him no matter the offer. He's an asset, and they need to get a similar asset. If they eat money, they need to get a better asset.

[dew1679666265]

If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

 

I'd be ok with an either or there. Either get free of the entire salary or bring back some serious talent. I don't see a great need (though it'd certainly be a plus) to get both.

[jersey cubs fan]

If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

 

I'd be ok with an either or there. Either get free of the entire salary or bring back some serious talent. I don't see a great need (though it'd certainly be a plus) to get both.

 

If they just get rid of the salary they are stuck without a quality bat, if they only get back talent, they have to pay too much for it.

 

Bradley is an asset and they need to treat him like one. Hopefully that is what Rickitts is insisting on. A sunk cost is a crappy player who you might as well cut. But even in a down year Bradley was better than what they are likely to replace him with, and he's probably going to be better next year.

[CubColtPacer]

I already told you guys there was significant interest. I don't know how much we'll get back, but I'm pretty sure we won't be eating 80-90% of the deail

 

On the other hand, Hendry may take back what we perceive to be a bad contract.

 

Eating 20% and getting back mediocrity is still a horrible move. If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

 

prepare to be disappointed

 

what you have outlined is absolutely impossible

 

Only if they insist on trading him no matter the offer. He's an asset, and they need to get a similar asset. If they eat money, they need to get a better asset.

 

That's based on the thought that Milton Bradley at 2 years and 21 million is truly an asset. He may very well be..but most years, he has been around a 10 million dollar player (with the notable exceptions of 2008 where he was well above and 2009 where he was well below).

 

However, he also is not going to get the fielding value he did in the past from playing a respectable CF. And with the leg injuries, being 32 next year, and having a below average defensive season at 31 he likely will only be average at best in RF next season. So he's going to have to be healthy for at least 120-130 games again and have an OPS that is probably 75 points higher than this year to be worth that sort of deal.

 

However, if you only ate 20 percent (4.2 million) and got a couple of decent prospects back or even a decent cheap platoon player and/or a cheap middle reliever, you could go out and get almost 17 million worth of value on the free agent market and then have those players hopefully add the other 4 million of value over the next 2 years.

 

Now, I don't think the Cubs will get that good of a deal. But if they did, it certainly wouldn't be horrible for them. Bradley is only a significant asset if 1) you feel his contract is under market value for his production (IMO, it's not, although he's not way overpaid either) or 2) RF's are too scarce to find other players who could fill that level of production for that money (which I don't believe they are).

 

Now if the team is eating 50 percent or more or taking on a bad contract, then in baseball terms they would have to get a good asset in return for it not to be a horrible deal (in PR terms it might be worth it to the club anyway). But if they only take on 20 percent, they wouldn't have to get much back for it to be an ok baseball deal because Bradley wasn't worth that much more to the club in the first place.

[mhuber92211]

This sitaution just reminds me of the Hundley for Karros deal.

[jersey cubs fan]

This sitaution just reminds me of the Hundley for Karros deal.

 

The difference is Hundley was an atrocious baseball player. That was entirely about getting crap off the books, they just got back two guys who happened to have bounceback years. Bradley is a decent player. You can't just throw crap against the wall and hope it sticks.

[dew1679666265]

If they can't get the entire salary off the books and bring back serious talent, they can't justify making the move.

 

I'd be ok with an either or there. Either get free of the entire salary or bring back some serious talent. I don't see a great need (though it'd certainly be a plus) to get both.

 

If they just get rid of the salary they are stuck without a quality bat, if they only get back talent, they have to pay too much for it.

 

Bradley is an asset and they need to treat him like one. Hopefully that is what Rickitts is insisting on. A sunk cost is a crappy player who you might as well cut. But even in a down year Bradley was better than what they are likely to replace him with, and he's probably going to be better next year.

 

If they free up Bradley's salary, though, they can turn around and get a similar bat cheaper in a Mike Cameron or someone else. If they pay 70% of Bradley's salary, but get a high quality prospect or two back, that probably is less appealing but it bulks up the farm system.

[Backtobanks]

Obviously it's a matter of semantics. When it's rumored that the Cubs won't pay a "vast majority" of Bradley's contract, does that mean they will pay 50%? 60%? Some of you are throwing around the number 20%. Also, the quote certainly seems to suggest taking back another bad contract. Getting a role player for 2010 and paying 50% of the difference in contracts or a decent prospect or two and paying 40% of his contract seems like the best we can hope for. If Hendry can do better than that, he deserves a lot of credit.

[Soul]

Could we keep him? Or is that bridge too badly burned? I'd love to get good talent in return, but if that can't happen then I'm inclined to want to try another year.

 

I'm concerned with the level of talent on this club. You throw aram or lee on the DL, plus no Bradley -- that's potentially many days of bad baseball.

[CUBZ99]

Could we keep him? Or is that bridge too badly burned? I'd love to get good talent in return, but if that can't happen then I'm inclined to want to try another year.

 

I'm concerned with the level of talent on this club. You throw aram or lee on the DL, plus no Bradley -- that's potentially many days of bad baseball.

 

Not going to happen. Bruce had an blog today about why Bradley won't be back.

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2787

[Clem Fandango]

I would imagine that the Angels are one of the interested teams, what with them losing Guerrero and Abreu to FA this year, leaving them without their primary RF and DH, two roles Bradley can fill

[davearm2]

This is an interesting discussion, but at the end of the day none of us (I assume) are privy to the most critical piece of information: exactly how Bradley and his attitude/approach impacted the Cubs' clubhouse dynamic.

 

If most of his teammates liked him or at least could tolerate him, then that would steer the decision in one direction.

 

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

[SouthSideRyan]

I would imagine that the Angels are one of the interested teams, what with them losing Guerrero and Abreu to FA this year, leaving them without their primary RF and DH, two roles Bradley can fill

 

Scioscia is a redass. He'll never take Bradley.

 

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

[treebird]

I would imagine that the Angels are one of the interested teams, what with them losing Guerrero and Abreu to FA this year, leaving them without their primary RF and DH, two roles Bradley can fill

 

Scioscia is a redass. He'll never take Bradley.

 

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

 

if geovany soto or whoever is so stupid that he forgets how to hit or (chooses not to hit) because of how much he hates being around milton bradley, we're probably trying to trade the wrong guy.

[Backtobanks]

I would imagine that the Angels are one of the interested teams, what with them losing Guerrero and Abreu to FA this year, leaving them without their primary RF and DH, two roles Bradley can fill

 

Scioscia is a redass. He'll never take Bradley.

 

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

 

I'm not sure how you could measure the effect he has on other players' performance since there are too many variables in baseball.

[Tyrant]

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

 

I completely see your point, but not everything can be quantified.

[SouthSideRyan]

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

 

I completely see your point, but not everything can be quantified.

 

But a player's performance on the field can be quantified, and that's all that should matter.

[NewUserName]

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

 

I completely see your point, but not everything can be quantified.

 

I was of the opinion that if the Cubs season was more successful there would never have been the Bradley issue. My brother is of the opinion that the Bradley issue may have been a reason why the Cubs season was not as successful. I have to honestly admit that I am not sure how you can figure out who is correct. I have also been in work situations where productivity suffered because of one real bad attitude, even though that person was productive in their job.

 

At this point if Hendry can move Bradley and not have to pay more than a couple of million, I think that would be best. I think bringing him back is just setting everyone up for trouble.

[daske17]

This sitaution just reminds me of the Hundley for Karros deal.

 

I was thinking more of the Sosa deal because Hendry has already put a spotlight that Bradley needs to go. And we know how much money the Cubs ate to get rid of Sosa.

[davearm2]

I would imagine that the Angels are one of the interested teams, what with them losing Guerrero and Abreu to FA this year, leaving them without their primary RF and DH, two roles Bradley can fill

 

Scioscia is a redass. He'll never take Bradley.

 

But if all 24 other guys can't stand him and want nothing more than to see him gone, well then all of this talk of mending fences and making things work etc. is just a lot of wasted bandwidth, because in that event it's completely out of the question.

 

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

At the end of the day, you either believe in the concept of team chemistry, or you don't. However there will never be definitive, quantifiable proof that it exists.

 

As for the Cubs' situation, a few things changed from '08 to '09, most things stayed the same, and the team finished about 15 games worse. What role (if any) the Bradley Factor played in that outcome, nobody can say for certain.