Re: Rosenthal: Multiple teams after Bradley

[NewUserName]

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.

 

Hendry has proven that he does not handle these situations well. I have a fear that we will end up taking a bad contract from someone else. Which in my eyes would be the worse solution. At least Bradley is productive.

[davearm2]

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.

 

Hendry has proven that he does not handle these situations well. I have a fear that we will end up taking a bad contract from someone else. Which in my eyes would be the worse solution. At least Bradley is productive.

Obviously Bradley's productivity isn't the issue.

[NewUserName]

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.

 

without looking it up, my guess is Bradley's production was probably just as good if not better than the production the Cub's had in RF in 2008. Again this is just me thinking, but my guess is the Cub's lost 15 games of production in SP, C, 2b,3b,LF,CF and bench.

[CubColtPacer]

Clubhouse chemistry becomes more important if the problem player stays multiple seasons.

 

It probably is unreasonable to think that the performance of players dramatically suffers because of what other players are doing. Personality clashes are likely to happen in almost every clubhouse even when there isn't a particular problem person.

 

However, play on the field is not the only thing it affects. It also affects players decisions to re-sign with the club. It affects which players might want a trade. And there's a small possibility that it could affect the willingness of other players on other teams coming to the team in free agency.

 

If his teammates want him gone (which is what the writers of the city seem to all be saying) then he almost has to go. There's too many other potential negatives compared to the positives Bradley brings you. Only the team truly knows if his teammates do want him to go though.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

without looking it up, my guess is Bradley's production was probably just as good if not better than the production the Cub's had in RF in 2008. Again this is just me thinking, but my guess is the Cub's lost 15 games of production in SP, C, 2b,3b,LF,CF and bench.

 

Right. Things didn't stay the same. C, 2B, 3B, LF, and CF all put up noticeably worse offensive production.

 

SP was due to inevitable regression from Dempster and Harden, along with inevitable regression of team health.

 

C was due to inevitable regression from Soto, along with some bad luck on BIP, injury, and not a true spring training.

 

2B was due to inevitable regression from Fontenot, along with the loss of DeRosa

 

3b was due to injury, along with the loss of Derosa

 

LF was due to injury (I hope)

 

CF was due to the loss of Edmonds.

 

I'm just not seeing how Bradley hurt the performance of the club, beyond the fact that he was a bit of a disappointment performance wise.

[SouthSideRyan]

However, play on the field is not the only thing it affects. It also affects players decisions to re-sign with the club. It affects which players might want a trade. And there's a small possibility that it could affect the willingness of other players on other teams coming to the team in free agency.

 

If his teammates want him gone (which is what the writers of the city seem to all be saying) then he almost has to go. There's too many other potential negatives compared to the positives Bradley brings you. Only the team truly knows if his teammates do want him to go though.

 

I can sorta concede this point, but the quotes from the players never seemed to imply that they were miserable, I took it as more "what the hell is wrong with this guy. Why isn't he happy here?" I don't think Milton necessarily made his teammates miserable, he was just a jerk that they tuned out by midseason.

 

I don't see Bradley's presence affecting future free agents coming on. First off, we don't really have a spot (or probably the cash)to sign anyone this offseason unless we dump Bradley, so we're looking at the 2011 offseason following either Bradley continuing his issues leading to his dumping in that offseason, OR we're looking at a reformed Bradley and players won't care about coming here.

 

And even with that said, I find it hard to believe a free agent is going to turn down top dollar because Milton Bradley is on the team.

[Guest]

I have no faith in Hendry to trade Bradley for an acceptable return. He'll pay too much of his salary and he won't get anything significant in terms of talent.

 

Why would any team be willing to pay a significant portion of his contract or give up talent?

 

This is Hendry's nightmare, not theirs. If Hendry is to pass his nightmare off to someone else, he better be willing to pay the price to make it happen.

 

We kind of know the Padres are one of the teams interested in Bradley. What we also know about the Padres is that they are broke. They don't pay for anyone, not even Jake Peavy. Do you honestly think Hendry can trade Bradley, his baggage and his contract to San Diego?

 

San Diego will take Bradley and his baggage, but the contract stays in Chicago. Book it.

 

While the Tampa discussion is nice, Tampa couldn't handle BJ Upton. What makes them think they can handle Milton Bradley? BJ Upton has a whole lot of mischief to create to even dream about being in Milton Bradley's shoes.

 

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

The smarter play would have been to stay low key with all the Bradley hate and have everyone work out their issues this offseason so that the focus could be on baseball next year. They weren't going to the playoffs this year with or without the Bradley sideshow. Forget about it, move on and save face. Instead, Hendry forced himself to have to trade him for basically no return on his investment.

 

If Bradley has to go, so does Jim Hendry. And I wasn't saying that after Bradley was suspended. I've been saying Hendry has to go for years now. I'm not sure how much more obvious it needs to be to the higher ups.

[Backtobanks]

Clubhouse chemistry becomes more important if the problem player stays multiple seasons.

 

It probably is unreasonable to think that the performance of players dramatically suffers because of what other players are doing. Personality clashes are likely to happen in almost every clubhouse even when there isn't a particular problem person.

 

However, play on the field is not the only thing it affects. It also affects players decisions to re-sign with the club. It affects which players might want a trade. And there's a small possibility that it could affect the willingness of other players on other teams coming to the team in free agency.

 

If his teammates want him gone (which is what the writers of the city seem to all be saying) then he almost has to go. There's too many other potential negatives compared to the positives Bradley brings you. Only the team truly knows if his teammates do want him to go though.

 

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media.

[SouthSideRyan]

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

[Guest]

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

 

I didn't say that now, did I?

 

What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency.

 

Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man.

[jersey cubs fan]

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

 

I didn't say that now, did I?

 

What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency.

 

Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man.

 

I doubt that. He might go on the back burner, but as soon as guys start signing, teams left on the outside in those deals will go right back to thinking about Bradley. I think the general level of interest will remain relatively constant.

 

As for this statement:

 

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media.

 

I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays pooorly. I'm sure he'd love the players to all be good spokespeople for the team, however, wins are what sells tickets and drives ratings. When the team struggles, those things decline. And that is the last thing he wants. I am hoping that is what behind his insistence that the Cubs don't pay Bradley to perform somewhere else.

[SouthSideRyan]

Clubhouse chemistry becomes more important if the problem player stays multiple seasons.

 

It probably is unreasonable to think that the performance of players dramatically suffers because of what other players are doing. Personality clashes are likely to happen in almost every clubhouse even when there isn't a particular problem person.

 

However, play on the field is not the only thing it affects. It also affects players decisions to re-sign with the club. It affects which players might want a trade. And there's a small possibility that it could affect the willingness of other players on other teams coming to the team in free agency.

 

If his teammates want him gone (which is what the writers of the city seem to all be saying) then he almost has to go. There's too many other potential negatives compared to the positives Bradley brings you. Only the team truly knows if his teammates do want him to go though.

 

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media.

 

Cause a good Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

[dew1679666265]

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

 

I didn't say that now, did I?

 

What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency.

 

Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man.

 

With the possible exception of Mike Cameron, Bradley is far and away the best player available this offseason. That is where the interest is coming from - if a team wants a significant upgrade, Bradley is about the best they'll get.

[jersey cubs fan]

With the possible exception of Mike Cameron, Bradley is far and away the best player available this offseason. That is where the interest is coming from - if a team wants a significant upgrade, Bradley is about the best they'll get.

 

That can't possibly be true.

[sweetpeteman]

Cause a good Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

 

Could just be:

 

Cause a Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

[jersey cubs fan]

Cause a good Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

 

Could just be:

 

Cause a Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

 

A non-winning Cubs team definitely is. The recent string of sell-outs is no guarantee, and it has not been a very longterm trend. As recently as 1999/2000/2001 it was extremely easy to get tickets. In late 98 it started to get tough, but it wasn't like it's been recently. The "unprecedented" level of success coupled with the fans dying need to be there to see it happen led to tickets sales going through the roof, regular shmoes making real money selling their tickets on the open market and it all fed off of itself. But people took a bath this year. Tickets were going for well below face on stubhub, and there were loads of empty seats. The tickets were sold by the team (for the most part, there were tickets available for every late game directly from the cubs), but without bodies in the seats beer/food/merchandise sales did not happen. This started to happen in 2005/2006 after Wood/Prior fell apart, Sosa left and the team played like crap. They had to resort to a franchise busting contract for a huge name in Soriano to renew interest and guarantee sales. But if the Cubs remain stuck in mediocrity or fall back to the crap they were, ticket sales will decline, and the ratings will not be there. They need to be competitive to keep the money stream flowing.

[dew1679666265]

With the possible exception of Mike Cameron, Bradley is far and away the best player available this offseason. That is where the interest is coming from - if a team wants a significant upgrade, Bradley is about the best they'll get.

 

That can't possibly be true.

 

That Bradley is better than most of the free agent outfielders? I'd say it probably is. Here they are:

 

Bobby Abreu LAA (A)

Garret Anderson ATL (B)

Rick Ankiel STL

Rocco Baldelli BOS

Jason Bay BOS (A)

Marlon Byrd TEX (B)

Mike Cameron MIL (B)

Frank Catalanotto TEX

Endy Chavez SEA

Coco Crisp * KC

Carl Crawford * TB (B)

Johnny Damon NYY (A)

David Dellucci CLE

Jermaine Dye * CWS (A)

Darin Erstad HOU

Cliff Floyd SD

Ryan Freel TEX

Brian Giles SD (B)

Ken Griffey Jr. SEA

Vladimir Guerrero LAA (A)

Eric Hinske NYY

Matt Holliday STL (A)

Geoff Jenkins * PHI

Reed Johnson CHC

Andruw Jones TEX

Gabe Kapler TB

Austin Kearns * WAS

Mark Kotsay CHW

Hideki Matusi NYY (B)

Jason Michaels CLE

Xavier Nady NYY (B)

Magglio Ordonez * DET

Scott Podsednik CHW

Manny Ramirez * LAD (A)

Dave Roberts SF

Gary Sheffield NYM

Fernando Tatis NYM (B)

Randy Winn SF (B)

[jersey cubs fan]

With the possible exception of Mike Cameron, Bradley is far and away the best player available this offseason. That is where the interest is coming from - if a team wants a significant upgrade, Bradley is about the best they'll get.

 

That can't possibly be true.

 

That Bradley is better than most of the free agent outfielders? I'd say it probably is. Here they are:

 

You said "far and away the best player available this offseason". Better than most free agent outfielders is a completely different statement.

[SouthSideRyan]

Cause a good Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

 

Could just be:

 

Cause a Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

 

A non-winning Cubs team definitely is. The recent string of sell-outs is no guarantee, and it has not been a very longterm trend. As recently as 1999/2000/2001 it was extremely easy to get tickets. In late 98 it started to get tough, but it wasn't like it's been recently. The "unprecedented" level of success coupled with the fans dying need to be there to see it happen led to tickets sales going through the roof, regular shmoes making real money selling their tickets on the open market and it all fed off of itself. But people took a bath this year. Tickets were going for well below face on stubhub, and there were loads of empty seats. The tickets were sold by the team (for the most part, there were tickets available for every late game directly from the cubs), but without bodies in the seats beer/food/merchandise sales did not happen. This started to happen in 2005/2006 after Wood/Prior fell apart, Sosa left and the team played like crap. They had to resort to a franchise busting contract for a huge name in Soriano to renew interest and guarantee sales. But if the Cubs remain stuck in mediocrity or fall back to the crap they were, ticket sales will decline, and the ratings will not be there. They need to be competitive to keep the money stream flowing.

 

And Bradley's attitude has nothing to do with it. Fans are going to go if the team is good, and they'll stay away if they're bad.

[Backtobanks]

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

 

I didn't say that now, did I?

 

What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency.

 

Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man.

 

I doubt that. He might go on the back burner, but as soon as guys start signing, teams left on the outside in those deals will go right back to thinking about Bradley. I think the general level of interest will remain relatively constant.

 

As for this statement:

 

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media.

 

I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays pooorly. I'm sure he'd love the players to all be good spokespeople for the team, however, wins are what sells tickets and drives ratings. When the team struggles, those things decline. And that is the last thing he wants. I am hoping that is what behind his insistence that the Cubs don't pay Bradley to perform somewhere else.

 

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

[SouthSideRyan]

Once the World Series is over and more and more players file for free agency and more and more teams consider not offering arbitration, Milton Bradley will become a forgotten man. Teams will see that they can make improvements without taking on the extra baggage that Bradley possesses.

 

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

 

I didn't say that now, did I?

 

What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency.

 

Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man.

 

I doubt that. He might go on the back burner, but as soon as guys start signing, teams left on the outside in those deals will go right back to thinking about Bradley. I think the general level of interest will remain relatively constant.

 

As for this statement:

 

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media.

 

I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays pooorly. I'm sure he'd love the players to all be good spokespeople for the team, however, wins are what sells tickets and drives ratings. When the team struggles, those things decline. And that is the last thing he wants. I am hoping that is what behind his insistence that the Cubs don't pay Bradley to perform somewhere else.

 

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

 

And if they stay relatively healthy in 2010 they would be contenders with Bradley. And if they don't, they'll be losers without Bradley, and fans will only show up to boo the team. I'm not really following here.

[jersey cubs fan]

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

 

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided.

 

 

Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions.

 

If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him.

[dew1679666265]

With the possible exception of Mike Cameron, Bradley is far and away the best player available this offseason. That is where the interest is coming from - if a team wants a significant upgrade, Bradley is about the best they'll get.

 

That can't possibly be true.

 

That Bradley is better than most of the free agent outfielders? I'd say it probably is. Here they are:

 

You said "far and away the best player available this offseason". Better than most free agent outfielders is a completely different statement.

 

Far and away is probably exaggeration, but he is the best outfielder on the market - save for maybe Cameron.

[jersey cubs fan]

With the possible exception of Mike Cameron, Bradley is far and away the best player available this offseason. That is where the interest is coming from - if a team wants a significant upgrade, Bradley is about the best they'll get.

 

That can't possibly be true.

 

That Bradley is better than most of the free agent outfielders? I'd say it probably is. Here they are:

 

You said "far and away the best player available this offseason". Better than most free agent outfielders is a completely different statement.

 

Far and away is probably exaggeration, but he is the best outfielder on the market - save for maybe Cameron.

 

Holliday, Bay, Crawford. There's an argument for plenty of guys. And that doesn't even take into account other potential trade bait on the market.

[dew1679666265]

Holliday, Bay, Crawford. There's an argument for plenty of guys. And that doesn't even take into account other potential trade bait on the market.

 

How did I forget Holliday, Bay and Crawford when I posted the list? That's what I get for posting at work.

 

Those three are better, but much more costly, I'd say. Most is probably the right term to use. Even if he's better than most, though, my point still stands - there is interest in Bradley because he's one of the best avenues to improving a team this offseason.