Re: Rosenthal: Multiple teams after Bradley

[gflore34]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

It's too bad Bradley cannot be somehow be retained because, his trading is not going to be a case of addition by subtraction. They're going to get garbage in return, be a terrible player and/or a crippling contract. Garbage that's going to open another hole in Cubs lineup and be nowhere near as effective as a 1,2 of Fukedome and Bradley would have been.

[Rob]

You can say you don't think it's a good idea to bring him back. And I'm sure you can make an argument for it like you tried to above. But when people here are asserting the he burned bridges to the point that there's no way he can possibly return to the team, they're quite wrong.

 

I think it would be a great idea to bring Bradley back next year (rather than get nothing), but I don't have to play with him or be around him for 3/4 of the year. His statement about "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" , although greatly exaggerated is probably closer to the truth, than any chance that Bradley returns.

 

I'm not debating that at all. Really, I'm just nitpicking some sloppy logic from people.

 

Will we keep him? No. The front office seems to have decided (for right or wrong) that he's too much of a distraction and we need to get him the hell out of here.

 

But how some people make the jump in logic from we wont keep him to we can't keep him, is beyond me. If the front office had decided it was the best course of action to keep him around and try to salvage some value from the contract, things could have been glossed over in the clubhouse fairly easily, at least to start the year. Players get into fistfights with each other, use steroids, beat their wives, etc... and the situations are "handled" easily enough with an apology. And there is nothing from any of our players to indicate that if Milton came out the first day of spring training and said, "I'm sorry folks. I was an [expletive]. I'm in therapy now," that they'd tell him to get the hell away.

[davearm2]

You can say you don't think it's a good idea to bring him back. And I'm sure you can make an argument for it like you tried to above. But when people here are asserting the he burned bridges to the point that there's no way he can possibly return to the team, they're quite wrong.

 

I think it would be a great idea to bring Bradley back next year (rather than get nothing), but I don't have to play with him or be around him for 3/4 of the year. His statement about "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" , although greatly exaggerated is probably closer to the truth, than any chance that Bradley returns.

 

I'm not debating that at all. Really, I'm just nitpicking some sloppy logic from people.

 

Will we keep him? No. The front office seems to have decided (for right or wrong) that he's too much of a distraction and we need to get him the hell out of here.

 

But how some people make the jump in logic from we wont keep him to we can't keep him, is beyond me. If the front office had decided it was the best course of action to keep him around and try to salvage some value from the contract, things could have been glossed over in the clubhouse fairly easily, at least to start the year. Players get into fistfights with each other, use steroids, beat their wives, etc... and the situations are "handled" easily enough with an apology. And there is nothing from any of our players to indicate that if Milton came out the first day of spring training and said, "I'm sorry folks. I was an [expletive]. I'm in therapy now," that they'd tell him to get the hell away.

It's really pointless to throw out statements like this unless you have firsthand knowledge of just how things were in the Cubs clubhouse (and batting cages, team flights, video rooms, etc).

 

Really the only people qualified to make such a judgement are the ones who were around the team regularly and witnessed firsthand what the atmosphere was like, both before Bradley's arrival and after.

 

I'm certainly not in that position, and I suspect nobody else posting on this board is either.

[davearm2]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

I'd go so far as to predict that Bradley will be traded within a week of the WS ending, and quite possibly the next day (a la the Renteria trade in 2007).

 

Unlike a lot of baseball deals, this one will not take long to consummate IMO.

[Soul]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

I'd go so far as to predict that Bradley will be traded within a week of the WS ending, and quite possibly the next day (a la the Renteria trade in 2007).

 

Unlike a lot of baseball deals, this one will not take long to consummate IMO.

 

Well, if he's going to go I'd rather it not take all offseason so I guess I would count that as a good thing.

[RedFlash]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

I'd go so far as to predict that Bradley will be traded within a week of the WS ending, and quite possibly the next day (a la the Renteria trade in 2007).

 

Unlike a lot of baseball deals, this one will not take long to consummate IMO.

 

Well, if he's going to go I'd rather it not take all offseason so I guess I would count that as a good thing.

 

That and only if the Cubs have to eat as little or none of the contract as possible, I would consider a good thing.

[pitchcs]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

I'd go so far as to predict that Bradley will be traded within a week of the WS ending, and quite possibly the next day (a la the Renteria trade in 2007).

 

Unlike a lot of baseball deals, this one will not take long to consummate IMO.

 

Well, if he's going to go I'd rather it not take all offseason so I guess I would count that as a good thing.

 

That and only if the Cubs have to eat as little or none of the contract as possible, I would consider a good thing.

 

 

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

[Backtobanks]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

I'd go so far as to predict that Bradley will be traded within a week of the WS ending, and quite possibly the next day (a la the Renteria trade in 2007).

 

Unlike a lot of baseball deals, this one will not take long to consummate IMO.

 

Well, if he's going to go I'd rather it not take all offseason so I guess I would count that as a good thing.

 

That and only if the Cubs have to eat as little or none of the contract as possible, I would consider a good thing.

 

 

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

Technically it is a possibility (i.e. The Cubs take on a worse contract). Of course there's still posters who think there's a possibility Bradley will be back.

[RedFlash]

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract.

[dew1679666265]

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract.

 

The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs.

[RedFlash]

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract.

 

The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs.

 

Exactly, I doubt the amount the Cubs will be all that much. So I don't get why people think they Cubs will have to eat alot of contract to move Bradley, when that is simply not true.

[dew1679666265]

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract.

 

The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs.

 

Exactly, I doubt the amount the Cubs will be all that much. So I don't get why people think they Cubs will have to eat alot of contract to move Bradley, when that is simply not true.

 

I don't think that's necessarily the case. We may well have to pay a decent portion of his contract (40-75%) or take a bad contract back, but the more teams that are interested the more likely it is we hit the lower end of that spectrum.

[RedFlash]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. We may well have to pay a decent portion of his contract (40-75%) or take a bad contract back, but the more teams that are interested the more likely it is we hit the lower end of that spectrum.

 

IMO, the more money the Cubs have to eat the better the prospects, IMO. The Cubs shouldn't just give Bradley just because you can.

[Backtobanks]

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract.

 

The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs.

 

I agree that having multiple teams interested is good for the Cubs, but I still wonder how many teams are interested only because of the perception that the Cubs are going to give him away (and pay a big chunk of his contract) or take back a terrible contract. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out.

[dew1679666265]

I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility.

 

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract.

 

The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs.

 

I agree that having multiple teams interested is good for the Cubs, but I still wonder how many teams are interested only because of the perception that the Cubs are going to give him away (and pay a big chunk of his contract) or take back a terrible contract. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out.

 

That may be their interest at first (which I don't think is the only reason for their interest), but the key is to get their interest. Since we have that, it's possible it could bloom into more.

[Guest]

Where exactly is all of this interest coming from?

 

I'd venture to guess there is a lot of interest because the Cubs want Bradley gone so bad, they'd be willing to pay most of his contract to be gone, ala Sammy Sosa.

 

Why any team would be willing to actually part with anything significant for Bradley is beyond me. The Cubs and Bradley created this mess. Why would some other team want to involve themselves in this mess unless the Cubs were footing the bill?

[CubColtPacer]

Where exactly is all of this interest coming from?

 

I'd venture to guess there is a lot of interest because the Cubs want Bradley gone so bad, they'd be willing to pay most of his contract to be gone, ala Sammy Sosa.

 

Why any team would be willing to actually part with anything significant for Bradley is beyond me. The Cubs and Bradley created this mess. Why would some other team want to involve themselves in this mess unless the Cubs were footing the bill?

 

I don't know if it will be anything significant, but other teams are interested in Bradley for the same reason teams like the Cubs, Rangers, Padres, Athletics, and Dodgers were in the past. They know that if they can harness Bradley's talent they can get a steal, and they always feel like they have the correct situation to where he won't act up as much.

 

The deal will essentially end up be what the second most interested team thinks Bradley's true value is. That's where the Cubs leverage will come from. If two teams think that Bradley is not very much overpaid (and that he's actually worth 7-8 million each of the next two years), then the Cubs will not have to pay very much of the contract. If only one team is willing to take a chance on him for much more than minimum salary, then the Cubs are in trouble as far as negotiating a decent deal because they will have no leverage.

 

We're basically talking about a garage sale here. An owner puts out a damaged good and puts a 25 cent price tag on it. Three people come by and one decides they can repair it and make it worth 10 dollars, another 15, and another 20. The person who thinks it's worth $20 isn't going to stop offering more when the bidding gets to $5 just because the owner would have let it go for a quarter. That wouldn't be rational of them because they would be hurting themselves out of paying only $15 for what they think is a $20 product.

[Guest]

Where exactly is all of this interest coming from?

 

I'd venture to guess there is a lot of interest because the Cubs want Bradley gone so bad, they'd be willing to pay most of his contract to be gone, ala Sammy Sosa.

 

Why any team would be willing to actually part with anything significant for Bradley is beyond me. The Cubs and Bradley created this mess. Why would some other team want to involve themselves in this mess unless the Cubs were footing the bill?

 

I don't know if it will be anything significant, but other teams are interested in Bradley for the same reason teams like the Cubs, Rangers, Padres, Athletics, and Dodgers were in the past. They know that if they can harness Bradley's talent they can get a steal, and they always feel like they have the correct situation to where he won't act up as much.

 

The deal will essentially end up be what the second most interested team thinks Bradley's true value is. That's where the Cubs leverage will come from. If two teams think that Bradley is not very much overpaid (and that he's actually worth 7-8 million each of the next two years), then the Cubs will not have to pay very much of the contract. If only one team is willing to take a chance on him for much more than minimum salary, then the Cubs are in trouble as far as negotiating a decent deal because they will have no leverage.

 

We're basically talking about a garage sale here. An owner puts out a damaged good and puts a 25 cent price tag on it. Three people come by and one decides they can repair it and make it worth 10 dollars, another 15, and another 20. The person who thinks it's worth $20 isn't going to stop offering more when the bidding gets to $5 just because the owner would have let it go for a quarter. That wouldn't be rational of them because they would be hurting themselves out of paying only $15 for what they think is a $20 product.

 

All Sammy Sosa really did was walk out on the team on the last game of the year, and the Cubs paid 17m of his guaranteed 19m to play out the last year of his contract somewhere else. The Cubs got Jerry Hairston, Mike Fontenot and one other guy who thought it would be better to retire rather than grace us in a Cubs uniform.

 

Adding in the current financial climate out there and I just don't see how the Cubs can expect anything significant for a known pain in the ass that the Cubs desperately want to be rid of.

 

I don't know what teams are interested other than Tampa and San Diego. We know that neither of these teams will be creating any kind of bidding war for Bradley.

[Andy]

In fairness though, Bradley has a lot more value as a player than Sammy had at that time.

[CubColtPacer]

Where exactly is all of this interest coming from?

 

I'd venture to guess there is a lot of interest because the Cubs want Bradley gone so bad, they'd be willing to pay most of his contract to be gone, ala Sammy Sosa.

 

Why any team would be willing to actually part with anything significant for Bradley is beyond me. The Cubs and Bradley created this mess. Why would some other team want to involve themselves in this mess unless the Cubs were footing the bill?

 

I don't know if it will be anything significant, but other teams are interested in Bradley for the same reason teams like the Cubs, Rangers, Padres, Athletics, and Dodgers were in the past. They know that if they can harness Bradley's talent they can get a steal, and they always feel like they have the correct situation to where he won't act up as much.

 

The deal will essentially end up be what the second most interested team thinks Bradley's true value is. That's where the Cubs leverage will come from. If two teams think that Bradley is not very much overpaid (and that he's actually worth 7-8 million each of the next two years), then the Cubs will not have to pay very much of the contract. If only one team is willing to take a chance on him for much more than minimum salary, then the Cubs are in trouble as far as negotiating a decent deal because they will have no leverage.

 

We're basically talking about a garage sale here. An owner puts out a damaged good and puts a 25 cent price tag on it. Three people come by and one decides they can repair it and make it worth 10 dollars, another 15, and another 20. The person who thinks it's worth $20 isn't going to stop offering more when the bidding gets to $5 just because the owner would have let it go for a quarter. That wouldn't be rational of them because they would be hurting themselves out of paying only $15 for what they think is a $20 product.

 

All Sammy Sosa really did was walk out on the team on the last game of the year, and the Cubs paid 17m of his guaranteed 19m. The Cubs got Jerry Hairston, Mike Fontenot and one other guy who thought it would be better to retire rather than grace us in a Cubs uniform.

 

Adding in the current financial climate out there and I just don't see how the Cubs can expect anything significant for a known pain in the ass.

 

Sosa was a little different of a situation. Teams didn't want him because they felt he wasn't going to be productive anymore and not quite as much because of his attitude. Sosa was 36 and seemed to be quickly falling off the cliff. The Orioles took a chance on him to sell tickets and paid 5 million of his contract.

 

Bradley has a much bigger attitude problem but not nearly as much of a production problem. There are plenty of people around the league who feel like he'll bounce back and be very productive the next two years.

 

But I do agree that I don't see the Cubs getting anything significant. They'll probably get a better deal than the Sosa one but not by that much.

[jersey cubs fan]

In retrospect it was obvious Sammy was done. But he was better in his final year with the Cubs than Milton was this year, and he had a more stable track record of success. Milton is younger than Sammy was then, but with a much worse history of injury and instability.

[Guest]

In retrospect it was obvious Sammy was done. But he was better in his final year with the Cubs than Milton was this year, and he had a more stable track record of success. Milton is younger than Sammy was then, but with a much worse history of injury and instability.

 

Agreed. However, the angle I was shooting for here is being overlooked a little bit. When Hendry gets it in his mind that he wants someone gone, the cost can be damaging. Hendry wanted Sosa gone. He practically gave him to Baltimore for next to nothing just to be rid of him.

 

And while we would all just love for some team to offer to pay all of Bradley's contract while also offering up premium talent, they will nickel and dime Hendry and in the heat of the moment or in a panic attack, he'll swing a deal that basically gives Bradley away just so he can be rid of him.

 

I wish I could have a more positive outlook on this, but I just don't.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wasn't there some sort of situation regarding a huge vesting option with Sosa?

[Guest]

Wasn't there some sort of situation regarding a huge vesting option with Sosa?

 

I don't recall all of the specifics, but I could have sworn his contract for 2005 was 19m. When I look him up on baseball-reference, I see that he made 17m. However, I seem to recall that's how much the Cubs picked up of his contract while the Orioles paid 2m.

 

I suppose I could be wrong, but I have to wonder why those numbers stick out so well and aren't all that far off from what BR.com has.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sosa was 36, had declined significantly for 3 consecutive seasons, and was awful after getting hit in the helmet in 2004. He was also due 17.5 million the next year. Bradley is 32 in 2010, improved as this year went along, and owed 2/21 on his contract. Most importantly, people knew he was crazy last offseason and there were still teams lining up to offer him a contract. This isn't to suggest that Bradley will get traded for value without having to eat any of his contract(even without his baggage he isn't a guarantee to be worth it), but that the Sosa comparisons aren't very good.