Re: Rosenthal: Multiple teams after Bradley

[RedFlash]

I could see us going after Rajai Davis. It'll be his first year of arbitration anyway. Of course, going after a leadoff hitter that plays somewhere in the OF would mean we'd be going after a power hitter at 2B, I guess? Because it looks like a middle of the order hitter and a speedy leadoff type appear to be our offseason goals.

 

There's not to many "power hitters" that can play 2B. In fact there are 9 guys who hit 20 or more homeruns this season that played 2b. Five of them are not going anywhere (Cano, Hill, Zobrist, Utley and Kinsler). Two other guys hit for good power but can't get on to save their lives (Lopez and Barmes). Another guy who plays in the division and is likely to cost more then what he is worth (Phillips). So really that leaves one guy who is a "power hitter" that can play second and could be available and that is Dan Uggla.

[Halman]

I could see us going after Rajai Davis. It'll be his first year of arbitration anyway. Of course, going after a leadoff hitter that plays somewhere in the OF would mean we'd be going after a power hitter at 2B, I guess? Because it looks like a middle of the order hitter and a speedy leadoff type appear to be our offseason goals.

 

There's not to many "power hitters" that can play 2B. In fact there are 9 guys who hit 20 or more homeruns this season that played 2b. Five of them are not going anywhere (Cano, Hill, Zobrist, Utley and Kinsler). Two other guys hit for good power but can't get on to save their lives (Lopez and Barmes). Another guy who plays in the division and is likely to cost more then what he is worth (Phillips). So really that leaves one guy who is a "power hitter" that can play second and could be available and that is Dan Uggla.

 

You are forgetting the legend of Mark Derosa.

[Rob]

What's wrong with Crisp or Hudson? Provided either is cheap enough, they'd be excellent additions.

 

Likewise, I'd love to get my hands on Chris Young and see if he can't develop a bit more... depending on the cost, of course.

 

Crisp hasn't been any good since testing came to baseball.

 

and well Hudson he's going to be too expensive for a middle infielder who will be 32 on opening day.

 

Crisp is Ryan Theriot... except better with better defense and baserunning. Coming off his injuries, he may be cheap... which is exactly what we need if we're going to be paying Bradley to play elsewhere. For a couple million bucks, he'd be a better play than Sam Fuld... who sadly may be our best internal option right now.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between Crisp and Fuld.

[davell]

I'm perfectly fine with Fuld on our major league roster next year. Not as a starter obviously, but he'll give us some speed(which we seem to think we need), solid defense, and he'll get on base at a decent rate. He's a better value than bringing back Reed Johnson, given our payroll limitations right now.

[Rob]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between Crisp and Fuld.

 

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written.

 

Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call.

[jersey cubs fan]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between Crisp and Fuld.

 

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written.

 

Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call.

 

I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Now that the Braves are closing in on a Tim Hudson extension, they reportedly might tradea starter for a hitter. I know Lowe has been brought up as an option, but what about Javier Vazquez?

[davell]

If they dangle Vazquez out there, they'll be able to do better than Bradley, even if Bradley had zero baggage coming with him.

[Backtobanks]

Now that the Braves are closing in on a Tim Hudson extension, they reportedly might tradea starter for a hitter. I know Lowe has been brought up as an option, but what about Javier Vazquez?

 

I proposed a deal for Vazquez (page 9) on Saturday:

 

From MLBTR and Phil Rogers:

 

When Tim Hudson re-signed with the Braves, Ken Rosenthal indicated that Javier Vazquez or Derek Lowe could be shopped for a bat. Rogers suggests it'll be Vazquez that's put on the trading block.

 

I wonder if the Braves would be interested in Bradley, Fox, and prospect for Vasquez. The Braves have been mentioned before as a possibility for Fox (they need a RH bat at 1B).

 

The Braves need bats and maybe Bobby Cox could control Bradley. Other posters shot down the proposal, but if Bradley behaved I don't think the offer would be too far off. I suppose the quality of the prospect might be the sticking point.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Now that the Braves are closing in on a Tim Hudson extension, they reportedly might tradea starter for a hitter. I know Lowe has been brought up as an option, but what about Javier Vazquez?

 

I proposed a deal for Vazquez (page 9) on Saturday:

 

From MLBTR and Phil Rogers:

 

When Tim Hudson re-signed with the Braves, Ken Rosenthal indicated that Javier Vazquez or Derek Lowe could be shopped for a bat. Rogers suggests it'll be Vazquez that's put on the trading block.

 

I wonder if the Braves would be interested in Bradley, Fox, and prospect for Vasquez. The Braves have been mentioned before as a possibility for Fox (they need a RH bat at 1B).

 

The Braves need bats and maybe Bobby Cox could control Bradley. Other posters shot down the proposal, but if Bradley behaved I don't think the offer would be too far off. I suppose the quality of the prospect might be the sticking point.

 

It all depends on who the prospect(s) is. While I do like the idea, we want to have a few trade chips left if we really want to get the RBI producer we also need. Hawpe would be great, but then again, Hawpe to Atlanta for Lowe or Vazquez makes perfect sense as well.

[Rob]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between Crisp and Fuld.

 

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written.

 

Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call.

 

I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better.

 

You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.

 

As Cubs fans, we've all been overexposed to the idea that being a veteran is something that's worth a bunch, and we've had it pushed on us in the dumbest way possible... our bench players, guys that should never be making the kind of money Hendry likes to pay them. But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position.

 

Just because Hendry went about valuing experience in the wrong way does not mean that it isn't worth something... especially in the case of a situation like Fuld vs. Crisp, where risk management is really the only difference between the two players. Fuld carries higher risk, with no real benefit aside from the financial one. What's the harm in finding out what that financial difference is? If it's cheap enough, a team in our position (close to the playoffs) benefits quite a bit from taking that risk off the table.

[davell]

I just read a Levine chat transcript that had tons of stuff in it. Says that Burrell for Bradley swap is probably the Cubs best option and then they can spin him back off to an AL team and get the guy they want for their OF that way. Could be an internal fix if they go after Figgins. They have discussed Ankiel. They are discussing Cabrera and Hudson as well. Unsure as to whether they should keep Reed or not. Will probably offer extensions to DLee and Lilly at some point. Lots of info really.......

 

I'm all for adding Hudson on a one or two year deal. Have nothing whatsoever for Ankiel though. I love Lilly and DLee but don't know for sure I'd want to offer either a longterm extension.

[SouthSideRyan]

I just read a Levine chat transcript that had tons of stuff in it. Says that Burrell for Bradley swap is probably the Cubs best option and then they can spin him back off to an AL team and get the guy they want for their OF that way. Could be an internal fix if they go after Figgins. They have discussed Ankiel. They are discussing Cabrera and Hudson as well. Unsure as to whether they should keep Reed or not. Will probably offer extensions to DLee and Lilly at some point. Lots of info really.......

 

I'm all for adding Hudson on a one or two year deal. Have nothing whatsoever for Ankiel though. I love Lilly and DLee but don't know for sure I'd want to offer either a longterm extension.

 

I'm not sure there's a single bit of good news in that summary.

[RedFlash]

I just read a Levine chat transcript that had tons of stuff in it. Says that Burrell for Bradley swap is probably the Cubs best option and then they can spin him back off to an AL team and get the guy they want for their OF that way. Could be an internal fix if they go after Figgins. They have discussed Ankiel. They are discussing Cabrera and Hudson as well. Unsure as to whether they should keep Reed or not. Will probably offer extensions to DLee and Lilly at some point. Lots of info really.......

 

I'm all for adding Hudson on a one or two year deal. Have nothing whatsoever for Ankiel though. I love Lilly and DLee but don't know for sure I'd want to offer either a longterm extension.

 

I'm not sure there's a single bit of good news in that summary.

 

I don't know if I would go that far, SSR, but at some point the Cubs HAVE to get younger in their everyday players not older.

[Backtobanks]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between Crisp and Fuld.

 

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written.

 

Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call.

 

I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better.

 

You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.

 

As Cubs fans, we've all been overexposed to the idea that being a veteran is something that's worth a bunch, and we've had it pushed on us in the dumbest way possible... our bench players, guys that should never be making the kind of money Hendry likes to pay them. But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position.

 

Just because Hendry went about valuing experience in the wrong way does not mean that it isn't worth something... especially in the case of a situation like Fuld vs. Crisp, where risk management is really the only difference between the two players. Fuld carries higher risk, with no real benefit aside from the financial one. What's the harm in finding out what that financial difference is? If it's cheap enough, a team in our position (close to the playoffs) benefits quite a bit from taking that risk off the table.

 

I doubt that Crisp is much of an option, but I can't believe anyone is talking about Fuld in a starting role next year.

[davell]

I just read a Levine chat transcript that had tons of stuff in it. Says that Burrell for Bradley swap is probably the Cubs best option and then they can spin him back off to an AL team and get the guy they want for their OF that way. Could be an internal fix if they go after Figgins. They have discussed Ankiel. They are discussing Cabrera and Hudson as well. Unsure as to whether they should keep Reed or not. Will probably offer extensions to DLee and Lilly at some point. Lots of info really.......

 

I'm all for adding Hudson on a one or two year deal. Have nothing whatsoever for Ankiel though. I love Lilly and DLee but don't know for sure I'd want to offer either a longterm extension.

 

I'm not sure there's a single bit of good news in that summary.

 

 

Not a Hudson fan? I kind of agree with the rest, just unsure of extensions with Lee and Lilly. Age-wise, it could be a mistake, but not sure what we could get to replace them either and until we see what they'd accept, I figure it's a moot point anyway......

[jersey cubs fan]

I doubt that Crisp is much of an option, but I can't believe anyone is talking about Fuld in a starting role next year.

 

People are talking about Fuld as a starter?

[big_shooter17]

I just read a Levine chat transcript that had tons of stuff in it. Says that Burrell for Bradley swap is probably the Cubs best option and then they can spin him back off to an AL team and get the guy they want for their OF that way. Could be an internal fix if they go after Figgins. They have discussed Ankiel. They are discussing Cabrera and Hudson as well. Unsure as to whether they should keep Reed or not. Will probably offer extensions to DLee and Lilly at some point. Lots of info really.......

 

I'm all for adding Hudson on a one or two year deal. Have nothing whatsoever for Ankiel though. I love Lilly and DLee but don't know for sure I'd want to offer either a longterm extension.

 

I'm not sure there's a single bit of good news in that summary.

 

 

Not a Hudson fan? I kind of agree with the rest, just unsure of extensions with Lee and Lilly. Age-wise, it could be a mistake, but not sure what we could get to replace them either and until we see what they'd accept, I figure it's a moot point anyway......

 

Why don't we just move Ramirez to 1b, get a stop gap 3b and then Vitters should hopefully be ready to take over there.

[Backtobanks]

I doubt that Crisp is much of an option, but I can't believe anyone is talking about Fuld in a starting role next year.

 

People are talking about Fuld as a starter?

 

Rob's post (a few up from yours):

But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position

[Hall7810]

I just read a Levine chat transcript that had tons of stuff in it. Says that Burrell for Bradley swap is probably the Cubs best option and then they can spin him back off to an AL team and get the guy they want for their OF that way. Could be an internal fix if they go after Figgins. They have discussed Ankiel. They are discussing Cabrera and Hudson as well. Unsure as to whether they should keep Reed or not. Will probably offer extensions to DLee and Lilly at some point. Lots of info really.......

 

I'm all for adding Hudson on a one or two year deal. Have nothing whatsoever for Ankiel though. I love Lilly and DLee but don't know for sure I'd want to offer either a longterm extension.

 

 

Ugh, that's why Kaplan keeps talking about Cabrera for a year until Castro is ready.

[KingCubsFan]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between Crisp and Fuld.

 

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written.

 

Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call.

 

I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better.

 

You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.

 

As Cubs fans, we've all been overexposed to the idea that being a veteran is something that's worth a bunch, and we've had it pushed on us in the dumbest way possible... our bench players, guys that should never be making the kind of money Hendry likes to pay them. But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position.

 

Just because Hendry went about valuing experience in the wrong way does not mean that it isn't worth something... especially in the case of a situation like Fuld vs. Crisp, where risk management is really the only difference between the two players. Fuld carries higher risk, with no real benefit aside from the financial one. What's the harm in finding out what that financial difference is? If it's cheap enough, a team in our position (close to the playoffs) benefits quite a bit from taking that risk off the table.

"Risk management" isn't the only difference. The difference is a significant amount of money. Why would a team on a tight budget ever pay more than the minimum for someone like Coco Crisp? If Sam Fuld can't put up close to a low .700 OPS and play good defense he shouldn't even be on the 40 man roster. Both are terrible options in CF, so if you go that route you might as well save the money and put it towards the draft.

[inari]

Now that the Braves are closing in on a Tim Hudson extension, they reportedly might tradea starter for a hitter. I know Lowe has been brought up as an option, but what about Javier Vazquez?

 

I proposed a deal for Vazquez (page 9) on Saturday:

 

From MLBTR and Phil Rogers:

 

When Tim Hudson re-signed with the Braves, Ken Rosenthal indicated that Javier Vazquez or Derek Lowe could be shopped for a bat. Rogers suggests it'll be Vazquez that's put on the trading block.

 

I wonder if the Braves would be interested in Bradley, Fox, and prospect for Vasquez. The Braves have been mentioned before as a possibility for Fox (they need a RH bat at 1B).

 

The Braves need bats and maybe Bobby Cox could control Bradley. Other posters shot down the proposal, but if Bradley behaved I don't think the offer would be too far off. I suppose the quality of the prospect might be the sticking point.

 

Are you aware of just how good Vazquez was last year? That wouldn't be close unless we're talking about giving up Castro or Vitters. That's why I have a problem with arbitrarily adding "and a prospect" to the end of trade proposals. You might as well just say two major leaguers and a prospect.

[Backtobanks]

Now that the Braves are closing in on a Tim Hudson extension, they reportedly might tradea starter for a hitter. I know Lowe has been brought up as an option, but what about Javier Vazquez?

 

I proposed a deal for Vazquez (page 9) on Saturday:

 

From MLBTR and Phil Rogers:

 

When Tim Hudson re-signed with the Braves, Ken Rosenthal indicated that Javier Vazquez or Derek Lowe could be shopped for a bat. Rogers suggests it'll be Vazquez that's put on the trading block.

 

I wonder if the Braves would be interested in Bradley, Fox, and prospect for Vasquez. The Braves have been mentioned before as a possibility for Fox (they need a RH bat at 1B).

 

The Braves need bats and maybe Bobby Cox could control Bradley. Other posters shot down the proposal, but if Bradley behaved I don't think the offer would be too far off. I suppose the quality of the prospect might be the sticking point.

 

Are you aware of just how good Vazquez was last year? That wouldn't be close unless we're talking about giving up Castro or Vitters. That's why I have a problem with arbitrarily adding "and a prospect" to the end of trade proposals. You might as well just say two major leaguers and a prospect.

 

I am aware of how good Vazquez was last year. Dave O'Brien (Atlanta writer) posted this:

As much as they hate to trade Vazquez, there are also some questions whether he could repeat the type of performance he had in 2009. The veteran hasn’t put together back-to-back seasons like that one before, and if they don’t trade Vazquez now they run the risk of him having a mediocre season and then trying to trade him before the July 31 deadline or take a draft pick as compensation should they lose him to free agency a year from now.

 

The Cubs would be getting 1 year of Vazquez for 2 years of Bradley and many years of Fox and whatever prospect is included in the deal. I think I've answered the "and a prospect" part before. None of us have any idea what another team is looking for in a prospect, so they may put more value on a LH pitcher than a speedy OF. The two GMs would have to negotiate and come to some kind of agreement to complete a deal. The Braves might start out asking for Castro or Vitters with the thought of getting a top pitching prospect. The target team for Vazquez has to be a team that's one top starter from being a contender in 2010 while giving up a top slugger. There aren't many teams that fit that description.

[17 Seconds]

The Braves are planning on competing this year. They aren't going to trade a guy who was a top 3 pitcher in the NL last season for the stuff you're talking about. It's not even worth discussing.