Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't really see what 8 years ago has to do with mid-30's pitchers. Millwood shows up, that's the best compliment you can give him. Same as Marquis.

 

So over the last three years Millwood has 1.1 WAR more than Marquis. What does that mean?

 

It means that with the exception of last year(which is much more about Marquis than Millwood), that Millwood has consistently been anywhere from 10 to 30+ runs better than Marquis. He has similar good qualities, but he's much, much better.

 

Except you're talking about what he did in his prime late 20's years while some of Marquis's time includes his young 20's. And as a 35 year old now, Millwood's value at 29 is meaningless.

 

He is not a very good pitcher. He's a pitcher who shows up and generally doesn't get destroyed. The Cubs don't need guys who can show up, they have that, they need guys who can either shut down opponents to compensate for their weak offense, or help them score more runs.

 

You're focusing too much on the 8 years thing, it was added merely to show Millwood's extraordinary level of consistency. Your coming up with a Marquis comparison just because they're both durable, and it doesn't work, Millwood is much better. He's not top flight, but to get his value in return for Bradley and Miles is a good deal. Unless there's a comparable 2B or CF/RF you think is out there for Bradley, you're not going to do any better and improve the offense. Plus the deal is cash neutral so it doesn't hinder your ability to sign anyone this year, and it allows you to more freely use Marshall/Gorzelanny/Samardzija in a trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

You're focusing too much on the 8 years thing, it was added merely to show Millwood's extraordinary level of consistency. Your coming up with a Marquis comparison just because they're both durable, and it doesn't work, Millwood is much better. He's not top flight, but to get his value in return for Bradley and Miles is a good deal. Unless there's a comparable 2B or CF/RF you think is out there for Bradley, you're not going to do any better and improve the offense. Plus the deal is cash neutral so it doesn't hinder your ability to sign anyone this year, and it allows you to more freely use Marshall/Gorzelanny/Samardzija in a trade.

 

You've shown me a guy who is marginally better than Marquis, you haven't come close to showing he's good. It seems to me like the obvious solution again is just not making the deal. They need Milton more than they need a better version of Marquis.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You're focusing too much on the 8 years thing, it was added merely to show Millwood's extraordinary level of consistency. Your coming up with a Marquis comparison just because they're both durable, and it doesn't work, Millwood is much better. He's not top flight, but to get his value in return for Bradley and Miles is a good deal. Unless there's a comparable 2B or CF/RF you think is out there for Bradley, you're not going to do any better and improve the offense. Plus the deal is cash neutral so it doesn't hinder your ability to sign anyone this year, and it allows you to more freely use Marshall/Gorzelanny/Samardzija in a trade.

 

You've shown me a guy who is marginally better than Marquis, you haven't come close to showing he's good. It seems to me like the obvious solution again is just not making the deal. They need Milton more than they need a better version of Marquis.

 

Millwood and Bradley are both 2-3 win guys, and Miles is nothing, from a value standpoint it's about the same, without considering the off the field stuff that means it's impossible they keep Bradley. It's a deal that trades Bradley without surrendering value or cash, I don't think there are too many of those out there.

[Derwood]

out of curiosity (since TT keeps using WAR), how many wins would a 25 man roster of "replacement level" players accumulate?

[Guest]

out of curiosity (since TT keeps using WAR), how many wins would a 25 man roster of "replacement level" players accumulate?

 

See the 2009 San Diego Padres.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

out of curiosity (since TT keeps using WAR), how many wins would a 25 man roster of "replacement level" players accumulate?

 

I'm not 100% sure, I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 60.

[Derwood]

out of curiosity (since TT keeps using WAR), how many wins would a 25 man roster of "replacement level" players accumulate?

 

I'm not 100% sure, I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 60.

 

okay. Without that base number, the WAR is sorta meaningless (to me)

[Post Count Padder]

I feel like this is gonna happen soon. The wheels are in motion with the Heilman trade now happening.

[Guest]

I can't get too excited about Millwood, but I will admit that he's probably better than I would have expected given the circumstances.

 

I'm not sure how Heilman ties into any of this, however.

[USSoccer]

I'd make this deal.

[davearm2]

You might not see the harm in it, but according to every single media report, Hendry sees a tremendous amount of harm in it. He gives away draft picks to sign middle relievers and doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents. In Jim's mind he must think they can get the same quality picks just by paying overslot later in the draft. They gave up a good amount for Harden, he performed to expectations and they are just going to let him walk for nothing.

I see it less that Hendry doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents, and more that he can't afford to have them accept. He'd probably love to have a pick or two, but not at the risk of a major budget strain.

 

IMO the odds are pretty good that Harden would accept the guaranteed $8-10M, and play another year with the team he says he'd like to stay with, rather than go out fishing in a bad market hoping for the same or less in guaranteed money + incentives with some unknown team.

 

Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

[Guest]

Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

 

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,)

[davearm2]

Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

 

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,)

So long as you realize that $10M > $3M, then yes, you understand correctly.

[17 Seconds]

yea if you dont have enough to pay for a good player you might as well waste the money you do have by overpaying for mediocrity.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The Newberg report is the best Rangers site I know, and I don't see any discussion of a Bradley + Miles for Millwood swap.

 

I haven't paid much attention to baseball or talked to any of my Ranger contacts in awhile. I'm heading to Dallas for the Cowboys game on Sunday, so I'll listen to some sports radio and ask a few friends if there's any word of this.

[Guest]

Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

 

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,)

So long as you realize that $10M > $3M, then yes, you understand correctly.

 

Since we can no longer afford a 10m player, but rather a 7m player, yeah, I think I got it.

[jersey cubs fan]

You might not see the harm in it, but according to every single media report, Hendry sees a tremendous amount of harm in it. He gives away draft picks to sign middle relievers and doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents. In Jim's mind he must think they can get the same quality picks just by paying overslot later in the draft. They gave up a good amount for Harden, he performed to expectations and they are just going to let him walk for nothing.

I see it less that Hendry doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents, and more that he can't afford to have them accept. He'd probably love to have a pick or two, but not at the risk of a major budget strain.

 

The evidence doesn't support your claim at all. He's signed numerous middle relievers in recent years that have cost the team draft picks, and he's refused to offer arbitration to guys who could net the team draft picks.

 

Hendry doesn't care about fiscal restraint, he wastets millions every year. It's pretty ridiculous to claim you're being cautious as the reason why you can't offer arbitration to good players when you routinely sign several bad players to multi milion dolllar multi year contracts, and bid against yourself for everybody you sign.

[davearm2]

Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

 

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,)

So long as you realize that $10M > $3M, then yes, you understand correctly.

 

Since we can no longer afford a 10m player, but rather a 7m player, yeah, I think I got it.

Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb. It ain't an allergy to high draft picks, as jersey cubs fan suggested.

 

And BTW, between Grabow and Harden, it's Grabow that gets to wear the high risk label? Really?

[jersey cubs fan]

Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb.

 

The fact that the GM is a moron.

 

He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary.

 

Money is the excuse. It's not the reason.

[Guest]

Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

 

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,)

So long as you realize that $10M > $3M, then yes, you understand correctly.

 

Since we can no longer afford a 10m player, but rather a 7m player, yeah, I think I got it.

Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb. It ain't an allergy to high draft picks, as jersey cubs fan suggested.

 

And BTW, between Grabow and Harden, it's Grabow that gets to wear the high risk label? Really?

 

If I have the choice of paying a starter, a starter that has the capability of shutting down opposing teams completely for 6 or 7 innings at a time, a one year contract for 10m or another in a long line of relievers, who you may or may not even remember by the end of his contract, a two year deal for 7m, I'll take the starter.

[davearm2]

Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb.

 

The fact that the GM is a moron.

 

He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary.

 

Money is the excuse. It's not the reason.

So the reason is Hendry doesn't like/want high draft picks?

[Guest]

Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb.

 

The fact that the GM is a moron.

 

He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary.

 

Money is the excuse. It's not the reason.

 

Well stated. If the Cubs have 500m to spend this offseason, fine give Grabow a 2 year/7m contract. By the sounds of things, they have very, very little to work with. In that case, paying an average bullpen arm a significant portion of what you have to spend is just downright STUPID.

 

And yeah, I'm mad as heck. We went down this road last year when Hendry had to have Aaron Miles right now. Immediately. Before any other manager could pick up the phone, Hendry was there with the best present Aaron Miles could have ever imagined. It's absolutely no surprise that he took it. And Aaron Miles probably couldn't be happier that Hendry threw money at Milton Bradley to deflect all the attention away from how horrible Aaron Miles really was last year.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A poster at newbergreport says that the only report of a Bradley for Millwood swap was that the Rangers GM characterized it as "dead" prior to the GM meetings. Take it for what it's worth.

[Guest]

Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb.

 

The fact that the GM is a moron.

 

He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary.

 

Money is the excuse. It's not the reason.

So the reason is Hendry doesn't like/want high draft picks?

 

I think what Jersey is trying to say is there comes a point where a GM can no longer be defended for the steady stream of extremely poor decisions. The Cubs have the payroll to be a dominant team every year, rather than a meddling barely above .500 team.

[Guest]

A poster at newbergreport says that the only report of a Bradley for Millwood swap was that the Rangers GM characterized it as "dead" prior to the GM meetings. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Not surprising. I went into this whole fiasco expecting Hendry would give Bradley away and pay most of his contract and have basically nothing worthy to show in return. Millwood would have been better than I expect. So it had to be too good to be true.