Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[davearm2]

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.

If I have the choice between a Porsche Panamera, which can out-accelerate a 911 Turbo, seats 4 adults comfortably, and is as opulent inside as a Bentley, and a dime-a-dozen 7 year old Subaru WRX, I'll take the Porsche. Yet somehow it's the WRX that's in my garage every morning.

 

Point being, not everything you would prefer, can you afford. Life sucks huh?

[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?

 

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.

What Jersey did say is that Hendry "doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents."

 

Hey like I said go to town railing on the guy for how he's allocated his budget, but the notion that he doesn't care about the picks is just silly.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

In the past 3 years the Cubs have gained 1 pick overall (2 extra picks vs 1 pick lost) despite them signing several more impact free agents then they lost.

 

Hendry now seems to have a problem with taking the risk to gain more picks (Wood, Harden, Grabow). As for losing picks? Hendry has done a great job in recent history of avoiding losing picks.

 

In the 06 offseason, Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt were both type A free agents as was Jeff Suppan. Schmidt and Suppan were two of the popular picks for the Cubs to sign. Hendry avoided all of them and went for Lilly and Marquis instead, both who did not cost a pick. Durham who was a popular pick for 2nd base was a type A. Hendry instead went for DeRosa who didn't cost compensation. The only pick the Cubs lost for that entire free agent spending spree was the one for Soriano.

 

In 07, the Cubs signed Fukudome which was another solution that didn't require giving up a pick.

 

And then in 08, the Cubs signed Bradley instead of Ibanez, which again saved them their pick. The Cubs also traded for Gregg instead of signing one of the free agent closers that would have lost them another pick.

 

The 05-06 offseason was a terrible one for wasting picks on mediocre players. But since then, it appears Hendry has learned from his mistake. Even though the Cubs have been on a huge spending spree since then, they still have managed to lose exactly 1 pick. That trend of being careful with their own picks looks like it might continue this year.

[Sever82]

According to Phil Rogers, the deal for Milwood might involve the mets and castrillo going to the cubs instead of milwood.

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/11/cubs-explore-bradley-deal-that-would-net-castillo.html

 

The Cubs continue trying to find ways to move Milton Bradley in packages that would bring them second baseman Luis Castillo from the Mets. The latest, according to sources, is a three-team deal with the Rangers that would send send the Rangers' No. 1 starter, Kevin Millwood, to New York.

 

A source with the Cubs believes this proposition has legs, saying, "there's a deal to be made there.'' But the Rangers haven't committed to the return of Bradley, who played in Texas before signing with the Cubs, and would need the Cubs and maybe the Mets to kick in money to pay most of the $21 million remaining on Bradley's contract before doing any deal.

 

Texas believes it has enough pitching depth to move Millwood, who is due to earn $12 million in the last year of his contract. The Mets are searching for pitching.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

It's a good thing Phil Rogers never ever knows what the hell he's talking about.

[sweetpeteman]

Thing is, if this allows Hendry to re-sign Harden, would you do this?

 

 

Castillo & Harden, or just Millwood.

 

 

 

 

 

That being said, I bet its Castillo or Millwood and no Harden no matter what.

[nick23]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

[MSG T]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

[Sever82]

Wow is Phill Rogers just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/latest-milton-bradley-scenario.html

 

Latest Milton Bradley Scenario

By Tim Dierkes [November 20, 2009 at 10:58am CST]

The latest Milton Bradley trade scenario comes courtesy of Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune, who considers Bradley going to the Rangers, Kevin Millwood to the Mets, and Luis Castillo to the Cubs.

 

We talked to a source familiar with the situation who said that this deal is not being discussed. Backing that up, MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan talked to a Rangers official who said it's "not happening." So for our purposes it's more of a discussion piece.

 

Does this satisfy the needs of all three teams? The Rangers add a bat and trade from an area of depth, the Mets free up second base for other pursuits and get a veteran for the rotation, and the Cubs unload Bradley while getting a piece they can use. The money: Bradley is owed $21MM over two years, Millwood $12MM over one, and Castillo $12MM over two.

[Rusch33]

That being said, I bet its Castillo or Millwood and no Harden no matter what.

 

Why are we getting rid of Harden in the first place?

[Old Style]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

Looks like he is owed $12 million over 2 years.

[davell]

That being said, I bet its Castillo or Millwood and no Harden no matter what.

 

Why are we getting rid of Harden in the first place?

 

 

Because our offseason priorities are probably this, in order of importance(to Hendry anyway)

 

Trade Bradley

 

Get Bradley's replacement, who's probably a middle of the order type by signing or trade(Granderson could be interesting from the standpoint of the Cubs could still lead him off and kill two birds with one stone, although I see him as a 5-6 hitter personally)

 

Sign or trade for a middle infielder most likely, as he wants a top of the order hitter.

 

Do these things and keep the payroll around 140 million. Which with our current state of being, we're at around 135 or so RIGHT NOW, after signing our arbitration guys and our automatic renews......

 

 

Basically, we better all get used to the fact that Harden is gone. Because unless we literally got someone to pay Bradley's entire contract, we're not going to have the funds to sign Harden.

[Keener98]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

 

Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so.

 

A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

 

Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so.

 

A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either.

 

Luis Castillo was a consistent performer, not a particularly good one, but fairly consistent. However, he was also in his 20's and early 30's. He's 34 now, and one year removed from a horrible season. And he's under contract for 2 more seasons. The only mid-30's middle infielders I have any interest in are the elite, not the guys who had a nice career in their 20's but have hit stumbling blocks in their early 30's and are already 34. There's a fairly good chance Castillo would become the Milton Bradley of next offseason, as in the guy Hendry needs to figure out how to get rid of, likely resulting in picking up a chunk of his contract or taking back somebody else's problem.

[MSG T]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

 

Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so.

 

A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either.

 

 

How much better? Castillo's numbers as a LH vs RHP have been all over the place, and he hasn't been particularly good for a few years now. Castillo was decent against RHP(as a LH) this past season, but was worse than Fontenot(2009) the previous two years. And Baker has been better against LHP than Castillo.

 

Fontenot has shown at least some ability against RHP. Plus he costs WAY less than Castillo. Even if you figure 100% pay increases for both Baker and Fontenot, they would combine to make less than a third of what Castillo will get paid.

 

Then add in that both Baker and Fontenot were much better defensively, at 2B, than Castillo this year.

 

I'm not convinced that Castillo would be better, at best it would be a break even situation, but even if he is, would he be worth spending 3x as much at 2B.

[erik316wttn]

That being said, I bet its Castillo or Millwood and no Harden no matter what.

 

Why are we getting rid of Harden in the first place?

 

Because our GM has no idea what the [expletive] he's doing.

[Keener98]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

 

Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so.

 

A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either.

 

Luis Castillo was a consistent performer, not a particularly good one, but fairly consistent. However, he was also in his 20's and early 30's. He's 34 now, and one year removed from a horrible season. And he's under contract for 2 more seasons. The only mid-30's middle infielders I have any interest in are the elite, not the guys who had a nice career in their 20's but have hit stumbling blocks in their early 30's and are already 34. There's a fairly good chance Castillo would become the Milton Bradley of next offseason, as in the guy Hendry needs to figure out how to get rid of, likely resulting in picking up a chunk of his contract or taking back somebody else's problem.

 

I understand the money and age argument, but my problem was with the poster saying Baker/Fontenot would be better offensively. There really is no basis for that.

 

Also in Castillos "horrible" year he still posted a +350. OBP something hes done 11 of his last 12 years in the Majors. I think its pretty obvious Castillo was hurt in 08, and he managed to stay healthy this year and post some pretty good numbers, and numbers that would look great in the 2 spot for the Cubs. I mean why is his age 33 season more important to look at than his age 34 season when he was pretty good?

 

His numbers may decline in the coming years but he has always been a low K guy who manages to put the ball in play. I dont see that stopping now just because hes gotten older. The key would be trying to keep him healthy obviously, and with Baker here to get some at bats, and possible Fontenot, there is a decent chance they can do that.

 

Im not in favor of trading Bradley, but since Hendry is so hell bent on it, I think Castillo is probably about the best we can get. Id much rather have Castillo than Burrell, or Millwood.

[Guest]

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.

If I have the choice between a Porsche Panamera, which can out-accelerate a 911 Turbo, seats 4 adults comfortably, and is as opulent inside as a Bentley, and a dime-a-dozen 7 year old Subaru WRX, I'll take the Porsche. Yet somehow it's the WRX that's in my garage every morning.

 

Point being, not everything you would prefer, can you afford. Life sucks huh?

 

Horrible analogy. Teams have a budget. Fact. Each team has someone appointed to spend the amount available in that budget. If that budget is 100m, I guess you could go out and pay your 8 relievers 90m and use the rest of it to pay for the other 13 players on the team.

 

Or, you could go a little cheaper in the bullpen and then have enough money left over to spend on an impact player.

 

It really has nothing to do with Porsche's and Subaru's.

 

Hendry doesn't allocate his resources in a way that he gets the best bang for his buck. And then there's also stating the obvious. When you stick your hand in a pot of boiling water, you will get burned. That's pretty obvious. Therefore, you probably shouldn't do it again. And then there is giving out multi-year contracts to middle relievers. As I've mentioned previously, it hasn't been a good idea as has been proven the multiple times Hendry has already done it. So he probably shouldn't do it.

 

I'm trying to think of an actual middle reliever who is good year after year after year and I'm coming up with blanks. I can't think of a single one.

 

But, you're probably right. Grabow is going to be that one exception to the rule that all middle relievers will eventually be crap.

[jersey cubs fan]

I understand the money and age argument, but my problem was with the poster saying Baker/Fontenot would be better offensively. There really is no basis for that.

 

Also in Castillos "horrible" year he still posted a +350. OBP something hes done 11 of his last 12 years in the Majors. I think its pretty obvious Castillo was hurt in 08, and he managed to stay healthy this year and post some pretty good numbers, and numbers that would look great in the 2 spot for the Cubs. I mean why is his age 33 season more important to look at than his age 34 season when he was pretty good?

 

His numbers may decline in the coming years but he has always been a low K guy who manages to put the ball in play. I dont see that stopping now just because hes gotten older. The key would be trying to keep him healthy obviously, and with Baker here to get some at bats, and possible Fontenot, there is a decent chance they can do that.

 

Im not in favor of trading Bradley, but since Hendry is so hell bent on it, I think Castillo is probably about the best we can get. Id much rather have Castillo than Burrell, or Millwood.

 

You ask why age 33 matters by not age 34, but I ask why the fact that his poor season was due to injury can be so dismissed. He's an old dude who has dealt with health issues for several years. That's just a sign of more to come. You don't increase your ability to stay uninjured in your mid 30's. And while OBP is great, it's not the only thing, and a .350 isn't all that special. Low ks and putting the ball in play don't impress me. He's slower now and he's only going to get slower, he's clumsy fool in the field and that's only going to get worse.

[Keener98]

Why? Why, Why, Why? Why nit just get MIlwood who might be of some use? DO NOT WANT Luis Castillo.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

 

Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so.

 

A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either.

 

 

How much better? Castillo's numbers as a LH vs RHP have been all over the place, and he hasn't been particularly good for a few years now. Castillo was decent against RHP(as a LH) this past season, but was worse than Fontenot(2009) the previous two years. And Baker has been better against LHP than Castillo.

 

Fontenot has shown at least some ability against RHP. Plus he costs WAY less than Castillo. Even if you figure 100% pay increases for both Baker and Fontenot, they would combine to make less than a third of what Castillo will get paid.

 

Then add in that both Baker and Fontenot were much better defensively, at 2B, than Castillo this year.

 

I'm not convinced that Castillo would be better, at best it would be a break even situation, but even if he is, would he be worth spending 3x as much at 2B.

 

A .319 .411 line vs RH's is "just decent"? Fontenot is an unknown still at this point, he had a completely miserable year last year, and there really isnt much track record to go on with him. Hes had good minor league seasons, and shown a little promise in split time also, but he was given the job last year, and tanked.

 

Depending on the money situation, Id bet on Castillo/Baker platoon being more productive than a Baker/Fontenot platton.

 

In an ideal world we would just keep Bradley, but Castillo would be a pretty decent return for Bradley, in my opinion. I like Castillo/Baker in the 2 hole in front of Lee, Aram, Sori, alot more than Baker/Fontenot. Fontenot seemed completely lost last year, and no one knows if its because the book is out on him, or what.

[Keener98]

I understand the money and age argument, but my problem was with the poster saying Baker/Fontenot would be better offensively. There really is no basis for that.

 

Also in Castillos "horrible" year he still posted a +350. OBP something hes done 11 of his last 12 years in the Majors. I think its pretty obvious Castillo was hurt in 08, and he managed to stay healthy this year and post some pretty good numbers, and numbers that would look great in the 2 spot for the Cubs. I mean why is his age 33 season more important to look at than his age 34 season when he was pretty good?

 

His numbers may decline in the coming years but he has always been a low K guy who manages to put the ball in play. I dont see that stopping now just because hes gotten older. The key would be trying to keep him healthy obviously, and with Baker here to get some at bats, and possible Fontenot, there is a decent chance they can do that.

 

Im not in favor of trading Bradley, but since Hendry is so hell bent on it, I think Castillo is probably about the best we can get. Id much rather have Castillo than Burrell, or Millwood.

 

You ask why age 33 matters by not age 34, but I ask why the fact that his poor season was due to injury can be so dismissed. He's an old dude who has dealt with health issues for several years. That's just a sign of more to come. You don't increase your ability to stay uninjured in your mid 30's. And while OBP is great, it's not the only thing, and a .350 isn't all that special. Low ks and putting the ball in play don't impress me. He's slower now and he's only going to get slower, he's clumsy fool in the field and that's only going to get worse.

 

I'm not saying Castillo is the ideal, must have, go get him now, type of guy. Like I said, I just dont see us getting anything better in return for Bradley at this point, and I think Castillo does have some value. More so than Fontenot in my opinion.

[Keener98]

The latest from Muskat.

 

1:36pm: MLB.com's Carrie Muskat hears from a Cubs official that there's nothing to the rumored three way deal between the Cubs, Rangers and Mets. However, four to six teams are interested in Bradley to varying degrees.

[Schwarber Fan]

You really wonder if some writers just do pull things out of the blue completely...

[MSG T]

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might.

 

 

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

 

Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so.

 

A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either.

 

 

How much better? Castillo's numbers as a LH vs RHP have been all over the place, and he hasn't been particularly good for a few years now. Castillo was decent against RHP(as a LH) this past season, but was worse than Fontenot(2009) the previous two years. And Baker has been better against LHP than Castillo.

 

Fontenot has shown at least some ability against RHP. Plus he costs WAY less than Castillo. Even if you figure 100% pay increases for both Baker and Fontenot, they would combine to make less than a third of what Castillo will get paid.

 

Then add in that both Baker and Fontenot were much better defensively, at 2B, than Castillo this year.

 

I'm not convinced that Castillo would be better, at best it would be a break even situation, but even if he is, would he be worth spending 3x as much at 2B.

 

A .319 .411 line vs RH's is "just decent"? Fontenot is an unknown still at this point, he had a completely miserable year last year, and there really isnt much track record to go on with him. Hes had good minor league seasons, and shown a little promise in split time also, but he was given the job last year, and tanked.

 

Depending on the money situation, Id bet on Castillo/Baker platoon being more productive than a Baker/Fontenot platton.

 

In an ideal world we would just keep Bradley, but Castillo would be a pretty decent return for Bradley, in my opinion. I like Castillo/Baker in the 2 hole in front of Lee, Aram, Sori, alot more than Baker/Fontenot. Fontenot seemed completely lost last year, and no one knows if its because the book is out on him, or what.

 

 

Castillo's numbers were better than Fontenot's last year(vs RHP), but $5.5 mil worth. I don't want the Cubs to trade for a $6 mil per year platoon 2B that won't outperform the guy they have that makes $.5 mil. When you consider they'll eat at least some of Bradley's contract the next two years, it amounts to even more.

 

If Castillo could come in and outperform a Baker/Font platoon on his own, starting 150 games, I'd be all over it. But he won't, especially if defense is figured in. Fontenot is better at 2B than Castillo, but a pretty good margin, and Baker is better than Font. Considering Baker is much better offensively(vs LHP) and Fontenot is even, or very close to even, vs RHP, and adding in defense and cost, Castillo would be bad.