Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Sammy Sofa]

Are you really equating Bradley's situation to Bonds'?

They are both guys that had significant off-the-field issues that impacted how much teams were interested in having them, are they not?

 

That's some impressive spin.

[Backtobanks]

All of the discussion about Bradley's attitude affecting a team seems to be answered by the fact nobody wants a good ML hitter being sold at bargain-basement prices.

 

That's a pretty huge leap to make. It's more like these other teams aren't run by idiots and realize that they have the Cubs over a barrel. If your conclusion was correct then why would any other team want to trade for him under any circumstance? It's not like a trade that screws over the Cubs magically gives Bradley an attitude adjustment.

When talking about a guy like Adam Dunn, astute fans will point out that to gauge his true overall value, one would have to subtract his defensive liability from his offensive production. Some would say the defensive adjustment cancels almost all of the offensive value.

 

Well here with Bradley we have a case where we have to make a sizable deduction for attitude and clubhouse impact, much like the defensive adjustment for Dunn.

 

Right now the trade market is indicating that Bradley's (offense + defense - attitude) yields a value close to zero.

 

And this talk of gamesmanship and teams holding back thinking they have the Cubs over a barrel is folly. If Hendry was asking 50 cents for an asset widely valued at a dollar, then he would have a buyer in a second, lest teams end up kicking themselves for losing out on the opportunity.

 

The truth is, whatever Hendry's asking for Bradley (and by all indications it's very little) is still more than the other 29 teams think he's worth, despite his impressive hitting stats.

 

Disagree. Several teams have expressed interest. Texas being one of those teams and Bradley just played for Texas a year ago.

The hold up would appear to be that Hendry created a zero value market for Bradley, but he then wants much more than anyone is willing to give. Basically, he wants others to help pay for his mistake, and apparently not everyone is as dumb as he thinks they are.

 

So who are those "several" teams that have expressed interest. As I've pointed out before, the very few teams that are interested only want him at a price that will justify dealing with his attitude. Those posters who believe that Bradley's attitude isn't the major factor in this trade situation are living in a dream world. Every thread about Bradley is littered with positive stats about his ability and yet nobody wants to trade for him unless we not only give him away, but pay most of his contract too. Just keep repeating "It's not his attitude". :pig:

[davearm2]

Are you really equating Bradley's situation to Bonds'?

They are both guys that had significant off-the-field issues that impacted how much teams were interested in having them, are they not?

 

That's some impressive spin.

Are we or are we not discussing the extent to which teams weigh on-field production against off-field issues?

 

And do both of these players not provide good examples of this?

[XZero771679666304]

All of the discussion about Bradley's attitude affecting a team seems to be answered by the fact nobody wants a good ML hitter being sold at bargain-basement prices.

 

That's a pretty huge leap to make. It's more like these other teams aren't run by idiots and realize that they have the Cubs over a barrel. If your conclusion was correct then why would any other team want to trade for him under any circumstance? It's not like a trade that screws over the Cubs magically gives Bradley an attitude adjustment.

When talking about a guy like Adam Dunn, astute fans will point out that to gauge his true overall value, one would have to subtract his defensive liability from his offensive production. Some would say the defensive adjustment cancels almost all of the offensive value.

 

Well here with Bradley we have a case where we have to make a sizable deduction for attitude and clubhouse impact, much like the defensive adjustment for Dunn.

 

Right now the trade market is indicating that Bradley's (offense + defense - attitude) yields a value close to zero.

 

And this talk of gamesmanship and teams holding back thinking they have the Cubs over a barrel is folly. If Hendry was asking 50 cents for an asset widely valued at a dollar, then he would have a buyer in a second, lest teams end up kicking themselves for losing out on the opportunity.

 

The truth is, whatever Hendry's asking for Bradley (and by all indications it's very little) is still more than the other 29 teams think he's worth, despite his impressive hitting stats.

 

Disagree. Several teams have expressed interest. Texas being one of those teams and Bradley just played for Texas a year ago.

The hold up would appear to be that Hendry created a zero value market for Bradley, but he then wants much more than anyone is willing to give. Basically, he wants others to help pay for his mistake, and apparently not everyone is as dumb as he thinks they are.

 

So who are those "several" teams that have expressed interest. As I've pointed out before, the very few teams that are interested only want him at a price that will justify dealing with his attitude. Those posters who believe that Bradley's attitude isn't the major factor in this trade situation are living in a dream world. Every thread about Bradley is littered with positive stats about his ability and yet nobody wants to trade for him unless we not only give him away, but pay most of his contract too. Just keep repeating "It's not his attitude". :pig:

 

 

His attitude has something to do with it, but the fact that Hendry put himself over a barrel by all but announcing he was going to get rid of him at any cost has a lot more to do with it. He surrendered his leverage and now those teams that are interested are just going to wear him down.

 

None of the huge market teams are going to come calling, but there will be (and are) a few smaller market teams that will be interested. But again, now that it is common knowledge that Hendry is desperate to move Milton, no one is going to be too hasty about acting.

[XZero771679666304]

Are you really equating Bradley's situation to Bonds'?

They are both guys that had significant off-the-field issues that impacted how much teams were interested in having them, are they not?

 

That's some impressive spin.

Are we or are we not discussing the extent to which teams weigh on-field production against off-field issues?

 

And do both of these players not provide good examples of this?

 

There's having a bad attitude, and then there's having a bad attitude combined with serious steroid allegations and potential suspension and/or prosecution, as well as age and injury factors.

[Guest]

His attitude has something to do with it, but the fact that Hendry put himself over a barrel by all but announcing he was going to get rid of him at any cost has a lot more to do with it. He surrendered his leverage and now those teams that are interested are just going to wear him down.

 

None of the huge market teams are going to come calling, but there will be (and are) a few smaller market teams that will be interested. But again, now that it is common knowledge that Hendry is desperate to move Milton, no one is going to be too hasty about acting.

 

Well stated, and on point with what I'm trying to say. Bradley isn't innocent in this, but Hendry inevitably created the zero value market for him by basically saying he wants him gone. That's an open invitation for other teams to offer up their crap, or less than nothing while Jimbo picks up the entire tab. These teams are playing hardball with Jimbo because they can. And who is the biggest loser at the end of the day if a deal doesn't happen? The guy who can't get rid of the guy he really wants gone. Hendry did the same thing with Sosa. He did the same thing with Marquis. He basically killed any potential returns of value by declaring to the world that he hates Milton Bradley and wants him gone by any means possible.

 

As far as no one wanting him because of his attitude, it's pretty amazing that for a guy no one wants somehow keeps signing contracts year after year. Why do they keep doing this?

 

Maybe it's because the production Bradley can provide will hopefully outweigh the damage he can do with his mouth.

 

When it's all said and done, Bradley will be somewhere else, will probably have a productive season and he'll probably do his best to stay out of the spotlight after all the crap he created this year and some team will be thrilled that the Cubs are picking up the whole tab to have him play for them. Meanwhile, the crap in a bag that Hendry got in return will be the next person Hendry is desperately trying to get rid of because he got taken to the cleaners on the deal and now some one else is clogging up a roster spot.

 

Rather than continue to make more and more wrongs, just get rid of Hendry and find someone who can realize that trading Bradley is not the only option at this point.

 

Hendry made this bed, so he needs to lie in it. He could have had Raul Ibanez. He could have had Abreu. He could have had a handful of other guys last year, and instead, he chose to go after a guy who had a trainwreck of a history of bad attitude in his portfolio, and yet he chose to give that guy a several year deal. Work it out and move on. You got what you paid for. Don't blow it for everyone else and make the team worse just to make your point. The point was made when he was suspended last year. That was then and this is now. Move on and let's play some frickin' ball.

[Backtobanks]

His attitude has something to do with it, but the fact that Hendry put himself over a barrel by all but announcing he was going to get rid of him at any cost has a lot more to do with it. He surrendered his leverage and now those teams that are interested are just going to wear him down.

 

None of the huge market teams are going to come calling, but there will be (and are) a few smaller market teams that will be interested. But again, now that it is common knowledge that Hendry is desperate to move Milton, no one is going to be too hasty about acting.

 

Well stated, and on point with what I'm trying to say. Bradley isn't innocent in this, but Hendry inevitably created the zero value market for him by basically saying he wants him gone. That's an open invitation for other teams to offer up their crap, or less than nothing while Jimbo picks up the entire tab. These teams are playing hardball with Jimbo because they can.

While I disagree that Hendry created the zero market value for Bradley, he did contribute to it by saying he wants him gone, but don't you think if any team really wanted Bradley they would have made a move by now by offering a half-step above crap knowing Hendry would jump all over it.

And who is the biggest loser at the end of the day if a deal doesn't happen? The guy who can't get rid of the guy he really wants gone. Hendry did the same thing with Sosa. He did the same thing with Marquis. He basically killed any potential returns of value by declaring to the world that he hates Milton Bradley and wants him gone by any means possible.

 

As far as no one wanting him because of his attitude, it's pretty amazing that for a guy no one wants somehow keeps signing contracts year after year. Why do they keep doing this? For the same reason so many posters defend him. You look at the stats and ignore the attitude. It's like looking at a swimsuit model and ignoring that she's psycho.

 

Maybe it's because the production Bradley can provide will hopefully outweigh the damage he can do with his mouth.The key word there is "MAYBE" and obviously it hasn't.

 

When it's all said and done, Bradley will be somewhere else, will probably have a productive season and he'll probably do his best to stay out of the spotlightDo you really think he can? after all the crap he created this year and some team will be thrilled that the Cubs are picking up the whole tab to have him play for them. Meanwhile, the crap in a bag that Hendry got in return will be the next person Hendry is desperately trying to get rid of because he got taken to the cleaners on the deal and now some one else is clogging up a roster spot.

 

Rather than continue to make more and more wrongs, just get rid of Hendry and find someone who can realize that trading Bradley is not the only option at this point.

 

Hendry made this bed, so he needs to lie in it. He could have had Raul Ibanez. He could have had Abreu. He could have had a handful of other guys last year, and instead, he chose to go after a guy who had a trainwreck of a history of bad attitude in his portfolio, and yet he chose to give that guy a several year deal. Work it out and move on. You got what you paid for. Don't blow it for everyone else and make the team worse just to make your point. The point was made when he was suspended last year. That was then and this is now. Move on and let's play some frickin' ball.

 

Everybody could have had Ibanez and Abreu, but most GMs passed on them too, so Hendry wasn't the only one. I do agree with your last sentence, move on (by trading Bradley) and let's play some frickin' ball.

[Guest]

Everybody could have had Ibanez and Abreu, but most GMs passed on them too, so Hendry wasn't the only one. I do agree with your last sentence, move on (by trading Bradley) and let's play some frickin' ball.

 

I'm not really grading Hendry on who he should have signed or didn't sign last year. Point being, he looked past Bradley's attitude. He had the opportunity to look at other avenues last year, but he didn't see Bradley's attitude potentially causing problems. That's too bad, because that ship has sailed. There is no undoing what's been done. The 3 year deal is now basically a guarantee. Might as well suck it up and look at other ways to improve the team.

 

And that's not really what I meant with my last sentence. I meant to move on with the attempt to trade him, and put the best team he possibly can on the field (and that likely means Milton Bradley is in the outfield) and play some ball.

[Guest]

Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have?

Well a college degree and almost 20 years working in the field. You?

 

In simple terms, value is what someone is willing pay for a given commodity. That is not at all influenced by how willing (or desperate) a person is to sell it, or the seller's circumstances at all for that matter. It's totally a function of the buyer's perception of the commodity's usefulness to them.

 

Now could someone offer less than full value, in hopes of getting a bargain? Sure. But the value (willingness to pay) is still what it is.

Perhaps I'm reading your sentence incorrectly, but heck if I can get that out of what you initially said.

 

Availability = supply of a given commodity. Hold demand constant and reduce the supply and the price goes up. Increase the supply and price goes down. You know, if it's a competitive marketplace with multiple agents on both sides of the equation. With 20+ years in the field you ought to know that.

 

Bradley is not the only OF option out there. Hendry is but one supplier to the market of teams looking for OF's. There are also players offering themselves to the market, as well as other teams looking to trade players away. Bradley, given all his positives, negatives, contact status and such holds a certain value within that market (though "the market" is a bit of a misnomer here since there's no sure way of determining value before a deal in a market with such few buyers). But his value to the buyers is relative to the other options available within the marketplace. If there were only him available and 10 teams desperate for OF help, you can sure as heck bet that Hendry would be in a different bargaining position.

 

I agree that Hendry's eagerness to trade Bradley doesn't really matter. But the availability of talent within the market as a whole sure as heck does make a difference.

[Guest]

If Bradley were on the open market this offseason, do people really feel he'd only get a contract like two years, $4m total? Because if you're expecting Hendry to eat 80% of the contract, that's essentially what you're saying. Think about what open market contract value would be for Bradley at this time, compare that to his current contract and that serves as an approximation for how much Hendry would have to eat to move him without getting anything back in return.

 

If Hendry wants more than zero back, he has to eat more. If he absorbs someone else's problem, he has to eat that much less (or get positive value from the other team).

 

The only really tough part is estimating what Bradley would get on the open market until that market has been set by the FA's that are out there. My guess is that that is really the holdup in this process.

[davearm2]

Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have?

Well a college degree and almost 20 years working in the field. You?

 

In simple terms, value is what someone is willing pay for a given commodity. That is not at all influenced by how willing (or desperate) a person is to sell it, or the seller's circumstances at all for that matter. It's totally a function of the buyer's perception of the commodity's usefulness to them.

 

Now could someone offer less than full value, in hopes of getting a bargain? Sure. But the value (willingness to pay) is still what it is.

Perhaps I'm reading your sentence incorrectly, but heck if I can get that out of what you initially said.

 

Availability = supply of a given commodity. Hold demand constant and reduce the supply and the price goes up. Increase the supply and price goes down. You know, if it's a competitive marketplace with multiple agents on both sides of the equation. With 20+ years in the field you ought to know that.

 

Bradley is not the only OF option out there. Hendry is but one supplier to the market of teams looking for OF's. There are also players offering themselves to the market, as well as other teams looking to trade players away. Bradley, given all his positives, negatives, contact status and such holds a certain value within that market (though "the market" is a bit of a misnomer here since there's no sure way of determining value before a deal in a market with such few buyers). But his value to the buyers is relative to the other options available within the marketplace. If there were only him available and 10 teams desperate for OF help, you can sure as heck bet that Hendry would be in a different bargaining position.

 

I agree that Hendry's eagerness to trade Bradley doesn't really matter. But the availability of talent within the market as a whole sure as heck does make a difference.

I was referring to seller's willingness to sell when I mentioned availability. Sorry that wasn't clearer.

 

How much a potential buyer values a given commodity is unrelated to how motivated (or not) the seller is, was the point.

 

The eBay analogy given earlier illustrates this well. Folks there place bids based on an item's value to them, without any knowledge (or interest) in the circumstances that led to the item being for sale in the first place.

 

The corollary here is that the Cubs' particular circumstances won't lead other teams to want Bradley more or less than they otherwise would. It may influence how they approach negotiations, but in the end their strike price is whatever it is.

[Guest]

Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have?

 

It's not the sentence I would have picked, but I think I know what he means.

 

Essentially, the Cubs bought Bradley for $21 (actually 21 million, but for the sake of the analogy). They're now putting him on Ebay. They are desperate to get rid of him so they put absolutely no reserve price on him. Whatever the best bid is the buyers are going to get Bradley no matter what.

 

They start the bidding at 99 cents. But as long as there are multiple bidders the price will be driven up a little past what the second best bidder wants to pay. It doesn't matter if there is a reserve price or not-people are going to bid similar amounts either way. So the fact that the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him (which davearm is calling availability) is not affecting the purchase price (the value) as long as there is competition (or a competitive marketplace as he calls it).

 

Now, it doesn't work if 1 bidder is willing to go significantly above what other bidders are. In that case, that bidder is getting a discount because the seller is desperate to get rid of Bradley and doesn't have leverage to hold out for much more than what the second best bidder was offering. But since it looks like most teams are valuing Bradley about the same, that leverage is mostly meaningless in this case and the Cubs will likely receive about the same amount of trade value for Bradley as they would if they were willing to keep him. Also, the more the Cubs can hide the value that each team is offering the more they force teams to pay much closer to what they think is Bradley's actual value because they force teams to risk losing a discount by holding out for a bigger one and losing Bradley to another team.

Understand what you're saying. That's not at all what his sentence says.

 

Also, the marketplace is dynamic because Bradley's not the only OF available on eBay. Prospective buyers may want to see if they can get a Jason Bay at a bargain price before they choose to bid on a Milton Bradley. The people who lose out on the sexy auctions may come back to Bradley with more interest later on.

[Guest]

I agree that Hendry's eagerness to trade Bradley doesn't really matter.

 

I disagree that it doesn't matter. Last year, the owner of the Padres made it known that Peavy needed to be traded before the start of the season. Well, he didn't get traded at the beginning of the season. Between the owner letting his marriage woes become a team problem and Towers completely failing Negotiations 101, the market for Peavy dried up.

 

If the Padres would have spoken privately with Peavy first, it's quite possible that Peavy would have granted a trade to more teams, maybe wouldn't have gone public with what teams he was or wasn't willing to be traded to, and if Towers wouldn't have spent more time talking than he should have, it's quite possible teams would have attempted to outbid each other for Peavy's services. Instead, it filtered down to just a discussion between Towers and Hendry, and this time Hendry wasn't willing to pay the necessary cost to acquire Peavy.

 

No team has to have Bradley. He's a luxury item. In other words, he would be a nice player to have, but only in what it would cost to get him. True, he's better than some of the players on the teams that are looking at him, but they can spend any money it might cost for Bradley and upgrade elsewhere and potentially be better overall without upgrading the position Bradley would have been playing.

 

It's sorta like making that trip to Tijuana. That mexican blanket sure would be nice to have, but only on my terms, not yours. I can go home with out it. This is what I'm willing to give, otherwise I'll spend the money I set aside for that on something else.

 

I do believe the eagerness to move someone does devalue the player. With 29 teams out there, the likelihood you might win the bid over someone else isn't very good to begin with, especially when you have teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who can throw money at everyone. Basically, a few teams are showing moderate interest because they think Hendry might be willing to pick up the whole tab. Other players have been moved under those pretenses, so maybe that's where the interest really lies. Let's also remember how ridiculous Texas and Tampa (two teams linked to be interested) likes to get with trade offers. If they can pillage another owner, they will.

[Guest]

Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have?

Well a college degree and almost 20 years working in the field. You?

 

In simple terms, value is what someone is willing pay for a given commodity. That is not at all influenced by how willing (or desperate) a person is to sell it, or the seller's circumstances at all for that matter. It's totally a function of the buyer's perception of the commodity's usefulness to them.

 

Now could someone offer less than full value, in hopes of getting a bargain? Sure. But the value (willingness to pay) is still what it is.

Perhaps I'm reading your sentence incorrectly, but heck if I can get that out of what you initially said.

 

Availability = supply of a given commodity. Hold demand constant and reduce the supply and the price goes up. Increase the supply and price goes down. You know, if it's a competitive marketplace with multiple agents on both sides of the equation. With 20+ years in the field you ought to know that.

 

Bradley is not the only OF option out there. Hendry is but one supplier to the market of teams looking for OF's. There are also players offering themselves to the market, as well as other teams looking to trade players away. Bradley, given all his positives, negatives, contact status and such holds a certain value within that market (though "the market" is a bit of a misnomer here since there's no sure way of determining value before a deal in a market with such few buyers). But his value to the buyers is relative to the other options available within the marketplace. If there were only him available and 10 teams desperate for OF help, you can sure as heck bet that Hendry would be in a different bargaining position.

 

I agree that Hendry's eagerness to trade Bradley doesn't really matter. But the availability of talent within the market as a whole sure as heck does make a difference.

I was referring to seller's willingness to sell when I mentioned availability. Sorry that wasn't clearer.

 

How much a potential buyer values a given commodity is unrelated to how motivated (or not) the seller is, was the point.

 

The eBay analogy given earlier illustrates this well. Folks there place bids based on an item's value to them, without any knowledge (or interest) in the circumstances that led to the item being for sale in the first place.

 

The corollary here is that the Cubs' particular circumstances won't lead other teams to want Bradley more or less than they otherwise would. It may influence how they approach negotiations, but in the end their strike price is whatever it is.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, though there are issues with the eBay analogy since the markets function differently.

[CubColtPacer]

Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have?

 

It's not the sentence I would have picked, but I think I know what he means.

 

Essentially, the Cubs bought Bradley for $21 (actually 21 million, but for the sake of the analogy). They're now putting him on Ebay. They are desperate to get rid of him so they put absolutely no reserve price on him. Whatever the best bid is the buyers are going to get Bradley no matter what.

 

They start the bidding at 99 cents. But as long as there are multiple bidders the price will be driven up a little past what the second best bidder wants to pay. It doesn't matter if there is a reserve price or not-people are going to bid similar amounts either way. So the fact that the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him (which davearm is calling availability) is not affecting the purchase price (the value) as long as there is competition (or a competitive marketplace as he calls it).

 

Now, it doesn't work if 1 bidder is willing to go significantly above what other bidders are. In that case, that bidder is getting a discount because the seller is desperate to get rid of Bradley and doesn't have leverage to hold out for much more than what the second best bidder was offering. But since it looks like most teams are valuing Bradley about the same, that leverage is mostly meaningless in this case and the Cubs will likely receive about the same amount of trade value for Bradley as they would if they were willing to keep him. Also, the more the Cubs can hide the value that each team is offering the more they force teams to pay much closer to what they think is Bradley's actual value because they force teams to risk losing a discount by holding out for a bigger one and losing Bradley to another team.

Understand what you're saying. That's not at all what his sentence says.

 

Also, the marketplace is dynamic because Bradley's not the only OF available on eBay. Prospective buyers may want to see if they can get a Jason Bay at a bargain price before they choose to bid on a Milton Bradley. The people who lose out on the sexy auctions may come back to Bradley with more interest later on.

 

I definitely agree that the dynamic nature of the market goes against the analogy. In fact, that's going to be the hardest job for the Cubs in the offseason. While I believe the previous analogy indicates that teams will offer what they feel Bradley is worth (and not shortchange the Cubs just because they are desperate), how much Bradley is worth to their team will change based on the available options and money available. The Cubs have to figure out when is the time in the offseason in which the market for Bradley is at its absolute highest. That isn't based on the desperation level of the Cubs but trying to gauge the desperation level of the other teams involved. And they cannot allow the market to get down to 1 team, because as soon as it's only 1 team interested they can pay whatever price they want. That's why I think the Cubs are so interested in getting this done early. They'll wait just long enough to get the premier free agents out of the way but they'll definitely try to trade him before teams start filling their corner outfield holes with their Plan B options.

[Guest]

I definitely agree that the dynamic nature of the market goes against the analogy. In fact, that's going to be the hardest job for the Cubs in the offseason. While I believe the previous analogy indicates that teams will offer what they feel Bradley is worth (and not shortchange the Cubs just because they are desperate), how much Bradley is worth to their team will change based on the available options and money available. The Cubs have to figure out when is the time in the offseason in which the market for Bradley is at its absolute highest. That isn't based on the desperation level of the Cubs but trying to gauge the desperation level of the other teams involved. And they cannot allow the market to get down to 1 team, because as soon as it's only 1 team interested they can pay whatever price they want. That's why I think the Cubs are so interested in getting this done early. They'll wait just long enough to get the premier free agents out of the way but they'll definitely try to trade him before teams start filling their corner outfield holes with their Plan B options.

I think that Bradley is a Plan B option for several teams.

 

I do think the desperation does have some level of impact, though. The primary (or only if you believe some studies) power in any negotiation is the willingness to walk away. If you are in a negotiation and you let the buyer know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, your negotiation position in any 1-1 situation is lessened. If you let the entire market know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, and if the players in that market have an opportunity to share information -- then your position with them collectively is lessened as well.

 

I don't know that he's impacted a huge amount - ultimately he could still walk away and play Bradley again in 2010. But I do believe he hurt his position somewhat.

[CubColtPacer]

I agree that Hendry's eagerness to trade Bradley doesn't really matter.

 

I disagree that it doesn't matter. Last year, the owner of the Padres made it known that Peavy needed to be traded before the start of the season. Well, he didn't get traded at the beginning of the season. Between the owner letting his marriage woes become a team problem and Towers completely failing Negotiations 101, the market for Peavy dried up.

 

If the Padres would have spoken privately with Peavy first, it's quite possible that Peavy would have granted a trade to more teams, maybe wouldn't have gone public with what teams he was or wasn't willing to be traded to, and if Towers wouldn't have spent more time talking than he should have, it's quite possible teams would have attempted to outbid each other for Peavy's services. Instead, it filtered down to just a discussion between Towers and Hendry, and this time Hendry wasn't willing to pay the necessary cost to acquire Peavy.

 

No team has to have Bradley. He's a luxury item. In other words, he would be a nice player to have, but only in what it would cost to get him. True, he's better than some of the players on the teams that are looking at him, but they can spend any money it might cost for Bradley and upgrade elsewhere and potentially be better overall without upgrading the position Bradley would have been playing.

 

It's sorta like making that trip to Tijuana. That mexican blanket sure would be nice to have, but only on my terms, not yours. I can go home with out it. This is what I'm willing to give, otherwise I'll spend the money I set aside for that on something else.

 

I do believe the eagerness to move someone does devalue the player. With 29 teams out there, the likelihood you might win the bid over someone else isn't very good to begin with, especially when you have teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who can throw money at everyone. Basically, a few teams are showing moderate interest because they think Hendry might be willing to pick up the whole tab. Other players have been moved under those pretenses, so maybe that's where the interest really lies. Let's also remember how ridiculous Texas and Tampa (two teams linked to be interested) likes to get with trade offers. If they can pillage another owner, they will.

 

I thought they did talk to Peavy and his agent before the whole thing started and got his approved list of teams. I think the Peavy situation was a clear case of the Padres putting too large of a price on a player with a large contract. They were asking way too much for him and teams simply weren't wiling to give up that much value. The Cubs came closest which is why there were so many rumors connecting them but at the end of the day the Padres were too greedy and mistimed the market badly.

 

I would definitely agree with you that teams are not going to be desperate to acquire Bradley and that he'll be a luxury item. For certain players when teams are desperate, they are willing to overpay based on their needs. That won't happen with Bradley. But they will be willing to pay what they believe to be a fair price for him if they have to after they try to get the best discount they can. That won't involve paying his entire contract (nobody but the Cubs wanted to pay that much last year and his value has dropped with the bad season and continued troubles) but they'll pay close to what they think he's worth unless they can get a better discount on a different outfielder.

 

I believe the eagerness to move someone can depress value. Sometimes it brings up questions of what that team is hiding about that player and you never get the chance to have a team suddenly decide to overpay for a player. But in this case neither of those scenarios apply and I don't see how the Cubs have dropped his value any more by being eager to move them. That eagerness hasn't affected what any other team thinks of Bradley because everything was so public before that. And it's what other clubs think of Bradley that is important and not what the Cubs think.

[Guest]

Most of these GM's know that you don't talk down on your players. You don't go public with your intentions. Hendry got a little bit famous in his early days as GM by being very private with his dealings with other GM's.

 

These guys know Hendry is sincere when he says he wants Bradley gone. The only reason the teams that have showed interest so far are really interested is because they view Bradley as someone that can provide all star level production for the cost of a back up middle infielder. And they think this because big market teams aren't afraid to pick up most of the tab to move a player.

 

So, if I'm a small market team, and I have about 10m I can spend this offseason, it would be awesome if Hendry would practically give me Bradley for next to nothing and I still have most of my 10m to spend for upgrades elsewhere. If Hendry won't give me Bradley, I guess I'll look somewhere else for a bargain.

[Guest]

I thought they did talk to Peavy and his agent before the whole thing started and got his approved list of teams. I think the Peavy situation was a clear case of the Padres putting too large of a price on a player with a large contract. They were asking way too much for him and teams simply weren't wiling to give up that much value. The Cubs came closest which is why there were so many rumors connecting them but at the end of the day the Padres were too greedy and mistimed the market badly.

 

Peavy was outraged. Especially since the first discussions were with the Yankees, and Peavy had absolutely no desire to go there. I'm not so sure he was willing to go to Atlanta, either, and Towers talked to them pretty early as well. Peavy never wanted to leave San Diego, and San Diego really screwed him over.

 

Had San Diego been up front and honest with Peavy, maybe they could have played their cards way closer to the vest and started a real bidding war, rather than Towers approaching Hendry on a one on one because all of Peavy's other choices couldn't work any deals. Maybe Peavy could have gotten his contract extended by working with the Padres front office. Towers didn't communicate with Peavy, and that whole trade debacle turned into a train wreck.

[CubColtPacer]

I definitely agree that the dynamic nature of the market goes against the analogy. In fact, that's going to be the hardest job for the Cubs in the offseason. While I believe the previous analogy indicates that teams will offer what they feel Bradley is worth (and not shortchange the Cubs just because they are desperate), how much Bradley is worth to their team will change based on the available options and money available. The Cubs have to figure out when is the time in the offseason in which the market for Bradley is at its absolute highest. That isn't based on the desperation level of the Cubs but trying to gauge the desperation level of the other teams involved. And they cannot allow the market to get down to 1 team, because as soon as it's only 1 team interested they can pay whatever price they want. That's why I think the Cubs are so interested in getting this done early. They'll wait just long enough to get the premier free agents out of the way but they'll definitely try to trade him before teams start filling their corner outfield holes with their Plan B options.

I think that Bradley is a Plan B option for several teams.

 

I do think the desperation does have some level of impact, though. The primary (or only if you believe some studies) power in any negotiation is the willingness to walk away. If you are in a negotiation and you let the buyer know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, your negotiation position in any 1-1 situation is lessened. If you let the entire market know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, and if the players in that market have an opportunity to share information -- then your position with them collectively is lessened as well.

 

I don't know that he's impacted a huge amount - ultimately he could still walk away and play Bradley again in 2010. But I do believe he hurt his position somewhat.

 

I agree with Bradley being a plan B which is why I don't think the Cubs want teams starting to turn to other outfielders who are also plan B options.

 

I agree that in a 1-1 negotiation that the willingness to walk away is the absolute most important part of the negotiation. I disagree when there are so many other teams involved. Even if everybody in the league knows that, they still have to compete with each other. And they don't want the team in their division to get a huge discount on Bradley when they could get a slightly lesser discount on him.

 

As I said in my previous post, the one thing that you do get is that teams will never overpay even slightly from what they feel his value is. But I don't think that's a concern in Bradley's situation because teams rarely overpay for players who are considered risks like him. They like to exercise caution when it comes to players like Bradley. And so the eagerness by the Cubs to move him hasn't really affected his current value at all because the only thing it hurt was irrelevant anyway.

[davearm2]

Most of these GM's know that you don't talk down on your players. You don't go public with your intentions. Hendry got a little bit famous in his early days as GM by being very private with his dealings with other GM's.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that Hendry's biggest mistake in this fiasco was suspending Bradley for the last couple of weeks. The back and forth in the press was obviously out there for everyone to see, but by sending Bradley home early the message was sent loud and clear, THIS GUY'S SUCH A CLUBHOUSE HEADACHE THAT WE'D RATHER HE JUST BE GONE.

 

If there were teams that might've been on the fence about trading for this guy, you can bet they hopped down off the fence after that.

 

Now having said that, Hendry was in a tough spot, because doing nothing or sweeping stuff under the rug would've caused problems of other sorts.

[CubsWin]

Most of these GM's know that you don't talk down on your players. You don't go public with your intentions. Hendry got a little bit famous in his early days as GM by being very private with his dealings with other GM's.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that Hendry's biggest mistake in this fiasco was suspending Bradley for the last couple of weeks. The back and forth in the press was obviously out there for everyone to see, but by sending Bradley home early the message was sent loud and clear, THIS GUY'S SUCH A CLUBHOUSE HEADACHE THAT WE'D RATHER HE JUST BE GONE.

 

If there were teams that might've been on the fence about trading for this guy, you can bet they hopped down off the fence after that.

 

Now having said that, Hendry was in a tough spot, because doing nothing or sweeping stuff under the rug would've caused problems of other sorts.

I agree...to an extent. Hendry's move at the end of the season was necessary for the integrity of the team's boundaries of player behavior. It could have been handled less publicly and he could've just ordered Lou to sit him for the last couple of weeks, but that would have been noticed and reported on, too. Either way Bradley's perceived trade value was going to drop. But that was then. This is now.

 

What matters more is what he is saying about him to GMs now. Things change in a short amount of time in this game. This quote is in an article from December 2nd...

A lot of people have had worse exits at the end of the year than that and they return," Hendry said. "There will be a lot of things that change personnel-wise over the winter, I'm sure, and the goal is to do the best we can to put a good club on the field by Spring Training. Until people aren't here, as a general manager, I approach it like they are here."

The signing of Jaramillo can easily be spun as a sign that the Cubs are okay with not dealing him and, whether true or not, can serve to restore some of the leverage that may have been lost. Also, the fact that Hendry hasn't bit on any offers currently being discussed (if indeed there have been any) is another factor that can go a long way to counteracting the perception other GMs may have had due to Hendry's previous statements. Will GMs test him because of what went down? They probably already have. But what will likely call the shots in the end is whether there's a match between what Hendry is willing to do/take and what other GMs are willing to give. And that comes down to how other GMs value his skill set/attitude/et al. Now if Hendry truly is desperate to move him, what he is willing to do/take may be pretty low...

[A New Era]

Would anybody not be completely dissapointed if we just kept Bradley and let him play right field? His #'s weren't that bad just a lack of homers and time heals all wounds. Who knows maybe Bradley could have a really good year next year. Wouldn't you want him doing that for the Cubs instead of on our tab for someone else?

[SweetZombieJesus]

Would anybody not be completely dissapointed if we just kept Bradley and let him play right field? His #'s weren't that bad just a lack of homers and time heals all wounds. Who knows maybe Bradley could have a really good year next year. Wouldn't you want him doing that for the Cubs instead of on our tab for someone else?

 

 

*Raises hand* Unless a young superstar caliber talent type CF/RF comes in.

 

FYI: Granderson doesn't count.

[Backtobanks]

The only problem with Bradley being plan B for some teams is that all other Cub moves are based on dumping Bradley first. Also, you know the Boras clients aren't going to get signed too early. While I want Hendry to get the best deal he can for Bradley, I'm not sure anybody wants this to drag out for 3 more months.