Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Derwood]

The best thing is that in addition to being the worst player in the majors, Silva is an [expletive] who blamed everyone else on the Mariners when things started to go wrong.

 

UH-OH RED FLAGS HE'S GOING TO POISION THE CUBS' WELL WATER AND THEN THEY WILL LOSE.

 

I'm holding judgment until we hear from Ryan Theriot

[ThePenguin11]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

[jersey cubs fan]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return.

 

 

There is no [expletive] such thing.

[ThePenguin11]

You know how DodgerBlues' transactions board is called "Pedro for Delino?" Well, can we change the name of this board to "Bradley for Silva?"

 

That's not really the same thing at all.

[Sammy Sofa]

There was never a point of no return. People weren't going to stop showing up because of Bradley. Players weren't going to stop playing because of Bradley. Those are the only way you have a "point of no return" with a player like that in terms of "personality issues" and even then it's still not something they HAVE to do. Edited December 18, 2009 by Sammy Sofa

[ThePenguin11]

I don't need to lay off the hyperbole. I'm pissed; Ryan Theriot should not be a starting MI for this team. Him being there just epitomizes how bad the Cubs' farm system had been for so long and how poorly this team has been run.

 

No sense in getting bent out of shape over something you had to have seen coming for the last four months. This is all crying over spilled milk. If anyone actually thinks the Cubs have ANY chance of winning the World Series in the next three years, you're sadly mistaken. I've come to terms with this, so it doesn't hurt anymore. When it gets this bad you just can't allow yourself to become so emotionally invested. It's simply not worth it.

 

Oh God, shut up with the baseball robot garbage.

 

Take it easy tough guy. Nobody kicked your dog. Yet.

[SouthSideRyan]

They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it.

 

Nearly pissed my pants

[Sever82]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

 

Dont tell that to some of the guys on this board. They ignore that part and still think Milton staying was an option.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't need to lay off the hyperbole. I'm pissed; Ryan Theriot should not be a starting MI for this team. Him being there just epitomizes how bad the Cubs' farm system had been for so long and how poorly this team has been run.

 

No sense in getting bent out of shape over something you had to have seen coming for the last four months. This is all crying over spilled milk. If anyone actually thinks the Cubs have ANY chance of winning the World Series in the next three years, you're sadly mistaken. I've come to terms with this, so it doesn't hurt anymore. When it gets this bad you just can't allow yourself to become so emotionally invested. It's simply not worth it.

 

Oh God, shut up with the baseball robot garbage.

 

Take it easy tough guy. Nobody kicked your dog. Yet.

 

Nobody's trying to be a tough guy; I just don't want to hear the "oh man, I don't get emotional over this" crap on a day like this. My team did something really, REALLY stupid and I want to vent.

[jersey cubs fan]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

 

Dont tell that to some of the guys on this board. They ignore that part and still think Milton staying was an option.

 

It was an option. The only reason it wasn't was because they have idiots in charge, and only an idiot would actually think it wasn't an option.

[YearofDaCubs]

Remember all the jokes about Hendry overpaying middle relievers? He trumped them all: The worst middle reliever in baseball for 2 year/$15 million deal.

 

No one let Bill Bavasi know there's a job opening up soon.

 

Serious question: When was the last time the Cubs had a pitcher as bad as Carlos Silva on the roster?

Even Shawn Estes wasn't as bad but it would be close.

[ThePenguin11]

There was never a point of no return. People weren't going to stop showing up because of Bradley. Players weren't going to stop playing because of Bradley. Those are the only way you have a "point of no return" with a player like that in terms of "personality issues" and even then it's still not something they HAVE to do.

 

He was a PR nightmare on the team that cares more about PR than almost any team in sports. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't make it untrue.

[inari]

Hey guys, this thread is now about pandas. Mods plz change the title thx

 

http://imgboot.com/images/arthomure/pandas.gif

[ThePenguin11]

They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it.

 

Nearly pissed my pants

 

I'm sorry, I should have said slightly less valuable.

[SouthSideRyan]

There was never a point of no return. People weren't going to stop showing up because of Bradley. Players weren't going to stop playing because of Bradley. Those are the only way you have a "point of no return" with a player like that in terms of "personality issues" and even then it's still not something they HAVE to do.

 

He was a PR nightmare on the team that cares more about PR than almost any team in sports. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't make it untrue.

 

No more criticism of any team doing anything. Cause that's just the way they are.

[SpongeWorthy]

There's no line of behavior that a player could cross that would make having him back out of the question? That can't be right.

[Cubswin11]

Guancous wrote:

Remember all the jokes about Hendry overpaying middle relievers? He trumped them all: The worst middle reliever in baseball for 2 year/$15 million deal.

 

No one let Bill Bavasi know there's a job opening up soon.

 

Serious question: When was the last time the Cubs had a pitcher as bad as Carlos Silva on the roster?

 

Even Shawn Estes wasn't as bad but it would be close.

 

Trachsel in 07 was honestly one of the worst Cubs pitchers I have ever seen, I don't think Silva will be quite that bad, but it could be close.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Cubswin11

[WrigleyField 22]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

I could kind of buy some of that because as an employer you have to set guidelines from what to expect from an employee. Now while I'm not really sure what Milton publicly did that was so damaging, I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt that something occurred behind the scenes.

 

Here's my problem though: We gave him most of his negative value! We threw him under the bus and made it be known that moving him was our number one priority. We gave ourselves the lower hand in negotiations. If you are going to be deadset on trading a guy, you should try anything you can to raise his value not trade it. Its the same [expletive] that happened with Sosa.

[Sever82]

It was an option. The only reason it wasn't was because they have idiots in charge, and only an idiot would actually think it wasn't an option.

 

Ha ha alright tough guy. So i guess you work for the cubs front office and knew it was an option in their thinking. We dont work for the cubs smart guy, and it was obvious they didn't consider it an option but yet you continue to beat this idea that somehow, keeping bradley was an option the cubs were still considering.

[Sammy Sofa]

There was never a point of no return. People weren't going to stop showing up because of Bradley. Players weren't going to stop playing because of Bradley. Those are the only way you have a "point of no return" with a player like that in terms of "personality issues" and even then it's still not something they HAVE to do.

 

He was a PR nightmare on the team that cares more about PR than almost any team in sports. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't make it untrue.

 

That still doesn't make it something that they have to do. How would this "PR nightmare" effect the team? The Cubs stunk last year because 2B turned into a black hole offensively for much of the season, Soto was fat, hurt and awful/had a ton of bad luck and Soriano was bad and playing hurt. Bradley definitely got off to an ice cold start offensively but ended up being a productive player. People aren't going to stop buying tickets and merchandise because of Milton Bradley. Milton Bradley can't make his teammates play worse. Never at any point has moving him beein something they had to do. Who gives a [expletive] if he doesn't like the fans?

[Guancous]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

 

The general manager is responsible for creating that situation by doling out a three year/$30 million deal instead of a 1 year/$10 million contract. This entire situation was entirely avoidable.

 

I was excited when Bradley was signed. I thought we would be more durable over three years than Abreu or Ibanez. The market shifted and a third year wasn't even necessary for Abreu. I was wrong. That's why I'm not the GM.

[inari]

It was an option. The only reason it wasn't was because they have idiots in charge, and only an idiot would actually think it wasn't an option.

 

Ha ha alright tough guy. So i guess you work for the cubs front office and knew it was an option in their thinking. We dont work for the cubs smart guy, and it was obvious they didn't consider it an option but yet you continue to beat this idea that somehow, keeping bradley was an option the cubs were still considering.

 

 

No. One. Cares. About. Their. Thinking. Damn. It.

[haubrich91]

http://i45.tinypic.com/35d0pqw.jpghttp://i45.tinypic.com/29ws6k3.jpg

[jersey cubs fan]

It was an option. The only reason it wasn't was because they have idiots in charge, and only an idiot would actually think it wasn't an option.

 

Ha ha alright tough guy. So i guess you work for the cubs front office and knew it was an option in their thinking. We dont work for the cubs smart guy, and it was obvious they didn't consider it an option but yet you continue to beat this idea that somehow, keeping bradley was an option the cubs were still considering.

 

The Cubs chose to not make it an option. That doesn't mean it wasn't an option. Seriously, it doesn't take much thought power to understand this very simple concept. The Cubs didn't have to trade Milton Bradley. They chose to.

 

Sort of like how suicide is always an option, just because you choose not to kill yourself doesn't mean it's not an option.

[YearofDaCubs]

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

I believe the Cubs would have had a MUCH easier time trading Bradley if Hendry didn't suspend him and open his mouth about him. I can almost guarantee it.