Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Guest]

We know that Bradley has been knocked off of 4 teams because of personality issues (Cleveland, LA, Oakland, and now the Cubs). It's uncertain if that played into the situations in Montreal or San Diego, and with Texas it's pretty clear that it was a contract issue. So I would agree with you that there are certainly other reasons for Bradley to have changed teams, but the majority of teams have ended up moving him because of his personality.

 

I can always appreciate your level-headed observations and you are probably more accurate with the reality than most of us, but the last sentence in the above quote disturbs me a bit. You make it sound as though all trades happen because a team has personality issues with someone, when we really don't know why players are traded. Teams trade players they like all the time. Kenny Lofton sure bounced around, as did Reggie Sanders. I don't think anyone can honestly say that each time Bradley was traded was due to his misconduct or poor behavior.

 

Do we honestly know why he was traded from Montreal to Cleveland? Zach Day was a pretty nice return for Montreal in exchange for Bradley. How about the trade from Cleveland to LA? Franklin Gutierrez and a PTBNL is a pretty decent exchange, also. I don't remember any issues until he actually got to LA, where a fan hit him with a bottle or something. He lasted 2 years in LA before LA traded him for Andre Ethier, another pretty good trade. I recall the Cubs being interested in him then, also.

 

They loved him in San Diego. And they loved him even after he got himself hurt. The one issue was actually a pretty legitimate complaint on Bradley's part, and no different than just about any other situation a typical player goes through. The manager was simply trying to get his player away before suspensions became a part of the equation and in the process, Bradley messed up his ACL. Freak accident, but no one in San Diego turned on him. I don't remember any problems in Oakland, either.

 

Texas loved having him there, and it sounded like for the right price they might want him back.

 

Sure, he's had issues time and again, but I can't agree that all of the trades or team changes are because he's a marked man that no one wants.

[cubsfan26]

The question should be: which general managers are available and who should be next?

 

 

The thing is though, if the Cubs get back in the playoffs next year. Hendry job is probably safe for most of the remaining of his contract(3 more years). Like it or not but Ricketts already accepted that the Cubs were gonna have to eat alot of Bradley salary and previous Hendry mistakes. Yet he decided to stick with Hendry and let him try to fix his mistakes. Nothing about this trade has changed Ricketts opinion of Hendry because he already knew this was all going to happen coming in to the situation. Yet he decided to keep Hendry then, because he thought the overall results Hendry got were good enough(even if people on here don't). Ricketts just decided not to give Hendry much money to do anything. So if he fixes the team and gets them back in the playoffs he's gonna have to do it without spending lots of money. But reality is if the Cubs are back in the postseason Hendry will be back. So people who dislike Hendry almost gotta hope that the Cubs do bad this season. You guys pick what you wanna do.

[Shilzzz]

Just saying... this whole damn argument is [expletive]. What it boils down to, and i hate to swear, but, is that hendry has fucked up this entire team over the last two years, taking the cubs from the best team in the national league to what's going to be a 3rd or 4th place team in a matter of two years, out of pointless tinkering. the issue does not start at bradley, the issue starts with the fact that OBVIOUSLY hendry gets these little [expletive] ticks and he gets stuck on some inane idea and can't work his way out of that niche, and i'm (not really) sorry, but any business man with half a brain understands that painting yourself into a corner ideologically is going to end in disaster. you want to be ignorant, go be [expletive] ignorant on your own time, chump. for all the few good trades you pulled off, and that you got lucky that lilly has become a real good pitcher after a career up until then that had been decidedly mediocre and lucky that derosa sustained a career year is about the only times you have done something worth a [expletive] that was on your own accord, and not the result of some other team needing to drop salary. you are bad at your job, point blank. i don't give a [expletive] what anyone has to say at this point. who cares that he drafted mark prior and had a decent pitching staff for a couple years? prior was an easy pick there, and if the twins has taken prior i wouldn't be surprised if hendry doesn't pass on mauer. what good is having a decent farm system if a) your high draft picks NEVER hit, b) you trade away anything valuable (ceda, ie) for worthless pieces (gregg), and c) when you decide to overslot you pick guys who have injury and control problems that you believe you can magically fix, or you overvalue guys from colleges close to associates of yours and end up paying big bucks to guys who don't deserve it (shark).

 

you have lucked your way into a sustained front office job, jimbo. lee, aramis, 2003, nomar... you aren't a genius, and the longer you have the job the longer your [expletive] ass shows just how much of a [expletive] you actually are. OBVIOUSLY.

 

/rant :oops:

[CubColtPacer]

We know that Bradley has been knocked off of 4 teams because of personality issues (Cleveland, LA, Oakland, and now the Cubs). It's uncertain if that played into the situations in Montreal or San Diego, and with Texas it's pretty clear that it was a contract issue. So I would agree with you that there are certainly other reasons for Bradley to have changed teams, but the majority of teams have ended up moving him because of his personality.

 

I can always appreciate your level-headed observations and you are probably more accurate with the reality than most of us, but the last sentence in the above quote disturbs me a bit. You make it sound as though all trades happen because a team has personality issues with someone, when we really don't know why players are traded. Teams trade players they like all the time. Kenny Lofton sure bounced around, as did Reggie Sanders. I don't think anyone can honestly say that each time Bradley was traded was due to his misconduct or poor behavior.

 

Do we honestly know why he was traded from Montreal to Cleveland? Zach Day was a pretty nice return for Montreal in exchange for Bradley. How about the trade from Cleveland to LA? Franklin Gutierrez and a PTBNL is a pretty decent exchange, also. I don't remember any issues until he actually got to LA, where a fan hit him with a bottle or something. He lasted 2 years in LA before LA traded him for Andre Ethier, another pretty good trade. I recall the Cubs being interested in him then, also.

 

They loved him in San Diego. And they loved him even after he got himself hurt. The one issue was actually a pretty legitimate complaint on Bradley's part, and no different than just about any other situation a typical player goes through. The manager was simply trying to get his player away before suspensions became a part of the equation and in the process, Bradley messed up his ACL. Freak accident, but no one in San Diego turned on him. I don't remember any problems in Oakland, either.

 

Texas loved having him there, and it sounded like for the right price they might want him back.

 

Sure, he's had issues time and again, but I can't agree that all of the trades or team changes are because he's a marked man that no one wants.

 

I have no idea why he was traded from Montreal. I know he had been suspended in the minors for spitting gum at an umpire, but ultimately the Expos situation is uncertain why they decided to trade him.

 

Here's a link to why he left Cleveland (and he had plenty of issues there and the article has brief references to several of them):

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1773330

 

Basically the end was when he got into an argument with his manager and it was bad enough that he was barred from training camp and quickly traded.

 

Here's a link to why he left the Dodgers:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2258032

 

Bradley had multiple suspensions in 04 along with a confrontation with a reporter. He also didn't get along with Jeff Kent and claimed Kent was a racist which was the stated reason for the Dodgers eventually trading him. The police also had to come to his house for domestic violence calls 3 times in 05 after he had been arrested for another incident in 04.

 

In Oakland, everything was fine for a while until Bradley was battling some injuries. Oakland wasn't willing to guarantee him playing time as they had a crowded outfield when he got back and Bradley was upset about that so Oakland ended up DFA'ing him (they later were able to trade him before the 10 days were up).

 

Here are some quotes from that story:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/22/SPGH6QK00S1.DTL

 

The A's designated the outfielder for assignment Thursday morning, a day after general manager Billy Beane met with Bradley to discuss the outfielder's status. After that meeting, Bradley left the clubhouse upset; the day before, he had expressed dissatisfaction after not being activated when he felt he was ready to return from a calf injury.

 

"clearly their decision was (already) made after finding out that Milton would be unhappy not playing every day. Milton feels he is an everyday player and they felt it would be a disservice to him not playing him in his free-agent year.''

 

Asked specifically if character issues led to Bradley's departure, Beane said, "Is Milton a fiery, emotional guy? Absolutely. He's not the first guy to be like that in this game and we don't get to the playoffs (last year) without Milton. As far as speculation, you can speculate all you want. I'm not going to contribute to that in any way. We had to manage our roster and it was time to go a different way.''

 

I don't believe San Diego got rid of him because of his attitude. The ACL incident was well publicized but the Padres seemed to support him through that and I believe they offered him a small contract even with the torn ACL.

 

Texas wanted to keep him but was unwilling to offer more than 1 year and Bradley wanted multiple after the 2008 season.

 

And the Cubs got rid of him for off the field attitude reasons.

 

So that's 4 out of 7 teams that seem to have gotten rid of him because of off the field problems, 1 that is uncertain, 1 that is unlikely, and 1 that just wasn't willing to offer multiple years. I didn't say that every team he's been with had gotten rid of him because of his attitude. But several teams have.

[Moises a loo]

Except for the key points that are completely wrong, like Milton not owning up to when he performed poorly or not being able to play with the pressure of what was going on.

 

He might have owed up to it when being asked by the media. But he sure as heck didn't like it was all his fault. Basically when Milton was unhappy, he made everybody around him unhappy. Ryan Theriot was next to his locker and thats basically what he said.

 

This still doesn't make any sense, and it makes evern less sense with every story that tries to spin it like everyone else was on the same page except for Milton. If everyone else in the clubhouse gets along, who cares if one guy is in a bad mood? Is everyone else that weak and fragile emotionally and mentally that one guy sulking or being a jerk means everyone else can't get along? If that was the case then shouldn't that place be a wreck every year due to Zambrano alone? Maybe Milton Bradley just didn't want to talk to Ryan-[expletive]'-Theriot. It's probably annoying as crap to listen to some hick, Ed Hardy-wearing dwarf acting like he's the isht.

I don't care how much talent somebody has; there's a limit to how much crap people are willing to put up with. This has nothing to do with baseball, it's a universal truth. Whether you're in an MLB clubhouse, an office building, or on an internet messageboard, if you refuse to follow the basic guidelines of human interaction, you'll be removed from the group. It's pretty clear that's what happened here, and I feel confident believing that those who think his teammates should just shut up and deal with him because he has talent wouldn't feel that way if they were the ones who were actually dealing with him.

[Backtobanks]

Just saying... this whole damn argument is [expletive]. What it boils down to, and i hate to swear, but, is that hendry has [expletive] up this entire team over the last two years, taking the cubs from the best team in the national league to what's going to be a 3rd or 4th place team in a matter of two years, out of pointless tinkering. the issue does not start at bradley, the issue starts with the fact that OBVIOUSLY hendry gets these little [expletive] ticks and he gets stuck on some inane idea and can't work his way out of that niche, and i'm (not really) sorry, but any business man with half a brain understands that painting yourself into a corner ideologically is going to end in disaster. you want to be ignorant, go be [expletive] ignorant on your own time, chump. for all the few good trades you pulled off, and that you got lucky that lilly has become a real good pitcher after a career up until then that had been decidedly mediocre and lucky that derosa sustained a career year is about the only times you have done something worth a [expletive] that was on your own accord, and not the result of some other team needing to drop salary. you are bad at your job, point blank. i don't give a [expletive] what anyone has to say at this point. who cares that he drafted mark prior and had a decent pitching staff for a couple years? prior was an easy pick there, and if the twins has taken prior i wouldn't be surprised if hendry doesn't pass on mauer. what good is having a decent farm system if a) your high draft picks NEVER hit, b) you trade away anything valuable (ceda, ie) for worthless pieces (gregg), and c) when you decide to overslot you pick guys who have injury and control problems that you believe you can magically fix, or you overvalue guys from colleges close to associates of yours and end up paying big bucks to guys who don't deserve it (shark).

 

you have lucked your way into a sustained front office job, jimbo. lee, aramis, 2003, nomar... you aren't a genius, and the longer you have the job the longer your [expletive] ass shows just how much of a [expletive] you actually are. OBVIOUSLY.

 

/rant :oops:

 

I think your rant is pretty inaccurate. There's no doubt that this Bradley fiasco was a mistake from day 1, but the Cubs will be contending for the NL Central next year and for the forseeable future. Actually, injuries pretty much killed their chances of competing this year. With Soto, Soriano, ARam, Zambrano, and Dempster injured for long periods and Harden and Marmol having bad years, you can't expect too much. Within the next 2 years you've got Castro, Vitters, Cashner, Gaub, etc. coming to the ML level along with the biggest payroll in the NL Central. If you compare out starting lineup, rotation, and bullpen with the other NL Central teams, you will see that the Cubs are still the best team on paper. We're all frustrated, but we don't need all of the doom-and-gloom.

[Mugged By Fluffy]

Except for the key points that are completely wrong, like Milton not owning up to when he performed poorly or not being able to play with the pressure of what was going on.

 

He might have owed up to it when being asked by the media. But he sure as heck didn't like it was all his fault. Basically when Milton was unhappy, he made everybody around him unhappy. Ryan Theriot was next to his locker and thats basically what he said.

 

This still doesn't make any sense, and it makes evern less sense with every story that tries to spin it like everyone else was on the same page except for Milton. If everyone else in the clubhouse gets along, who cares if one guy is in a bad mood? Is everyone else that weak and fragile emotionally and mentally that one guy sulking or being a jerk means everyone else can't get along? If that was the case then shouldn't that place be a wreck every year due to Zambrano alone? Maybe Milton Bradley just didn't want to talk to Ryan-[expletive]'-Theriot. It's probably annoying as crap to listen to some hick, Ed Hardy-wearing dwarf acting like he's the isht.

 

I don't care how much talent somebody has; there's a limit to how much crap people are willing to put up with. This has nothing to do with baseball, it's a universal truth. Whether you're in an MLB clubhouse, an office building, or on an internet messageboard, if you refuse to follow the basic guidelines of human interaction, you'll be removed from the group.

 

Sure. But it is up to the managers and directors to make sure the troublesome employeee is removed from the group in a manner that is in the company's best interests.

 

I am the sole network engineer at my job. The only guy that knows anything about our servers, our intricate email system and our network hardware and software. On top of all that-I am currently in the middle of a software migration project.

 

Say I go in to work on Monday and tell my boss to F off, and then proceed to curse out the company staff that already doesn't like me. Is it in my company's best interest to fire me on the spot with no other network support available?

No. It is up to my boss to CYA, work out the problem with me and eventually devise a plan to get me out of there without disrupting the company operations.

 

Hendry needed to handle the situation with Bradley the way this boss would have handled it. What Hendry did and how he handled this was not in his company's best interests.

[Moises a loo]

Except for the key points that are completely wrong, like Milton not owning up to when he performed poorly or not being able to play with the pressure of what was going on.

 

He might have owed up to it when being asked by the media. But he sure as heck didn't like it was all his fault. Basically when Milton was unhappy, he made everybody around him unhappy. Ryan Theriot was next to his locker and thats basically what he said.

 

This still doesn't make any sense, and it makes evern less sense with every story that tries to spin it like everyone else was on the same page except for Milton. If everyone else in the clubhouse gets along, who cares if one guy is in a bad mood? Is everyone else that weak and fragile emotionally and mentally that one guy sulking or being a jerk means everyone else can't get along? If that was the case then shouldn't that place be a wreck every year due to Zambrano alone? Maybe Milton Bradley just didn't want to talk to Ryan-[expletive]'-Theriot. It's probably annoying as crap to listen to some hick, Ed Hardy-wearing dwarf acting like he's the isht.

 

I don't care how much talent somebody has; there's a limit to how much crap people are willing to put up with. This has nothing to do with baseball, it's a universal truth. Whether you're in an MLB clubhouse, an office building, or on an internet messageboard, if you refuse to follow the basic guidelines of human interaction, you'll be removed from the group.

 

Sure. But it is up to the managers and directors to make sure the troublesome employeee is removed from the group in a manner that is in the company's best interests.

 

I am the sole network engineer at my job. The only guy that knows anything about our servers, our intricate email system and our network hardware and software. On top of all that-I am currently in the middle of a software migration project.

 

Say I go in to work on Monday and tell my boss to F off, and then proceed to curse out the company staff that already doesn't like me. Is it in my company's best interest to fire me on the spot with no other network support available?

No. It is up to my boss to CYA, work out the problem with me and eventually devise a plan to get me out of there without disrupting the company operations.

 

Hendry needed to handle the situation with Bradley the way this boss would have handled it. What Hendry did and how he handled this was not in his company's best interests.

Agreed. I'll even go so far as to say that he shouldn't have signed a guy with his history in the first place, and it's not like there was nobody predicting disaster here. What I find hilarious is the number of people twisting themselves into pretzels to defend a guy because his numbers look pretty on paper.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Would you rather pay 2/15 for Carlos Silva, or 2/6 to never have Carlos Silva come near your roster? I'm pretty sure I'd take the latter. That's the choice between this trade and cutting Bradley. Heck, do you think we could've done better than Silva if we had paid all of Bradley's contract except for 2/6? You think anyone would've given us even a low level prospect for that? Of course someone would have.

 

You would think some teams would be willing to kick in 6m over two years to get Bradley. But I'm really starting to believe teams wouldn't even kick in that much. From everything we heard about the Rays, they weren't willing to kick in any money or very little money for the second year. So any money we would have saved in that deal would have been trading Burrell again and eating most of his contract. Sadly I really do think this was the best deal the Cubs could get when it comes to getting money back in return. The only reason why the Mariners were willing to kick in that much was to get Silva off there hands. Hendry knows Silva is a long shot to do anything productive and is basically talking about him like he's a guy he just signed to a minor league deal. I really believe Bradley value dropped to basically nothing. A few teams were willing to try him out basically for free or for very little money. But nobody was willing to invest more then 3m per season for Bradley.

 

The Mariners were willing to pay Bradley 2/29 to get rid of Silva. I think there'd be a touch of interest in him at 2/6.

[Sammy Sofa]

What I find hilarious is the number of people twisting themselves into pretzels to defend a guy because his numbers look pretty on paper.

 

Who is doing that?

[Eric Clipperton]

I really dislike Theriot after his reaction here, which is almost as immature as anything Bradley has done.

[inari]

Ok guys, what did Theriot say exactly?

[Derwood]

I'm impressed by the number of board-certified psychoanalysts we have on this board.

[Shilzzz]

Just saying... this whole damn argument is [expletive]. What it boils down to, and i hate to swear, but, is that hendry has [expletive] up this entire team over the last two years, taking the cubs from the best team in the national league to what's going to be a 3rd or 4th place team in a matter of two years, out of pointless tinkering. the issue does not start at bradley, the issue starts with the fact that OBVIOUSLY hendry gets these little [expletive] ticks and he gets stuck on some inane idea and can't work his way out of that niche, and i'm (not really) sorry, but any business man with half a brain understands that painting yourself into a corner ideologically is going to end in disaster. you want to be ignorant, go be [expletive] ignorant on your own time, chump. for all the few good trades you pulled off, and that you got lucky that lilly has become a real good pitcher after a career up until then that had been decidedly mediocre and lucky that derosa sustained a career year is about the only times you have done something worth a [expletive] that was on your own accord, and not the result of some other team needing to drop salary. you are bad at your job, point blank. i don't give a [expletive] what anyone has to say at this point. who cares that he drafted mark prior and had a decent pitching staff for a couple years? prior was an easy pick there, and if the twins has taken prior i wouldn't be surprised if hendry doesn't pass on mauer. what good is having a decent farm system if a) your high draft picks NEVER hit, b) you trade away anything valuable (ceda, ie) for worthless pieces (gregg), and c) when you decide to overslot you pick guys who have injury and control problems that you believe you can magically fix, or you overvalue guys from colleges close to associates of yours and end up paying big bucks to guys who don't deserve it (shark).

 

you have lucked your way into a sustained front office job, jimbo. lee, aramis, 2003, nomar... you aren't a genius, and the longer you have the job the longer your [expletive] ass shows just how much of a [expletive] you actually are. OBVIOUSLY.

 

/rant :oops:

 

I think your rant is pretty inaccurate. There's no doubt that this Bradley fiasco was a mistake from day 1, but the Cubs will be contending for the NL Central next year and for the forseeable future. Actually, injuries pretty much killed their chances of competing this year. With Soto, Soriano, ARam, Zambrano, and Dempster injured for long periods and Harden and Marmol having bad years, you can't expect too much. Within the next 2 years you've got Castro, Vitters, Cashner, Gaub, etc. coming to the ML level along with the biggest payroll in the NL Central. If you compare out starting lineup, rotation, and bullpen with the other NL Central teams, you will see that the Cubs are still the best team on paper. We're all frustrated, but we don't need all of the doom-and-gloom.

 

I'm sorry, but we may be looking at different rotations. The lineup has much potential, and there is no doubt in my mind that soto will bounce back nicely, and soriano really can't do much worse. But no one, at this point, should expect a full season out of Ramirez. There is a black hole at second, and while Baker is a nice option, he won't sustain the BABIP he had in Chicago. The bullpen, as it stands, is nothing more than decent. If you want the central, that's fine, but my standard is the World Series, which, with the rotation as it stands has no chance, unless there is a deadline move unforeseen right now.

 

St Louis upgraded their rotation, imo, and, yeah, the Brewers' starters are garbage by and large, but their offense is very, very good. Houston and Pittsburgh are nothing special, but I don't expect the team as it is currently configured, with perhaps Byrd or Pods added in, doing anything special. And my original post is really not that far off. Where has Hendry hit with his top draft picks so far, outside of a short stint of Prior? Vitters by all accounts is losing steam, and while I like Brett Jackson and guys like Cashner, they are too far off to know exactly what impact they will have on the big league team. He does all of the things I've said: he has man crushes on guys from LSU and ND, overvalues mediocre relievers and middle infielders, and has basically taken the salary and pinned the clubs' future against the wall. You better hope to hell that Castro is what guys are saying, and that Brett Jackson, Jay Jackson, and others come through; because if not, this club is ripe to be below average for some time.

[SouthSideRyan]

What are they even going to tell the guy(Silva) when he shows up in AZ on Feb 15, or whatever day it is that pitchers and catchers report? I can't imagine the conversation going well.

 

"Hey uh....Yeah, we are kinda stuck with you Carlos. We didn't really want you but our hands were tied and you were the only option for us. So uh...here's the ball. Go get 'em Tiger."

 

Hopefully the Cubs will be in Naples.

 

:-$ don't tell Silva that.

 

That was the joke.

[SouthSideRyan]

I agree with all of the negativity in the last 60+ pages and the Mariners got the more productive player in this trade, but the Mariners better hope Milton produces better than a BA of .257 with 12 HRs and 40 RBIs or the one newspaper and the less-passionate fans will be all over him too. The won't be upset because the traded the "great" Carlos Silva for him, but the team is shelling out $27 million for him and they are expected to be contenders next year.

 

The Mariners are shelling out 6M over 2 years for him. The money they would have paid Silva was a sunk cost.

[SouthSideRyan]

Except for the key points that are completely wrong, like Milton not owning up to when he performed poorly or not being able to play with the pressure of what was going on.

 

He might have owed up to it when being asked by the media. But he sure as heck didn't like it was all his fault. Basically when Milton was unhappy, he made everybody around him unhappy. Ryan Theriot was next to his locker and thats basically what he said. So even though Milton stats might have gotten better thought the season. He was still struggling in alot of big spots with guys in scoring postion. Which often made him unhappy and act like a idiot afterwards.

 

Ryan Theriot makes me unhappy.

[ConstableRabbit]

I ran into Shark at a Lincoln Park bar last night. Really nice guy.

Anyway, the first thing I asked him about was the Bradley trade. His response: "It is what it is. I mean, they got rid of a guy they wanted to get rid of and we got rid of a guy we wanted to get rid of. So hey."

[davearm2]

 

The Mariners were willing to pay Bradley 2/29 to get rid of Silva. I think there'd be a touch of interest in him at 2/6.

Your math in this thread is seriously flawed.

 

As someone else mentioned, the $25M the Mariners owed to Silva was a sunk cost.

 

What the M's were willing to do was pay an extra $5M over two years to have Bradley instead. No different than a free agent offer of 2/$5M, except that it also provided the M's an out from their horrible Silva contract.

 

If another team came in with an offer that would've netted the Cubs more than $5M in savings, then they'd probably have Bradley on their roster right now. Apparently none did.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

The Mariners were willing to pay Bradley 2/29 to get rid of Silva. I think there'd be a touch of interest in him at 2/6.

Your math in this thread is seriously flawed.

 

As someone else mentioned, the $25M the Mariners owed to Silva was a sunk cost.

 

What the M's were willing to do was pay an extra $5M over two years to have Bradley instead. No different than a free agent offer of 2/$5M, except that it also provided the M's an out from their horrible Silva contract.

 

If another team came in with an offer that would've netted the Cubs more than $5M in savings, then they'd probably have Bradley on their roster right now. Apparently none did.

 

That's not necessarily true. If Ricketts truly put a limit on the amount of money the Cubs could send with Bradley (which is just a terrible way to do business, and paints a grim picture of the future) then some team could've been willing to pay 2Y/10M but didn't have an awful, negative value contract to send back in return.

[davearm2]

 

The Mariners were willing to pay Bradley 2/29 to get rid of Silva. I think there'd be a touch of interest in him at 2/6.

Your math in this thread is seriously flawed.

 

As someone else mentioned, the $25M the Mariners owed to Silva was a sunk cost.

 

What the M's were willing to do was pay an extra $5M over two years to have Bradley instead. No different than a free agent offer of 2/$5M, except that it also provided the M's an out from their horrible Silva contract.

 

If another team came in with an offer that would've netted the Cubs more than $5M in savings, then they'd probably have Bradley on their roster right now. Apparently none did.

 

That's not necessarily true. If Ricketts truly put a limit on the amount of money the Cubs could send with Bradley (which is just a terrible way to do business, and paints a grim picture of the future) then some team could've been willing to pay 2Y/10M but didn't have an awful, negative value contract to send back in return.

Fair enough. It's possible the Cubs preferred Silva and $5M savings over no player and $10M savings. Naturally that implies they value Silva at something greater than $5M, or they had some aversion to laying out cash for Bradley to play elsewhere.

[Guest]

At this point, I'd really like to have an option to put Pie into center and see what he could do.

[17 Seconds]

At this point, I'd really like to have an option to put Pie into center and see what he could do.

 

yeah, that does look like a pretty good option right about now

[cheapseats]

At this point, I'd really like to have an option to put Pie into center and see what he could do.

 

But if we kept Felix, we would have never snagged Aaron Heilman.

[Gingerballs Lives]

This post certainly sums the entire situation up. Anyone who can't see this is simply not being realistic.

 

Except for the key points that are completely wrong, like Milton not owning up to when he performed poorly or not being able to play with the pressure of what was going on.

 

 

He may have been playing better but he was certainly losing it.

 

 

There is just no way that Milton Bradley can make it thru a season at wrigley, even if he was putting up sosa-like numbers. Some people are just drawn toward chaos.

 

I'm glad we got a few bucks in return for him.