Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Guest]

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.

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

I have no idea what you're saying here.

[chuckywang]

Is there any reason to get excited over Carlos Silva? I just looked at his stats and they are freaking brutal.

 

Have you read any of the thread?

 

And to atc, they take on Milton's contract, we take on Silva's. They send $9M to us to assist in paying that. So we net about $6M.

 

Yes, and most people are saying that he's terrible as well. I'm just trying to find a silver lining.

[A New Era]

There is none.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

last season bradley had like the worst year of his career, and he still would have "made it through the season" just fine if our gm hadn't suspended him.

[CubbieBum]

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.

 

last season bradley had like the worst year of his career, and he still would have "made it through the season" just fine if our gm hadn't suspended him.

 

I wouldn't call what he had done "making it through the season just fine." He had most of the fanbase seeing red over his comments made that led to his suspension. He was having a bad season and didn't own up to it whatsoever. I'm in the group that realizes he had a decent season (and preferred to keep him) but when he was struggling all he had to do was say I need to play better and act like he cared. Instead he sulked and acted pissed off at everyone and never took any blame.

 

That said what Ginerballs wrote is wrong. If Bradley had a .300+ BA and 30+ HR season I doubt any of the problems would have happened. He would have been happy with his play and the fans would have been happy too (even though those stats aren't good it is what fans want). Those aren't even close to "Sosa-like" numbers.

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Milton Bradley is not indispensible because he's the only guy with a specific skill set. He's a reasonably talented playe, with serious mental health issues in media-driven entertainment business who told media, fans, teammates, coaches, manager, and front office to "F off". He not only can be replaced, he will be replaced.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

last season bradley had like the worst year of his career, and he still would have "made it through the season" just fine if our gm hadn't suspended him.

 

I wouldn't call what he had done "making it through the season just fine." He had most of the fanbase seeing red over his comments made that led to his suspension. He was having a bad season and didn't own up to it whatsoever.

 

how did the fact that fans were mad at bradley hurt the cubs?

[fiver]

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.

 

I have no idea what you're saying here.

 

Yeah, have to agree with SSR. If Bradley was putting up 'sosa-like' numbers, then I don't care if he's hurting your feelings, hendry's feelings, etc.....Bradley's job is/was to perform on the field.

[davearm2]

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.

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

The Cubs got both a few bucks and an (allegedly) near-worthless player. The huge money over the next two years is a sunk cost.

[gflore34]

Thought I heard something about a club option 1 million buyout regarding Silva' contract, does anyone know if this is true?

[flyseye]

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.

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

 

Not true. Ricketts got his jumbotron and six million bucks.

[Illini Iceman]

If the M's are able to spin this as getting Bradley for only 2/$6M because Silva was a "sunk cost" then the Cubs got Silver for two years and he is paying them $6M to be on the team since Bradley was a "sunk cost".

 

Why the Theriot hate? He was next to the guy all year and it made him miserable. He didn't cry about it or even imply this while Bradley was a teammate. Now that he is gone he still has to suck it up and make Bradley the good guy? Why? If I had some jerk sitting next to me at work bitching and moaning and make it hard for me to enjoy my job then you can bet when his butt got fired I would be holding the door for him on the way out the door. I can't believe people don't see that having a cancer in the clubhouse/office hurt morale and could risk reduced performance of some other workers.

 

I thought Bradley was going to be a good addition to the team but Hendry really takes some blame here because he doesn't seem to have done the necessary due dilligence and I think wanted it to work out so much that he glossed over things that in retrospect he should have considered more carefully before giving him the long term contract.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

The Cubs got both a few bucks and an (allegedly) near-worthless player. The huge money over the next two years is a sunk cost.

 

It's not a sunk cost when we didn't have to pay it to a horrendous player before the trade.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can't believe people don't see that having a cancer in the clubhouse/office hurt morale and could risk reduced performance of some other workers.

 

Because it's a ridiculous idea to think that when a player has to make a play or step into the batter's box that their performance at that moment is going to suffer because of Milton Bradley. Unless Milton Bradley has told them something like that he will kill their family if they do well on the field then there is absolutely no excuse for blaming poor or subpar performance on the field on one guy being a sulky jerk in the clubhouse.

[davearm2]

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

The Cubs got both a few bucks and an (allegedly) near-worthless player. The huge money over the next two years is a sunk cost.

 

It's not a sunk cost when we didn't have to pay it to a horrendous player before the trade.

I don't think you comprehend the concept of a sunk cost.

 

In economics and business decision-making, sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered.

In this case the monies committed to Bradley cannot be recovered. That $21M absolutely WILL be paid.

 

In the case of the movie ticket, the ticket buyer can choose between the following two end results:

 

1. Having paid the price of the ticket and having suffered watching a movie that he does not want to see, or;

2. Having paid the price of the ticket and having used the time to do something more fun.

 

In either case, the ticket-buyer has "paid the price of the ticket" so "that part" of the decision no longer affects the future. If the ticket-buyer regrets buying the ticket, the current decision should be based on whether he wants to see the movie at all, regardless of the price, just as if he were to go to a free movie. The economist will suggest that, since the second option involves suffering in only one way (spent money), while the first involves suffering in two (spent money plus wasted time), option two is obviously preferable.

Replace "ticket" with "contract", and "movie" with "Bradley circus", and you've got the present situation described to a T, except here the Cubs got a little something for their "ticket" instead of just throwing it away -- a marginal player and $5M savings.

[Guest]

I can't believe people don't see that having a cancer in the clubhouse/office hurt morale and could risk reduced performance of some other workers.

 

Morale does not affect a team's won/loss record. The Chicago Cubs record in games Milton Bradley started was 56-52. That made the team 27-26 in the other games. There is nothing to see here in relation to morale uplifting the team to victory when Milton isn't there.

 

If we pretend that Bradley was the problem more in the second half than the first, I'll note that the first half saw the Cubs sitting at .500 and their second half featured their 5 game win advantage on their final standings.

 

Maybe morale was worse at home than on the road, since they were playing in front of the hometown fans that apparently hate Milton Bradley? The Cubs were 46-34 at home and 34-44 on the road.

 

Surely, after Bradley was suspended, this team must have gone on a nice winning streak now that morale could be restored in the clubhouse. They had a .500 record during that time.

 

As far as players possibly reducing their own production due to having a cancer in the clubhouse? Let's just use Ryan Theriot as our guinea pig since he seems to be so happy that Bradley is gone. It appears that Milton Bradley's presence did affect Theriots AVG, OBP, OPS and run production negatively. Maybe he's onto something. But then I notice that Bradley's presence affected Theriots HR, SB, SLG and RBI production positively.

 

In some ways Theriot is better with Bradley around in some stats and worse in others. Or maybe none of these stats have anything to do with Milton Bradley at all.

 

I'd bet serious money today that if Soriano, Soto, Bradley and Fontenot performed like they did in 2008 and Aramis didn't get hurt, that the Cubs would have made the playoffs and all the drama surrounding Bradley all season long would never have happened.

 

The fact that other players on the team struggled and the win/loss record struggled just made it easier to point fingers and scapegoat one person for everyone elses miseries. That's what teams that lose do. They point fingers and they look for blame for their losses.

 

This team needs a new GM. They need a guy who knows how to be frugal with the money he's given, yet spend what he has in a productive way rather than make the same poor decisions over and over.

 

The real problem is the GM. That's the guy we should have been desparately trying to remove from this team all offseason. Milton Bradley was just being Milton Bradley, but he's not the guy who drew up the contract. Jim Hendry was being the same old Jim Hendry. He is the guy who drew up that contract. He is the one that is responsible for him being here and then being removed.

[Guest]

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

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

The Cubs got both a few bucks and an (allegedly) near-worthless player. The huge money over the next two years is a sunk cost.

The Cubs will not receive a single payment from the Mariners. Therefore they did not "get a few bucks in return for him."

 

Instead of paying money to Bradley over the next two years, they will be paying slightly less money to Carlos Silva over the next two (or three depending on the accounting) years. The Cubs did not nor will they ever receive "a few bucks."

[Guest]

btw - posted a poll about this on the front page of www.312sports.com.

 

very disappointed with the results after seven votes. :)

[wvcbxl]

btw - posted a poll about this on the front page of http://www.312sports.com.

 

very disappointed with the results after seven votes. :)

 

It lacks an "all of the above" option. :wink:

[Neuby]

Perhaps the most impressive part of the trade Friday that sent Bradley to the Seattle Mariners -- beyond the mere departure that elicited calls of appreciation to the GM from more than one former teammate -- was that the Cubs got $9 million in the deal.

 

It's spread over two years, but $5.5 million of it is applied to the first year -- creating $3 million more payroll room after offsetting Bradley's and Carlos Silva's salaries for 2010.

 

He's how the Cubs are spreading out the bucks the mariners threw in.

[Uber]

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

We did not "get a few bucks in return for him." We got a near-worthless player whom we still have to pay huge money to over the next two years.

The Cubs got both a few bucks and an (allegedly) near-worthless player. The huge money over the next two years is a sunk cost.

The Cubs will not receive a single payment from the Mariners. Therefore they did not "get a few bucks in return for him."

 

Instead of paying money to Bradley over the next two years, they will be paying slightly less money to Carlos Silva over the next two (or three depending on the accounting) years. The Cubs did not nor will they ever receive "a few bucks."

 

I am mailing them $5, prepare to eat crow.

[Outshined_One]

What are the odds the Cubs turn around and re-trade Silva?

[Guest]

What are the odds the Cubs turn around and re-trade Silva?

good lord, who would take him?

[SouthSideRyan]

What are the odds the Cubs turn around and re-trade Silva?

good lord, who would take him?

 

Any chance Bavasi can get a job before the season starts?