Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Rob]

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?

 

The way our offseason is going, he may very well end up the Cubs GM.

[Shilzzz]

BBTF via Trib

 

Donning a retro Blackhawks jersey, Dempster helped kick off the new skating rink located in the parking lot west of the ballpark. While getting his skates sharpened, Dempster chimed in on Friday’s trade that sent Bradley to the Mariners for right-hander Carlos Silva.

 

“I’m happy for him that he got a fresh start,” Dempster said of Bradley. “Hopefully he does really well and just enjoys playing. For us, we have a guy who’s capable of eating innings when he’s healthy, and it sounds like he is.

 

“I know (Silva’s) a really good guy. A lot of guys speak very highly of him. (The trade) definitely helps our team

[UMFan83]

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

good lord, who would take him?

 

We could probably trade him straight up for Zito

[Shilzzz]

hahaha. you're joking, right? they wouldn't even trade zito for soriano straight up.

[ChiCubsFan]

hahaha. you're joking, right? they wouldn't even trade zito for soriano straight up.

 

I'd take Silva and his contract over Soriano and his. However, the Giants wouldn't do either I wouldn't think.

[Backtobanks]

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

good lord, who would take him?

 

If Silva can at least look mediocre till the deadline and the Cubs would eat $10 million over the 2 years, it might be a possibility that some team might want him at a salary of $3-$4 million per year pitcher.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

Yes, I absolutely understand what a sunk cost is, and it's a simplistic idea that doesn't consider the realities of a MLB trade. Of course the 21 million will be paid, but as we can see it is not for certain to be paid by the Cubs, and the value received from that 21 million varies significantly depending on who is "playing for that 21 million" so to speak. That would be an applicable analogy if we had paid all but "a couple bucks" of his salary and got something like a minor leaguer in return. Instead, what actually happened is that we now have Carlos Silva and his contract. To sum up:

 

Before: Bradley and his contract providing X value

After: Silva and his contract providing X - a billion value, plus a few million dollars

 

To use that ticket analogy, if Bradley is the ticket, then Silva is someone hitting you in the back of the knee with a crowbar.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

Yes, I absolutely understand what a sunk cost is, and it's a simplistic idea that doesn't consider the realities of a MLB trade. Of course the 21 million will be paid, but as we can see it is not for certain to be paid by the Cubs, and the value received from that 21 million varies significantly depending on who is "playing for that 21 million" so to speak. That would be an applicable analogy if we had paid all but "a couple bucks" of his salary and got something like a minor leaguer in return. Instead, what actually happened is that we now have Carlos Silva and his contract. To sum up:

 

Before: Bradley and his contract providing X value

After: Silva and his contract providing X - a billion value, plus a few million dollars

 

To use that ticket analogy, if Bradley is the ticket, then Silva is someone hitting you in the back of the knee with a crowbar.

 

that would be funny if it weren't so accurate.

[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.

 

Yes, I absolutely understand what a sunk cost is, and it's a simplistic idea that doesn't consider the realities of a MLB trade. Of course the 21 million will be paid, but as we can see it is not for certain to be paid by the Cubs, and the value received from that 21 million varies significantly depending on who is "playing for that 21 million" so to speak. That would be an applicable analogy if we had paid all but "a couple bucks" of his salary and got something like a minor leaguer in return. Instead, what actually happened is that we now have Carlos Silva and his contract. To sum up:

 

Before: Bradley and his contract providing X value

After: Silva and his contract providing X - a billion value, plus a few million dollars

 

To use that ticket analogy, if Bradley is the ticket, then Silva is someone hitting you in the back of the knee with a crowbar.

The Cubs can release Silva tomorrow and still be $5M ahead. Heck maybe they will, like they basically did with Vizcaino last year.

 

Bottom line is the value the Cubs received is the $5M refund on the sunk cost they had in Bradley. Whatever production they get (if any) from Silva is just gravy. People are so hung up on Silva, but he's really sort of a nonfactor in all of this. The $$$ saved is the central issue.

[davearm2]

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."

This is a bunch of accounting minutae.

 

Had they kept or released Bradley, they would've written checks totalling $21M over the next two years. Now instead they will be writing checks totalling $16M over the next two years.

 

If you take exception with the characterization that they are "getting a few bucks" since technically they are actually "saving a few bucks", then so be it. The distinction is totally immaterial to the discussion.

[haubrich91]

June 22-24 should be pretty interesting.

[BCVM22]

June 22-24 should be pretty interesting.

 

Not nearly as interesting as it would be if the Mariners were traveling to Wrigley. What's the worst that can happen with the Cubs in Seattle?

[flyseye]

By then Milton will have probably ripped the ears off the Mariner moose, and be proclaiming that something in Puget Sound is out to get him.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Whatever production they get (if any) from Silva is just gravy. People are so hung up on Silva, but he's really sort of a nonfactor in all of this. The $$$ saved is the central issue.

 

The production they get from that money spent(or that roster spot) has a monetary value, and the probable difference in production between Silva and Bradley far exceeds the money saved from the trade.

[Magnetic Curses]

Whatever production they get (if any) from Silva is just gravy. People are so hung up on Silva, but he's really sort of a nonfactor in all of this. The $$$ saved is the central issue.

 

The production they get from that money spent(or that roster spot) has a monetary value, and the probable difference in production between Silva and Bradley far exceeds the money saved from the trade.

 

it's really too bad that there is such a gap between actual production and perceived value. but i guess i'll take the trade because bradley's perceived value is so low we couldn't have hoped for much more than cash, and we couldn't expect hendry to do the actual logical thing.

[davearm2]

Whatever production they get (if any) from Silva is just gravy. People are so hung up on Silva, but he's really sort of a nonfactor in all of this. The $$$ saved is the central issue.

 

The production they get from that money spent(or that roster spot) has a monetary value, and the probable difference in production between Silva and Bradley far exceeds the money saved from the trade.

Of course you ignore that production wasn't the reason that Bradley was traded in the first place.

 

If production was the only consideration then there's no doubt he'd still be a Cub.

[BigSlick]

Between the demise of my beloved Bears, the disastrous Illini season, the underachievement and poor play of the Bulls and the Cubs continuing to implode this is one of the worst years to be a Chicago sports fan since about 2004. ( I don't watch hockey, though I should)

 

This was a bad trade.

[A New Era]

We pretty much knew we had to make a bad trade to get rid of Bradley. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Sure I had some hope we might have beenable to get a somewhat good player. But not much.

[Bull]

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.

 

Yes, I absolutely understand what a sunk cost is, and it's a simplistic idea that doesn't consider the realities of a MLB trade. Of course the 21 million will be paid, but as we can see it is not for certain to be paid by the Cubs, and the value received from that 21 million varies significantly depending on who is "playing for that 21 million" so to speak. That would be an applicable analogy if we had paid all but "a couple bucks" of his salary and got something like a minor leaguer in return. Instead, what actually happened is that we now have Carlos Silva and his contract. To sum up:

 

Before: Bradley and his contract providing X value

After: Silva and his contract providing X - a billion value, plus a few million dollars

 

To use that ticket analogy, if Bradley is the ticket, then Silva is someone hitting you in the back of the knee with a crowbar.

 

 

Even more accurate: The "movie" is one you loathe, but that your wife really wants to see with you. The benefits are not in watching the circus, but bearing the circus for greater good.

[Shilzzz]

We pretty much knew we had to make a bad trade to get rid of Bradley. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Sure I had some hope we might have beenable to get a somewhat good player. But not much.

 

It's not that it's a surprise, so much as it's just one of those disappointments that you know is going to be disappointing before it happens but you didn't realize how disappointing it'd actually be.

[A New Era]

We pretty much knew we had to make a bad trade to get rid of Bradley. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Sure I had some hope we might have beenable to get a somewhat good player. But not much.

 

It's not that it's a surprise, so much as it's just one of those disappointments that you know is going to be disappointing before it happens but you didn't realize how disappointing it'd actually be.

 

LOL, I hear ya. Yeah I guess you could say it's worse than we thought now that it's happened.

[cubsfan26]

Getting back on topic here, I have a question for some of the stat guys out there. I just looked at Silva FIP and xFIP from 2008 and they were 4.63 and 4.64. While in 2007 his FIP was 4.24 and XFIP was 4.57. But his era was 6.46 era in 08 compared to 4.19 in 2007. So my question is how much of Silva struggles in 08 had to do with some bad luck? And did he really pitch that much worse in 08 then in 07? Does anyone think that Silva can be a serviceable 5th starter or good long guy and eat some innings? Especially coming over to the NL. Jason Marquis for example had higher FIP and xFIP in 07-08. So maybe Silva can give us Marquis like numbers out of the 5th spot if healthy.

[fromthestretch]

Getting back on topic here, I have a question for some of the stat guys out there. I just looked at Silva FIP and xFIP from 2008 and they were 4.63 and 4.64. While in 2007 his FIP was 4.24 and XFIP was 4.57. But his era was 6.46 era in 08 compared to 4.19 in 2007. So my question is how much of Silva struggles in 08 had to do with some bad luck? And did he really pitch that much worse in 08 then in 07? Does anyone think that Silva can be a serviceable 5th starter or good long guy and eat some innings? Especially coming over to the NL. Jason Marquis for example had higher FIP and xFIP in 07-08. So maybe Silva can give us Marquis like numbers out of the 5th spot if healthy.

 

The problem with Silva is that he one of the most hittable pitchers in baseball history (top five, actually) when it comes to H/9 IP. He's been able to limit some of the damage in the past by not walking people. However, his walk rate suffered last year, albeit in a small sample size. If his walk rate doesn't get back to previous levels, you need a stellar defense or some tremendous luck for him to be effective.

[Guest]

Getting back on topic here, I have a question for some of the stat guys out there. I just looked at Silva FIP and xFIP from 2008 and they were 4.63 and 4.64. While in 2007 his FIP was 4.24 and XFIP was 4.57. But his era was 6.46 era in 08 compared to 4.19 in 2007. So my question is how much of Silva struggles in 08 had to do with some bad luck? And did he really pitch that much worse in 08 then in 07? Does anyone think that Silva can be a serviceable 5th starter or good long guy and eat some innings? Especially coming over to the NL. Jason Marquis for example had higher FIP and xFIP in 07-08. So maybe Silva can give us Marquis like numbers out of the 5th spot if healthy.

Guys like Silva have very little margin for error. He is now dealing with a frayed labrum that hasn't been repaired.

 

I don't have much hope.

[SouthSideRyan]

Silva's hittable enough that he shouldn't be in the majors. xFIP is useful because guys like Silva usually aren't in the majors to be taken into account. Pick some journeyman 26 year old out of AA and his xFIP is going to be out of line with his actual ERA