Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

[Guest]

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.

 

Exactly. Anytime another GM in the league will potentially pay the entire contract for someone to play for me, I'd be all ears. As soon as the asking price goes higher than I'm willing to pay, I'll probably stop listening. But hey, my phone line is currently open. Fire away Jimbo. Let me really know how bad you are willing to rid yourself of Milton Bradley.

 

If Jim really, really wants him gone, why should any team be willing to offer more than it would take to get him. It's not like if they get outbid, they'll go home with their tail between their legs because they lost out on getting a major head case.

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if some of the GM's aren't just trying to help Hendry by showing some fake interest just to potentially increase his value on the market.

 

And actually, now that Hendry has basically given away another player (Harden), my interest in Bradley is dwindling by the day.

 

I'm starting to think Hendry was busy smoking bongs during economics class.

[davearm2]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history).

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history).

 

I agree with all of that besides the Cubs position. It appears that this isn't a situation where one team puts Bradley's value at much higher than others do. So the Cubs position of desperation is pretty much irrelevant. This is kind of like a free agent situation. Teams are trying to bid as little as they can. They will be willing to bid as high as what they perceive his value to be though if other teams are also bidding little amounts.

 

But I agree Bradley's contract is the biggest thing depressing his value because no club seems to think he's worth that much. His health and his attitude make the amount they're willing to pay even lower.

 

In the end, Bradley will be traded for very close to what other teams would be willing to pay even if the Cubs weren't desperate to trade him.

[davearm2]

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.

 

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history).

Point taken on the injury history. That is certainly a factor as well. I wasn't meaning to present a comprehensive list of all the relevant variables.

 

Cubs' position is basically a non-factor. Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

 

Naturally, how much of what Bradley's owed the Cubs would be willing to pay (or the bad contract the Cubs would be willing to take back) counterbalances what positively-valued assets (prospects, most likely) another team would be willing to include.

 

The bottom line is there are a lot of moving parts here, but I think you're mistaken if you don't think the attitude issue is really the main thing dragging Bradley's value into the gutter. Other teams simply won't pay very much for the headache that comes with the production.

[davearm2]

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.

 

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history).

 

I agree with all of that besides the Cubs position. It appears that this isn't a situation where one team puts Bradley's value at much higher than others do. So the Cubs position of desperation is pretty much irrelevant. This is kind of like a free agent situation. Teams are trying to bid as little as they can. They will be willing to bid as high as what they perceive his value to be though if other teams are also bidding little amounts.

 

But I agree Bradley's contract is the biggest thing depressing his value because no club seems to think he's worth that much. His health and his attitude make the amount they're willing to pay even lower.

 

In the end, Bradley will be traded for very close to what other teams would be willing to pay even if the Cubs weren't desperate to trade him.

The contract can't be the biggest thing depressing Bradley's value if, as reported, Hendry is willing to swallow a lot of it.

[Sammy Sofa]

The bottom line is there are a lot of moving parts here, but I think you're mistaken if you don't think the attitude issue is really the main thing dragging Bradley's value into the gutter. Other teams simply won't pay very much for the headache that comes with the production.

 

The bottom line to me is that if his attitude was that much of an issue fewer teams, if any, would want anything to do with him. That there's teams interested indicates to me that his attitude ranks pretty low.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

[davearm2]

The bottom line is there are a lot of moving parts here, but I think you're mistaken if you don't think the attitude issue is really the main thing dragging Bradley's value into the gutter. Other teams simply won't pay very much for the headache that comes with the production.

 

The bottom line to me is that if his attitude was that much of an issue fewer teams, if any, would want anything to do with him. That there's teams interested indicates to me that his attitude ranks pretty low.

Huh? Few teams want anything to do with him as it is.

[davearm2]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

We've been through this before.

 

Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

[Guest]

Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have?

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

We've been through this before.

 

Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

 

Neither does it prove it. There's no logical explanation how it can/has/does have an effect, so until somebody comes up with one the only reasonable assumption is that it's pointless.

[Sammy Sofa]

Huh? Few teams want anything to do with him as it is.

 

Which does little confirm the attitude theory when you have much more realistic factors such as his contract and his health history.

[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.

[Rob]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

We've been through this before.

 

Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

 

And you're using what to "prove" its existance? Common sense?

[davearm2]

Huh? Few teams want anything to do with him as it is.

 

Which does little confirm the attitude theory when you have much more realistic factors such as his contract and his health history.

Of course it does. Nobody wanted Barry Bonds when he was demonstrating an ability to OPS over 1000 in his final year with the Giants.

 

That was due to the fact that teams felt the production was outweighed by the circus that came with him. Same deal with Bradley. Obviously with Bradley the injuries are an exacerbating factor. The contract isn't, since Hendry seems to be prepared to eat most of it (or take back an ugly one).

[Sammy Sofa]

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

[davearm2]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

We've been through this before.

 

Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

 

And you're using what to "prove" its existance? Common sense?

I can't prove its existence, and I've said as much. Nobody can.

 

We can observe the anecdotal evidence, though: teams generally steer clear of these guys.

[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.

[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?

[Rob]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

We've been through this before.

 

Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

 

And you're using what to "prove" its existance? Common sense?

I can't prove its existence, and I've said as much. Nobody can.

 

We can observe the anecdotal evidence, though: teams generally steer clear of these guys.

 

You're using circular reasoning.

 

Teams shouldn't like guys with attitude problems. We know it's true because these guys with attitude problems aren't wanted by these teams.

[inari]

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?

 

Let's compare them to Josh Hamilton a few years back as well.

[davearm2]

I don't even get what the point is in trying to determine what is theoretically holding down his value. Even if it is the "attitude thing" that doesn't support any notion that Bradley's attitude actually has a negative effect on how a team plays on the field.

We've been through this before.

 

Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

 

And you're using what to "prove" its existance? Common sense?

I can't prove its existence, and I've said as much. Nobody can.

 

We can observe the anecdotal evidence, though: teams generally steer clear of these guys.

 

You're using circular reasoning.

 

Teams shouldn't like guys with attitude problems. We know it's true because these guys with attitude problems aren't wanted by these teams.

That makes no sense at all.

 

First of all, I've made no judgement about what teams should or shouldn't like. That's not anywhere in the discussion at all.

 

All I've done is observe what teams have demonstrated through their actions: their willingness to pay for productive (sometimes highly productive) players with off-the-field issues is not very high. Bonds is the extreme case of course. Bradley is also a valuable case-study. Sure the injury history is a concern, but IMO the main reason he's unwanted is because of the attitude problems.