Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Tyrant]

Maybe there's a chance of packaging Bradley with some interesting prospects (to entice the other team) and getting back a bad contract.

 

Of course there's a chance of that. But why in the world would the Cubs want to do that?

 

To dump Bradley. I'm not saying it would happen, but I suggested a trade to the Yankees awhile ago that would be an example: Bradley + Marshall/Gorz + Colvin + Stevens/Atkins/Berg for Swisher + Marte. If the Yankees won't do Swisher, tweak the deal and make it for Cabrera while removing one of the pitchers from the Cubs. It's not pretty, but it's better than paying Burrell to sit on the bench and Bradley to play in Tampa.

 

Including prospects is just throwing good money after bad. If the Cubs really just want to get rid of Bradley, they should just get rid of him. There's no reason to give up future assets in order to get a marginally better return.

 

If the Cubs are going to trade prospects, they shouldn't be traded with Bradley. That only dilutes their value.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Sure, he was pretty handcuffed for the most part, but in showing ridiculous desperation in attempting to move Bradley, he probably cost himself some credibility with some of the other GM's out there with the surprise teams. Assuming that some of these surprise team reports were coming directly from him, of course.

 

As Bruce said on his blog talking about the likelihood of the mystery team being a bargaining maneuver:

 

Jim doesn't do stuff like leaking that kind of information or misinformation. It usually comes from other parties.

 

I would tend to agree with that. Hendry is seen as one of the most honest and forthright GM's in the business. I really doubt he made up the mystery team rumors.

[Guest]

 

Sure, he was pretty handcuffed for the most part, but in showing ridiculous desperation in attempting to move Bradley, he probably cost himself some credibility with some of the other GM's out there with the surprise teams. Assuming that some of these surprise team reports were coming directly from him, of course.

 

As Bruce said on his blog talking about the likelihood of the mystery team being a bargaining maneuver:

 

Jim doesn't do stuff like leaking that kind of information or misinformation. It usually comes from other parties.

 

I would tend to agree with that. Hendry is seen as one of the most honest and forthright GM's in the business. I really doubt he made up the mystery team rumors.

 

While that's probably a more accurate painting, I can't help but point out that a desperate man can sometimes resort to desperate measures. The report about Cubs brass in the lobby reeks of desperation.

[Wheelimus]

To me, all of us fans just giving up and accepting a Bradley trade as inevitable are part of the problem. We're giving Hendry the cover to purposely make a stupid decision. So that in a year when Bradley is pushing a .900 OPS while we pay him to play for another team, Jimbo can absolve himself of responsibility by just saying "I had to, the fans demanded it."

 

I'm a fairly poor person so I'm not the right one to bring this up, but I think a full page ad from a dedicated group of Cubs fans saying "JIM HENDRY: PLEASE DO NOT GIVE AWAY MILTON BRADLEY. EVERYONE DESERVES A 2ND CHANCE" in the Tribune would catch his attention. And maybe even shift some of the talking heads talk from inevitable trade to the actual controversy that it is.

 

Unless you can improve the team, you don't make a trade. And if you can't even improve the team by trading the talent AND eating most of the contract you REALLY don't make the trade.

 

Personally, I don't really care about clubhouse rapport. Tell Bradley to show up, don't say a word before the game, don't talk to reporters, and then go home. And tell any of his teammates who choose to be whiny bitches that he'll be gone in two seasons, at the worst, and they just need to grow a set. You're being paid millions of dollars to play a game. You don't get to decide your teammates and you're not always going to like every single one of them.

 

If Bradley doesn't bounce back, the "trade him for nothing and pay his salary too" option will always be on the table. But at least you'd be making it mid-season or in the 2010 offseasoon based on actual facts of his play. And not just freaking out because a primadonna has one down year.

[Tyrant]

So that in a year when Bradley is pushing a .900 OPS...

 

Yeah, that's probably not going to happen.

[Tyrant]

Also, a full page ad in the Tribune is like $30,000.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, a full page ad in the Tribune is like $30,000.

 

and won't accomplish anything

[Guest]

Also, a full page ad in the Tribune is like $30,000.

 

and won't accomplish anything

 

Sure it would. The Tribune could then say that this was the best return on their investement since they signed Milton Bradley.

:wave:

[biittner77]

Maybe there's a chance of packaging Bradley with some interesting prospects (to entice the other team) and getting back a bad contract.

 

Of course there's a chance of that. But why in the world would the Cubs want to do that?

 

To dump Bradley. I'm not saying it would happen, but I suggested a trade to the Yankees awhile ago that would be an example: Bradley + Marshall/Gorz + Colvin + Stevens/Atkins/Berg for Swisher + Marte. If the Yankees won't do Swisher, tweak the deal and make it for Cabrera while removing one of the pitchers from the Cubs. It's not pretty, but it's better than paying Burrell to sit on the bench and Bradley to play in Tampa.

 

Including prospects is just throwing good money after bad. If the Cubs really just want to get rid of Bradley, they should just get rid of him. There's no reason to give up future assets in order to get a marginally better return.

 

If the Cubs are going to trade prospects, they shouldn't be traded with Bradley. That only dilutes their value.

 

I don't neceassarily disagree but keep in mind that money is an issue and if it would save perhaps $10 over the next 2 years I could see where that might be deemed worth it.

 

A better solution might be to put him on irrevocable waivers like the Red Sox did with Manny Ramirez. Perhaps there's a team willing to take him at that salary. If no one takes him it sends him a message that he needs to shut up and not let things bother him or he'll either be out of baseball in 2 years or have to take a big paycut.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Sure, he was pretty handcuffed for the most part, but in showing ridiculous desperation in attempting to move Bradley, he probably cost himself some credibility with some of the other GM's out there with the surprise teams. Assuming that some of these surprise team reports were coming directly from him, of course.

 

As Bruce said on his blog talking about the likelihood of the mystery team being a bargaining maneuver:

 

Jim doesn't do stuff like leaking that kind of information or misinformation. It usually comes from other parties.

 

I would tend to agree with that. Hendry is seen as one of the most honest and forthright GM's in the business. I really doubt he made up the mystery team rumors.

 

Bruce also pointed out Hendry is more desperate than he's ever been. He doesnt' have a buddy in the front office handing him extensions as they walk out the door. He's got an owner with demands now. And it doesn't have to come directly from Hendry to be something that originated with the Cubs. Whether it was Bradley's agents, an assistant GM or a GM buddy of his (both Kenny Williams and Billy Beane talked positively and publicly about Bradley, while acknowledging they shouldn't talk about another team's player, implying they knew they had permission to talk about him), it could have easily been done with the knowledge, or even hinting of Hendry.

 

Somebody was spreading lies, and the person with the most to gain from those lies being spread was Jim Hendry.

[Guancous]

What? This isn't some decision the Cubs are locked into. They don't have to trade him.

 

There not locked into anything they just don't want Milton around anymore. Most of the players hate him, most of the coaches dislike him and the common Cubs fan hates him as well. Having Milton on the team is just bad PR and will make them look bad next season. Plus I think they really wanna improve the outfield defense, and that includes moving Fukudome back to RF and getting a new CF. But when it all comes down to it, Ricketts doesn't want Bradley on the team anymore. Otherwise I don't think it would be a must like it is.

 

Emotional decision making processes will turn the Cubs into the Royals.

[Wheelimus]

Also, a full page ad in the Tribune is like $30,000.

 

and won't accomplish anything

 

The idea may be mockable, but it's better than the nothing we've apparently consigned ourselves to while our GM is hard at work making as stupid of a decision as possible. I realize we're beaten down, but even freaking Orioles fans can at least muster a protest outside their stadium when things are getting too stupid.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, a full page ad in the Tribune is like $30,000.

 

and won't accomplish anything

 

The idea may be mockable, but it's better than the nothing we've apparently consigned ourselves to while our GM is hard at work making as stupid of a decision as possible. I realize we're beaten down, but even freaking Orioles fans can at least muster a protest outside their stadium when things are getting too stupid.

 

I've been against dealing Milton since Day 1. Most fans are actually for it, not resigned to their fates. You can't create public outrage against a move the public is demanding. Hendry sucks, but Baltimore is a different story. They were the highest payroll team in the late 90's, playing leapfrog on a monthly basis with the Yankees until the Mussina deal put an end to all that. Now they have a lower payroll than they did a decade ago and are pathetic. It's hard to justify Cubs fans having a similar protest.

 

And believe me, no matter how much bitching you do about Jim Hendry's incompetence, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

[Guest]

]

 

I've been against dealing Milton since Day 1. Most fans are actually for it, not resigned to their fates. You can't create public outrage against a move the public is demanding. Hendry sucks, but Baltimore is a different story. They were the highest payroll team in the late 90's, playing leapfrog on a monthly basis with the Yankees until the Mussina deal put an end to all that. Now they have a lower payroll than they did a decade ago and are pathetic. It's hard to justify Cubs fans having a similar protest.

 

And believe me, no matter how much bitching you do about Jim Hendry's incompetence, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

I agree with you about trading Bradley. IMO, there are probably teams who are interested in Bradley, but the interest goes way, way down when Hendry says he's not going to pick up the check, or most of the check, or a large portion of the check.

 

Other team's GMs see this situation for what it is are going to exploit it.

[Tyrant]

And believe me, no matter how much bitching you do about Jim Hendry's incompetence, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

You never know. After the full-page Bradley ad, we could all follow it up the next day with a full-page "FIRE JIM HENDRY" ad and see what happens.

 

This could totally work.

[Guest]

]

 

I've been against dealing Milton since Day 1. Most fans are actually for it, not resigned to their fates. You can't create public outrage against a move the public is demanding. Hendry sucks, but Baltimore is a different story. They were the highest payroll team in the late 90's, playing leapfrog on a monthly basis with the Yankees until the Mussina deal put an end to all that. Now they have a lower payroll than they did a decade ago and are pathetic. It's hard to justify Cubs fans having a similar protest.

 

And believe me, no matter how much bitching you do about Jim Hendry's incompetence, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

I agree with you about trading Bradley. IMO, there are probably teams who are interested in Bradley, but the interest goes way, way down when Hendry says he's not going to pick up the check, or most of the check, or a large portion of the check.

 

Other team's GMs see this situation for what it is are going to exploit it.

 

Besides the baggage Milton Bradley would be bringing any team he got traded to, the other end of it is that the economy has given major league baseball a pretty good beat down. The recession isn't over. Many of these team owners are people who lost a lot of money in the stock market and can't muster up the same cash supply they did before the meltdown. Teams are still going to be careful with their limited resources.

 

Call it bad timing, but Hendry screwed the pooch on this one. However, the excess baggage alone probably made it hard to trade him. The economy makes it even worse.

[A-Cal]

And believe me, no matter how much bitching you do about Jim Hendry's incompetence, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

You never know. After the full-page Bradley ad, we could all follow it up the next day with a full-page "FIRE JIM HENDRY" ad and see what happens.

 

This could totally work.

 

screw the former...lets just go with the latter

[Backtobanks]

Maybe there's a chance of packaging Bradley with some interesting prospects (to entice the other team) and getting back a bad contract.

 

Of course there's a chance of that. But why in the world would the Cubs want to do that?

 

To dump Bradley. I'm not saying it would happen, but I suggested a trade to the Yankees awhile ago that would be an example: Bradley + Marshall/Gorz + Colvin + Stevens/Atkins/Berg for Swisher + Marte. If the Yankees won't do Swisher, tweak the deal and make it for Cabrera while removing one of the pitchers from the Cubs. It's not pretty, but it's better than paying Burrell to sit on the bench and Bradley to play in Tampa.

 

Including prospects is just throwing good money after bad. If the Cubs really just want to get rid of Bradley, they should just get rid of him. There's no reason to give up future assets in order to get a marginally better return.

 

If the Cubs are going to trade prospects, they shouldn't be traded with Bradley. That only dilutes their value.

 

I don't neceassarily disagree but keep in mind that money is an issue and if it would save perhaps $10 over the next 2 years I could see where that might be deemed worth it.

 

A better solution might be to put him on irrevocable waivers like the Red Sox did with Manny Ramirez. Perhaps there's a team willing to take him at that salary. If no one takes him it sends him a message that he needs to shut up and not let things bother him or he'll either be out of baseball in 2 years or have to take a big paycut.

 

Why would a team take him on irrevocable waivers when they can have him now for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract? As for including prospects with Bradley in a deal, the obvious answer is that it gets this sad saga over with and the Cubs can move on. As I stated, it's not going to be pretty, but there is a possibility that Marte, Swisher, or Cabrera could help by playing a role on the Cubs.

[Tyrant]

The art is created. Now we just need the cash to place the ad. I'm thinking this coming Sunday edition. Thoughts?

 

http://i46.tinypic.com/10ofz1j.jpg

[Wheelimus]

Lol, I guess I had that one coming. :-))

 

Now, more importantly, lets see the Fire Jim Hendry followup.

[soapy]

Why would a team take him on irrevocable waivers when they can have him now for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract? As for including prospects with Bradley in a deal, the obvious answer is that it gets this sad saga over with and the Cubs can move on. As I stated, it's not going to be pretty, but there is a possibility that Marte, Swisher, or Cabrera could help by playing a role on the Cubs.

 

I think part of the benefit biittner was seeing was that if nobody claims him, it potentially demonstrates to Bradley that his value might not be what he thinks it is. Maybe it opens a door to sitting down with him and explaining that mending fences and playing with the Cubs in 2010 is his best option.

 

Not sure that would be the outcome, but I think that is part of what biittner was saying.

[Tyrant]

Lol, I guess I had that one coming. :-))

 

Just giving you a hard time, of course. I'll pass on the Fire Jim one. I've wasted enough time this morning as is.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why would a team take him on irrevocable waivers when they can have him now for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract? As for including prospects with Bradley in a deal, the obvious answer is that it gets this sad saga over with and the Cubs can move on. As I stated, it's not going to be pretty, but there is a possibility that Marte, Swisher, or Cabrera could help by playing a role on the Cubs.

 

But I wouldn't trade prospects for those guys, so why not just release Bradley if that is your goal and keep the prospects? Giving people prospects so they will accept a virtually free Milton Bradley is insane.

 

The only logical choice is to keep him on the team.

 

If you insist on getting rid of him because you feel you have to, then just release him. Don't lose prospects in the process. You are already making your team worse, no reason to add to your problems.

[Backtobanks]

To me, all of us fans just giving up and accepting a Bradley trade as inevitable are part of the problem. We're giving Hendry the cover to purposely make a stupid decision. So that in a year when Bradley is pushing a .900 OPS while we pay him to play for another team, Jimbo can absolve himself of responsibility by just saying "I had to, the fans demanded it."

 

I'm a fairly poor person so I'm not the right one to bring this up, but I think a full page ad from a dedicated group of Cubs fans saying "JIM HENDRY: PLEASE DO NOT GIVE AWAY MILTON BRADLEY. EVERYONE DESERVES A 2ND CHANCE" in the Tribune would catch his attention. And maybe even shift some of the talking heads talk from inevitable trade to the actual controversy that it is.

 

Unless you can improve the team, you don't make a trade. And if you can't even improve the team by trading the talent AND eating most of the contract you REALLY don't make the trade.

 

Personally, I don't really care about clubhouse rapport. Tell Bradley to show up, don't say a word before the game, don't talk to reporters, and then go home. And tell any of his teammates who choose to be whiny bitches that he'll be gone in two seasons, at the worst, and they just need to grow a set. You're being paid millions of dollars to play a game. You don't get to decide your teammates and you're not always going to like every single one of them.

 

If Bradley doesn't bounce back, the "trade him for nothing and pay his salary too" option will always be on the table. But at least you'd be making it mid-season or in the 2010 offseasoon based on actual facts of his play. And not just freaking out because a primadonna has one down year.

 

Do you really think Bradley hasn't been told to do this during his career? I don't think his teammates are the problem because I think most would deal with it and go play ball, but when you disrespect the manager, coaches, front office, media, and fans in an entertainment venue, you've got to resolve the problem. A lot of posters are forgetting that Chicago is a 2-team city and negative publicity aimed at one team while positive publicity is aimed at the other could jeopardize finances for years to come.

[Guest]

A lot of posters are forgetting that Chicago is a 2-team city and negative publicity aimed at one team while positive publicity is aimed at the other could jeopardize finances for years to come.

 

Come on? Do you realize what you are saying? Bradley is going to bring down the Cubs, single handedly.

 

You don't believe that do you?