Cashner grabs last rotation spot (Confirmed 3/26, Silva out)

[mred]

The Mariners sent the Cubs 9 million.

 

Right. 3.5m last year and 5.5m this year. Additionally, I've seen news articles that state the Mariners (not the Cubs) are responsible for the 2m buyout.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6263903&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

 

The Cubs are responsible for Silva's $11.5 million contract. If another team signs Silva to a 2011 contract, the amount the Cubs owe him would be lessened by the amount of that deal. Silva's contract also includes a $2 million buyout of a 2012 option, which the Mariners are responsible for paying at the end of the season.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/03/27/11/Moving-on-Cubs-release-Carlos-Silva/spring_training_news_cubs.html?blockID=491645&feedID=661

The Mariners are reportedly responsible for the $2 million buyout of Silva’s 2012 option.

[Garwilly]

So 23 million for one year each of Bradley and Silva.

[gflore34]

Finally the Cubs realized the how useless Silva was and cut their losses by dumping him. Better to lose just money than development time for Cashner, etc by letting that POS pitch. I'm not certain a Baker or even Piniella led Cubs would have endorsed or espoused cutting Sliva. I could easliy see a situation where he would have made the roster and claimed the 5th spot. Would have started and sucked with Baker and Piniella makng excuses and giving him start after start.

[cubweiser03]

Quade just laid down the [bleeping] law. Damn. I don't read this a lot in print from any manager. :hello:

[Bote McBoteface]

I'm not certain a Tribune led Cubs would have endorsed or espoused cutting Sliva.

[erik316wttn]

So 23 million for one year each of Bradley and Silva.

 

Worth every penny, IMO. Thank you Mr. Hendry.

 

Mike Quade so far is turning out to be everything I expected Lou to be when he got here, before it was completely obvious that he just didn't give a crap anymore. Under Quade it seems like the best players will play, regardless of contract or service time, and he won't take any crap from his players. That's how it ought to be. I look forward to his tenure.

[apete6]

So 23 million for one year each of Bradley and Silva.

 

Worth every penny, IMO. Thank you Mr. Hendry.

 

Mike Quade so far is turning out to be everything I expected Lou to be when he got here, before it was completely obvious that he just didn't give a crap anymore. Under Quade it seems like the best players will play, regardless of contract or service time, and he won't take any crap from his players. That's how it ought to be. I look forward to his tenure.

 

Until June when Soriano is batting .150 with 2 HR and there's still a Colvin/Byrd/Fuku platoon in CF/RF. Let's be honest here, there are certain contracts that supercede the manager. Silva's wasn't one of those.

[KingCubsFan]

So let me get this straight. Because Hendry made a poor signing in Bradley, we can't even look at the good trade he made to get rid of him and save a little money AND get average production from a 5 starter? This is a slippery mother [expletive] slope you're on right now.

I'm not going to give him much credit for getting 2.5 months good months out of Silva (which was completely due to Rotschild and luck). I'm guessing that was the only offer he had for Bradley, so he pretty much had to take it. It wasn't like he sifted through offers and thought "I see something in Silva." It was headcase for headcase. I'm sure the Mariners were just as sick of Silva as we were of Bradley. Fact is, the signing made us worse in '09, worse in '10, and worse in '11 because it was a complete waste of money and took up resources that could have been allocated elsewhere. I'm not a complete Hendry hater, but I don't really see anything positive that he did here.

[javy knows my name]

So let me get this straight. Because Hendry made a poor signing in Bradley, we can't even look at the good trade he made to get rid of him and save a little money AND get average production from a 5 starter? This is a slippery mother [expletive] slope you're on right now.

I'm not going to give him much credit for getting 2.5 months good months out of Silva (which was completely due to Rotschild and luck). I'm guessing that was the only offer he had for Bradley, so he pretty much had to take it. It wasn't like he sifted through offers and thought "I see something in Silva." It was headcase for headcase. I'm sure the Mariners were just as sick of Silva as we were of Bradley. Fact is, the signing made us worse in '09, worse in '10, and worse in '11 because it was a complete waste of money and took up resources that could have been allocated elsewhere. I'm not a complete Hendry hater, but I don't really see anything positive that he did here.

 

Yes, the Bradley signing was a poor one and screwed us for several years afterwards. No, that does not mean that the Silva trade was a bad one given the circumstances. Past moves necessitate current and future moves. Always. This is the slippery slop I'm alluding to. After an unfortunate signing, Hendry made a solid stop-the-bleeding move that only helped us. Did Hendry do even an adequate job of building a baseball team the last 3 years? No. But the Silva trade was not bad in itself. That's my only issue.

 

EDIT: Just re-read your post and you're almost completely discounting the money factor. None of us can know if Hendry had any other (likely horrific) offers on the table, but at the very least he really did trade a worse/more damaged player for a better one and saved a bunch of money in the process. Given the facts, it should be an unquestioned success.

[Illini Iceman]

I liked the Bradley signing at the time so I really can't rip Hendry for it now. Definitely wanted him more than Abreu or Ibanez.

[Bull]

Most of us did. There was a lot of eye-rolling going on when anyone mentioned concerns about make-up and team chemistry. Bradley was an on base machine who made a lot of sense to a community that disregards intangibles.

[Bote McBoteface]

Bradley could have been as much of a dick as he wanted to be had he even come close to his 2008 numbers for the Cubs.

[dew1679666265]

He did it out of a need to get "more lefthanded" which was completely idiotic given that the idea grew out of a three game sweep by the Dodgers, and ignored the fact that we were one of the best teams in baseball against righthanded pitching in 2008.

 

While I think this was the "get more left handed" offseason, it was irrelevant to the Bradley signing. We needed a big bat in the outfield that offseason and our options were Bradley, Raul Ibanez, Bobby Abreu and Adam Dunn. All sluggers, all left handed. So even if that was the focus of the offsesaon, Bradley wasn't chosen over other options because he was left handed, because all of the options were lefties.

[dew1679666265]

Most of us did. There was a lot of eye-rolling going on when anyone mentioned concerns about make-up and team chemistry. Bradley was an on base machine who made a lot of sense to a community that disregards intangibles.

 

He was about as fragile as they come, however, which was my primary concern about the signing. I wasn't in favor of the Bradley signing and it had little to do with team chemistry - it was mostly due to the very high risk of injury and the possibility that his production when healthy would drop considerably from the amazing numbers he had in Texas.

 

I wasn't big on Ibanez or Abreu either (age for both of them), but Adam Dunn was available that offseason and he's who I wanted. I knew the defense would be atrocious in right, but I felt like he'd play much more than Bradley and be roughly as productive offensively. Less upside to a Dunn signing, but much less risk - and I still think it would have been the better signing.

[Sammy Sofa]

Most of us did. There was a lot of eye-rolling going on when anyone mentioned concerns about make-up and team chemistry. Bradley was an on base machine who made a lot of sense to a community that disregards intangibles.

 

I still think team chemistry is largely bunk. Obviously, it's ideal if everyone gets along, but the 2009 Cubs didn't tank because Bradley was a jerk.

[Sammy Sofa]

Most of us did. There was a lot of eye-rolling going on when anyone mentioned concerns about make-up and team chemistry. Bradley was an on base machine who made a lot of sense to a community that disregards intangibles.

 

He was about as fragile as they come, however, which was my primary concern about the signing. I wasn't in favor of the Bradley signing and it had little to do with team chemistry - it was mostly due to the very high risk of injury and the possibility that his production when healthy would drop considerably from the amazing numbers he had in Texas.

 

I wasn't big on Ibanez or Abreu either (age for both of them), but Adam Dunn was available that offseason and he's who I wanted. I knew the defense would be atrocious in right, but I felt like he'd play much more than Bradley and be roughly as productive offensively. Less upside to a Dunn signing, but much less risk - and I still think it would have been the better signing.

 

Agreed. I was a fan of signing Bradley with the idea he would have been hitting #2 (yeah, I know the Cubs foolishly viewed him as a #5 based on his 2008 numbers) with at least a very productive OBP with a little pop, but he was a concern injury-wise. I've always been a fan of picking up Dunn, and wanted them to do it then with the idea of moving him to 1st after Lee.

[SouthSideRyan]

So 23 million for one year each of Bradley and Silva.

 

Worth every penny, IMO. Thank you Mr. Hendry.

 

Mike Quade so far is turning out to be everything I expected Lou to be when he got here, before it was completely obvious that he just didn't give a crap anymore. Under Quade it seems like the best players will play, regardless of contract or service time, and he won't take any crap from his players. That's how it ought to be. I look forward to his tenure.

 

Until June when Soriano is batting .150 with 2 HR and there's still a Colvin/Byrd/Fuku platoon in CF/RF. Let's be honest here, there are certain contracts that supercede the manager. Silva's wasn't one of those.

 

Why is Soriano hitting 150 with 2 HRs?

[dew1679666265]

Agreed. I was a fan of signing Bradley with the idea he would have been hitting #2 (yeah, I know the Cubs foolishly viewed him as a #5 based on his 2008 numbers) with at least a very productive OBP with a little pop, but he was a concern injury-wise. I've always been a fan of picking up Dunn, and wanted them to do it then with the idea of moving him to 1st after Lee.

 

As much against the Bradley signing as I was, probably the worst thing that could have happened to Bradley was him being hyped as a big-time power hitting "RBI machine" who would slug like crazy in the middle of our lineup. When healthy he's generally been a very productive player, but more in the Fukudome way and not in the Adam Dunn way.

 

People probably would have been more accepting of him had they expected a better (though less healthy) version of Kosuke rather than the next Sammy Sosa.

[KingCubsFan]

Agreed. I was a fan of signing Bradley with the idea he would have been hitting #2 (yeah, I know the Cubs foolishly viewed him as a #5 based on his 2008 numbers) with at least a very productive OBP with a little pop, but he was a concern injury-wise. I've always been a fan of picking up Dunn, and wanted them to do it then with the idea of moving him to 1st after Lee.

 

As much against the Bradley signing as I was, probably the worst thing that could have happened to Bradley was him being hyped as a big-time power hitting "RBI machine" who would slug like crazy in the middle of our lineup. When healthy he's generally been a very productive player, but more in the Fukudome way and not in the Adam Dunn way.

 

People probably would have been more accepting of him had they expected a better (though less healthy) version of Kosuke rather than the next Sammy Sosa.

I don't think it mattered whether the fans accepted him or not. It wasn't the fans that got to him (and if it was, I wish they would have got on him even more because he was really good at home and terrible on the road). The Cubs signed a guy with severe mental issues, so it really wasn't a surprise when he went off considering he was on a losing team with a manager like Lou. It was a gamble by Hendry that, predictably, didn't pay off.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Agreed. I was a fan of signing Bradley with the idea he would have been hitting #2 (yeah, I know the Cubs foolishly viewed him as a #5 based on his 2008 numbers) with at least a very productive OBP with a little pop, but he was a concern injury-wise. I've always been a fan of picking up Dunn, and wanted them to do it then with the idea of moving him to 1st after Lee.

 

As much against the Bradley signing as I was, probably the worst thing that could have happened to Bradley was him being hyped as a big-time power hitting "RBI machine" who would slug like crazy in the middle of our lineup. When healthy he's generally been a very productive player, but more in the Fukudome way and not in the Adam Dunn way.

 

People probably would have been more accepting of him had they expected a better (though less healthy) version of Kosuke rather than the next Sammy Sosa.

I don't think it mattered whether the fans accepted him or not. It wasn't the fans that got to him (and if it was, I wish they would have got on him even more because he was really good at home and terrible on the road). The Cubs signed a guy with severe mental issues, so it really wasn't a surprise when he went off considering he was on a losing team with a manager like Lou. It was a gamble by Hendry that, predictably, didn't pay off.

 

In hindsight, the best thing to do probably would have been to simply keep the 97 win team together, and if a need came along, fill it during the season. Unfortunately, those 3 fateful games in October yielded a knee jerk reaction that the team wasnt left handed enough, and we needed a lefty. Several were available, but none were particularly impressive. Bradley was probably the best overall player of the bunch, but was both physically and mentally fragile, both of which came out in his short time as a Cub. From an offensive standpoint, theres no question that Adam Dunn was the best choice, however, there were legit concerns about his fielding ability, and to this day, I dont think that right field at Wrigley would have been the best place for him. I wonder how things would have turned out if theyd just tried to squeeze a but more juice out of Jim Edmonds in 2009 and kept Pie in Iowa as insurance.

[KingCubsFan]

So let me get this straight. Because Hendry made a poor signing in Bradley, we can't even look at the good trade he made to get rid of him and save a little money AND get average production from a 5 starter? This is a slippery mother [expletive] slope you're on right now.

I'm not going to give him much credit for getting 2.5 months good months out of Silva (which was completely due to Rotschild and luck). I'm guessing that was the only offer he had for Bradley, so he pretty much had to take it. It wasn't like he sifted through offers and thought "I see something in Silva." It was headcase for headcase. I'm sure the Mariners were just as sick of Silva as we were of Bradley. Fact is, the signing made us worse in '09, worse in '10, and worse in '11 because it was a complete waste of money and took up resources that could have been allocated elsewhere. I'm not a complete Hendry hater, but I don't really see anything positive that he did here.

 

Yes, the Bradley signing was a poor one and screwed us for several years afterwards. No, that does not mean that the Silva trade was a bad one given the circumstances. Past moves necessitate current and future moves. Always. This is the slippery slop I'm alluding to. After an unfortunate signing, Hendry made a solid stop-the-bleeding move that only helped us. Did Hendry do even an adequate job of building a baseball team the last 3 years? No. But the Silva trade was not bad in itself. That's my only issue.

 

EDIT: Just re-read your post and you're almost completely discounting the money factor. None of us can know if Hendry had any other (likely horrific) offers on the table, but at the very least he really did trade a worse/more damaged player for a better one and saved a bunch of money in the process. Given the facts, it should be an unquestioned success.

It seems like we're just arguing semantics over what constitutes a "good" trade. To me, a "good" trade doesn't end with paying the guy $11 million to get off our team after he attacks our best player and gives up almost three hits an inning in spring training. Did Hendry do the right thing given the circumstances? Of course. There was no way Bradley could come back to the team, and freed up just enough money to get Byrd. But going back to my original post, the original signing was predictably terrible (much like Pierre and Aaron Miles), and I can't really give Hendry for being lucky enough to find someone just as bad and alienating as Bradley who happened to have a similar contract. And if we didn't have a manager as awesome as Quade, it could have ended up even worse.

[Lefty]

Agreed. I was a fan of signing Bradley with the idea he would have been hitting #2 (yeah, I know the Cubs foolishly viewed him as a #5 based on his 2008 numbers) with at least a very productive OBP with a little pop, but he was a concern injury-wise. I've always been a fan of picking up Dunn, and wanted them to do it then with the idea of moving him to 1st after Lee.

 

As much against the Bradley signing as I was, probably the worst thing that could have happened to Bradley was him being hyped as a big-time power hitting "RBI machine" who would slug like crazy in the middle of our lineup. When healthy he's generally been a very productive player, but more in the Fukudome way and not in the Adam Dunn way.

 

People probably would have been more accepting of him had they expected a better (though less healthy) version of Kosuke rather than the next Sammy Sosa.

I don't think it mattered whether the fans accepted him or not. It wasn't the fans that got to him (and if it was, I wish they would have got on him even more because he was really good at home and terrible on the road). The Cubs signed a guy with severe mental issues, so it really wasn't a surprise when he went off considering he was on a losing team with a manager like Lou. It was a gamble by Hendry that, predictably, didn't pay off.

 

In hindsight, the best thing to do probably would have been to simply keep the 97 win team together, and if a need came along, fill it during the season. Unfortunately, those 3 fateful games in October yielded a knee jerk reaction that the team wasnt left handed enough, and we needed a lefty. Several were available, but none were particularly impressive. Bradley was probably the best overall player of the bunch, but was both physically and mentally fragile, both of which came out in his short time as a Cub. From an offensive standpoint, theres no question that Adam Dunn was the best choice, however, there were legit concerns about his fielding ability, and to this day, I dont think that right field at Wrigley would have been the best place for him. I wonder how things would have turned out if theyd just tried to squeeze a but more juice out of Jim Edmonds in 2009 and kept Pie in Iowa as insurance.

 

Pie was out of options. Another example of the kind of non-obvious damage that can occur when incentives are misaligned. Hendry knew that Piniella wouldn't commit to Pie. But Lou is gone and Pie just turned 26 and has been decently productive in the AL East.

[Sammy Sofa]

Agreed. I was a fan of signing Bradley with the idea he would have been hitting #2 (yeah, I know the Cubs foolishly viewed him as a #5 based on his 2008 numbers) with at least a very productive OBP with a little pop, but he was a concern injury-wise. I've always been a fan of picking up Dunn, and wanted them to do it then with the idea of moving him to 1st after Lee.

 

As much against the Bradley signing as I was, probably the worst thing that could have happened to Bradley was him being hyped as a big-time power hitting "RBI machine" who would slug like crazy in the middle of our lineup. When healthy he's generally been a very productive player, but more in the Fukudome way and not in the Adam Dunn way.

 

People probably would have been more accepting of him had they expected a better (though less healthy) version of Kosuke rather than the next Sammy Sosa.

I don't think it mattered whether the fans accepted him or not. It wasn't the fans that got to him (and if it was, I wish they would have got on him even more because he was really good at home and terrible on the road). The Cubs signed a guy with severe mental issues, so it really wasn't a surprise when he went off considering he was on a losing team with a manager like Lou. It was a gamble by Hendry that, predictably, didn't pay off.

 

In hindsight, the best thing to do probably would have been to simply keep the 97 win team together, and if a need came along, fill it during the season. Unfortunately, those 3 fateful games in October yielded a knee jerk reaction that the team wasnt left handed enough, and we needed a lefty. Several were available, but none were particularly impressive. Bradley was probably the best overall player of the bunch, but was both physically and mentally fragile, both of which came out in his short time as a Cub. From an offensive standpoint, theres no question that Adam Dunn was the best choice, however, there were legit concerns about his fielding ability, and to this day, I dont think that right field at Wrigley would have been the best place for him. I wonder how things would have turned out if theyd just tried to squeeze a but more juice out of Jim Edmonds in 2009 and kept Pie in Iowa as insurance.

 

Pie was out of options. Another example of the kind of non-obvious damage that can occur when incentives are misaligned. Hendry knew that Piniella wouldn't commit to Pie. But Lou is gone and Pie just turned 26 and has been decently productive in the AL East.

 

On paper the Orioles 2011 lineup isn't that horrible. Granted, it's relying on key vets staying healthy, but I was surprised looking at it yesterday.

[Derwood]

yep, the Orioles lineup is crazy different from last year. Lee, Reynolds, Hardy, Guerrero......won't be enough, but at least they're trying

[Sammy Sofa]

yep, the Orioles lineup is crazy different from last year. Lee, Reynolds, Hardy, Guerrero......won't be enough, but at least they're trying

 

Plus already having Jones, Markakis, Scott and Roberts, plus looking for a rebound year from Wieters. That's not a bad team at all.