ThePenguin11

He was a PR nightmare on the team that cares more about PR than almost any team in sports. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't make it untrue. No more criticism of any team doing anything. Cause that's just the way they are. Get used to it. It's the Cubs. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Tom Rickets isn't going to change the whole makeup of this organization in one year. It's the same PR driven, happy / fuzzy come to our ballpark win or lose team that it always has been. The same people are still here. It's going to take the new ownership group at least a couple of years to clean house. And I'm not confident that he even has what it takes in the first place. If he did, Crane Kenny and Jim Hendry would be unemployed. To expect the Cubs to all of a sudden just GET IT, is not realistic. At all.

Nearly pissed my pants I'm sorry, I should have said slightly less valuable.

He was a PR nightmare on the team that cares more about PR than almost any team in sports. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't make it untrue.

No sense in getting bent out of shape over something you had to have seen coming for the last four months. This is all crying over spilled milk. If anyone actually thinks the Cubs have ANY chance of winning the World Series in the next three years, you're sadly mistaken. I've come to terms with this, so it doesn't hurt anymore. When it gets this bad you just can't allow yourself to become so emotionally invested. It's simply not worth it. Oh God, shut up with the baseball robot garbage. Take it easy tough guy. Nobody kicked your dog. Yet.

That's not really the same thing at all.

Those who think the Cubs should have brought Bradley back have to remember that he was past the point of no return. The Cubs and Bradley had irreconcilable differences and it was beyond repair. Bradley's behavior was too provocative to the fans and his teammates to ever be able to suit him up again. Whether you like it or not, it was both a business decision and a public relations decision. And with a team like the Cubs, those two departments work together very closely. Because Bradley was so out of control the cubs were forced into a situation where he had negative trade value. Which means, if you want to get something positive back from him in a deal - such as a $6MM savings - you have to take a bigger negative back in exchange. It's just basic math really. It's basically like this equation: 5 + -10 = -5 ($6MM cash savings + Silva = Bradley). To say we were better off with Bradley is basically a false statement because Bradley would still never play another game for the Cubs. That's while they call the differences, "irreconcilable". They got money back on a bad investment and took on a slightly worse player to do it. All we can hope for now is that Silva doesn't have a meaningful role and that the $6MM isn't wasted on bullcrap.

No sense in getting bent out of shape over something you had to have seen coming for the last four months. This is all crying over spilled milk. If anyone actually thinks the Cubs have ANY chance of winning the World Series in the next three years, you're sadly mistaken. I've come to terms with this, so it doesn't hurt anymore. When it gets this bad you just can't allow yourself to become so emotionally invested. It's simply not worth it.

What red flags in terms of teammates hating him? That's like the one thing Bradley didn't have a problem with before he was signed. And who gives a [expletive] what that awful midget at SS thinks? He's been the only guy to seem to not like Bradley, and it's hardly like he speaks for the team. Jeesh, lay off Theriot. According to Bruce Miles everyone affiliated with the Cubs wanted Bradley gone. At this point, I'd almost rather keep Bradley and get rid of everyone else if everyone else felt Bradley needed to be gone. If the team believes it's better to have lesser talented players so that everyone can smile and high five in the clubhouse than it is to go out there and win games, we are definitely signing the wrong personnel. Well, then it's a good thing you're not 'almost' the Cubs GM.

Well, if you're not going to lay off Theriot, you should lay off the hyperbole. Theriot is probably somewhere around league average maybe slightly below - all things considered. He's not exactly Rey Ordonez with the bat.

Yeah, you kinda did groove that one, middle/in.

It's a pretty stupid one. Does it always have be about race. Maybe it's just about Bradley being a petulant ass while in Chicago, just like he's been his entire career. This really just needs to be done with. Not because the team will be better or worse with or without him, but because he is too much of a mental midget to deal with the situation like an adult. It's only stupid if you don't know what is being said. I never said hating Milton Bradley makes you racist. I never said wanting him gone makes you racist. I never said anything of the sort. I've said repeatedly I think he's an ass. My point is that the mythological creature that is the Cubs fan who would abandon the team due to the presence of Milton Bradley is probably going to be a racist person. It's really not a controversial statement. It makes no accusation about anybody here because I'm fairly certain nobody here is going to abandon the Cubs (even if several people threaten to every season). I'm talking about somebody saying, "I love the Cubs. But Milton Bradley is still on the team so I'm done with the team." A) It's very unlikely to happen. B) That rare creature is probably motivated by racial tendencies. Are you saying that it's impossible for a black fan to abandon the Cubs in a similar fashion? Like, in a Dave Chappelle/Clayton Bigsby kinda way???

It's also unfortunate that Ryan Theriot can't hit like Hanley Ramirez. To be fair, there was a time when Soriano was a passable second baseman, there's never going to be a time when Theriot hits like Hanley. Not to stray too off topic, but was there ever a time when Soriano was a passable left fielder? I'm not even sure why he was moved in the first place. At least his offense was plus for a bad defensive 2B. Now he's just an about-average offensive LF that plays dreadfully amateurish outfield defense. UZR/150 had him at 22.4 in 2007 in left and at 5.2 in 2008. Fair enough, I guess. I've always thought he looked pretty lost out there. I also thought he got better reads as a CF. I could be wrong though.

It's also unfortunate that Ryan Theriot can't hit like Hanley Ramirez. To be fair, there was a time when Soriano was a passable second baseman, there's never going to be a time when Theriot hits like Hanley. Not to stray too off topic, but was there ever a time when Soriano was a passable left fielder? I'm not even sure why he was moved in the first place. At least his offense was plus for a bad defensive 2B. Now he's just an about-average offensive LF that plays dreadfully amateurish outfield defense.

red sox would be weird because they already have logjams at a lot of positions (v. martinez and j. varitek at C, youk/martinez at 1B, lowrie/scutaro at SS, lowell/scutaro at 3B) and wouldn't really have room for bradley unless he or drew played LF and hermida became a backup. but supposedly they've been trying to get rid of lowell for a while; they could conceivably deal lowell for bradley, put youk back at 3B, put martinez at 1B, varitek becomes starting catcher again). that still doesn't solve what to do with bradley, but it does clear up some of their infield/C logjam and obviously lowell wouldn't have a position on the cubs so he'd need to be dealt away. Boston would definitely be weird. I can't see that being a good fit since it's perceived (right or wrong) as being one of the most racist cities in all of american sports. this doesn't matter. lots of minorities were beloved in boston if they worked hard and produced. and if milton doesn't work hard and produce then he'll fail anywhere, so who cares if they're yelling racist [expletive] at him. I'm speaking only from Bradley's point of view. I don't personally believe that Red Sox fans are racist. Nor do I believe that Cubs fans are either. I don't even believe Bradley ever heard a racial epithet spoken toward him (edit: at Wrigley Field). I think for him perception is reality and eventually if he's not panning out he can put the blame on someone else. Why not blame the 'famously' racist Boston fans??

I honestly think Bradley would be a great fit there so long as they see him as an almost everyday DH and part-time OF. His numbers would probably project better and Southside fans would probably embrace his anti-Cub legend immediately. From a Sox perspective, how great would it be to stick it to the Cubs and get a couple of great years out of Bradley for pennies on the dollar after he was worthless for us?

red sox would be weird because they already have logjams at a lot of positions (v. martinez and j. varitek at C, youk/martinez at 1B, lowrie/scutaro at SS, lowell/scutaro at 3B) and wouldn't really have room for bradley unless he or drew played LF and hermida became a backup. but supposedly they've been trying to get rid of lowell for a while; they could conceivably deal lowell for bradley, put youk back at 3B, put martinez at 1B, varitek becomes starting catcher again). that still doesn't solve what to do with bradley, but it does clear up some of their infield/C logjam and obviously lowell wouldn't have a position on the cubs so he'd need to be dealt away. Boston would definitely be weird. I can't see that being a good fit since it's perceived (right or wrong) as being one of the most racist cities in all of american sports. I can just see that ending well. Even less well than his stay here.

Is Starlin Castro really that good? WAIT!!! BEFORE YOU ANSWER please think about all of the over-hyped Cubs prospects of the last decade that have been can't miss, untradeable players. Every year we have a new hype machine going for a new player that is the future of the team. I'd say 90% of these losers didn't pan out or panned out on another team without the Cubs maximizing prospect value. When I hear about a guy like Starlin Castro being the next big star - I honestly laugh and scoff at the notion. Is there any real reason other than a great fall league to indicate that this guy is actually any damn good? His numbers at A and AA look pretty pedestrian and AFL is a pretty damn small sample size. I can't understand why anyone would out-of-hand dismiss a trade for a pretty damn good pro like Curtis Granderson. They can't all be perennial all-stars. I would suspect Starlin Castro will not be attending too many all-star games himself for that matter - just based on this farm system's history.

Don't give me a comparison that is half-based on defense when the guy you're sticking up for was a DH. He's a year older and a year away from his last as an outfielder. You're better off giving me the comparison based on the year he played 75 games because that's a lot closer to the amount of games he will play than it is to 162. Abreu is a 150+ game /yr guy and his defense would slip a bit in your comparisons because of it. If Bradley had it in him to make it through a complete season how well do you think his legs would do out in the outfield every day in the Wrigley sun? It's impossible to answer because he'd never make it a full season in those condistions and never will. Even if you throw out defense or give MB a slight edge, I would still favor a guy who can go out there every day and be a reliable asset to your everyday lineup. (Oh and for considerably less money)

I'm calling BS on this one. Not good? He's a consistent run producing outfielder. 100 RBI's, .370 OBP and 840 OPS isn't at least "good"? Bradley is getting three years to play about 200 games. Abreu is not a health risk and has been incredibly consistent since 2001. But you'd rather have a guy for 3 times as much money who offers zero consistency and is a major, major health risk??? Abreu certainly isn't bad and he's no worse than Milton Bradley. He's definitely a lot more attractive on a one-year deal versus the THREE years we gave to a major, major injury risk coming off a career year in the hitting capital of the USA.

I'd so much rather have Abreu at $10MM/yr for a year or two than Bradley for $30MM over 3 years....Let alone one year for $8MM! Why do the Cubs insist on overspending for players and giving them too many years???!!?? MB never made more than $5.5 in a year and now he's on the wrong side of 30. Now you decide to double his salary? Who would have realistically even come close to the offer we made to Bradley?

I don't think that article said he was offered $4MM for one year. It mentioned that the DBacks were rumored to have $4MM left in their budget. I would bet that Garland will probably end up with a multi-year deal in the $6-8MM / yr range. He's still pitching ~200 innings per year and was decent in the first half of the year. His value has far from tanked considering what MLB teams are paying for starting pitching these days.

Wait...then we can move Zorich to linebacker and Urlacher can play his natural strong safety position / TE.

They drove together in one of their CARS. There was never a mention of a cab, or a limo or a bus for that matter. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=winter_meetings_2008

I don't know if anyone has suggested this...but does anybody think that the whole reason the Cubs were so publicly mentioned as candidates for Peavy was to put pressure on Dempster to sign with the Cubs quickly and for less money? I can envision the Cubs getting involved with Peavy so that they could call Demp's bluff and show him that they were ready to move on. By saying that they would still go for Dempster even if they trade for Peavy (or visa versa), they increase their value to Dempster as a major contender (just as much as it might to Peavy). Dempster barely even got a chance to see what the market would bear so the whole thing just seems suspicious to me in a familiar cub-like way.

They do have a deadline..December 1st is the last day the Cubs can offer arbitration to Wood. Thanks.