Backtobanks

It's not park adjusted enough to say he will put up those numbers in a Cub uniform. He's actually a pretty good role model for the use of OPS+. When he was in Phily, he maintained a higher OPS+ than he did when he was in Washington. Phily is a much better hitting park than Washington ever was. The numbers spike tremendously when he moves on to Texas. A quick look at his splits in Texas consistently puts him in the 130 range in OPS+, but in the 100 range for his road games. Since a significant amount of his road games are against teams with horrible hitting parks (Seattle, Oakland and Anaheim), it makes sense that his road splits are probably a touch lower than his real ability. However, Texas' park is not even realistic, as it might be a worse park than Colorado during the time we are comparing Byrd's stats. If I had to guess, I'd say he's a 95-105 OPS+ guy in the NL Central. There are some good hitting parks, but he won't have the pleasure of Arlington anymore to prop up his stats. That's about as generic as it gets. Bradley was in that range last year, but we already know he had a pretty bad year by his own standards. Byrd's probably not much better than a bad Milton Bradley season. I'm not saying he's the second coming of Willie Mays, but maybe he's just a late bloomer. DeRosa was a fair utility guy until he got a chance to play regularly and met Jaramillo. Maybe Byrd got his chance, moved to a hitter's park, and met a great hitting coach. I'm not upset with Byrd as a 3rd choice as long as he doesn't cost too much.

In today's Tribune, Phil Rogers writes about a newly formed committee to make suggestions on changes to MLB. Selig's 14-member committee to consider all on-field issues, which was announced on Tuesday, will not have formal authority. It includes four current managers, four current or former general managers and four ownership representatives, along with MLB official Frank Robinson and journalist/baseball fan George Will. Selig said he will "be guided by what this committee comes up with" on matters including "scheduling, postseason format, umpiring, pace of play and instant replay." The commissioner did not mention the DH rule, but Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and longtime Braves executive John Schuerholz, who joined Selig on a conference call, both listed it as the one thing they potentially would change if they could. Schuerholz did not say he would be in favor of eliminating the rule. "When I was in the American League, I was in favor of the designated hitter," said Schuerholz, whose teams won World Series in Kansas City and Atlanta. "In the National, I've maybe taken another position. Our game has proved it can succeed and flourish with the different approaches in the different leagues." La Russa said he would be in favor of eliminating the DH, except for the All-Star Game. "I think the game is more complete without the DH," he said. La Russa, like the other three managers on the committee (Joe Torre, Jim Leyland and Mike Scioscia) has seen the DH rule play a major role in World Series play involving his teams. It is used in the AL park and not the NL, creating two different styles of games in determining championships. Forced to build deeper rosters because of the DH rule, the AL has had an upper hand against the NL in recent years -- a trend borne out in results from the All-Star Game, the World Series and in interleague play. AL teams have been bigger spenders than their NL counterparts. Like many matters that the new committee may consider, including expanding the role of instant replay, a change in the DH rule would require approval of the players' union. Owners never have gone to the union to consider a change in the rules but could do that in the round of talks expected to begin in early 2011. In addition to Schuerholz, Robinson, Will and the four managers, the committee includes Andy MacPhail, Mark Shapiro, Terry Ryan, Paul Beeston, Chuck Armstrong, Bill DeWitt and Dave Montgomery.

He will, i guarantee it and so will Joel Pineiro, who's asking for a Wolf type contract. Hendry will overpay, you just watch. i honestly havent though much about the cubs since college football started, but this post really just made me angry Sorry bud, its just how Hendry operates. Last year the player i least wanted was Bradley and Hendry signed him. I never in a million years thought they'd pay that much for miles and Hendry paid it. I never thought they'd trade Derosa away without getting Peavy and he ended up doing so. When you try to predict Hendry's moves you have to think of worse case scenario and not best case. Granderson, Cameron, Halladay, etc were all best case. Worst Case is Podsenick, Byrd (Yes Byrd, dont overrate the guy after his career year), Overpaying Piniero, etc. We'll see what happens but I doubt Hendry pulls off anything good. The best move he made was not trading away Castro, Cashner, Vitters, etc. Though i still would've traded Vitters for Granderson. You can't complain about "best case scenarios" for this offseason. You're blaming Hendry for not getting Granderson or Halladay in one breath, but complimenting him for not trading Castro, Cashner, and Vitters in the next breath. Well in the real world, it would haven taken at least two of those guys (plus others) to get either Granderson or Halladay. As for Cameron, he would have been a nice pickup for 1 year or 2 years and less money than he signed for.

It's not a matter of whether I like Bradley or not, it's the fact that his non-trade looks like it's delaying other moves by the Cubs. As for whether he has value or not, the market will let us know. If you've been paying attention, then you know that I usually engage in many conversations, but this one has been the busiest for quite awhile.

I wouldn't let Bradley anywhere near me. That seems to be the same attitude all of the MLB GMs have right now.

Today's Tribune says that Capps is interested in the Cubs too.

His value would have to go up since it's negative infinity now.

I didn't mean moving on Bradley necessarily (but it would be nice to have it over), but picking up Capps or some other move would be good.

Red Sox dump Manny to pick up Bradley. Interesting! I couldn't find another salary dump that the Red Sox would want to get rid of.

The way it's sounding now, the Cubs might have to keep Bradley because nobody else wants him. The last team to show interest was the Rays and now they've spent money on Soriano and are hinting they may be done. I guess something might happen later (after the FAs sign), but I'm tired of waiting. Whether you're for trading him or not, it's time to make some kind of move.

Apparently the mystery team moved on from Bradley to Bay.

Apparently I have a different definition of very productive player (Davell) and extremely productive player (Rusch 33) than some of you. I still say if he was as productive as some of you claim, somebody would be take him when Hendry is offering him for next-to-nothing.

You can be sure the Cubs have nothing new to say that Bradley hasn't been told many times before under similar circumstances. This is not exactly uncharted water for this dude. The guy is what he is, and expecting him to change his stripes now is pretty silly, especially as a result of some reconciliatory meeting. Of course he is, but he's an extremely productive player. Bradley's replacement in RF and his possible replacement (Cameron) in CF aren't as productive as he is and both are older than he is. Let's quit kidding ourselves, Bradley is a good hitter with injury and anger issues. If he was "an extremely productive player" someone would have taken advantage of the fact Hendry is basically giving him away and willing to pay a big chunk of his contract. Awhile ago we had a discussion about whether Bradley's attitude negated his ability on the field. Here's the answer to that from MLBTR: Indians, Blue Jays Eyeing Marcus Thames By Tim Dierkes [December 11 at 3:26pm CST] The Indians and Blue Jays have interest in free agent outfielder Marcus Thames, reports Jon Paul Morosi of FOX Sports. Thames, 33 in March, hit .252/.323/.453 in 294 plate appearances this year, logging 125 innings in left field. He's also spent time at right field and first base in his career. Thames earned $2.275MM this year, and the Tigers let him go in November. Thames is better against left-handed pitching. His 2007-09 splits: .263/.326/.541 against lefties, .233/.281/.461 against righties. Hendry is willing to take a bad contract off your hands and pay all of Bradley's 2nd year and they would rather go after Marcus Thames.

Nothing wrong with talking to their agents. Sure, assuming they were talking about somebody else and they just happaned to have the same agent as the unknown worthy players. I still say nothing wrong with talking to their agents and finding out what their asking price is at this time. Somebody like Ankiel might be a bargain as a 4th OF later on.

Oh please. Everybody can harp back on some report they heard to defend anything. Yeah, reports were dozens of teams were interested in Bradley this year as well. Dempster was a 31 year old with 1 good year under his belt as a starter. Are of those guys were much better free agent targets and were always going to get much more money. There is no comparison. Look at Meche and Silva and their contracts.

Nothing wrong with talking to their agents.

Red Sox picking up 9M of the 12M owed to him. This doesn't help Hendry in the slightest, either. A guy who can play a corner infield position, doesn't cause a media circus on a daily basis and only has 1 year on his contract still has 75% it picked up by his former employer without taking back an equally bad contract in return. Actually, a pretty highly respected prospect at one time, although I think he's fallen below the radar a little bit of late. Well even though Lowell can play both corner IF positions, doesn't cause a media circus on a daily basis, and only has 1 year on his contract, he is still a serious health risk and is probably at the end of his career.

No it wouldn't. The Cubs aren't going to lose money because Milton Bradley is around. They aren't going to lose fans to the White Sox. The only fans that would leave the Cubs because Milton is around would be racist white people, and I don't see any racist white people who are Cubs fans rushing to support the White Sox. The Cubs will lose fans, and money, if they wallow around in mediocrity much longer. If they go back to the 2005/2006 let's just make sure we're all nice guys who get along no matter how much we lose ways, then they will lose fans and money. The way to make money in Chicago sports is to win. Wrigley didn't become the place it is today until after 1998, and it didn't become the year-in-year-out sellout until 2003 when fans were given the taste of what could be. Nice guy teams and PR strategies don't sell tickets. Winning does. I'm not worried about the Cubs losing fans (racist or not) to the White Sox. The real worry is losing advertising dollars and sponsors to the White Sox. Most companies are pretty conservative and may not want to be associated with a mediocre team with a loony-toon acting out weekly.

No it wouldn't. The Cubs aren't going to lose money because Milton Bradley is around. They aren't going to lose fans to the White Sox. The only fans that would leave the Cubs because Milton is around would be racist white people, and I don't see any racist white people who are Cubs fans rushing to support the White Sox. The Cubs will lose fans, and money, if they wallow around in mediocrity much longer. If they go back to the 2005/2006 let's just make sure we're all nice guys who get along no matter how much we lose ways, then they will lose fans and money. The way to make money in Chicago sports is to win. Wrigley didn't become the place it is today until after 1998, and it didn't become the year-in-year-out sellout until 2003 when fans were given the taste of what could be. Nice guy teams and PR strategies don't sell tickets. Winning does. You're leaving out the influence of the media and marketing on the finances. Ricketts knows that public relations is a gigantic part of his investment. You start reading and hearing negative publicity about the Cubs on a daily basis and you're going to start losing advertising and sponsors. You think Tiger Woods is worried about his mess affecting his golf game? Hell no, he's worried about his sponsors and the money that he's going to lose even though he will still win golf tournaments. I will agree that winning will help, but you admitted that with Bradley the Cubs "wallowed in mediocrity", so if they're a mediocre team with a public relations nightmare you might as well ditch the public relations nightmare.

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. I'm sure that would be the outcome. :pig: Do you think Bradley worries about his value when he's sitting on $21 million. Bradley has serious anger problems, which he can't control and posters think that that sitting down with him and telling to be good is going to change things. :-))

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.

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.

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.

Seems like Cameron on a short term deal wouldn't be all that bad an option at this point. Whats annoying about the Granderson trade and about last year's trades is that it seems as if it went against what Piniella wanted. Piniella wanted Ibanez last year but yet Hendry said no and instead went after bradley. Piniella wanted Granderson this year and it appears that Hendry didnt bendover backwards to get him. Its true that Piniella wanted a left handed hitter after the 08 season but i doubt he ever wanted hendry to trade Derosa or let go of Wood in the process. As a GM yes you do need to make moves but you also need to listen to your manager. I'm starting to lose faith in Jim and if the cubs dont get rid of Bradley somehow, i have a feeling the Ricketts will lose faith and replace him. One of Hendry's faults is that he listens to his manager too much. Lou wanted Granderson one second and wants Cameron the next. As much as Hendry wants to move Bradley, I'm sure Lou has told Hendry he doesn't want Bradley back either. Don't forget that Hendry has to clean up after Bradley makes a media mess, but Lou has to deal with him everyday in the clubhouse and in the dugout.

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