Backtobanks

From a video on Foxsports: 1. Trade Bradley to Texas picking up most of the contract and apologize to Ricketts for signing him. 2. Sign Figgins to play 2B and leadoff. 3. Sign Valverde to close and leave Marmol in set up role. What an idiot! His solutions are just to spend and buy every player you need.

It will be interesting to see the kind of offers they get from other teams.

I found this response interesting considering your user name. Are you friends with Dick Cheney?

i like how you have laid this out but i really think people are overlooking vitters in this case. i know castro is Mr. Hype right now, but I still contend that Vitters is the #1 prospect in the system, with castro coming in at #2 it seems. Granderson is in NO way worth a top 1 or 2 prospect IMO. If our system hasn't quite reached the point where you can't acquire a player like Granderson without giving up your top boys, you simply pass on the deal. Granderson is not worth a top prospect. I do like how you laid it out but some of those scenarios are too much for a guy who isn't exactly an all star. People are overhyping granderson too much, i mean i think the guy would be a huge pickup, but a pickup not worth more than mid level prospects. I totally agree with you. Some of these packages look like we're going after Hanley Ramirez or Roy Halliday not Curtis Granderson. Granderson is a perfect fit for the Cubs, but he's not worth trading our top prospects plus creating a new hole on the field. As BCVM22 pointed out, he's atrocious against LHP. His suggestion of platooning him with someone like Reed Johnson is a great idea, but not after giving up half your farm system for him. Cub fans have waited a long time for positional prospects like Vitters and Castro, so they should be considered almost "untouchable".

As Davell posted (page 1), if you can get Granderson without giving up our top prospects (Vitters, Castro, etc.) or a major piece of the starting lineup (Theriot, Marmol, etc.) then it's a no-brainer. I don't think Hendry is going to tinker with the established roster (Theriot, Marmol, etc.) because it would open one hole to fill another. Hopefully Hendry can get a Bradley deal done soon so that he can get around to making other deals. Nothing can be done until this Bradley mess is over.

That has been the point that I have made in all of my posts about Bradley. Let's get a role player for the 2010 Cubs rather than a minor leaguer (or 2) who will never reach the ML and we still have to pay most of Bradley's contract. That's one reason I brought up Rowand as an option quite a while ago. Burrell and Guillen are just a waste of time and energy because neither one has a place (or a role) on the 2010 Cubs. Millwood, by far, would be the best option of those rumored.

As of 9:30 p.m. last night according to FoxSports: The Cubs and Rays continue to discuss a Milton Bradley-for-Pat Burrell trade, but money remains a major obstacle. Burrell will earn $9 million next season, while Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years. The Rays want the Cubs to pay the vast majority of the difference. The teams are a mere $2 million to $3 million apart over the two years, one source said. The source described the negotiations as "worse than Chinese water torture." Another said, "I wish cattle prods were legal." So the way that I figure, the Cubs will probably pay $6 million to make Bradley go away and then another $5-6 million to flip Burrell to an AL team. I'm sure Ricketts will take pleasure in the fact that they didn't have to pay $12 million of Bradley's contract in a fuzzy-accounting PR move.

Good thing neither of them play defense, not to mention Granderson had some strange home/road splits last year. If Lou was smart enough to platoon him, we'd be getting a relatively cheap, .900 OPS CF who by all accounts plays pretty good defense I would rather have Bradley, Castro, and Marmol over Granderson and paying some team $10MM or so to take Bradley Sure Granderson's defense is better, but I don't think it is that much better to justify the expense. I think you can forget about keeping Bradley as an option. I can't really see how the Cubs would match up with the Tigers on a blockbuster deal like Granderson. I think it would take a Castro or Vitters (both near untouchables) from the minors and/or Marmol or Theriot from the ML roster. I wish the Bradley deal would happen so the Cubs could move on.

The reports that I've read say the Rangers want Bradley only if the Cubs pay a big portion of his contract. I know the Rangers have money issues and I understand trying to make the best deal possible, but I don't understand all of this poor-mouthing. Their payroll for 2010 is $39 million (a drop of $37 million) without including Millwood as part of a deal. Including Millwood would put their payroll at $27 million (a decrease of $49 million from 2009). Today's Tribune wonders if they would send a couple of middle-level prospects for Bradley if the Cubs pay $9 - $10 million of the $21 million owed. Isn't their owner in dire financial straits? So they are paying their entire team what the Cubs are paying Soriano, Lee and Zambrano combined and they are in financial trouble? Wow Actually, I believe that figure only takes into account what they are paying about 3-4 guys in 2010. They still have to field a 25 man roster. And their owner has fefaulted on some debt, I believe. You're right about what their payroll covering 3-4 players, but if they traded Millwood to the Cubs their 2010 payroll would be $33 million for Young, Bradley, Kinsler, Catalanotto (former player), and Padilla (former player). That leaves 22 spots that were filled this year by 2 guys making between $1-$2 million and 20 guys making less than $1 million. Giving all of those players 50% raises still leaves them about $20 million better off than this year. Keeping Millwood and giving the others the 50% raises still comes out about $5 million ahead.

The reports that I've read say the Rangers want Bradley only if the Cubs pay a big portion of his contract. I know the Rangers have money issues and I understand trying to make the best deal possible, but I don't understand all of this poor-mouthing. Their payroll for 2010 is $39 million (a drop of $37 million) without including Millwood as part of a deal. Including Millwood would put their payroll at $27 million (a decrease of $49 million from 2009). Today's Tribune wonders if they would send a couple of middle-level prospects for Bradley if the Cubs pay $9 - $10 million of the $21 million owed. Isn't their owner in dire financial straits? So they are paying their entire team what the Cubs are paying Soriano, Lee and Zambrano combined and they are in financial trouble? Wow Actually, I believe that figure only takes into account what they are paying about 3-4 guys in 2010. They still have to field a 25 man roster. And their owner has fefaulted on some debt, I believe. You're right about what their payroll covering 3-4 players, but if they traded Millwood to the Cubs their 2010 payroll would be $33 million for Young, Bradley, Kinsler, Catalanotto (former player), and Padilla (former player). That leaves 22 spots that were filled this year by 2 guys making between $1-$2 million and 20 guys making less than $1 million. Giving all of those players 50% raises still leaves them about $20 million better off than this year. Keeping Millwood and giving the others the 50% raises still comes out about $5 million ahead.

I'm not quite sure I understand the idea of them trading a young, inexpensive pitcher under their control for 2 more years to straighten out their bloated payroll unless they want to include him as enticement to take on one of their really bad contract players. Trading Jackson for "young, inexpensive pieces" doesn't solve very much of their bloated payroll. He only made $2.2 million last year.

The reports that I've read say the Rangers want Bradley only if the Cubs pay a big portion of his contract. I know the Rangers have money issues and I understand trying to make the best deal possible, but I don't understand all of this poor-mouthing. Their payroll for 2010 is $39 million (a drop of $37 million) without including Millwood as part of a deal. Including Millwood would put their payroll at $27 million (a decrease of $49 million from 2009). Today's Tribune wonders if they would send a couple of middle-level prospects for Bradley if the Cubs pay $9 - $10 million of the $21 million owed.

Well at least they have the right manager to handle rebuilding with youth. =D>

It's starting to sound like our original discussion about Bradley. Everybody wants him as long as we pay most of his contract or take back a worse contract.

Foxsports: CHICAGO - The idea, while described as a longshot, is at least one way for the Cubs to trade outfielder Milton Bradley. Bradley to the Blue Jays. First baseman Lyle Overbay to the Mets. Second baseman Luis Castillo to the Cubs. The teams have discussed the framework of such a deal, though not in direct fashion, according to major-league sources. The Cubs spoke to the Mets about Bradley-for-Castillo, while the Mets spoke to the Jays about Bradley-for-Overbay, sources say. The Rays, however, remain the team most interested in Bradley, sources say, proposing a Pat Burrell-for-Bradley trade. Burrell and Bradley each will make $9 million in 2010. The Cubs would need to pick up a significant portion of Bradley's $12 million salary in �11 for a deal to work.

I think the only way Lee agrees to wave his NTC is if he's given an extension that makes him hard to trade. At this point he's basically untradeable. Gonzelez for Phil Hughes, I could see that one happening if the Yankees didn't have Tex. How about Gonzelez for Bucholtz and Jed Lowrie? I think the Padres can get a lot more than either one of those proposals. I would think 3-4 young players/good prospects.

Put Lee at SS, move Theriot to 2B, and put Zambrano in CF when he's not pitching. \:D/

Obviously, Fox would be part of a package deal to an AL team that has the need for a DH/1B/3B.

I know the Braves are trying to move Lowe or Vazquez, but Kawakami might be an interesting target if they would take Bradley. Kawakami can start or relieve and is owed $6.7 million for each of the next two years. He's not great, but he might be a better option than some other names floating around. Bradley would be an upgrade in the OF for the Braves and they could still trade Vazquez for a bigger bat.

From MLBTR (Chicago connections): 19. Vladimir Guerrero - White Sox. The White Sox would generate attention by signing Vlad as a DH and occasional right fielder. Landing Guerrero would also be a solid baseball move on a reasonable one-year deal. 18. Marlon Byrd - Rangers. Byrd is one of the better center fielders available, but not too many clubs are in the hunt at the position. The Cubs could be in the mix here after they trade Milton Bradley. 10. Rich Harden - Red Sox. A one-year deal with a $7MM base salary would be difficult for Harden to resist. His injuries are maddening, but he leads free agent starters with a 10.9 K/9 37. Billy Wagner - Cubs. The Cubs don't have much payroll space, and they may prefer to go with Carlos Marmol as their closer. Then again, they wouldn't do so a year ago when Marmol was coming off a good season. The Cubs could offer Wagner a chance to close, as could the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Angels, and Braves. Even Wagner's old teams, the Phillies and Astros, have back-end bullpen concerns.

I think Baldelli made $500,000 last season, so money shouldn't be an issue.

I look for Fox to be traded, Hoffpauir is a backup 1B impersonating an OF, and Fuld will make the team as a defensive replacement/5th OF/pinch runner. As for Brad Snyder???????????????????

Now that Reed Johnson has filed for FA and Boston has traded for Hermida, Baldelli would be a cheap pickup to backup CF and RF. He hits lefties pretty good and could possibly platoon with Fukudome.

I guess if Ben Grieve and Micah Hoffpauir can "play" the position, then I supposed Fox can to. Ultimately, it wouldn't surprise me if Fox is dealt to an AL team. I'm just wondering if his offensive production vs lefties would be good enough to offset his defense in right. And with the cash crunch the team has, I'd be a bit surprised if Fox is dealt this offseason. I would think Fox will be traded this offseason to an AL team. He doesn't really have a spot on the Cubs and I think the opponent's pitching started to show his weaknesses toward the end of the season. Now is the time to trade him while teams can remember the success he had this year.

Just what the Cubs need, get older and get no better. I've said this before, but if I'm Ricketts I don't put any money into the big league club and let this group play out. One thing I wouldn't do is give Cameron a typical Hendry contract, One or two years and a vesting requirement for another year. I'd try to find a way to get out from under Soriano's contract as soon as possible and invest in the future. This team isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. Hope springs eternal.