Backtobanks

So hes more like the asian Kaz Matsui. and I thought that trades couldnt be made until midnight after the end of the WS. Was this a waiver deal or something? I think that it's just an agreement among owners and Selig to minimize other baseball news so that the World Series gets maximum coverage.

From MLBTR: Cubs Rumors: Hendry, Bradley, Iwamura By Ben Nicholson-Smith [November 3 at 9:47am CST]Cubs GM Jim Hendry told Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune that he doesn't feel like he's "on the clock" this year, even though new owners are taking over and the Cubs are coming off a disappointing season. Instead, Hendry says he's focused on building a strong team for 2010. The Cubs are working on re-signing John Grabow and they'd also like to acquire a speedy leadoff hitter. The club's direction depends on its ability to move Milton Bradley and the $21MM remaining on his contract. Sullivan speculates on a possible trade that would send Bradley to the Rays for Akinori Iwamura and Pat Burrell. I'm not sure how much of an upgrade Iwamura would be over Baker. He may be faster, but his career averages are 14 SB with 7 CS. He has no power and would probably make around $4 million. The Tribune speculated that the Cubs might only have to send $3-4 million in a trade for Burrell and Iwamura. They also speculated that the Cubs might flip Burrell to another team. Again, I'm not sure this deal makes sense to me because it's going to cost money to flip Burrell (which negates the "savings") and Iwamura doesn't seem to be an upgrade over Baker. Of course there is a possibility that Burrell, Iwamura, and/or Baker would be part of another deal to acquire the OF or speedy leadoff man they really want.

Oh good, more offseason talk about acquiring Jeremy Hermida. That quote belongs to West Side Rooter.

It would be interesting to see if Jaramillo can help him reach his full potential. At 25 years old and with some success at the ML level, he is a tempting target. If he reaches his potential, it could open up trade discussions about Fukudome next year.

I guess I overcompensated for the fact that usually posters criticize my proposals because that the Cubs are getting too much and giving up too little. I really like Marshall, but I'm sure he would be a player that other teams would want. Maybe the Hendry could offer Stevens/Berg instead of Marshall. As for the other players being traded, Fox doesn't really have a spot on the Cubs and I don't think Colvin will ever fit in with a high-payroll contending team. Ross has great numbers for a CF (career avg. .264/.323/.484/.807 with 24 HR and 85 RBI) and is only 28 years old and Hermida at 25 years old (.265/.344/.425/.769 with 18 HR and 66 RBI) might really benefit from Jaramillo. Also, both players would be under club control for a few more years.

I agree that 1 or 2 prospects from the Rangers might look good, but with their financial problems we might have to pay more than Ricketts wants to pay to dump Bradley.

From MLBTR: MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan says the Rangers "refused to rule out the possibility of Milton Bradley coming back to Texas." How about trying a 3-way deal: Rangers get Bradley, Fox, and cash ($7 million in 2010 and $4 million in 2011) Rangers need to improve offense, but can't afford much additional salary for 2010. Marlins get prospects from Rangers and Marshall/Stevens plus Colvin from Cubs Marlins cut salary and add prospects while finding a taker for Hermida (possible DFA) Cubs get Cody Ross and Jeremy Hermida from Marlins Cubs manage to dump Bradley for solid CF and project RF. If Cubs re-sign Reed Johnson, the OF would have lots of options for lefty-righty matchups and in case of injuries.

From MLBTR and Phil Rogers: When Tim Hudson re-signed with the Braves, Ken Rosenthal indicated that Javier Vazquez or Derek Lowe could be shopped for a bat. Rogers suggests it'll be Vazquez that's put on the trading block. I wonder if the Braves would be interested in Bradley, Fox, and prospect for Vasquez. The Braves have been mentioned before as a possibility for Fox (they need a RH bat at 1B).

While this list is full of undesirebles, the one name that stands out that would be a perfect match is Lowe. The Braves have been looking for a righty bat for the outfield, and Bradley could match that need. Meanwhile, ground ball master Lowe would be great at Wrigley, and we could then be free to shop for Bradleys replacement, using Marshall, Gorzo, or Shark as bait. As long as the Braves agree to the same kind of deal that the Bradley-Wells rumor discussed (split the difference in contracts). That would send the Cubs about $12 million (probably split over 3 years).

Thank God. Are they actually having talks about anything(other than Well for Bradley), or is this just pure speculation? I'm told the Cubs have never discussed Vernon Wells. I don't know where this came from. But Cubs people I talked to were incredulous. They have talks ongoing with several teams, but this one has never been a possibility in the minds of the Cubs. Thanks Bruce!

So instead of Bradley for 2 years at approx $10.5MM per year, they would be willing to take Wells for 6 years at about $10MM per year? There better be something else going on in the deal for the Cubs to take it serious. This is almost exactly what I proposed in the thread on Wednesday (page 6). I'm not saying I'm in favor of it, I just threw it out there wondering what everyone else thought. It would help some if the Blue Jays paid the $8.5 million signing bonus due in 2010. Let's expand it a little and throw in Miles ($2.5 million) and get back Scott Downs ($4 million).

From MLBTR: MASNSports.com's Roch Kubatko reports that the Orioles outrighted three players off their 40-man roster, including southpaw Rich Hill

Obviously everyone would love to get out from under Soriano's contract, but I believe he will bounce back next year and have a good season. This year he was playing on one leg for a big part of the season. If he can come back anywhere near his career averages (.278/.326/.510/.836 with 36 HR and 93 RBI), someone might want him next fall with the Cubs paying part of the contract.

There are some pretty interesting rumors being floated, especially by Levine. Sounds like Hendry may be trying to trade Soriano. If Soriano is moved, maybe Burrell makes sense in LF. But I agree, Burrell doesn't seem to have a place on the team as it stands. If Hendry could move Bradley and Soriano this offseason he should get the Nobel Prizes for Peace and Economics. Not if it's for Vernon Wells and Pat Burrell. Or even worse - Vernon Wells and Barry Zito plus the Cubs pay part of Soriano's contract. :-)) Followed by a trade of Fox to the WS for Rios.

There are some pretty interesting rumors being floated, especially by Levine. Sounds like Hendry may be trying to trade Soriano. If Soriano is moved, maybe Burrell makes sense in LF. But I agree, Burrell doesn't seem to have a place on the team as it stands. If Hendry could move Bradley and Soriano this offseason he should get the Nobel Prizes for Peace and Economics.

Burrell would be a horrible deal because he really sucks in LF let alone RF in Wrigley. I realize any deal is going to be ugly, but Burrell in RF is really ugly. I wonder what other teams are interested. These names (Wells, Burrell, GMJR) are making Rowand look desirable.

Not that the Indians would have any interest in Bradley, but I wonder if Rothschild could help Carmona. I don't know what's wrong with him, but he's still very young.

Haha. That and the Barry Zito contract might be one of the two deals where the other team can make the deal and just kick Bradley to the curb and they still end up winning the deal. Assuming Bradley will be traded for a bad contract, would you make this deal: Bradley for Wells with the Cubs receiving $40 million (app. half the difference in contracts) spread over 5 years. ($2 million in 2010, $5 million in 2011, $11 for 2012-2014)

The Mets won't last long in NY if they can't spend big time.

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract. The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs. I agree that having multiple teams interested is good for the Cubs, but I still wonder how many teams are interested only because of the perception that the Cubs are going to give him away (and pay a big chunk of his contract) or take back a terrible contract. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out.

I'd go so far as to predict that Bradley will be traded within a week of the WS ending, and quite possibly the next day (a la the Renteria trade in 2007). Unlike a lot of baseball deals, this one will not take long to consummate IMO. Well, if he's going to go I'd rather it not take all offseason so I guess I would count that as a good thing. That and only if the Cubs have to eat as little or none of the contract as possible, I would consider a good thing. I don't understand why people still think this is a possibility. Technically it is a possibility (i.e. The Cubs take on a worse contract). Of course there's still posters who think there's a possibility Bradley will be back.

From ESPN: Mets made $48M from MadoffComment Email Print Share ESPN.com news services The owners of the New York Mets baseball team made about $48 million in dealings with swindler Bernard Madoff, court documents showed. The Mets Limited Partnership, which is connected to the Wilpon family, led by Mets owner Fred Wilpon, deposited $522.8 million in two accounts with Madoff and withdrew $570.6 million, according to a Monday filing by court-appointed trustee Irving Picard. The Mets could not be reached immediately for comment by Reuters. Earlier this year, Erin Arvedlund, author of "Too Good to Be True," a book on Madoff, said the Wilpon family would be forced to sell the Mets due to huge losses suffered in the Madoff swindle. The Mets had said Arvedlund has no knowledge of the team or its finances and repeated previous statements that the team was not for sale. "As has been stated previously, this has no effect on the operations of the New York Mets," the team said, according to The Wall Street Journal. Wilpon bought a stake in the Mets in 1980, raised his share to 50 percent six years later, and purchased the rest with his family and others in 2002. The case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-01789. Picard, the liquidator appointed by the court, has filed lawsuits against some Madoff investors who profited from the Ponzi scheme, seeking to recover approximately $15 billion. The Mets Limited Partnership hasn't been sued. Bradley Simon, a former federal prosecutor who is not involved with the case, told Bloomberg that he expects Picard to try to recover the money from the Wilpons. "It cannot be argued on Wilpon's behalf that these were legitimate investment returns," Simon told Bloomberg. "It would be a violation of his fiduciary duty for Picard to not seek the return of that money." Information from Reuters was used in this report.

First, Bradley may be crazy, but he's not stupid. I'm sure he wouldn't refuse to play or show up for games or practices. Also, I'm sure he could claim he injured if he didn't want to play (he certainly could claim a mental illness which would be hard to dispute). In any case, the Cubs would have to have a pretty solid case or else the union would jump all over them.

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided. Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions. If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him. They don't have to trade him, but they are going to trade him for all the reasons that have been mentioned numerous times before. I believe he has to be traded because he has burned all the bridges with the Cubs and there's no turning back according to everything I have read and heard. My posts are based on the assumption that he will be traded and what kind of return we can get for him. I agree with many of you that Bradley, considering only his baseball skills, is probably better than whoever his replacement will be. Unfortunately you can't seperate Bradley the baseball player from Bradley the public relations nightmare.

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available? I didn't say that now, did I? What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency. Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man. I doubt that. He might go on the back burner, but as soon as guys start signing, teams left on the outside in those deals will go right back to thinking about Bradley. I think the general level of interest will remain relatively constant. As for this statement: I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays pooorly. I'm sure he'd love the players to all be good spokespeople for the team, however, wins are what sells tickets and drives ratings. When the team struggles, those things decline. And that is the last thing he wants. I am hoping that is what behind his insistence that the Cubs don't pay Bradley to perform somewhere else. As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.