Backtobanks

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.

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media.

Scioscia is a redass. He'll never take Bradley. I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has? I'm not sure how you could measure the effect he has on other players' performance since there are too many variables in baseball.

Obviously it's a matter of semantics. When it's rumored that the Cubs won't pay a "vast majority" of Bradley's contract, does that mean they will pay 50%? 60%? Some of you are throwing around the number 20%. Also, the quote certainly seems to suggest taking back another bad contract. Getting a role player for 2010 and paying 50% of the difference in contracts or a decent prospect or two and paying 40% of his contract seems like the best we can hope for. If Hendry can do better than that, he deserves a lot of credit.

I'm not "reporting" anything. I have posted often that there probably would be a lot of interest in Bradley as long as the Cubs are desperate enough to trade him for cents on the dollar. I look forward to seeing some "actual" offers for Bradley. So far all we have read is there's more interest than expected and Ricketts has set a limit as to how much he will pay on Bradley's contract. I will be ecstatic to admit I was wrong if Hendry can get something of value for Bradley without paying a ton of money.

i understand what you mean...to a degree...but it is kind of like pissing into the wind at this point bradley's ship has sailed far far away from this team But when your dealing with the remaining 20 mil, I think amends can be made. I mean there arent too many options. If Kosuke were to have been the middle of the order hitter he was supposed to be, he could be in RF and lket Fuld and Reed platoon center. If the Rockies were to trade Hawpe, that would be another option, but they reportedly want to hang on to him now. Bay and Holliday are probably out of our price range. Pat Burrell would be a nightb=mare in right, basically a left handed Jake Fox, so basically Micah Hoffpauir. The other options are the likes of Mike Cameron, Jeremy Hermida, and a few others that would be probable downgrades. I guess this is Hendrys chance to do some actual GM work and not just throw money around. I wonder if Jaramillo could fix Hermida. That would be a great and cheap fix to RF.

I wish Hendry would have traded Bradley for Johjima two weeks ago. It would have been great to get out from under that contract.

From MLBTR: Offseason Outlook: Chicago Cubs By Tim Dierkes [October 21 at 11:32am CST] Next up in our Offseason Outlook series, the Cubs. Their likely 2010 commitments: C - Geovany Soto - $575K C - Koyie Hill - $475K+ 1B - Derrek Lee - $13MM 2B - Jeff Baker - $415K+ SS - Ryan Theriot - $500K+ 3B - Aramis Ramirez - $15.75MM IF - Aaron Miles - $2.7MM IF - Andres Blanco - $400K LF - Alfonso Soriano - $18MM CF - Kosuke Fukudome - $13MM RF - Milton Bradley - $9MM OF - Sam Fuld - $402K 3B/OF - Jake Fox - $402K SP - Carlos Zambrano - $17.875MM SP - Ryan Dempster - $12.5MM SP - Ted Lilly - $12MM SP - Randy Wells - $402K SP - Tom Gorzelanny - $433K+ RP - Aaron Heilman - $1.625MM+ RP - Carlos Marmol - $575K+ RP - Sean Marshall - $450K+ RP - Angel Guzman - $422K+ RP - Esmailin Caridad - $400K RP - Jeff Stevens - $400K RP - Jeff Samardzija - $2.5MM Non-tender candidates: Aaron Heilman, Neal Cotts, Mike Fontenot The Cubs have about $124.2MM committed before arbitration raises to Hill, Baker, Theriot, Heilman, Marmol, Marshall, Guzman, and Gorzelanny. Fontenot, at two years and 139 days of service time, is on the bubble for Super Two status (which could influence his 2010 status with the team). Heilman, Cotts, and Fontenot are candidates to be non-tendered. With at least seven arb cases, there is payroll uncertainty, but I'll put the Cubs around $135MM committed. The Cubs entered 2009 with a payroll right around that mark, according to Cot's Baseball Contracts. The Cubs have new ownership for 2010, and their payroll plans are not yet known. The Cubs seem dead-set on moving Bradley and finding someone else to play right or center field. A player they loved a year ago, they hate now. Bradley had a slow start and finish, showed little power, and had issues with the fans, media, and manager. Still, he posted a .378 OBP in the off-year and certainly could improve upon that in 2010. My advice: work it out, rather than eating $15MM+ or taking on a different bad contract. Bradley is not the reason the Cubs received over 2,000 plate appearances of subpar hitting from Soriano, Fontenot, Soto, Hill, Hoffpauir, and Miles, nor is he the reason Ramirez was limited to 342 PAs due to a shoulder injury. With proper conditioning, Soto should bounce back. Baker can't do worse than the other Cubs' second basemen did in '09. Ramirez's shoulder is worrisome, but the Cubs must hope for good health. Soriano finished the season with knee surgery and will presumably be healthy for Spring Training. His contract is so absurd that the team has no flexibility. In all likelihood the Cubs will replace Bradley, but it is the holdovers who need to improve. It would be a shame to see new hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo encourage aggression from the hitters, as it was patience that led to the team's NL-best .354 OBP in 2008. The rotation looks strong, with the front four locked in. Gorzelanny, Marshall, or Samardzija will probably fill the fifth starter role. As for the bullpen, the Cubs seem willing to spend good money on John Grabow, perhaps not the best idea (5.0 BB/9). Heilman could be non-tendered. Marmol is the de facto closer, despite 65 walks in 74 innings. Adding a Billy Wagner type makes sense, if payroll allows. Guzman is interesting if he can stay healthy, while Caridad is a sleeper. The Cubs are a pricey team with room for little more than tinkering. GM Jim Hendry will need to push the right buttons this winter after a 2008-09 offseason filled with miscalculations

From MLBTR: Rockies Not Looking To Trade Brad Hawpe By Tim Dierkes [October 19 at 6:54am CST] The Rockies are not looking to trade right fielder Brad Hawpe, according to Tracy Ringolsby of Inside The Rockies. Ringolsby talked to Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd, who said, "We have no desire to move [Hawpe] at all." The Rockies are not under pressure to unload Hawpe's contract, which pays $7.5MM in 2010 with a $10MM club option for '11 ($500K buyout). Cot's Baseball Contracts notes that Hawpe can void the option if traded. Ringolsby says the Rockies would trade Hawpe only if they "received a solid return, such as the Matt Holliday trade last off-season." O'Dowd had to stomp out Hawpe rumors in June also. At that time, he told Patrick Saunders of the Denver Post: "I don't know where any of that came from. I don't foresee us doing anything with him. That's something you would only do strategically, for the big picture. That would be something for the offseason, if at all." Hawpe, 30, has a strong offensive track record over the past four seasons, but his defense has been detrimental. Over the past few weeks we've seen and contributed to speculation that Hawpe could be a fit for the Cubs, Mets, and Red Sox. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------