Backtobanks

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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From MLBTR: Newsday's Ken Davidoff hears from a source "in the loop" that when Matt Holliday hits free agency, the outfielder's top choices are the Yankees and the Mets. Boy, I wish I had a source "in the loop" like Davidoff has. Memo to Ken Davidoff: It's called "follow the money".

Without knowing whether the multi-year contracts are split evenly ($15 million = $5, $5, $5) or backloaded, my estimates have your payroll at around $155 million. The starting payroll for 2010 is $119,958,000.

:? Which Hill are you referring to? Koyie.

that had better be a really good pitching prospect. Just tweak with prospects and/or money That'd require a lot of prospects and/or money. Then trade Fox plus prospect for Luke Scott. Scott vs RH (2006-2008) .281/.365/.537/.902 and probably $3-$4 million cheaper than Hawpe.

Fox would replace Atkins as sub 3B/1B/RH pinch hitter. Marshall or Gorzelanny could start or relieve.

Drop Miles, re-sign Grabow (2yrs./$5 million)and Johnson (1yr./$4 million) and Hill (<$1million), don't offer Heilman a contract, offer lowest amount possible in arbitration to Harden (hoping he will leave and we get draft picks). Trade Fox + Marshall/Gorzelanny + pitching prospect for Hawpe. Trade Bradley for Rowand + $3 million (2010) and $6 million (2012) - Cubs stay the same in 2010 and 2011, but add $6 million in 2012 payroll. Payroll for 2010 started at $119,958 million Additions: Grabow $2.5, Johnson $4, Hawpe $7 - $8, Hill < $1 = app. $15 million Subtractions: Fox <$1, Marshall/Gorzelanny < $1, Prospect < $1 = app. $2 million Net: app. +$13 million in 2010 putting payroll at $133 million. The remaining $12 million goes to automatic raises to younger players under team's control. The OF's would be switched according to pitching matchups (not strictly a platoon situation): 3 Year Production (2006 -2008): Hawpe vs. RH - .301/.404/.548/.952 Rowand vs LH - .278/.335/.484/.829 Soriano vs LH - .300/.374/.604/.978 Fukudome vs RH - .262/.372/.417/.789 Johnson vs LH - .327/.405/.464/.869

What bothers me are the people that continue to believe this game is played on their Xbox 360 and the players are robots or machines that will not be affected by any outside influences other than the 3 hours of the players play a baseball game. Where have I ever said anything of the sort? I'm saying that people need some sort of proof to back up their claims... especially the over the top ones by people like back2banks who have suggested that his performance on the field was totally wiped out by his negative attitude.If there's one thing I really truly pride myself on, it's the fact that I'm willing to look over all the evidence and admit when I'm wrong. All I've gotten to this point is flawed anecdotal evidence comparing baseball players to a bunch of white collar guys working in an office, or simply saying that Bradley keeps getting moved. There hasn't been a single person here who has been able to even prove that pissing off all the players in the locker room wasn't helpful, let alone that it actively detracted from the performance of the team. Has anybody linked to anything from a sports psychologist suggesting happy players play better than pissed off ones? No. Has anybody compared offensive performance of players on the same team as Bradley in years where he was there and years where he wasn't? No. Has anybody done anything at all to back up their opinion with fact? No. People are simply making up crap as they go along. Until people offer some degree of proof that his attitude impacted the performance of the team, the only rational thing to do is assume it made no noticeable impact at all. Since you named me in particular, I don't think I ever said that Bradley's negative attitude wipes out everything he does on the field. What I have said is that Bradley is a good hitter, but all of his baggage has made him unwanted in the trade market unless the Cubs pay most of his contract or take a terrible contract back in return. I have had posters telling me they had "evidence" that I was wrong. Of course I'm still waiting to see any evidence that teams are lined up to take Bradley and his contract or give the Cubs something of value for him. Apparently many of the GMs must think that his negative attitude does negate his contributions on the field because I've posted that Bradley the hitter (without the drama) should be sought by at least 20 teams. Another point that I made and was discussed was that from a public relations standpoint Bradley negates most of what he adds on the field and most GMs aren't willing to take a chance on Bradley "going off" on their front office, fans, team mates, and city like he did in Chicago.

Did I just hear you comparing a small market GM with a big market GM? Yeah, that's fair. Let's see how a guy who has a decreasing payroll each year compares to another guy who is given an open wallet every year. Do you really think Jim Hendry could have generateed a better record for the Oakland A's during that time? Because he's just barely over .500 as a GM while playing in one of the weakest divisions in baseball. I'm not a Beane apologist, but it's absolutely silly to try to paint Hendry as a much better GM considering the tremendous amount of resources at his fingertips in comparison to a small market club. He was comparing GM to GM. Is your position that it is okay for a GM to go well below .500 consistently as long as they can use the small market card? I thought Beane's allure was the fact that through stats he could spend much less than other teams and still field a consistent winner? If not, besides the fact that his teams aren't winning what makes him a good GM? Well said Cubz99. Beane wrote a book and changed the way people looked at players based on getting better production for less money. Then when the record shows he's not getting production, posters bring up the lower budget. Many posters complain about Hendry not winning a WS, but there's only one successful GM per year using that criteria. There's no way of knowing how Hendry would do in Oakland (a small budget, AL West, etc.) any more than knowing how Beane (large budget, NL Central, etc.) would do in Chicago. The bottom line is that Beane hasn't done squat in the last 3 years, regardless of what you think of Hendry.

People keeping saying Hendry is a "bottom 5 Gm in baseball" and that is not even remotely true. IMO there ae three catergories of GMs: 1: the really good, 2: Meh, and 3: the really bad. Hendry is in the "meh" catergory. And people who says Hendry is in the "bottom 5th" of GMs really need to toned done the overexaggeration. You make a good point. Name me a NL central GM who is better than Hendry? Melvin squandered a golden opportunity to have the Brewers competitive for years. Huntington is trying to help the Pirates set an unbreakable record for the most consecutive years for a franchise to be under .500. Mozeliak traded many of the Cards top prospects this year and may get swept in the first round of the playoffs and be stuck with nothing to show for the trades. Jocketty appears to have no direction. NL West? Sabean? Doubt it. Colletti? Made the playoffs a couple of years in a row, but according to this board he is terrible. O'Dowd? possible NL East? Wren? taken the Braves down the toilet. Minaya? Once again listed as most people's worst GM's. Rizzo? don't think so... Beinfest and Amaro, Jr.? We may have a winner. Hendry is not nearly as bad as some think. Whoa, you totally miscontrued my post. I was just stating Hendry is not a bottom five, more of a bottom ten. I'd take Melvin or Mozeliak over Hendry in a heartbeat. Wren too. And it's a little early to write off Rizzo. He wasn't a Bowden hire. Either way, Hendry has to go. Well, it is good thing you don't have any say. Melvin took a Brewers team that had a chance to compete for years, and managed to ruin it. Mozeliak is looking pretty foolish right now. Trading your farm for one shot at the playoffs, only to get swept. And what has Wren done that would lead anyone to believe that he is better than Hendry? He took a Braves team that won the NL East 14 out of the last 15 years, and hasn't even sniffed the playoffs yet? You seem to have a very strange set of criteria for success of a GM. Hendry isn't the greatest GM, but when you start comparing him to other GM's he doesn't look so bad. Its amazing how much people spaz out after having one year of not making the playoffs. AMEN! With our GM, it's a case of the grass is always greener on the other side. BTW, an interesting stat in today's Tribune: Billy Beane (the epitome of great GMs according to all of the stats freaks) is responsible for the A's teams that have gone 226-259 (.466) since Barry Zito's exit.

Guess we can give up any hope that Bradley will be back. If this is really true than Piniella did not have any control over this team, everything we heard prior to this season was Bradley had never been anything but a great teamate. Chalk this one up to the Chicago Media and Lou Piniella. Bradley is many things but I do not believe he "ruined" the atmosphere to the point of losing the division. Maybe Theriot's lack luster base running and bad defense had as much to do with this team as Bradley. Did you really think there was any hope of Bradley returning? Nobody is saying Bradley "ruined" the atmosphere to the point of losing the division, just that he disrupted the team chemistry. I agree with Theriot, it is pretty obvious that Bradley was disruptive inside and outside of the clubhouse.

Not that a deal with the White Sox is going to happen, but now Wise has opted out to be a FA. The WS will need to find 1-2 OFs from somewhere with Dye, Posednick (probable), and now Wise leaving.

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value. I assume you're talking about Bradley's value. Bradley without the baggage is a valuable trade chip. Bradley with the baggage has very little trade value. Unfortunately he can't get rid of the baggage. A few posters keep bringing up Bradley's value and how easy it will be to trade him (without eating a big chunk of his contract and/or taking a bad contract in return) and I am still waiting to see any evidence of that. So far the speculation has centered on the low-budget Padres and the Rays (for a bad contract DH). Why would the White Sox tender Jenks an offer if they have to dump him for Bradley? Why does EVERY SINGLE TRADE of yours end with "tweak with prospects and/or money? I put that at the end of each trade proposal because a lot of posters think the trade is too one-sided (for or against the Cubs). My thought is that if adding money and/or a prospect is all that's wrong with the deal, then do what's necessary to complete the deal.

It's like you have absolutely no concept of anyone's value. I assume you're talking about Bradley's value. Bradley without the baggage is a valuable trade chip. Bradley with the baggage has very little trade value. Unfortunately he can't get rid of the baggage. A few posters keep bringing up Bradley's value and how easy it will be to trade him (without eating a big chunk of his contract and/or taking a bad contract in return) and I am still waiting to see any evidence of that. So far the speculation has centered on the low-budget Padres and the Rays (for a bad contract DH).

$7 million dollar man for the set up role? No thank you. Lou has already stated that Marmol will be his closer going into next season, so acquiring Jenks would be acquiring an awfully expensive set up man. So no thank you. As we've said before, we're not going to get much of anything that's going to help the Cubs. I think $7 million for a decent setup man is a better option than a $7 million DH (Burrell) for a NL team.

From MLBTR: ESPN.com's Jayson Stark says Bobby Jenks will be tough to trade this offseason. In fact, Jenks is as much a non-tender candidate as he is a trade candidate If the DFA part is true, how about Bradley + $7-$8 million for Jenks. The Sox need OF/DH with the departures of Dye and Posednick (probably). I certainly would rather spend $7 million on Jenks rather than Burrell. Possibly tweak the deal with a prospect and/or money.

That's the problem, you're asking for "reasonable return" for a player that's damaged goods. Every GM in baseball knows that Bradley is a good hitter that's going to cause problems in the dugout, with the media, with the front office, and with the fans. In other words, trading anything of value for Bradley will end up a public relations disaster for the GM.

It will make up for this year.