Backtobanks

I proposed a deal for Vazquez (page 9) on Saturday: The Braves need bats and maybe Bobby Cox could control Bradley. Other posters shot down the proposal, but if Bradley behaved I don't think the offer would be too far off. I suppose the quality of the prospect might be the sticking point. Are you aware of just how good Vazquez was last year? That wouldn't be close unless we're talking about giving up Castro or Vitters. That's why I have a problem with arbitrarily adding "and a prospect" to the end of trade proposals. You might as well just say two major leaguers and a prospect. I am aware of how good Vazquez was last year. Dave O'Brien (Atlanta writer) posted this: As much as they hate to trade Vazquez, there are also some questions whether he could repeat the type of performance he had in 2009. The veteran hasn’t put together back-to-back seasons like that one before, and if they don’t trade Vazquez now they run the risk of him having a mediocre season and then trying to trade him before the July 31 deadline or take a draft pick as compensation should they lose him to free agency a year from now. The Cubs would be getting 1 year of Vazquez for 2 years of Bradley and many years of Fox and whatever prospect is included in the deal. I think I've answered the "and a prospect" part before. None of us have any idea what another team is looking for in a prospect, so they may put more value on a LH pitcher than a speedy OF. The two GMs would have to negotiate and come to some kind of agreement to complete a deal. The Braves might start out asking for Castro or Vitters with the thought of getting a top pitching prospect. The target team for Vazquez has to be a team that's one top starter from being a contender in 2010 while giving up a top slugger. There aren't many teams that fit that description.

People are talking about Fuld as a starter? Rob's post (a few up from yours): But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written. Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call. I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better. You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. As Cubs fans, we've all been overexposed to the idea that being a veteran is something that's worth a bunch, and we've had it pushed on us in the dumbest way possible... our bench players, guys that should never be making the kind of money Hendry likes to pay them. But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position. Just because Hendry went about valuing experience in the wrong way does not mean that it isn't worth something... especially in the case of a situation like Fuld vs. Crisp, where risk management is really the only difference between the two players. Fuld carries higher risk, with no real benefit aside from the financial one. What's the harm in finding out what that financial difference is? If it's cheap enough, a team in our position (close to the playoffs) benefits quite a bit from taking that risk off the table. I doubt that Crisp is much of an option, but I can't believe anyone is talking about Fuld in a starting role next year.

I proposed a deal for Vazquez (page 9) on Saturday: The Braves need bats and maybe Bobby Cox could control Bradley. Other posters shot down the proposal, but if Bradley behaved I don't think the offer would be too far off. I suppose the quality of the prospect might be the sticking point.

Anybody that's shocked about racism in Chicago or anywhere else is being naive. Whenever there is a "majority" race and a "minority" race in a situation, racism will be there. Most racism is covert and not displayed openly, but it's still there. I am white and spent 34 years teaching in the inner-city of Chicago and listened to racist comments made about the minority (whites) by many African-American authority figures (principals, politicians, public figures, etc.) in a public forum. I'm sure that if those same comments were made in a public forum with the situation reversed, there would have been protests and headlines. Also, I've had many discussions with some of these same people who claim that "Blacks can't be racist".

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.