Backtobanks

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.

Aaron Miles sucks, Hendry should never have signed or given him a 2-year contract, and he had an atrocious season (as you pointed out). However, he was injured twice during the season for a total of 7 weeks, which might explain part of his atrocious season. Without using injuries as an excuse, he probably would have had an OPS of .550. :-)) :-)) :-))

I did read something about the Cubs might DFA him.

From MLBTR: Angels' Bobby Abreu on White Sox wish list? White Sox GM Ken Williams appears to be focused on adding hitters who have more speed and the potential to post a .350 on-base percentage or better. "I think we're entering into an era where 30 home runs starts to mean something again," Williams said when he met with the media for the final time on Sept. 30. "So it's important for us to get our players to higher on-base percentages as a team." That sounds a lot like Los Angeles Angels right fielder Bobby Abreu, who could be back on the free-agent market again this year. The Sox were rumored to be after Abreu last winter, but the pursuit ended when they couldn't trade Dye. -- Arlington Heights Daily Herald .....Ben's Take: Angels are hoping that the White Sox never get a chance to wine and dine Abreu. Will he take the Halos cash or see what's behind door No. 2? Sounds like a certain RF that's available from the Cubs.

Pay-Per-View: Ozzie vs. Milton

:shock: My thoughts exactly. BTB, why? Adding a prospect might be overpaying, but Fox and Fuld/Colvin don't seem to fit in the Cubs' plans. We all love Fox, but he's obviouly an AL 1B/DH. Pie is still only 24 years old and is starting to show the potential everyone thought he had: .266/.326/.437/.763 Assuming he will continue to improve, he would add speed and defense to the lineup.

Obviously just banter and not rumor or speculation, but interesting. Where does Milton Bradley play in 2010?? The Padres, once perhaps the favorite, are now a question mark since Kevin Towers was fired. A friend today suggested a Bradley-Linebrink swap (Cubs eating salary to make it match). Thoughts? If Bobby Jenks is traded from the Whitesox this offseason, where might be a good fit for him? Cubs, Rays, Rangers, Braves? Not sure if they'd all be willing to take on the salary though. My thoughts: I never really considered the White Sox as a trade candidate for Bradley. If it was Bradley-Linnebrink the money difference is $10.5 million. If somehow the deal could be expanded to Bradley plus Stevens/Patton/Berg/Marshall for Jenks and Linnebrink (not sure the WS would do it) the money difference would be about $3 million. The WS need an OF because they will lose Dye and probably Posednick. Can you see a deal of either Jake Fox or Micah Hoffpauir going to the Orioles? And if so, who could be in the mix? Fox moreso, because he actually impressed at all levels this year. It's a good match given the teams' frequent hook-ups. I don't think the return would be all too impressive for the Cubs though. Would Luke Scott be appropriate? My thoughts: I don't think the O's would go for Fox plus prospect for Scott? I would really like Fox plus Fuld/Colvin + prospect for Pie. Note: O's are looking for a RH 1B. Pie is currently a 4th OF for the O's.

It doesn't matter whether he's worse or not, if he doesn't win the WS posters will rip him to shreds and complain that he's the worst ever. Everybody's jumping all over Sandberg already and he's not even close to being the manager of the Cubs. you're right. none of us has any idea what Sandberg would do as a manager. It's not like we have numerous articles about his philosophy nor a couple seasons worth of managing in the minors to draw from. I'm not saying I'm for Sandberg as manager, I'm just saying that Sandberg's philosophy and style of managing might change according to the type of team he has. When Tyler Colvin is the big HR hitter in your lineup, you better find a way to manufacture runs. When you have a lineup with Soriano, ARam, Soto, and DLee (assuming all are healthy), you might not have to manufacture runs.

A couple of posters have expressed the same opinion as Bruce. but I still have my doubts. I think the "interest" in Bradley is based on two thoughts: 1. I can get him for next-to-nothing and Hendry will pay most of his contract. 2. I can dump a really bad contract (worse than Bradley's) on the Cubs because the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him. If Hendry can pull off another bit of Todd Hundley magic, he ought to be picked executive of the year. I mean, every reputable source disagrees with you. There is literally nothing to indicate you're right on this. In fact, there's a lot of evidence to indicate you're wrong. But you keep saying it. But I've already tried arguing this three times, so I think I'll just stop here. Well, I'm looking for any "source" (reputable or not) that says there's a lot of teams interested in Bradley. The strongest source so far says the Padres are "open-minded" about Bradley and they seem to be the front runners right now. Obviously the low-budget Padres are expecting Hendry to pay most of Bradley's contract. Some of the original speculation mentioned 3-4 teams that might be interested and a couple of those have said they're not interested since then. As for the "evidence" that i'm wrong, I will gladly admit I'm wrong when I see it. I have yet to see any "evidence" or "source" that says I'm wrong, just a whole lot of speculation and opinion that Bradley might not be as hard to get rid of as originally thought and there might be more teams interested. As I posted before, we'll have to wait and see.