Backtobanks

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.

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.

I know Dunn is horrible on defense, and I don't care. His laid-back approach is exactly what the Cubs need more of to take the pressure off. Also, he rakes at Wrigley. And he's the only guy who was available who absolutely, positively would have been the legitimate lefty power bat they were obsessing over. I understand and admire the desire to be a good defensive ballclub. But Bradley? This nightmare was easily predictable. It never ends well with Bradley; the sooner they undo this mistake the better. AMEN!

If so, it's likely a significant mistake on the part of our front office. And I see no reason not to continually remind everybody of that. Our #1 best option right now is to keep Milton Bradley. There's no way around it. Using production as a standard, Milton Bradley is the best of all the ugly options. From a public relations perspective, keeping Bradley is the worst option. I can't imagine a new owner, that just invested nearly a billion dollars, wants a nutcase who "goes off" about the city, the fans, the front office, his teammates, umpires, etc. on a daily basis. I think we all agree that it was a mistake for Hendry to sign Bradley in the first place, but the only option appears to be making the best out of a bad situation by trading him. From a public relations perspective, any new owner is going to want a winning ballclub. Guess what the best way to get that is. I'm getting sick and tired of people arguing that there is a good business reason to get rid of Bradley. Given our payroll constraints, there really isn't one that stands up against the all-trumping "he helps us win." Oh, and I absolutely don't agree that it was a mistake to sign Bradley. Am I disappointed with the way it's turned out? Sure. But we can only judge the decision based on the information available at the time. And at that time, of the available options, he was the best bet going forward... You could make an argument for Abreu if you somehow knew he was only gonna get $5 mil, but absolutely nobody knew that. I guess we'll have to disagree about the public relations situation. Since the season was unsuccessful, something has to change (besides firing Joshua). Since Bradley is public enemy #1, he's the obvious choice to go. I still maintain a healthy year by Soriano, Ramirez, Soto, etc. will go a long way to solving the Cubs' woes, but coming back with the same lineup isn't going to excite the fans. I don't think Hendry realized the negative impact that Bradley would have on everyone concerned. Also, I guess there's no way to statistically prove it, but I do think all of the anger and negativity by Bradley will balance out a lot of whatever production he adds on the field.

I think a lot of the "RBI" talk is based on the fact that Bradley will be traded. I'm sure Lou would learn to love Bradley and his OBP if Bradley wouldn't be such a jerk. I guarantee that if Drew acted like Bradley (dissing the city, the front office, the fans, teammates, and the manager), Theo would trade him in a second.

If so, it's likely a significant mistake on the part of our front office. And I see no reason not to continually remind everybody of that. Our #1 best option right now is to keep Milton Bradley. There's no way around it. Using production as a standard, Milton Bradley is the best of all the ugly options. From a public relations perspective, keeping Bradley is the worst option. I can't imagine a new owner, that just invested nearly a billion dollars, wants a nutcase who "goes off" about the city, the fans, the front office, his teammates, umpires, etc. on a daily basis. I think we all agree that it was a mistake for Hendry to sign Bradley in the first place, but the only option appears to be making the best out of a bad situation by trading him.

Hawpe is no worse defensively then the lot the Cubs have trotted out there recently. Sosa (the latter years), Hollandsworth, Grieve, Burnitz, Bradley, etc, etc, etc. The only remotely close to good defensively RF the Cubs have had is now playing CF. Hawpe's UZR/150 the last 3 years: -27.2, -46.6(!!!), -20.0 Bradley's UZR/150 this year: -4.1 I'd show Bradley's numbers in previous seasons (which all rank as slightly above average), but there's a sample size issue. Regardless, Bradley floats right around average defensively... whereas Hawpe has put up some of the most disgusting outfield seasons in recent history. Factoring in their defense this year, Bradley's production was worth $5.4 million. Hawpe was worth $5.6 million, having juuuust pulled ahead in recent days. Let's break this down. Bradley has been injured, vastly underperformed expectations, and was suspended for the last month of the season. And yet his value is nearly indistinguishable from a man who played in 143 games and hit for an OPS of .898. What possible reason is there to give up valuable trade chips for a player who will give us the exact same production we got in a down year from a guy we already have under contract for two years? I understand not wanting to trade for Hawpe, but don't use the Guy we already have under contract as a reason. We both know that Bradley is gone.

From Buster Olney: None of Olney's respondents expect the Astros to offer Miguel Tejada arbitration

Sounds like we need a 3-way trade to happen: Cubs get Hawpe Padres get Bradley + $9 million Rockies get Chris Young (rom Padres) and Sean Marshall (from Cubs) Additional tweaking (money and/or players) might be needed. I like it, but the Padres probably need more to give up their default ace. If there was a way for us to land Young and Hawpe in seperate deals, Id be all for it, say Bradley and either Marshall, Gorz, or Samardzjia for Young and a prospect package for Hawpe. I think we have in-house candidates to fill out the rotation without trading a young pitcher to get Young and then trade a whole package of prospects for Hawpe. I would rather go with my deal (1 young pitcher plus Bradley and end up with Hawpe) and go with our young pitching to battle for the 5th spot. Hawpe is TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE on D. No no no. So that is a "no" to Dunn too if he was available?

Sounds like we need a 3-way trade to happen: Cubs get Hawpe Padres get Bradley + $9 million Rockies get Chris Young (rom Padres) and Sean Marshall (from Cubs) Additional tweaking (money and/or players) might be needed. I like it, but the Padres probably need more to give up their default ace. If there was a way for us to land Young and Hawpe in seperate deals, Id be all for it, say Bradley and either Marshall, Gorz, or Samardzjia for Young and a prospect package for Hawpe. I think we have in-house candidates to fill out the rotation without trading a young pitcher to get Young and then trade a whole package of prospects for Hawpe. I would rather go with my deal (1 young pitcher plus Bradley and end up with Hawpe) and go with our young pitching to battle for the 5th spot.

Young has been mentioned as a possibility in the Bradley discussions, but all of the "middle-of-the-lineup/RBI guy" talk by Lou turned me toward the 3-way deal. I feel we can make do with a 4th or 5th starter better than a RF. In an earlier post, I mentioned getting Ross and Hermida in a Bradley deal. Hermida might be an interesting pickup, but the Cubs (assuming they're contending) don't really the time or patience to nurse Hermida along.

Sounds like we need a 3-way trade to happen: Cubs get Hawpe Padres get Bradley + $9 million Rockies get Chris Young (rom Padres) and Sean Marshall (from Cubs) Additional tweaking (money and/or players) might be needed.

As I posted earlier, I'm not sure how many teams are going to be involved if they have to give up something of value and pay most of Bradley's contract. I think the "interest" in Bradley comes from the fact that the other GMs know they have all the leverage. The other GMs have seen the stories about Bradley and have read the quotes from Lou and Hendry basically stating that Bradley will be traded because nobody wants him back. When you see the low-payroll Padres are interested, you know teams are looking for a something-for-nothing deal. Actually with all the negative publicity and the national media claiming Hendry will have to eat 80% - 85% of his contract, I'm surprised there aren't 20 teams interested at this point. I've also seen teams like the Mets interested as well. If Hendry can get one or two teams like the Mets bidding against each other, how much he has to pay of Bradley's contract will likely decrease. And the fact that Bradley is probably the best corner OF on the market means that a team with a need there might be willing to give more and make more of an effort to outbid others. I don't expect anybody to pay most of Bradley's salary, but the more teams that are involved the more likely it becomes that the Cubs aren't paying 80+% of his contract. Sure the Mets are interested as long as we're willing to take Oliver Perez for Bradley. I think you dramatically underestimate how much teams will value Bradley independent of a discount that may or may not come. The discount is not the only reason there is interest. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I do underestimate Bradley's value considering he's owed $21 million and still has an injury history. He also added in 2009 to his reputation as a player with mental health issues, a discipline problem, and and a public relations disaster.

As I posted earlier, I'm not sure how many teams are going to be involved if they have to give up something of value and pay most of Bradley's contract. I think the "interest" in Bradley comes from the fact that the other GMs know they have all the leverage. The other GMs have seen the stories about Bradley and have read the quotes from Lou and Hendry basically stating that Bradley will be traded because nobody wants him back. When you see the low-payroll Padres are interested, you know teams are looking for a something-for-nothing deal. Actually with all the negative publicity and the national media claiming Hendry will have to eat 80% - 85% of his contract, I'm surprised there aren't 20 teams interested at this point. I've also seen teams like the Mets interested as well. If Hendry can get one or two teams like the Mets bidding against each other, how much he has to pay of Bradley's contract will likely decrease. And the fact that Bradley is probably the best corner OF on the market means that a team with a need there might be willing to give more and make more of an effort to outbid others. I don't expect anybody to pay most of Bradley's salary, but the more teams that are involved the more likely it becomes that the Cubs aren't paying 80+% of his contract. Sure the Mets are interested as long as we're willing to take Oliver Perez for Bradley. I haven't heard that their interest in hinged only on us taking Perez. Are you speculating or is there something to that? Perez was one of the bad contracts mentioned as a possibility when this Bradley situation started.

From Foxsports: Jose Reyes could miss all of 2010 season The Mets' willingness to let Jose Reyes keep testing his ailing right leg came back to bite them in a huge and embarrassing way yesterday. An MRI exam revealed the shortstop tore his right hamstring muscle Tuesday while running at a workout facility in New York, endangering part or all of Reyes' 2010 season, too. The torn hamstring muscle is a new injury and comes on top of the torn right hamstring tendon Reyes suffered while running in Port St. Lucie in early June. Already under fire for their bungled handling of so many of their injured players this season, the Mets now face fresh scrutiny for letting Reyes continue to run, even when it was obvious he would not be back this season. -- NY Post .....Ben's Take: Jose Reyes is making Mets fans miss the good old days with Rey Ordonez. How about Bradley for Reyes even up. Salaries are equal for 2010. The Cubs dump Bradley and his contract and get a great SS in 2011 (assuming he's healthy). The Mets get Bradley's production for $12 million over 2 years without giving up a player that would play a part of the 2010 team.

As I posted earlier, I'm not sure how many teams are going to be involved if they have to give up something of value and pay most of Bradley's contract. I think the "interest" in Bradley comes from the fact that the other GMs know they have all the leverage. The other GMs have seen the stories about Bradley and have read the quotes from Lou and Hendry basically stating that Bradley will be traded because nobody wants him back. When you see the low-payroll Padres are interested, you know teams are looking for a something-for-nothing deal. Actually with all the negative publicity and the national media claiming Hendry will have to eat 80% - 85% of his contract, I'm surprised there aren't 20 teams interested at this point. I've also seen teams like the Mets interested as well. If Hendry can get one or two teams like the Mets bidding against each other, how much he has to pay of Bradley's contract will likely decrease. And the fact that Bradley is probably the best corner OF on the market means that a team with a need there might be willing to give more and make more of an effort to outbid others. I don't expect anybody to pay most of Bradley's salary, but the more teams that are involved the more likely it becomes that the Cubs aren't paying 80+% of his contract. Sure the Mets are interested as long as we're willing to take Oliver Perez for Bradley.

As I posted earlier, I'm not sure how many teams are going to be involved if they have to give up something of value and pay most of Bradley's contract. I think the "interest" in Bradley comes from the fact that the other GMs know they have all the leverage. The other GMs have seen the stories about Bradley and have read the quotes from Lou and Hendry basically stating that Bradley will be traded because nobody wants him back. When you see the low-payroll Padres are interested, you know teams are looking for a something-for-nothing deal. Actually with all the negative publicity and the national media claiming Hendry will have to eat 80% - 85% of his contract, I'm surprised there aren't 20 teams interested at this point.

I'll take that bet If there are a lot of teams involved in the negotiations, the likelihood is that they'll begin to offer against each other and drive up the price. They might not be willing to go that high with their bids, but if there are 5-6 teams involved, Inari has a good chance of being right. I hope inari is right, but I have my doubts. That's a big "IF" (if 5-6 teams are involved) because they might start dropping off once Hendry tells them he's not paying 85% of the money owed. It's not a matter of Hendry coming out and saying "I'm not going to pay 85% of his salary", it's a matter of beginning the negotiations at one point and playing two or three teams off of each other. Bradley is one of the best corner outfielders on the market and any teams interested will take that into account. The Cubs' desire to trade Bradley would only have a significant effect in one of two ways. Either Hendry sells at the first offer he gets or if Bradley had a no trade clause and gave the Cubs only one team he'd go to (or if there was just one team interested). If there are multiple teams interested, the likelihood is that they'll start bidding against each other. That's how any negotiation works. I understand how negotiations work, but the rest of the GMs have knowledge of the situation and aren't going into negotiations totally clueless. The reason Bradley is "one of the best corner outfielders on the market" is because Hendry and Lou want him gone and are willing to eat a big part of his salary. The leading candidates (according to reports) is the Padres. Do you think they're going to take on Bradley's contract? I hope Hendry can pull off a miracle, but I see only two options: take on another bad contract or eat most of Bradley's contract. Because of those two options (which other GMs are aware of), Hendry doesn't have much leverage.

Not a way and hell that we could get Ross and Uggle giving up almost nothing. You would have to slide in Cashner/Carpenter, and another one of the Cubs upper level prospects.. Well the players and/or the money could be tweaked to get the trade done. With Ross and Uggla being mentioned often as trade bait and Hermida possibly being DFA, it might not be as expensive (in players) as you think. Maybe make the deal smaller by taking out Uggla: Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Patton/Stevens + $10 million for Ross + Hermida It still gives us a decent CF and a 4th OF, leaves Baker/fontenot at 2B, and gets rid of Bradley ( :thumbsup: ).[/quote So in your opinion the trade value of Mike Fontenot is roughly Dan Uggla. No, Fontenot was a low-cost replacement for Uggla in the original trade. When Cubsfandan posted that the Cubs were getting too much in the deal, I removed a better player from their side and a lesser player from our side to make the deal more fair.

Not a way and hell that we could get Ross and Uggle giving up almost nothing. You would have to slide in Cashner/Carpenter, and another one of the Cubs upper level prospects.. Well the players and/or the money could be tweaked to get the trade done. With Ross and Uggla being mentioned often as trade bait and Hermida possibly being DFA, it might not be as expensive (in players) as you think. Maybe make the deal smaller by taking out Uggla: Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Patton/Stevens + $10 million for Ross + Hermida It still gives us a decent CF and a 4th OF, leaves Baker/fontenot at 2B, and gets rid of Bradley ( :thumbsup: ).

From MLBTR: Hermida A Non-Tender Candidate By Tim Dierkes [september 30 at 4:47pm CST] The Marlins are unlikely to tender a contract to outfielder Jeremy Hermida, according to Joe Capozzi of the Palm Beach Post. Hermida followed up on a lackluster '08 with a .259/.348/.392 line in 491 plate appearances this year. His defense is not well-regarded, though heading into the season John Dewan of the Fielding Bible said Hermida was "dependable, if unspectacular" and has the physical talent to improve. In 2006, Hermida graced the cover of Baseball America's Prospect Handbook. A few years later, he's a non-tender candidate. If the Marlins cut Hermida loose, he'll be the youngest member of this winter's free agent class at 26 years old (which the exception of Aroldis Chapman). The Fish will presumably attempt to find a trade partner first. How about working a deal with the Marlins: Fontenot + Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Patton/Stevens + $10 million for Hermida + Ross + Uggla. Cubs get power hitter, CF, and 4th OF (2009 salaries - $5.4 million, $2.3 million, $2.3 million) Cubs basically break even in money for 2010 and pay most of Bradley's salary for 2011 and have usable players. Marlins make the deal for the usual reason - $$$$$ 1B - DLee 2B - Uggla SS -Theriot 3B - ARam LF - Soriano CF - Ross RF - Fukudome C - Soto Bench - Baker, Blanco, Hermida, Hill, Hoffpauir/Fox (one to be traded)

I'll take that bet If there are a lot of teams involved in the negotiations, the likelihood is that they'll begin to offer against each other and drive up the price. They might not be willing to go that high with their bids, but if there are 5-6 teams involved, Inari has a good chance of being right. I hope inari is right, but I have my doubts. That's a big "IF" (if 5-6 teams are involved) because they might start dropping off once Hendry tells them he's not paying 85% of the money owed.

From MLBTR (about Padres): Towers has admitted interest in bringing Milton Bradley back, talking with ESPN's Jerry Crasnick. If the Cubs are desperate enough to cover $17MM of the $21MM left on his contract, it'd be as if Towers signed a potential .400 OBP bat to a two-year, $4MM deal. It's a chance worth taking, and it'd leave the Padres with a surplus of outfielders. The Padres are second-to-last in the NL with 3.96 runs scored per game this year, but a Gonzalez-Blanks-Bradley heart of the order could be decent. More silver lining: Headley, Venable, and Kouzmanoff have been offensive assets in the second half. This is the worst option of this Bradley mess unless we're receiving an amazing prospect or two. Give me a bad contract that at least will fill a role on the Cubs rather than paying $17 million for Bradley to play elsewhere. As I've posted before, I think the "interest" in Bradley is based on getting him for next-to-nothing and having Hendry pay 80%-85% of his salary for two years.

Well it wouldn't count against him if you're an AL GM, but a DH doesn't help much if you're a NL GM.

Use some of those expletives on Williams and Reinsdorf.