Backtobanks

The legitimate offense for 2010 is probably going to come from a healthy Ramirez and Soriano, a rebound from Soto, and a full season of Baker or Baker/Fontenot platoon. I don't think Bradley/Rowand discussion will affect the offense as much as health from the key offensive players.

And for the record, Bradley is closer in defensive value to Rowand than Rowand is to Cameron. I don't see anything innaccurate in my post: Rowand has played OF regularly for 10 years and Bradley has averaged about 95 games many of which he was a DH. The 60 games per year he missed were mostly because of DL stints and more than his share of suspensions ("full time jerk). While I agree he is a good hitter, the reason the number of teams interested is limited (even with Hendry probably eating much of his contract) is because of his injury history and his mental health issues. Also, I'm sure many GMs consider him a DH.

Bradley's a better hitter than Cameron. Rowand is the worst of the 3 players, and you want to spend 14M more on him than we're paying Bradley. If you have to do a bad contract swap, you trade for Burrell and his 1 year commitment rather than locking yourself into an extra year of bad contract. My original point was Rowand plus $6 million or more for Bradley. Another option might be Rowand plus a prospect for Bradley. I'm sure Hendry would consider getting Rowand plus cash (or a prospect) to get rid of Bradley a victory. My guess is that a deal for someone like Burrell would involve the Cubs sending money to the Rays to balance out the financial obligations.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better. All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years. As I said Bradley is the better hitter, but it's hard to compare them when Bradley has played the field because he's hardly ever put together a long streak of playing the field. As for your preference on trading Bradley, I really don't think Hendry can trade him "for significant savings or a prospect or two". I think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact Hendry is going to pay a big chunk of his contract or take a bad contract in return. Not according to what Tim said. And I'd be surprised if no team was willing to pay half of Bradley's salary or so. There was interest in him before this season and as long as Hendry at least puts up the front that the Cubs would be willing to run with him in 2010, I think a team would pay a portion of his salary. I hope you (and Tim) are right, but I still think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact other GMs think they can get Bradley for a low prospect and Hendry will pay a big chunk of his contract the next two years. Contrary to what many of you think, I agree that Bradley is a good hitter and if a team has a spot for him, they would have to be interested if they thought they could get him for next-to-nothing.

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790 Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point. It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime. This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's. Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season. You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF. You do realize how silly you're making yourself look, right? Why because you disagree with my opinion? As others have pointed out, putting in a sub for Bradley for 200+ AB certainly lowers the production from RF whereas Rowand's 500 AB covers most of the season. My original point was that Rowand was a better choice of bad contracts (Burrell, Perez, etc.) rather than paying Bradley's contract to play elsewhere. As a hitter: Cameron>Bradley>Rowand As a position player:Cameron>Rowand>>>>>Bradley

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better. All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years. As I said Bradley is the better hitter, but it's hard to compare them when Bradley has played the field because he's hardly ever put together a long streak of playing the field. As for your preference on trading Bradley, I really don't think Hendry can trade him "for significant savings or a prospect or two". I think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact Hendry is going to pay a big chunk of his contract or take a bad contract in return.

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790 Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point. It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime. This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's. Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season. You are correct that career numbers are a flawed method of comparing players especially when one player has spent the 10 years as an OF (Rowand) and the other has spent the 10 years as a part-time DH/part-time OF/part-time DL member/full-time jerk. The one year (before 2009) that Bradley played in the field over 100 games was 2004 when he hit .267/.362/.424/.786. So I guess I'll concede that Bradley is a better hitter than Rowand as long as you want a DH who will get 300-350 AB per year instead of an OF who will get 500 AB per year. Unfortunately, the Cubs have no use for a DH posing as an OF.

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790 Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point.

And I love how people cherry pick stats to make Milton Bradley sound like the messiah. Using career stats, they're close. The stats-driven baseballreference.com had Bradley's 5th, 6th, and 7th most similar hitters as Eric Byrnes, Aaron Rowand, and Austin Kearns. My point (many pages ago) is that a semi-useful role player with a bad contract is a better option for dumping Bradley than paying him to go play for another team. Of those ugly options, I think Rowand plus money/prospect is a better option than Burrell, Perez, etc. As has been stated all along, there's no easy way out of this mess, but Bradley certainly wasn't the answer for the 2009 Cubs.

Ankiel would be an interesting acquisition for a lot of teams if you didn't have to pay him like Mickey Mantle.

Take your pick, the Rowand discussion, the Lowe discussion, or any other discussion. Posters use stats to prove something and then someone else uses some other stats to disprove the initial point. In other words, you can find statistics to prove whatever point you want to make. When in doubt, select a smaller sample size (or argue that someone who disagrees with you has used a smaller sample size) to prove your point.

I love these arguments because all of the stats-freaks can find some statistic to prove or disprove any point and then you can always claim small sample size or using one year stats to prove or disprove a point.

From MLBTR: •Ken Davidoff of Newsday thinks the Braves will shop Derek Lowe in the offseason. Lowe is owed $15MM per year through 2012 Maybe an expanded deal centering on Bradley and Lowe?

Please. If you look up the career stats (which I posted earlier), you will see Rowand and Bradley are pretty much the same. According to baseballreference.com the 6th most similar batter to Bradley is none other than Aaron Rowand (#5 is superstar Eric Byrnes and #7 is all-star Austin Kearns). Through age 30 Rowand is the 9th most similar to Bradley. My point is that Bradley isn't the "great" hitter everybody is making him out to be. Factoring in his defense, injury history, and mental issues and you certainly have nothing extraordinary. Putting Rowand in Wrigley could help his production, while it didn't do much for Bradley. My comment about Reed Johnson was just a response to an earlier comment about Rowand being an expensive Johnson.

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years. I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect. Cameron is leaps and bounds better than Rowand. Not $6 million per year better.

Question isnt who wants him, question is what do they have to offer. I cant see any top prospects comin in return, and as it says, we'll have to settle for another bad contract: Giants: Aaron Rowand-hed basically be a really expensive Reed Johnson MB has been a really expensive Reed Johnson this year and Bradley's career numbers aren't much different than Rowands. Also, moving to Wrigley could help Rowand's numbers. Padres: On the off chance we could get Adrian Gonzalez, were giving up a ton of prospects in addition to MB. Chris Young-has been brought up, and be better thn nothing Where would Adrian Gonzalez play? Chris Young would be better than nothing if he recovers. We don't want a really expensive Chad Fox. Rangers: Michael Young? Ive always liked him, but he has an ugly contract. Maybe Josh Hamilton? I dont know if they want to move him, but Id glarly take him. You're right about Young - horrible contract. There's no way we could get Josh Hamilton. Rays: Pat Burrell? Hed basically Jake Fox, a DH in the NL. However, as its been stated before, they say the'll move Upton or Crawford if the price is right, and Id gladly give up MB+ a nice prospect package for either guy. In fact if we could get either, I migh be inclined to forgive Jim Hendry for 2009. No to Burrell for the reasons you mentioned. I think the price for Crawford will be utterly ridiculous, but Uptown will be overpriced too. Mets: Reyes is just spec, and I cant see it happening. The main name brought up from them is Oliver Perez, and he comes with a big fat DO NOT WANT sign around his neck. AMEN!

From Phil Rogers this morning. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-27-rogers-whispers-sep27,0,5280968.column The same article also suggests the Cubs may be interested in trading Bradley to SD for Chris Young. After trading for Peavy, Williams isn't going to trade him. I still say Zambrano won't waive his NTC to go to the AL where he won't get to bat and his ERA will go up. Finally, Zambrano enjoys being the "ace of the staff" recognition (true or not) that he gets on the north side. There's nothing Z has said that suggests he wouldn't jump at a chance to play for Ozzie Guillen. Your belief just isn't true in this case. He has said numerous times that he loves to hit and he takes great pride in his hitting. To me that sounds like he wants to stay in the NL.

From Phil Rogers this morning. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-27-rogers-whispers-sep27,0,5280968.column The same article also suggests the Cubs may be interested in trading Bradley to SD for Chris Young. After trading for Peavy, Williams isn't going to trade him. I still say Zambrano won't waive his NTC to go to the AL where he won't get to bat and his ERA will go up. Finally, Zambrano enjoys being the "ace of the staff" recognition (true or not) that he gets on the north side.

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years. I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect.

Ok, but doesn't change the fact that if we are to take the inferior player (although he grit-o-meter has to be through the roof) with the worse contract, I would demand a solid prospect in return if I was Hendry. I wouldn't demand somebody like Bumgardner, but someone like Joaquin or Sosa would suffice. I tried to point out that Rowand isn't necessarily an inferior player compared to Bradley. He does have a worse contract, which is why I included the money coming back to the Cubs. Another option to receiving money would be to get a decent prospect in return.

Quote from Redflash:"If the Cubs feel Bradley for Rowand is the best they can do, then they better be asking for a really good prospect with Rowand. Rowands' contract is guarantee longer then Bradley's. (Bradley's 2011 season is only guarantee through certainincentives). If we have to trade the superior player with the shorter deal, then I want really solid prospect with Rowand" From what i've seen Bradley's contract is now guaranteed for 2011. The stipulations were 75 days on the DL in 2009 or on the DL at the end of 2009 and still DLed at beginning of 2010 with the same ailment. Since neither of these happened, it's guaranteed.

The difference is, if you trade for Rowand straight up you are basically getting Rowand for 3 years $36 million because he's signed for the next 3 seasons at 12 mil per. Or you can keep Bradley for 2 years 21 million (9 mil next year, 12 million in year 3). So you are taking on $15 million dollars to get a player that puts up .750 OPS's every year. And while Bradley has an upside where he might put up a .900 OPS, or at the very least put up a .380-.400 OBP (and don't forget, OBP is under represented in OPS), you're pretty much getting a .320 OBP and .750 OPS from Rowand. I know he put up a .900 OPS season in Philly, but he's not doing that in SF, but he'd maybe have a slight bump at Wrigley (maybe .780 OPS). So, as much as we want to get rid of Bradley, this isn't the right way to go. I'm personally not willing to pay $15 million to take on a more likable, slightly worse version of 2009 Bradley, with little upside and for an extra season. Not an option from everything I'm reading. Using my scenario it wouldn't be $15 million because I included $6million or more coming to the Cubs. As we all know the only options for this mess are: 1. Keep Bradley (not going to happen). :pig: 2. Trade Bradley for next to nothing and pay him $15-$18 million to play for another team. 3. Trade him for another bad contract player who might play a role on the team. Personally, I find option #2 the worst by far and since #1 is going to happen, that leaves #3 as the one I'd prefer. Looking at the bad contracts out there (GMJR, Byrnes, Perez, Pierre, Burrell, Rowand, etc.), I would pick Rowand. If Hendry can pull off some miracle and trade him and most of his contract for a prospect or two great, but I think all of this "interest" by other GMs is based on the assumption that they won't have to give up much and Hendry will pay a big chunk of his contract.

I agree, its not like he is coming off of a horrible year and his contract of 2/21 is not that bad for a 800+ OPS OFer. The problem is that the other teams think Hendry is going to give them Bradley and pay $17-$18 million of his contract. I think Bradley is totally crazy, but I might think about acquiring him for a low prospect and 90% of his contract paid.

Let me start by saying that I agree Rowand is paid way too much for his production, but that certainly is true of Bradley too. If you look at the numbers, Bradley and Rowand are pretty similar: Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Career .281/.340/.450/.790 Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Career .277/.371/.450/.821 Assuming Bradley will be traded for another bad contract, this might not be to bad of a deal. The primary reasons are: 1. Money (or other considerations) would be coming to the Cubs instead of going to another team. 2. Ridding the team of a clubhouse cancer/media disaster for a well liked player with approximately the same production. The contracts: Bradley 2010- $9 million, 2011- $12 million Rowand 2010- $12 million, 2011- $12 million, 2012- $12 million I would take a deal of Bradley for Rowand (plus $6 million or more).

If you owned the team you'd have a different view. It's bad business to have anyone insulting your product. You have to have some kind of rules in place or your organization goes really bad in a hurry. The fact remains that Bradley was a bad business decision in every since of the word this year. It's absurd that you think insulting fans and the organization is acceptable behavior. I agree; if any of us trashed the company we worked for in the paper would we even have a job? I'm thinking i would be fired on the spot But in this bizarro world, you would have to be paid and people would get on the internet to defend you and criticize your boss because he won't talk to you for two weeks.