Backtobanks

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.

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.