Backtobanks

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.

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.