Backtobanks

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.

Go for the bigger package.

1. Bradley talks crap about the Cubs fans and organizations... how much money do you think we lose? 2. Bradley helps take the Cubs to the playoffs next season.... how much money do you think we gain? I'll give you a hint. One of these numbers is MUCH larger than the other. The problem with your argument is that #1 will certainly happen while #2 possibly could happen. If Bradley returns, under-produces, and continues to be the jerk he was this year, the Cubs won't make the playoffs.

Except I'm sure the Cubs would have to throw in $$$ to cover most of what Bradley would make in 2011.

Well that makes no damn sense. There are thousands of outstanding baseball players, football players, and basketball players who are playing pickup games because they couldn't accept the discipline necessary to fit into a team situation and follow some simple rules like play hard, shut up, show up, show up on time, and show respect your team mates and coach.

The only problem is that Burrell is a DH and the Cubs play in the NL. (please don't tell me that Burrell can play the OF)

Why don't we keep Bradley and trade all 24 other players, replace all of the coaches, replace everyone in the front office, and move the team to some small town in Nebraska where there will be minimal fans and media to bother him. All problems solved! Why are you taking this so personally? you're acting like an idiot. I think it's idiotic that people are looking for a way to smooth things over with Bradley and are jumping all over Hendry. Bradley has acted like a jerk and Hendry suspended him (with pay) and posters are upset that the GM of a team that's still playing wants to wait until the season is over (less than 2 weeks) to sit down and talk with him. Hendry was wrong for signing him and giving him that contract, but he's done nothing wrong in this situation. To tell the truth, if some GM had done this at the beginning of Bradley's career, he might be an angry greeter at Walmart instead of a ML ballplayer.

This is a great post BBB, but the bottom line is that Milton Bradley have severe mental and anger issues to the point of irrationality, so he can't explain his behavior or recognize the error of his ways. Whenever he "snaps" he can't control his mouth or his actions. I don't know if medication or therapy would work, but it's too complicated for any of us to really comprehend.

Why don't we keep Bradley and trade all 24 other players, replace all of the coaches, replace everyone in the front office, and move the team to some small town in Nebraska where there will be minimal fans and media to bother him. All problems solved!

Because he would have fought the move to the DL, the MLBPA would have gotten involved and it never would have worked. That would create a hell of a lot more animosity and a "there's no coming back" situation than the current team suspension. Hmmm, I wonder if that's part of the reason he was suspended. Hendry wanted to DL him due to the knee issue, Bradley told him no he was able to play, and then when called upon said he couldn't. Don't let Paul Sullivan hear that or it will be reported as the truth. Why are you making things up to defend a guy who has had serious "issues" his whole career? Bradley has acted like this his whole career and that's why nobody wants him.

He's been a douche his whole career. He deserves it. fixed

I think the expiration date has passed on Hermida's potential/upside. At this point what you see is what you get: a below avg corner OF, both offensively and defensively. Uggla, I think they'd want a fortune for. I read awhile ago that the Marlins might DFA Hermida. He might be interesting if we can get him really cheap. A mix of Fukudome/Johnson/Hermida in CF/RF could be tolerable. My only problem with Cameron is that he's going to be very expensive (especially if we're paying Bradley too). Hendry had looked at Cody Ross before and he might be an interesting pickup. David DeJesus might be worth looking at too. None of these options addresses the "adding speed and athleticism" mantra we've been hearing.

He's suspended from the team, how is he supposed to get the apology to his teammates in Milwaukee before the Cubs release it to the media? Somehow, I'm sure he could have figured out a way with 21st century technology. He certainly didn't apologize to his team mates for his antics while he was still with the team.