davearm2

One is a starting third baseman, one is a reliever. You can't seriously be that dense that you can't see the difference. AND PHILLY WON A FREAKING WORLD SERIES AND ANOTHER NL PENNANT. The day Hendry pulls that off in back to back years is the day I won't give him crap for stupid signings. Both guys should be evaluated relative to the league average (or some other common baseline), which I have done above. I'm a strong proponent of the Beane philosophy that the playoffs are a crapshoot. In Hendry's 7 full seasons, the Cubs have made the postseason in three of them. In the same seven years the Phils have also been to three postseasons. Hey it's great for the Phils the success they've had in October, but the Cubs' playoff failings don't belong at Hendry's feet IMO. All he can be expected to do is get them there, which he has as often as the Phils' folks.

polanco is better than grabow. No he's not, at least not relative to the rest of the league at their respective positions. In 2009 the MLB average OPS out of 2B was .752. Out of 3B it was only slightly higher at .757. Polanco was at .768 in 2008, and .727 in 2009, for a 2-year average of .747. Bill James projects a .746 out of him in 2010. I doubt anyone would characterize Polanco's baserunning as anything better than average, so offensively the guy's about average at best, and probably a bit below. Defensively he's been above average at both spots in the past, although personally I think some caution is in order since he hasn't played 3B at all since 2005, and not regularly since 2002. That considered, I can't agree with giving him a big boost in value due to his defense. So factoring hitting, baserunning, and defense, I'd put Polanco squarely in the average category as a 3B. Now how to evaluate relievers is obviously a pretty heated topic, but regardless of the approach you take or the metric(s) you use, I strongly suspect you're not going to paint Grabow as any worse than league average. What I've done is used baseballprospectus' WXL metric (Expected wins added over an average pitcher, adjusted for level of opposing hitters faced). You'd think that by definition this stat would average zero across the league, but it actually averages about 0.11. Anyway, Grabow WXLed 2.26 in 2009 (good for 28th best amongst all MLB relievers), and 2.483 in 2008 (14th best). If someone would like to find league average FIP data for relievers, be my guest. Grabow's FIPs the last two years were 4.54 and 4.20. So at the end of the day, both guys got multiyear deals in their 30s for salaries above the league average at their positions (I assume). Polanco shouldn't be expected to be any better than average. Grabow should be be at least average, and probably better. Yet the former signing looks great to Cub fans, and the latter is grounds for Hendry's firing. Makes no sense.

It's baffling that anyone could support paying a guy like Polanco 3/18 for mediocre 3B production, yet rip the Cubs for paying 2/7 for mediocre production from Grabow. It's the SAME FRIGGIN THING only at a different position and involving even more $ and years.

Winning ballgames is what sells the tickets. The fans will always find players to dump the "face of the franchise" label onto. OK so suggest a trade that allows the Tigers to win more ballgames in 2010.

What does Milton Bradley have to do with anything? This is a Granderson thread. The Tigers face a regional economy that's in the gutter, a ballpark which isn't a draw in and of itself now that the newness has worn away, and a team that just choked away a division title. I'd say they're probably fairly concerned about putting butts in seats -- way more so than the Cubs for sure.

One thing that's been mostly glossed over is that next to maybe Verlander and Cabrera, Granderson is the closest the Tigers have to a marquee, face-of-the-franchise type of guy. They're not going to give away a fan favorite for a bunch of guys nobody in Detroit's ever heard of. Now I'm sure the cavalry will be along to explain how ridiculous this all sounds and how none of this junk matters, but let's keep in mind that teams are keen on attracting fans and selling tickets in addition to winning ballgames. Folks here may have maximizing on-field performance as the singular goal, but the reality is actual front office types have to think more broadly than that.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that Hendry's biggest mistake in this fiasco was suspending Bradley for the last couple of weeks. The back and forth in the press was obviously out there for everyone to see, but by sending Bradley home early the message was sent loud and clear, THIS GUY'S SUCH A CLUBHOUSE HEADACHE THAT WE'D RATHER HE JUST BE GONE. If there were teams that might've been on the fence about trading for this guy, you can bet they hopped down off the fence after that. Now having said that, Hendry was in a tough spot, because doing nothing or sweeping stuff under the rug would've caused problems of other sorts.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have? Well a college degree and almost 20 years working in the field. You? In simple terms, value is what someone is willing pay for a given commodity. That is not at all influenced by how willing (or desperate) a person is to sell it, or the seller's circumstances at all for that matter. It's totally a function of the buyer's perception of the commodity's usefulness to them. Now could someone offer less than full value, in hopes of getting a bargain? Sure. But the value (willingness to pay) is still what it is. Perhaps I'm reading your sentence incorrectly, but heck if I can get that out of what you initially said. Availability = supply of a given commodity. Hold demand constant and reduce the supply and the price goes up. Increase the supply and price goes down. You know, if it's a competitive marketplace with multiple agents on both sides of the equation. With 20+ years in the field you ought to know that. Bradley is not the only OF option out there. Hendry is but one supplier to the market of teams looking for OF's. There are also players offering themselves to the market, as well as other teams looking to trade players away. Bradley, given all his positives, negatives, contact status and such holds a certain value within that market (though "the market" is a bit of a misnomer here since there's no sure way of determining value before a deal in a market with such few buyers). But his value to the buyers is relative to the other options available within the marketplace. If there were only him available and 10 teams desperate for OF help, you can sure as heck bet that Hendry would be in a different bargaining position. I agree that Hendry's eagerness to trade Bradley doesn't really matter. But the availability of talent within the market as a whole sure as heck does make a difference. I was referring to seller's willingness to sell when I mentioned availability. Sorry that wasn't clearer. How much a potential buyer values a given commodity is unrelated to how motivated (or not) the seller is, was the point. The eBay analogy given earlier illustrates this well. Folks there place bids based on an item's value to them, without any knowledge (or interest) in the circumstances that led to the item being for sale in the first place. The corollary here is that the Cubs' particular circumstances won't lead other teams to want Bradley more or less than they otherwise would. It may influence how they approach negotiations, but in the end their strike price is whatever it is.

He was one of the best pitchers in baseball and just entering his prime when he signed a 3/$40 extension in 2006. What makes you think it would take 6 years at $20 mil per to extend him? Wouldn't 3 years at $45-50 mil be a significant raise and not take him into his age 38-39 seasons. Especially if an extension was part of a trade that would allow him a better chance at going to the playoffs? I'd trade Z for Halladay (using prospects acquired in Z's trade) and extend him for 3/$45-50. I would not do 6/$120 under any circumstances, but I'd also be shocked if it took anywhere close to that to extend him as part of a trade. IMO those figures are hopelessly unrealistic. If I'm Halladay, you'd better be coming with Sabathia (7/161) or Santana (6/137) loot, or else I'm playing out the last year and seeing what kind of bidding emerges when I'm a free agent. That's the basis for my estimate of what it would take to sign him to an extension. Heck I'd say 6/120 is on the conservative side, if anything, but probably pretty close given he's older than those other elite guys.

They are both guys that had significant off-the-field issues that impacted how much teams were interested in having them, are they not? That's some impressive spin. Are we or are we not discussing the extent to which teams weigh on-field production against off-field issues? And do both of these players not provide good examples of this?

We've been through this before. Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance. And you're using what to "prove" its existance? Common sense? I can't prove its existence, and I've said as much. Nobody can. We can observe the anecdotal evidence, though: teams generally steer clear of these guys. You're using circular reasoning. Teams shouldn't like guys with attitude problems. We know it's true because these guys with attitude problems aren't wanted by these teams. That makes no sense at all. First of all, I've made no judgement about what teams should or shouldn't like. That's not anywhere in the discussion at all. All I've done is observe what teams have demonstrated through their actions: their willingness to pay for productive (sometimes highly productive) players with off-the-field issues is not very high. Bonds is the extreme case of course. Bradley is also a valuable case-study. Sure the injury history is a concern, but IMO the main reason he's unwanted is because of the attitude problems.

They are both guys that had significant off-the-field issues that impacted how much teams were interested in having them, are they not?

We've been through this before. Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance. And you're using what to "prove" its existance? Common sense? I can't prove its existence, and I've said as much. Nobody can. We can observe the anecdotal evidence, though: teams generally steer clear of these guys.

Which does little confirm the attitude theory when you have much more realistic factors such as his contract and his health history. Of course it does. Nobody wanted Barry Bonds when he was demonstrating an ability to OPS over 1000 in his final year with the Giants. That was due to the fact that teams felt the production was outweighed by the circus that came with him. Same deal with Bradley. Obviously with Bradley the injuries are an exacerbating factor. The contract isn't, since Hendry seems to be prepared to eat most of it (or take back an ugly one).

What kind of crazy econ background do you have? Well a college degree and almost 20 years working in the field. You? In simple terms, value is what someone is willing pay for a given commodity. That is not at all influenced by how willing (or desperate) a person is to sell it, or the seller's circumstances at all for that matter. It's totally a function of the buyer's perception of the commodity's usefulness to them. Now could someone offer less than full value, in hopes of getting a bargain? Sure. But the value (willingness to pay) is still what it is.

We've been through this before. Just because the phenomenon we're discussing cannot be distilled down to a column on fangraphs (Attitude WARP? Personality WARP?) doesn't disprove its existence/importance.

The bottom line to me is that if his attitude was that much of an issue fewer teams, if any, would want anything to do with him. That there's teams interested indicates to me that his attitude ranks pretty low. Huh? Few teams want anything to do with him as it is.

There really isn't any clarification needed. I said it would be nice to upgrade from Zambrano to Halladay while at the same time maintaining your net quantity of prospects, because you help the team in the short-term but maintain the longterm help that is required to replace the agining core of the team, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Fukudome, Lilly, Dempster. I'm not advocating for any move. I don't see anything of the sort happening. I was pointing out that Halladay is better than Zambrano, and while he's older, that's not much of a factor since Zambrano's relatively young age is offset by all the negative aspects. Of course there's clarification needed. Extending Halladay is a far different scenario than letting him walk after a year. I trust you're neither too dense nor too stubborn to concede that. Trading for Halladay and extending him instantly makes him the most expensive and longest-signed part of that aging core you're so concerned about. In fact only Soriano's even in the same ballpark in that regard. Yet somehow committing to pay $20M+ for the guy's age 37-38-39 seasons improves the "getting too old" situation? Not to mention, the notion of completing these two trades on a prospect-neutral basis is just silly. Halladay's value is much greater than Zambrano's, so you're not coming out even on this whole deal.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem. We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice. So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO? You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction. It's increasing the age at one spot, but maintaining the prospects. Zambrano isn't young. He's got a lot of miles on his arm and has shown signs of serious wear and tear. Halladay has been a much more stable and effective pitcher. That's not a big step in the wrong direction at all. Halladay is better now and likely to be better for a few years. You upgrade the team, but at the same time you don't trade away prospects, or at least you don't take a significant net hit in prospects. I see no way this actually happens, but it would be a good thing for the Cubs if it could. The advantage of having prospects around to replace the older core is they are cheaper to employ, have room for upside, and presumably have a much larger window of time where they can be useful. Zambrano is already ridiculously expensive, he's shown a likelihood of already having passed his prime and settling into a lesser pitcher, and he may or may not have a lot of years ahead of him. Swapping him for Halladay doesn't really have any negative repercussions on the age of the core. Well I guess some clarification is needed here. Are you proposing extending Halladay once he's acquired, or just keeping him for a year and then letting him go? Because if you plan on extending him, then you've traded away a 28YO pitcher that's owed a big chunk of money through age 31 or whatever it is, and gotten back a 32YO pitcher that'll be owed over twice as much and will be signed through age 38 or 39 (6-7 years @ $20M a year is the right ballpark). Saying that doesn't have any negative repercussions on the age of the core is just flat out wrong. You've got more than twice the money tied up in an older player for more than twice the years. Now on the other hand if you're willing to trade 3 years of Zambrano for one of Halladay, that's a separate discussion altogether. Probably not one worth having, though, since a team willing to extend Halladay would outbid the Cubs in the first place.

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history). I agree with all of that besides the Cubs position. It appears that this isn't a situation where one team puts Bradley's value at much higher than others do. So the Cubs position of desperation is pretty much irrelevant. This is kind of like a free agent situation. Teams are trying to bid as little as they can. They will be willing to bid as high as what they perceive his value to be though if other teams are also bidding little amounts. But I agree Bradley's contract is the biggest thing depressing his value because no club seems to think he's worth that much. His health and his attitude make the amount they're willing to pay even lower. In the end, Bradley will be traded for very close to what other teams would be willing to pay even if the Cubs weren't desperate to trade him. The contract can't be the biggest thing depressing Bradley's value if, as reported, Hendry is willing to swallow a lot of it.

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history). Point taken on the injury history. That is certainly a factor as well. I wasn't meaning to present a comprehensive list of all the relevant variables. Cubs' position is basically a non-factor. Availability has little bearing on value in a competitive marketplace. Naturally, how much of what Bradley's owed the Cubs would be willing to pay (or the bad contract the Cubs would be willing to take back) counterbalances what positively-valued assets (prospects, most likely) another team would be willing to include. The bottom line is there are a lot of moving parts here, but I think you're mistaken if you don't think the attitude issue is really the main thing dragging Bradley's value into the gutter. Other teams simply won't pay very much for the headache that comes with the production.

That's a pretty huge leap to make. It's more like these other teams aren't run by idiots and realize that they have the Cubs over a barrel. If your conclusion was correct then why would any other team want to trade for him under any circumstance? It's not like a trade that screws over the Cubs magically gives Bradley an attitude adjustment. When talking about a guy like Adam Dunn, astute fans will point out that to gauge his true overall value, one would have to subtract his defensive liability from his offensive production. Some would say the defensive adjustment cancels almost all of the offensive value. Well here with Bradley we have a case where we have to make a sizable deduction for attitude and clubhouse impact, much like the defensive adjustment for Dunn. Right now the trade market is indicating that Bradley's (offense + defense - attitude) yields a value close to zero. And this talk of gamesmanship and teams holding back thinking they have the Cubs over a barrel is folly. If Hendry was asking 50 cents for an asset widely valued at a dollar, then he would have a buyer in a second, lest teams end up kicking themselves for losing out on the opportunity. The truth is, whatever Hendry's asking for Bradley (and by all indications it's very little) is still more than the other 29 teams think he's worth, despite his impressive hitting stats.

I'm not going to wade into the 5 inning debate, but I think you're correct that a) Harden would've accepted arbitration, and b) the Cubs didn't offer it for precisely this reason.

Halladay is clearly the better pitcher, but we don't need to do this. We have plenty of prospects, that's not the problem. We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice. So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO? You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction.

Extremely well said, as usual CCP. Whatever ideas folks have for mending this relationship, you can be sure have been tried before, and probably over and over. Let's not pretend that getting Bradley in counseling is some novel approach that nobody's ever though of before. At this point Bradley is what he is, and to expect him to change is foolish. So at the end of the day the analysis is, does the good outweigh the bad? Unless someone posting here has spent significant time in the Cubs' clubhouse, then they're not really aware of how bad the bad is, and thus they can't speak to the question from an informed perspective. What we do know is, the Cubs' people that do have that firsthand knowledge of the situation have concluded that the bad outweighs the good. I'm not sure how anyone posting here can say they're wrong.