« Oakland Signs Esteban Loaiza | Main | Cubs Acquire John Mabry »

Cubs Interested In Bradley: Update

Will Carroll over at Baseball Prospectus has confirmed the Cubs' interest in center fielder Milton Bradley, and adds a few interesting tidbits.

According to Carroll, Bradley "figures to be a Dodger non-tender and is someone who doesn't scare Dusty Baker." 

I've heard whispers of L.A. non-tendering Bradley before, and I find it downright baffling.  To throw away a world of potential just to do things "The Dodger Way" seems like a terrible business decision.  Whether or not Bradley is a guy you want to have a beer with, his talent is undeniable.

Consider: Bradley posted a 3.8 WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player) in just 283 at-bats in 2005.  Prorated for 600 at-bats, Bradley's WARP would rank him second among all center fielders, behind only Jim Edmonds.  Bradley excels in all aspects of the game except for two: staying healthy and pleasing the media.  The continual injuries are why it's not fair for me to prorate his WARP over 600 ABs and say he's better than Andruw Jones.  But if the potential is there, why not pay $3-4MM to find out what he can really do?  Bradley is only 27.

The idea that Bradley could be a Cub for absolutely nothing should make Cubs fans salivate.  However, it's been pointed out that Dusty Baker never seemed in full control of Sammy Sosa or Kent Mercker, so it remains to be seen if he can get a handle on Bradley. 

Another good point that's come up in the comments on this site is that the Cubs will have to cut or trade someone from the 40 man roster once the Bobby Howry signing is made official.  Some suggest Adam Greenberg, Jose Macias, or Brian Dopirak could be cut, but it's more likely that a trade is imminent

       

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/447826/3751651

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cubs Interested In Bradley: Update:

Comments

1. What would the Cubs be giving up to get Bradley? If they went for him before the tendering deadline, would they have to give up ANYTHING to LA for him? Since LA would get a pick after all.

2. Could Hendry include a prospect to get Hee Seop Choi included in the deal? Choi's biggest LA cheerleader is now gone, and he seems to have no love in LA now. We could use him in Chicago for the bench, as the primary LH bat late in ballgames, as well as Lee's backup at 1B. And, Choi is very well-liked in Chicago, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

3. Would LA be at all interested in taking Patterson off the Cubs' hands for Bradley?

I don't think they'd have to give anything for Bradley. I'd hold on to Patterson, maybe someone somewhere still likes him.

Acquiring Choi is an interesting idea. He hits righties pretty well and could be useful. I have to think some team would still let him start full-time though. He's only 26.

Given Choi's troubles with LHP and his inconsistency when allowed to start, I just don't see any team willing to give him a starting job. Not even the weak sisters like Kansas City or Tampa. And I watched Choi a lot when in Chicago and LA, his defense really is pretty poor for a 1B.

I think a bench job, in a town and with a team he's comfortable with, might actually be the best thing for him. If he settles in and has a strong season, it could lead to a starting job down the road somewhere else, and Hendry is the kind of GM that would do that for Choi.

I actually think there is a chance that Bradley could stay with the Dodgers and Drew could be traded for Manny.

Keep smoking that ganja, Brian.

"Keep smoking that ganja, Brian"

I agree. The dodgers have been complaining since the offseason about how much money they gave Drew. Do you actually think they would take on a contract twice the size of Drews? Pass the hookah Brian.

I don't know why Cashman isn't showing any interest in Bradley.

Like stated earlier the guy has LOADS of potential, and the worst thing that happens is that he either gets injured, or goes crazy and shoots somebody.

Well not shoot somebody, but you know what I mean.

The runs he would save in Centerfield would all be worth it for all I care.

Keep in mind a cpl of thoughts regarding the cubs: jim hendry doesn't put the premium on clubhouse harmony the way many GM's do. In addition to that, Baker has a better way of handling "problem" children who play hard (see: bonds, barry) as opposed to prima donna's who don't go after it the same way (see: sosa, i'm all about me). As for making a trade for bradley, i think the more important thing for the cubs is the certainty that would come from landing a right fielder. Keep in mind that if bradley is released, he essentially hits free agency, whereas is he's traded, the cubs have his rights for 2 years. if the dodgers are thinking about non-tendering him, then they'll take anything, and patterson is not anything, he's a chip to dangle in front of the right GM (see: bowden, jim), because despite his complete lack of baseball sense (have you ever seen any player do more incredibly dumb things?) he still has enormous talent.

Coming back to why the dodgers and yanks have zero interest in this guy, well it's straightforward isn't it? Those teams are looking at their respective clubhouses and thinking, "No way". Or in the yanks case, they're also thinking about the daily media issues and thinking "No chance in hell can he survive the zoo".

Though i don't think hendry is interested in bringing choi back, I have to give it up to Rock, that's a heck of an interesting idea to include choi in the deal. If that comes about, then I think one has to start thinking about patterson going west . . .

Lastly, if furcal signs, and bradley comes to chicago, no matter what else, the cubs defense up the gut just went from pretty poor, to damn good. Days that blanco is catching, that's furcal and cedeno with bradley up the center. Now if hendry will just go after a little bit of character and a real professional hitter in one brian giles, then the defense isn't just really good, but team-wise is stellar.

Keep in mind a cpl of thoughts regarding the cubs: jim hendry doesn't put the premium on clubhouse harmony the way many GM's do. In addition to that, Baker has a better way of handling "problem" children who play hard (see: bonds, barry) as opposed to prima donna's who don't go after it the same way (see: sosa, i'm all about me). As for making a trade for bradley, i think the more important thing for the cubs is the certainty that would come from landing a right fielder. Keep in mind that if bradley is released, he essentially hits free agency, whereas is he's traded, the cubs have his rights for 2 years. if the dodgers are thinking about non-tendering him, then they'll take anything, and patterson is not anything, he's a chip to dangle in front of the right GM (see: bowden, jim), because despite his complete lack of baseball sense (have you ever seen any player do more incredibly dumb things?) he still has enormous talent.

Coming back to why the dodgers and yanks have zero interest in this guy, well it's straightforward isn't it? Those teams are looking at their respective clubhouses and thinking, "No way". Or in the yanks case, they're also thinking about the daily media issues and thinking "No chance in hell can he survive the zoo".

Though i don't think hendry is interested in bringing choi back, I have to give it up to Rock, that's a heck of an interesting idea to include choi in the deal. If that comes about, then I think one has to start thinking about patterson going west . . .

Lastly, if furcal signs, and bradley comes to chicago, no matter what else, the cubs defense up the gut just went from pretty poor, to damn good. Days that blanco is catching, that's furcal and cedeno with bradley up the center. Now if hendry will just go after a little bit of character and a real professional hitter in one brian giles, then the defense isn't just really good, but team-wise is stellar.

Ack, center fielder, CF!!damn it's late . . .

Charles, I'd take the defense over the character any day.

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.