 |
|
|
| |
« Orioles To Explore Extensions For Roberts, Markakis | Main | Rays' Long Term Plans Not Altered By Surprising Season »
Bradley Wants Long Term Contract
The often, uhm, misunderstood Milton Bradley rarely speaks to the press, but in a recent exchange with Drew Davison of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Rangers outfielder outlined how he expects his contract situation to work out this offseason.
Bradley feels his offsensive production this year warrants a long-term deal, something the Rangers haven't offered him (yet), and as such, he sees the possibility of returning to the team at 50-50.
"I just know I deserve to quit getting [stuck] with these one-year deals. I need to have a long-term contract. I’m not just a rent-a-player for one year. I’m looking for fair value. I’m one of the better hitters in the game, and .320 hitters with .440 on-base percentages don’t grow on trees, so you need to take advantage of it when you got it."
For the record, Rangers assitant general manager Thad Levine told Davison the team will negotiate with Bradley's agent, but they'll keep all negotiation discussions internal.
Alejandro A. Leal writes for UmpBump.com and can be reached here: alexo05 (at) umpbump (dot) com.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010534be5dc9970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bradley Wants Long Term Contract:
Comments
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Bradley, of course, doesn't get the reason he's always been on one-year deals. He believes himself a model citizen and a clubhouse leader.
Posted by: Playwright | September 20, 2008 at 12:10 PM
You know what, he's right. There were more injury prone players that got long term contracts...there were more controversial players who got them. I think someone will give him 3/36 or something with a vesting option
Posted by: viktor06 | September 20, 2008 at 12:14 PM
One year deals that continually renew upon hitting PA and performance milestones.
You want to get paid like a top tier slugger then you better perform like one for more than half a year.
One good, healthy year does not make a dominant offensive player worthy of a long-term contract.
Posted by: bjsguess | September 20, 2008 at 12:35 PM
When did he have one good healthy year???? It definitely wasn't this year. Even though this is the most that he played in 4 years, he missed 35 games out of 154 so far (played 119 games) and will certainly miss more as the season finishes.
Playing 119 games out of 154 means he missed 23% of games. So by the end of the year, he would have missed about 1/4 of the entire season.
If that's his healthiest season recently, you don't give him a long-term deal.
Posted by: coolbean04 | September 20, 2008 at 01:18 PM
I was referring to 2004 :)
You are absolutely right though. Bradley playing in 75% of the games (as a DH no less) seems to be healthy. That's how low the standard has become for Bradley's health.
I still stand by my one year renewable deal based off PA and performance. Pay the man like a superstar if he plays like one. Pay him like a chump if he gets injured or doesn't perform.
Posted by: bjsguess | September 20, 2008 at 04:47 PM
388 ABs with 106 Ks. Lets also add that even Gary Matthews Jr. Batted over .300 when he was a Ranger.
One of the better hitters in baseball huh? Let him go to Seattle and hit .255 with 12 HRs.
Posted by: XD23 | September 20, 2008 at 05:49 PM
can someone make it clearer for me why more teams don't offer contract with incentives? (i think i spelled everything right in that sentese)
for example, guys like milton bradley. ok obviously he wants a long term deal, so there will be teams out there offering a one year or maybe two year deals to him, but since he wants a longer term deal, why wouldn't the rangers, a team that has good young hitters, why don't they offer him something like a 5 year deal BUT, last two years be option years maybe, and if he lets say wants $10 mill per year, again i'm just throwing random numbers out, they should make it where if he plays more then 85% of the games, hits a certain average, and so on. if he doens't, they can chose to not pick his option up, and if he plays 75% of the games again like he did this year, they would only pay lets say $5 mill of those $10 mill that he could've made.
does that make sense? am i missing something here? why doesn't this happen more often to injury prone guys? i remember a perfect example in 2005 when the indians signed kevin millwood to a similar contract, and what do you know, the guy was second in ERA and threw around 200 innings and got all his money that he wanted. if he hadn't thrown 150 or so innings, indians would've cut that money in half.
Posted by: ilulic | September 20, 2008 at 09:32 PM
and i don't think the reason for this is because players don't want to do these type of contracts because if a guy like bradely truley considers himself healthy and one of the best hitters in the league, then he would love that. he would have confidence that he can stay healthy and put up numbers so he can get the big bucks. if not, nobody loses much.
Posted by: ilulic | September 20, 2008 at 09:34 PM
I think he's worth a contact like the Giants gave Aaron Rowand,like a 5 year/$60 million contact and he'll prolly get one this off season.
Posted by: JT89 | September 21, 2008 at 01:00 AM