Cubs Talk: Bradley, Trades vs. Free Agency

I hope the Cubs are stuck with him.

I have a feeling they will screw up both the bradley trade and free agency.

Hendry said,"I think the free-agent world will be a patient market like it ended up being last year, and some good players will probably be available as the winter progresses."

You mean like Milton Bradley? How long after the contract was signed, did it become a bad contract? A week? A month?

At least one team is the Tigers if Cubs eat the contract or take Robertson or Willis back.

Just throwing this out there

Cubs get Dunn
Nationals get Bradley, Fontenot, prospect

I'd be ok with a Perez for Bradley swap.

@holycow. Can't see why the Nats would want to do that. Dunn is the superior player at the moment, and will probably be a Type A after the season. You're trading low on two players(Bradley and Fontenot), and acquiring a 40 HR hitter. That prospect would have to be awfully good, a Starlin Castro type, to make it worth Washington's while.

The two draft picks are going to be more useful to them then Bradley(who they will have to pay the next two years), Fontenot(who is an unknown quantity after his poor 2009), and an unknown prospect. I'd rather have the sure thing I could trade at the deadline for a prospect or two and not have to take a Bradley back, or keep him and pick up 2 #1's.

FYI, Cashner's a pretty smart guy, I interviewed him last week and was impressed.

Why further drain the minor league system to get rid of Bradley? That just exacerbates the issue here, and hurts the Cubs more in the long-run, which is what they should be focusing now anyhow.

If no straight up bad contract type of trade can be made, the Cubs just need to cut the cord and eat the cash

The Cubs management have said that they want to trade Fox this off-season.

The Braves could really use a right-handed batter that can play 1B and the OF. Would a Kelly Johnson swap work? Prospects, or an even bigger trade? I was thinking Derek Lowe + Kelly + cash/prospects for Soriano + Fox.

I really just want Fox, but if the Cubs could find use for Lowe, which should prove better than last year, then maybe they could help each other out.

I must have misread something. Did not realize Soriano's contract was that bad. Still, any deals that would include Fox going to the Braves?

"The Braves could really use a right-handed batter that can play 1B and the OF. Would a Kelly Johnson swap work? Prospects, or an even bigger trade? I was thinking Derek Lowe + Kelly + cash/prospects for Soriano + Fox."

The Braves would be MUCH better off nontendering KJ, and going after a Fox-like player (quintessentially a poor defensive OF) on the FA market.

Lowe for Soriano is an AWFUL swap for the Braves, even if the Cubs do assume a decent portion of the salary.

The reason I like Fox for the Braves, is that he can play 1B, 3B, LF, and RF. He would be a good bench guy or a platoon person for LaRoche in the first half(if resigned) or Schafer.

Longshot here, but Bradley plus some cash for Linebrink? I don't know if he could play in Chicago again though

"Bradley for Silva seems like a pretty solid deal. The years and money match up, and Jack Z could use the bat and likes to get creative. Hendry picks up starter insurance (in anticipation of Harden's departure) and, if either should implode, sunk costs might be released without too much hubbub." Posted by: FlipNside
---------------------------
A trade like this is not just about matching up bad contracts. It would require that the Mariners take a Milton Bradley - the guy with a bad, surly attitude, a miserable personality, and a well deserved reputation as a major league jerk.

Carlos Silva is an overpaid and inconsistant pitcher, but he is a solid professional who is well liked and gets along with teammates, management, and fans.

I still think that if any team really wanted Milton Bradley, they would have him by now because the Cubs won't ask anything back, they just want to be rid of him.

"Sure lots of teams are asking about Bradley. All the GM's would be happy to have him if they can get him for nothing."

That just isnt true. There are multiple GMs who would not have him back no matter what. And there are certainly other GMs who wouldnt have him because of that - when teams start refusing to bring someone on board, everyone else questions adding him to varying degrees.

Even if we were to offer Bradley and 16 of the 21 million he is owed for nothing other then the other teams commitment to pay the 5 million of it, there would still be a limited number of suitors.

TB already told us that they would only want him if they were under no financial hit if/when they decided to release him. Dont you think it odd that the only team actually guaranteed to take him* is talking about releasing him at the same time? Doesnt that right there tell you that teams are worried about adding him onto their squad?

(*everyone else rumored to be interested is speculation, hearsay or casual conversation where conclusions are formed from my knowledge)

Bradley will not be easy to move and I agree with bernie that if anyone really wanted him, he would already be gone.

"they might as well keep him."

They cant keep him. The extremly strong possibility of him coming to blows with someone like Dempster is just too much of a risk to have him in the clubhouse. Bradley has consistently shown a tendency to hold grudges and instigate confrontation with those he perceives to have wronged him. Nothing Dempster (and others) can ever say will remove the fact they were said in the first place, and Bradley likely will never forget. The first bad day on the mound that leads to a sour look on Dempsters face as he happens to look in Bradleys direction could lead to the team throwing blows with themselves.

Like Barrett before him, Bradley absolutely needs to go at this point for the overall betterment of the clubhouse.

"I sure would have liked to keep Jason Marquis and his "bad attitude" last year rather than trading him for a stiff like Vizcaino."

Marquis didnt have a bad attitude - DeRosa claimed he was one of the team leaders to at least a big part of the clubhouse attitude. He was a victim of salary space, pure and simple. Specifically, he was removed so we could better afford Bradley.

on Marquis -
I remember the perceived situation with the reliever/starter thing, but it doesnt change the fact that DeRosa did single him out (as well as Wood) when he claimed how the clubhouse lost its caricature. He had to have been a positive part of the demeanor or DeRosa would never have included him.

And he was dealt because of monetary issues. Its the same reason he was included in the Peavy talks - he was one of only a couple players making real cash and without a no trade.

on Bradley -

He didnt come to blows last season, and I didnt say he did. But he also didnt have a chance to, he was forbidden from being near the club when the comments about him were made by his teammates. And yes, his inability to coexist with people in the clubhouse over issues he has created IS a reason for trading someone - and is the exact reason he was traded away from LA and Cleveland and to some extent Oakland (if you include the organization as part of the clubhouse).

"The extremly strong possibility of him coming to blows with someone like Dempster is just too much of a risk to have him in the clubhouse"

Ok, sorry, I will clarify - that statement I gave was given to show a situation where he can not coexist with others in the clubhouse. Its an example of the point, and I should have clarified better I guess.

"And I didn't say they shouldn't trade him...I just said they should not just give him away. You can't change stories when it's convenient...you lose credibility."

You did say we shouldnt trade him if we didnt get enough, and I was telling you not trading him isnt an option. This is the exact exchange to refresh your memory

"they might as well keep him." (you, that I quoted)

"They cant keep him." (my very next line)

And I am not changing stories - my point is and has always been, keeping him isnt an option. If you agree, then I don’t understand why you are trying to argue.

"(Hey, by the way, weren't you the guy who so vehemently defended Alex Rios and his contract a few months ago?)"

I said the Alex Rios contract isnt out of whack from what should be expect as far as when it was signed. He was a to-be 27 year old off seasons of 3.3 WAR, 4.6 WAR and on his way to a 5.5 WAR when the contract was inked (it was inked after the season started, and he was hitting .306/.386/.449 with great D when the contract was finalized).

Now, you find me a great fielding CF off a 3-year 13.4 WAR that is under the age of 28 who doesn’t get 10MM a season contract, and I will say it’s a bad deal. Until then, there is nothing saying it is poor other then perception based off one poor season. And Rios being 28 with two seasons of about 5 WAR in the last three years, the 11MM/per over 5 isnt a horrible contract either. It might be too long, but 11 million per season for 5WAR each year is not out of line what so ever, especially when it is provided from CF where it is extremely difficult to find that kind of value. Over the last 3 seasons, only Ichrio, Granderson, Beltran and Sizemore have surpassed 13.4 WAR from center.

“Why does DeRosa's defense of Marquis carry so much weight but Dempster's (and others) defense of Bradley as a teammate carry so little? Too many inconsistencies here...”

Because those comments are unfounded. They are generic “we relate” or non-descriptive (making bets with someone you are forced to be around doesn’t mean you get along) or are contradicted by other comments made by the same players (Dempster) leaving them with little weight or have never been heard (because I have never heard Scales say that. And it goes against Bradley saying that Gathright was the only person he got along with).

"It was you about Rios! I found this gem "Then they have one of the top CF in the game for the next 5 years". Top CF? Okay.. if you say so."

You dont see how a 3-year, 13.4 WAR from CF would be one of the best in the game? Like I said, only 4 have surpassed that over the last three.

"You choose what you want to believe (which has been fed to you by the media) and dismiss anything to the contrary. As I said...inconsistencies. Yawn...gotta go."

I'm not dismissing, I saying that they arent exactly concrete evidence of anything. I can give you quotes from Cubs players saying Bradley needs to look in a mirror, grow up and take responcibily and the like.

And even if his best friend in the world was in the clubhouse, it still doesnt mean he can coexist with everyone, so even if I did take the vague comments you relaid as absolute gold proving he should definitely stay a Cub, it doesnt mean anything. Your trying to say he gets along great with 25 guys by implying he might get along with 4 - and it just doesnt work like that...

The beauty of this whole thing is that Crunchy keeps trying to come back with hanging curves, and Suzy smashes them back in his face. You guys must have a seriously long hatred-filled relationship... Clearly, Suzys the more logical of the two; I mean, she throws out crazy stats as if she was Hendry himself.