Gary Matthews Jr.

23 days ago cubsluver22 133 comments 3 recs |

Comments

Gary Mathews for Milton???

I know what’s coming as far as comments and I agree wholeheartedly but Bradley has just as many issues. This seems to be a fairly even deal financially and from other perspectives like baggage etc.

This would allow Dome to move back to RF and would give us a pretty descent defensive OF. All we can hope is GM’s Jr will hit and fly under the radar! Not that it’s a done deal but it screams even value to me.

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 27, 2009 8:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather trade Bradley for Rowand

even though Rowand will be paid more, because of the third year remaining on the contract. But I believe Rowand has much more upside than Matthews.

Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"

by zambranofan on Oct 27, 2009 8:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Matthews sucked before and will again.

Much rather have Rowland.

by TJ11 on Oct 27, 2009 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your right

But are teams lining up for us to pay for MB to play for them? I think they are, thus that’s where the reported interest is. I can see this deal happening even though we won’t like it. Hard to trade a clubhouse cancer for much more IMO.

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 27, 2009 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Matthews has had 1 good offensive year out of 11

Hasn’t Milton been more consistent? This why the Cubs never make it to the WS; they go for mediocre/slightly above average players instead of farming stars and trading for prospects!

Yes'm

by OrangeGore on Nov 3, 2009 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather trade him for a pack of chewing gum...

The point being, if you’re going to flush Bradley,. flush him. Only take Rowand or Matthews or whoever if he is the answer for position on the field over the balance of his contract. Otherwise, the team ends up with a lot of bad contracts that were acquired for your bad contracts, a $140M+ payroll, and the same success rate as the Orioles.

Taking a bad contract for a bad contract just compounds the original error and stretches it out over time. I’d rather see the Cubs get low-A semi-propects or eat the salary than wind up with another 8-figure salary player who eats up playing time just because he has an 8-figure salary.

by ClarkFan on Nov 8, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gary Matthews,

“No one ever pays me in Trident Layers :(”

by Adam U on Nov 9, 2009 1:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

too logical?

It does seem logical. I am not sure the Angels would go for it though, I am not sure they would have room for MB, Vlad, Abreu (both free agents who they presumably would like to bring back) and Juan Rivera.

I am not sure how well received a move to let either Abreu or Vlad walk in order to bring in MB would go over.

With that said, I wonder if dumping MB might end up being an end of the offseason consolation prize for someone.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Oct 27, 2009 9:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Abreu

May price himself out a job and Vlad is too expensive for a DH.

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 27, 2009 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You must be out of your....

##$$#!! mind.

Even if you couldn’t get the production of Matthews from a AAA player making the league minimum, he neither has nor has ever had the skill set to be an everyday player. He turned half a $#$# season into a 50-million dollar deal, and is now whining about the fact that someone realized a few months too late that he sucks. I’d love to see how he plays it when Chicago fans are booing him by Memorial Day.

Hendry can and will do better with that Bradley deal. Why? Because at the end of the day, he can eat 50% of Milton’s contract, and still get a better return than what he’d get simply swapping deals with the Angels.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 27, 2009 9:29 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs

Rec'd

The only way a deal makes sense with GMJr in it is if he is the cost to get something really talented from the Angels system. For example, I’d take GMJr and Brandon Wood for Milton Bradley and then I’d DFA GMJr.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 27, 2009 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I bet you would

Fact of the matter is Bradley is too other teams/fans what we perceive him to be. A clubhouse cancer that we wanna get rid of! I’m quite sure their fans say the same thing bout Bradley.Give us Bradley/Top prospect for GMJ.

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 27, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll bet you $25, with the proceeds going to Cubs Care

That the Cubs get better talent for Bradley than the Angels get for GMJr

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 28, 2009 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We just might

What I’m worrying about their’s gonna be a big fat bloated contract attached the better valued player.

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 28, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

to the

stupid wireless keyboard!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 28, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Possibly

But wouldn’t you be ok with Rowand?

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 28, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO

He’s the best option I’ve heard about.

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 28, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's with the pic

If the number and money sign?

"That pitch wasn’t down and in, that pitch was down and up." Tim McCarver

by wrigleyrocker12 on Oct 27, 2009 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

I think it was a key sequence that I accidentally hit. There seem to be quite a few of them on this platform.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 27, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You must have had leading and trailing @'s

argh

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 28, 2009 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously SBN has Damen Jackson on a 5 second delay for his posts... ;-)

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 27, 2009 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah....

I probably have done a bit of ranting lately. I think the 2009 season still has me in something in a foul mood.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 27, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

Your last statement is dead on.

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day." ~ Frank Sinatra

by DMCub on Oct 28, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The contract dough lines up between Bradley and Matthews

Hence why I have been saying a potential swap of the two is plausible. One team’s bad contract and headache for the other’s. At least with Matthews he can play a high grade centerfield and that enables you to move Kosuke back over to right field where he belongs. Also, Matthews had his breakout year in 2006 under the tutelage of Rudy Jaramillo in Texas.

"Cubs will win 79 to 83 games." BLou (7/21/09)

by BLou on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's a good point on Jaramillo.

It’s worth exploring, but if Anaheim decides to keep Abreu and/or Guerrero, getting them to take another RF/DH becomes pretty troublesome.

I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg

by Trey2317 on Oct 28, 2009 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was that also the year that he was under the tutelage of the "Flintstone vitamins"?

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Oct 28, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell no

1,000 times no. This guy is one of the worst players in baseball. He’s old and bad. No amount of Rudy Jaramillo can save that train wreck.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 27, 2009 9:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Stop overvaluing our trash

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 27, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If all Milton Bradley can get back is Gary Matthews Jr

then it makes no sense to get rid of him. The Angels probably won’t take Bradley anyway. I’d bet Reed Johnson full time is better than Matthews.

The more rumors like this I see the more I shake my head at Jim hendry’s handling of the Milton Bradley situation.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 27, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So we want a guy who

Has had two career seasons with an OPS+ over 100. Hasn’t had a positive fielding value since joining the Angels, and is owed MORE money over the next two years than the guy we would give up. Who, by the way, was more productive in his worst career season than Matthews has his past three years combined.

Stay far, far away.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 28, 2009 12:19 AM CDT reply actions 8 recs

GREEN.

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Oct 28, 2009 2:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No we don't

But I think fans expectations of what Bradley can net are way too high!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 28, 2009 7:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When people are talking about getting guys like Burrell, Bonderman, or Rowand in return

…I don’t think anyone in their right mind would describe those expectations as “high”.

by Wreckard on Oct 30, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think some.....

Discredit options like GMJ though which from a business standpoint is equal etc. Not saying I disagree with his on the field play expectations opinions but…….

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 30, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And, his most productive seasons have taken place

before the steroid issue broke.

No. Don’t want this guy AGAIN.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Oct 28, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good analysis, thanks.

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Oct 28, 2009 2:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

One word.

No.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 28, 2009 7:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

say it again but that is what was said about Grudz and Karros

funny how things work out, I vote for Rowland

Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."

by Ivy Walls on Oct 28, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

After reading all of the above, I just had a “wow MB isnt that bad” moment.

by cooliogirl47 on Oct 28, 2009 9:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, I must admit...

…when BLou first floated this idea over at Bruce Miles’ blog the other day, I found it interesting. The dollar amounts do appear roughly equal, the Cubs do (preferably) need a centerfielder and Matthews Jr. did have his best year under Jaramillo. (There’s also the “Sarge” connection, of course. OK, now I’m really stretching.)

But after reading all the vitriol here, as well as realizing just today that Matthews Jr. is 35, I have to reconsider the plausibility of this deal. And, of course, there’s the question of whether the Angels would take on a player with Milton’s rep and whether he’s a fit for their ’10 roster as well.

But, the bottom line remains, that it seems pretty unlikely that any Bradley contract swap is going to have us doing backflips of joy. So, if anything, we should all brace ourselves for a bad scenario such as this.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 28, 2009 9:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

true dat

by cooliogirl47 on Oct 28, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

FYI

The idea of a Matthews Jr. for Bradley swap is briefly discussed over at Halos Heaven here. The reaction is decidely mixed.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 28, 2009 9:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Mixed?

Well, maybe for Bradley, but they seem to have a “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out” approach to Matthews.

In any case, GMJ (as they call him) seems to have attitude problems as well as hitting problems. That, and his age — no thanks.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 28, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I was referring to the trade idea - pretty much everyone there seems to hate Matthews Jr.

Let’s hope we don’t start hearing/reading rumors of this deal in the mainstream media.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 28, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why shouldn't they dislike him?

He got busted for HGH purchase after signing the deal, hasn’t been any good, can’t really play good CF anymore. We keep saying Vernon Wells is the worst contract in baseball, but at least Wells could be good if he ever got healthy.

When you compare the possibility of getting Rowand back or Rios, GMJr shouldn’t be considered at all. Ask yourself this – if you had GM Jr, would you really play him over Sam Fuld?

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 28, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

and I’d have to think about playing reed johnson over him too

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 28, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow calling their own player HGH

They don’t like him much do they

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 28, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not convinced teams are lining up for Milton.

I hope I’m wrong though.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 28, 2009 11:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure their lining up

To get a nearly free Outfielder that were gonna be paying for!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 28, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

The reports that teams are knocking down the Cubs door to get Milton are being blown out of proportion.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 28, 2009 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Translation:

“Knocking down the door” = made one phone inquiry as to what, exactly the Cubs would be looking for in return.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Oct 28, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

So, you think both Rosenthal and Miles are making things up? Because everyone will know soon enough. Why would it make sense for Rosenthal to report that there’s more interest than people expect and Hendry won’t have to eat the whole contract? And then why would Bruce Miles confirm it a few days later?

Sure, some Cubs fans may be getting their hopes up too far, but I’m not reading much of that here.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 28, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's the level of interest that I question.

If there are some GM’s whose attitude is, “If you want to talk about it, I’m at least willing to listen”, I might buy that. But GM’s “knocking down the door” to talk about acquiring Bradley, no, I don’t buy that for a minute.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Oct 28, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you know that?

Two reporters who both have good credibility for their sources have reported that there is a high level of interest in Bradley. I’ve heard myself of some potential deals that fell through even during the season (have been discussed here before).

So why would you not believe Rosenthal and Miles?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 28, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are really missing the point.

No one is saying there isn’t interest in Milton. Clearly there is. But it’s the LEVEL of interest that I’m not buying (and I think ctcoff99 too).

It’s no secret that Hendry MUST move MB before the season starts next year. He’s got very little leverage. MB has burned a lot of bridges to a number of teams already, so his destinations are limited. His contract is terrible.

So to think Hendry is going to get some great return is silly and people need to temper their expectations. I can already see the “Hendry Sucks” posts the day of the deal is done and JH doesn’t get an elite player back.

Again, I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 28, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one is saying that Hendry will get an elite player.

People are saying that we won’t have to eat the whole contract and we will get something.

I also think some people have this view of GMs’ relationships that’s unrealistic. These guys work together and have to maintain a degree of good will in order to keep making trades. You don’t just call a guy up and make insulting offers.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 28, 2009 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

There could also be cases of GM’s being interested only because they think they can acquire a decent hitter and only have to pay a small portion of his salary for next year. I think most GM’s would have to at least investigate that.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Oct 29, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then I'd...

suspect that you’re just having trouble grasping the notion of value. Talent on field virtually always trumps issues in the clubhouse. While I don’t personally subscribe to this notion, Milton Bradley has NEVER had trouble finding a job, because he’s regarded as a superior talent. And Hendry will have his share of teams that are still interested in his services for that reason. Because he can rake; not counting 2009.

Clubhouses are like most locker rooms; it all depends on the guys. Bradley in Chicago was a non-starter, and Hendry should have known better. But the talent and return here is great enough that each GM — or at least those who haven’t run across Milton personally — has to at least sit down and a least assess whether he can help the ballclub, and more importantly, whether his clubhouse can tolerate this personality; i.e, is he a fit? It’s called due diligence. Guys running multi-million dollar organizations actually do research, and don’t deal in conjecture and hearsay.

Couple that talent and potential return with the possibility that you can potentially get him very reasonably, and you’re simply not doing your job as a GM if you’re not at least making some calls.

I used to have a Land Rover. I’m sure some of you are familiar with British automobile “engineering”. I paid full price, and loved that truck, even if I did have to put it in the shop a couple of times a year. In the end, I found it too much trouble to keep, but I’d still consider getting it again today if the dealer sold it to me at 40% off for my trouble.

That’s Milton Bradley in short.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 28, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs

Well said, Damen.

There may well be a clubhouse where Bradley’s attitude issues would not be a problem; supposedly, he got along well enough in Texas, but not enough that they wanted him back for more than a token one-year offer (and reports were, many of his teammates had had enough of him there, too).

If there’s a team out there that figures that the (presumed) production will outweigh the clubhouse issues, that team will deal for him.

Damen’s right, too — Bradley was never a good fit in Chicago, and Hendry didn’t do his due diligence on this issue.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 28, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks...

By the way, did you get that e-mail from my GMail account earlier today?

by Damen Jackson on Oct 28, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

I replied to you via the other address you sent from. Sorry I didn’t get back to you on the Gmail address, I’ll do tha tnow.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 28, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair share of teams huh?

This is where we differ.

How many teams do you think are interested in Milton?
How much of his contract do you think they are asking the Cubs to eat?
What sort of player are they intending to send back?

Sure the Cubs have interest in MB, but Hendry is hardly in the drivers seat.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 28, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've never heard someone say...

that Hendry was in the “drivers seat”. People are simply trying to explain to you why it is that the Cubs should be expected to make a satisfactory deal in this case, so please lose the straw men.

And as to your comment below, I have never heard so much as even a casual fan suggest that the Cubs might get something extravagant in return since this whole thing started. If you’ve heard different, please share. About the grandest names that I’ve heard have been Luis Castillo, Aaron Rowand, and Jeremy Bonderman. I’d hardly call these guys getting your hopes up.

A reasonable deal. I don’t know why that’s so hard for people to get their heads wrapped around.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 28, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you must have missed the whole Carlos Beltran/Jose Reyes thread last week.

Some of it was centered around a Zambrano deal, but there a good chunk of it was based on the premise the Mets would want to get out from under Beltran’s contract and/or the front office didn’t like Reyes’ makeup anymore.

I also recall a lot of talk about Bradley for Granderson.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 28, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok; you're right about those ideas

but in these cases, Bradley was only considered part of the deal. And in Granderson’s case, I think some people were mistakenly believing Granderson might be considered to have a burdensome contract. And in the Mets’ cases, I think everyone was saying that the hope was all based on the Mets being incompetent. Again in both cases, those teams need a big LF, so Bradley is a potential piece they could be interested in.

From my perspective, if Bradley was involved in a deal for Reyes or Granderson, he wouldn’t be the best piece the other team received – at least from their perspective.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 29, 2009 7:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

….me no understand what you’re saying. This is WAY to complex for me to get my head around.

First of all, why make comments like that? Argue with me about this until you’re blue in face, but leave the cocky bs out.

Second of all, this thread got started up because people like you went nuts (“you’ve got to be out of your bleeping mind” comment) at the idea of GMjr. While I’m not advocating for GMjr in particular, I don’t think he’s too far off from what we should expect to receive. I mean, is there really THAT much difference between GMjr and Aaron Rowand?

Finally, see ballhawk’s comments. People are getting the expectations far too high.

So I ask you again, How many teams do you think are interested in Milton? How much of his contract do you think they are asking the Cubs to eat? What sort of player are they intending to send back?

I’d say JH has 3-5 serious trade partners. He will eat about $7-8 million. And he will get someone who has average value and isn’t a big name.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 29, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may be correct in your conclusions.

But they can still get back someone who will have better value than GMJ.

And yes, Aaron Rowand is one of those people.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd agree with you on the 7 million...

As I’ve stated here many times. And at potentially 2/14 or less (or Hendry being amenable to taking a bad contract back at par, I would expect close to a dozen teams would have been in contact with Hendry on the matter. I won’t attempt to guess how many are serious at this point.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 29, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DGU...

…no one is saying there isn’t interest. Don’t put words in my mouth. But like you said, I think people are getting their hopes up far too high.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 28, 2009 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry if you think I'm putting words in your mouth.

Either way, I think we’ll be seeing soon enough.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 28, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No worries.

It’s hard to read into what people are saying or how it is intended to come across. I sorta did the same thing, assuming you were on the Curtis Granderson side of things.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 29, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bruce Miles

has the last word on this GMJr idea.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 28, 2009 9:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I love it!!...

Matthews’ decline in production prompted an article on fangraphs.com to describe Matthews as the "most delusional man on the planet" for his assertion in the L.A. Times that “when I’m playing every day, I feel I can be a top-of-the-line center fielder, and that, I would think, is what a lot of teams want.”

Most delusional man on the planet. ’Nuff said.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 28, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the comments on Bruce's post that says...

… that Jeremy Bonderman could be part (or all) of a Bradley deal to the Tigers might work. Bonderman is due $12.5 million in 2010, but his deal is up after next year. The Cubs would pay more next year, but save money overall.

Bonderman turns 27 today. He would, at the very least, be a back-of-the-rotation inning eater if he’s healthy. He had a good year in 2006 and if healthy, would likely put up better numbers in the NL than the AL.

Worth considering.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd make that trade right now

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 29, 2009 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think I would too.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too.

JH could also look and immediately flipping Bonderman to another team.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 29, 2009 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be very agreeable...

to the Bonderman idea.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 29, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Angels Would Never Take Milton Bradley

Ever. Never Never ever. They’d love to dump GMJ, but not at the expense of taking on Bradley. They’re all about character guys. See dumping Jose Guillen, and then fleecing the Nats later getting Juan Rivera and Maicier Izturis for him.

I predict the Angels just dump him. Arte Moreno ate Kevin Appier’s deal a few years back, and they ate Justin Speier’s deal this year.

"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008

by BeerCub on Oct 28, 2009 9:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You know that Angels trade of Guillen

might be a good bellwether for us on what Hendry might be able to get for Bradley. The situations strike me as being very similar, with the exception that the economy is tougher right now.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 29, 2009 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To get rid of Milton means we need to take on somebody else's baggage and bad contract

Not sure why everybody is ripping to shreds Gary Matthews Jr. Of course he comes with major warts and isn’t really any good. But at least he is a viable option for shedding the cancer that is Milton. And at least Matthews can play a good centerfield.

I understand that Matthews sucks and was on roids and is horrendously overpaid. But what exactly do you people expect in return?

"Cubs will win 79 to 83 games." BLou (7/21/09)

by BLou on Oct 28, 2009 10:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Alot of posters on here

Tend to way overvalue our players!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 28, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you're telling me Granderson is not going to be roaming CF...

…at Wrigley next year?

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Oct 29, 2009 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

because jacoby ellsbury will!

GETITDONE JIM

"hey

by jesus christos on Oct 29, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wish like hell he would be!!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 29, 2009 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

More than Matthews

The Cubs would be better served by eating Bradley’s contract than taking on Matthews

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 29, 2009 6:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Utter nonsense, but from you it is no surprise.

by cubswin on Oct 29, 2009 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what happens if i say it

"hey

by jesus christos on Oct 29, 2009 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

-1

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 30, 2009 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What a strange response...

by Tate491 on Oct 30, 2009 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever, chief

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 30, 2009 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the difference here

is that you believe Matthews can play a good CF. I think, however, he’s actually worse than Dome there. See the fangraphs article Bruce Miles cited.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 29, 2009 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather cut him

then get back Gary Matthews Jr. The same can be said for Vernon Wells.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 29, 2009 8:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm starting to wonder...

…whether Hendry should perhaps focus on getting a No. 5 starting pitcher for Milton Bradley. Perhaps Bonderman or Robertson from Detroit or Carlos Silva from the Mariners. This would preserve the Cubs current excellent “rotation depth” (Marshall, Gorzelanny and Samardzija) and perhaps allow him to steal Mike Cameron from the Brewers to play centerfield.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 29, 2009 9:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

They might not be able to afford Cameron...

… because the 2010 payroll actually would INCREASE getting Bonderman, who makes more in 2010 than Bradley. A deal like that provides salary relief for 2011, though.

It would also likely mean bye-bye to Rich Harden.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm kind of running on the assumption that Harden won't be back to begin with.

I suppose they could do the Bonderman thing and roll with Fuld/RJ in centerfield. I know that doesn’t thrill a lot of people, though.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 29, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why o' why o' why...

…do some of you want to keep on this extreme addiction to overpaid free agents. Mike Cameron? Really?

I truly hope Ricketts is smarter than this. I also hope he puts a padlock on Jim Hendry’s checkbook. Better still, cut to the chase and fire Hendry now instead of wasting a season “evaluating” what the family just bought.

"Cubs will win 79 to 83 games." BLou (7/21/09)

by BLou on Oct 29, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't overpay Cameron.

But for the right price, he might be a good short-term solution.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 30, 2009 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Cameron has been one of the best centerfielders in baseball the past two seasons

He can cover centerfield even at his age, and while he will make Soriano look like Fukudome with his patience, he can hit too. He’s been a 4+ WAR player the past two seasons and would be a great addition to our lineup.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 30, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

Rec'd.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 30, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

minus

The Suspension?

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 30, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what does that have to do with anything now?

It’s not like he gets suspended to start every season.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 30, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but his PED supspension

Has to be taken into account!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 30, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha, that was great irony.

One could say he’d already started playing for the Cubs at that point.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 30, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, so what would you like to see happen with the Cubs outfield?

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 30, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Derek Jeter, of course...

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 30, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

can his 2747 career hits come too?????

"hey

by jesus christos on Oct 30, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really like the idea of getting a fifth starter

It really benefits this team because of the injury risks, but here is my question to everybody.

Is Milton Bradley really so horrible a human being that you would rather pay Carlos Silva $23.5 million to be an average pitcher at best? Or pay Gary Matthews Jr $23 million to be worse than Sam Fuld? Jeremy Bondermon not only sucks, but he raises the payroll next season (plus no way we don’t pay the difference between him and Milton’s salary). I could go on.

My point is Milton Bradley is a better baseball player than almost every name we have talked about the past few months. For all his faults as a human, this deal is going to ultimately cripple the team more than it will help the team. It just makes zero sense to me for a team to trade a .800 OPS outfielder for a pitcher that, if you are lucky, gives you 150 innings and a 4.50 ERA.

Now maybe Jim hendry has something up his sleeve that we don’t see coming, perhaps he can find a way to get something resembling a decent deal, but based on the rumors I’ve seen so far it makes zero baseball sense to trade Milton Bradley.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 29, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is he a horrible person? Probably not.

I think he’s involved with charitable endeavors.

He has alienated the Cub organization, though – including the players. It would take an awful lot to heal that rift, and Hendry would have to do a lot of spinning to not look like a total idiot.

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 29, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right.

At this point, Bradley’s baseball ability is really irrelevant. He simply cannot be a member of the Cubs any more.

Bonderman doesn’t “suck”. He’s been injured. When healthy, he has been a good major league pitcher. He is only 27. This might be a very good deal.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that baseball ability is irrelevant is my problem with any deal

At some point it becomes easier for to say Milton’s back rather than take on some of these deals. They just make no sense from a baseball or financial standpoint.

If the reports that the payroll will stay about the same are true, then the Bonderman trade makes your payroll $3.5 million higher for next season right away. That is probably all the money the Cubs have to spend after you give the raises to the arbitration gang. On top of that you have to give the Tigers $9 million more to make up the difference in salary between Bonderman and Milton. Basically you pay $21 million for a guy who has the ceiling of fifth starter that eats innings, but also could walk off the field injured at any time.

I really believe that Hendry has himself in the corner and rather than do something financially stupid and irresponsible, it might just be worth it to take the media beating. I promise you right now not a single ticket will go unsold because Milton Bradley is on the team, I’ll bet that most of the players (obviously not Ryan Theriot) would be more than willing to have Milton back if he just came out and apologized to them.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 29, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just a media beating.

It’s the fan response to him — do you think new ownership really wants to hear loud booing every time Bradley takes the field? — and the response of the players.

Bradley won’t apologize.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, but if you're saying Bradley's baseball ability is irrelevant...

…and more importantly, if Hendry (and the Cubs) is ‘saying’ (without really saying it of course) that Bradley’s baseball ability is really irrelevant, than getting any decent amount of baseball ability back in any trade is really irrelevant. Hendry should just deal him to the first team that says yes.

Or do you somehow think Hendry can have it both ways?

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 29, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe dealing him to the first team that says yes is the right thing to do.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it's not like you need to keep him....

You might actually be able to work him into an affordable, LH infielder for 2010.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 29, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you have a specific LH infielder in mind?

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 29, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stephen Drew

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 29, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, yes. The ubiquitous Mr. Drew.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 29, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that many (most? all?) of these deals make little to no baseball sense.

But with Milton’s end-of-the-season suspension, his situation became less a baseball issue and more an employment one. If Mark Prior was “The Employee,” Milton Bradley is “The Unemployable.” This is the terrible dilemma we (and Jim Hendry) face.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 29, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs