Giants Fans Weigh In On Bradley-For-Rowand
From the SB Nation Giants blog McCovey Chronicles. Seems like they're all for it -- and contrary to previous reports, this link quotes a San Jose Mercury News writer as having asked a Giants exec "with veto power" if he'd do the deal; the answer was "yes".
16 days ago
Al
105 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I'm sick of hearing his name....
I certainly hope he’s traded sooner rather than later so the organization and us fans can move on.
I’d welcome Rowand in a heartbeat. He’s like a Reed Johnson type… always have respected the guy, even from his White Sox days.
"It's hard to win 97 games, it's hard to win the division. Our attitude is if you get in every year, you get in most of the time, sooner or later you are going to knock that door down." -- Jim Hendry
by EJThunder on Nov 4, 2009 3:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The should take Mr. unmentionable, please, please, please, please, please, pretty please with sugar on top!
Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.
- The Mock Turtle, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll -
by eths on Nov 4, 2009 3:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, so, how much $$$ would they include
to get the deal done? Could we get 3 M covered on Rowand’s contract a year? 5? I have no hesitation if they pay 5 M. Then we have an OF of Soriano-Fuld-Rowand-Dome, with the latter three splitting time regularly and Dome sitting against all LHP.
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 Nov 4, 2009 3:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
They'd have to take some of it...
… because Bradley is owed $21 million, and Rowand is owed $36 million.
Add ‘em both up and split it in half, and the Cubs would owe $28.5 million — over three years instead of two. That’d work for me, and it would save the Giants money as well.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 4, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd sooner that they took Miles instead,
and we called it even. The funny thing is that he might actually be useful for them.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 4, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also a good idea.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 4, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
MB and Miles for Rowand. I'm good with that.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 4, 2009 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is pretty much a win win
We win because we are done with the MB debate and we win because Aaron Miles is gone
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
by nji232 on Nov 5, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, if the Cubs acquire Rowand...
… it’s likely they can get Reed Johnson back at a discount, because he and Rowand are best friends.
Then you have your five OF as: Soriano, Fukudome, Rowand, Fuld and Johnson, which gives you good defense (well, except in LF) and suitable backups for all three OF positions.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 4, 2009 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It would also give you 4 extemely light-hitting outfielders
I think if you get Rowand you not only don’t need Reed Johnson, you need that 5th outfielder to have at least some semblance of pop.
by Wreckard on Nov 4, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
… it’s possible Rowand could have a better offensive season hitting with Wrigley Field as his home park, rather than [Phone Holding Company] Park.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 4, 2009 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd expect so...
Let Rowand play 70% of his games in NL Central bandboxes, and I’d look for his power to spike pretty quickly.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 4, 2009 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wrigley's park effect for home runs was 1.006 last season
…or about average.
San Francisco’s 0.970, which really isn’t that much of a difference.
The move to Wrigley would certainly help Aaron Rowand but not really as much as I think you’re suggesting here.
by Wreckard on Nov 4, 2009 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Rowand rumors start getting serious
it will be worth looking at his spray charts… yes, I’m asking someone else to do it for me…
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 Nov 4, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, hey, jesus christos answered my prayer!
I didn’t realize MLB.com had those.
Anyway, I could see some of those home doubles turning into Wrigley HRs.
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 Nov 4, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, some of them
Enough to make him a good player again? I’m extremely skeptical.
There aren’t any arguments for Rowand coming here that don’t contain the words “hustle” and “grit.”
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How about Fukudome can't play CF against LHP?
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 Nov 5, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you cut Bradley and sign Reed Johnson
…you’ll solve the problem, get similar production, and spend less money.
Johnson and Rowand have almost the exact same career OPS vs left handed pitching.
Probably an aberration / small sample size issue but Rowands splits against lefties last year were abysmal. His splits were backwards last year.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rowand's career splits suggest that aberration is most likely
although it would be miserable if it was the start of a trend and we signed him up.
See my math below – depending on how little you think you can sign Johnson – you don’t necessarily save money. And if you’re not going to save money, you might as well get a player who can hit RHP.
I agree that Rowand isn’t worth it in a straight swap. But if Hendry is thinking of straight cutting Bradley and the Giants will pay part of Rowand’s salary, he makes some sense.
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 Nov 5, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
If we were just looking at acquiring Rowand with no other factors involved, I’d say no.
But he might be the best option if the Cubs are to get rid of Bradley’s deal, especially if the money can be equalized.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The best option that has been discussed is Burrell
If you can do that deal straight up you absolutely do. The money for 2010 is a wash and then you have no commitments after that. Maybe you release Burrell then, or release him, who cares. The Cubs don’t take on any new long term commitments, and the Rays get 2 years of Bradley for essentially $12M. It’s a win-win.
Taking on any additional money at all – even the 7-8M you suggest above – for a player as bad as Aaron Rowand seems like folly to me.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, whoops.
Maybe youreleasetrade Burrell then, or release him, who cares.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, that does make a lot of sense.
Maybe the Cubs could treat Pat the Bat as more of a bench guy – let him pinch hit, give me a spot start in right field vs. a LHP, let him spot start in left to rest Soriano. That kinda thing.
If such a deal is possible, though, one wonders why it’s taking so long to get done. I believe it’s been on the table for quite some time now. Maybe Hendry is seeing whether anything “better” develops.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 5, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In certain cases, trading Bradley for the 1 year options
whether they be as useful as Burrell or as shot-in-the-dark-probably-not-useful as Dontrelle Willis, is the better way to go for precisely the reason you say.
But Jim Hendry can’t afford a knee-jerk reaction that says, “I can’t take on a bad contract, because bad contracts are bad.” Aaron Rowand fills a need on our club. At a certain price, keeping in mind that a certain part of the MB is a sunk cost, he’s worth it. He is not a bad player, after all. He had a bad year in 2009, but look at his career averages and you see a slightly above average hitter who can play a plus CF.
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 Nov 5, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct.
Releasing Burrell would be the same as releasing Bradley — just eating money and getting nothing in return.
At least getting Rowand gives you a CHANCE of getting better. Pat Burrell is useless to the Cubs.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your idea yesterday to make it a
Bradley/Miles for Rowand makes sense.
Eliminates the Giants Rowand headache and saves some money while giving the Cubs a CF option.
Both sides have risk, only the cubs is financial.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't Rowand come with a CHANCE
of making you worse too?
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
by nji232 on Nov 5, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How so?
Bradley is now a bank account that sucks money. His divorce is final so no at bats, period.
Rowand at least fills a position of need in CF and has potential for upside. Even if he sucks, he can be a 4th OF/defensive replacement in left or whatever. Roles Bradley can no longer provide.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he could be so bad at hitting
that he provides under replacement level value for three years.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
by nji232 on Nov 5, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was awfully close to that last year
And his defense has started declining.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lost in these broad strokes being painted
is that Rowand played through a bad injury last year. His career #s are not yet to be ignored in projection.
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 Nov 5, 2009 9:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I'm not advocating a
1 for 1. However, if the dollar differences could be split, I view the cost as worth the the risk.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Burrell could be a decent RF platoon partner for Dome.
We’d still need a CF.
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 Nov 5, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're joking, right?
Pat Burrell has played ONE major league game in right field. ONE. (Once, last year, when Joe Maddon must have lost his mind.)
Burrell in RF would be like having Adam Dunn out there, only with worse defense and not as good hitting.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ironically
this comes from a big Adam Dunn proponent.
In a limited role, you can deal with the bad defense.
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 Nov 5, 2009 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yabbut...
… “limited” doesn’t mean “platoon”. Not a single major league manager has ever thought Pat Burrell could do that. Adam Dunn, at least, played some RF on a regular basis, including last year. Plus, Dunn is a far better hitter than Burrell.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn is actually a worse defender than Burrell
You’d expect Burrell to actually be a better right fielder than Dunn was.
Not that I’d want either of them out there mind you.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I suggested using Burrell as more of a bench guy.
I mean, how different are Jake Fox and Pat Burrell? Pat’s actually played 58 games at first base in his career, too, so he’s got that goin’ for him. He obviously can’t play third base, but we’ve got Jeff Baker for that.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 5, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How are these the same thing?
Releasing Burrell would be the same as releasing Bradley — just eating money and getting nothing in return.
Trading for then releasing Burrell costs you $8M.
Releasing Bradley costs you $21M.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I guess.
I still think trading Bradley for someone who MIGHT provide value, is a better idea.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're failing to consider the opportunity cost
If I was choosing in a vacuum between Rowand and Burrell, of course I would take Rowand.
But let’s say, theoretically, that Hendry is deciding between a straight-up Burrell for Bradley swap, vs the Bradley-for-Rowand deal you proposed (where the 2 clubs split the money down the middle).
Option A gets you Burrell for 1 year / $8M.
Option B gets you Aaron Rowand for 3 years / $28M.
That means that your opportunity cost for Aaron Rowand is $20M. If Rowand were a free agent and the Cubs had the money, would you sign Rowand for 3 years at $9M per year? Because essentially what you’d be doing.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Option B might cost you LESS than $20M...
… if you can get the Giants to eat some of the money.
Also, option A costs you $8 million in 2010 and nothing after.
Option B costs you $7 million a year for three years. Is that worth it to get a possibly useful player, instead of simply throwing away $8 million on nothing?
I would argue “yes, it is”.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You think the Giants are willing to eat $15M of Rowand's deal to get Bradley?
That seems extremely far-fetched to me.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree...
….you have to look at it like this;
Are the Cubs more desperate to trade Bradley or are the Giants more desperate to trade Rowand?
No matter who the Cubs trade Bradley for, it will end up being a costly deal for them because everyone knows Bradley MUST be traded.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Nov 5, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But Bradley doesn't have to be traded to the buying team
and in the case of the Giants, they are desperate for OBP and have dealt with a personality reportedly worse than Bradley’s before. If the Giants don’t feel that Bay or Holliday would come their way, they could become motivated buyers – not w/o caveats, but motivated to a degree.
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 Nov 5, 2009 9:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you're getting the numbers mixed up
Option B only costs you $7M if you see the initial $8M as a sunk cost.
If you’re conceding that, then option A costs you $0.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope so
However, Rowand looked completely lost in the three Cubs-Giants games that I saw at [square brackets] Park. This deal has some big downside possibilities, too.
"When you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
by vonde6 on Nov 4, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit...
I don’t hate it.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 4, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you acquire Rowand, Reed Johnson serves no purpose because
for one thing, he’s just the poor man’’s Rowand, but for another, the Cubs will want to acquire a LH hitter and lead-offish hitter at 2B/SS, making Baker a utility player, and your 5th OF.
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 Nov 4, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So that'd be Soriano would be LF, Fukudome would be RF...
…and Rowand & Johnson would be BFF? ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 5, 2009 8:04 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm having a little fun with them.
Check it out.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 4, 2009 3:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Man, it's like walking into a drunken party at midnight.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 4, 2009 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a dumb idea.
I do not like Milton Bradley, AT ALL. But to trade him for Aaron Roward, who is a worse player that requires more money, is a real bad idea.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Nov 4, 2009 3:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's all about team chemistry....
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
by carmen_fanzone on Nov 4, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is a wonderful thing...
when it is accompanied by team talent.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
by davidalanu on Nov 4, 2009 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
addition by subtraction...
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
by carmen_fanzone on Nov 4, 2009 8:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A very dumb idea
Aaron Rowand is owed an insane $36 million over the next three years for being a mild upgrade over Reed Johnson.
Cubs are already overwhelmed with bad awful contracts. We don’t need another one. Subtracting Bradley’s $20 million for Rowands $36 million is not going to happen. Thankfully.
"Cubs will win 79 to 83 games." BLou (7/21/09)
by BLou on Nov 4, 2009 9:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yikes the 2nd time in two days we agree
Something perverse is going on. Well I am sure there is PLENTY more we disagree on but yes indeed it makes NO sense to take on an even worse contract to dump Bradley.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 4, 2009 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind he wants Gary Matthews, Jr. . . .
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 Nov 4, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Missed that but keep in mind
I am not opposed to keeping Milton. I would rather find someone wiling to kick in 5 million or more but if not then just keep him. I don’t favor releaseing or trading him for players who are worse and cost more. Most people here woud thing I was crazier.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 4, 2009 11:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
I can’t get my head wrapped around that one either.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 5, 2009 6:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think anyone wants Rowand straight up.
It’s that at a certain price, getting Rowand back is better than eating the entire contract, and getting Rowand if the Giants kick in enough $$$ is better than a lot of other options.
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 Nov 5, 2009 6:39 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Correct.
Or maybe BLou would rather have Jeremy Bonderman? Because that’s also on the list of not-so-great options.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 7:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I would rather have Jeremy Bonderman...
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 Nov 5, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The ONLY way it makes ANY sense is if the Giants kick in
the whole 13 million and perhaps more than that. I personally don’t think Rowand has much upside at all. We already
have two guys who can be great defensive outfileders on the bench and I am not convinced Rowand is going to hit much at all. I would seriously rather start Fuld than Rowand . If you are that eager to dump Bradley find a team will ing to eat a couple of million and be done with it , do NOT take on a potentially worse player.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 5, 2009 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Rowand has the chance to be a much better hitter ...
… with Wrigley as his home park.
Again, this is trying to make the best of a bad situation. Sam Fuld, much as you love him, is not a better hitter than Rowand.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed, but I think you have to take the dollars into account as well
Is Rowand’s hitting delta over Fuld worth the contract delta?
It’s gonna be like this for every possible Bradley scenario. Weighing a bunch of factors and figuring out which one is going to hurt you least. There are no good outcomes here – like you said, just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Hendry’s gonna have to juggle all these variables – talent, money eaten, money taken on, roster spots, playing time, more years, and of course, “team chemistry”. And then he’s gonna have to roll the dice, pick one scenario, and convince Ricketts to sign off on it. Which I’m sure Ricketts will because this will be the first major test of Hendry’s GM skills under the new ownership, i.e. the first “accountability” checkpoint.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was told there would be no Delta.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 5, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's the issue -
how good do we think Fuld could be on a regular basis? I think we all agree he’s not getting his SLG over .415, so how much OBP could he provide? If he could provide over .350 – that’s one thing. Should the Cubs be confident that he can provide a .360 OBP?
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 Nov 5, 2009 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My point was I simply don't want Rowand
The Giants are NOT going to pay you the difference and there is FAR too little upside to doing this. I am half kidding about Fuld but unless the Cubs have the money to spend on Cameron or somene else I would far prefer Fuld or Fuld/Johnson to Rowand and his contract ( even if the Giant’s took Miles).
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 5, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Precisely.
Of course the contracts don’t match up. But if steps could be taken to mitigate the financial cost, Rowand might be a decent “damage control”-type return for Milton. It’s important to bear in mind that there won’t likely be any neat and pretty answers to this unfortunate situation.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 5, 2009 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing we know we need next season
is a RH hitting CF – unless you buy that Sam Fuld can keep hitting LHs. So, Rowand is overpriced, but he’s also something we need. So – two scenarios I can envision –
1) We trade MB and 18 M for a B/C level prospect still at least a year and a half away. We then sign Reed Johnson to a 3 year 15 M contract.
2) We trade MB and Miles for Rowand.
That’s the same money on both sides. So, who would you rather have? Miles and RJ and a B/C prospect or Rowand?
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 Nov 5, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Man, talk about a devil's bargain.
I’m really not sure. Bruce Miles has speculated that, if Miles still looks bad in spring training, the Cubs may just release him. So maybe the best long-term plan is to get the prospect – who could at least turn out to be something useful – and go with the Fuld/RJ platoon. Then again, three years seems a little long for Reed Johnson. Couldn’t the Cubs get him for two with a club option?
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 5, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what the market for RJ will be.
But if Miles is worth 2/6, how is RJ not worth 3/15?
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 Nov 5, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson is coming off an injury and hasn't been a full time player since 2006
I’d be shocked if he gets more than a one-year deal worth $3-4M.
by Wreckard on Nov 5, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's more what I was hoping for.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by dat cubfan daver on Nov 5, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see.
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 Nov 5, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson is not likely to get much at all
One of the blogs or twitters etc ( I think Bruce Miles) reported yesterday that the Cubs would like to keep him but are concerned because he has a degenerative back problem. The Cubs may not keep him at all but if they do I doubt it would be for more than 2 million for one year with some incentives for AB.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 5, 2009 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's probably what clubs should sign most veterans
for.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Miles isn't worth 2/6, that's just what Hendry decided to overpay him
RJ is a 4th outfielder type who may happen into a part-time starting job with the Cubs due to the Bradley situation. When healthy, he’s given us some decent production and great defense. 2/6 might make sense for him.
by madcow256 on Nov 5, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The same GM who rewarded Miles
will be deciding what to offer RJ, and is on record praising him.
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 Nov 5, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but praising a guy and overpaying
should not be automatically linked.
I can like a player and believe his contract demands are too high and he shouldn’t be re-signed (Wood) and I can like a player and believe his contract is an albatross (Soriano).
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
But Hendry likes to reward hard working role players if they are healthy – Miles is just a Henry Blanco who didn’t work out.
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 Nov 5, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, it's a scary thought
Hopefully Hendry will realize he’s managing for his job this year and that those dollars will be needed for something more than the championship champagne.
by madcow256 on Nov 5, 2009 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you trade Bradley & Miles for Rowand you eat TEN MILLION
Again if you are that hell bent on dumping Milton you can probably get someone to take the contract and give you a few million ( if you just cut him you would save about a million re league minimum). For 10 million plus you can probably get Cameron or someone like that. The LAST thing the Cubs need is another bad LONG term contract. Trading this one for Bradley is a BAD idea.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 5, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your math is off a bit, I think
because the 10 M is in 2012.
And for that matter, what do you project being the difference between Cameron and Rowand?
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 Nov 5, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So it is OK if we don't have to worry about another 10 million for two years ?
I much prefer the “extra” 10-12 million to go to someone for one year than be stuck with another albatross for
3. If Rowand stays on his downward trend you are just going to be dumping him too and eating the contract
again.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 5, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless you can get the Giants to eat part of the money.
Which is entirely possible.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love this part
Okay. Come on, Ryan. Think. He’s going to set you up with a fastball just off the plate. Don’t bite. Sit on a fastball in, and only a fastball in, just in case he misses badly with his location. He’s not expecting you to try to pull the ball for power; he’s thinking I’ll be content slapping the ball into right field. Right field. Where that jerk Milton Bradley plays. Oh, man, that guy is a real jerk. He’s always dipping his fingers into the salsa. I swear, if he counts cards when we’re playing blackjack one more time, I’m going to kil…DAMMIT, I GROUNDED OUT TO SECOND. Arrgh. That one’s on Milton.
That pretty much sums up the season for Soto and Soriano too I guess, too busy worried about Milton counting cards.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
by nji232 on Nov 5, 2009 10:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ok reading through the comments there I see two things
They hate AJ, awesome. Also shouldn’t their willingness to dump Rowand be a huge red flag?
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
by nji232 on Nov 5, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it's a red flag.
Rowand is an imperfect player. Ideally, I’d still want to add Curtis Granderson after adding Rowand and have an overpaid but solid OF where Rowand picks up playing time platooning and spelling both Dome and Soriano.
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 Nov 5, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know I keep bringing up his name
But if you are going to try that, why not do it with Mike Cameron and Sam Fuld? That way it’s cheaper and can be fixed after 2010 if it doesn’t work.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
by nji232 on Nov 5, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because that doesn't solve the problem of getting rid of Bradley.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Nov 5, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, ideally we could get Cameron on a 1/8 or 2/15 year deal.
But what if he can get 3/30?
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 Nov 5, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Most importantly, the series is over.
While Bud is always frowning, his official frown against announcing moves during the series be gone.
C’mon Jimbo, where’s the freakin announcements? Well, I’m waiting…
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 12:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
What's the problem?
We got an announcement already!
Oh, that wasn’t what you had in mind, I suppose . . . me, neither.
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 Nov 5, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, yeah, NO.
I’m thinking more the kind you can’t announce during the series. You know, “We’ve offloaded this rotten hamburger for this here prime steak.” yada yada yada, “With this move, we’re confident the pieces are in place to beat the Cardinals/win the series” yada yada yada.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“We’ve just signed Todd Hundley”
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 Nov 5, 2009 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
'Bout time they replaced Yosh.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
by N Oakley on Nov 5, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
once again
please,please,please. maybe hendry will consider a players past before he starts chucking cash around. i said it before 7 teams in 8 years should really tell you something. i guess jim did not know that. jim call me next time. or if you cant spend the money have lou call it will be a local call.
by NOMAR on Nov 7, 2009 7:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
