Precedent set for Bradley Deal?
by jballgame on Dec 11, 2009 9:22 AM CST
Email
Print
Are the terms of the proposed (yet not final?) Lowell deal a precedent for a Bradley deal?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4730311
Reports say that the gap between the Rays and Cubs in exchanging Burrell for Bradley is Bradley's '11 salary, which amounts to $12M. In the Lowell deal, the Red Sox have agreed, in principle, to pay $9M of the $12M owed to Lowell. Max Ramirez' salary was $400k in 2009, which is really negligible in this deal, and therefore doesn't really augment the $9M the Red Sox are paying as a part of Lowell's salary. Discuss......
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I want the Cubs to keep Milton
but I think this might be the best the Cubs can do. A net savings of $3million + Pat Burrell. If I was Hendry, I would not agree to eat more than $9million, it wouldn’t be worth it. With $3million + a couple extra million in payroll increase will get you a decent OF, like Cameron……
There are some externalities in play, however.
For starters, Mike Lowell is widely known as a great guy, clubhouse leader, and clutch run producer. Milton Bradley cannot hit with men on base, once tried to fight an announcer, and has been charitably called “toxic” in terms of personality.
So I’m betting that the Cubs are going to have to pull full freight on this one, one way or another.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Yes they should
Right now, the Cubs have less than nothing for $21M. They have a guy who is a net negative. Sure, $21M for one year of Burrell is grossly overpaying, but I suspect that Burrell at least will be a positive for the team, however small a positive that may be.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 11, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions
And, Burrell might still be dealable elsewhere.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
you keep saying this
despite the fact that no other team has shown any interest in him. I’m okay being stuck with Burrell, but make no mistake, we’d be stuck with him
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
Maybe not dealable right now.
But I suspect that there could be some teams calling come the trade deadline, especially if Burrell plays well.
"Dad gum right this games gonna be played under protest. . . I guarantee this is gonna be one protest that's upheld." --Hawk Harrelson, 6/24/07
it's a troubling proposition...
the more playing time you give him (assuming he bats well), the more he costs the team runs in the OF. if you don’t play him, he’s pretty much untradeable, unless of course, you eat most of his salary too.
Well, if he does play well,
his offense might be able to mask his defense… for a while anyway.
"Dad gum right this games gonna be played under protest. . . I guarantee this is gonna be one protest that's upheld." --Hawk Harrelson, 6/24/07
Burrell
The Cubs will quite possibly have the worst defensive OF in the history of the game if he’s traded here.
We're not scaremongering (nightmare of a season continues), this is really happening (Bears are more than done) - Radiohead
Only if he plays full-time, which I don't think he would.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
The one thing I don't understand about the Bradley trade is
Why would any team want to take him on? Not just for salary purposes but he really burned himself this year.
No one in baseball is obligated to do anything with Milton Bradley for 2 more years except Jim Hendry.
Well, you're probably expecting this answer...
…but it’s because he’s a good – sometimes very good – hitter with a great eye at the plate. I understand the Rays are still in play because their manager, Joe Maddon, is a very smart, Zen-like guy who thinks he can work with Milton. That said, I keep hearing that the Rays upper management aren’t budging on their financial demands – nor do they have any reason to.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
They don't big against themselves
like someone we know.
We're not scaremongering (nightmare of a season continues), this is really happening (Bears are more than done) - Radiohead
*bid*
We're not scaremongering (nightmare of a season continues), this is really happening (Bears are more than done) - Radiohead
If we pay all of Bradley's contract, how would the money work out?
Would we pay the 21 mil right now or send it over two years or several a la Manny’s contract? I bet if the Rickett’s wanted to, they could just give the 21 mil after a few weeks of beer sales and then be set for 2011
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
That's why I suggested the $4 surcharge in 2011.
With 3 million fans coming in every year, that’d pay off the $12m. Then they could eliminate the surcharge in 2012 and presto! it would look like a ticket price DECREASE.
BTW, the Diamondbacks released Russ Ortiz a couple years ago with $22m left on his contract — so this wouldn’t even be the biggest-ever flushing of money down the toilet.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Call it a Bradley tax!
Of course, you’re paying extra for security if this clown ever comes back to Wrigley.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Cmon Al
Can you REALLY expect the Cubs to do this and not become the laughingstock of all of baseball if not the sports world?
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
by Musicdude10 on Dec 11, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions
No way in Hell would I pay a $4 surcharge to *not* see a player play baseball.
You’ve suggested this several times and I haven’t said anything, but it’s the stupidest thing I have read on this site, including the ZOMG LIND PV stuff and all of BLou’s rants.
You’re probably paying surcharges for plenty of silly stuff and just don’t know it. Ticket prices are raised all the time and I’ve yet to see an itemized report for the raises. Obviously if tickets go up $4 this year, BCBers will know Ricketts has implanted a spy who has stolen Al’s deal and we will be able to call BS. In addition, though I’m not sure how concessions are handled but they could easily increase beer prices and gain some extra income.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
Well I know *that*...
Clearly, to some degree (depending on elasticity), the price of goods/services will reflect the costs. What Al is suggesting is adding an extra fee and explicitly advertising it as the cost of paying a player that isn’t playing. Which is unbelievably stupid, a label I’d also apply to anyone that relishes paying such a fee.
It’s also needlessly vindictive; the Cubs’ organization made the decision to sign Bradley, and if they release him it will be their decision as well. If they raise ticket prices it’s their decision, and if they sign more players with the proceeds it’s their decision. In the unlikely event the Cubs were both stupid and classless enough to explicitly add a “Milton Bradley” surcharge to their ticket prices I would be done with the team.
I know
I guess I was just trying to talk myself into a new way of dealing with this issue. Reconcilliation is not a favorite choice here.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
That's it!
WE ARE THE ANSWER!
Ricketts releases Milton Bradley and pays the $21MM under the express commitment that Cubs fans will drink an EXTRA $21MM in beer during the first month of the season!
WHO’S WITH ME?
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
Sounds good to me
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
A $4 surcharge per ticket is BS.
Going to a game is already insanely expensive. Does that mean that every stupid signing the Cubs make, they should then just eat his contract and hike up ticket prices to off-set it?
by 10 14 23 26 on Dec 11, 2009 10:03 AM CST up reply actions
Maybe we should just stop the stupid signings.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Agreed
But that is a lot of beer.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Sure, $4 now...
Then when they do this again next year, it is another $4. I do “donate” a fair amount of money to the beer vendors, but I at least I get some return on that investment!
I know what you're saying.
But I want to win a WS so bad right now I don’t care what it takes.
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
Of course it is
but look just how bad that is FOUR DOLLARS for EVERY FAN that enters the ballpark…
Yikes!
And I’m 99% sure Al was just goofing around here.
Just win the next game...!
Just think, for a lot less than $4 per fan...
… we could have paid off Aaron Miles’ deal.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I read somewhere...
…the ticket price increase should net the Cubs an additional 12 mil in 2010 and there is your dough for Bradley’s 2010 salary.
Considering I think it was wrong to raise ticket prices (that are already high) after a shitty year, Ricketts is driving a real hard line on this one.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
We had a winning record, you know...
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
Heck yeah! I would actually feel more like I was part of a team. Just think with every beer you drink you know you are explicitly having an effect on the team’s move. I would propose that every beer consumer receives some kind of owner badge with each beverage, modeled after Cracker Jacks badges of course.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
And every time anyone puked from drinking too much beer...
…everyone else around them could yell, “Yeah, that’s how we feel about the Milton Bradley signing, too!”
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
I would be in favor of a $1.50per ticket
trade deadline signing….the extra $$ goes into an account and then the fans get to decide who to sign/trade for at the deadline !!!
by cozmotaylor123 on Dec 11, 2009 10:36 AM CST reply actions
Really? The fans in charge of who to trade for?
ADAMLIND GETITDONEJIM!!!!!
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
This sounds great
It means the Cubs are only moronic franchise in MLB.
How far back can you go with new Cubs Outfielders via off-season Free Agent signings and trades?
Start of baseball season
2009 Bradley
2008 Fukudome (who I still like)
2007 Soriano (who’s money I would like)
2006 Juan Pierre and Jacque Jones (that’s too many french names to be acquired in one off-season)
2005 Jeromy Burnitz and Todd Hollandsworth (both out of baseball after 2006 season)
2004 NOTHING (I feel robbed here)
2003 NOTHING (not counting mid-year trade for Kenny Lofton)
2002 NOTHING (the beginning of an amazing 3 run of no OF signings)
2001NOTHING
2000 Gary Matthews Jr. and Damon Buford (both gone in 2001)
I don’t know about you, but “OF prospect” for the Cubs sounds like a death sentence to me.
I liked Burnitz
Let’s bring him back. At least he produced with he played RF.
by Don't Fear the Reaper on Dec 11, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
He was worth his money
just to see him stumble around the OF (even though his adv def. stats were good).
the ghost of stokes, camp, lugo strikes TB-sept 2009
by CubFanRaysaddict on Dec 12, 2009 3:03 AM CST up reply actions
He was worth his money just to see him wear those high stirrups.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
Mis-typed
meant to say – It means the Cubs are NOT the only moronic franchise in MLB.
Burnitz was probably a good guy to have a beer with in Wrigleyville. Does that count?
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 11, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
I'm sorry,
but there really is no precedent to this situation, as you’ve a player coming off a down year, coupled with a generally strong negative opinion of him in the press, amongst fans, and in some baseball circles. The closest thing to it probably was Ron Artest in his last days in Indianapolis, but in the NBA, they’ve no problem paying you to stay home.
I’m all for Hendry exploring deals, but as the off-season moves on, the few teams that might be interested start spending their money elsewhere, lessening his position even further. It’s time to move on.
No,
But whatever Tampa is offering, take it.That third year was just nuts anyway.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions
Although.
I would add that I’d ask that they throw in someone like Andy Sonnanstine or Navarro.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions
Sonanstine might not be a bad idea
Do we really need Navarro? Not great defensively and injury prone. To get either one we’d have to throw in some guys and our prospects don’t hold a candle to what the Rays have. Castro MIGHT make their top ten
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
by Musicdude10 on Dec 11, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions
I like this idea
and am kind of surprised I haven’t seen it bandied about more. If we’re going to eat all of the 2011 salary (which I am very begrudgingly ok with), then Tampa can throw us something else back (Sonnanstine, an A-ball arm, whatever) just to give the Cubs something to save face with. And while I realize that certainly isn’t the Rays’ job, they would be getting a potentially pretty good baseball player for free in 2011.
Agreed.
But, wait, what third year are you referring to? Milton has only two left on his contract, no?
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
He's only two years left
But I believe the issue with Tampa is the cash amount that’s roughly equal to Milton’s third year. Minus that, and Bradley – Burrell is a fairly even swap, dollar wise. It was stupid of Hendry to add a third-year to that deal in the first place, and really, that’s what’s haunting him in moving Milton.
That said, Navarro intrigues me, and I’d be interested to have Rudy work with him for a season. Tampa doesn’t appear to want him, and he’s an upgrade at backup catcher. It might even scare Soto enough to report in the shape of his life. I mean, since the Cubs would be spending the money anyway, might as well. You tell me: Bradley, and $ 8 million dollars (half now/half before the start of the 2011 season) for Burrell and Navarro? Just thinking out loud.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd take almost anything extra in a Milton-to-the-Rays deal.
If Navarro’s an upgrade over Koyie, it would definitely be worth asking about. I just don’t think Tampa Bay is going to do the Cubs any favors.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
I don't think it's a favor
Maybe a little face saving, but I’ve been hearing rumors of non-tender for the last few weeks. It could be nice for both side. The Rays effectively get Bradley at 2/15 — a deal that I’d do in a minute — and the Cubs get something that resembles a useful bench back for their money in Burrell and Navarro.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 12:09 PM CST up reply actions
You'd probably have to give them a prospect or two in return.
I’d do that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You'd probably have to give them a prospect or two in return.
I’d do that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Why? The rumor
Out of Tampa is that he’s about to be non-tendered.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting.
You’d probably STILL have to give them a prospect. Remember, Tampa holds all the cards in this deal.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Cubs vs. Themselves
The Cubs have been overspending and competing against themselves for years in free agency. Bradley, Soriano, Zambrano – too much money and too many years. And no sense that another team might get THAT GUY.
Fukudome at least had competing offers, even a higher white sox offer.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 11, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions
This is just not true.
The Angels were just a year behind us in Sori, and Bradley’s deal matched the rate Philly gave Ibanez.
Jim Hendry overspends every year ona bench player he wants to gift a couple extra M from Neifi to Blanco to Miles, but that doesn’t keep us from winning anything.
Is he traded yet?
Bradley vs. Ibanez is no comparison
because Ibanez produced in 2009. And 2008. And 2007. There was no offer close to the $10MM/year average the Cubs gave Bradley.
And don’t bring the Angels into this. They overspend too – Vlad, hunter, Guerrero. At least the have the DH to push a guy into.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 11, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions
I agree that the Lowell trade is not a precedent for a Bradley trade.
However, I have wondered if the Lowell trade allows TX to make a Bradley-Young trade. The Rangers, after acquiring Lowell, will have an odd situation where Michael Young is not a good defensive 3B and Mike Lowell is, but Lowell is reportedly going to split time betweeen DH and 1B? Michael Young is being paid 16 M per year for the next four years, which is just ok if he’s a middle infielder, but really overpaid if he’s a corner infielder with that production. There’s no room for him at 2B or SS with TX’s young kids, and last year there were reports that they’d like to trade him.
Young for Bradley straight up is a trade where both GMs can help undo each other’s mistakes by moving the player in question to a place where his performance will be more valuable. Bradley can DH and relax in TX. Michael Young can move back to 2B in Chicago.
Long-term, this is probably not a better deal for the Cubs than just eating 2011 MB and taking Burrell this year. In 2012-13, we’re not going to like paying 34 M to Young and Sori, when there may well be kids ready to rival their performances at those positions. But short-term, you add a 3-4 win player at 2B who can either hit at the top of the order for you or be an “RBI guy,” freeing you up to be more speculative/young at CF than Cameron or Byrd.
It works for the Rangers because they free themselves of a long contract that makes less and less sense for them, taking less money and years back in MB. Their roster makes more sense with Lowell at 3B, Davis at 1B, and Bradley at DH, with Bradley almost certainly out-hitting Young. If they believe they can handle his personality – and they should know – then they are a better team both long and short term for doing that deal.
Is he traded yet?
compounding mistakes
this type of deal would be another example of compounding mistakes by Cubs management
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not sure I'd do it.
I just think this is one possible way out of the mess that could save face for Hendry and the Cubs. As I said, I think you really regret this deal come 2012
Is he traded yet?
i'm sure i wouldn't
its just delaying our next real opportunity at contention (but we’ve re-hashed that we disagree on this point)
Right now we have a shot at rebuilding things in 2011 if we take a smart approach to budget management going forward and continue to develop the system
Acquiring Young would take Payroll back up over $70 million to a handful of players in 2011 and beyond
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
Well let's say we trade for Young
and trade Flaherty for Felix Pie.
That gives us a lineup of
Dome
Young
Lee
Rami
Sori
Pie
Soto
Riot/Font
How does that strike you both for competing short term and long term?
Is he traded yet?
I think we could win a division
but i still think we’d be well short of the AL powerhouses, and the Phillies, Dodgers, and possibly Cardinals (depending on if they re-sign Holliday), so as much as I’d love to get Pie back (and I don’t know where the idea that Flaherty would be enough has come from, nor do i have any idea Pineialla would ever actually play Pie), I still wouldn’t like the idea of acquiring Young.
The big problem no one is recognizing is a lack of depth on the SP front for this team heading into next year. We have 3 reliable starters and two of them have some durability concerns associated with them: Lilly is coming off surgery and Zambrano’s innings have declined each of the last 2 years
After that we have a hodge-podge for two rotation spots. Can Randy Wells replicate last season’s success? Will he have durability concerns after a large innings jump?
Can Gorz, Samardzija, Marshall, etc be a 5th starter?
and we have a very shaky bullpen with our two “best” relievers according to the manager having significant command issues
Personally, I’d be surprised if we top 85 wins next season. I think we’ll score some more runs thanks to improvements from Soto and possibly Soriano, but I think we’re going to give up far more as the defense gets worse because everyone’s a year older and the lack of pitching depth
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions
Jim Hendry appears to agree
about pitching depth, taking the Cards’ pitcher in the Rule V and talking about Ben Sheets and other options. He’s also talking about looking at more relief options via trade. Let’s see how this plays out. But for all the people gnashing their teeth about Harden – I’m glad we’re looking at Sheets instead of Harden. A resurgent Sheets on the Cubs would be awesome.
Is he traded yet?
i'm not gnashing my teeth about harden
harden was just 1 piece of depth, the lack of depth as an organization comes from a lack of development of it the last few years. Marshall and Samardzija have been tugged between roles and ultimately each ending up in the wrong role given their stuff and then a lack of development as we have this gap in talent that is likely a year away from contributing. In addition guys who could’ve been depth were cut for no reason (Chad Gaudin). It’s just been a large mismanagement of the roster since the end of 2008 when the team had built great depth
As for FA SP options, Hendry’s looking at those options but he’s going to quickly find out he can’t afford any of them. He’s now trying to pick up depth off the scrap heap with rule v’s, etc which is likely where he’s going to have to hunt because of budget constraints
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
He might be able to find someone on the non-tender list, too.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Kevin Correia
would be a great option
I do think being patient with the non-tender list is a GREAT idea and something I applaud Hendry for acknowledging. I wish he would’ve done it with relievers as well and not tried to set the market with Grabow’s signing. We could’ve offered ARB and gotten a pick for him and then gone out to the FA market and spent on a similar guy like Darren Oliver or had him back on a 1 year deal
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 1:39 PM CST up reply actions
You know
this is something I’ve been thinking about posting about – Jim Hendry setting the market. He’s tended to do so in a way that has hurt Houston and St. Louis and Milwaukee as much and often more than it has us. Jacque Jones led to a worse contract to Juan Encarnacion. Marquis led to a worse contract to Jeff Suppan. Grabow’s looking great now compared to Brandon Lyon.
Is he traded yet?
that would be the ultimate
Hendry “apologist” post….
I think more than anything the difference between you and I is the focal point you put on “relative” performance as in we just need to be better than the other ineptitude in our division
I could care less if we’re setting the market and hurting others as long as it continues to hurt us, which it is doing. The market “could” be cheaper and perhaps we could have gotten a better player in those instances than the player we got.
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
But
it’s like in chess when you’re ahead – you’re happy to trade pieces all day long.
I do think this is a difference between our perspectives – I see us playing against 2 or 3 opponents to get to the crapshoot of the playoffs. You think we have to be the best team in baseball. Well, we did that in 2008 and it didn’t work out so well.
Oh, and there’s no such thing as the ultimate Hendry apologist post because there will always be more nonsense attacks – even after he wins a WS.
Is he traded yet?
well... i'd suggest
there’s a lot more correlation to the best teams winning than you seem to believe
i’m also pretty sure jim hendry and all the of cubs management would go blameless if we were to win a world series
I’m not sure what you classify as nonsense attacks on Hendry but I think its very fair to criticize his weaknesses and appreciate his strengths.
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 11:42 PM CST up reply actions
But it's not just a question of the correlation to best teams winning -
- it’s also a question of whether you can really give up that chance to make the playoffs if all it costs you are two year contracts to Mike Cameron and John Grabow.
And it’s also not just a matter of odds – because if the Cubs make the playoffs, that’s also more money coming in, too.
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
good lord...
john grabow has never been more than 0.5 WAR player his entire career, he’s replacement level. He has no impact on whether we make the playoffs or not
in fact spending 3.75 million on replacement level makes you WORSE not better because its approximately 3.25 million or so of wasted money
and i’ve said I agree on spending a 1 year deal on someone like Cameron
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 12, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions
Spending 3.75 M on Grabow
saves Gaub and Samardzija and others from being jerked around by a manager who treats bullpens about as well as our last manager treated the starting rotation.
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
dont pay the manager
3 million then
either way we could’ve saved some money…
in reality its just stupid to throw 3.75 to get worse so the manager doesn’t screw up the development of players. If that’s really you’re feeling as the GM get rid of the manager
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 12, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
I agree with that
but you know Jim doesn’t.
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
also...
we’re not ahead… we’re pretty far behind so I don’t think the chess comparison is an apt one
we’re far behind the cardinals, we’re far behind the phillies, dodgers, yankees, red sox
sure maybe we’re making relative gains over the astros and brewers by forcing them into signings that are tough for them to afford, but at the same time we’re losing ground by inefficiently spending money compared to the top competitors in the NL
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2009 11:44 PM CST up reply actions
not necessarily, the cardinals 2010 season depends on carpenter staying healthy, wainwright doing something similar to what he did last year, holliday resigning, and franklin not returning the turd he was before this yearwe’re far behind the cardinals
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 12, 2009 12:05 AM CST up reply actions
they only had holliday for half a season
they’ll get a big improvement from colby rasmus playing more and we finished what 7.5 behind them?
7.5 games is a lot
oh and most of their core players are in their prime and ours are not
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 12, 2009 8:56 AM CST up reply actions
they only had holliday for half a season
yes, and when they traded for holliday they finally broke away from the cubs
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 12, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions
This would make a good fanpost for you to do
Where do we stand compared to Cardinals in projected wins?
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
I'll pass...
i see no reason to pay $40 million more to fix this problem. That’s actually a deal where I’d have to ask the Rangers to chip in cash, and they appear to have less working capital than the Cubs.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 12:04 PM CST up reply actions
I agree that I'd want the Rangers to chip in some cash
but I’m not sure Hendry has the leverage for that.
Is he traded yet?
I don't think that leverage
is the problem, as the Young deal is one of those that I suspect the Rangers regretted almost immediately after. Personally, I think they’d love to get out from under the last 2-3 years of Young. Whether they could raise the 15 million or so that I’d ask for would be something different altogether.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
So you'd do
MB for Young plus 4 M per year for a total of 16 M? That leave us with Young at 4/48. Would TX still see this as worth doing?
Is he traded yet?
Not exactly...
I would consider taking on an extra $8 million over the next two seasons to have the Cubs free themselves from Bradley. In return however, I’d need to see the Ranger eat about half of the remaining two years to even consider the deal; maybe more. But sense the ownership is in transition, I couldn’t see them getting an agreement to pay out that kind of cash three or four seasons down the road.
Basically, I regard Bradley as not even being part of the equation, so I’d have to decide what I would offer Young on a four year deal today if he were a free agent. I might take him off the Rangers hands at 4/40.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 11, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions
No way the Rangers trade Young
He is their leader — their DeRo — and they aren’t about to make the same mistake Hendry made. Is his production less than desirable for a $15M corner infielder? Yes, if you are simply talking about OPS, HR, etc.; no, if you are talking about overall contributions to a team.
Lowell was so bad defensively at 3B last season that he made Lugo seem like a GG SS, and he might now be slower than Bengie Molina. That is why the Sox feel that they can’t wait until his contract runs out at the end of next season. Also, the Sox have Papi locked in as the DH.
The Rangers have:
1. Two good prospects at 1B — one of whom looked overmatched in his rookie season, the other hasn’t been up — who need some support
2. A DH slot set to be manned by the day’s extra OF (IOW, open)
3. A young team that could use another veteran presence in the clubhouse besides Young
4. A desire for a RH power bat
5. Not much financial flexibility
6. Not many players with playoff experience
7. A division ripe for the taking
Lowell is a good fit for them, but in no way does he replace Young.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
I think everyone has covered this.
No, the Lowell deal is not precedent. Lowell had one year left and is a good clubhouse guy. Bradley has two years, has burned bridges with many teams and is ….well you fill it in.
So.........
we’d take on an additional $11M in the 2 years left on Bradley’s contract, plus $32M over the additional 2 years of Young’s contract, for a 33 year old who is probably on the downside of his career? No thanks!
I say keep him
‘10 season the Cubs will most likely not make playoffs. Obviously, anything can happen and it’s possible everyone stays relatively healthy throughout the year- IMO, the odds are against them because of all the older, injury-prone players on the team and currently not having a #1 starter/sketchy middle relief. Bradley is a cancer for any team, but why pay 12 mil. just to rid him of the team. Are Lee, Aram, Sweet Lou, and company that “thin-skinned” that they can’t work with him for one year? Basically, tell him he’s an intrical part of the team, and that the Cubs need him to perform well on/off the field.
This seems obvious, but I wonder how many managers have actually tried this. No interviews, no interaction with the media, no nothing. If you cross the line again you’ll be out on the street quicker than a junkie coming off a two-day high. Burrell sucks and adds absolutely nothing to the team. MB is a malcontent, but I think every human-being is capable of a little compromise. He has to realize he’s out of options at this point in his career.
We're not scaremongering (nightmare of a season continues), this is really happening (Bears are more than done) - Radiohead
Comments For This Post Are Closed
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!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
