Move 3,000 miles west to San Francisco. Obviously, the Giants feel they’re stuck with an albatross in Aaron Rowand’s three years and $36 million left on his contract. Twenty-eight homers and 134 RBIs in two seasons is not what GM Brian Sabean paid for when he signed Rowand. “He’s not the Aaron Rowand of a few years ago,” said a source. But if Hendry could pull off this deal, he should have the Ricketts clan out with collection plates to raise the extra cash from fans. Rowand is the life of a clubhouse and would restore the chemistry lost by the forced departures of Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood. His hustle and nose for the baseball in center field are unquestioned, allowing Fukudome to move back to right field. A reprise of his Giants offensive numbers would be acceptable with all the other hitters in the Cubs lineup.
But there’s one catch in this whole scenario. “Knowing Bruce (manager Bochy), it would be hard to imagine taking on Bradley,” said a source. “Was Bruce there in San Diego when Bradley was there? No? Well, there you go.”
...In the end, Ricketts may have to be flexible — learning the dark side of baseball management — and be willing to practically give Bradley away.
“The money would have to be very lopsided in favor of the other team,” said one source.
“Don’t sit here and hold out for a (good deal),” said another source. “After all, you (the Cubs) kicked him off the team. No team is going to give the Cubs a break if the Cubs were the ones who gave him this bad deal, a three-year contract when he’s never had more than a one-year deal.”
Repoz
Posted: November 04, 2009 at 03:10 PM |
42 comment(s)
|
Bookmark
Related News:
General,
Chi Cubs
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Sounds good.
EDIT: Yes, I realize "better than Soriano's contract" shouldn't be the standard we're applying here; just saying the Cubs have bigger problems than Milton. And to the extent Milton's THE big problem, that's largely a situation of the Cubs' own making. Hendry had to know last year's result was a possibility when he signed Bradley, and to then do everything in his power to highlight what a mistake it was (suspending him the last 2 weeks of the season for pulling, well, the same kind of irritating crap he'd been pulling all year)--well, part of me wants Milton to stick around just to force Hendry to own this situation.
The Rowand contract is awful, though.
I'm shocked that a player getting paid that much money would allow himself to get older.
Bradley is tradeable. I'm sure both the Blue Jays and Angels can think of an OF to swap for him.
That, too. Trading Bradley for Rowand wouldn't reduce payroll (would increase it a bit, even if the Cubs don't eat some of Milton's salary--right?), and wouldn't improve the team on the field. I'd rather take my chances on Bradley recapturing some of what he showed with the bat pre-Cubs.
Rowand is basically an everyday player version of Reed Johnson.
Of course he is. Here are Rowand's OPS+ since 2005:
93
86
123
94
92
These guys (GMs) are professionals. They are supposed to be the best in the world at what they do, a big chunk of that is talent evaluation. But time and time again, they continue to make idiot moves like sign a guy with one fluky year to an overpriced contract, and then cry when they revert to their career norms. Rowand was never going to be the .309/27/89 guy they though they were signing after 2007. He was way, way more likely to be the .270/13/65 guy he was before and after 2007.
Is there any way ANYONE would even want GMJ? I mean I'd love to dump him as much as the next Angels fan, but I can't see anyone taking on that contract for that...
Since signning me to a 5 year $50M deal would be a roughly equivalent value for an MLB team, I'd have to say, yeah, that's not much of a standard.
If I remember correctly, his nose was really for the wall, not the baseball.
There you go where? Because Bruce Bochy was already gone from San Diego by the time Milton arrived there that's supposed to say something about Bochy? Is there some evidence the Padres were just waiting for Bochy to leave so they could get their hands on MB?
Let's call it a nose for both, since he did make that bases-loaded, 2 out catch.
Comments like this get us nowhere here. They're the same ilk of ridiculous one way trade proposals that we get every year. Bradley's deal is bad, but not as bad as either Wells or Matthews. It's also less bad than Rowand's, but that's at least a realistic option.
He's mediocre AND superfluous!
Yes, but it would involve the Angels taking on an even worse contract in return. As far as performance, the Matthews contract is about as untradeable as any contract out there.
I acknowledge that this may be the case, and I don't even really disagree with the points you raise about morale. I just think, on balance, keeping him's probably the best of a non-palatable range of options.
Troll. ;-)
Bradley for Luis Castillo. That's 2/$21 for 2/$12 which seems fair given the potentially huge gap in production. 2B is a hole for the Cubs, LF a hole for the Mets (and RF, but let's be real). While Castillo obviously isn't my choice to fill the Cubs 2B spot, there's some chance he won't totally suck for the next 2 years.
This is assuming the Cubs are desperate to move Bradley and save some money.
Bradley for Rowand -- I'd be fine with that from the Cubs perspective and I guess the Giants get out of a year of Rowand's contract but it's also hard to see why the Giants wouldn't just as soon live with the Rowand contract.
How is this possible!?!? Didn't they have four about a year and a half ago?
I'd take it if they threw in Fontenot.
I agree . .. .
. .. and then I remember that he was - by Bradley-ian standards - very healthy last year. He played 124 games, only the third time he's been over 105, and there's no DH slot for him, as there was in Texas (where had played 126 games last year). Heck, the only reason he didn't play more games last year in the OF than in '07 in Texas was because of his suspension/benching late in the year.
Overall, I still agree with what you said - but there's a big qualifier to it: health.
I would. Worst case scenario, you've saved somewhere around 75 million dollars and release/suspend Bradley midway through May 2010. Best case scenario, he DHs and plays somewhere around 120 games for Toronto for two years, which allows Snider/Lind to get some time at DH when he's injured.
Really, what's the downside? He undermines Cito's authority? Not an issue, he'll be gone after 2010 regardless. He corrupts a talented young player on the roster? There's no-one here to corrupt! Doc hates him so much that he demands a trade? Halladay's as good as gone regardless. His attitude hurts clubhouse chemistry so badly that the team can't compete? Doesn't matter, they had no chance of competing in those two years anyways.
Seriously, if AA made this trade, then immediately released Bradley and set 18 million dollars on fire in a ceremony out in centerfield at the Skydome, you'd still have to consider the trade a win for Toronto. There is literally no downside (short of Milton Bradley kills Roy Halladay before the team can trade him or Vernon Wells becomes possessed by the astral projection of Willie Mays) that would make this trade inadvisable for the team. Not that it matters, because there's no way that the Cubs would do that.
I don't think anyone expected him to repeat his 2007 season, or else he would have been making $20M+ per year. The Giants likely thought they were paying market value for a guy who was a bit above average for his position with both the bat and the glove. That wasn't all that unreasonable of an expectation, and it's not all that far from what's happened.
The Jays have just had too many issues around clubhouse chemistry to have a known reagent in there...
and I am usually a Bradley apologist!
Get it straight. Hendry only collects BAD second basemen.
Based on their seeming love of the small sample size, I don't think we can say this is the case.
I don't think I even disagree with you but the 5 OPS+ numbers that the Giants had to look at when they offered the contract were not the ones you posted but these:
102 (170 PA)
130
93
86
123
The Milton Bradley scenario is a similar test for Hendry. If he is convinced that Bradley was a mistake he should just cut the cord. Painful yes. But the good of the ballclub should be his primary and only focus. If Bradley's presence is a net negative there is no amount of money that should get in the way of addressing that issue.
Considering past instances of scapegoat disposal, I think Hendry understands the PR side to this and usually does much better than expected (Hundley, Hawkins, Sosa). If nothing else, having Bradley as THIS big of an issue has helped quiet those calling for Zambrano to be banished.
Only if the Cubs are eating a bunch of that contract. I wouldn't call the Sox payroll strapped, but I think if the free agent market offers the same prices as last year, they're going to be looking to get in on that. And the only way to do that will be to clear some of the guys who, while still productive, will be making too much relative to that production (Jenks and -- although his name hasn't been mentioned anywhere -- Konerko).
Oh, and the calls for Zambrano to be banished (I haven't heard much of this, actually) are ludicrous. Yes, I know I'm a fanboy, but still.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main