Other than the Giants park kills Rowand's numbers, he plays an ok centerfield, he stays in the lineup and he doesn't go postal every 18 months I can understand why San Fran would prefer Milton..........

I'd be delighted to see Bradley back at DH in Arlington. If the Cubs would pay $9,600,000 of his salary.

Where's Jim Bowden when Milton really needs him?

Hmm, every 18 months...so we'd have awhile until the next one? And then he's almost a FA?

Sounds good.

Bradley pisses me off to no end, it's irritating to (try to) root for him, and last year was a freaking disaster. And yet, I can't help but think the Cubs' not being able to trade him might be the best possible outcome, at least in the short term. His trade value's in the crapper, his contract's bad but not THAT bad (it pales in comparison to Soriano's in both length and annual cost--and as mediocre as Milton was last year, he was still better than Soriano), he seems likely to get a dead cat bounce (I'd probably think that even if the Cubs hadn't brought in Jaramillo), and trading him just opens a new hole.

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.

Other than the Giants park kills Rowand's numbers, he plays an ok centerfield, he stays in the lineup and he doesn't go postal every 18 months I can understand why San Fran would prefer Milton..........

The Rowand contract is awful, though.

“He’s not the Aaron Rowand of a few years ago,”

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.

The Rowand contract is awful, though.

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.

“He’s not the Aaron Rowand of a few years ago,”

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.

Bradley is tradeable. I'm sure both the Blue Jays and Angels can think of an OF to swap for him.

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...

I just thought of this now... Bradley to the Red Sox to play LF. Carl Everett redux.

Yes, I realize "better than Soriano's contract" shouldn't be the standard we're applying here

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.

His hustle and nose for the baseball in center field

If I remember correctly, his nose was really for the wall, not the baseball.

“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.”

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?

I am positive Bradley is tradeable. And I disagree with Retro in this sense-I think jettisoning Bradley improves the team simply by his absence. Maybe morale is overrated as a factor in sports, but Bradley is positively Stephan Marbury in his way in poisoning a locker room.

[iIf I remember correctly, his nose was really for the wall, not the baseball.
Let's call it a nose for both, since he did make that bases-loaded, 2 out catch.

Bradley is tradeable. I'm sure both the Blue Jays and Angels can think of an OF to swap for him.

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.

I agree with you on MB, retro-shiite. There's absolutely no way the Cubs team is better next year as a result of trading Milton Bradley. His value was torpedoed by Hendry when he suspended him

The funny part (if you are a dodger fan I guess) is that Sabes signed Rowand already having Randy Winn and Dave Roberts and 3-4 B-grade OF prospects.

He's mediocre AND superfluous!

Is there any way ANYONE would even want GMJ?

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.

And I disagree with Retro in this sense-I think jettisoning Bradley improves the team simply by his absence. Maybe morale is overrated as a factor in sports, but Bradley is positively Stephan Marbury in his way in poisoning a locker room.

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.

They could fire Lou and make him the manager. Surely Bradley wouldn't have trouble playing for himself, right?

They could fire Lou and make him the manager. Surely Bradley wouldn't have trouble playing for himself, right?

Troll. ;-)

I would not want the Jays to trade Vernon Wells for Milton Bradley... despite the contract issues.

Approaching a realistic trade:

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.

I thought of Bradley for Castillo, but then the Mets have to go get a 2b. It's just trading one need for another. And the extra $9 mil is just throwing good money after bad. I think the Mets are at the point where they should cut their losses, rather than doubling down.

2B is a hole for the Cubs

How is this possible!?!? Didn't they have four about a year and a half ago?

I thought of Bradley for Castillo, but then the Mets have to go get a 2b. It's just trading one need for another. And the extra $9 mil is just throwing good money after bad. I think the Mets are at the point where they should cut their losses, rather than doubling down.

I'd take it if they threw in Fontenot.

Bradley pisses me off to no end, it's irritating to (try to) root for him, and last year was a freaking disaster. And yet, I can't help but think the Cubs' not being able to trade him might be the best possible outcome, at least in the short term. His trade value's in the crapper, his contract's bad but not THAT bad (it pales in comparison to Soriano's in both length and annual cost--and as mediocre as Milton was last year, he was still better than Soriano), he seems likely to get a dead cat bounce (I'd probably think that even if the Cubs hadn't brought in Jaramillo)

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 not want the Jays to trade Vernon Wells for Milton Bradley... despite the contract issues.

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.

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.

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.

Fair enough. A straight trade followed by the release of Bradley at the first indication that he would cause problems and I would be cool with it.

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!

How is this possible!?!? Didn't they have four about a year and a half ago?

Get it straight. Hendry only collects BAD second basemen.

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.

Based on their seeming love of the small sample size, I don't think we can say this is the case.

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.

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

Bring MB back to Arlington, bat him fifth behind Hamilton. Ron Washington is old school, but two years ago was Bradley's smoothest year ever. Things never should have digressed that far in Chicago. The angle on Bradley is different than other so called clubhouse bad guys. Hendry is on the hot seat.

Ron Wolf was GM for the Green Bay Packers during their fine run in the 90's. Wolf said a lot of smart things but one of the smartest was also the simplest. "One of the keys in management is recognizing a mistake, admitting it, and making it go away no matter how painful or embarrassing." He was referring to himself and the drafting of Terrell Buckley 3rd in the draft and watching Buckley become a favorite target of what was then NFC Central quarterbacks.

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.

<i>If Bradley's presence is a net negative there is no amount of money that should get in the way of addressing that issue. <i>

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.

White Sox could use Bradley.

White Sox could use Bradley.

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).

Sox fan coworker of mine was proposing the Cubs trade Bradley to the Sox for Chris Getz, and eat 50-70 percent of Bradley's contract. Please. I'd take Fontenot over Getz.

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.

If the Cubs really want Rowand, why not trade Fukudome for Rowand?