PDA

View Full Version : The Milton Bradley Thread



Pages : 1 [2]

Highlifeman21
09-21-2009, 01:30 PM
C. Trent actually thinks the Taveras signing was better than the Bradley signing.



Although it's kinda like deciding whose more annoying, Spencer Pratt or Kanye West?

Spencer Pratt, with no hesitation.

lollipopcurve
09-21-2009, 01:33 PM
C. Trent actually thinks the Taveras signing was better than the Bradley signing.

He's right. Bradley cost the Cubs 5X more money than WT cost the Reds.

Chip R
09-21-2009, 01:37 PM
He's right. Bradley cost the Cubs 5X more money than WT cost the Reds.


Exactly. And more years too.

cincrazy
09-21-2009, 01:59 PM
How about this hypothetical?

Reds deal Cordero, Taveras, Lincoln

Cubs deal $2 million, Bradley and Zambrano

Takers?

I would in a heartbeat.

No thank you. I want no part of Bradley or Zambrano, let alone what we would owe them. Those two players are a huge reason the Cubs stink right now. They're not reliable, and I doubt they'd be any more reliable in Cincy.

marcshoe
09-21-2009, 03:10 PM
fwiw, I would guess that there's zero chance that Walt would take a chance on Bradley at this point. The Reds chances of improving are too precarious. But someone will, and I wouldn't bet against that team ending up with a year's worth of good production.

I find myself wondering what type of manager could handle him best, seeing that Lou couldn't make a go at it (that should have been predictable--Lou seems to have high standards.) Dusty handles players pretty well, maybe he would do a good job with MB. If so, we should immediately ship him off to whoever signs him, for the good of all involved. :p:

westofyou
09-21-2009, 11:26 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9559


September 21, 2009
Prospectus Today
Bradleygate?
by Joe Sheehan

In something of a surprise, the Cubs have suspended Milton Bradley for the rest of the season for conduct detrimental to the team. There are about two weeks left in the season, so in the midst of the big pile-on, I'd like to ask one question: Who the hell has ever been suspended for two weeks for what they said to the media? This is a severe and unwarranted overreaction, a cynical public-relations ploy designed to curry favor with fans and the media and distract both groups from a Cubs season that is ending with a whimper.

The interview, published in Saturday's Arlington Daily Herald, certainly wasn't a high-water mark for Bradley. When asked if he'd enjoyed his time in Chicago, he said he hadn't, he pointed out that it's a media-saturated environment and he connected what he perceived as a negative atmosphere to the Cubs' inability to win a World Series for a century. He clearly hasn't been comfortable in Chicago, and coupled with the perception that he's played poorly and a few incidents in which his notorious temper has gotten the better of him, he's become a lightning rod for blame.

His comments in the Herald weren't particularly new or enlightening, and they didn't attack any individual. They weren't profane or notably inflammatory. For this, he gets sent home for two weeks. By doing so, Hendry is blatantly pandering to the disgruntled fan base and the local media, as Carrie Muskat reported as far as Hendry's comments on the subject for MLB.com:

"I'm not going to let our great fans become an excuse, I'm not going to tolerate not answering questions from the media respectfully."
Really, now. This is why you've suspended one of your best players for two weeks, because it's mission-critical that your players respect the fans and treat the media well? That's nonsense, and the rush to back up Hendry and tear down Bradley is yet another example of the co-dependent relationship between baseball teams and the free media they rely upon. Players don't take two-week suspensions for being rude, and they don't take two week suspensions for the content of their quotes. Come to think of it, players don't take two-week suspensions; the last non-drug-related suspension of this length was Albert Belle's, and he threw a baseball at a fan who was heckling him from the stands.

Hendry can do this because he's the general manager of a team that woke up on Sunday 11 games out of first place and seven games out of the wild-card race, effectively eliminated from contention. Let's be very clear that this suspension would not be happening if the Cubs had continued their late charge to the fringe of the race, or if they had any kind of chance of making the postseason. Let's also be very clear that this suspension would not be happening had Bradley's stats been comparable to last year's. Bradley isn't being suspended because of what he said; he's being suspended because he did so with a .240 batting average and the Cubs are buried in the standings.

Here's what really bugs me, also from Hendry:

"The only real negativity here is his own production."
I expect the sports-radio mongrels and the beer-swilling casual fans to be unable to look past a .240 batting average and 40 RBI, to evaluate Bradley using the same metrics they did Andre Dawson and Ernie Banks and Hack Wilson. I expect more from Hendry, who should recognize that those figures don't do Bradley justice. The outfielder hasn't played to expectations, but those expectations were unrealistic—last year was a peak season and involved lots of DH time. Moreover, Bradley has played more than he has in almost any season, and despite a low batting average has been a productive member of the lineup. Bradley is fifth on the Cubs in Runs Above Replacement Player, and tied for third among their regulars with a .271 EqA. His .378 OBP has been a significant asset for a team that carried three OBP sinks in the lineup for most of the season.

The big surprise is that for all the questions about whether he could, Bradley has mostly stayed in the lineup, starting 107 games in the field and playing 915 defensive innings. That's the second-highest mark of his career, and the most he's played afield since 2004, when he was 26.

Bradley can do three things: he can hit, he can play in the field and he can stay in the lineup. As his entire career has shown, though, he can do just two of those things at any one time, and for Hendry to have been surprised by this—in fact, for him to throw the player under the bus for it—is ridiculous. Bradley played about as much as could reasonably be expected for a player of his known physical limitations. He posted a .378 OBP in the process. His batting average and power suffered, and he didn't play a particularly good brand of right field, but he played. If he was a disappointment, it was a case of excessive expectations—or not remembering that the Cubs can't use the DH—as much as it was a problem with his performance.

Moreover, the Cubs aren't all that far from where they were supposed to be. They're on pace to go 83-79; I had them going 87-75, and I still think that was pretty realistic. The Cubs are four games off that projected pace, which seems so much worse because the Cardinals are 15 games ahead of theirs. The Cardinals resurrected Joel Pineiro, got a mostly full season from Chris Carpenter, and traded for Matt Holliday, none of which has anything to do with Milton Bradley or the Cubs. The Cubs are off their feed because Aramis Ramirez missed time and was replaced with zeroes, because the bullpen was even worse than expected, because Alfonso Soriano was awful, and yes, because Milton Bradley didn't hit for as much power as was expected. He's part of the picture, but far from the entirety of it.

I expect Jim Hendry to know these things, but if Hendry were to admit that Bradley has played about as well and as often as could reasonably be expected, then he'd have to answer the question, as valid today as it was nine months ago, as to why he was signing a player who was a poor fit for his roster and his league. I expect Hendry to realize that much of last year's success was built on players who had no place to go but down, but I suspect he doesn't. So it's much better to turn the spotlight on to Bradley's mouth and hope no one looks too carefully at the original decision. Signing Bradley was a mistake at the time, not because Bradley has a temper, but because he can't do all three things at once.

As far as Bradley is concerned, I feel much the same as I do every time he gets himself into this kind of situation: he shouldn't talk to the media. He doesn't have any ability to be circumspect, to speak in clichés, to say something without saying anything. I don't necessarily mind this quality in people, but it's a recipe for disaster in today's sports world. There are going to be microphones and notebooks and cameras, and he's simply never found a way to co-exist with them. It doesn't help that, because of his past, he's an attractive target for reporters; if you talk to Bradley, there's a chance that you'll end up with a story, a chance that isn't there with, say, Ryan Theriot or Kosuke Fukudome. It's similar to what would happen to Barry Bonds, where reporters would interact with him just so they could write their standard "Barry was rude to me" tale of woe. It really shouldn't be a story any longer that Milton Bradley has a temper, or speaks out of turn, or even that he isn't terribly happy in Chicago or with the Cubs, but it is.

Even if it is, suspending him for two weeks for expressing those thoughts is disproportionate to the point of ridiculousness. If it's considered fair game to suspend a player for what were fairly measured (if critical) comments, I shudder to think what kind of doors this opens up for player discipline. Milton Bradley may or may not have been out of line here, but Jim Hendry definitely was.

--

I don't have another place for this, so I'm going to put it here because it kind of is the intersection of the Cubs and reliever usage, the latter topic being a regular theme here of late. A couple of weeks ago Lou Piniella moved Kevin Gregg out of the closer role because Gregg's performance had cost the Cubs a lot of games. Gregg's tateriffic tendencies—a homer allowed every five innings or so—are one reason why the Cubs have fallen short of expectations this season. So it would make sense for Piniella to keep Gregg out of game-critical situations.

So how is it you don't want the guy closing out games, but you think it's a good idea to have him face Albert Pujols with a runner on first, two outs, and a one-run lead in the seventh? That's the situation in which Piniella brought Gregg into the game last night. It makes absolutely no sense to me that you would choose Gregg, the most homer-prone reliever on the staff, to pitch to one of the best home-run hitters in baseball in a spot where a home run could lose you the game, and all other outcomes are survivable.

This is where we've gotten with reliever usage, where the number attached to the inning is all that seems to matter. That was the ballgame, right there, and Piniella chose the pitcher he's already decided he doesn't want pitching in high-leverage spots to get him out of it. Set aside that it worked and just consider the thought process that got him to that point. What's the path through the decision tree that makes you decide a guy is unfit for protecting ninth-inning leads but suited for pitching to Albert Pujols in the game's biggest moment?

The way in which the industry uses relief pitchers is broken, and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Joe by clicking here or click here to see Joe's other articles.

TheNext44
09-21-2009, 11:39 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9559

Once, just once, I would love for Sheehan to write an article that I agree with. His consistently being wrong is getting boring.

He's not even close on this one.

Brutus
09-21-2009, 11:59 PM
Once, just once, I would love for Sheehan to write an article that I agree with. His consistently being wrong is getting boring.

He's not even close on this one.

I don't care for Milton Bradley. I think Bradley is infantile and borderline insane. Heck, he certainly has not played well enough to justify that salary either. And lastly, I don't care for his comments to the media this time around.

But with all those disclaimers out of the way, I can't say taken in isolation that I disagree with Sheehan on this particular topic. I do feel like two weeks suspension for those comments is a bit extreme, and I think it's partially to deflect criticism from the signing itself to begin with. I don't agree with the extreme in which he's defending Bradley on this, but I do think there's some certain validity to the point he's making.

lollipopcurve
09-22-2009, 08:46 AM
What is 2?

The number of times Bradley's OBP (.378) is printed in this article.

That half-explains (.50) where Baseball Prospectus stands.

westofyou
09-22-2009, 09:49 AM
What is 2?

The number of times Bradley's OBP (.378) is printed in this article.

That half-explains (.50) where Baseball Prospectus stands.

Well it is baseball, the numbers define the player. That said the Cubs are suspending him for what he said and that in itself is weak.

If they want to do something then sit him on the bench and trade him. Any other act (like what they are doing) is a smoke screen for a bad season. And despite the smoke they won't be able to get away from their bad season even if Bradley is gone today.

I think it that Bradley is a loose cannon, but now I know the Cubs are scared organization, afraid of their past, afraid of their current legacy and afraid of their future.

Chip R
09-22-2009, 09:55 AM
Milton Bradley, the Cubs and Cubs fans.

They all deserve each other.

lollipopcurve
09-22-2009, 10:34 AM
If they want to do something then sit him on the bench and trade him. Any other act (like what they are doing) is a smoke screen for a bad season. And despite the smoke they won't be able to get away from their bad season even if Bradley is gone today.

I think it that Bradley is a loose cannon, but now I know the Cubs are scared organization, afraid of their past, afraid of their current legacy and afraid of their future.

I don't know. New ownership there now, this could be part of whatever new dynamic is taking shape. I really don't see how this suspension takes on much magnitude -- the whole "conduct detrimental to the team" discipline thing is nothing new in pro sports.

Don't really believe in attributing any kind of deeply rooted psychopathology to a baseball organization, either. They've had a down year, expectations were high, patience grew thin. So they try to save a little face by suspending a guy who's been a royal pain in the ass. Shrug. They'll be back next year with a good roster and a great revenue stream. Could be worse than to be the Cubs.

edabbs44
09-22-2009, 10:49 AM
Well it is baseball, the numbers define the player. That said the Cubs are suspending him for what he said and that in itself is weak.

If they want to do something then sit him on the bench and trade him. Any other act (like what they are doing) is a smoke screen for a bad season. And despite the smoke they won't be able to get away from their bad season even if Bradley is gone today.

I think it that Bradley is a loose cannon, but now I know the Cubs are scared organization, afraid of their past, afraid of their current legacy and afraid of their future.

They aren't suspending him for one interview...that interview was the icing on the cake. He has had a few other missteps in Chicago that we know about and probably others that we don't know about.

Assuming anything else is off base. When you have guys like Dempster, Lee and Ramirez agreeing with the decision, it gives additional credibility to the move.

Chip R
09-23-2009, 04:59 PM
Looks like Milton's mom says he'll come back if the Cubs let him.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4496640

reds44
09-23-2009, 05:07 PM
C. Trent actually thinks the Taveras signing was better than the Bradley signing.



Although it's kinda like deciding whose more annoying, Spencer Pratt or Kanye West?
Milton Bradley had an OBP of .400 this year, so, uh, no.

edabbs44
09-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Milton Bradley had an OBP of .400 this year, so, uh, no.

Pretty narrow way of looking at things.

jojo
09-23-2009, 05:16 PM
Pretty narrow way of looking at things.

Between the lines its not really even close. Willy has been that bad offensively.

TheNext44
09-23-2009, 05:27 PM
Between the lines its not really even close. Willy has been that bad offensively.

This year, maybe.

But Bradley has two more years and costs $20M more, and most likely the Cubs will see zero production out of it. The Reds only have one more year of Taveras, and the costs $4M.

Basically it's $30M for around $5 of production vs. $6M for -$1 of production, assuming that Taveras does not play or provides replacement value production next year.

That adds up to -$25M for the Cubs vs. -$7M for the Reds.

You can also figure in that in order to get rid of Bradley, the Cubs probably need to throw in around $17-8M, so that would cut their cost down to around $22M, while the Reds would have to throw in around $3M to get rid of Taveras, so their cost would be around $6M then.

Either way, the Cubs got the worse deal overall by over a 3 to 1 ratio. And that's saying something.

reds44
09-23-2009, 05:34 PM
Pretty narrow way of looking at things.
Milton Bradley is a lot better at baseball than Taveras, no matter which way you slice it.

RedsManRick
09-23-2009, 05:34 PM
The only way Taveras is a better signing than Taveras is if the Cubs choose to release him. Bradley would have given them $5M of production for $30M of salary -- a net less of $25M. If Taveras is replacement level next year, the Reds would have paid Taveras $6.25M for -$1M in production -- a net loss of $7.25M.

It's actually reasonable to suggest that Bradley has been the worse contract, both this year and over the life of the contract.

edabbs44
09-23-2009, 05:44 PM
Milton Bradley is a lot better at baseball than Taveras, no matter which way you slice it.

I don't think the statement was that Taveras is a better player than Bradley.

Spring~Fields
09-23-2009, 05:44 PM
Between the lines its not really even close. Willy has been that bad offensively.

I still can't believe that Mr. Jocketty signed him. I really did not understand it and it degraded my confidence in him too. :(

jojo
09-23-2009, 05:46 PM
This year, maybe.

But Bradley has two more years and costs $20M more, and most likely the Cubs will see zero production out of it. The Reds only have one more year of Taveras, and the costs $4M.

Basically it's $30M for around $5 of production vs. $6M for -$1 of production, assuming that Taveras does not play or provides replacement value production next year.

That adds up to -$25M for the Cubs vs. -$7M for the Reds.

You can also figure in that in order to get rid of Bradley, the Cubs probably need to throw in around $17-8M, so that would cut their cost down to around $22M, while the Reds would have to throw in around $3M to get rid of Taveras, so their cost would be around $6M then.

Either way, the Cubs got the worse deal overall by over a 3 to 1 ratio. And that's saying something.

The Cubs are really only on the hook for another $11M (his '09 salary of $9M and another $2M to convert 2011 to a club option which they'd almost certainly decline).

His production this year has been worth his contract based upon WAR.

Meanwhile Taveras has been below replacement level providing negative value (-$1M). It's very likely the Reds will have spent $6.25M on Taveras to get negative production.

There is always the possibility that the Cubs could easily get enough out of Bradley for the $11M to basically be a wash (Bradley would just have to be roughly a 2 WAR player which is basically a league average player). Or they could trade him by eating money.

Bottom line the Reds can't absorb -$1M production at $6.25M as easily as the Cubs can eat a contract where the guy basically gives them market value. Even if they end up eating half of Bradley's money next season, the Cubs are better positioned to do it.

Dumb contracts hurt the Reds a lot more....

TheNext44
09-23-2009, 06:05 PM
The Cubs are really only on the hook for another $11M (his '09 salary of $9M and another $2M to convert 2011 to a club option which they'd almost certainly decline).

His production this year has been worth his contract based upon WAR.

Meanwhile Taveras has been below replacement level providing negative value (-$1M). It's very likely the Reds will have spent $6.25M on Taveras to get negative production.

There is always the possibility that the Cubs could easily get enough out of Bradley for the $11M to basically be a wash (Bradley would just have to be roughly a 2 WAR player which is basically a league average player). Or they could trade him by eating money.

**BTW, I can't believe I am arguing that there is a contract out there worse than Taveras'.

Bottom line the Reds can't absorb -$1M production at $6.25M as easily as the Cubs can eat a contract where the guy basically gives them market value. Even if they end up eating half of Bradley's money next season, the Cubs are better positioned to do it.

Dumb contracts hurt the Reds a lot more....

First, here the exact language from Cot's about the Cubs converting 2011 in to an option.


# 2011 may become $12M club option with $2M buyout if:

* Bradley has more than 75 days on DL in 2009, or
* Bradley is on DL at end of 2009 season with specific injury and not on active roster by 4/15/2010

I don't see either of those met. Bradley has not been on the DL for 75 days, and he is not on the DL at the end of the season (whether he is on the active roster 4/15/2010 is moot since the the first part did not happen).

Maybe I am missing something, but it looks like the Cubs are on the hook for $21M over the next two years.

Second he is only worth his contract this year if you ignore the $4M signing bonus. That goes somewhere, either this year or over the next two. Either way, the Cubs spent it.

Third, there is no way Bradley provides any production for the Cubs next year, as he certainly will not be playing for them. Knowing Lou, there is now way he lets him back in his clubhouse. Period.

Now the Cubs could trade him somewhere, pay for most of Bradley's contract, and maybe, just maybe that player provides some production for the Cubs. That's the best case scenario for them.

And fourth, I agree that the Cubs can afford this type of mistake easier than the Reds can afford a mistake like Taveras, but that is different from saying that Taveras' contract is worse that Bradley's .

**BTW, I can't believe that I am defending Taveras' contract. :confused:

jojo
09-23-2009, 06:26 PM
First, here the exact language from Cot's about the Cubs converting 2011 in to an option.



I don't see either of those met. Bradley has not been on the DL for 75 days, and he is not on the DL at the end of the season (whether he is on the active roster 4/15/2010 is moot since the the first part did not happen).

Maybe I am missing something, but it looks like the Cubs are on the hook for $21M over the next two years.

You're right-I misread Cots.


Second he is only worth his contract this year if you ignore the $4M signing bonus. That goes somewhere, either this year or over the next two. Either way, the Cubs spent it.

If his signing bonus is averaged over three years, he's basically satisfied year one. (they would've paid $6.5M for $5.3M worth of production which was capped by their own actions and this of course assumes they'll pay him rather than docking his salary for the suspension period).


Third, there is no way Bradley provides any production for the Cubs next year, as he certainly will not be playing for them. Knowing Lou, there is now way he lets him back in his clubhouse. Period.

I don't think this is a given at all. If they Cubs decide to keep him, there's a pretty good chance he could basically cover his salary 2010.


Now the Cubs could trade him somewhere, pay for most of Bradley's contract, and maybe, just maybe that player provides some production for the Cubs. That's the best case scenario for them.

And fourth, I agree that the Cubs can afford this type of mistake easier than the Reds can afford a mistake like Taveras, but that is different from saying that Taveras' contract is worse that Bradley's .

**BTW, I can't believe that I am defending Taveras' contract. :confused:

Both contracts were bad. Bradley's is closer to reality concerning what shoud've been expected from a production standpoint. At least I don't think the Cubs were planning on "coaching Bradley up". And for the record, I can't believe I'm defending Bradley's contract....... :cool:

In a way it's turips or hominy.... the Reds can't afford either.

jojo
09-23-2009, 07:30 PM
Reasonable people can argue about the merits of either contract (Taveras/Bradley) but here's why I contend that Bradley's is a much lesser sin despite being a bigger contract;

The Cubs signed him to 3 yr/$30M with provisions to limit it to $20M based upon health issues.

In essence, they paid him to produce 6.7 WAR over the contract. In year one he was projected to produce 3 WAR as a corner OFer. Aging him the typical .5 WAR/yr would suggest he'd be reasonably expected to put up 3, 2.5, 2 WAR respectively over the course of the contract with durability issues likely (projected 7.5 WAR).

Basically the Cubs signed him to a reasonable contract relative to fair market value for expected performance while mitigating injury risk with a buyout option for year three. Now of course they didn't mitigate the certainty that he's be a jerk which suggests a 3 year deal is riskier than projections might make it appear. Then again the Cubs were all in concerning a playoff run this season as they shouldve been.

The Reds basically signed Taveras to a 2 yr deal when year one projected as a bad idea and it was likely a 2 year deal wouldn't be necessary to get him to sign. Worse Taveras' service time would've meant automatic control of his 2010 season. We're they afraid of arbitration? They in essence signed him for what they thought they could change him into. That's a recipe for a bad marriage.

That said, both players really should've been 1 yr contract guys. The difference is that the Cubs gave a reasonable contract market-wise to a guy that probably wasn't going to settle for a one year deal in an effort to buy the last couple wins for a playoff run (they were at least right to not overestimate their chances to beat out the Cards). The Reds completely whiffed from a talent evaluation standpoint on a guy that possibly couldve been signed to a minor league deal.

reds44
09-23-2009, 08:11 PM
The Cubs aren't going to get much in return for uncle Milt, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

edabbs44
09-23-2009, 08:30 PM
The Cubs aren't going to get much in return for uncle Milt, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

I just thought about it and I can't see one reason why he would make sense for this team.

reds44
09-23-2009, 08:33 PM
I just thought about it and I can't see one reason why he would make sense for this team.
Because he would make them better?

camisadelgolf
09-23-2009, 08:34 PM
Adding Milton Bradley and his contract didn't really hurt the Cubs much in the sense that they have a very large payroll budget. Financially, the contract would be potentially crippling for the Reds, but for the Cubs, it's peanuts. Also, it would have meant that the Reds needed to trade away someone else's contract to get him here.

Which of these would you rather have?
Option A:
+Willy Taveras
-6.5mm

Option B:
+Milton Bradley
-Bronson Arroyo, Aaron Harang, or Francisco Cordero
+ whatever is received in a trade for Arroyo/Harang/Cordero

It's all context. Having Taveras has hurt the Reds more than having Bradley has hurt the Cubs, but if the Reds were to take on Bradley's contract, it would probably hurt the Reds more than having Taveras ever could. As for the Cubs, they're better off with Bradley than they are Taveras.

camisadelgolf
09-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Because he would make them better?
As an individual player, he's an improvement over the current in-house options, but in the grand scheme of things, he would make the team worse because the Reds would have to lose a player of quality to afford him--meanwhile, the Reds have in-house options who could possibly produce numbers not so far off from Milton Bradley's. Hypothetically, though, if the Reds could trade Willy Taveras, Mike Lincoln, and a low-level prospect for Bradley, I think it would help the team, but that scenario is beyond unlikely.

reds44
09-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Unless they Cubs take on salary to get rid of him.

camisadelgolf
09-23-2009, 08:46 PM
Unless they Cubs take on salary to get rid of him.
In 2011, the Reds have five key players becoming arbitration eligible:
Jay Bruce*
Jared Burton
Johnny Cueto
Edinson Volquez
Joey Votto

*if he qualifies as a super-two

On top of that, Brandon Phillips is due $11M, Aaron Harang is due $13M, Bronson Arroyo is due $11M, and Francisco Cordero is due $12M.

Having an aging, injury-prone Milton Bradley and his large contract would block the Reds' several outfield prospects and result in at least one of the above players no longer being on the team. He's just not worth adding to the team imo.

edabbs44
09-23-2009, 08:56 PM
Because he would make them better?

Do tell.

CTA513
09-23-2009, 08:56 PM
I don't see the Reds wanting to deal with the crap Bradley brings with him.

westofyou
09-23-2009, 09:05 PM
Milton's act wouldn't play in Cincinnati. He's running out of venues, if he was a NFL guy he'd be looking at the CFL.

edabbs44
09-24-2009, 08:15 AM
Reasonable people can argue about the merits of either contract (Taveras/Bradley) but here's why I contend that Bradley's is a much lesser sin despite being a bigger contract;

The Cubs signed him to 3 yr/$30M with provisions to limit it to $20M based upon health issues.

In essence, they paid him to produce 6.7 WAR over the contract. In year one he was projected to produce 3 WAR as a corner OFer. Aging him the typical .5 WAR/yr would suggest he'd be reasonably expected to put up 3, 2.5, 2 WAR respectively over the course of the contract with durability issues likely (projected 7.5 WAR).

Basically the Cubs signed him to a reasonable contract relative to fair market value for expected performance while mitigating injury risk with a buyout option for year three. Now of course they didn't mitigate the certainty that he's be a jerk which suggests a 3 year deal is riskier than projections might make it appear. Then again the Cubs were all in concerning a playoff run this season as they shouldve been.

The Reds basically signed Taveras to a 2 yr deal when year one projected as a bad idea and it was likely a 2 year deal wouldn't be necessary to get him to sign. Worse Taveras' service time would've meant automatic control of his 2010 season. We're they afraid of arbitration? They in essence signed him for what they thought they could change him into. That's a recipe for a bad marriage.

That said, both players really should've been 1 yr contract guys. The difference is that the Cubs gave a reasonable contract market-wise to a guy that probably wasn't going to settle for a one year deal in an effort to buy the last couple wins for a playoff run (they were at least right to not overestimate their chances to beat out the Cards). The Reds completely whiffed from a talent evaluation standpoint on a guy that possibly couldve been signed to a minor league deal.

When guys like Abreu and Dunn were getting less money and less years than Bradley, how do you say that he received a reasonable contract in relation to the market? Those guys aren't travelling sideshows, aren't chronically injured and didn't have a lot of their success tied to DHing and playing in a notorious hitter's park. And they have had a fair amoutn of success in the league as well.

Where both contracts were bad ideas, Taveras' was much more favorable due to the terms of the contracts. $30MM contracts for injury prone guys who are as stable as francium who are coming off of career seasons in perfect elements trump $6MM contracts for stiffs any day.

Let's look at this logically...they gave Bradley a 3 year guaranteed contract when, in his 10 seasons in baseball, he has never played more than 216 games with one team. Common sense flew out the window when this deal was struck.

Highlifeman21
09-24-2009, 09:56 AM
Because he would make them better?

Yeah, who needs talent on this roster?

We've got the OF figured out anyway...

Highlifeman21
09-24-2009, 10:00 AM
Adding Milton Bradley and his contract didn't really hurt the Cubs much in the sense that they have a very large payroll budget. Financially, the contract would be potentially crippling for the Reds, but for the Cubs, it's peanuts. Also, it would have meant that the Reds needed to trade away someone else's contract to get him here.

Which of these would you rather have?
Option A:
+Willy Taveras
-6.5mm

Option B:
+Milton Bradley
-Bronson Arroyo, Aaron Harang, or Francisco Cordero
+ whatever is received in a trade for Arroyo/Harang/Cordero

It's all context. Having Taveras has hurt the Reds more than having Bradley has hurt the Cubs, but if the Reds were to take on Bradley's contract, it would probably hurt the Reds more than having Taveras ever could. As for the Cubs, they're better off with Bradley than they are Taveras.

Unfortunately + whatever is received in a trade for Arroyo/Harang/Cordero could be easily be better long term than those 3. And it's also possible that Milton Bradley plus whatever is received in a trade for any or all of those 3 ultimately makes the Reds better.

Or, it could make them dreadfully worse. Can't really know the outcome until it would happen and the dust settles.

edabbs44
09-24-2009, 10:33 AM
Yeah, who needs talent on this roster?

We've got the OF figured out anyway...

Actually I can't see him fitting into their 2010 plans at all no matter what the cost. He made more sense for this team this year than he would make next year. And considering that he really made zero sense for them this year, that speaks volumes.

TheNext44
09-24-2009, 01:30 PM
I understand the argument that this team needs talent, and Bradley has talent. The numbers back that up. But if you are going to use numbers to back up acquiring Bradley, you need to look at this number as well.

Bradley is 6 for 6 in wearing out his welcome for his current team. He has played for the Expos, Indians, Dodgers, A's, Rangers and Cubs. Every one of them decided that the problems he brought to the club with his attitude and poor sportsmanship (to put it politely) hurt the team more than his production helped the team.

Now maybe Bradley will be a changed man with his next team. Maybe he will do nothing but produce, and only help the team with the numbers that he puts up. But the stats don't lie. It is easy to project from that stat that it is very likely that any team he is on, will want him gone in less than two years, most likely, one.

Chip R
09-24-2009, 01:37 PM
Everybody wants Milton Bradley...until they get him.

camisadelgolf
09-24-2009, 01:45 PM
If the Reds were to bring in Milton Bradley and his contract, what would be the next move?
LF Jonny Gomes*
CF Drew Stubbs
RF Jay Bruce
OF Wladimir Balentien
OF Willy Taveras
OF Chris Dickerson
OF Laynce Nix*

* the Reds own the rights to the player but would have to offer arbitration to keep him

redsfandan
09-24-2009, 02:32 PM
Sources: Bradley won't appeal
By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
Updated: September 24, 2009, 7:26 AM ET


Milton Bradley has agreed not to appeal his suspension for the rest of the season, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN.com on Wednesday.

That decision came after Bradley formally apologized to the Cubs, and the team informed him it would suspend him with pay for the final 15 games of the season.

"I chose Chicago as a free agent because I wanted to be part of finally bringing a championship to the Cubs' fans. I expected to have a great season and I am deeply disappointed by my performance and the team's struggles," said Bradley, who signed a $30 million, three-year contract in the offseason.

Bradley stood to lose more than $400,000 in salary had the Cubs chosen to suspend him without pay. But had they done so, the players' union almost certainly would have filed a grievance challenging that discipline.

So indications were that Cubs management worked out a more informal resolution of the case with Bradley and his agents, Seth and Sam Levinson.

"We're done," Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said, according to the Chicago Sun Times. "MLB has notified the union and everybody has signed off and it's done and Milton has made a statement."

Bradley was suspended Sunday after he lashed out in a story in the Arlington Daily Herald at the "negativity" emanating from Cubs management and fans, and said: "You understand why they haven't won for 100 years."

Bradley said his frustration and disappointment caused him to act in a way he regrets.

"I wish that I handled certain things different and I apologize for those things that did not work out for the better," he said in a statement. "The air has been cleared, and we all want to move on and look forward to better days."

Cubs manager Lou Piniella said he appreciated Bradley's comments.

"I'm happy to see that he issued the statement and apologized," said Piniella, who clashed with Bradley several times this season. "You know -- put that behind us and we just go forward."

Hendry wouldn't say before the Cubs took on the Brewers whether the switch-hitting outfielder will return next year.

"We'll worry about next season when this season is over," Hendry said. "We've got the rest of the season to play and we're going to finish it up."

Bradley's mother said on Tuesday that her son would consider returning to the Cubs if they will have him back.

Speaking to the Sun-Times, Charlena Rector said: "All the people on TV keep saying, 'Oh, Milton has played his last game for the Cubs.'" But, she added, that won't be the case if Bradley has any say with management.

"Milton eats, sleeps and drinks baseball. He loves it. That's all he wants to do," Rector told the newspaper.

The mood of the clubhouse in Milwaukee has been upbeat, and the Cubs won three in a row heading into Wednesday's action. Hendry said he hasn't spoken to Bradley, only with his agent, Seth Levinson.

When might Bradley and Hendry talk directly?

"No idea," Hendry said. "Nothing to talk about now. He's home for the rest of the year."


Senior writer Jayson Stark covers MLB for ESPN.com. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 03:13 PM
My man Milt...from Rotoworld

www.rotoworld.com


Milton Bradley, ejected from two games last week, told the Seattle Times' Geoff Baker Monday that he's "not changing."

Brilliance. "I mean, I'm not changing," Bradley said Monday amid questions about his ability to keep his head in check. "I've gotten this far being me, it's been 31 years, and nothing changes about me, ever." It seems a lot of people sort of assumed he'd be able to stay calm and collected in the great Northwest, and maybe he will, but he's off to a rough start down in spring training.

westofyou
03-22-2010, 03:16 PM
I saw one ejection, it was a joke, a complete joke, he dropped his bat, took his gloves off and then picked his bat up... tossed.

Bush AAA umpire.

Sea Ray
03-22-2010, 03:17 PM
I am a great believer that a leopard doesn't change his spots.

More worrisome for Mariner fans should be that Bradley looked like he lost some bat speed last year. If his game deteriorates on top of his mental issues, it won't be pretty

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 03:12 PM
At least Milt is keeping it real wherever he goes. From rotoworld:


A source tells Mike Salk of 710 ESPN in Seattle that Milton Bradley left the team in the middle of Tuesday's game against the Rays.

Bradley was frustrated after striking out looking with the bases loaded in the bottom of the sixth inning. He yelled at the umpire from the bench until Mariners manager Don Wakamatsu warned him to settle down. Just minutes later Bradley reportedly told Wakamatsu, "I'm packing my stuff. I'm out of here." Mariners General Manager Jack Zduriencik didn't address the matter specifically on Wednesday, other than to say something that happens between the manager and his players should be handled internally. We're guessing that Wakamatsu might not have to worry about Bradley much longer.

CTA513
05-05-2010, 03:20 PM
Everyone knows how Bradley is going to act so it should be no surprise that hes still making a fool of himself.
Nobody to blame but the people who continue to sign him.

Chip R
05-05-2010, 03:44 PM
Everyone knows how Bradley is going to act so it should be no surprise that hes still making a fool of himself.
Nobody to blame but the people who continue to sign him.


Amen.

Eric_the_Red
05-05-2010, 10:53 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5166152


Milton Bradley, baseball's self-described bad guy, has asked his Seattle Mariners for help in dealing with what manager Don Wakamatsu says is "emotional stress" from personal issues.

Wakamatsu and general manager Jack Zduriencik said Wednesday that their fiery slugger is out indefinitely until he receives an outside assessment and a plan to address his issues.

KoryMac5
05-05-2010, 11:00 PM
Sounds like Bradley is dealing with some severe mental health issues. As someone who deals with those who suffer from mental illness on a daily basis, I hope that he can find peace someday. Some time off from the game may be the best thing to ever happened to Milton Bradley.

Chip R
05-05-2010, 11:19 PM
Sounds like Bradley is dealing with some severe mental health issues. As someone who deals with those who suffer from mental illness on a daily basis, I hope that he can find peace someday. Some time off from the game may be the best thing to ever happened to Milton Bradley.

I wouldn't bet against it. Sounds a lot like Alex Johnson who was diagnosed with severe reactive depression.

edabbs44
01-18-2011, 09:23 PM
From rotoworld


According to King 5 Sports in Seattle, Milton Bradley was arrested on a felony in Los Angeles County.

We're still awaiting more details, but one would think this would finally be enough to void the rest of his contract. The troubled Bradley is still owed $12 million for the 2011 season. Stay tuned for more information as it is made available. Jan. 18 - 9:07 pm et

Blitz Dorsey
01-19-2011, 01:21 AM
Whoever thought getting Jose Silva and his awful contract would mean a team got by far the better end of a trade?

However, the Cubs actually got one right for a change. Silva's not good, but it was still a good trade for them.

redsfandan
01-19-2011, 06:33 AM
Sounds like Bradley is dealing with some severe mental health issues. As someone who deals with those who suffer from mental illness on a daily basis, I hope that he can find peace someday. Some time off from the game may be the best thing to ever happened to Milton Bradley.

And it now looks like he's going to get ALOT more of that.

RedFanAlways1966
01-19-2011, 06:48 AM
And it now looks like he's going to get ALOT more of that.

Really? Isn't that Los Angeles County place where someone named OJ got away with double murder?

I am sure Milton can afford his own dream team. And he hasn't killed anyone... just threatened to hurt/kill. Get the right lawyer and get the trial moved to a location where the jury best suits you. Enough said.

Calling Judge Ito! ;)

redsfandan
01-19-2011, 09:33 AM
Really? Isn't that Los Angeles County place where someone named OJ got away with double murder?

I am sure Milton can afford his own dream team. And he hasn't killed anyone... just threatened to hurt/kill. Get the right lawyer and get the trial moved to a location where the jury best suits you. Enough said.

Calling Judge Ito! ;)
The prospect of jail time is his problem. I was only thinking of when he might play baseball again. This might be enough for Seattle to void the rest of his contract. And I'm not sold that a player with his baggage would be in high demand. So, yeah I think he'll have a break from baseball for awhile.

Chip R
01-19-2011, 09:37 AM
Doesn't appear that the therapy he had last summer took.

camisadelgolf
01-19-2011, 10:21 AM
Whoever thought getting Jose Silva and his awful contract would mean a team got by far the better end of a trade?

However, the Cubs actually got one right for a change. Silva's not good, but it was still a good trade for them.
It didn't work out too bad for the Reds either. They won two of three against him. Only four teams, three of which were in the NL West, had more success against him than the Reds in 2010.

Sea Ray
01-20-2011, 08:59 AM
The problem with Milton is he's not putting up the numbers he once did. You can put up with a felon if he OPSs enough

edabbs44
01-20-2011, 09:44 AM
The problem with Milton is he's not putting up the numbers he once did. You can put up with a felon if he OPSs enough

If that were true he wouldn't be on his 8th team by the age of 32.

Sea Ray
01-20-2011, 09:48 AM
If that were true he wouldn't be on his 8th team by the age of 32.

My theory supports the fact that he's on his 8th team. Simply put, his numbers don't justify the baggage he brings. So what's not true?

Chip R
01-20-2011, 09:51 AM
Bradley's one of those players that look like a good fit if he hasn't played for your team until he actually does. Kyle Farnsworth is another of those players.

edabbs44
01-20-2011, 10:02 AM
My theory supports the fact that he's on his 8th team. Simply put, his numbers don't justify the baggage he brings. So what's not true?

I was going off of this:


The problem with Milton is he's not putting up the numbers he once did. You can put up with a felon if he OPSs enough

What I was saying was that he was getting shipped around even when he was putting up the numbers that he once did.

Tom Servo
01-11-2013, 03:38 PM
Former Los Angeles Dodger Milton Bradley was charged today with 13 counts related to several alleged attacks on his estranged wife, and could get up to 13 years behind bars ... TMZ has learned.


http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/11/milton-bradley-baseball-charged-spousal-battery/

westofyou
01-11-2013, 03:47 PM
Former Los Angeles Dodger Milton Bradley was charged today with 13 counts related to several alleged attacks on his estranged wife, and could get up to 13 years behind bars ... TMZ has learned.


http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/11/milton-bradley-baseball-charged-spousal-battery/

Milo him

edabbs44
01-11-2013, 05:53 PM
Quality individual.

WMR
01-11-2013, 05:55 PM
Milton Bradley has always belonged in prison, looks like he may have finally done enough to get there.

edabbs44
01-11-2013, 06:04 PM
Former Los Angeles Dodger Milton Bradley was charged today with 13 counts related to several alleged attacks on his estranged wife, and could get up to 13 years behind bars ... TMZ has learned.


http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/11/milton-bradley-baseball-charged-spousal-battery/

From that story:


As TMZ first reported, Milton's wife Monique filed a domestic violence report with the LAPD back in November 2012 ... claiming he tried to choke her, with 2 hands, when she asked him to stop smoking marijuana in front of their kids.

If only we could count him as one of our own, while spending $25MM to get that honor.

jojo
01-11-2013, 06:50 PM
From that story:



If only we could count him as one of our own, while spending $25MM to get that honor.

Since you're all choked up about his situation, you could pay his bail.

edabbs44
01-11-2013, 07:49 PM
Since you're all choked up about his situation, you could pay his bail.

Yeah, who is she to ask him to stop smoking weed in front of his kids? He has my support.

Edskin
01-11-2013, 09:26 PM
A bad, bad apple. I always shake my head when people say "how can you play a game, make millions, and still do these things?"

Athletes are no different from the rest of the population. Money and fame don't cure mental illness or serious anger/violent tendencies. When problems go that deep, nothing material can save someone. Certainly a shame. I hate to say this, but hopefully for his estranged wife and their kids he will go away for a long time.

edabbs44
06-04-2013, 10:09 AM
Former Los Angeles Dodger Milton Bradley was charged today with 13 counts related to several alleged attacks on his estranged wife, and could get up to 13 years behind bars ... TMZ has learned.


http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/11/milton-bradley-baseball-charged-spousal-battery/


Bradley, 35, was convicted after a four-week trial of nine misdemeanor counts, including four counts of spousal battery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of making criminal threats, Los Angeles city attorney's spokesman Frank Mateljan said. He faces up to 7½ years in jail at his sentencing, which is scheduled for July 2.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/9339514/former-los-angeles-dodger-milton-bradley-convicted-abusing-wife

Tom Servo
06-04-2013, 10:40 AM
Milton Bradley is actually a very thoughtful, intelligent, caring and well spoken man.

He has anger issues, but he's bright enough to understand that it's something he needs to work on, and by all accounts has made a genuine effort to do so.

We should all have our foibles on display for millions of people to cast stones at us.

Let's see how we'd like it.
I'm not one to pick on old posts, butttttttttttttt

:ughmamoru:

Chip R
06-04-2013, 10:40 AM
So, if he's out on bail, couldn't we use him in LF till he gets sentenced? ;)

wheels
06-04-2013, 11:44 AM
Yeah. I was wrong about Bradley. :laugh:

coachpipe
06-04-2013, 02:43 PM
I am shocked that people actually want him on the reds

marcshoe
06-04-2013, 03:33 PM
So, if he's out on bail, couldn't we use him in LF till he gets sentenced? ;)

What's the MLB policy on ankle bracelets?:p

Raisor
06-04-2013, 06:14 PM
What's the MLB policy on ankle bracelets?:p

What's funny is that Chip is the right one to ask this