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....
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
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).# 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
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.
Last edited by TheNext44; 09-23-2009 at 07:08 PM.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
In a way it's turips or hominy.... the Reds can't afford either.
Last edited by jojo; 09-23-2009 at 07:29 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.
The Cubs aren't going to get much in return for uncle Milt, I'd take him in a heartbeat.
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?
-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.
Unless they Cubs take on salary to get rid of him.
*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.
I don't see the Reds wanting to deal with the crap Bradley brings with him.