The Milton Bradley Thread

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by reds44

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]

Originally Posted by jojo

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]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

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]

Originally Posted by jojo

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.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

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.

Originally Posted by TheNext44

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).

Originally Posted by TheNext44

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.

Originally Posted by TheNext44

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.

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.......

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

[jojo]

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]

The Cubs aren't going to get much in return for uncle Milt, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by reds44

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]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

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]

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]

Originally Posted by reds44

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]

Unless they Cubs take on salary to get rid of him.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by reds44

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]

Originally Posted by reds44

Because he would make them better?

Do tell.

[CTA513]

I don't see the Reds wanting to deal with the crap Bradley brings with him.