Bradley

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=67479:date=Oct 28 2009, 09:04 PM:name=Lance)-->QUOTE (Lance @ Oct 28 2009, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67475:date=Oct 28 2009, 09:30 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Oct 28 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can deal with nutcase though. Zambrano is a nutcase. Bradley was a couple steps beyond nutcase this year.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm so tempted to go along with your line of thinking, BT. But it is so Cublike--let's hope that things will change despite the obvious history that it probably won't. I think Bradley should be jettisoned for anything of value. I think it would be the same shit next year, only worse. And mainly because his entire history has indicated that this would be the case.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I see what you are saying, but I think it would also be cublike to ditch him for pennies on the dollar, and then watch him tear it up with someone else, while we scramble to find a right fielder. I don't mind shopping Bradley, but I also have an issue with paying a guy 22 million to be productive for someone else.

[1060Ivy]

My guess is still that Bradley is gone next year and the Cubs eat $8-12 MM of his remaining $21 MM salary. Figure with the Cubs basically paying for 1 year of his salary many teams will line up to attempt the fix the douche bag.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=67494:date=Oct 29 2009, 08:12 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Oct 29 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67479:date=Oct 28 2009, 09:04 PM:name=Lance)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lance @ Oct 28 2009, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67475:date=Oct 28 2009, 09:30 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Oct 28 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can deal with nutcase though. Zambrano is a nutcase. Bradley was a couple steps beyond nutcase this year.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm so tempted to go along with your line of thinking, BT. But it is so Cublike--let's hope that things will change despite the obvious history that it probably won't. I think Bradley should be jettisoned for anything of value. I think it would be the same shit next year, only worse. And mainly because his entire history has indicated that this would be the case.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I see what you are saying, but I think it would also be cublike to ditch him for pennies on the dollar, and then watch him tear it up with someone else, while we scramble to find a right fielder. I don't mind shopping Bradley, but I also have an issue with paying a guy 22 million to be productive for someone else.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My main concern is that I just don't believe Bradley can be successful here, regardless of the circumstances. The fans will eat him alive and he will never be able to relax and perform even if they lay off him. If we trade him to another team and he puts up numbers like 2008, that doesn't mean that he would or could do the same here in Chicago.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=67479:date=Oct 28 2009, 09:04 PM:name=Lance)-->QUOTE (Lance @ Oct 28 2009, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67475:date=Oct 28 2009, 09:30 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Oct 28 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can deal with nutcase though. Zambrano is a nutcase. Bradley was a couple steps beyond nutcase this year.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm so tempted to go along with your line of thinking, BT. But it is so Cublike--let's hope that things will change despite the obvious history that it probably won't. I think Bradley should be jettisoned for anything of value. I think it would be the same shit next year, only worse. And mainly because his entire history has indicated that this would be the case.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->



discussion over. if signing him was a mistake, then keeping him would be a colossal mistake. the bradley era needs to be done.

[The Dude]

<!--quoteo(post=67471:date=Oct 28 2009, 07:04 PM:name=Dave)-->QUOTE (Dave @ Oct 28 2009, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I also like the idea of a year or two of Orlando Hudson at second base.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That would make way too much sense... That's whay we didn't do it this year.

[Butcher]

I'll echo what others have already said -- Bradley might bounce back and have a great 2010, but it won't be in a Cub uniform. If he sticks around, he's going to have another down year. He he leaves, he *might* have a comeback year. But I don't think there's any chance of that happening in Chicago.

[rok]

Talking to Toronto about Bradley for Wells?

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->"It's early on, but we think this one has some legs," said one Cubs official. "But they aren't the only team we are talking with."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Talk about an overpriced, aging outfield if this were to happen. The list of other potential targets at the bottom of that article gives me indigestion.

[ColoradoCub]

<!--quoteo(post=67736:date=Oct 31 2009, 10:58 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Oct 31 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Talking about an overpriced, aging outfield if this were to happen.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

He'll fit right in!

[Ace]

How much would Toronto have to eat to make that even remotely palatable?

[Ace]

Sullivan says the Cubs have denied it, btw.

[Mikey]

<!--quoteo(post=67743:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How much would Toronto have to eat to make that even remotely palatable?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Runnys]

<!--quoteo(post=67746:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM:name=Mikey)-->QUOTE (Mikey @ Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67743:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How much would Toronto have to eat to make that even remotely palatable?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That would make it a little better. That is a lot of money though.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=67752:date=Oct 31 2009, 03:24 PM:name=Runnys)-->QUOTE (Runnys @ Oct 31 2009, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67746:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM:name=Mikey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mikey @ Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67743:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How much would Toronto have to eat to make that even remotely palatable?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That would make it a little better. That is a lot of money though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It also doesn't make any sense. They have to divvy up $128 million total, not 86.

[Coach]

<!--quoteo(post=67746:date=Oct 31 2009, 02:32 PM:name=Mikey)-->QUOTE (Mikey @ Oct 31 2009, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67743:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How much would Toronto have to eat to make that even remotely palatable?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we would get Wells for 5 years, 64 million (almost 13/year)
They would get Bradley for 2 years and rid themselves of 43 million in future money

If Im reading this correctly.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=67754:date=Oct 31 2009, 02:43 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 31 2009, 02:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67752:date=Oct 31 2009, 03:24 PM:name=Runnys)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runnys @ Oct 31 2009, 03:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67746:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM:name=Mikey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mikey @ Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=67743:date=Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 31 2009, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How much would Toronto have to eat to make that even remotely palatable?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That would make it a little better. That is a lot of money though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It also doesn't make any sense. They have to divvy up $128 million total, not 86.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


You are forgetting that each team is assumed to be paying an initial 21 million to the guy they have. That's a total of 42 million. 86 plus 42 is 128.