08-12-2009, 03:30 PM
<!--quoteo(post=57337:date=Aug 12 2009, 10:50 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 12 2009, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I hate that I'm going to get sucked into this again...
- I see no reason (financially or otherwise) that we couldn't keep DeRosa and Bradley. When you look at how much money we saved by dumping DeRosa, it simply doesn't add up. $3M wasn't going to stand in the way of us signing Bradley. When you look at Bradley's contract (3/30) and total team payroll (over $140M), nobody can tell me with a straight face that $3M was going to prevent Hendry from making that move. If you want to argue the whole "handedness" thing, then fine. "Second base was the only place we could get more left-handed" was a quote I heard from Hendry. Unfortunately, that makes the move even more retarded.
- Signing Bradley (regardless of how healthy he has been this season) made DeRosa MORE valuable to the 2009 Cubs. Not less valuable.
To boil it down to its simplest points:
1. Trading DeRosa for prospects that aren't going to impact the team this year was a bad move.
2. Trading DeRosa for prospects in order to make a Peavy trade, without having that deal in the bag already, was a bad move.
3. Handing a 28-year-old part-time player the starting 2B role because he hits lefty and has had a little success in limited time was a bad move.
4. Signing Aaron Miles to a 2-year, $5M contract was a bad move (regardless of who he was or wasn't replacing).
I thought the Bradley signing was a good risk and I liked the move. But that was contingent on us NOT trading DeRosa. When you're signing an insanely talented, but also incredibly brittle player, it's wise to have a pretty solid backup option. And we had that guy on our roster. And we traded him for horseshit. It was stupid. There's no way around that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what. You're absolutely right.
- I see no reason (financially or otherwise) that we couldn't keep DeRosa and Bradley. When you look at how much money we saved by dumping DeRosa, it simply doesn't add up. $3M wasn't going to stand in the way of us signing Bradley. When you look at Bradley's contract (3/30) and total team payroll (over $140M), nobody can tell me with a straight face that $3M was going to prevent Hendry from making that move. If you want to argue the whole "handedness" thing, then fine. "Second base was the only place we could get more left-handed" was a quote I heard from Hendry. Unfortunately, that makes the move even more retarded.
- Signing Bradley (regardless of how healthy he has been this season) made DeRosa MORE valuable to the 2009 Cubs. Not less valuable.
To boil it down to its simplest points:
1. Trading DeRosa for prospects that aren't going to impact the team this year was a bad move.
2. Trading DeRosa for prospects in order to make a Peavy trade, without having that deal in the bag already, was a bad move.
3. Handing a 28-year-old part-time player the starting 2B role because he hits lefty and has had a little success in limited time was a bad move.
4. Signing Aaron Miles to a 2-year, $5M contract was a bad move (regardless of who he was or wasn't replacing).
I thought the Bradley signing was a good risk and I liked the move. But that was contingent on us NOT trading DeRosa. When you're signing an insanely talented, but also incredibly brittle player, it's wise to have a pretty solid backup option. And we had that guy on our roster. And we traded him for horseshit. It was stupid. There's no way around that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what. You're absolutely right.