The Toronto Sun reports this morning on a potential Milton Bradley for Vernon Wells swap:
The Chicago Cubs would like to -- have to -- deal disgruntled outfielder Milton Bradley. And one player they are eyeing as a target destination is the Blue Jays, with centre fielder Vernon Wells going to the Cubs in return.
"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."
Yes, "centre" is correct. Remember, the quote's from a Canadian paper. Vernon Wells signed an enormous contract with the Blue Jays before the 2008 season and there are six years left on the deal. How would the Cubs deal with that huge amount of money, given Tom Ricketts' statement yesterday that payroll would go up "slightly" next year, as well as Alfonso Soriano's remaining deal?
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.
I was told there would be no math here, but if I have calculated this right -- and correct me, please, if I haven't -- that puts the Cubs on the hook for (approximately) $10.67 million for each of the six remaining years of Wells' deal. According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, Wells has a full no-trade clause that would have to be waived, and he can opt out of the deal after 2011.
Since the departure of Milton Bradley was only going to be made possible by taking on someone else's bad contract, this might be a possible "best of the worst". Wells is about six months younger than Bradley and had a big offensive season as recently as 2006. He can play center field, which would allow the Cubs to move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field, a better position for him. I'm not completely sold on this deal, but remember, the Cubs aren't exactly in the best bargaining position, either. The article concludes:
The Cubs have to deal Bradley. Other possible landing spots: The San Francisco Giants for lefty Barry Zito, who has four years remaining at $83 million; the Indians for Travis Hafner, three years for $40.25 million, Giants' Aaron Rowand, three years at $36 million, the Dodgers for Juan Pierre, two years at $18.5 million, and Tampa Bay's Pat Burrell, one year at $7 million.
Well. There's no way the Cubs ever, ever, EVER take Juan Pierre back. The Burrell possibility has been rumored before; Burrell's a bad outfielder, but at least the Cubs would only be stuck with his deal for one year; we've discussed the Rowand possibility also, I doubt the Giants are dealing Zito now since he had such a good second half, and there would be absolutely no point in acquiring Hafner, who hasn't played a game in the field since 2007 and can only play first base -- the Cubs already have one of those.
We, as ever, await developments.
0 recs | 131 comments
Noooooooooo...
Just ask any Jays fan about Wells.
bison - October 31, 2009 via mobile
Vernon Wells
DO NOT WANT
berselius - October 31, 2009
Is there any chance
The cubs can just eat half of Bradley’s salary and trade for a face saving prospect? All these trade options just hamstring the team even further in future years, especially having to take on what amounts to a 6/60 deal for Wells. Egads.
shoemile - October 31, 2009
No on Wells.
I would rather just dump Bradley and pay him to be on his way, than to pay for a contract worse than Soriano’s. And Wells can barely play center field, his defense has taken a tumble the past couple of years. We don’t need two bad corner outfielders who are losing whatever speed and power they have, becoming more susceptible to injury, and with a low OBP.
Especially when we are paying them over $30 million a year combined.
Spotacus - October 31, 2009
Why can't we just keep Bradley?
He’s got his hitting coach back from Texas, where he had his monstrous season that led to us signing him in the first place. I’m tired of hearing about the clubhouse riff. These are grown men, and should be able to coexist with one-another. If they really aren’t finding it possible, then it’s the managers job to get them to. Although I’m sure the manager would just be more inclined to say “I don’t know what else to do.”
zam - October 31, 2009
Yes, these are grown men.
But they are also human. Hendry and Pinella know what went on behind closed doors and everyone else saw what kind of relationship he had with his teammates after he was sent home. No one stood up and defended him.
Plus, I want a player who is willing to play more than 9 innings if need be.
Zeke - October 31, 2009
Well said Zeke.
sue369 - October 31, 2009
Sparty is now green
Shanghai Badger - October 31, 2009
Good luck tonight.
sue369 - October 31, 2009
Thanks, but my team already won
And yours is finding ways to win – looks like it could be a special year for them.
Shanghai Badger - October 31, 2009
Sorry I thought
I was responding to Zeke.
sue369 - October 31, 2009
Not a problem
Go Hawks
Shanghai Badger - October 31, 2009
Traitor.
dtpollitt - November 1, 2009
Like we've got a shot at the Rose Bowl
Might as well have a Big 10 team win
Shanghai Badger - November 1, 2009
Rec'd LSA +1 NAMBLA
agreed 1000%.
berselius - October 31, 2009
Grown Men? Clubhouse?
That’s the little stuff. Think of the media swarm/frenzy/piranha-feeding fest. And that’s just on Day 1 of Spring Training with Milton Bradley in Cubs camp. Oh the fun of Opening day at Wrigley.
Pinella didn’t bench Bradley to end the season. He was suspended and sent home. Who was the last player you heard that happening too?
Bradley does not have ++ skills for Tool #6 – Media and Public Relations – to stick in Chicago.
RiskyBusiness - October 31, 2009
This is the best I can come up with
19 Dodgers Suspended, Fined for Brawl With Fans
gaclaudy - October 31, 2009
Um Jose Guillen is the easy answer
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040926&content_id=872387&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null
Doggie Stalker - October 31, 2009
Jose Guillen - I'd go with that
And Jose was traded to the Washington Nationals after that 2004 season.
The Dodger players were suspended by MLB, just like any other fight. Not by the Dodgers organization. That was a memorable game to be at.
RiskyBusiness - November 2, 2009
+1 trillion
nji232 - October 31, 2009
If it was just a little rift, sure
We don’t know what happened behind the scenes that never got reported.
Plus, it takes two to tango. How well do you think Bradley would respond the first time he got booed? The first time that he got asked a question that he didn’t like?
I was in favor of the signing, but it didn’t work out.
It’s naive to think that a clubhouse meeting where everyone sings kumbaya is going to fix things.
Shanghai Badger - October 31, 2009
Exactly.
The bridges weren’t just burned, they were nuked.
The chance of Bradley being in a Cubs uniform in 2010 is zero.
Al Yellon - October 31, 2009
Not entirely true
I seriously doubt Hendry will give him away. If he can get a good deal for him, then he’ll be traded, but Jim won’t ship him off somewhere for a bag of baseballs.
Pre - October 31, 2009
I believe the deal will get done in November
at latest, finalized in December, but I’m not expecting that much. What do you consider a “bag of baseballs”? I mean, there’s enough spec to suggest that we may be looking at a similar return to what we got on the Marquis deal.
No, he won’t dump him for nothing at all (which would be some random PTBNL that never gets picked up), but I think expecting a useful player is still a bit foolish. It’s not a reflection on Bradley’s performance last year – it’s a reflection on Bradley’s past, along with the fact that almost every team knows we want to move him. If I’m wrong, and we can get a solid player, I’ll be glad to be wrong.
toonsterwu - October 31, 2009
Because MB was sent home
what kind of relationship could he possibly have with his teammates?
blackhawk24 - November 2, 2009
Rickett's first order of business:
“No, Jim”
shoemile - October 31, 2009
Not going to happen
It’s better for the Cubs to just release Bradley than to tie themselves up with Wells for so many years and so much money. And I think it’s pretty clear that the Cubs don’t need to pay all of MB’s salary to trade him. So this is not going to happen.
If it does happen, as it’s currently proporsed I’d venture to say this year would be the end of the Hendry era.
Luis - October 31, 2009
And if you wonder...
why I would want to keep MB, it is deals like these.
Kansas25 - October 31, 2009
Hard to argue with you there
Wells is more than likely past his prime
Shanghai Badger - October 31, 2009
more than likely? "His last big offensive year was 2006?"
The numbers don’t lie. This is a hideous act of desperation if the Cubs have to do this.
cubnational - November 1, 2009
It's a moot point - they aren't going to
Shanghai Badger - November 1, 2009
Horrible Idea
Id go for Pierre simply b/c his deal is the shortest of those mentioned.
bren - October 31, 2009
Ugh.
Pierre has no arm, no power and had a real bad attitude about being a Cub. Not that he was a Bradleyesque clubhouse cancer, but you could clearly see he couldn’t wait to get out of here.
No thanks.
Al Yellon - October 31, 2009
I don't want Pierre either, but I will say this:
As a Cub, I saw him actually hit home run while we were sitting in the bullpen box seats along the 1st base side. People in our section all looked at each other and said: “Pierre? Really?”
Zeke - October 31, 2009
Pierre is better than Wells
And cheaper with a shorter contract. Having Wells and Soriano both on your team for the next 4 years is going to absolutely cripple the Cubs.
vivaelpujols - October 31, 2009
Agreed.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
Doesn't change the fact that he's a good player
Just because he doesn’t have power doesn’t mean that he’s bad. He makes up for his lack of arm strength by getting to a lot of balls that other fielders can’t, and plus he’s a very good hitter and is a threat to steal a lot of bases.
I’m not advocating trying to bring him back, but I wouldn’t care that much if he did find his way back to Wrigley.
Pre - October 31, 2009
Are you just trying to scare us because it's Halloween?
katie casey - October 31, 2009
It has to be a Halloween scare
Please wake me up from this nightmare, noooooooooooo. I guess this is a sample of the shocking level of interest in Bradley. Of course the Blue Jays would take Bradley if it helps get them out of $40+ million of this awful deal.
Release Bradley before taking this deal.
rlpete - October 31, 2009
Expand The Pie...
…then we’ll talk…
initram - October 31, 2009 via mobile
sourcing ...
does it strike anyone as odd that a Toronto paper would have a Cubs source that hasn’t already talked to a Chicago reporter or a national correspondent like Rosenthal?
Could this be an attempt by the Cubs to make it look like MB is in more demand than he actually is?
Also, someone mentioned Wells’ declining defense. Can anybody provide more details?
elgato - October 31, 2009
Using "Ultimate Zone Rating" with a score of 0 being "average"
Here are Vernon Wells’ numbers over the last 6 years:
2004: 9.9
2005: 3.2
2006: 7.5
2007: -1.1
2008: -14.3
2009: -17.6
That’s a composite of ratings of his throwing arm, range, and error tendencies converted to how many runs he saved/cost his team on defense. Notice a trend?
UZR can fluctuate from year to year, but is useful when looking at a player’s overall body of work.
mykalmorgan - October 31, 2009
The UZR/150
shows the trend isn’t constant exactly, but he still wasn’t good last year.
DGU - October 31, 2009
You're right
But the fact that he wasn’t healthy in ’08 is probably contributing to his significantly worse UZR/150 that year. The fact that he was healthy this year and was STILL so bad defensively does not bode well.
mykalmorgan - October 31, 2009
+ 10000
cubnational - November 1, 2009
Trends don't mean anything
But back to back years of -15 run defense is very disturbing.
vivaelpujols - October 31, 2009
It also shows a steady decline.
Trend lines do mean something.
MN exile - October 31, 2009
No they don't
Seriously. Players aren’t going to conform to a regression line. You have to look at each season in isolation.
For example, before 2007, you would think that Wells is an above average fielder. He then puts up a slighly negative rating, so you lower your estimate of his ability a little bit, but he’s still above average. Then, 08 happens and he’s terrible, so you lower your estimates of his ability a little more, and again after 09 to where he is almost certainly well below average.
You can’t just look at the trend line of a players performance and fit the equation of figure out his next season. That’s not how it works, you have to weigh and regress the data points.
vivaelpujols - October 31, 2009
Right.
The “trend” is disturbing because his estimated playing level is worse off for having played those poor years, not because one would expect him to play even worse going forward.
However, if you average over all players, you will see a meaningful decline in defensive ability over time once a player passes his peak years. If Wells has done this (it looks like he has) you can expect him to get even worse for that reason.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
cool
thanks!
elgato - October 31, 2009
I'm not a fan of this one.
Wells isn’t even likely to be worth $10M/year. The cubs would be trading Bradley for a worse player, be on the hook for just about the same amount of money over the remainder of Bradley’s contract… and then would have to pay this worse player for 4 more years.
From the reports we’ve been hearing of all the interest in Bradley, this is a horrible idea.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
Could the Cubs force Wells to opt out in 2011
if they make him 4th OF that season?
That would be a sneaky way to do this. We trade for Wells. We give him a year to see if he can bounce back – because he has a level of talent – and if he continues to look bad, we bench him in 2011.
DGU - October 31, 2009
If you could do that, I'd be OK with this deal.
But I doubt it’s possible. What’s Well’s motivation? A desire to get out of Toronto? A desire to get out of the AL East? A desire to play for a contender? I just can’t see anyone leaving that much money on the table.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
Yeah, I thought about all the money that would be left on the table...
he’d really have to want to play baseball to do it.
DGU - October 31, 2009
The MLBPA would have a field day with that
Unions exist for a reason
berselius - October 31, 2009
Just because you pay a guy...
doesn’t require you to play a guy. Right now, he’d be lucky if anybody in baseball even wanted him on the bench. I’m not a fan of acquiring him for that reason.
jameslcrockett - November 1, 2009
It Sounds to Me
like the Cubs are possibly preparing for Bradley to remain with the team. This morning’s on-line Tribune has a piece that sounds like posturing to me.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-31-cubs-bits-chicago-oct31,0,2928710.story
Sorry, I’m not sure how to post a proper link.
Luigi - October 31, 2009
I Guess I Got It.
It didn’t turn blue until I hit “Post.”
Luigi - October 31, 2009
Good!
I doubt there’s any way Bradley plays for the Cubs next year. I agree, this sounds like posturing. But it’s necessary, as Hendry really destroyed Bradley’s value at the end of the season. It may have been necessary, but it still wasn’t pretty.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
No, Bradely did that all on his own.
gaclaudy - October 31, 2009
I think you're missing the point.
I’ll admit that Bradley did the majority of the work to lower his market value. But the way the FO handled the mess made it worse, IMO. I’m not placing all the blame on Hendry here. Far from it, as I believe most of it is on Bradley. But I think the situation could have been handled much better, for many reasons.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - November 1, 2009
That's great news
He’s probably gone anyway, but at least this is a small step towards restoring some leverage in the trade talks.
berselius - October 31, 2009
Rec'd
Quote:
That contradicts the Wells rumor in my view.
Also see below.
DGU - October 31, 2009
Or in other words...
I’ve got this thing and it’s f—-ing golden. I’m not giving it up for f—-ing nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it.
Golden may be a little grandiose.
Andiamo Cuccioli - November 2, 2009
I would make the deal
if and only if to get Snider in the deal back. A prospect to them and we get Snider. I just can’t see the Cubs taking on this money.
I would look at Rowand that would be my first choice.
Grockcubs - October 31, 2009
It would be interesting to compare Wells and Rowand.
At 10 M per is Wells better than Rowand at 13 M? I don’t have the time right now to do the research, but my sense is that Wells has a higher ceiling than Rowand, but also more downside.
Our first reaction is – Vernon Wells is the worst contract in baseball. But we wouldn’t be taking the whole contract. And if nothing else, Wells isn’t a bad platoon partnre for Fukudome.
DGU - October 31, 2009
I'd prefer Wells in terms of per year salaries...
but Wells’s contract is much longer. That’s the big issue. Wells has fallen off his peak production levels dramatically quickly, and I don’t want to be rooting for the team paying him 8-figure salaries into his mid-30’s.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
The problem with that.....
is that Wells seems like the type of player (I emphasize the word “seems” because I have no evidence to back this up) who would start making trouble if he got benched, and suddenly we’re right back where we started in trading one bad clubhouse with a bad contract for another bad clubhouse guy with a worse contract. That’s borrowing from Peter to add to the huge debt you already owe Paul. I realize we’re probably going to have to take on a bad contract in order to move Bradley. This, unfortunately, is not a deal where we could move him for a few solid prospects. But the Wells contract is excessive. I’d stay away from it.
ctcoff99 - October 31, 2009
What are you basing this on?
I know you say you have no evidence, but why do you think Wells would cause trouble? His large contract? A quote somewhere?
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
When you take on that kind of a contract.....
there is so much pressure to play the guy to make sure you are getting your money’s worth. This pressure comes from media, fans, and the player himself. I phrased that badly, by saying a Bradley for Wells swap would be one bad clubhouse guy for another one, because I have no idea what Wells is like in the clubhouse, or as a teammate. Poor wording on my part. I should have said, trading a bad clubhouse guy for a potentially bad situation. And that was in response to the notion mentioned above that he could maybe platoon with Fukudome if he didn’t play up to expectations. I just can’t image the Cubs taking on THIS big a contract, but I guess it would have a lot to do with how healthy Wells is, and if he really does plan to opt out of his contract (but why would anyone opt out of THAT contract?)
ctcoff99 - October 31, 2009
So, to answer Shawn’s question: Nothing.
dtpollitt - October 31, 2009 via mobile
"I should have said, trading a bad clubhouse guy for a potentially bad situation."
That makes a lot more sense. And I’d go a step further. You’re trading a bad clubhouse guy for a bad situation. No need to qualify your statement. Wells’s contract is arguable the worst in baseball.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
arguable=arguably
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
no way...
I’d take Rowand or just cutting Bradley before I take on Wells. Rowand might return to have a good season if he left PacBell and could stop himself from breaking his face against the Wrigley Field Brick.
jameslcrockett - November 1, 2009
our best option?
if this is the best we can do, i think i’d rather just see us eat mbs contract…no…why not just toss him in l. mich & see if he floats? if Soriano doesnt improve w/ jaramillo by june, we could also use him as weight to hold down mb…
jeffstorm2 - October 31, 2009
This isn't necessarily our best option.
It’s an option that’s been leaked. And it may have been leaked because Toronto wants clubs to know they’ll pay this much of Wells to get rid of him. They may prefer to deal with some other team.
It also may have been leaked by the Cubs hoping to see some other club come and say, “Well I can beat that offer.”
DGU - October 31, 2009
Throwing people in water to see if they float...
is never out best option. Again, no need to qualify the statement. We learned this centuries ago in Salem.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
out=our... i really can't type today.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
There are an astonishing number of overpaid over-the-hill MLB players
Why do the owners make these bad deals that invariably come back to bite them in the arse?
I say dump Bradley, take the hit, and move on. We don’t need another mega-million piece of deadwood from another team.
JFCubFan - October 31, 2009
You don't do this, because...
the salary you’re going to pay Bradley is a “sunk cost.” You want to try to get something out of it. That said, you also don’t want to extend the length of time over which you’re paying out a bad contract, which would be the case with a deal for Wells.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
The original deal for Wells was made
because the Blue Jays thought they needed him to win in the window they thought they had. And they were probably right – but it didn’t pan out at all. The Jays had too many upside bets that fell flat through injury and lack of development, and we’ve been watching them discard those bets – Rios, Ryan, now Wells, over the past year.
DGU - October 31, 2009
If the front office
is absolutely serious about getting Bradley off the team, it would be really foolish for them to simply rid themselves of the problem by assuming a different problem, i.e., Wells, Rowand, etc. It would make much more sense for Hendry to cut his losses, chalk it up as a learning expierience, and either eat the contract altogether by releasing him outright, or at least try to get a couple of prospects or a second tier player in trade while eating most, if not all, of the contract.
Going for Vernon Wells seems counter to Tom Ricketts’ stated goals.
Luigi - October 31, 2009
well...
1 day in and the rumors already suggest everything at Ricketts press conference yesterday was bogus
this would be a horrific move
DartmouthCubsFan - October 31, 2009
Please, can't we cut him?
Or possibly, send him to some other team (along with Aaron Miles)? Either one is fine with me. As long as [name redacted] and Miles are not Cubs next year, I’ll be happy.
Vermont Cubs Fan - October 31, 2009
Bruce Miles shoots this down. Thank you!
Link
Scroll to comments for this quote
DGU - October 31, 2009
I'd take Wells
only if it involved Adam Lind in some way.
/sarcasm meter at 9
Fukudometer - October 31, 2009
nice
I mean, “NICE”.
elgato - October 31, 2009
Sullivan's twitter notes that Cubs are saying the rumor
has “no legs at all.” Thank God, this would be a horrible move.
DC Cubbie - October 31, 2009
Keep Bradley one more year....
with Rudy as the hitting coach, his attitude might change.
ronsanto10 - October 31, 2009
and if it doesnt?
carmen_fanzone - November 1, 2009
Then it doesn't
But the risk vs reward is there for the Cubs, and still worth takin IMHO
berselius - November 1, 2009
the same risk vs reward we had at the beginning of last season...
…that didn’t work out?
Fool me once, shame on you, etc etc.
I’m having a hard time comprehending why anyone thinks anything has changed. MB still hates “playing more than 9 innings” at Wrigley, the fans will eat him alive if he comes back, MB admits that he doesn’t want to be the center of attention, doesn’t like playing in a big market, thinks the big city media is out to get him…..
…and we want that back? We think he’s going “to change”? After witnessing a season that that same hope failed miserably?
carmen_fanzone - November 1, 2009
BECAUSE BRADLEY CAN DO NO WRONG
jesus christos - November 1, 2009
No, because Bradley is extremely likely to post better numbers next year
berselius - November 1, 2009
This is a Toronto wet dream
Milton’s contract is bad but not terrible, Wells contract is the single worst in the MLB.
Doggie Stalker - October 31, 2009
Shocking, but true...
Which is something that I never thought I’d say as recently as the start of last season, with the Zito contract out there. But at least Wells has a chance of being overtaken by the Rios contract next season.
By the way, is there anyone else at least mildly intrigued by idea of a Hafner swap?
Damen Jackson - October 31, 2009
Hafner
can’t play the field….
did i miss something, we’re sill in the NL right?
DartmouthCubsFan - October 31, 2009
Neither can Adam Dunn,
or Carlos Lee, yet they’re still swinging a bat in NL cities.
I haven’t seen him man a position in years. I’m not advocating, but I do find the idea oddly curious.
Damen Jackson - October 31, 2009
hafner
You wouldn’t be trading for Hafner to play him… You’d be trading for him to ship him to another team for value. The Cubs don’t have a position for him, but an NL or AL team would take him on and give the Cubs something in return. There are very few scenarios where the Cubs would be right to do a deal rather than just cutting Bradley… and this would be better than cutting Bradley.
jameslcrockett - November 1, 2009
They could do the same with Pat Burrell.
Al Yellon - November 2, 2009
No
Hafner seems to have washed up already
berselius - October 31, 2009
If we took Wells
After the sox took rios, I think Toronto would throw Chicago a parade.
nji232 - October 31, 2009
Aaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
vonde6 - October 31, 2009
Honestly, trading for Wells would be the worst possible thing you could do
I mean, he’s a replacement level player being paid 60 MILLION over the next 6 years. If this is the only other option, then it’s better just to keep Bradley and have everyone ignore him.
vivaelpujols - October 31, 2009
This is stupid
Stupid, stupid, stupid. You take a productive player who is only on the hook for two years at a fair market deal based on what he should produce and turn it into a terrible deal for a declining centerfielder who can’t field his position or hit.
Of all the stupid deals I’ve seen rumored about Milton Bradley, this is the dumbest of all
nji232 - October 31, 2009
I don't want Wells
On a whole side note, looks like payroll expectations are around 140-145 million right now. So, pre-Bradley move, that probably gives us around 5-10 million to spend. If a Bradley/Wells swap is simply .. a swap, that’s fine for this year (again don’t want Vernon). So there is some feasibility there if Toronto is interested, and I think, even with the fact that they lack a top CF prospect, that they would easily do the deal.
That said, let me repeat – don’t want Vernon. He bad.
toonsterwu - October 31, 2009
Al, I have to disagree about Wells' ability to play CF...
He’s had UZR values of -15 or worse each of the last two seasons. The guy is a CF in name only, and only because the Blue Jays apparently don’t have an alternative.
If this deal were to happen (and I really hope it doesn’t – even at $10.67 million per year), we’d be better off with Fukudome staying in CF.
If you’re looking to move Fukudome back to RF, Wells is not the solution in my opinion.
I’m hoping that, because this is a Toronto story, that it’s just a Canadian pipedream and not a real possibility.
SouthernCub - October 31, 2009
According to Sullivan, this deal has "no legs"
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/10/cubs-not-interested-in-wells-for-bradley-swap-with-jays.html
I hope Sullivan’s source is right.
SouthernCub - October 31, 2009
That's fine.
I was just putting this out for discussion. Clearly, it’s pretty much unanimous here: no Wells.
I do believe that the Cubs are probably having ongoing discussions with multiple teams on this.
Al Yellon - October 31, 2009
I tried to come up with some possibility for why it would be a decent deal...
and it boiled down to needing to believe that the Cubs had a bead on Wells bouncing back that Toronto didn’t (nearly improbable) or the Cubs planning to eat more of Wells contract to flip him – allowing them to eat less in the short term but more in the long-term, but even then I wasn’t sure who would want Wells for as long as his deal is, even at 7 M per.
In the end, I think Bradley can play CF as well as Wells at this stage in their career, and Wells is no more health-certain than Bradley, which means that trading Bradley for Wells at 10 per is like basically trading Bradley for Bradley minus the OBP and minus the attitude and plus three times the contract.
DGU - October 31, 2009
Can't we get rid of Soriano?
He’ll probably be a better DH in the American League.
ronsanto10 - October 31, 2009
who's going to take the contract?
the issue with soriano isn’t just that he struggled … it’s that he struggled and he has a horrible contract.
toonsterwu - October 31, 2009
how would we do that?
elgato - October 31, 2009
MAYBE WE SHOULD TRADE SORIANO (MORE LIKE SORRYANO) AND BADLEY
FOR TORONTOS LEFT FIELDER
THO I FURGET HIS NAME…..
jesus christos - October 31, 2009
Just a thought...
I’m not suggesting this as a course of action, just throwing it out there as a more likely possibility:
Wells is due $98.5 over the remainder of his contract. Bradley is due $23M over the remainder of his deal. Alfonso Soriano is due $90M over the remainder of his contract. $23 + $90 = $113. That’s reasonably close to $98.5.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
Soriano will be a more productive player over the course of their contracts.
That deal is a loser for the Cubs.
DGU - October 31, 2009
Agreed on both counts.
I’m not suggesting the Cubs should do this, merely stating that it’s more likely than Wells for Bradley, IMO.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - October 31, 2009
Flame away
I would consider trading Bradley for Carlos Silva and a good prospect from Seattle, someone Jack Z. inherited, and doesn’t fit his plans, like Mike Saunders or Matt Tuiasosopo. Put Silva and his huge L/R split in the bullpen, using him like Aaron Heilman in 2009. Hope he can get healthy and be worth something to somebody by mid-season.
cubzfan - October 31, 2009
as a middle RP in close games despite the fact he isnt very good?
jesus christos - October 31, 2009
Those prospects are good ones and appear to be in Jack Zs plans.
But I like that general idea. It would be interesting to see if Jim Hendry can do something like that – because if he’s taking a bad contract back – why shouldn’t he get something else – after all Milton’s not a bad contract – he’s just bad for the Cubs.
DGU - November 1, 2009
Seattle
It’s a bad fit for the organization and the community. It’s a great fit for their starting lineup. But they got rid of guillen for nothing because he had baggage, and that was after he was the offensive force of their lineup. Of course by “they”, I mean the previous organization, but a lot of them are still there and have a lot of power. I’m not sure their new GM would want to get his hands dirty with a player such as Bradley so soon into getting the job.
It makes a lot of sense to swap Silva for Bradley… I like it for the Cubs and the Mariners. I just don’t think it would work. Seattle is filled with a bunch of homers. They just don’t like bad guys.
jameslcrockett - November 1, 2009
Forget MB - he will be dealt .. But about Soriano, Soto, Fontenot, et al
(BCB Optimism Meter: Meh)
With millions more owed to Soriano alone, Jaramillo’s anointing as the sensei for sluggers by MLB may yield some surprising dividends with Soto, Soriano, and them Cajun boys. Who knows.
I like what the coach said ..
"I don’t preach home runs. I think every hitting coach tries to teach the game. The game dictates what you do."
Which for me says that IF Jaramillo needs to metaphorically slap Soriano’s batting helmet a few times privately, the millions the Cubs are pumping into his bank account authorizes it. Soriano, I think, needs a good wake up call that I’m not sure that even this down time with his knee will underscore. Personally, I think Rudy’s a far more honorable man then that and he’ll finally get through to Soriano about his plate discipline in the right way he’s been doing.
But maybe not. God alone knows.
cubnational - November 1, 2009
we dont
need any more bad contracts do we? wells could be a godsend or we could be stuck with ANOTHER player for 5 years. im sure jim will do his best. amazing other teams want this punk bradley.
NOMAR - November 1, 2009
Now that I look at this...
I don’t like the Vernon Wells idea… Just Release Bradley…
Have Jaramillo work on Soto and Soriano try to get them both contributors they don’t have to be superstars or anything… and Get Z’s mind right. You can add DeRosa back at 2B and that will undoubtly boost our offense. Don’t forget Lee looked like his old self again this year and Rami was injured alot so that factors into all this. Get the Core fixed before you tinker…also give the kid Fuld a shot…. he has great contact and speed along with plus fielding… if he develops into some kind of a hitter he could always lead off… if not take the DEF… DEF wins championships. add some to the bullpen and see where it takes you
stixball21 - November 1, 2009
sorry for the long comment...
I’m just venting…
stixball21 - November 1, 2009
Much as I loved DeRo
I highly doubt that the Cubs bring him back in the offseason. It might be a different story midseason, depending on what injuries, struggles happen, but with a similar player in Jeff Baker, I just don’t see it happening.
Also, while Derrek had a great year, I don’t think it’s all that realistic to maintain a .273 ISO.
toonsterwu - November 1, 2009
New here
Just wanted to say hello and hope the Ricketts can bring us a winner. Also…would rather just dump Bradley and eat the remaining money instead of going further in the hole with Wells and ending up with the same situation. I also think Jeff Baker deserves the 2nd base spot, but, that’s just my opinion.
Easy Ed - November 2, 2009
Player Trades
Jim Hendry has a real knack for signing and overpaying underproducing players. he has nearly a quarter of a billion dollars invested in Soriana,Fukudome and Bradley. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he signs Vernon Wells and then finds a way to sign his other true love Chone figgins. Mr Ricketts can talk all he wants to about winning a world series, it just won’t happen until we unload Hendry and stop taking on dead weight.
TWCIZME - November 2, 2009
I would gladly take on Vernon Wells contract and send them Milton Bradley. But only if:
1. they give us Adam Lind
2. they give us Aaron Hill
3. they give us Travis Snider
4. they give us Randy Ruiz
5. they give us Ricky Romero
6. they keep Vernon Wells
7. they take Soriano and Zambrano and the rest of their contracts
Gleebo - November 4, 2009
OMG GETIT DON EJIM!!!1!1!!!!
Shanghai Badger - November 5, 2009
OMG GETIT DON EJIM!!!1!1!!!!
Shanghai Badger - November 5, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.