I can't take credit for this one -- it was first suggested in this comment in the Pat Burrell Fanshot last night -- but I think it's worth investigating, as a deal sending Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell to the Rangers, and Kevin Millwood to the Cubs would help all three teams.
The Rays were one of the suitors for Bradley last offseason and a Bradley-for-Burrell deal has apparently been on and off the table between the Cubs and Rays since the middle of the 2009 season. Thus, we know they still have interest in him, and given the fact that Bradley has said he doesn't like to be in the spotlight, Tampa, a low-key baseball environment, might be very good for him.
Here's the problem with Burrell as a Cub, though: he's a DH. Last year, he played only two games in the outfield, starting one (in RF) and playing two innings in LF in the other. He wasn't a very good outfielder when he was with the Phillies; he played 1B, his "best" natural fielding position, in his first full major league season, then moved to the outfield because the Phillies acquired players (Travis Lee and then Jim Thome) who would have been even worse in the outfield than Burrell.
Since the National League doesn't have the DH rule -- yet; I still expect that having the DH in the NL will be a bargaining chip in the next round of player/owner labor negotiations -- Burrell would be useless to the Cubs, even as a backup. You wouldn't want him in the outfield, and he'd be an expensive piece to sit on the bench and pinch-hit twice a week and maybe spell Derrek Lee at 1B once a month.
Ah, but the Texas Rangers do need a designated hitter. About half of the DH duty in Arlington in 2009 was handled by Andruw Jones, who wasn't much better than Burrell last year, and who is a free agent. Burrell's decline with the Rays last year is mystifying -- he was coming off a .875 OPS season in Philadelphia in 2008 where he had 33 HR and 102 walks, which ranked third in the NL. You'd have to think he'd rebound in 2010, playing in the launching pad which is Rangers Ballpark.
The primary reason for making this deal, of course, is the Cubs' desire to be rid of Bradley, and thus you'd have to equalize the contract money between the three teams, or at least come close to doing so. The Cubs know they are not dealing from a position of strength and will probably have to take on extra money, so let's look at what's left on the contracts of each of these players. All numbers are, as usual, from Cot's Baseball Contracts.
Milton Bradley is due $9 million in 2010 and $12 million in 2011.
Pat Burrell is due $9.2 million in 2010 ($9 million salary and $200,000 if traded).
Kevin Millwood is due $12 million in 2010 -- and a $15 million signing bonus that's payable over a five-year period from 2011 to 2015, presumably $3 million a year (though that's not made clear at Cot's).
If the deal were made straight-up -- each team taking on the contract of the player they're acquiring -- the Rangers make out like bandits, because they'd be losing a $27 million obligation (Millwood) and taking on a $9.2 million obligation (Burrell). The Cubs would be taking on some extra money in that scenario, $27 million (Millwood) compared to $21 million (Bradley). The total money owed to all three players in all three of these deals is $57.2 million.
We know, from numerous reports, that the Cubs are willing to eat some salary to make Bradley disappear from the roster. So how about something like this:
The Rays pay Bradley the $9 million he's owed this year, and $3 million (one-third) of what Bradley's owed in 2011 -- total of $12 million.
The Cubs pay Millwood the $12 million he is owed this year, two-thirds of what Bradley's owed in 2011 ($9 million) and half ($7.5 million) of Millwood's signing bonus over the five-year period -- total of $28.5 million, but spread out over a longer timeframe.
The Rangers pay Burrell the $9.2 million he's owed this year, and half ($7.5 million) of Millwood's signing bonus over the five-year period -- total of $16.7 million.
That, to me, would make the deal financially workable, and also make baseball sense, for all three teams -- the Rays get a player they have apparently sought for a while at an under-market price; the Cubs pay a few more total dollars, but can spread it out over a longer time period; and the Rangers get a useful player and more than $10 million of financial relief. This would also possibly free up enough 2010 dollars for the Cubs to offer Rich Harden arbitration, if they wanted to; if they didn't, they'd at least have an experienced major league arm in Millwood to replace him.
As we often say here: GETITDON EJIM!
0 recs | 130 comments
So far this makes the most sense,
especially for all three teams. Millwood could be a good insurance policy and I would rather have a strength in pitching than any place else. Well explained Al, let’s do it this afternoon!
mrcubsfan - November 13, 2009
I'm all for any deal...
That can at least give the Cubs a touch of salary relief in 2010, and give some room to move. Personally, I think this scenario plays better with the Mets for Castillo, but I’d have no problem with this idea, even looking at is as a fan of any of these teams.
Damen Jackson - November 13, 2009
Mets and Castillo
That is still the trade I prefer. You would get a solid bat at the top of the order, while still keeping the CF situation open.
That said, for that to happen, the Mets would have to miss on their top OF targets and decide that they want to go heavy for Chone Figgins at 2nd base, creating the opportunity for us.
toonsterwu - November 13, 2009
I just don't think Castillo is that good.
His speed isn’t what it once was, and the career OBA of .369 is basically matched by Fukudome (.367).
No on Castillo.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Castillo could bat 2nd
not necessarily the worst thing.
rlpete - November 13, 2009
Nope....
n/t
Damen Jackson - November 13, 2009
A better comparison would probably be Juan Pierre,
Except Castillo is even worse offensively and defensively than Pierre.
berselius - November 13, 2009
im sure their arms about the same as well
jesus christos - November 13, 2009
I can still see that game-ending popup he dropped vs. the Yankees...
… costing the Mets two runs and the game.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
So the dude Brant Browned one ball.
He’s probably no better than a mediocre defender at this point, but that one play isn’t the reason. You can take just about any player and find a couple plays that make them look stupid on defense.
My biggest concern with him is that his offensive skill set is pretty limited — he’s all contact and plate approach, no power. That gives him little margin for error, he has to be on top of his game consistently to be valuable. The upside is an average season of 2B play, likely is somewhat below average, downside is Aaron Miles.
aldimond - November 13, 2009
That was (mostly) just joking.
You are, however, right about his offense. At his age, a sudden decline could easily happen.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
A decent proposal
The only place I disagree is Harden. Millwood fills that spot. The available money would be needed for an OF’er. Unfortunately, is Cameron the best option? He and Soriano in the same lineup potentially back to back would be unbearable.
rlpete - November 13, 2009
Thanks for expanding on this idea, Al
On the whole it makes sense. I have to admit, though, that I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around taking on more money to make Bradley go away. The thought has been to eat as little of his remaining $$ as possible (while making him go away). In this scenario, the question is, would you sign Kevin Millwood to a $7.5 million contract, spread out over several years. That’s essentially what they’d be doing- paying all of Bradley’s $21, and picking up another $7.5 for Millwood. If you wouldn’t do that, you’re better off just releasing Bradley.
The Cubs also add $3 million to the 2010 payroll ($12 million for Millwood vs. $9 for Bradley). I think the Cubs have to do better on the money end of this deal.
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
The problem is...
… that teams know how badly the Cubs want to dump Bradley. They’re going to have to give any team that participates in such a deal some salary relief to make it happen.
This is a way to do it, taking on more dollars but spreading it out over more years, that would be about the least bad idea.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
No question, the Cubs have to cover a lot of Bradley's salary.
but in the scenario you laid out, they’d still be paying $21mm over the next two years- same as Bradley’s contract, except that it’s now front-end heavy (12mm in 2010 and 9 in 2011, instead of the other way around) and the $7.5 to Millwood over the next several years.
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
Right, but...
… as I said, the Cubs know they are going to have to take on money to do this. At least they get a useful player for a year as a result.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
They have to take on some of Bradley's money. Not more on top of it.
Scenario A: Release Bradley
2010 cost $9 million
2011 cost $12 million
Both years you can likely subtract the 400k+ of the major league minimum, assuming another team picks him up.
Total cost ~$20.2 million, with nothing coming back
Scenario B: Trade him to the Rays or Rangers, for a crappy prospect and minimal salary relief, maybe $2 million each year.
2010 cost $7 million
2011 cost $10 Million
Total cost: $17 million, with essentially nothing coming back
Scenario C: your proposal
2010 cost: $12 milllion
2011 cost: $10.5 million
2012 cost: $1.5 million
2013 cost $1.5 million
2014 cost: $1.5 million
2015 cost: $1.5 million
Total cost: $28.5, while gaining 1 year of Millwood.
Option C seems to be the least appealing at those dollars.
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
However Millwood fills a rotation spot
You need to add another pitcher in your Scenario A and B. If you are talking Harden, you can add $7 million+. It does make the scenarios a little closer.
rlpete - November 13, 2009
Exactly right. The decision, then, is Millwood worth
the extra $11.5 million or so for one year. Would the Cubs be better off spending that money on another pitcher or a CF, or whatever?
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
It's not really an extra $11.5 million.
It’s an extra $7.5 million, because you owe Bradley $21 million and I’m suggesting paying $28.5 million. And, you’re spreading out most of that over an extra three years.
Like I said, the Cubs are going to have to eat some money here. This seems to be a worthwhile way to do it.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
It is unless you think you couldn't get either texas or tampa
to pick up even $2 million a year from Bradley’s deal just to take him. Say it’s only $1 million a year. You’re still in effect paying $9.5 for millwood. Still really doubtful that he’s worth that.
You don’t have to keep saying that the Cubs need to eat money. i know that. But they shouldn’t have to eat more than the value of Bradley’s contract unless they’re getting real talent back, and for more than one year.
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
it's a nit but...
in Scenario A, sure you can subtract the 400k (ML minimum), assuming another team picks him up. But you’re going to have to add at least that much back on because someone will take his roster spot. It may not be to the tune of $7M (Harden) as ripete points out, but it will have to be at least the league minimum so best case, it’s a wash. Still $21M.
ballhawk - November 13, 2009
Yep, of course, you are right
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
Bradley is not in demand
If the Cubs don’t absorb money or trade Castro with him, you can pencil him for RF next April.
He was Hendry’s big mistake. If he wants to remove him now, he has to pay for it.
rlpete - November 13, 2009
Castro
is going nowhere
Grockcubs - November 13, 2009
Not a good deal
Now that I realize the dollars. You would be basically paying about 13 Million for Millwood. Unlike most of you I think Bradley has value just a lot less than his 21 million dollar contract. I think you get a team to take Bradley for 5-6 million
and some throw in which means you are spending up to 13 million to get Millwood. I like Millwood but not that much and since the Cubs will need some money to get an OF this puts them in a tough position.
Doggie Stalker - November 13, 2009
How are you spending $13 million on Millwood?
In my proposal the Cubs spend $7 million more than Bradley’s deal — but can spread it out over four extra years.
That’d still leave room for signing a Cameron or Byrd.
Bradley has to go. This is about the least bad way to do it.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
But they're still spending $21 over the next two years. That's Bradleys full contract
plus picking up half of Millwood bonus down the road. I like the idea of the trade. But the Cubs have to do better with the $$ than this. Otherwise, unless they love Millwood that much they’d be better off releasing Bradley.
davidalanu - November 13, 2009
7 million or 7.5 PLUS what I actually think Bradley is worth
It is just stupid to suggest Bradley has ZERO monetary value. My suggestion to all of you eager to dump him at all costs is think about just basically trading for an A ball player plus the team willing to take on the largest amount of his contract. In my view there are teams out there who would be happy to have 2 years of Bradley for 5-6 million. So instead of trading him for players with bad or worse contracts just do this and use the savings to get a player you want. Not a great deal but if you insist on dumping him and there really are no good deals because like I said I like Millwood but if you add up how much more he is owed than Bradley and the amount you could save by just selling him off it is around 13 million. I would say Millwood is the best of the bad options but it leaves you with a big problem in terms of getting a Bradley replacement.
Doggie Stalker - November 13, 2009
which teams? and why take the risk?
Any of the teams that can afford to do this can afford to get other players just as good, or good enough without taking on the risks of MB, perceived or otherwise.
Any of the teams that are looking for a “deal”, are going to have plenty of deals to choose from in the non-tender aisle in a month or so.
Any of the teams that might be tempted to do this regardless of financial standing, are still going to want to check out the non-tender aisle first. And seeing as how they know the position the Cubs are in, they’re probably more than willing to wait it out and gamble the Cubs will just release him so they can swoop in for the $410K minimum. And if someone else beats them to the punch, oh well – plenty of other deals to be found. No one is going to lose their job next year for NOT getting Milton Bradley.
ballhawk - November 13, 2009
I disagree
I think Texas, Tampa etc would be willing to pay $5 million or more to have Milton for two years. Teams will always take a risk on someone with his upside and that is pretty much 75% off. We are not talking Andruw Jones here.
Doggie Stalker - November 13, 2009
I kind of agree here
I sort of agree with Jessica on one thing…. there may be teams who will take on Bradley for $5 million, but not much more. Everyone knows how badly the Cubs want to trade Bradley and the teams that may be interested are going to see just how badly that is.
No Southern Belle - November 13, 2009
Equalize contracts? No, you don't
Getting rid of Bradley and equalizing contracts are definitely not tied together. Those two statements are almost at odds with each other.
It’s great if you can do it. But I fully expect the Cubs to eat some piece of Bradley’s contract.
RiskyBusiness - November 13, 2009
OK...
… point taken. But the scenario I put forth doesn’t really “equalize” them, it makes the Cubs take on more dollars. I still think it’s workable.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
And the Cubs can always
use another SP. See 2004, 2005, and towel drills.
These multi-team deals occur more at the trade deadline and with rent-a-players for the most part. I think the Cubs will make a deal with 1 team for Bradley, but I doubt two teams. More teams, means more dragging it out.
Has anyone figured out the Old Style price increase for the extra payroll? Up $0.25 per beer for this?
RiskyBusiness - November 13, 2009
Here's the snag on this deal -
apparently both the Rangers and the Rays are interested in acquiring Milton. Do the Rangers look at this deal and say – um, we’d much rather have Bradley than Burrell? Maybe, maybe not, but talking the deal through as a three-way with these teams could possibly build some competition.
DGU - November 13, 2009
If that's the case...
… a straight-up swap of Bradley for Millwood might work; you could work out money details between the two teams.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Hasn't this been shot down?
I searched around for where the Bradley-Millwood rumor started, the first place I saw it was in the comments section of a Bruce Miles post.
WGNstatic - November 13, 2009
I see your point...
But once you start factoring in financial relief for the Rangers, in addition to getting a RH DH, I think the conversation gets a bit more interesting. in my opinion.
Damen Jackson - November 13, 2009
So much for a moratorium...
but a bag of peanuts and three scratchy lotto tickets would suffice for [name redacted].
chilango2 - November 13, 2009
I'd say this sounds like a pretty realistic, feasible trade scenario.
And I think this may be the kind of deal we see.
Of course, I’m not thrilled with the idea of the Cubs taking on more money to get rid of Bradley. But I fear this is the devil’s bargain Hendry will have to make – getting a relatively useful player to put on the field in return for a worsening of the Cubs financial position. And I do think Kevin Millwood would be a decent addition to the bottom of the Cubs rotation.
To be clear, I’m not sure a deal like this would be cause to rejoice. But it would get the job done, give all three teams a player of potential value and, most important, allow the Cubs to move on.
daver - November 13, 2009
Al ...
where have you read that the Cubs and Rays have been talking Bradley for Burrell since the middle of last season?
elgato - November 13, 2009
If I may...
…Ken Rosenthal reported it yesterday here.
In addition, I’ll throw this link out there for general consumption. A Rays blogger is suggesting the Cubs and Rays do a straight-up Bradley-for-Burrell trade with Tampa Bay throwing in Andy Sonnanstine. Thoughts?
daver - November 13, 2009
I'm with Sonnanstine.
Burrell, not so much.
chilango2 - November 13, 2009
♪♫ You can't have one without the...other. ♪♫
daver - November 13, 2009
Oh yea Sonnanstine.
A lefty with no velocity and one pitch. Sounds appealing.
Cub Style - November 13, 2009
Just to clarify.
Sonnanstine is a right-handed pitcher (he bats left-handed). I wonder how much of his struggles in 2009 was due to his jump in innings between 2007 and 2008.
Bill Potter - November 14, 2009
Whoops my bad.
But you just furthered my point.
Cub Style - November 15, 2009
While I love this deal for the Cubs
…and would do it in a heartbeat, why would the Rangers want to do this? Milwood’s contract really isn’t all that bad – he’s been worth pretty close to what he’s paid (between 2.5 and 3.5 WAR the last 3 seasons) for a team that always has trouble finding quality starters.
And here, not only do you have the Rangers getting a player back in return that they could replace on the open market for cheaper (they find a better DH than Burrell for a 1-year commitment on the open market) you’ve got them taking on extra money to do so (they essentially pay $17M for one year of Burrell).
So not only does it make the Rangers a worse team, it costs them money to do so. I just don’t think this deal makes any sense for them.
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
How does it cost them money?
In my scenario, they SAVE more than $10 million by dumping a good chunk of Millwood’s signing bonus on the Cubs.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Because they'll get significantly less value for their money
Milwood has positive value. If they wanted to get rid of him, they’d be able to do better than saving just $10M and getting back an overpriced DH – someone would be willing to take on most of that contract, especially given the weak market for free agent starting pitching this year.
For that matter, if they wanted to spend that much money and get an overpriced DH back, why wouldn’t they just trade Bradley to the Cubs straight-up for Milwood? Why involve the Rays at all? Trading for Bradley straight up would only cost them a few million more, but would give them 2 years of a better DH than Burrell.
I just don’t see how any of this makes sense for Texas.
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
Well, they COULD trade for Bradley straight up.
But the Rays seem to want him more. Burrell had a crappy year last year, but before that was a pretty good hitter — wouldn’t you agree?
You may be right about Millwood’s deal, although it’s $27 million for, essentially, ONE year of him, since his signing bonus is all to be paid after this year.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
I do agree that Burrell's 2008 is probably more indicative of his true talent level than 2009
I go back and forth on this and I guess it doesn’t sound as impossible as when I was first looking at it.
It’s an interesting idea, but the more I think about it the more I’d rather keep or dump Burrell and then use that $10M you’re proposing we spend on Millwood to just keep Harden or spend on more pressing needs.
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
Your scenario isn't unreasonable, but...
… how do you get rid of Bradley in that situation? Keep Burrell? I’d cringe to see him in RF for the Cubs.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Why?
I am not sure that Burrell as Kosuke’s platoon partner would be so bad.
His UZR’s from 2008 are comparable to what Milton Bradley put up in RF for the Cubs in 2009. With Kosuke getting most of the RF starts, a new CF, and Burrell playing ~25% of the RF innings (even assuming worse defense than MB), the defense is still as a whole better than it was in 2009.
WGNstatic - November 13, 2009
I think part of the reason to get rid of Bradley and move Fukudome
back to right field is to improve the defense. It really took a step back last year and has to improve for the team to win more games in 2010.
Putting Burrell in right field does not achieve that goal and might even make it worse as right field at Wrigley is considered one of the more challenging positions for an outfielder.
cowsarecool220 - November 13, 2009
Fielding Bible Ratings for Burrell (LF):
2006: -26
2007: -27
2008: -19
total: -72 (72 fewer plays than avg. LF)
MB (RF):
2006: -7
2008: +1
2009: -12
total: -18
it’s not remotely close.
Andronicus - November 13, 2009
You still make the trade with the Rays
…with the Rays paying $3M of Bradley’s Salary, plus Burrell’s.
If you keep Burrell, you platoon him in right with Kosuke, and on days when he does start you have Kosuke come in as a late-inning replacement.
Or you just dump him; either way you’re taking on less money.
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
I suspect that you would likely be able to deal Burrell after that...
… maybe for Millwood?
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
I suppose
But I’m not sure 1) why the Rangers would want Burrell and 2) why the Cubs would commit $10M (as proposed here) to an average pitcher when there are more glaring needs on the roster and cash is tight.
I appreciate that you’re trying to find a way to turn the Bradley debacle into something positive for the Cubs, I’m just not sure this works. I’m still not sure I understand why the Rays would be inolved in this trade at all given that they really aren’t adding any value to the deal (not taking on much money, not giving up a valuable player).
Given the title of the article though I’m just relieved you weren’t proposing that the Cubs trade for Millwood and then eat him. Really anything else is reasonable by comparison.
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
OK...
… other than eating a contract or releasing someone you pick up, how would you turn Bradley into something useful, beyond prospects?
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
You don't.
It’s unlikely you’re even going to turn him into prospects.
You have to treat the money owed to Bradley as a sunk cost. He’s not going to return anything of value, so you just need to maximize the amount of salary relief you can get.
Any trade that doesn’t result in salary relief >= $1M needs to be looked at as a new cost*. This is why the Burrell deal is the best one available (of the rumored / speculated deals); it results in a net relief of $4-5M (assuming the rumors are true) and while it gives you a ballplayer of marginal use, but there’s a chance he can be a positive contributor as a bench bat / platooning right fielder / backup first baseman.
Making lemonade when life gives you lemons is a great idea in theory, but not if it costs you $10M to do so, and even then the lemonade is only mediocre.
*since you could always just cut Bradley, which would save you $1M – the league minimum x 2 years, which is what someone else would end up paying for him
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
Fully agree
Al, when you said we should hope to turn Bradley into a 2010 version of Eric Karros, I agreed.
To me, Burrell could be that guy. No, this isn’t someone we would be excited about acquiring in a vacuum, but the same could have been said for Karros and Grudz.
WGNstatic - November 13, 2009
But...
… at least it was known that Grudz and Karros could play 2B and 1B, although no one expected them to do as well as they did.
You’re expecting Burrell to play a position he has almost literally NEVER played before. If the NL had the DH, we’d have a likely solution.
But it doesn’t.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Burrell's contribution only needs to be monetary
You trade for him, and see how bad his defense is in spring training. If it’s awful, you relegate him to bench bat / backup 1b, or you just cut him, or trade him, eating most of his salary.
The fact is that if he doesn’t play a single game as a Cub he’s helped you more than any of the other proposals I’ve seen can – by saving you $4-5M simply by showing up. If there’s a chance he can provide value to the team by playing 35-40 games in right, then great. If not, then you cut him loose.
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
Why not use the extra $10 Million
To go after a guy like Billy Wagner? and Shore up the Pen more?
I think we’d be okay with an OF of Fuld,Soriano and Fukudome if it meant that our Pen was shored up
You have Marshall, Grabow, Wagner, Marmol and Stevens. seems like a decent pen to me.
Galvan316 - November 13, 2009
Or at least part of the $10 million
for Wagner. I personally think the pen was a lot of what was the problems with that Cubs last year.
Galvan316 - November 13, 2009
10 million and 2 first round picks to sign Wagner...
Not worth it.
carmen_fanzone - November 13, 2009
Our first-round pick is protected
We can sign Type A free agents with abandon. Not that we will.
cubzfan - November 13, 2009
Fuld - See Mike Fontenot
I really don’t think Fuld as a full-time starter is a good idea.
rlpete - November 13, 2009
ditto
tripdenten - November 13, 2009
This is the line that made me throw up a little in my mouth:
When I think about how school districts are on the verge of bankruptcy here in Michigan, this seems like madness.
Yet, there I am every February, waiting in the VWR for Cubs tickets. There must be something wrong with me…
Zeke - November 13, 2009
We don't need a pitcher. At all.
dtpollitt - November 13, 2009 via mobile
I beg to differ.
You can never have too much pitching.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
I agree Al
Which is why I said if we have to take a very bad contract at least make it pitching.
Cubsfan Waveland - November 13, 2009
We need an infielder or outfielder.
Pitching hasn’t been the problem the last there years, in the regular or post season. Offense has.
dtpollitt - November 13, 2009 via mobile
I repeat.
You can never have too much pitching.
Al Yellon - November 14, 2009
Ned Yost, is that you? ;-)
ballhawk - November 14, 2009
No, if I were Ned Yost I would have said..
…. “You can never have too many no-hitters.”
Al Yellon - November 14, 2009
what?
With Lilly coming off surgery?
elgato - November 13, 2009
Rangers appear to have expressed interest in Guerrero, according to Fox Sports
…via MLBTradeRumors – linky
If I’m the Rangers, I think I’d rather have Guerrero than Burrell and probably than Bradley too.
ballhawk - November 13, 2009
Especially at that price
rlpete - November 13, 2009
boy, not only was the MB signing a bad idea ...
it was horribly timed. There’s no way Milton would get $30 million this offseason, if Vlad might only get $3 million guaranteed.
elgato - November 13, 2009
Don't forget though, you have to take into account two important words in that excerpt...
“speculates” and “FOX”.
ballhawk - November 13, 2009
I'm sorry, but this is a really bad idea!
Millwood is average at best for that price (and getting past his prime).
We could sign someone (like a Doug Davis or Joel Pineiro) -type pitcher who can give us the same kind of basic numbers for under $10 million a year. Who wants to be stuck with $28.5 million when the other teams get off quite easily? I’d rather keep Burrell for one year and take my chances with him in RF (subbing in Fuld or RJ for defense) every game.
Just doesn’t make sense.
CubFanSince1970 - November 13, 2009
No, you wouldn't.
Why would you want a regular right fielder who has played ONE GAME in right field in his major league career?
He’d be like Adam Dunn out there, only worse.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Well the Cubs could move Soriano
back to 2nd and play Burrell in LF.
Just kidding.
rlpete - November 13, 2009
Wow.
That team would have the worst defense in the last 50 years.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Nope
They put Fuld in CF and tell him to cover CF, LF and 2B. I think he can do it.
Doggie Stalker - November 13, 2009
Why would he be the regular RF?
Most reports have suggested bringing in a new CF is a priority with Kosuke moving back to RF.
So, Burrell would be a platoon RFer and bat bench for one year.
I could live with that.
WGNstatic - November 13, 2009
Beats releasing Bradley and having nothing at all to show for
the money.
N Oakley - November 13, 2009
hmmm
doesn’t really beat having to pay Burrell like he’s Bradley… but get much, much less out of him. Releasing him and giving every one of those at-bats/defensive innings to Sam Fuld would be far more valuable than taking on somebody else’s bad player. For the league minimum or close to it, you’d be able to pick up someone off the waiver wire who would be more valuable to this team than Burrell, when you factor in defense.
jameslcrockett - November 13, 2009
Debatable
Whether or not Fuld could match Burrell’s productivity is debatable. However, you can still release or bench Burrell, pocket whatever savings you get, and then play Fuld.
Remember, the same was said of Karros stealing AB from Choi in 2003.
WGNstatic - November 13, 2009
Of course the big difference is that Choi had a chance to be a good player
Wreckard - November 13, 2009
ok...
but this scenario only works IF you’re getting savings from the deal. That’s not what I was talking about above.
It’s not really the same situation though. Both Karros and Choi play a non-premium defense position, and it’s debatable which one played it better.
If we’re acquiring Burrell to be Lee’s backup and fill in if (when?) he gets hurt and getting some cost-savings on top of it, then maybe it’s a decent deal.
But we know two things about Sam Fuld… he can play defense… and much better defense than Burrell… and he can get on base. Both of those attributes are extremely valuable to this team.
To be anywhere near equal value and worth giving even a single at-bat over Fuld, Burrell would have to at least regain what he lost offensively last year (when that was his only job) and overcome his defensive shortcomings.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that’s possible.
This isn’t Burrell coming in and stealing at-bats from a prospect with a bunch of upside. I don’t expect Fuld to get better… I just expect the Cubs to use him better or employ someone better. Burrell isn’t that.
jameslcrockett - November 13, 2009
releasing Burrell
now that’s silly. We would be looking to trade him for something, anything. Even if he has little value to this team, some AL team would want him… or even an NL team who could use him at first base.
If we’re even going to consider acquiring Burrell, it’s not to release him. Seeing how there’s very little or no cost savings in a Burrell deal, the Cubs would be much better just releasing Bradley and getting it over with. That kind of mularkey happens in the NBA… not major-league baseball.
jameslcrockett - November 13, 2009
I don't think he would be worse than Dunn (though that's an extremely low bar to set)
Just look at their Career LF numbers. Burrell is -4.4 UZR/150 in his career in LF (and is probably close to -8 to -10 right now), while Dunn is -12.4 in his career (and probably closer to -20 right now).
When people translate defensive abilities between LF and RF there isn’t generally a correction that’s made. In principle it’s just as easy to play LF as it is RF.
berselius - November 13, 2009
well, then ...
move Soriano to right!
Just kidding.
elgato - November 13, 2009
I've read that Burrell's mobility has decreased over his career
so I’m not sure if his career defensive numbers are the best way to look at it. WHow has his defense been graded over the last few years? I assume it’s been declining but I’m wondering by how much?
cowsarecool220 - November 13, 2009
you were advocating Dunn in right a year ago, Al
elgato - November 13, 2009
For pete's sake, Al...
Pat Burrell played LF for the Phillies a year ago and that didn’t stop them from winning the WS!
I never said I wanted him…just reacting to your scenario.
An alternative would be to let Brad Synder play RF (HR power + cannon arm and very good defense). total cost: $450,000. He’s already in our system.
CubFanSince1970 - November 13, 2009
Burrell was a really bad left fielder.
He’d be a worse right fielder.
Brad Snyder is a lefthanded Jason Dubois. Forget it.
Al Yellon - November 14, 2009
I'd rather throw Foxy in RF
At least we can say that he will at least put up some good numbers at the plate.
Cub Style - November 15, 2009
if the pitchers throw him nothing but heat
true
jesus christos - November 15, 2009
Please, no more Rangers for the Cubs
I have had to watch Millwood pitch in Texas, and you don’t want him. He’s fat. Hew’s lazy. He pouts. His arm hurts.
No one listened to me about Bradley. Please listen to me about this.
3744nsheffield - November 13, 2009
Al, what do you mean regarding...
…the DH being a bargaining chip? Who and why would be for/against the DH in the NL? Just curious.
calicubfan - November 13, 2009
It's a bargaining chip...
… for other things the owners would want, most likely. Given that a DH in the NL would, essentially, create 16 more fulltime jobs, the union would probably be wholeheartedly for it.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
16 more full time jobs in name only, though. Unless rosters are expanded by one, doesn't that just shuffle the deck chairs?
It’s still 25 guys on the ML roster, right? A full time DH just means one less pitcher on the ML roster since pitchers wouldn’t have to be PH for. You wouldn’t need as many, they could pitch deeper into games.
Zeke - November 13, 2009
Essentially, you would be swapping a pinch hitter for a DH.
The difference is a full-time DH gets paid more than a pinch hitter.
cowsarecool220 - November 13, 2009
Al, looking over your post again,
is it standard for pro-rated signing bonuses to be picked up by new teams for traded players? If it was equal to salary, why not just increase the salary and make it part of that portion of the contract?
N Oakley - November 13, 2009
It's not standard, but...
… this isn’t a standard situation.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
I don't agree with your take on Millwood's contract...
All signing bonuses (delayed or not) are the responsibility of the signing team. The only thing being “traded” is the player’s future service and salary obligations. (They can attempt to negotiate a specific cash reimbursement during a trade, but they are unlikely to get it.)
Furthermore, all delayed signing bonuses must be financed “immediately” (i.e., within 30-90 days of contract signing) with some type of annuity or equivalent — the Colangelo rule — so the Rangers have already spent whatever sum will generate the $15M; it is a sunk cost.
Also, reports out of Dallas indicate that the Rangers want to keep Millwood to mentor their young pitchers. So…
While the Rangers might not mind having Gameboard back if he is “free”, I don’t think they are looking to do a “bad contract swap” — they don’t view Millwood as a bad contract.
DeRoMyHero - November 13, 2009
OK, I did not know that about the signing bonus.
It doesn’t mean such a payment — in this case, REpayment to the Rangers for money already spent on an annuity — couldn’t be negotiated in such a deal.
Al Yellon - November 13, 2009
Many of these rules were changed
after Jerry Colangelo made such a mess of the Snakes’ payroll. MLB now requires all deferred payments to be financed up front.
As far as cash changing hands in a transaction, that is something that the two GMs negotiate with the caveat that anything over $1M must be approved by Bud’s office.
You are correct that Hendry could offer Jon Daniels some cash (ostensibly for the signing bonus, but more likely for next week’s payroll), but I don’t think they want to give up Millwood.
DeRoMyHero - November 13, 2009
That $1 million figure is ridiculously low in today's marketplace.
I’d think any deal involving Bradley and money exchanging hands would be approved.
Al Yellon - November 14, 2009
I agree that it would be approved.
It is basically the “Charlie Finley” rule, and is in place to prevent an owner from just selling off his players for cash.
BTW, that is why the Cubs and Rockies agreed on $875,000 in the Marquis-Vizcaino swap — no approval needed.
DeRoMyHero - November 14, 2009
The Charlie Finley rule was stupid.
It was only put in place because Bowie Kuhn didn’t like Finley (and neither did a lot of the other owners). Finley was trying to do exactly what a previous A’s owner — Connie Mack — had done at least twice in his history of owning the team: sell off stars and rebuild. Finley was going to do exactly that; when he was prevented from doing so, he dumped the players for prospects and the result was the horrific 1979 A’s, who lost 108 games and drew only 306,763 fans, an average of 3,787 a game — the lowest attendance in at least the last 50 years. On April 17, 1979, the A’s and Mariners played in front of a paid crowd of 653 fans.
Finley was way ahead of his time. When owners were fighting free agency, Finley proposed making every player a free agent every year. He realized that doing that would flood the market and drive salaries down. The owners freaked at the idea and refused to do it.
Bowie Kuhn did more damage to baseball as commissioner than Bud Selig has, in my opinion.
Al Yellon - November 14, 2009
Give Bud some time - he's not done yet...
ballhawk - November 15, 2009
True.
And don’t get me wrong, Bud has done plenty of bad. But he’s got a long way to go before he reaches Kuhn-like levels.
Al Yellon - November 15, 2009
Kuhn was a terrible commissioner
But this stuff was squarely on the owners. The commissioner’s powers were very different then compared to now
berselius - November 15, 2009
True.
But his personal dislike of Finley caused him to reject the sales, which would have allowed Finley to rebuild through free agency, which is what he wanted to do.
Al Yellon - November 16, 2009
At the time
I don’t think free agents was on Finley’s mind. Solvency was a much bigger problem
berselius - November 16, 2009
why the rays
would want a bad apple like bradley in the clubhouse is puzzling. lets hope its true though. maybe the 09 season will be a wakeup call for milton and he will change and become a better person. now on the count of 3 everybody laugh.
NOMAR - November 14, 2009
Beat me to it...
… while Bradley has a history of behaving himself for periods after a blow up damages his reputation (I would imagine it gets easier to control your mouth when the alternative is losing millions in salary), I don’t know that’ll get this much in return for him alone…
Ted Simmons Speed Camp - November 14, 2009
I like this idea but...
it will never work because one team, other than the Cubs, doesn’t make out like a bandit. For some reason it seems that getting what you want isn’t enough to GM’s. GM’s want to make the other teams suffer, which always ends up destroying deals.
gaclaudy - November 14, 2009
So, with this post's title
I wondered if it would involve eating more than just salary…
DGU - November 14, 2009
dh in the n.l.
would love it. cub fans how many times with men on base has the pitcher come up??? or the 8th hitter. pretty much 2 automatic outs. get with it national league.
NOMAR - November 15, 2009
Probably about as many times for us as it does for the other team.
Wreckard - November 16, 2009
Probably about as many times for us as it does for the other team.
Wreckard - November 16, 2009
Reply FAIL
Wreckard - November 16, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.