Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
After the Cubs disappointed in 2004, the offseason motto was addition by subtraction as the Cubs let Moises Alou and Matt Clement leave and desperately tried to move clubhouse cancer Sammy Sosa.
As we recall, the Cubs just got worse in 2005 and now baseball's worst organizational strategy is about to be revisited.
...Instead, the Cubs' biggest splash leading up to the 2009 season was signing switch-hitting outfielder Milton Bradley to a three-year, $30 million contract in January.
On Monday, when baseball executives gather in Indianapolis for the Winter Meetings, there will be much less neon. The Cubs' goals have changed, too. Now, it's addition by subtraction, as Hendry tries to
move Bradley.
They usually don't let you make sequels after the first movie fails, but that's not stopping the Cubs.
"Last year, we had about 10 changes here," Piniella said. "If we have half that, that's a nice number. Some changes [last year] were out of necessity. I see us being selective in what we do."
The necessity was created because Lou threw a temper tantrum about a left-handed power bat and then his enabler Jim Hendry had to make a bunch of unnecessary and superfluous moves to fit Bradley's contract into the budget. Now that their problem child has acted up and made them look bad, the Cubs are doing what any rich, narcissistic parent would do...pay to send them away so he's someone else's problem rather than actually dealing with it and trying to make it work.
Twitter RSS for TCR
#1 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
2010 is going to suck.
#2 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
Again, since this is the first time MB has had issues, it must be the Cubs' fault.
They shouldn't have signed him in the first place.
However, that being said Lou Pinella sure seemed to be on autopilot most of last season.
#11 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
The team is not poised to improve this off season, since improving would mean a substantial increase in payroll and the Rickett's have been up-front about not increasing the payroll. That said, I wouldn't mind a rebuilding year if it's done right. Either way is alright with me: spend some money or rebuild... but whatever you do, don't do nothing!!
Do you hear me, front office?
#17 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
It's a bad time to rebuild, with the economy and the number of no trade players the Cubs have. They're pretty much stuck headed into 2010 with a few roster changes that Pinhead mentioned. Unfortunately, Bradley and Hardin are not likely to be replaced with upgrades. Johnson may be. We're looking at a lot of hoping that Soriano, Soto and Fountainout return to their 2008 form, and that the pitching stays healthy.
#21 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
It is scary to say, but I think that the Cubs turnaround is largely placed on the shoulders of Soriano. Soto will obviously need to be better and based on Fangraphs analysis, he will be, but Soriano coming off of surgery will need to bounce back showing no ill effects and that his numbers are not deteriorating with age. Need a healthy year from everyone obviously, but the line up can be stretched out if Soriano finds his stroke again.
#3 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
I am starting to think the Cubs may be coming around to a reconciliation with Bradley as we move further away from the end of the regular season. You see the Hendry quote and the Wells quote and Lee's comments, and though you could say that they are more about trying to rebuild trade value for Bradley, it could be that as the memories of the clubhouse tensions fade cooler heads are starting to prevail.
The main "problem" with bringing back Bradley from a baseball perspective is the outfield defense. Marlon Byrd, however, isn't going to be a significant upgrade there - and he is also going to again load the bottom half of our lineup with right handed hitters.
Coco Crisp would be a defensive upgrade, and if you buy into his walking tendencies last year a pretty nice leadoff hitter. I would guess that he could be had for less than Byrd, based on his option not being picked up at "Byrd" type money.
#4 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
How in the hell did the Cubs not have some sort of "Behavior Clause" in that Bradley contract?
You outbid everyone else by an extra year and probably 14-16 million dollars. You wouldn't try to build any safeguard into a deal with a guy with Milton's history?
#5 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
I don't think that would fly with Union or Bradley's agent.
What define's behavior?
Being a douche would probably cover a third of the league.
#12 Re:
Can we add a "behavior clause" into the TCR terms of service?
#6 Bradley for Burrell redux
http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/12/...
#14 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
actual article from Joel Sherman
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/hardball/up_bur...
thinks Cubs need to eat at least half of Bradley's 2011 salary...
then speculates about flipping Burrell to Mets for Castillo when Mets lose out on Holliday and Bay...
#7 Wagner's contract
$7M in 2010, $6.5M vesting option for 2011 if he pitches 50 innings
#8 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
Its actually...
"The deal is worth $7MM and includes a $6.5MM option for 2011 that vests if Wagner finishes 50 games."
#15 Re: Wagner's contract
Thanks...
#23 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
Your welcome.
#9 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
thinking out loud, such a deal could fit nicely into Tampa Bay's plans, particularly if they decide to trade Carl Crawford, which would relieve the payroll of $10 million for 2010.
---
Carl Crawford would make me likee this one.
Hmmm...Burrell and Crawford for Bradley (to even up the $$), add in one of Marshall or Gorz, 1 of Berg/Stevens, and 1-2 A/AA Pitching prospects. Then flip Burrell for something else that is contract neutral wrt Burrel (Castillo?)l.
#10 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
Not going to get it done. The Rays want Bradley and $10 million for Burrell, so your trade is:
Crawford
$10 million
For Marshall,Stevens and Carpenter.
Would you make that deal?
#13 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
Cubs starting pitching, their real strength in last several years, will be thin in 2010.
I don't trust the Lilly time line.
2010 will suck.
#26 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
"Crawford
$10 million
For Marshall,Stevens and Carpenter.
Would you make that deal?"
I wouldn't, but why wouldn't the Cubs show interest in throwing in a couple of good prospects (Vitters, Cashner?)+ Marshall (or whoever) for Crawford? They want Granderson, but not Crawford? I know Crawford plays leftfield, but you would think with his speed he would be fine in center (definitely better than Byrd or K-Fuk, IMHO), plus he brings a leadoff bat that can hit lefties & righties.
#27 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
I'm sure they'd want Crawford too, but he's a FA next year compared to Granderson being signed for a few years. Crawford's owed more $$ for 2010 as well and would probably cost as much if not a tad more in prospects.
Granderson's a better hitter too and both suck versus lefties.
#28 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
Crawford lifetime vs. LHP: .272, .316 OBP, .381 SLG
Granderson lifetime vs. LHP: .210, .270 OBP, .344 SLG
One sucks a little less, at least.
#16 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/rosenth...
Cubs had interest in Betancourt, not so much now that he was offered arbitration...
#18 Braves need a bat
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10463090/W...
nice to get them interested in Bradley
#19 Re: Braves need a bat
I was thinking the same thing. McCann, Bradley and Jones back-back-back in the lineup would give a lot of opposing managers fits.
The problem is that they're going to want to trade Lowe for him (if they'll take Bradley) and Lowe is owed a lot of money. He had a high BABIP last year, but his K rate dropped over 1K/9. I'd guess he'd probably have around a 4 ERA next year playing in front of the Cubs infield defense.
If the Braves were to even the salary for the next two years, I'd probably do the trade. It would come back to bite us in the butt in 2012 though.
#24 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
At least in theory, this may not be too far fetched. Atlanta owes Derek Lowe $45 million over the next three years. The Cubs owe Bradley $21 million over the next two years. That's a difference of $24 million.
Of course, the Cubs are likely going to have to pay another team a good chuck of change to take on Bradley. The rumor was that they would have to eat $16 million for Texas to consider a trade.
So if you subtract whatever the Cubs will have to pay to get rid of Bradley from the difference between Bradley's and Lowe's contracts, it becomes much more workable.
Oh yeah, and Atlanta would have to agree to a Bradley for Lowe trade.
#25 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
So you're saying that the Cubs should take Lowe's contract and send money to the Braves? I could see them doing that with Vasquez, but not Lowe.
#32 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
No, that's not my suggestion. I'm suggesting that the money in a even swap of Bradley for Lowe wouldn't seem so bad (for Lowe) if you factor in the money the Cubs will almost certainly have to pay someone else to take Bradley.
That was an awkward way of saying it, but I hope you get it. If not, let me know and I'll try again.
#20 Light-hearted look at projection systems
http://www.walkoffwalk.com/2009/12/the-dirty-...
#29 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
The Dirty Projectors. Good band.
#22 Re: Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel
I wouldn't mind giving up a young arm to get Conor Jackson.
Thats my random thought of the day.
Return to Homepage