Pondering The Milton Bradley Idea
Not long before polarizing Cubs outfielder Milton Bradley was slapped with the longest non-drug-related suspension since Albert "Joey" Belle pegged Indians fan Jeff Pillar in the chest with a baseball nearly two decades ago, ESPN.com's Peter Gammons ignited a firestorm of fierce speculation with this September 14th chat session retort: "My guess is [Chicago] will eat some of Bradley's contract and send him back to Texas."
Over the next eight days, Bradley would proceed to (a) partake in a controversial Daily Herald interview that (b) Cubs players, fans and management uniformly perceived as an affront to the organization, prompting general manager Jim Hendry to impose (c) an unprecedented two-week suspension for "conduct detrimental to the team." His career in Chicago is effectively over, and the bridges behind him have been joyously set ablaze by those who have chosen to ostracize him.
That Bradley-to-Texas speculation is a virtual certainty to expand over the coming days, particularly now that manager Ron Washington has not-so-subtly articulated his desire to see Bradley return to the Rangers: "I wouldn't hesitate to get him. [...] I ain't never had a problem with Milton because I was always honest with him. If I didn't like what he was doing, I let him know. I didn't let anything fester with Milton. All Milton wants is people to tell him the truth, to be honest with him. He's no dummy. He knows when he's [screwing] up."
Why discuss the hypothetical re-acquisition of the Cubs' clubhouse pariah -- particularly right after a well-rounded 10-run, 15-hit road outburst on the part of a suddenly resurgent Rangers lineup? Since every good question deserves a better answer, here's a macro summary: according to StatCorner.com's park-adjusted team wOBA totals, the Rangers possess the fourth-worst offense in the American League at an unsightly 37.1 runs below average, which goes an awfully long way towards explaining why Texas isn't playing for a post-season spot right now.
Furthermore, Marlon Byrd is almost certainly departing in free agency (as is Hank Blalock), Josh Hamilton has degenerated into a huge question mark, Chris Davis ... well, I think you see the picture I'm trying to paint, that being one loaded with impending uncertainty. Insert Bradley as your everyday designated hitter, allow him to perform his OBP-inflating feats of magic and you are, in all likelihood, looking at a quick-n'-dirty one- to two-win boost for a probable playoff-contending team in 2010, which is anything but insignificant.
Hendry's reported eagerness to foist Bradley upon some risk-taking ballclub -- and defray much of the remaining $21 million left on his contract, which extends through 2011 -- is simultaneously helpful and problematic for Chicago; yeah, it's great that he's being proactive and taking charge and showing zero tolerance for any besmirchment of the good name of the Cubs, but he has now also crossed the Rubicon with Bradley and will be operating with minimal leverage in any trade discussions going forward. To that end ... could the Rangers even afford Bradley if they wanted to?
With the long-awaited vesting of Kevin Millwood's $12 million option for the 2010 regular season now in the books after his stellar seven-inning performance in Oakland on Monday evening, the Rangers have $27 million committed between Millwood, Michael Young ($11 million -- no, it's not $16 million as reported elsewhere; click here to find out why) and Ian Kinsler ($4 million), with another $11-12 million committed to a five-player contingent of arbitration-eligible players that comprises Josh Hamilton, Scott Feldman, Frank Francisco, Brandon McCarthy and C.J. Wilson.
Round out the Opening Day 2010 roster with a cavalcade of league-minimum players, and you're suddenly looking at a $45 million base payroll, which would be the lowest in the American League by a considerable margin and guarantee profitability during a watershed year for ownership. Finagle Hendry into eating just two-thirds of Bradley's contract and recouping a B-level prospect for his troubles, and you've got the makings of a deal that not only mitigates the cost to the organization, but also sharpens the quality of a team that's right on the verge of taking off.
Now, would such a deal act as a detriment to the Rangers' clubhouse? Is Bradley actually the ill-natured cancer he has been portrayed as in the Chicago newspapers? Would a second swim through Arlington end in a similarly violent fit of tears, profanities and door-slamming? All visceral issues that absolutely must be addressed. Objectively speaking, there's a good fit to be had here, but whether that will overpower any sentiment within the front office to leave Bradley the hell alone is another matter altogether.
30 Comments | in Analysis, Rumors, The Season
Reader Comments (30)
Bring back Bradley? Why would the Rangers let Byrd walk and bring back Bradley? Come on, now!
Joey -- Buster Olney says that rival GM's tell him that Hendry will have to eat at least $18M of the $21M remaining on Bradley's contract to be able to dump him. You might even see an outright release ala the Dodgers and Andruw Jones. I think affordability will not be an issue at all.
Another example of why players need to consider more than just the dollars when signing free agent deals. This didn't look like a fit from the get-go.
Should the Cubs eat the contract, I would bring him back in a heartbeat. But he would have to address the team first and explain or apologize or both, for his remarks regarding not going 100% at all times he could have last year.
get 'em.
I wrote 2 days ago in the comments of another story that Texas would be the ideal place for Bradley for the next two years, and that Texas should do it if they can get Chicago to eat just 1/2 of the total salary. Hell - for 3 mil over 2 years, wouldn't they have to consider that seriously? The guy seemed to be controlled pretty well by Washington & the other members of team brass, liked playing here, and was a popular teammate. Except for the KC incident, I can't remember any other problems during the entire year. If he was just DH-ing, the team might be able to wring 450-500 AB out of the guy, and his OBP and ability to avoid the K would be huge for this team. His demeanor and attitude are big question marks, though, and with the recent examples of Ponson and Padilla in mind, one has to wonder whether JD and Ryan would just say "no" to this idea up front.
Byrd will walk because he will be too expensive. They need a DH & 5th OF - unless they are planning on promoting Smoak in the spring.
This offseason should be interesting, as JD/Ryan will probably have some difficult trade decisions to ponder over. I would expect them to make at least 1 big trade - especially if they are unable to sign Sheets due to financial matters.
12m for the 5 arb guys??? It,s going to take that much for just 3 of them, The biggest issue this winter will be how the team will deal with the arb guys. If the budget is 50m no way do the Rangers keep all of them much less add Sheets,keep Bryd, and the only way to add Bradley is if the Cubs eat all of his $.
I got a little fed up with his constant injuries... but I suppose if Byrd is likely to be gone then Bradley would be almost better protection for Hamilton... that is... if they both aren't injured...
WELL, let my big "fire wash" mouth in here...
Wash is probably the ONLY manager that could control Bradley, because they are on the same page..
they tell one another what they think.. right or wrong.. they speak the truth.. bluntly..
The only way I would want Bradley back is to (gosh this is hard to say) keep wash.
I am even wondering if it would be good for wash, because Bradley would tell him the truth also.
without AJ, Byrd and Blalock, he would come in handy for Hamilton and might even tell Kinser to be who he is and not try to be a slugger... the way I get it, he dosent pull any punches.
If the Cubs are paying him..... why not go for it.. we (probably) cant pay Byrd what he is worth.
wow, what have I done.... my mind is confused..
well... lets get "billyd" he's weakining....
Something I haven't seen yet, but makes sense to me is trying to get the Cubs to take Kevin Millwood off our hands. You'd think he'd have a bit of an upswing returning to the NL and say what you will, his ERA is still pretty well under 4.00. I'm guessing most Cubs fans aren't aware of how putrid he's been for the last couple months so it would appear that they're making lemonade out of a lemon instead of the reality that Millwood looks to have lost "it" (not considering last night) and his peripherals were never that great even when he was going pretty well. The Cubs wouldn't have to eat as much of Bradley's contract as they would shipping him elsewhere or eating the whole contract and releasing him outright - in effect we're already on the hook for $12M after Millwood's contract vested last night so what's the difference in it being paid to Bradley or Millwood - other than the fact that he was fantastic (when he decided it was worth his time to take the field) when he was here last season. Right now Bradley performing well on a semi-regular basis would seem to be worth more in the win column than Millwood performing well one out of every three times he takes the mound.
The only part of this entire scenario that makes me uncomfortable are Bradley's comments after leaving here. I'm guessing that doesn't sit too well with his former teammates, if that is, they are even aware of them given how many of these guys seem to be oblivious to what is going on in the rest of the league. The other thing that is a bit bothersome is the fact that Smoak stays in the minors another season or two since there wouldn't be anywhere to play him (which doesn't make any sense given that he'll likely be ready for the big show sometime next year). The other option is trading Davis (low) and say what you will about this season - I'm still a believer to some degree. Maybe I'm biased because I like him, but I still think he can be a productive player for us once this season is behind him. Is 2 years of Bradley worth getting rid of Davis and Max Ramirez? I'm not sure given his track record - other than his one year in Texas - which is obviously the biggest variable in making this decision. The guy flat out set the tone for this offense when he played and after this year's lackluster showing - improving the offense creatively is a huge huge need.
Now if we can just bring a healthy Ben Sheets into the fold to replace Kevin Millwood...
"with another $11-12 million committed to a five-player contingent of arbitration-eligible players that comprises Josh Hamilton, Scott Feldman, Frank Francisco, Brandon McCarthy and C.J. Wilson."
SERIOUSLY? I think that if all 5 players actually made it to arbitration you're looking at the following:
Hammy - $6M
Feldman - $6M
Frankie - $6M
McCarthy - $3M
CJ - $4.5M
That's $25.5M...
I'm defintely NOT someone that knows the ins and outs of the arbitration process but judging by what other arbitartion players have made the past 2 or 3 years, I think $11-$12M is WAY under-selling these guys.
Maybe I'm out of line assuming Hammy and Feldman fetch $6M... but I would have to think they'd get at least $4M each... and Frankie and CJ would be at $3.5M easily... throw in McCarthy at say $2M and we're still talking about $17M. No way we get all those guys to sign deals that total $11 or $12M... no way! Unless of course they do the wise thing and sign them to long term contracts that are heavily back-loaded... in which case new ownership would never sign off on.
And would we even want to offer Hammy a deal for say 4 yrs @ $5M per...? I'm not so sure that's prudent business. Same could be said for McCarthy and maybe even Frankie, who was a tad injury prone this year.
Maybe i'm reading this whole thing incorrectly and I'm way off base... if that's the case, I apologize for my ignorance... but if these 5 players make it to court, they are going to get paid much more than a collective $11M or $12M.
Re Bradley; I think that even if the Cubs were willing to eat say $18M of the remaining contract, you don't want a me-first player around your young, developing super stars. It sends a terrible message.
The Rangers are in a good spot right now. Everyone knows this is a young team... so expectations (even for 2010 and 2011) are tempered with the realistic notion that Andrus, Borbon, Holland, Feliz, Hunter, Feldman, Smoak, Davis, etc... will hit bumps in the road and that this whole championship thing won't materialize until 2012 or beyond.
Because of this, JD and Nolan have the luzury of skipping on troubled players and going with younger, hungry players. Heck, I thik the Ranger fan base would RATHER watch a developing youngster than a seasoned veteran... as long as that youngster had promise and would contribute to a 2012 WS run.
We don't want injury prone, bad clubhouse guys (even if they can hit/pitch) on this team... especially at the expense of young players working their way to becoming MLB regulars.
Let's look at what the 2010 roster may look like:
1B - Davis/Smoak
DH - Davis/Smoak
2B - Kins
SS - Andrus
3B - MY
C- Salty/TT
RF - Cruz/Hammy
CF - Borbon
LF - Murphy/Cruz
4th OF - Byrd (I think they re-sign him)
5th OF - Free Agent... or maybe someone like Boggs
Utility IF - Vizquel (I say definetely re-sign Omar... he's a great guy and a seasoned vet) or German
Bullpen; Frankie, CJ, AJ, Nippert, O'Day/Feliz...
Rotation: Millwood, Feldman, Hunter, Holland and Harrison/Feliz (not necessarily in this order)
There's really no room for Bradley... and I don't make room fo him at the expewnse of someone like Smoak and/or Davis getting playing time/experience.
Just my 2 cents...
Thirdold:
I, too, if I were JD would trade 1 year of Millwood for 2 years of Bradley. Better still if Chicago would take Millwood and pay 2/3 of Bradley's remaining salary to get him out of town. They could then use that money to sign Sheets to an incentive-laden deal.
In the end though I suppose all of this will come down to money like it has for Texas the past 2 seasons. They may be forced to just go with all internal options, and try to mine the scrap heap for gold like they did with Delucci, Byrd, DeRosa, O'Day, Nippert, Grilli, etc. over the past number of seasons. They have to be one of the best in all of baseball of getting useful guys that other teams dump, right?
Stop Millwood -
Bradley hits better right-handed, and so wouldn't a DH platoon of Davis/Bradley be ideal? You could give Bradley a game or two a month in the OF, and Davis could play 1B when Smoak needs a day off. The 3 of them (Bradley, Davis, and Smoak) could easily each get 450-500 AB.
The one real question I see in all of this is Josh Hamilton. At what point is the team going to come to the conclusion that he should be DH-ing, since his big body is so fragile, and he seems to be an injury waiting to happen out there in the OF? If Hamilton has to DH - then there's no point in bringing back Bradley.
@stopmillwood.com:
On your projected/hopeful roster, you split three outfield positions between four players, and then classify Byrd as the 4th OF, and mention a 5th outfielder, which would of course be the 6th outfielder. Here's the problem with that logic: you already have Smoak and Davis splitting at bats at 1B/DH. Now here's my problem - there's a big Justin Smoak contingency, but he probably will still need to spend at least April in Triple-A (although he might have a good spring training next year and force his way into the mix). Now, if Smoak is ready, hell, bring him up, but then you have more problems. We have too many outfielders, plain and simple. Hell, we got too many infielders, because I'd damn sure rather see Davis at 3B and Smoak at 1B with Young as the DH/utility infielder (he can play 2B, an adequate SS, and 3B). That's the beautiful thing though about this tea - we have real depth. And it's coming out the wazoo. There's no doubt Murphy is a 4th OF, but he's a damn good one. Borbon is probably our CF of the present-future. That means Hammy goes to RF, but where does Cruz go. Okay, let's move Cruz to DH, but where does Smoak play? Can he play defense better than CD at 1B? Uh, no.
And here's my beef with Marlon Byrd - I like the guy, he's a good chemistry guy, but he's not worth keeping. Not with what we have now. He's not a power guy, he's a doubles guy (by his own admission, no less). That's fine, but Murph is good for 25-30 doubles a year, and Borbon is going to get a lot of singles-into-doubles doubles. That's replaceable. He drives in some runs, but I believe you can mitigate that by placing Borbon/Andrus at the top of the lineup and moving MY into the 3rd spot (a spot he hasn't traditionally hit in as well, but I believe with speed on the basepaths, he would be a monster) and Hamilton to 4th. And it's always good to remember, this team is trying to keep payroll low, it's more fiscally responsible to keep Murphy and let Byrd walk.
One last thing, as much as I like Wash, I think it's pretty obvious he will run with vets even if the mitigating evidence suggest running out someone else (re: Hank, AJ, Millwood, Guardado) so if you give him Byrd back, he's not going to be a 4th OF. Byrd's going to play everyday, which means either Borbon doesn't get a chance to develop his hitting against LHPs or Cruz is on the bench more than he should be.
Bradley is the hitter version of Erik Bedard, with a huge dose of bad attitude thrown in. A guy who has worn out his welcome in six of seven MLB stops, despite having undeniable talent. A frequently-injured 32-year old player with two good seasons, the better of which was in Texas (does the term "career year" mean anything here?). Pass.
Switch hitter with power and a high obp, is it even a question? I don't remember ever hearing of Bradley acting up as a Ranger, except in K.C. with their toolish announcers. I say bring him back in on the cheap and hope he can put up similar numbers to what he did last year.
Murphy is on pace for 25 home runs if he could have played full time. He is 31 in hitting among outfielders in the major leagues and 32 in fielding in major leagues. He is in front of a lot of starting outfielders so how do you classify him as a fourth outfielder. This year he even ranks above Hamilton. If I was Murph I would wa nt to be traded as he only plays when Hamilton or someone else is on the disabled list. I woulnt want to stick around here and be a bench player when I could start somewhere else.
I will be shocked if one of Murphy or Cruz isn't traded this offseason. A blockbuster, Cruz is gone. An upgrade, Murphy is gone. Still, I think one of them is gone.
Rocky -
I actually wonder if it's Chris Davis who will be traded this offseason.
The only reason I don't think Davis is traded this offseason is because you would be selling low on him, but you never know. The Rangers sold low on Volquez and it got them Hamilton, you really never know.
In Marlon Byrd's amazing-breakout-lovefest 2009 season he's hitting .283/.325!/.472.
In Milton Bradley's horrible-terrible-no-good-very-bad 2009 seasons he's hitting .257/..378/.397
50 points of OBP in the middle of the lineup would do wonders. Bradley could be the primary DH and sub in the OF for Murphy against tough LHPs (Bradley has played pretty much every day in the OF this year and been ok his UZR is just -4.3, not good but tollerable)
The Rangers would do well to add Bradley AND another high-OBP hitter to the lineup. Chris Davis has done nothing this year to be given an everyday starting job on a contender next year. The depth of this year's free agent class is in 1B/DH guys who can get on base. If the Rangers could rangle Bradley and Nick Johnson (pipe dream) then we're going to be playing in October.
I have always liked Bradley, except for an unwillingness to play when he's a little nicked up. I say, sign him if he's cheap. Then, make a hard run at signing Chone Figgins, instead of Byrd, to play outfield. Even better, trade Kinsler and sign Figgins to play second.
OK...Here's the problem with bringing Bradley back...When wash gets fired Bradley will be hell for anyone else...Don't do it...Use what you have an abundance of (outfielders) to trade for something you need...Better OBP guys...Cruz just had his career year and his stock couldn't be higher to people outside of the organization...But he is horrible in the outfield and is older than the other guys...He will offer the most return...Josh will be back to normal next year and replace the production we would lose by trading Cruz...It was stated that we don't want to bring in me first players...Well NEWSFLASH our roster is full of me first guys CRUZ, KINS, BLALOCK, HAMILTON, SALTY, CJ...Their approaches at the plate should tell you that...They are swinging for the fences 3-1 instead of trying to get on base and the result is pop up...and as for CJ everyone who gets a hit off of him is "LUCKY"...Self centered attitude...As pathetic as our offense was this year there is definitely a need for upgrade...
Hey Mike Gray...
What do you mean by "a little nicked up" regarding Bradley?
It seems like any nick was enough for Bradley to keep himself out of the lineup.
Hey Jack.Legg...
What do you mean by "me first"?
Bradley was the author, and senior partner, of Me, Myself and I LLP, Inc.
Bradley's influence last year was instrumental in teaching young players how to think selfishly and not about the good of the team.
If MIllwood is attractive to the Cubs, why isn't he attractive to the Rangers? You guys think that you have to have a hall-of-famer at every position. It ain't gonna happen. Championship teams have good at-bats, throw strikes, hustle, and play good defense. A championship team does not have to be full of all-stars.
Regarding Marlon going--I'm not so sure that the Rangers can't keep him. I think that he likes it here, and that he might be willing to take less money to stay here as long as the Ranger offer is not insulting. For some reason, his situation reminds me a lot of Pudge's before he left for Florida.
Some good thoughts in here...as far as the skepticism over how I came up with that $11-12M figure for arbitration-eligible guys, here are the numbers that I jotted down last night:
Wilson: $2.8M (second arb year)
Francisco: $3M (third arb year)
McCarthy: $1.5M (first arb year)
Hamilton: $2M (first arb year)
Feldman: $2M (first arb year)
Using the 40-60-80 arbitration compensation model, I suspect that I probably undershot Wilson and Francisco by a combined $1.5 million; C.J. banked $1.85 million in 2009 and, upon further review, could be in line for a bump into $3.5M territory, while Frankie might jump from $1.65 million all the way to $4 million if enough things break right for him -- so, hey, maybe $7 million between them. McCarthy's projected salary is probably about right, given that he's entering year 1 and hasn't exactly built a strong court case for himself.
Hamilton's is a very unique case and he could net all the way up to $4-5 million (although I doubt that he will), but he reportedly rejected an offer that would have paid him "less than $4 million a season." Unfortunately, Jeff Wilson did not clarify whether that was over the life of the deal, through his remaining arbitration-eligible seasons or what. Either way, his market value has sustained a pretty major body blow in 2009.
I'm also undervaluing Feldman, but perhaps not excessively so; Zach Greinke, coming off a stellar 2008 season, aimed for $4.4 million in arbitration in his first year of eligibility and would have been in line for around $3.8 million in an out-of-court settlement if the Royals hadn't locked up him with a long-term extension. I'll be stunned if Feldman gets more than $4 million in his first year.
Overall, maybe it's more like $16-17 million rather than $11-12 million, in which case the base payroll is $50 million next year. Still the lowest figure in the American League by a wide margin, although Oakland might try to usurp that title.
So if that leaves less than 10m for the remaining 33 players what do you put the odds that all 5 of the arb guys are still here next year? Feldman's value may never be higher that this off season and Wilson is coming off a good season for him.
I never said Milton was not me first...I simply stated that the roster has a lot of my first guys...Is that because of Bradley...possibly? But the fact remains that saying not to add a me first person to the roster because of the effects it has on the team is irrational because they will learn it from the guys currently on the roster who play by the same credo...They are more interested in getting their numbers than they are getting on base, moving runners, going deep in counts...etc...Why are they like this? Bradley? I don't know...I do know that the system rewards stats...Like HR and RBI...Lets keep stats about moving runners...going deep in counts that will move the focus to team players and away from indiviual watch me try to hit a HR every at bat so that I get paid...
JWT: Maybe 70-30. Feldman's value may never be any higher than it is right now, but he's shown a demonstrable willingness to improve, to keep honing his arsenal, to begin striking more guys out. I don't know that you deal a guy like that, and while I get the argument for dealing him, I'm not sure the Rangers are in any position to do so, either talent-wise or P.R.-wise. Hamilton and McCarthy aren't going anywhere, which leaves you with C.J. and Frankie, and if you held a gun to my head demanding that I pick somebody to trade, it would probably be C.J. -- but not because he's so exasperating to watch pitch so much as because you're probably going to get more for him than Frankie, who's entering the last year of his arb eligibility.
The downside is that you would then go into 2011 with your two best relievers from the 2009 squad gone, with Feliz probably (hopefully?) in the rotation by then and O'Day, well, hopefully not falling to pieces completely. Is that bad? Kinda, but by that point you would hope that some more homegrown talent will have stepped into the void, be it Scheppers or Madrigal or Strop or somebody of that ilk, that you can surround with some freely acquirable pieces from here and there.
I for one am ready for CJ and Frankie to go...Replaced by Feliz and Holland...O'Day and Mathis and Nippert and Hurley (hopefully) and the acquisition of another lefty since I pray Eddie is done...Starting rotation Feldman, Hunter, Harrison, McCarthy, and Millwood(seems to be a forgone conclusion) or Nippert...Fill in with the rest
Believe me I don't want to trade Feldman either, but from a payroll issue there is not enought money to go around if the budget is at 50m. If we have to operate like Fla. this is what they would do. I'm afraid that at least 2 if not 3 of the arb guys will have to traded along with NO FA signings this winter and then a host of NRI guys in spring trying to fill out the roster.