Goatriders of the Apocalypse

10 Better Uses for Ten Million Dollars

Each of these ideas, in my opinion, would be a better use of $10M than signing Milton Bradley to a 3 yr $30M deal:

 

1.) Finish the Peavy deal

2.) Sign Bobby Abreu (RF)

3.) Sign Adam Dunn (RF)

4.) Sign Derek Lowe (SP)

5.) Sign Oliver Perez & either Joe Beimel or Juan Cruz (SP & RP)

6.) Sign Orlando Hudson (2B)

7.) Make a trade for Brian Roberts (2B)

8.) Make a trade for Michael Young (SS)

9.) Use the money to sign some of the team's current players to longer deals

10.) Hold onto the money until the trade deadline & use it to make a trade then

 

Some of the moves wouldn't even take the full $10M, while others (especially Lowe) would take a little more than that.  The signing of Milton Bradley looks like an act of desperation, where the team is paying too much to get too little in production.  For that type of money I would rather have Geovany Soto and Rich Harden signed to long-term deals as opposed to knowing that Milton Bradley was going to be on the Cubs through 2011.  The point I am trying to make here is that there are much better uses for that kind of money than signing a player, that never stays with any team for a long amount of time, to a 3 year deal.  There are better, more valuable players already on the team that the money could go to, along with better options still available on the market.

1) The problem with Peavy

1) The problem with Peavy isn't his 2009 salary, it's 2010.

2) Abreu's defense isn't as good as Bradley's, he's older, and will not age nearly as well over the course of a three-year deal as Bradley will.

3) Dunn would cost more than Bradley, but be worth less because of his poor defense - EVEN IF Bradley only plays 100 games.

4) Lowe will take a few more than 10 million to sign, plus a three-year commitment at least. Again, Bradley is younger, and will likely age better over the course of the deal (see Abreu).

5) Oliver Perez has serious, serious control issues. He's not better than Z, Demp, Harden or Lilly, and I'd rather start Marshall than Perez, even before money is discussed.

6) Whether you like Fontemiles or not, do you really think Hendry would spend $8MM on a right-handed 2B after just trading away the one we already had, who was signed for $5.5MM?

7) Same question here. Roberts and DeRosa have had almost identical slash lines (AVG/OBP/SLG) for three years now. If Hendry wanted one more year of a 30-something 2B, why didn't he just keep DeRosa?

Cool Young is not worth $16MM. He's also 32, and has five years left on his deal. Doesn't this team already have enough long-term deals with guys that will be at least 35 years old in 2012?

9) The $10MM you're talking about pertains specifically to this year's payroll, not future years.

10) Why give up prospects when you can sign a free agent and keep your young talent?

In other words, no.

OK

The cubs can afford Peavy, this year or at any point of the deal. How else does the team have a $10M dollar 5th starter?

You don't have to sign every player out there to a 3 year deal. Contracts can be signed for other amounts of years, its happened before I've seen it. So Dunn or Abreu on a 1 or 2 year deal both make more sense than Bradley for 3.

Lowe and Perez are each quality pitchers that are above what the organization is going to provide in the near future.

Roberts and DeRosa were far from the same player in any year you would like to choose. Roberts scores more runs, steals more bases, bats higher in the order, and plays much better D.

Michael Young is an upgrade at SS over Theriot, and the money would be better spent on a solid player than a questionable assclown like Milton Bradley. I wouldn't add Young by choice, but long before I added Milton Bradley.

So you're suggesting that if the cubs cleared $10M this year that they couldn't save that money and spend it in say July at the trade deadline? Or does that money magically evaporate once the season starts?

What prospects are you speaking of exactly here? Only trading for Peavy or Roberts requires that to be done. Spending $30M on Milton Bradley is not a good investment any way you slice it, tell me whatever stats you like he will not produce up to his contract.

I don't understand your first

I don't understand your first sentence. You're saying they CAN afford Peavy, and NEED a $10MM 5th starter? Your sarcasm may have affected my inferior comprehension abilities.

GMs don't choose the number of years on a player's contract - the market does. Why would Abreu sign a 1-year deal with the Cubs if the A's will give him 2? Or 3? I think Dunn and Abreu are just as likely as Bradley to demand 3-year contracts.

Lowe is better than Marshall now, but costs WAY more money, and will be getting pretty old pretty soon. Perez is not better than Marshall right now. Look at the walks. He's never had reliable control, and I don't believe that he ever will.

DeRosa would be a very capable 2 hitter; where a guy hits in the order is up to the manager, not the player. If he were to hit in the 2 spot, he'd score more runs, getting knocked in by 3 and 4 hitters instead of 7 and 8 guys (not even counting the pitcher vs DH difference). And in my opinion (which is based on statistical information provided by fangraphs.com), Roberts is not much better of a defender. Roberts is faster, but is he $3MM faster?

Michael Young is making $16MM in 2009. That's too much for the kind of player he is, especially considering we have Theriot for sooo much less. You're being irrational if you're really saying we should spend $16MM on shortstop instead of upgrading in right field; who's going to hit the ball and play anything close to decent defense if the season began today?

What would they "spend" $10MM at the trade deadline? There aren't free agents available in the middle of the season. Yes, the Cubs may be able to acquire a player in a salary dump, but since the player will already be locked in at a particular contract value, if any other team is interested in acquiring said player, the team willing to give up the *best prospects* will snag the player.

It's simple: signing a free agent does not require a team to send players to another team. I do not know how else one could acquire a player without giving up players of their own in a trade.

Milton Bradley led the American League in OPS in 2008. His most recent injury was a freak accident that has fully healed. You don't think there's even a chance Bradley kicks ass in 2009? If the stats don't convince you, what does?

his most recent inury a freak accident? Seriously?

He hurt his quad last season, how is that a freak injury? That's a fairly common injury in the game. I would say a freak injury would happen when a player goes ballistic and tries to fight the umpire but while he's being pushed back he tears his ACL - but when would that ever happen? The guy has had the opportunity to play in about 1,400 games in his career, and he has only been able to make his way onto the field in about 800 of those opportunities. Its kinda hard to make a case for a player that misses that kind of time. He is a questionable character, who is both immature and has no control over himself, but yeah lets lock him up for 3 years and throw $30M at him. He hasn't been able to stay healthy, when healthy he hasn't been able to not fight anyone near him, and in his career he hasn't made much more than $5M in a season or $30M in his career - but you're right I see no risk involved at all. I look at it as simply as I can. Thirty million dollars is an asset, while Milton Bradley may be an asset he is worth nowhere near thirty million.

What is he worth then? Do you

What is he worth then? Do you think the Cubs are the only major league team willing to pay him close to this amount of money? The Nationals have already offered him three years, $30MM. The Rays had an offer for him as well.

Thats fine

The rays just signed Pat Burell, do you think they still want him. Also I don't think it should take as much money to sign Bradley for the cubs as it would the nationals, so if the guy wants to play for the money let him go to baseball hell and play in Washington. The cubs have little competition in their chase of Bradley, so it shouldn't take $30M to get him, but then it again it probably shouldn't have taken $52M to bring back Dempster either.

You didn't answer my

You didn't answer my question. What's Bradley worth?

To me?

I am not opposed to adding Milton Bradley as much as I am his contract. The team is doubling their risk, by having 2 outfielders that are high-risk at a high-price. No one wants to consider that Fukudome could repeat last years #'s in the second half while at the same time Milton Bradley gets hurt. In that scenario the team has close to $25M per season locked up in questionable players, and its not just for 2009 but 2010 and 2011 as well. To me Bradley is worth a deal similar to what Pat Burrell just got, in the 2 yr $15-20M range, I simply just don't like the risk spread out over that period of time (3 years) for that kind of money. If the team puts in vesting options based on plate appearances or games played or even just a team option for the 3rd year, then I think all would be good hedging strategies. But to simply take on 3 years and $30M naked, on a personality like Milton Bradley is just too risky.

So you don't want Bradley for

So you don't want Bradley for $10MM in 2009 because that $10MM we'll owe him in 2011 is too much.

No

I think that at as a result of his potential risk for injury and freaking out his value has to reflect that, where $10M per year over 3 years doesn't reflect that at all. At the end of the day, its not my money to spend and I don't get to make any decisions whatsoever. It is my humble opinion, that the cubs are taking on too much risk and that Milton Bradley will have a difficult time staying healthy long enough to produce on par with what he is being paid. If you think differently I completely respect your opinion, and in all honesty I hope to St. Pete that you're right. I would love to see Bradley be the biggest bargain signing in the history of the cubs, and until we see him play the games we'll never know, but I'm just trying to look at the situation realistically not over-optimistically.

Wait, no? "To me Bradley is

Wait, no?

"To me Bradley is worth a deal similar to what Pat Burrell just got, in the 2 yr $15-20M range"

So he's worth 2/20, but not 3/30. OK, then you're saying what bothers you is the third year. Right?

I don't know the language of the deal

I wouldn't be as opposed to a 3 year deal if I knew the Cubs hedged his contract in some way shape or form. An option 3rd year wouldn't be a bad idea. Vesting options for the 2nd and 3rd years based on plate appearances or games played also wouldn't be a bad idea either. If the team takes on all the risk and also pays a premium, then I would have to question the deal. But again I don't know the language of the deal yet. Does it really matter what I think of his deal, regardless of what I think its supposedly done and he is the newest member of the Chicago Cubs for the 2009 season. I think this argument is heading down the Mark DeRosa road, of being pointless and beaten into the ground.

TOO LATE!

TOO LATE!

I hear ya

Now that the team has him signed what's next?

Fantastical speculation about

Fantastical speculation about Jake Peavy trades?

LEE, CEDENO AND PIE FOR PEAVY AND A-GONZO!

Honestly

I am not someone hell-bent on completing the trade for Peavy, but I do think that making deals on that level is how the cubs should be thinking at this point. The team is already stacked so unless you can add some top talent that is better than what you've already got it will be hard to improve. I really, really like the idea of moving D-Lee and getting a LH hitting guy at first, but D-Lee does have 10 & 5 rights along with a hefty contract where both things make him tough to move.

I just want to see...

how skinny this column gets.

probly pretty skinny.

probly pretty skinny.

also

To clarify Burrell's deal was for 2 yr $16M, which is more in the neighborhood of what Bradley should have gotten - not the 2 yr $20M you're suggesting. My argument from the start has been that $10M per year is a bit high to acquire Bradley.

Curious

Harry-

Out of curiosity: has Bradley done something to you personally to make you dislike him so?

Yes, he does stupid things, loses his temper and shows his ass. So does Zambrano. Are you saying he's not worth his money?

Yes, he's an injury risk. But so are a lot of MLB players. I laugh every time J.D. Drew signs a gigantic contract with a new club. They honestly seem shocked when he spends half his time on the DL.

I read your suggestions with interest, but in the real world, none of it really applies to what the club needs. They NEED a left handed bat and they chose to put it in right field.

And please don't think that I'm a Bradley fan. I'm not. Personally, I would have opted for giving Fukodome another shot at the starting RF position before giving up on him.

Put it to you this way ...

Put it to you this way ... Bradley's contract won't impede the Cubs ability to improve later, especially once they have a new owner.

So ... who cares if maybe they paid too much? Fangraphs says Bradley was worth more than 10 million last year, and the Cubs are a huyyuuuge organization that can afford its stars.

I'll say it again

It was only my opinion that the team not give him a deal, for 3 years and $30M, without hedging it in some way to protect their investment. I like Milton Bradley as a player and I will be interested to see the impact he can have in the middle of the lineup. Adding Bradley allows the team to put a LH hitter in the 2, 4, & 6 spots whenever Fukudome and Fontenot are also in the lineup. And believe me I realize the Cubs have plenty of money, and that's why I've suggested crazy things such as signing Manny and trading for Peavy because I know the money is there if the right deal presents itself.

Chicago Tribune's Chicago's Best Blogs award