Rosenthal: Cubs/Rays $2-3 Million Apart on Pat Burrell for Milton Bradley Swap

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 12, 2009 10:00 AM EST Comment 43 comments

Warning, hyperbole ahead:

The Cubs and Rays continue to discuss a Milton Bradley-for-Pat Burrell trade, but money remains a major obstacle.

Burrell will earn $9 million next season, while Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years.

The Rays want the Cubs to pay the vast majority of the difference. The teams are a mere $2 million to $3 million apart over the two years, one source said.

The source described the negotiations as "worse than Chinese water torture."

Another said, "I wish cattle prods were legal."

FoxSports

Burrell is due $9M next year, however he got a $2M advance from the Rays, so he's actually only due $7M. Bradley is due $9M and then $12M in 2011. You can see how a few million is being lost in the shuffle, although we don't know how much is already being paid for by the Cubs. At some point the new owner of the Cubs has to flex his wallets and pick up the entire tab, right? Maybe not, but root for it anyways. That would give the Rays the ability to dump Bradley at any point if he gets a case of the crazies.

As for performance, I'm pretty sure people are being too harsh on Burrell. Yes, he was horrible, no he shouldn't be as horrible. ZiPS has him around a .330 wOBA and if he bounces back like Paul Sorrento or Danny Tartabull did, then he'll be closer to .350. A .340 wOBA from a DH isn't great, mind you, but it's better than .300. Bradley is more difficult to project. He's hit well everywhere, even last year he wasn't as bad as many made him to be, the problem is you cannot tell whether he'll miss 90 games because of an injury or what.

Admittedly, I was a bigger fan of Bradley because of the idea that he may come cheaper with the excess baggage. As it turns out, that might be the case after all.

Poll

Who do you prefer as the 2010 Rays DH?

0 recs | Comment 43 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Outside of his lackluster performance, did PtB prove to be a burden or psycho anywhere else?

I know he had an apparent dust up with CC, just wondering if the burden of Bradley is worth it to take on for his production. Any projections on a 2010 MB?

Signature space available for rent - Got to pay the bills somehow

by Buc Wild on Nov 12, 2009 10:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Burrell isn't a crazy.

He’s just a huge fan of Burrell.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 12, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last three years, weighted 5-4-3

Bradley has a .386 wOBA
Burrell .349.

One of those years was severely shortened by Bradley, under 250 PA. So, say he’s closer to .360-.370. Over 600 PA the difference between .365 and .350 is 8 runs, or almost a win.

Of course, Bradley’s probably not reaching 600 PA. So over 450 it’s 6 runs.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 12, 2009 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Burrell's future will depend on his 2010 season, and for that i say he'll do fine

by sternfan1 on Nov 12, 2009 10:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 12, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good to see you two kiss and make up

When you get your nose out of Sf1’s ass maybe you’ll find time to respond

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Nov 12, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What can I say, when he's right, he's right

I expect Burrell to have a nice bounce-back season, based on both a dead-cat bounce and his impending free agency. We don’t need him to carry the team just be slightly above-average with the stick.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 12, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree except that I think Bradley is a better hitter

I would not bench Burrell. I would reallocate his salary if we found a taker.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Nov 12, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My biggest beef with MB, and I'm sure people are sick of hearing it, is his track record of half-seasons

As someone mentioned yesterday, PtB had just an awful season against lefties, while posting a reasonable BAbip. There is no reason that that should continue, as he has hit lefties pretty well throughout his career. Perhaps it’s the Trop’s righty-power suppression, but check it:

Carry that vs. lefties trend to a natural progression in 2009 and he would have been in the .360ish area. No guess at the cause, but that seems to be a pretty nasty outlier.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 12, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This

by SRQman on Nov 12, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure "someone else" is a viable option

Unless you are planning on benching Burrell

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Nov 12, 2009 10:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm still unsure of the answer to this question

Who’s crazier: Cubs FO or Bradley

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

They were crazy to not see the writing on the wall and give him a 3-year, big money deal

Bradley’s crazy for thinking he could co-exist with Lou “Gigantic Balls” Piniella. If he stays in the NL, I would love to see him go to a team like the Reds. In that park Game Boy could hit 30-35 dingers, while playing in a smaller market.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 12, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sad thing is that Bradley's deal looks great when you look at the other 2 deals in the OF

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference is simple...Dan Wheeler

Wheeler + PtB for Bradley.

www.draysbay.com

by Tommy Rancel on Nov 12, 2009 10:55 AM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

He'd fit in with their bad bullpen

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They should make Dempster their closer

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 12, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ha! That would be pretty sweet.

by ChiBurbRaysFan on Nov 12, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(assuming the Cubs are paying his salary as well)

by ChiBurbRaysFan on Nov 12, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

of course

Gerald Wallace is the best player the Bobcats will have..... EVER

by raysfan81 on Nov 12, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

a motivated Burrell has to be better than whatever that was that wore a Burrell jersey last year

But I’d still like to see Bradley instead if the money works out.

Could it be that the money spoken about…that 2-3mil difference is the 2 mil advance Burrell already got that the Cubs are saying the Rays already paid it, and the Rays want that reimbursed if they trade Burrell? That seems to make sense…I wouldn’t be surprised if they just split the difference to make this happen.

Still, only way this deal is good is if the Rays are only on the hook for 3-5 mil for next season.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 12, 2009 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

only good thing about Burrell

is that he’s going to be in a free agent year. That gives him some worth.

The Rays have really tried to be a “good” organization….and getting Bradley, even if his bat is good, is a bad PR move. He’s a head case that has been given way too many chances, and the Rays aren’t in the financial position to drop him the first time he looks at someone wrong – which is what should be the case for him at this point.

by TallMatt on Nov 12, 2009 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

dunno bout that.

we did contact Kenny Fucking Powers

by daveh33 on Nov 12, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Echoing what many are saying...

I think there is a great chance Burrell has a typical Burrell year in 2010(which would be great). If he has a crap year again, he’ll literally be flushing $30+ million dollars away. What is he? 33 years old? Big year and he can expect a 2-3 year deal getting around $10 million per year…if he repeats 2009, he will get a 1 year deal for next to nothing.

Expect this see him show up without that spare tire and 2nd chin next season….

by td32 on Nov 12, 2009 12:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he'll ever get 10M a year ever again

But you’re right about playing for his future in 2010, if he flames out, he’s down to like PH for a million maybe if he gets even that.

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're probably correct...

Maybe $6-8 million….and if he is solid for those 3 seasons, he’ll get another 2 year deal….. If he sucks this season, he’ll be looking at a series of 1 year deals.

by td32 on Nov 12, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This becomes another A or B decision that the Rays need to get right

They were right on dumping Delmon Young. They were right on Jeff Niemann over Jason Hammel. Still not sure if they were right on E-Jax (not until we see what Joyce can do…but Sonny’s downturn hasn’t helped either). The Rays decided to put a contract out there and use a first-come, first signed philosphy on Burrell and Abreu. That, obviously didn’t turn out like hoped.

Can the Rays afford to get burned by Burrell a second time? Can they afford to jump ship and put all their chips on Milton Bradley? Careful treading is needed. Odds are Burrell rebounds, for many obvious reasons. But somehow getting Bradley on the cheap is enticing…especially for next year.

Like looking at last off-season it’s easy to second guess. But based on this FO’s track record, it will be a very calculated decision and one that’s easy to defend…no matter which way they go.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 12, 2009 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jackson is turning into an interesting story

It was a fairly equal trade, that looked lopsided at first, then realigned to equal post-ASB, and he’s on the block for DET, which could indicate they might’ve either A seen the same thing we saw in his performance or they’re payroll is really a huge mess.

But I agree, the FO will make a smart decision, they almost always do, even looking back(like trading SP or between who to DH(I like how everyone gripes that Abreu wasn’t given a shot, but turned our deal down supposedly at good money).

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Rays offered $8M to Abreu and he thought he'd get a better deal.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 12, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah exactly, and his current deal is barely any better too

which is hilarious

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, Abreu misread the market completely

note how he didn’t make the same mistake twice, being much happier with the offer second time around.

Yeah, you can’t blame the Rays for how they handled Burrell-Abreu. Like with any decent coaching move, the play was good, the execution…well, that’s another story. And other than forcing a gun to Abreu’s head and making him sign on the dotted line, there was nothing the Rays could do.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 12, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That Magglio deal is really putting them in a bind I have to think.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 12, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember listening to XM in the car

Totally were ripping that deal, because it was based on Games/PA instead of performace, was pretty funny. But the Tigers have such a messed up payroll beyond Ordonez with guys like Bonderman, Willis, etc.

by Transplanted on Nov 12, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs