Today’s recap of the Winter Meetings is easy. Nothing happened. Or perhaps I should say, nothing happened for the Cubs.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s was a lot of talking. There were a lot of rumors. Much of the day was taken up with posturing. But as far as actual trades or signings go, nothing happened.
At some point around the middle of the day, I had a sudden moment of clarity. As you’ll recall, the Cubs suspened Milton Bradley in September with just 15 games remaining in the season. Jim Hendry said he couldn’t tolerate Bradley’s behavior any longer (especially Bradley blaming the fans for the Cubs not winning a World Series in more than 100 years), and he suspended him for the remainder of the season. Of course, the Cubs continued to pay Bradley (a deal they worked out with the Player’s Union), so the discipline was much more symbolic than substantive.
The writers in Chicago had a heyday with the Bradley suspension. They celebrated, they rejoiced, and Hendry played right into their hands. He made it clear from the beginning that Bradley would have to be traded. He poisoned the waters to the point where he had absolutely no leverage in any potential trade. He branded Bradley as damaged goods, making him about as unappealing as he could to potential trade partners.
As the Winter Meetings approached, his tune changed a bit. Hendry started to talk like Bradley might stay with the team. The Cubs tried to build up Bradley’s value after spending most of the off season destroying his value. But guess what? Other teams weren’t falling for it. They were well aware of the Cubs precarious position with Bradley and they were in no rush to come to the Cubs rescue.
Trade talks with both Tampa Bay and Texas included demands for the Cubs to send several million dollars along with Bradley in any trade. It was expected that the Cubs would have to eat some of Bradley’s contract, but the $16 million that Texas supposedly demanded was not expected.
As the Winter Meetings began, rumors started to spread about the Cubs discussing a Bradley trade with three or four teams. On Tuesday, a mystery team entered the picture. A deal with an unnamed AL team was “three-quarters” complete. There appeared to be demand for Bradley. His stock suddenly seemed to be rising.
Then, it the middle of the day on Wednesday, I had my moment of clarity. There is no market for Bradley. I don’t know why it wasn’t clearer to me previously. I guess I bought into all of the hype and rumors.
In an effort to trade Bradley, the Cubs spent their time creating rumors, spreading gossip and trying to create a market (or the perception of a market) for Bradley. It didn’t work. No one, except the media, bought it. Teams didn’t come rushing in to try to snag Bradley for fifty cents on the dollar. They stayed away in droves. And as the Winter Meeting come to a close today, it appears that nothing has changed. The Tampa Bay Rays appear to be the only legit potential trade partner for the Cubs, and only then, if the Cubs pay most of the third year of Bradley’s contract.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that Hendry used the meetings in Indy to set the groundwork for a trade that will be announced in a few days. But I don’t think that’s the case. At least for now, it appears that the only way the Cubs are going to get rid of Milton Bradley is to pay another team a lot of money to take him, or simply release him. I don’t see either of those things happening. So does that mean Bradley will be back in a Cubs uniform next year? I can’t imagine, but what other alternative is there?
**********
Perhaps I’m overreacting on there being no apparent movement on the Bradley front. At least the folks at Canada’s National Post Sports thinks so. According to a tweet from NPS, “Cubs GM Jim Hendry has at least one firm offer for Milton Bradley, deal will happen Friday.” NPS goes on to say that the deal is not with Toronto.
I don’t know the good people at NPS, but I’m guessing that this tweet was sent after one too many Labatts or Molsons. I’ll be happy if it happens, but at this point, I’m not holding my breath.
**********
Rich Harden signed with the Texas Rangers — the same Rangers who don’t have any money — for one-year/$6.5 million. The deal also includes $3.5 million in incentives.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen the Cubs re-sign Harden for next year. The contract he signed with Texas seems reasonable, although the incentives seem a little high to me. I guess it depends on what he has to do to earn them.
Of course, I go back to the fact thast the Cubs know more about Harden’s health than anyone, so maybe letting him go was the right thing to do. We’ll see…
**********
The Red Sox have apparently traded third baseman Mike Lowell to the Texas Rangers (the deal is awaiting MLB approval). The Cubs had toyed with a Bradley for Lowell deal, although Boston did not apparently toy back.
Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that the Red Sox will be sending $9 million to Texas to complete the trade. If the Red Sox are willing to pay $9 million to get rid of a player that by all accounts is a great guy, a clubhouse leader, and a productive hitter, what will the Cubs have to pay to move Bradley?
**********
Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times talks about all of the teams that do not have an interest in Bradley. The Twins are one of the teams that don’t have an interest, at least in part, because in 1996 when the Twins were thinking about drafting Bradley, he said he didn’t want to go there because he thought they were racists.
But the one that really stuck out to me was the unnamed team that had an interest in Bradley until one of the team’s star players emailed the GM for assurances that he would not trade for Bradley. That’s how much of a cancer this guy really is.
**********
The Cubs have already decided to move their Spring Training home to Naples, Florida. That, according to Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune.
According to Rogers, the only thing that matters is that Tom Ricketts wants his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona. Rogers bemoans the fact that the Cubs will be throwing away a near fifty year relationship with Mesa and will be turning their backs on the throngs of Cubs fans that flock annually to Arizona for Spring Training.
“But no matter how many justifications you hear about the Florida move — heavier air for pitchers, a short hop to the Dominican Republic and elsewhere in Latin America, etc. — the reason will be that Ricketts wanted his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.
Oh, and the developers driving the Naples deal, the Chicago-based Esmark Inc. and the Florida-based Fifth Avenue Advisors, will be sure to add plenty of sweeteners to their offer, including some specifically targeted for the owners. I understand this isn’t criminal activity; it’s business.
But, please. Don’t sell a sweetheart land deal as progress for the Lovable Losers.”
Obviously, Rogers is not happy about the move.
Let’s face it, any decision the Cubs make on Spring Training is going to involve a “sweetheart land deal.” It just the way these things work. And as for progress, is staying in Mesa “progress?” Is staying in Arizona “progress?” Is there anywhere that the Cubs can move that will be considered “progress?” No, it’s not about “progress,” however you define it. It’s about what’s best for the Cubs organization, both from a training facility standpoint and a financial standpoint.
If the Cubs do move to Naples, there will be a lot of handwringing. Rogers has already started the arguement that players will not want to play for the Cubs if they move to Florida.
“Personally, I wouldn’t mind the move. I have Marco Island connections. But I’m not a 28-year-old free agent with a .295 career batting average and six teams interested in signing me. If I was that guy, I’d be far more likely to have attachments to the Phoenix area than the southwest tip of Florida. Those things matter when you are recruiting players.”
I’m throwing the BS flag. That’s a bunch of nonesense. The Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, as well as other teams that train in Florida don’t seem to have a problem getting players. I don’t think the Cubs will either.
