Milton Bradley talks not close

Jon Heyman writes today that things aren’t very close in a proposed Milton Bradley for Pat Burrell swap between the Rays and the Cubs. This doesn’t have a direct impact on the Tigers, but it is worth watching because there is speculation that the Cubs would want to move Bradley before setting their sights on Curtis Granderson.

Some in the Tigers blogosphere had suggested that Milton Bradley may be a decent acquisition for the Tigers if it involved a swap of undesirable contracts. Bradley will earn $10 million in 2010 and $11 million in 2011.

Bradley is coming off a year that saw his power drop dramatically as he only mustered a .397 slugging percentage. He hit fewer line drives and more groundballs but managed to maintain a health .378 OBP.

UPDATE: Thanks to Ben and Lee for pointing to this related note from Will Carroll that Mike Cameron is also in the Cubs mix, which if he was signed would likely kill Granderson trade talk as far as the Cubs were concerned.

Image from SD Dirk on Flickr


  1. Ben

    December 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    I think I’ve seen in a couple places that the Cubs are on the verge of signing Mike Cameron, but waiting until they are able to trade Bradley away.

  2. Keith (Mr. X)

    December 6, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    I wouldn’t trade a bad contract for an even worse one. That’s basically what we’d be doing by trading Robertson or Willis for Bradley. I just don’t see that happening.

    • Mike Rogers

      December 6, 2009 at 4:38 pm

      Trading the contract of a guy who won’t help the team at all in 2010 (Willis) for a contract of a guy who will actually step on the field and do at least one positive thing for your team (Bradley) would be a downgrade? Nevermind how unrealistic a Willis-for-Bradley swap would be, you make that trade 15 out of 15 times. I don’t see how anyone doesn’t do that.

      • Keith (Mr. X)

        December 6, 2009 at 8:00 pm

        it’s worse because of the money. Bradley is owed $21 million and Willis is owed $12M. For a team trying to reduce payroll it doesn’t make sense to add payroll.
        I won’t make that trade for several other reason also. 1) We don’t need another outfielder. 2) If we did have an opening, Raburn should get the opportunity. 3) I don’t want that douche bag on my team.

        Bradley has nice peripherals and projections, like he has almost every year. That’s great for younger players, but Bradley will be turning 32.

  3. Mike Rogers

    December 6, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Also, recently I re-looked at the Bradley valuation since the CHONE projections came out and he’s fairing even better offensively then. Projecting for 2.18 WAR in just 60% playing time (420 PA’s). If by some chance he stayed healthy for, say 80% playing time (560 PA), that is 2.91 WAR. I fully am expecting Bradley to have a very, very good year. This is the time to get him.