beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 LA's CF Milton Bradley for Garland. A SF chroncile writer [via ben maller] mentioned that Pittsburgh wanted to get Bradley, and use Arthur Rhodes in a deal. A straight swap sounded stupid. But it got me thinking maybe he was available. I checked out LA's MLB message board, and it sounds like he could be. Most people were supportive of Bradley [though people did like him did think he was a "pyscho"], saying he was a good teammate and played the game with a passion. Yet a few were adamant about getting rid of him. Seeing how LA fans have reacted to him this yr, [after getting into it w/ STL fans, and another incident in LA] and at the end of the yr getting booed a lot, it doesn't seem like next yr will get any easier for him. The question would be what are his problems. And would the sox help him. Seeing how Everett and Frank are two guys who have experienced similar questions about them, they would seem to be good guys for Bradley to be around. Willie Harris as well. And the questions surrounding him seem anger related, personal stuff and issues, not related to baseball at all--by all accounts, he's a gamer. [Though Cle's manager got fed up over not running out a pop up in ST] He certainly has potential. In 2003 his .321/.421/.501 numbers in 101 games speaks to that. His ability to hit at the top of the lineup [has hit 1, 2 and 3 the last 2 yrs], can switch hit, solid OBP, has SB speed, and hit for power. His career numbers are down a bit [.267/.350/.416], but came into the league young. And is coming into his own, power wise and OBP wise. LA needs to bolster their SP 1st and foremost. Garland would seem a good fit. He's healthy [as LA's guys have been injured a lot], can eat innings, a good pick to have his numbers go down in their park, and affordable. The question is would Bradley be on the block. They don't have CF who can take his place now. Finley could be re-signed but iffy. And they could lose Beltre to free agency. Unless Bradley would be part of a bigger deal [say involving PK for Shawn Green + pitching--which could give LA some salary relief] or if they got an additional bat from another team or a FA signing, I wouldn't think LA would trade Bradley first. Yet judging by the fans reaction to Bradley, I don't see how he stays in LA in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Just a thought here. After the incident with Bradley late in the year, and considering the Bulls traded Artest because they were afraid of him having a meltdown, do you think a Reinsdorf run organization would take a chance on a guy like Bradley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I'd still like to see: Crazy Carl Bradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I like Bradley. He's a good ball player and supposedly a good team mate. However, a Garland for Bradley trade would do nothing to benefit this club. The way I see it, Garland will go into 2005 as the best #5 starter in the AL. This team has got to have solid pitching to compete, a trade like this would do nothing but create another hole in the rotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I agree with Addison. If we trade Garland we better be damn ready to replace him. I don't think any of us want Grilli in the rotation come next April. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Just a thought here. After the incident with Bradley late in the year, and considering the Bulls traded Artest because they were afraid of him having a meltdown, do you think a Reinsdorf run organization would take a chance on a guy like Bradley? I most certainly hope not! Bradley would not bea good fit with this organization, nor do we really need him. I think our needs are a quality starting pitcher and a closer. W can't afford to give up any pitching, such as Garland, for a position player. We are at the point of being able to strengthen our pitching and you don't trade away someone like Garland for a position player you don't need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 I like Bradley. He's a good ball player and supposedly a good team mate. However, a Garland for Bradley trade would do nothing to benefit this club. The way I see it, Garland will go into 2005 as the best #5 starter in the AL. This team has got to have solid pitching to compete, a trade like this would do nothing but create another hole in the rotation. Bradley would provide the Sox what they are sorely lacking--a top of the order hitter, who plays above avg d at multiple positions, has speed, high OBP, and is a switch hitter. Maybe Garland might be too high a price. But a SP could be more easily found than a guy of Bradleys ability. But Bradley would do nothing for the Sox?! Hardly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 Just a thought here. After the incident with Bradley late in the year, and considering the Bulls traded Artest because they were afraid of him having a meltdown, do you think a Reinsdorf run organization would take a chance on a guy like Bradley? By all accounts Artest is a freak. Bradley, I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 I most certainly hope not! Bradley would not bea good fit with this organization, nor do we really need him. I think our needs are a quality starting pitcher and a closer. W can't afford to give up any pitching, such as Garland, for a position player. We are at the point of being able to strengthen our pitching and you don't trade away someone like Garland for a position player you don't need. The sox need a position player or two. Even more than a SP and a guy for the bullpen. If you look at the lineup the sox are putting out now, its a 3rd or 4th place team. And a top of the order guy is paramount. I think a trade will address this need. If not for Bradley then for someone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 The offense wouldn't do us any good if it means having Diaz and Grilli both in the rotation every fifth day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 By all accounts Artest is a freak. Bradley, I don't think so. Exactly.. and either way.. when a fan chucks a bottle at a player.. I dont expect the player to just "brush it off" Throwing bottles and s*** at players in unacceptable.. and I do not fault the players for getting pissed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 The offense wouldn't do us any good if it means having Diaz and Grilli both in the rotation every fifth day. Ding Ding Ding! Exactly. The offense will be fine without the "Beltran Like" Bradley. The rotation will not be fine with another question mark at one LET ALONE two starting spots. C'mon man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Bradley has talent, to be sure. But I'm not sure they would take a chance on him because they like to target squeeky clean guys, and Bradley has had some incidents. Do the Dodgers need a first baseman? If so, there might be a match. Sox would need to get an arm in the deal too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthraxFan93 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 If we could get Bradley and Edwin Jackson then yeah I do the deal for Pauly and Garlland Then that would allow the cash to sign another SP and a SS, we be in great shape.. But I don't see the Dodgers pulling the trigger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 The offense wouldn't do us any good if it means having Diaz and Grilli both in the rotation every fifth day. Hasn't Garland been mentioned a lot in possible trades? Haven't the Sox talked about getting a SP better than Jon? the Sox will upgrade their pitching. BTW- Bradley should make less than Garland's $3.4 mill in ARB as well. [so the cost of a CFer with his tools makes it very possible to upgrade in other areas] My point is if Arthur Rhodes' name can be mentioned in a deal for Bradley, the Sox could get at least a bullpen arm with Bradley for Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Hasn't Garland been mentioned a lot in possible trades? Haven't the Sox talked about getting a SP better than Jon? the Sox will upgrade their pitching. BTW- Bradley should make less than Garland's $3.4 mill in ARB as well. [so the cost of a CFer with his tools makes it very possible to upgrade in other areas] My point is if Arthur Rhodes' name can be mentioned in a deal for Bradley, the Sox could get at least a bullpen arm with Bradley for Garland. Beck, I gotta disagree with you here and it is just on basic philosophy. I would stay away from guys like Bradley. Character problems are just too big of a risk in my mind. He could be a perfect fit or he could cause a season to blow up. With the Sox having a limited payroll, I just think guys like him are too big of a risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 Ding Ding Ding! Exactly. The offense will be fine without the "Beltran Like" Bradley. The rotation will not be fine with another question mark at one LET ALONE two starting spots. C'mon man. Weren't you one of the Garland for Kendall backers? I was. So weren't you advocating trading a SP for a position player. C'mon Man The sox need to fill a bigger hole at the top of their lineup [and get bullpen help, as Garland has performed better in his career w/ no problems and should get a higher return than just Milton] more than they need to keep a solid 5th starter. But the sox offense is not fine as it is. BTW- Last time I checked there were more than a few SP's better than Garland still available via free agency [Pavano, Perez, Clement, Ortiz, Pedro, Jaret Wright, etc etc] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 Bradley has talent, to be sure. But I'm not sure they would take a chance on him because they like to target squeeky clean guys, and Bradley has had some incidents. Do the Dodgers need a first baseman? If so, there might be a match. Sox would need to get an arm in the deal too. Carl Everett squeaky clean? Roberto alomar? The sox have been known to take chances on guys. I agree there's some risk involved. But with guys like Everett, Frank, Willie and KW around, the Sox would seem to be a good environment to help a young African-American man to overcome some problems that are not baseball related [by all accounts, his effort on the field and relations w/ teammates hsan't been questioned]. I just think LA might not be the place for him, by going by the fans reactions to his incidents. Chi. could be. I'm sure Joey Cora could talk to his bro over the holidays to get a sense of what Bradley's all about. One thing is for sure, the sox need young impact players [or potential impact players] in their everyday lineup. Soon. With Minn. and Clev. stocked full of young talent, the sox are getting closer to KC and Det. than them. I know Choi isn't the answer at 1B for them. Pk would be good insurance in case Beltre leaves town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 We do not need to trade pitching for a position player. We supposedly have talent in th minors plus the only position player need I see that is possibly critical is at SS. Maybe we are actually considering Nomar, I don't have a clue on whether it's possible or not, but he wouldn't be bad. I still like Jose Valentin and maybe Jose's price becomes likeable. RF is up for grabs and I think it's time for the $5M bonus baby Borchard to step up or we have several waiting in the wings. Of course everyone likes to dream the Randy Johnson possibility ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 Beck, I gotta disagree with you here and it is just on basic philosophy. I would stay away from guys like Bradley. Character problems are just too big of a risk in my mind. He could be a perfect fit or he could cause a season to blow up. With the Sox having a limited payroll, I just think guys like him are too big of a risk. I'd agree if Bradley was making $5 mill a yr and signed long term. He made less than $2 mill last yr and is ARB eligible this yr. I'd also agree if it was a Jose Guillen type, who many on here talked about getting though he was advertised as a "clubhouse cancer". Bradley hasn't been talked about that way. He might just need a Dr Phil makeover rather than a lobotomy like Artest. Put another way, do the Sox have more confidence in Garland fulfilling his potential than they do that Bradley's problems [whatever they are, fans don't know what the real issues are] could be solved? I don;t know. It's up to the sox to ask those questions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 We do not need to trade pitching for a position player. We supposedly have talent in th minors plus the only position player need I see that is possibly critical is at SS. Maybe we are actually considering Nomar, I don't have a clue on whether it's possible or not, but he wouldn't be bad. I still like Jose Valentin and maybe Jose's price becomes likeable. RF is up for grabs and I think it's time for the $5M bonus baby Borchard to step up or we have several waiting in the wings. Of course everyone likes to dream the Randy Johnson possibility ... Maybe my monitor isn't working and I can't see that you're post is really in green The sox need to make trades to fill holes, and use the free agent market. Few teams trade pitching for pitching. Garland's name has been mentioned as trade bait. Why not fill a hole or two [like I said in the 1st post, i'm not going to repeat myself] this way, and get the SP filled another way? BTW-Hasn't Jose V's name been banned from this site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Weren't you one of the Garland for Kendall backers? I was. So weren't you advocating trading a SP for a position player. C'mon Man The sox need to fill a bigger hole at the top of their lineup [and get bullpen help, as Garland has performed better in his career w/ no problems and should get a higher return than just Milton] more than they need to keep a solid 5th starter. But the sox offense is not fine as it is. BTW- Last time I checked there were more than a few SP's better than Garland still available via free agency [Pavano, Perez, Clement, Ortiz, Pedro, Jaret Wright, etc etc] Well...which do you prefer? a) a lineup including Bradley, with a rotation of not one, but TWO vaccancies or B) a lineup without Bradley, with a rotation that is only one FA away from complete I suppose its a matter of preference. I believe that a strong rotation is going to win this division; Milton Bradley will not. As has been the problem on the Southside for years now, we have all the POP in the world, but no pitching. I think its time to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I'd agree if Bradley was making $5 mill a yr and signed long term. He made less than $2 mill last yr and is ARB eligible this yr. I'd also agree if it was a Jose Guillen type, who many on here talked about getting though he was advertised as a "clubhouse cancer". Bradley hasn't been talked about that way. He might just need a Dr Phil makeover rather than a lobotomy like Artest. Put another way, do the Sox have more confidence in Garland fulfilling his potential than they do that Bradley's problems [whatever they are, fans don't know what the real issues are] could be solved? I don;t know. It's up to the sox to ask those questions Beck, Bradley HAS had problems with his efforts on the field. That is the very reason he was run out of Cleveland. He has had problems from day one, gaining several suspensions while in the minors as well. He has anger management issues, obviously. But those problems spill over and affect others. An Indians player said that he liked Bradley, but his "problems" wear a team down. Constantly butting heads with the manager, never knowing when he was going to explode seemed to drain the team. A former teammate of his in the minors told me basically the same thing. He has talent for sure, but its a risk I personally would not take. He is the kind of guy that can bring down a team's morale singlehandedly. Some teams will look at talent first, and ignore the character issues. I think you have to consider both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 The question would be what are his problems. And would the sox help him. Seeing how Everett and Frank are two guys who have experienced similar questions about them, they would seem to be good guys for Bradley to be around. Thats a bizarre idea beck, now lets put Saddam in the same jail as Noriega and Milosevic so he can benefit from their leadership! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 Milton Bradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.