A League of Her Own

Update: Cubs Give Marlon Byrd 3 Years, Ruin Julie's New Year's Eve

Florida Marlins vs. Chicago Cubs




The Cubs are once again dangling Carlos Zambrano, according to a column in the New York Post:

Two AL officials say the Cubs are definitely dangling Carlos Zambrano, who has three years at $53.75 million left. The same officials say Zambrano, for comfort reasons, has no desire to waive his no-trade clause and leave Chicago. But in Santana, Francisco Rodriguez and Kelvim Escobar, the Mets have three pitching friends from Zambrano's native Venezuela to offer for comfort. So maybe there still is a chance to import the volatile but talented Zambrano.

While Jim Hendry failed to directly deny this rumor, he's leading us to believe that Big Z will indeed be a member of the Cubs next year:

General manager Jim Hendry declined to discuss the report, or a previous report that the New York Yankees approached him about Zambrano before acquiring Javier Vazquez from Atlanta, reiterating he doesn't discuss trade talks.

As for Zambrano's future with the Cubs, Hendry simply said: "He's got full no-trade rights, which he negotiated into his contract. I fully expect him to come back in 2010 and pitch like the old 'Big Z.'"

One reason Hendry could expect that he'll be back is the fact that Big Z has a no-trade clause, which he is in no mood to waive.

Hendry said he's encouraged by reports that Zambrano has worked out all winter at his Chicago home and plans to report to camp in good shape. Zambrano blamed himself for his back problems last summer, calling himself "lazy" when it comes to doing his prescribed exercise routines.

Zambrano's agent, Barry Praver, had no comment on the latest rumors. He's repeatedly pointed out that Zambrano won't waive his no-trade rights.


With nothing else of consequence to post today, we'd like to give a LOHO shoutout to Elliot Serrano of Geek to Me, who's officially turned our very own Cubbiejulie into a Geeky Heartthrob. Click on the link there to see his latest post.

UPDATE: Bruce Levine and Carrie Muskat tweet that the Cubs have signed CFer Marlon Byrd to a 3-year, $15 million contract. As a result, Julie begins her New Year's Eve early. 

Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

111 Comments

AndCounting said:

user-pic

To paraphrase Flavor Flav:

Should have checked with me before you wrote it
Got it from another source and quote it
Put it out like the new year ball drop
In every beauty parlor and barber shop
Zambrano, world renowned
Can't keep a man like Big Z down
LOHO, be a good host
Don't print bull like the New York Post

I'm not really upset in the least, I've just been waiting for an opportunity to quote Flav, and here it is!!!

Perkins said:

user-pic

Why do people assume players are automatically friendly with people from their native countries? It's not like I love every American I come across, or even every Chicagoan. The whole idea seems mildly racist, or at least patronizing.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I think I'm just going to follow you around saying "I agree."

FrankS said:

user-pic

I dunno, but I know that the Mexicans where I used to work all sat together and spoke Spanish. They didn't like to mix with the Anglos too much. But that's just my experience in one factory.

Perkins said:

user-pic

I mean, I get if there's a language barrier thing, but it's not like Z speaks English poorly.

It seems more prevalent with Japanese players, but I think it's a silly assumption to make, that's all.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

My boyfriend is Mexican, but would rather hang out with white people.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

If the Cubs do trade Z, I promise that my meltdown will not be pretty.

Doc said:

user-pic

ESPN is reporting Byrd has been signed by the Cubs...

3 years...$15 million!

I can live with $5 million a year for Byrd.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

UUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

PretzelTim said:

user-pic

Three years though? Are you kidding me? Who else was going to sign Marlon Byrd for three years?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

No one--that's why we had to snap him up so quickly.

UHHHHHHHHHHH (Krusty the Klown noise)

gravedigger said:

user-pic

What is with Hendry and doing this? Like how he gave Marquis 3 years. I don't think anybody wanted to give Marquis a major league contract, and Hendry gave him three years. WTF is Byrd going to be doing with this team for the next three years? Is he seriously going to be the starting CF for the next three years? Is that the plan?

This is definitely not the year I'm going to quit drinking.

CubbieBlue4Eva said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

He is probably the starting CF for the next 2 years then the starting RF in the 3rd year when Kosuke's contract is up. Plus its only $3M this year (which Seattle is paying) and $5.5 next year with Seattle paying over half.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Words can't even express how much I hate this deal. Was Marlon Byrd really so highly sought after and we really needed him so badly that we had to give him 3-years? I would have given him one with an option.

Gawd.

FrankS said:

user-pic

And the thing of it is, if you check Baseball-Reference.com, the hitter most like Marlon Byrd is REED JOHNSON. And Reed is only 1 year older and probably could have been signed cheaper.

Doc said:

user-pic

If they signed Reedz...it would probably have been for 1 year and about $3 million (the same as Reedz got last year). For 2010, the cost for either of them would have been about the same. With Reedz injury history, Byrd is a better value for 2010. Now, 2011 and 2012, you can debate all you want about that.

CubbieBlue4Eva said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Who, on the market, or actually available through trade would you have rather had Julie???? Ellsbury (not available), Granderson (not available and had terrible splits against lefties), Rick Ankiel??? (YIKES), Jim Edmonds (retired), Willie Mays???, Someone else I am leaving out that looks good in baseball pants...

AndCounting said:

user-pic

Give me a break, people. 3 years is not a long time, and $5 million per is not a lot of money. Marlon Byrd is not a bad player (His park-adjusted OPS+ is above average the past 3 years). By comparison, Matt Holliday wants $18 million a season for 8 years.

This is not 1986. I don't get the reaction, I really don't.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Three years is a long time---for Marlon Byrd! Why do we have to give everyone 2 years more than they deserve? This is how our payroll gets all jammed up, because we sign people for too damn long.

At this point, I would have preferred Podsednik--at least we would have only had to endure him for one year.

AndCounting said:

user-pic

But . . . why? He's coming off three pretty good years. He's as consistent as you could hope for versus righties or lefties, and he's a big defensive improvement over Fukudome in center (and tons better than Pods).

Pods is coming off of one good year, a year he began by signing a minor-league deal. His defense is abysmal. Ankiel is experiencing the same thing in the batter's box that happened to him on the mound a few years ago. I don't want any of that, not even for a year.

I feel like people are judging Byrd on three years of going back and forth from the minors instead of the past three years of consistent production. If we judged all players like that, no one would care in the least that Mark DeRosa is gone. Personally, I expect the next three years to be really good.

CN71 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

15 million over 3 years is not big deal really...easy on the knee jerk reaction to bash everything. Scotty Pods Julie, really? C'mon...you just think he's better looking, admit it. :-)

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I'm not knee-jerking--I've never wanted Marlon Byrd. I just think 3 years is way too long for a mediocre OFer.

GAH! BWAH! I hate this signing so much!

gravedigger said:

user-pic

He had his career year last year... at age 32. Its rare that you and I are so closely on the same page, but I agree as much as is humanly possible.

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

His best year was 2008. I don't think that really matters. The Cubs are paying Byrd to be a below average player yet he's more than likely an average ballplayer. To be precise, the Cubs are paying Marlon Byrd for 3.4 wins over 3 years. He's been worth 9.5 over the previous 3 years. http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/b/byrdm001.htm

He's going to be 32 so he won't be worth that over the next 3 years, but about the only way he's not worth 3.4 wins is if he has a career ending injury.

The Cubs won't spend the money for a star player like Matt Holliday. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's important to remember that the Cubs didn't pay Marlon Byrd to be Matt Holliday. They paid him to be less than Marlon Byrd, which is a pretty good deal when you think about it. The Cubs don't think Marlon Byrd is going to save their 2010 season. That's why he's making $5 million per season rather than $15-20 million per year. They paid him to be a 1-win player. That's it. Odds are they'll get more than 1 win per year, which is exactly what Scott Podsednik is IF HE HAS A GOOD SEASON.

Over the last 3 years, Podsednik has been worth 1.6 WAR. http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/p/podss001.htm

So would you really rather pay Podsednik $5 million for one season and get about 0.5 wins out of it or pay Marlon Byrd $3 million in 2010 and probably get closer to 2.5 wins?

Scott Podsednik sucks. Marlon Byrd is average. So is Ted Lilly. The Cubs paid Ted Lilly to be league average and they've gotten a little better than league average out of him. That's the benefit of signing players who have played in the AL. It's so much more difficult than the NL that a league average player in the AL is about .5 wins better in the NL. So you pay players who are league average league average salary and you hope you get better than league average production. Fortunately for the Cubs, the economy sucked just enough that they got a league average player for dirt cheap.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Hey Maddog, I read an article a while ago (can't remember where) that was calling WAR the most-improperly cited state because it doesn't translate to actual wins on the field. I know you like WAR a lot, I was just wondering if you agree with that or not.

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Maybe I'm thinking of a different article, but I think you're referring to a piece on THT live that said it was misused. Does that sound familiar? Perhaps you read something else.

I've never thought WAR would match well with actual team wins for what it's worth. Actual wins are created differently than WAR is, so it's not surprising that they wouldn't match up that well. There's a great deal of luck involved in baseball. For example, a player that hits great with runners on base one year is pretty much luck (we know that), but WAR is context-independent so it won't consider all of those "clutch" chances and will underestimate that player's contribution to that team that year.

There's good reason for that. Others have studied batting with runners on and have found there's no real skill involved that isn't part of hitting with bases empty. Therefore we can't expect a guy who just crushes the ball with ROB one year to do the same next year. He might. He could also be the worst in baseball at it.

So if someone hits, say, .400 with bases loaded and .365 with runners in scoring position, he's going to help his team win a lot more games than his WAR will account for. It's that way because such hitting is based on luck.

WAR doesn't remove all luck. A lot of FIP is luck. Same with tRA for those who use that. You can't eliminate it entirely, but you try to. We're trying to find out the players contribution in relation to the contribution of others and the only way to do that is to put them on equal footing.

Make sense?

LostinFla said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

It's a bad signing (and for 3 years, ack!)and is about as likely to spin straw into gold as the 3-yr Remlinger signing (remember him?) did.

It's possible the Cubs' brass don't possess computers. Or they simply don't know what "splits" are outside of bowling and Baskin Robbins. Otherwise, a 32 yr old outfielder coming off a "career" year (and quite a "modest" career year at that!) coming back to the NL where his line is 3 seasons of ABs is around .265 BA and low .700 OPS, well, is that worth another $15 million? Wow.

With moves like that, the Cubs would have been better off moving Kosuke to CF and putting a cutout of Lucy Van Pelt in RF. She would have limited range, but would be much cheaper. And she's quotable! Like explaining to Zambrano that she didn't catch the ball hit right to her because "the moons of Saturn got in my eyes!" You can't beat that.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Agree.

CN71 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

True you havent liked him from day one. I dont think it's terrible though. This could be one of those deals where you MIGHT get more than you paid for...as opposed to blowing obscene money on peeps like Sorry and Badley which hamstring you for years and tend to let you down. I'll take Byrd and his relationship with Jaramillo over Pods any day....though I hear ya on the extra year. Could we not have signed him to 1 or 2 instead of 3. Either way what's 15 million among friends.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I'd rather have two more years of Bradley than three years of Byrd.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Amen to that.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Exactly--we essentially traded two yeas of Milton Bradley for 3 years of Marlon Byrd.

Tell me again why I'm supposed to like this deal?

Perkins said:

user-pic

Because it's the best of the bad options the Cubs left available to themselves.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Right. So we're supposed to celebrate Hendry for successfully dredging the bottom of the FA market for a mediocre player that even his own team didn't want to give more than 2 years to.

Tell me again what an awesome GM he is.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Well, he had his hands tied on the Bradley thing. My guess is the Bradley trade and letting Harden walk came from on high.

I blame Ricketts much more than Hendry for this offseason.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

But this is all speculation. Hendry made these kinds of deals when he HAD the payroll to deal with. I hate how he's gets the credit when he makes a decent deal and no blame when he makes a bad one.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Hendry has made some bad deals, but the only ones that really stand out to me are the Pierre trade in 05/06 and the Marquis signing (though the Cubs ended up getting decent value out of that one).

Soriano's contract is bad, but I think the Cubs had to overpay on that one to get him.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I'm including not re-signing or trade Harden, refusing to move Cedeno, Patterson, or Pie as prospects, and signing Aaron Miles and Kevin Gregg in my definition of "bad deals."

Perkins said:

user-pic

I put the Harden thing on Ricketts, but I agree on the handling of Pie and reluctance to trade Cedeno. Hendry should have traded Pie if Lou wasn't going to give him a legitimate shot at being a regular, but I'm not sure where the communication breakdown was there.

Miles was a bad deal, though I wouldn't have expected him to be quite that bad. Gregg just didn't work out, but he took a big nose-dive in 2009 from previous years.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

Because the big mean bad man is gone and we can all feel warm and fuzzy inside again.

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Because the Cubs fans, the media and his teammates ran Bradley out of town and there wasn't a better option.

Because Tom Ricketts won't spend money and Marlon Byrd was the best option.

Because mediocre players get $9 million per year and Byrd is getting $5 million per year.

Better yet, why do you have to like the deal? Once it became certain that Bradley was being run of town, which started in about January last year, you knew the team wouldn't be getting better. The only goal at that point was to get worse by the least amount you possibly can.

Ricketts' self-imposed salary cap hasn't helped either.

If I were GM I would have traded every single player that came into my office complaining about Milton Bradley. Those guys are the problem. We all have to work with assholes every single day of our lives and some of these pathetic people couldn't? I would have gotten rid of every single one of them for anything another GM offered.

That wasn't going to happen though. The Cubs are a business and guys like Ted Lilly and Derrek Lee are fan favorites, meaning they'll be signed to extensions.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Do we know there's a Ricketts-imposed salary cap? People keep speculating about this, but I don't think we have any concrete evidence of it. I'd LIKE to think it's not true.

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

We don't know for sure, but I think we can safely reach that conclusion. As a corporation, the Tribune had spending maxed out to where they could still turn a nice profit. There's still plenty of money to spend and you'd think an individual would be more willing to spend that additional money. That's especially true over the short-term when the team has $50 million coming off the books after 2010. Not spending any money now is likely a mistake. If that was the plan, the team should have become sellers and traded Lee, Ramirez, Dempster and Fukudome. All 4 of them have value. Lilly would if he were healthy, but that didn't happen.

I hate the fact that Ricketts appears to have no plan. He's not trying to win now and he's not trying to win down the road. It's kind of like, well, the Tribune bought the team from the Tribune. However, the beautification process of Wrigley reminds people more of the Wrigley family. Neither ownership is what he hoped for, but it seems that early on that Ricketts is a cross between the two.

I hope that changes.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i'm not saying you're wrong. in fact, i think you're probably right. but i and others have been lambasted by you for purporting to know what's going on in a player's head. how is it any different to purport to know what's going on in someone's head in the front office?

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I guess I'm not really trying to make comments on what kind of person Ricketts is as far as personality and all of that goes. I'm just arguing that you have to have a plan. Win now or win later. Those are the only acceptable plans. 29 teams in baseball have one of those two plans. Some of those teams may be misguided, but it's a plan at least. About the only thing MLB requires from an owner is that he try to field a competitive team. Sometimes in order to field that team you have to lose more now to be better later. Sometimes you're just good enough to win now. The cubs are doing neither.

And Julie, believe me, I hope I'm wrong. It's early and we have to be careful to not come to conclusions too quickly. That being said, I feel we have to evaluate him based on what we know and what we know to this point isn't exactly a promising sign for this organization.

Consider for a moment that the Cubs could actually have signed Holliday. They could even do so right now and still keep the payroll under $145 million. They'd have to backload the deal, but it's very possible. yet there hasn't been one single rumor all offseason about the Cubs being interested in him. Maybe I'm wrong here, but this tells me that he doesn't plan to reinvest the money that comes off the books after the 2010 season. not all of it anyway. I look for a payroll around $130 million in 2011. Probably less in 2012.

Ricketts says he wants to be like the Red Sox, but has seemingly done everything possible to be the opposite of the Red Sox this year. The Red Sox got rid of the troughs when they got around to redoing the bathrooms at Fenway. Ricketts is cutting a corner and keeping them.

The most confusing thing is the absurdity of the team moving its spring training to florida when every team in florida is trying to move to Arizona. In 2020 the Cubs will be left playing split squad games for 45 days. The reason teams are leaving for Arizona is that they spend a hell of a lot more money on spring training venues each and every year than Florida. Also, the teams are all centered around the Phoenix area meaning there's much less travel. Spring training in Florida isn't dead yet, but it's dying. And Ricketts is considering moving there? Why not look into moving the team to England? It makes as much sense.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I didn't agree with trading him, but if he'd come here and acted like a normal human being, he wouldn't have been in that situation.

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I agree, but let's also acknowledge that the media and the fans were after Bradley before he even played a game. Might that have been different if he had a great season? Probably. There's just a lot of blame to go around here. Ultimately it falls on Bradley's shoulders because he handled it as poorly as possible, but so did the media and fans in my opinion.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Its time to start drinking.

CN71 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I'd agree on the keeping Bradley thing if he wasn't such a monumental DBag. His whole racism card BS etc put that over the top. If it was just on stats then I'd be willing to bet he'd bounce back this year. I'm going to send some postive thoughts Byrd's way and see if that helps. :-)

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I know we've been over this and over this, but the fact of the matter is I don't care whether you or anyone else thinks he's a DBag. That's totally irrelevant to the play on the field. And if the players are affected by that, that sounds like a problem with them, not him. I work with people I can't stand, but I don't pout and door my job poorly and blame them. I either do my job, or don't and blame the rum.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I agree, but in Milton's case, HE'S the one that did the pouting and blamed everyone else, so your analogy isn't quite apt.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

No, you're right, it isn't.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Like I said earlier, I've recently realized I'm communicationally retarded.

Doc said:

user-pic

well, your in the right place for that.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I know, but essentially we let him come into town, insult everyone, and then leave and we wind up with Carlos Silva and Marlon Byrd. I would have rather Hendry just tell him he has to mend fences with his teammates and the fans and toss him out there to fend for himself. At least he seemed to hit well when he was pissed off.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

I thought Wittenmeyer made it about race. I don't recall Bradley ever saying anything beyond "hate." Please point the exact quote to me.

Doc said:

user-pic

Ok...if Byrd doesn't quite work out, at $5 million a year, he is actually tradeable. This is probably one of the better contracts that Jim Hendry has produced in a long time.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I am not going to be surprised if I hear the contract breaks down something like

2010: $2m
2011: $3m
2012: $10m

Doc said:

user-pic

at worst it will be 4, 5, and 6...

That's still not bad...and still is a small enough amount to trade if things go bad.

Doc said:

user-pic

I stand corrected...it appears to be 3, 5.5 and 6.5

Doc said:

user-pic

And think about this folks...

We have a new center fielder that drives in almost as many runs in a season as Milton Bradley does, and got him for 1/2 the price. With Fukudome in right now, the outfield is better defensively.

$5 million a season is actually not bad at all and very un-Hendry-like for a player coming off of a career year.

Consider the last two major outfield signings and look at this one....Bradley for 3/30 and Fukudome for 4/40...this was one of the smarter moves.

Is Byrd a great player? Not by any means. And he's not being paid like one.

Who else would the Cubs get to play out there for $5 million a year that would be as good? The only other option would be Reedz, and he would probably get $3 to $4 million and he can't hit right handed pitching. (And, no, Jacoby Ellsbury doesn't count...not realistic, folks.)

Perkins said:

user-pic

He is less valuable than Bradley is likely to be, though. But it's not a bad contract, and I'd guess the Cubs try to trade him after 2010 or 2011, depending on whom else they acquire in that time.

Doc said:

user-pic

I would disagree with Byrd's value compared to Bradley...

Bradley has been a poor run producer over his career. Yes he gets on base...but that's it.

Bradley has also been injury prone. And Bradley can only play right field, and didn't so rather poorly last year.

Byrd drives in runs about as well as Bradley (not quite a good...but still)...

Byrd can play all 3 outfield positions, and play them at an average level (he's not great)...which makes him more flexible.

And Byrd has been a healthier player throughout his career.

Bird also hits right handed and left handed pitching almost equally as well. Bradley had problems vs. righties.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Milton Bradley WAR since 2002: 22.7
Marlon Byrd WAR since 2002: 11.8

So Bradley has been almost twice as valuable as Byrd. It's not even close.

Doc said:

user-pic

first off...it's not fair to include Byrd's first few years in the league, and not Bradley's.

Second, the Cubs were going to pay Bradley almost 3 times as much this season...and that would be to a platoon player with Fukudome, if he got to play at all.

Doc said:

user-pic

but...Bradley is a better player, especially when you look at OBP, which, in this case is overly bloated for Bradley.

Throughout their careers, Bradley has driven in 14 % of baserunner...average, Byrd 16%. I hate saying clutch...but Byrd should be more dependable as an RBI.

I still say, and will continue to say, at this point in his career, Bradley is better in the DL as a DH...for a few reasons. First, he doesn't have the range he once did. He has some skills out there and can hold prevent runners from advancing, but has difficulty getting to and catching the ball. Second, not playing defense will probably help him stay off the DL. Third, not being on the field for most of the game except when he bats doesn't allow the fans to ride him as much.

cub legend said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

When you talk about Bradley his stats realy don't matter. He is such a tool and has such a negative effect on the clubhouse that it doesen't matter what he hits. They are better off with anybody other than Milton. Marlin will fit right in with Soriano and Fuk in the outfield. They really could use Reed J as a backup and pinch hitter. Hopefully they can pick up somebody with a little life to play 2B.

What is all this talk about trading Z? Who else do they have? Marshall, Gorz, and Samardwhatever all are bad.

Happy New Year everybody!!

Perkins said:

user-pic

Actually, his stats are all that matter. Because they reflect what he does on the field. Which is what he's paid to do. Everything else is just a distraction; and unfortunately, Milton Bradley, the Chicago media, and many Cubs fans have made the extracurricular more important than what really matters.

Doc said:

user-pic

Unfortunately, the distractions affect the rest of the team.

Edelweiss said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

The worst thing Milton Bradley did in 2009 was to tell little Mike Fontenot there is no santa Claus. It was downhill for the whole team from then on.

millertime said:

user-pic

Yeah, who exactly did Bradley distract? Can you actually name a player, or are you just generalizing that since the Cubs had a bad season, and Milton Bradley was on the team, that Milton Bradley must have caused the bad season?

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

People keep saying this, but is it true?

Ted Lilly had the best year of his career.

Derrek Lee had the 2nd best year of his career.

Aramis Ramirez was better at the plate than in any other season he had played. He just spent time on the DL.

Carlos Zambrano had his best season since 2005 or 2006 without any help from his offense or defense.

Randy Wells went from back of the rotation pitcher to one of the top 15 or 20 pitchers in baseball in 2009.

Kosuke Fukudome was better than in 2008.

Geovany Soto was worse, Mike Fontenot was worse, Alfonso Soriano was worse and so was Rich Harden.

Seems to me that there are more players who were better than there were who were worse.

I say Bradley made the players around him better.

That, of course, is as much bullshit as saying that Bradley had a negative impact on his teammates.

As I said, people keep saying this. Prove it. If he had a negative impact then you can find it. Point it out to me.

MB21 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Doc, the others batted in (OBI or what you're referring to as RBI) vary so much from one season to the next that there is almost no correlation whatsoever. Look, all things considered, signing Marlon Byrd was a really good deal for the Cubs. They essentially traded away a lot of upside for a player who has much less downside and is more dependable. Let's not go overboard and try to make it seem like Byrd is anywhere near the player Bradley is. He's not. The numbers you're referring to are of minimal value because they have NO predictive value whatsoever. It's one thing to say that player A has driven in 14% of the runners on base while player B has driven in 16%, but it's quite another to infer from that that player B will drive in more than player A. It doesn't work that way. OBI is a stat not unlike RBI. It's team dependent and it's base dependent. Which bases have these runners been on? it's easier to drive a runner in from 2nd and 3rd than it is 1st. Without that context the stat in itself is useless.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Well, fangraphs only has WAR back to 2002, so that was why I used that as the baseline. And Bradley would have been a full time player, barring injury.

secdelahc said:

user-pic

I can live with 3 yrs 15 million. It's not like the guys signed after 2006, who were all signed for a bazillion years and a gazillion dollars.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

Merry New Year!

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

Beef jerky?

Doc said:

user-pic

oog! You need to hang around here more. At the very least, this site needs you here to keep me in line!

CN71 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

You cant argue with a Doctor.

FantaficallyLBC said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Is anyone at all concerned that the Cubs just signed an outfielder, MB, to replace an outfielder, MB??

Doc said:

user-pic

Not only that, they replaced a Free Agent MB they signed from Texas after a career year with another Free Agent MB from Texas after a career year.

The difference? Only 1/2 as much money.

FantaficallyLBC said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I've agreed with everything you've said re: this trade, Doc. Sure, we all would have preferred a cheaper, shorter contract. However, I am sure Hendry had to compete with other teams to sign Byrd. (believe it, or not). BTW, this year I feel the same way about letting Harden go as I felt last year about letting DeRosa go. The Cubs think they are fine without them. I think they needed them--BADLY.

Perkins said:

user-pic

They need Harden a lot more than they needed DeRosa.

FantaficallyLBC said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I agree. They certainly aren't learning as they go, the are de-learning, or somethin'.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Yeah, they looked on the right track there from the 06/07 offseason until about the time Ricketts bought the team.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

What we needed was for Aaron Miles not to be our backup plan for the MIF. Or Mike Fontenot to be a starter.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

But see, this is where I think you have to remember that you're going after MARLON BYRD. Though I don't like the Soriano billion-year contract, I understand why Hendry felt he had to offer something none of the other teams would (8 years). With Marlon Byrd, I don't get it.

Doc said:

user-pic

The thing with the Soriano contract given his age at the time (31), the likelihood that Soriano would be worth the $18 a year by years 4 - 8 was very small...and would make him very untradeable. With a contract like that, you have to figure Soriano would not finish it in a Cubs uniform...and that continues to be very likely today. But to trade him, the Cubs again will have to eat a lot of that contract.

With Byrd, with 3 years...even at $5.5 or $6.5, that amount will still make him tradeable, and he will only be 33 or 34 years old depending on which year he is trade...if he has to be traded. Those are reasonable numbers for another team to pick up. It is very possible that 2 years from now, Soriano and Byrd will have similar numbers offensively.

And, honestly, if the Cubs had not offered Byrd 3 years, they probably would have had to pay him $12 to $13 million.

The truth is, I never expected Byrd to sign for anything lower that 2 years at $15 million.

And, I hate to tell you all this, but the Cubs offense is better right now than it was in 2009. In fact, Marlon Byrd is hits better against right handed pitchers than Milton Bradley has in his career.

PretzelTim said:

user-pic

The only way I can swallow this signing is if we pick up Orlando Hudson.....Castro will not be the shortstop this year...so Theriot will stay at short and we need a leadoff hitter. He picks up Frasor from Toronto, he will have to trade Samardjzia or Marshall to get him.

My god, tell me the truth, wouldn't it fascinate you to pick up Ankiel for two years knowing that he has something to prove.......what the hell does Marlon Byrd have to prove?

Thank goodness the NL Central blows so we still have a chance.

AndCounting said:

user-pic

If you're using "fascinate" as a synonym for nauseate, then yes, I would be fascinated to watch Ankiel as a Cub trying to prove he doesn't suck.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

To make my day even more enjoyable, Max has, for some reason, shaved his "Xmas Beard" into giant mutton chops.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I don't think the lineup is going to be giving anyone the frights this year.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Also, I would like to add that I'd rather be loved by geeks than by the finest people in the world.

AndCounting said:

user-pic

Are those two different groups of people? I was unaware.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

that was the joke. i was ripping off steve martin in "Roxanne."

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Kathy Griffin absolutely trashes him in her book. Says he's a giant, humorous douche with his nose in the air and an extremely exaggerated sense of self-importance. I can see it.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

That was supposed to say humorless.

AndCounting said:

user-pic

Ah, sorry. That was one of those movies I kept meaning to see, but after the box at Blockbuster reached a certain shade of yellow I had no choice but to abandon all hope.

Rich C said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

eh....this deal doesn't make me wanna jump for joy, but it also doesn't make me wanna go out and buy a Brewers cap, either. I look at it as replacing Bradley with Byrd for 1/4 of the $$ with 1 extra year for 6.5mm. I can live with that.

Now, let's talk about the middle infield and bullpen for a minute, Mr. Hendry.......

Doc said:

user-pic

A comparison of Marlon Byrd 2009 vs. Mark DeRosa 2006

The Cubs signed Mark DeRosa to a 3 year $13.5 million contract 3 years ago.

The career numbers when DeRosa signed
ave: .273
ops: .735
ab/k: 15.8
ab/rbi: 8.5
ab/hr: 43.2
age: 32

The career numbers when Byrd signed
ave: .279
ops: .762
ab/k: 17.4
ab/rbi: 8.0
ab/hr: 44.4
age: 32

Overall, the numbers are a bit similar if not a bit better for Byrd.

Doc said:

user-pic

Oh and remember, Mark DeRosa was coming off of a career year in (guess....) Texas!!!!

Doc said:

user-pic

For more of the comparison, go here.

cubsforever said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

One down and how many more to go? We all knew Byrd was coming - so let's just accept it. He appears to be a decent guy with 3 pretty good years and is 32. He also is familiar with the NL playing with the Phillies. It is what won't happen as a result or how much more will occur. WE still need a 4th outfielder - and Reed Johnson is the guy. Fukohome gets 30 games off - Soriano needs 25 games off (if he doesn't hurt himself) - Byrd will get 20-25 games off - and as a defensive replacement - especially for Soriano in the 7th-8th-9th - Johnson is the buy. We heard too much about Brian Roberts - then Jake Peavy - and we got Bradley last year - it all sucks. Hendry likes 3-4 year contracts - let's look at the good ones too he did - Lilly in particular - and 3 years for Derosa was initially criticized but then we all cried after 2 years. Marquis to me wouldn't have been too bad had he kept him for year 3 - he did make the All-star team - and won 15 games - and made the playoffs for the umpteenth year in a row. We should have had Derosa back last year when Ramieriz was hurt and there would be no issue about 2nd base right now. I like Baker - but as a utility guy - not everyday. So let's see if this is meaningful. Still want Sheets and Johnson and one more middle reliever and then ---- LET"S PLAY TWO TODAY!!!

FrankS said:

user-pic

If Reed was coming back, he would have been re-signed by now or been offered arbitration. I'm guessing that Hendry plans on either Fuld or Colvin (or both) for the backups.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I'm out for the night. Everyone be safe and have a very, very happy new year!

okoboji said:

user-pic

Now if we can only get rid of Soriano...

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

How come I can see comments on the sidebar that I can't find in the actual post? GRRRRRR.

Maroussia said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

It will be great to watch New York Yankees , i have bought tickets from http://ticketfront.com/event/New_York_Yankees-tickets looking forward to it.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook

A League of Her Own on Facebook

A League of Her Own - A Chicago Cubs Blog on Facebook