Milton Bradley for Vernon Wells?

by Tom Dakers on Oct 31, 2009 1:25 PM EDT in Toronto Blue Jays Analysis

Update: Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune wrote:

A Cubs source quickly responded to the report by saying the rumor has "no legs at all," adding the team has not discussed the possibility of bringing Wells to the North Side.

So I guess it depends on whether you believe Sullivan's unnamed source or Elliot's unnamed source. I'll believe the first one to name their source.

In this morning's Toronto Sun, Bob Elliot reports that the Cubs and Blue Jays are talking about trading Vernon Wells for Milton Bradley. A trade of bad contracts. The Cubs pretty much have to move Bradley told a Chicago paper that "you can understand why they haven't won her in 100 years", as well as fighting with manager Lou Pinella and numerous other little moves designed to drive a team and its fans crazy.

Bradley has 2 years and $21 million left on his contract. Wells has 6 years and $107 million left on his. Elliot says:

The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.

Which would mean the Cubs would be paying Vernon about $10.67 million for the 6 years left in his contract. And the Jays would save $43 million over the 6 years.

The move would leave us without a CFer, unless you figure on Bradley playing center. And Bradley has averaged 94 games played a season so we'd have to have a reliable backup. Last year I was all for having the Jays look at Bradley for the DH role depending on how much he'd cost. I'm not all for having him play center field at all.

My other worry is that Cito had a clubhouse revolt last year with a bunch of very level headed players. What happens when you add a guy that throws a weekly temper tantrum at the best of times? I really don't imagine Cito as being the guy that can keep Milton in line.

I don't know, it would save us a little money and give Vernon a fresh start. He is just a year removed from having a very good season. It would force other moves because we'd need a CFer. Does Anthopoulos want to pick up a potential clubhouse problem as his first player move as GM?

You want to do it? You can look at it from the Cubs point of view over at Bleed Cubbie Blue.

Poll

Would you make this trade, assuming the numbers talked about are right?

Yes

107 votes

No

141 votes

248 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

lots of ways to approach this

First I think you have to assume that you’ll get little to no contribution from Bradley. It doesn’t really matter because we’re not in a position to win in 2010 or 2011 and after 2011 he will presumably sign elsewhere, or retire.

In fact if it were a straight up deal, which would basically be equivalent to giving VW a $21M buyout, I’d be more than amenable to releasing Bradley as soon as the trade went through. Paying VW $21M to ride off into the sunset would be more than worth it. That would free up $86M over 6 years which would be enough to make a substantial impact in terms of other players we could acquire.

Splitting the remaining monies owed down the middle is more problematic. It basically saves the Blue Jays $43M over the next 6 years, while opening up the starting CF spot. So, assuming the Jays were serious about improving the team, the question would then become: whom could they pick up to play CF for $7M a season? Would that player be any better than what we’d expect Wells to produce?

I am pretty sure that the answer to that question is no, not substantially better, especially assuming a moderate bounce-back in Wells’ numbers. There’s not exactly a glut of good CFers on the free agent market, and making a trade would probably just open another hole. So I would tend to be disinclined to make this deal unless I had a prospect waiting in the wings, which the Jays don’t.

So, my conclusion would be that the trade really only makes sense if you are desperate to shed payroll and aren’t serious about contending, meaning you’re ok with Buck Coats playing CF for the forseeable future, or installing a Mencherson type.

Given that everything the Jays have done so far this offseason is with an eye to shedding cost and/or implementing the cheapest possible solution, without regard for the short or long-term future, I have to assume that’s what they’re thinking, and that they’d probably make this deal or something similar if it were offered. They may be thinking that they’ll pick up a CF prospect as part of a Halladay deal, and that’s certainly possible, but it’s not like there aren’t a number of other holes to fill with the return from that trade, so you’re just robbing Peter to pay Paul there. You’re also limiting the number of potential bidders since I don’t think that many teams have a legit, nearly major-league-ready CF prospect, and many of those that do probably don’t want to part with him.

That said, I don’t think the Cubs will really need to take on that much of a long-term obligation just to unload Bradley, and in fact if I were them I would probably release him and eat the remaining money if the only alternative were taking on Wells at 6 years/$60M in return. Unless they really think he’s likely to return to his former glory for at least a few of those years, it’s just too much money, especially when they could potentially be rid of Bradley’s deal after this season (if he gets injured). It seems more likely that they’d take back someone like Burrell or a similar type that only has one or two years left, for similar money, and assume that sunk cost rather than trying to play (more than) double or nothing betting on Wells making a substantial contribution.

by voodoomusic on Oct 31, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions

at first, I thought the deal was swap players and contracts and I thought, “hell ya, even if you release Bradley right away, you save $86M, less a replacement CF — Crawford come on down, you are the next contestant on Jays CF Price is Right”

but alas, swapping Bradley for Wells and still having to eat $21M + $43M = $64M for Bradley for 2 years is perhaps even more repugnant than the Wells contract — I think Voodoo has essentially already stated this

how, this may have some potential … for example, maybe the Jays could do this swap, Bradley in and Wells out and the Jays could eat a lesser amount than a half. Lets say, the Jays eat $20M of Wells’ contract. Than the Jays “get” Bradley and are out $21M for his contract and out $20M for Wells contract but “free up” $87M. I say “free up” cause I doubt Rogers will re-commit that money. To me, it is all still ugly, gory and gross, but perhaps a bit more palatable.

Bottom line, the deal sucks no matter how you slice it, but if the Cubs would assume a larger share of Wells’ contract, say 80%+, I would consider doing it. At 50/50, it is a no go. After all, despite the bad season and despite the excess pay, Wells is still a respectable player and could have a some good, if not great years yet to come.

by aagoodfella on Oct 31, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

so basically, the Jays would be paying $64M for Bradley for two years

bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

by aagoodfella on Oct 31, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions

no deal

The cubs would have to take on a larger part of wells salary. In six years wells salary will still be bad, but not as bad as it looks now in terrible economy. I’ll take my chances eating wells salary and hoping he has somewhat of a bounce back rather than paying 45 million to get rid of him.

by goodbye JP on Oct 31, 2009 10:38 PM EDT reply actions

anyone stupid enough to take wells go for it

I would take a bag of balls for wells

by hugiman on Nov 2, 2009 4:27 PM EST reply actions

The point here is that what you're getting back is far worse than a bag of balls.

If this is what happens, the Jays still end up paying about half of Wells’s contract.

The question is what’s worse: 64 M for two years of Milton Bradley or 107 M for six years of Vernon Wells

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Nov 2, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions

paying for half of wells contract is better than paying for all the contract…. I would hold off a bit to see if the cubs pay for more of wells contract…. don’t hold on too long as if the trade goes through we would need a CF via Free agency or halladay trade…. Anyone dumb enough to take wells and any of his contract we have to accept…. next year Wells prob be around .250, 15 HR again….. bradely if stays healthy be around .300+ 20HR+… He should be healthy as he probably be fulltime DH…. I don’t like Bradely but I like him more than Wells and if we don’t make the trade now we will be stuck with Wells for 6 long years…. Make the trade and move on!
The next question is will wells waive no trade claus?

by hugiman on Nov 9, 2009 9:36 PM EST reply actions

I would also take the 64 M over 2 years…. be finiancially screwed for 2 years as oppose to 6 yrs…. we seem to be in an rebuilding mode and we could eat the 64 M as we won’t be signing big name free agents

by hugiman on Nov 9, 2009 9:38 PM EST reply actions