He gets Cliff Lee for nothing and unloads the Silva contract (minus $9 million)? This guy's a freak.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


Jackie Z!!!! Go Mariners!

Yeah, what the fuck are the Cubs thinking?

I just saw "Bradley for Silva". It wasn't just straight up, was it? Cause Bradley's a very good player right now still. Wouldn't make sense.

fan174 wrote:Yeah, what the fuck are the Cubs thinking?

I just saw "Bradley for Silva". It wasn't just straight up, was it? Cause Bradley's a very good player right now still. Wouldn't make sense.

We got Silva and cash. Trade had to be made from Jim's point of view and I also think it was a good move for Seattle. IMO, it's a win-win right now because both teams got rid of what they wanted to get rid of. We'll see during the season how good it really was.

cubbiefan009 wrote:

fan174 wrote:Yeah, what the fuck are the Cubs thinking?

I just saw "Bradley for Silva". It wasn't just straight up, was it? Cause Bradley's a very good player right now still. Wouldn't make sense.

We got Silva and cash. Trade had to be made from Jim's point of view and I also think it was a good move for Seattle. IMO, it's a win-win right now because both teams got rid of what they wanted to get rid of. We'll see during the season how good it really was.

How much cash? It better have been a whole lot of it.

Cause you got a player who's absolute dog shit, and the Mariners got a very good player who had a bit of a down year(And was still a good player).

Unless the Cubs saved 10-12 million, that's a bad deal. But, perhaps they did. Even if they got the 10-12, they still didn't really make a good trade.


The Mariners would have likely just dumped Silva, now they're getting a guy who can carry a .385-ish OBP in the 2 hole.

He had to be dealt. The relationship with everyone involved had gone to the point of "un-fixable." And once all the teams realized the Cubs situation, no one was going to offer anything worth a damn. Take Silva and hope he can be a decent long relief guy. If not, hell rot on the bench.

Bradley will be great in Seattle. I don't think anyone is questioning his talent. Its the off the field stuff that gets him in trouble. And with a small media market out there and less expectations, he should be fine.

I'm sure Milton Bradley will do better in a place where his home team fans aren't hurling racist insults at him.

they got 9 mil in cash as well. i personally hate the trade. if silva is going to rot on the bench, let bradley rot on the bench. and jackass, i mean slaket, no one can take bradleys word.

betroit02 wrote:they got 9 mil in cash as well. i personally hate the trade. if silva is going to rot on the bench, let bradley rot on the bench. and jackass, i mean slaket, no one can take bradleys word.

The problem with letting Bradley rot on the bench as opposed to Silva is he would become a distraction. If you make Silva the long man in the bullpen, he is still technically part of the team, but would only come into games that are blowouts, one way or the other. Hence, rotting on the bench.

The Cubs had to trade Bradley. I don't think he was worth as much to other teams in the league as some here seem to think. Like Stache said, he absolutely had to go. It was like he was DFA but with the whole offseason to trade him. Given what other teams have said about him in the past, the Mariners may be getting more than just a statistically decent DH. It could work out great for the Ms, but it could also be a disaster as the Cubs will tell you.

Who has suggested that Bradley had lots of value to other teams in the league?



I don't think anyone said that. I think the point was that he still has a lot more than Carlos Silva.


Here's the point. I'll try to clarify. To take on Silva and the remaining 24 million for Bradley and the remaining 21 million and only save 6 million dollars in that is a very, very good deal for Jack Z.


Lets not try and put words into peoples mouths. Nobody thinks Bradley's got Holliday like value to teams around the league. But he's got quite a bit more than Silva. And they could have dumped him to a lot of teams if they were willing to eat that much money.

fan174 wrote:Who has suggested that Bradley had lots of value to other teams in the league?



I don't think anyone said that. I think the point was that he still has a lot more than Carlos Silva.


Here's the point. I'll try to clarify. To take on Silva and the remaining 24 million for Bradley and the remaining 21 million and only save 6 million dollars in that is a very, very good deal for Jack Z.


Lets not try and put words into peoples mouths. Nobody thinks Bradley's got Holliday like value to teams around the league. But he's got quite a bit more than Silva. And they could have dumped him to a lot of teams if they were willing to eat that much money.

Fan, I dont think this trade was about winning or losing for the Cubs. They were in a no win situation. They had to get rid of him. Its addition by subtraction.

The Stache wrote:

fan174 wrote:Who has suggested that Bradley had lots of value to other teams in the league?



I don't think anyone said that. I think the point was that he still has a lot more than Carlos Silva.


Here's the point. I'll try to clarify. To take on Silva and the remaining 24 million for Bradley and the remaining 21 million and only save 6 million dollars in that is a very, very good deal for Jack Z.


Lets not try and put words into peoples mouths. Nobody thinks Bradley's got Holliday like value to teams around the league. But he's got quite a bit more than Silva. And they could have dumped him to a lot of teams if they were willing to eat that much money.

Fan, I dont think this trade was about winning or losing for the Cubs. They were in a no win situation. They had to get rid of him. Its addition by subtraction.

Yes, and I realize that. So no matter how they did it, it was a good move then? Is that what you're saying? If they'd have turned around and taken on Barry Zito's contract, that'd have been a good move in your opinion? Just because it's "addition by subtraction"?

They could have dumped him and taken on 10 million of his deal and not have been stuck with one of the worst pitchers in the game.


But hey, I'm happy they did it. They traded a very good baseball player coming off a down year for a just awful pitcher who makes a lot.

fan174 wrote:

The Stache wrote:

fan174 wrote:Who has suggested that Bradley had lots of value to other teams in the league?



I don't think anyone said that. I think the point was that he still has a lot more than Carlos Silva.


Here's the point. I'll try to clarify. To take on Silva and the remaining 24 million for Bradley and the remaining 21 million and only save 6 million dollars in that is a very, very good deal for Jack Z.


Lets not try and put words into peoples mouths. Nobody thinks Bradley's got Holliday like value to teams around the league. But he's got quite a bit more than Silva. And they could have dumped him to a lot of teams if they were willing to eat that much money.

Fan, I dont think this trade was about winning or losing for the Cubs. They were in a no win situation. They had to get rid of him. Its addition by subtraction.

Yes, and I realize that. So no matter how they did it, it was a good move then? Is that what you're saying? If they'd have turned around and taken on Barry Zito's contract, that'd have been a good move in your opinion? Just because it's "addition by subtraction"?

They could have dumped him and taken on 10 million of his deal and not have been stuck with one of the worst pitchers in the game.


But hey, I'm happy they did it. They traded a very good baseball player coming off a down year for a just awful pitcher who makes a lot.

Yes, exactly. Bradley HAD, 100% to be moved. Considering we didn't have to eat all that contract or most of it up, it was a good move. What made the deal ok, was the money that Seattle gave us along with Silva. Of course we didn't want Silva, but hey, that's all anyone would give up for Bradley...that's saying a lot. Sure we got stuck with Carlos, but the main point is that the trade had to be made. Bradley could not be a Cub in 2010, thank goodness he's the fuck outta here.

[/quote]



Yes, exactly. Bradley HAD, 100% to be moved. Considering we didn't have to eat all that contract or most of it up, it was a good move. What made the deal ok, was the money that Seattle gave us along with Silva. Of course we didn't want Silva, but hey, that's all anyone would give up for Bradley...that's saying a lot. Sure we got stuck with Carlos, but the main point is that the trade had to be made. Bradley could not be a Cub in 2010, thank goodness he's the fuck outta here.[/quote]




LOL.....wow.....so the Cubs can do absolutely no wrong. The reports of several other teams wanting Bradley if the Cubs were willing to eat half the contract(which would have been a much better deal than what they got) must have been crazy.


Dude, the Cubs got raped and Jack Z did the bending over. It's just that simple. That he "had to be traded" isn't the point. That you found maybe the worst pitcher and aren't even saying much money is.

the fact is you still have the worst pitcher, in the form of jeff suppan. and i still hate this trade. im just glad that fucker is gone.

betroit02 wrote:the fact is you still have the worst pitcher, in the form of jeff suppan. and i still hate this trade. im just glad that fucker is gone.

Don't let that little $12 million a year thing blind you from the facts.
He's not the worst pitcher. He's serviceable, eats up innings, usually good for 10-12 wins and an all-around great guy. I would rate Suppan above Dave Bush, Manny Parra and Mr. Silva.

Bush > Parra > Soup > Silva. Soup is serviceable and we don't have enough depth at this point to get rid of him.

betroit02 wrote:the fact is you still have the worst pitcher, in the form of jeff suppan. and i still hate this trade. im just glad that fucker is gone.

lol. I see your blind homerism also applies to baseball.

fan174 wrote:

Yes, exactly. Bradley HAD, 100% to be moved. Considering we didn't have to eat all that contract or most of it up, it was a good move. What made the deal ok, was the money that Seattle gave us along with Silva. Of course we didn't want Silva, but hey, that's all anyone would give up for Bradley...that's saying a lot. Sure we got stuck with Carlos, but the main point is that the trade had to be made. Bradley could not be a Cub in 2010, thank goodness he's the fuck outta here.[/quote]




LOL.....wow.....so the Cubs can do absolutely no wrong. The reports of several other teams wanting Bradley if the Cubs were willing to eat half the contract(which would have been a much better deal than what they got) must have been crazy.


Dude, the Cubs got raped and Jack Z did the bending over. It's just that simple. That he "had to be traded" isn't the point. That you found maybe the worst pitcher and aren't even saying much money is.[/quote]












How did the Cubs get so raped? Please tell me. I am sitting right here. You act like Silva has never had any success. He has been a 14 and 13 game winner before. His past few seasons in Seattle have been bad, but maybe he just can't pitch there. How do you know he won't return to Twin form as a Cub?

Where did I say the Cubs can do no wrong? I'm waiting. How the hell can you say us eating more than half of his salary would've been a better deal then getting Silva and 9MM from Seattle.