Bradley to the As

Re: Bradley to the As

So, I guess the A's did want him, Ethier. (ha ha ha)

www.waitingfortbg.com (under contstruction)

by Goofus on Dec 13, 2005 3:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Ken Rosenthal writes:

"Oakland will likely use Bradley in one of the two corner outfield positions, with Mark Kotsay manning center and Nick Swisher likely going to first base."

That doesn't sound right to me, although I don't know the ins and outs of Oakland's roster construction. But if it's true, it means Dan Johnson might be available.

by leftymalo on Dec 13, 2005 3:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

There's still a DH slot to fill... it would seem logical that they would keep six "regulars" for five slots (3 OF, 1B, DH): Bradley, Kotsay, Payton, Swisher, Kielty, Johnson, especially since Kielty probably isn't an everyday player. But if the rumored Frank Thomas signing comes to pass... Johnson would seem like the odd man out. Interesting...

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Dec 13, 2005 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

Swisher doesn't seem to hit enough to play first base.

"Medio-core, not forsaken/ the [team] we're make'n/ will leave you with the feeling of indifference"

by kenshin1 on Dec 13, 2005 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

According to the MLB account, it's like musical chairs, pushing Dan Johnson to DH. Is he that much of a stiff compared to Swisher? If so, that would explain why it took him so long to make the majors hitting like he did, but then he could have played DH before that as well...

by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Dec 13, 2005 8:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet

He's out of the division! Ethier won't be making a difference for the Dodgers until After Barry, and by then the difference will be between 20 and 25 games back.

Whooo!

by antinous on Dec 13, 2005 3:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bye-bye, Antonio

Perez's 2004 numbers vs. the Giants: .435/.536/.609 in 28 plate appearances.

A small sample size, but I'm happy to see him go. To Coletti's credit, I guess, he didn't let the games he saw as a Giants GM influence his opinion of Perez.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Dec 13, 2005 3:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Many of us may disagree about Milton, but I really wish that he would have come to SF. I fully understand the anger issues--we'll never know if they would have manifested themselves with the Giants or not--and would have accepted his volatility for his youth, skills, and (my view) passion to win. (On another note, were his explosions THAT big of a deal?) I wish Milton well with Oakland and rejoice that the Dodgers were stupid enough to let him go and will now have to replace him.

We could have Steve Finley. Again disagreement. By the way, I compared he and Alfonzo on BP today. Both are risks and I don't really like either of 'em. Maybe I'm reading their numbers wrong, but Finley doesn't appear to be the great defensive player that we (me included) think that he is. He's okay, but not great.

I see it from a less popular perspective...we could have had Milton Bradley. Again, good luck in Oakland.

by Kent on Dec 13, 2005 3:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Here we agree, Kent. Bradley probably would've been a nightmare in the clubhouse, and I know I'm imagining the team from the perspective of a rotisserie nerd, but I would've taken him, too. I hate the guy as a person, but he can play. Defense, OBP, youth -- many things the Giants need. Just too much talent at too little salary to ignore.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f***ing amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Dec 13, 2005 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Hey Josh. Again, I'm not pronosticating on Milton 2007's meltdown, but I just don't see him as a T.O. or, really bad, a Carl Everett. For all of his selfishness, I wonder what influence (hopefully positive) an aging Barry Bonds would have had on him. In an odd way, maybe Milton could have actually sparked our rather "dull" current roster. Too bad that we'll never know.

What do you think? Angels of Orange County going to do the deal after all? We'll just have to disagree about Finley and Alfonzo, no big deal.

by Kent on Dec 13, 2005 4:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Can you imagine.....

Milton Bradley's reaction to Felipe's managing?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 13, 2005 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

ON THE BRADLEY: I agree with you about him possibly sparking the team, and also thought the same thing about Bonds and Bradley, but I disagree about him not being as bad as T.O. or Carl Everett. Being stuck here in SoCal, I've gotten every sordid detail of his problems (and I DO mean "problems"). One thing about T.O., he's never had any scrapes with the law. Bradley has had at least five. Here are just the incidents I'm intimately aware of:

--While still with the Indians, he fled a traffic stop in Ohio and ultimately was charged with a DUI.

--When a friend he was following in his car was pulled over, he pulled over and yelled at the cops for so long, and so violently, they eventually arrested him.

--In his final act as an Indian, he failed to run out a pop-up, and when Eric Wedge asked him about it, he cursed him out in front of the entire team.

--In his first season as a Dodger he had two on-field flame-outs, including one where he had to be restrained from going into the stands (fans booed him and threw a plastic bottle at for dropping a fly ball, so I don't think he's completely to blame for this one).

Then last year he came to camp, apologizing for the way he had been, saying he had attended therapy sessions, admitted to an anger problem, said he was a changed man, and promised to be on his best behavior. Followed by:

--Cops were called to his house last year to investigate spousal battery charges at least twice.

--He publicly called Jeff Kent a racist after Kent aske dhim why he wasn't hustling all the time (this one is okay with me too, for obvious reasons).

ON THE FINLEY/ALFONZO TRADE: No, I can't believe the Angels would do this trade unless the Giants throw in a prospect. That's why I wasn't surprised it was THEM keeping this trade from happening. Alfonzo has zero upside, and the Angels have two young 3rd basemen who are already better. Sure, Finley might be done, but he's had exactly ONE bad year in a row. He's got a bad contract, just not as bad as Alfonzo's. From the Giants perspective, Sabean's always had a hard-on for Finley, and he's enjoyed all his best moments while playing in the NL West (Padres, D-Backs, Dodgers), so it's not unthinkable he might rebound.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f***ing amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Dec 13, 2005 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

I posted a time ago that signing Kline and signing (I was hopeful) Bradley was Sabean's way of undermining Sr. Canas. If Kline's warming up every game to be used every other game, he'll blow up at some point next season.

by Kent on Dec 13, 2005 4:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Kent, I respect you for sticking to you guns about Bradley. I still think that he is going to be detrimental to the A's. He has a lot of promise, and if healthy (physically and mentally) he should do very well for them, but he is injury prone and is a time bomb waiting to explode when things start to not go his way.

As far as Finley goes, I don't think he is final piece of the puzzle, but resting a lot and then playing could really help his production, I think. The rest that he would get and give to Bonds and Alou could very well prove to be a big difference. I don't see Alfonzo making any difference, though unless you count grounding into a game ending double play as a pinch hitter......

Waiting for a ring

by Uribe2Thompson2Clark on Dec 13, 2005 5:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

I count him eating up 8 million dollars so we cant get a real hitter "making a difference", just not a positive difference.

WHY DOESNT THAT FAT F#$& SHOW SOME INTEGRITY AND RETIRE? He has already made enough money off us for doing nothing.

by covenant on Dec 14, 2005 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Don't you know? He has a family to feed (amazing that they touch anything though...).

by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Dec 14, 2005 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

I foresee a blow up on Kline's part too....it is only a matter of time

Waiting for a ring

by Uribe2Thompson2Clark on Dec 13, 2005 5:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Like I wrote, I have NO IDEA what will come of Milton. Is he a risk? Oh yeah, he's a risk, we're all on the same page there. I knew about most of the problems that Josh had mentioned. I know that the dude's got some real emotional issues. Is it a matter of time before he becomes physical? Is it just verbal? Again, I don't know.

I have a list of about twenty players that I'd like to have on the Giants. Not all of them are unrealistic. Milton was one of 'em.
We'll see what happens. Either way, go Giants. I still expect 1st place every damn year.

by Kent on Dec 13, 2005 5:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Bradley-Repko > Furcal-Robles

I'm very happy to see Bradley out of LA... never heard of this Ethier guy, but I think Bradley's clearly been traded as part of Ned's belief that "addition by subtraction" is actually possible. Good news for us: it's not, and the Dodgers just gave up a consistently strong hitter, negating any offensive advantage they gained in the Furcal signing. Advantage: Giants.

"Baseball is life, the rest is just details."

by nick on Dec 13, 2005 5:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

I agree, Dodgers got the worse part of the deal. I dont understand how Billy Beane was able to get a major league OF who though has problems actually is young, 26, and performs on the field. He has some power, speed, and hits for average, and gets on base reasonably well. Antonio Perez may not be a starter, but he at the very least is a very useful player to have in terms of being a role player.

Sabean stop giving away our first round draft picks!!

by z4 landshark on Dec 13, 2005 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Same way the Dodgers got him, they only gave up a class-A hitting stud if I remember it right to Cleveland, maybe another prospect. The baseball gods giveth, the baseball gods taketh away...

by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Dec 13, 2005 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

I think its moot, because I don't think Ned would trade Milton to the Giants anyways unless we significantly outbid other teams. You don't trade super-talented players with minorish question marks to your biggest rivals and then hope for the worst. Too much danger of having them come back to haunt you for years.

by hammystyle on Dec 13, 2005 6:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

So Billy traded a minor league player, even if it is one who is supposed to become a star, for an established, very good Major League player, and somehow also got the other team to include a minor leaguer in the deal.
Seems that Colletti learned very well working under Sabean.

by Voodoo Chile on Dec 13, 2005 7:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Yeah, VoodooChile, you gotta feel that Ned's moving south is a pretty good thing, short term, for all of Bay Area baseball :) (and long term for the Giants). Maybe he should've taken Sabean with him too, considering that Sabes has continued weird stuff like the Kline deal...

BTW, I don't think Antonio Perez can be called a minor leaguer any more...? I think he played about a 100 games for LA last year.

by scarface on Dec 13, 2005 10:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

I am going to miss Bradley. One of those perfect Dodgers ala Hershiser, Scocia, Drew and of course Kent. Keepin' that Lasorda Zightgeist kicking...

by BleacherEd on Dec 14, 2005 1:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Bradley to the As

Wow! That's a poor spelling of Zeitgeist! If it weren't for the spell check peoples would realy know how specially challenged i was!

by BleacherEd on Dec 14, 2005 1:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hello my Baby, Hello my Sweetheart....

What comes to my mind looking at this deal and seeing all the arguments back and forth is this classic Warner Brothers cartoon:

A construction guy destroys the cornerstone of a building, finding a box. Opening the box, a frog comes out and can sing great, like an opera singer, and dance great. Thinking he's made a fortune, he sets forth to make money exhibiting the frog, but the frog just wouldn't cooperate, it wouldn't do anything at all in the presence of others. Despondent, he leaves the box and the frog in another building for someone else to destroy the cornerstone and...

The only difference for me in the story is that this frog is the opposite, it wouldn't do nothing at all in the presence of others, he just keeps on doing all sorts of wacky, crazy stuff that amazes people, in a bad way. And the A's are like that construction worker chuckling to himself over his good fortune over getting this frog.

Worse, they gave up a good prospect for this frog, the Dodgers were lucky to get much of anything for Bradley. The story won't be the same for the A's when they need to get rid of his sorry attitude and trouble making. At least they mitigated the risk by getting another player in the deal, though from what I read at one Dodger blog, the Dodger's got rid of two problem players.

I predict his first big blowup with the A's is over having to play RF when CF is his position.

by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Dec 14, 2005 3:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello my Baby, Hello my Sweetheart....

I agree with Martin completely. And there is such a thing as addition by subtraction.

by Lyle on Dec 14, 2005 7:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello my Baby, Hello my Sweetheart....

Bradley is an injury risk. But his attitude has never blocked his on-field value, as you are implying. When healthy, he's been a good, valuable player. That he's been subsquently traded doesn't speak so much to whether he hurt his team as to whether grumbling traditionalists like his attitude.

There's no evidence that his attitude lessens the production of those around him. There's just the fact that some people dislike him.

I'm sure you could have made your singing frog analogy about Dennis Rodman, too, but at least two construction workers (Chuck Daly and Phil Jackson) did become rich from that frog.

My prediction is that Oakland gets a great deal of production from him and is a considerably better team in 2006 and 2007 for it, assuming he stays healthy.

Lastly, Ethier seems like an overvalued prospect. He was a pretty nondescript minor leaguer prior to 2005. His 2005 season was great and also unexpected. He's very likely at his peak value and is still not considered a blue-chipper. Beane was supposedly not enamoured of Ethier's future, so I'm sure he's quite pleased to get such a large return on him, a young and talented center fielder and a young, useful middle infielder.

Beane managed to upgrade his offense without even dipping into his pitching. And he may do it again if the much-rumoured Frank Thomas signing comes true. That's pretty impressive, and something one wishes Sabean could do, find talent to improve the offense without spending a ton of money or moving useful pitching.

"Offerman is a guy who can clearly still hit. His numbers don't indicate that this year." -Steve Lyons, FOX baseball announcer

by Minstrel on Dec 14, 2005 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Stolen from a poster at Athletics Nation....

Past texas league MVP's

1999- Adam Piatt, Midland (.345 AVG, 39 HR, 135 RBI)
2000- Keith Ginter, Round Rock (.333 AVG, 26 HR, 92 RBI)
2001- Jason Lane, Round Rock
2002- Chad Tracy, El Paso
2003- Justin Leone, San Antonio
2004- Ryan Shealy, Tulsa
2005- Andre Ethier, Midland (.316 AVG, 18 HR, 79 RBI)...

There's a lot of apples and oranges up there, but it makes me warm 'n' fuzzy.

by Grant on Dec 14, 2005 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello my Baby, Hello my Sweetheart....

I only recall Rodman as being odd, not disruptive. That's like assuming the multi-tattooed guy with piercings will do something to you.

A better example would be Artest; the Pacers plans for the future are all up in the air because of his problems and attitudes. Sprewell would be another example. T.O. would be the football equivalent.

If Bradley was the last piece that the A's needed, yes, I would concede that they will get their value out of him. However, I feel they have a lesser team than any of the other A's teams of the past 7-8 years or so and they couldn't get to the League Championship Series, let alone the World Series with their better teams. He could become a Sprewell who divides the lockerroom or a T.O. who distracts the other players from performing their best. So maybe he performs well on the field.

And I realize that there's no real way to measure how a negative influence affects the other players, but knowing from my work experience the detrimental effects a lousy co-worker can have on my productivity, I have no doubt that if he brings his troubles to the A's, it will disrupt them.

And I believe more when than if he brings trouble, he knew he was being watched for his behavior the past two years and yet he couldn't control himself to even be a semi-model citizen. It is the rare player who can grow up and mature on the bright lights of the stage while you are in the lights.

I don't think Bradley's that guy; even with the recent controversy with Kent, he just kept on making it worse. What sight is there that this type of behavior will stop? I don't see any. I only see it getting worse, like how Sprewell and T.O. were quiet and seeminly humble at first but then their behavior became more and more outrageous and outspoken. I'm just glad it's the A's problem and not our problem.

by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Dec 15, 2005 7:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello my Baby, Hello my Sweetheart....

I only recall Rodman as being odd, not disruptive. That's like assuming the multi-tattooed guy with piercings will do something to you.

He was considered a cancer, which is why the Pistons traded him to the Spurs for nothing and the Spurs traded him to the Bulls for nothing. He famously kicked a sideline cameraman during a game. He frequently left his team to go to Vegas. He was considered far more disruptive than Bradley.

And if you consider Sprewell a good example, after leaving Golden State in a firestorm of controversy, he was a near model citizen with the Knicks.

If Bradley was the last piece that the A's needed, yes, I would concede that they will get their value out of him. However, I feel they have a lesser team than any of the other A's teams of the past 7-8 years or so and they couldn't get to the League Championship Series, let alone the World Series with their better teams.

I think their 2006 team is shaping up to be their best team since 2001. They have arguably the best pitching staff in baseball (counting rotation and bullpen) and they had an average offense last year, in terms of runs scored. One could absolutely make the argument that Bradley is the last piece. Or, second-to-last piece, if Beane signs Frank Thomas.

With arguably the best pitching in baseball, adding Bradley and Thomas to an average offense makes them a serious championship contender.

I think Bradley is a bit of a risk, but I think the concept of "bad characters" destroying a team is mostly an urban myth.

The 1970s three-peat Oakland A's champions were famously fighting constantly. The Chicago White Sox just won a title with a much greater jerk than Bradley, in my opinion, in AJ Pierzynski. Many argue Bonds is a bad character, with justification, and I think we all realize that the Giants are a far better team with him.

Considering Oakland needed offensive talent to mount a serious threat to the Angels and to winning the AL, I think buying low on Bradley was a very smart risk. You have to take risks, if you don't want to give up key talent you already possess.

"Offerman is a guy who can clearly still hit. His numbers don't indicate that this year." -Steve Lyons, FOX baseball announcer

by Minstrel on Dec 15, 2005 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Trade

Talent wise this is a clear win for the A's. They are in a win-now mode (after one year off) and this improves their big league club at two positions (CF/RF and backup MI). Bradley and Perez will probably cost a combined $3.5M this year at most. It also gives them the opportunity to trade Kotsay or Payton if they're overwhelmed. From looking at the stats and reading about Ethier it looks like he projects as a solid LF starter, but doesn't have the tools to be an all-star. Since the A's now have Swisher, Kotsay, Bradley, Johnson and some of their other minor league OF/1B/DH types like Barton, losing Ethier isn't a big deal.

In Colletti's defense, if everyone in the organization told him he had to trade Bradley because of his problems down there, he wasn't going to get equal value back. And Perez wasn't exactly crucial with all the 2B/3B backup types they have. At least he got somebody back who will probably help his club when all his other minor leaguers are ready in the next couple of years. Another offer I heard was Todd Walker, which wouldn't of done much in the short run and been worse than Ethier in the long run.

I think this could be one of those wins for both teams.

by Nick Schulte on Dec 14, 2005 7:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs