Earlier this month, Paul Sullivan, among others, suggested that the Chicago Cubs should explore swapping Milton Bradley with Aaron Rowand, from the Giants. Turns out, the Giants would probably do that.

But for what it’s worth, I asked someone on the Giants’ side — someone with veto power — whether he’d approve a straight-up Bradley-for-Rowand deal. And he said yeah, he would. Extra Baggs.

Of course, immediately preceding that was the writer’s speculation that the Giants would not go after Bradley because of anticipated chemistry issues. Sure – the team that let the Jeff Kent Barry Bonds powder keg simmer and explode year after year is worried about chemistry issues. Whatever.

So how does one reconcile the statement from a Giants official that they would make the Rowand/Bradley trade with the fact that they don’t really want Bradley?


Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years, and has been wildly disappointing. Bradley, for all his troubles, is owed just $21 million over two years.

  • Mike

    Do it.

  • http://tenprairiesticks.wordpress.com xolager

    I love these “obsessive watches”. :-)

    Rowand + $36M = Bradley + Baggage + $21M
    -(Bradley + Baggage) = -$21M
    Rowand + $36M = $42M
    Rowand = $6M

    Trading Rowand for Bradley saves you $6M as opposed to dropping Bradley outright. I guess the question is could the Cubs get a player as good as Rowand for $6M over three years?

    • Ace

      I’m not sure I agree with your math there, but I like where your head is at.


      Bradley is the far superior player. Doesn’t that have to factor in there somewhere?

      • http://tenprairiesticks.wordpress.com xolager

        No doubt about it…

  • Pingback: Not Qualified To Comment » Qualified Links()