Comments on: OMGranderson AND Obsessive Bradley Trade Watch: Resolution at the Winter Meetings?

By: Ace

Ace — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:41:52 +0000

Indeed. The third year as an “option,” was merely protection from a catastrophic injury to Bradley in the 2009 season. Unfortunately, catastrophic doucheyness was not considered.

By: jstraw

jstraw — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:01:21 +0000

No. He appeared in the requisite 75 games and the third year was triggered. We owe him all the money.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:18:55 +0000

Isn’t the 3rd year of Bradley’s contract just an option? Wouldn’t that mean the cubs could decline the last, and most expensive, year of the contract and then ship him off somewhere… it just seems that a one year contract at maybe 5-7 mil would help involve more teams in to free up room

By: Ace

Ace — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:26:56 +0000

That would be swell, depending on how the relevant AL team values Fox. Not everyone is convinced that he’s got a ML bat.

By: juniorbors

juniorbors — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:26:18 +0000

I would like to see fox moved to the American league in this proposed trade. I think it is there where he would excel by getting the needed at bats while batting dh and playing the field. He will not get the at bats with the cubs team as currently constructed.

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:49:41 +0000

I’m still not convinced Fox has a ML bat (let alone glove), given his slide once the league saw him more, and once he started playing more regularly. I could be convinced, but not yet.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:40:03 +0000

It also leaves one less place for Jake Fox to get at-bats. He might not be much of a fielder, but the guy can rake and needs to get 400 or so at-bats somehow.