Writers have become wise, and have ditched the use of the term “imminent” when discussing a potential Milton Bradley trade – but the most recent report fromĀ Bruce Levine might as well say imminent.

Sooner or later, and most likely as soon as this week, beleaguered Milton Bradley will be traded to the Tampa Bay Rays for Pat Burrell.

However, the perception the Cubs will have more money to spend on free agents and trades by moving Bradley is false. Bradley and Burrell will make $9 million in 2010 — that’s a wash — whatever money Jim Hendry saves on Bradley’s 2011 contract will not impact $1 of his 2010 payroll. Bradley’s owed $12.5 million in 2011. If Hendry can save $6.5 million by eating $6 million, that will only help the person running the 2011 team.

This last point by Levine is one of those that makes you go “oh yeah, wow, why didn’t I think of that?”

And then you realize why you didn’t think of it: because it’s unbelievably wrong.

We all get that trading Bradley to the Rays for Pat Burrell won’t save the Cubs any payroll space for 2010. And that would be a splendid point to make if the Cubs had any intention at all of keeping Pat Burrell. HELLO! The plan is to trade Burrell. Surely it is conceivable that the Cubs could save some payroll space on that trade. Isn’t that the whole point?

Let’s hope Levine is not as wrong about the trade going down soon.

  • KB

    Burrell is nearly as untradeable as Bradley, so how would this move benefit the Cubs?

    • Ace

      Two possible answers: (a) the Cubs would only do it if they already had a trade lined up for Burrell; or (b) the Cubs are so vehemently opposed to having Bradley back that they’ll take a downgrade to Burrell, and pay the same money.