Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    vCash
    1500

    Milton Bradley this past season

    I was wondering if you guys heard of any problems with Bradley this past season in the locker room or on the field? I really like him and think he gets a bad wrap. Any insight you guys can provide from this last season would be awesome.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    23,439
    vCash
    1500
    Solid player, was fine in the clubhouse, but his injuries are just frustrating and make him not worth anything more than a 1 year deal. He's been injured his whole career, not likely to change as he ages.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,425
    vCash
    1500
    From all of the reports I read on Bradley this year, he was well respected by his teammates. The only issue he had (outside of injuries) was when he almost kicked a Kansas City reporters tail.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13
    vCash
    1500
    yeah, but it was deserved. I just get sick of people bashing him for being a bad guy in the club house. If they don't want to bring him in because of injuries, it makes sense. But the guy was fine this year it appears.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, La
    Posts
    422
    vCash
    1500
    From all reports he was a good teammate, was well liked and brought a needed intensity to the group. Certainly missing 30 games and only being available for limited duty in others was problematic.... but the lineup was much better with him at cleanup and Hamilton batting 3rd.... I wouldnt mind signing him for a 2 year contract with a 3rd year option/buyout....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    23,439
    vCash
    1500
    I don't see and point, or chance of signing bradley. We already have a guy slated to play DH who is injury prone himself. Blalock comes at a cheaper price that bradley, aand I just don't like the idea of giving Bradley multiple years, it would just create a log jam for the younger guys. This team has enough bats, you could get 2 solid relievers for what you would spend on Bradley.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    1,332
    vCash
    1500
    I agree with Y2K

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, La
    Posts
    422
    vCash
    1500
    Certainly, if the Rangers are really going to keep Blalock (not trade); then use him almost exclusively at DH (which will really hurt potential trade value); and then move Davis back to first (keep it warm for Smoak?); then there is no spot for Bradley.....

    It goes back to I would rather Davis see if can play third, give Blalock the chance to do his normal fast start, he will not be here in 2010 (either trade or will not re-sign)..... let Smoak get some more experience AA.... sign Bradley for the DH/cleanup spot.... keeping Hamilton at 3rd spot in the lineup... Bradley with his high OPS should give Davis batting 5th and Blalock 6th lots of RBI opportunities....

    I think we will still need to bludgeon teams into submission next year with a massive offensive attack (cheaper verson of Manny argument), while letting some of our young pitching mature......

    As for reliever..... I like the idea of bringing in a veteran closer on the cheap... like Fuentes or Cordero to compete with Frank Francisco and C.J. Wilson and use as short guys.... but otherwise fill the reliever roles with guys currently on the roster.... Assuming that Padilla, Millwood, Feldman, Harrison are the first 4 starters and that we add at least one pitcher via trade of catcher... then Rupe, Madrigal, Littleton, Nippert, Gabbard, McCarthy, Hurley, Gordon, Hunter all have big league experience and could fill the middle and long roles - usually 5 middle and long guys.

    I dont think signing Bradley would keep us from signing a Fuentes or Cordero... and it does not seem that we are in the K-rod sweepstakes, not to mention, hopefully we trade for more than one pitcher.....

    I just think it gives us more options and a much better offensive team.... yes the defense would be better with Davis at 1st and Metcalf at 3rd and that might be the way to go..... but if Smoak really is the next Texiera (hopefully with better attitude) then Davis will probably be moved either via trade or to a new position to allow for Smoak. The following lineup would easily top the league in offense.....

    2009 lineup

    Kinsler - 2b
    Young - SS
    Hamilton - CF
    Bradley - DH
    Davis - 3rd
    Blalock - 1st
    Cruz - RF
    Murphy - LF
    Teagarden - C

    That being said I am not as passionate about re-signing Bradley.... as I am about finding someplace Davis can play along with Smoak.... and if Cruz continues to bash and Bourbon and Beltre on the way (if one or both are not included in a trade for pitching) the outfield is fairly crowded (so LF would not be a great fit).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,425
    vCash
    1500
    Bradley is rumored to be asking for $10+ a season. First, I don't think he is going to get that. Secondly, the Rangers need to spend their money on pitching. Thanks, but no thanks.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    23,439
    vCash
    1500
    Alan, when you have a guy who is producing in the bigs like Davis, you don't move him around trying to let a guy in the minors keep his position. Davis has the potential to be an above average defender at 1st, and thats HIS position. Smoak will either adjust, or more than likely, stay where he projects as a decent defensive player at best, and fall into a DH role. The problem at 3rd will be solved soon enough when they move Young or Kinsler there in 2010, since Andrus will be coming to play SS. They just need a stop gap at 3rd, not Davis... here is what im thinking for a lineup in the near future...

    CF- Julio Borbon
    2B- Michael Young
    3B- Ian Kinsler
    RF- Josh Hamilton
    1B- Chris Davis
    C- Teagarden/Max/one of our 1000 catchers
    DH- Justin Smoak
    LF- Cruz/Murphy/Beltre
    SS- Elvis Andrus

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    3,248
    vCash
    1500
    Should have traded him while we had the chance....
    2012 Texas Rangers Offseason

    "I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never” -Rafael Palmeiro (4 Months before testing positive for steroids)

    Texas Rangers 2010-11 American League Champions!

    Indianapolis Colts Super Bowl XLI Champions!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, La
    Posts
    422
    vCash
    1500
    Smoak is supposed to be a plus defender while Davis is average at best, he played third last year (and the majority of the time in the minors) so that would not be moving him around. As far as I know, Smoak has not played any other position.... Certainly, Davis could develop into an above average defender at 1st.... but right now no one is raving about his defensive skills at 1st (just his bat).

    As far as moving players to allow younger players to keep their position, it happens all the time... Paul Molitor played every infield position and even played 50 games in the outfield in the prime of his career. You are also wanting to move our gold glove SS around to let a guy in the minors keep his position (which by the way I also think is the right move) and it might be Davis as the DH when that happens.... Not to mention your proposed lineup has Hamilton in right field and Bourbon in cf (which I also think is correct). The point is you try to put guys in the field in a position that will best help the team to win.... Admittedly, having metcalf at 3rd and Davis at 1st and Blalock at DH is better defensively.... but offensively it would be better to have Davis at 3rd, Blalock at 1st and Bradley at DH.... Unless something drastic happens to our pitching staff, we may have to beat teams into submission in order to be competitive next year.

    Then if Smoak really is all that the "experts" claim (he is now rated higher than Andrus) and he is ready sometime next year, we can trade either Blalock or Bradley to a contender when you can get a better return. Bradley was not classified as a Type A free agent... so we do not get any draft picks if he signs somewhere else.... I am not saying break the bank to sign him, if someone offers him 5 year 50 mil then you let him go, but 3 years with the 3rd year having a buyout and the contract loaded with performance incentives that can go as high as 9-10 mil based on number of games played, etc. would not be bad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •