For me, they would need to take Farnsworth and Betancourt as well. And kick in a couple mil (5).

Realistically, you cannot do this deal without losing 2 bad contracts (Guillen and Farns/Betancourt/Cruz) and getting something good and cheap in return (I don’t know what they could offer though). We are talking like a 10 million difference. That should be enough to kill the deal.

The issue here is being on the hook for 2 years $20 million instead of 1 year $12 million. Would the Royals be interested in saving $2 million this year at the expense of $10 million next year? Probably not unless the Cubs kick in some cash.

But make no mistake – there really is no comparison between the two.

Guillen career line: .322/.442/.764
Bradley career line: .371/.450/..821

More importantly, the last two years:

Guillen – 2008: 0.2 WAR, UZR/150: -5.6
                 2009: -2.0 WAR, UZR/150: -48.4

Bradley – 2008: 4.5 WAR, UZR/150: 14.6
                 2009: 1.0 WAR, UZR/150: -6.9

If the Cubs kick in a few million or more for next year this trade should be done in a heartbeat.

not ONE single word that implies Chicago has made a bit of contact with Dayton Moore about Bradley.

I read and re-read the clip. Then clicked through to CNNsi and read the full article. Aside from the CNNsi writer (Heyman?) include Guillen as a “bad contract”…there is nothing whatsoever that implies KC has had a shred of contact over this.

Multiple teams are in contact the Cubs about outfielder Milton Bradley, with one source saying, "You would be shocked at the level of interest."

The Cubs remain confident that they can trade Bradley without assuming the vast majority of the $21 million remaining on his contract over the next two years.

New owner Tom Ricketts has set a limit for how much money the Cubs will include in a deal, one source says. The Cubs can take back a contract but pay only a fixed amount of cash.

First is that both teams keep their players and they perform at the level they did last year.
In that case the Royals are out $21 Million(12 mil base salary + -2WAR) in value for next year, while the Cubs lose $12 million(21 mil base salary + +2 WAR) over the next 2 years.

Second, the teams swap, and the players perform the same.
Same numbers as above, just for different teams. This actually hurts the Royals more since they possibly lose having someone in RF in 2011 that could provide better than -7 million in value. However, I STRESS possibly, if the Royals don’t have anyone then they will likely be getting what they pay for in a replacement player.

Third, the teams swap but Bradley rebounds.
This is the interesting possibility because there is a LOT to be considered.

How well does Bradley perform? There are 2 options, the first is that his year in Texas wasn’t a fluke and was close to how he could perform when healthy (keeping in mind his ridiculous .396 BABIP that year) then he is likely a 3.5-4 win player, if that is the case, then Bradley is worth $15million(21 mil base salary + 7 WAR) over 2 years. Certainly not bad, and worth the salary.
The other is that he performs closer to his 06/07 self (Note: Bill James has him hitting almost identical to his 2006 campaign[side note: Bill James is notoriously optimistic]). If thats the case then he ends up being worth about 2.5 WAR per year, which basically breaks even with his contract (1.5 mil in value)

the fourth and final possibility is that the Royals simply cut Guillen and eat his salary.
This would be great if the Royals had some young cheap player who could put up 2-2.5 Wins in RF and essentially nullify Guillens contract.
Problem is the Royals dont. The three options they do have Bloomquist, Maier and Fields, are all replacement level at best. Neither Maier nor Bloomquists bats would play in right, and Fields probably couldn’t live up to his name. So this likely forces the Royals to just take a -12mil value hit for one year.

In Short the Royals have really two moves: The low risk/low reward cut of Guillen just to save 9 million next year. Or the trade for Bradley which is the definition of high risk/high reward.

Personally I’d gamble with Bradley. Its dicey, you are hoping a malcontent 31-year old can refind his mojo, while not being a bad influence on young players and ignoring Hillman. But the potential reward is turning a position that going to probably be a sinkhole for the next two years into some decent production, and maybe even getting your moneys worth.

maybe Dayton could trick Hendry into giving up Hak-Ju Lee instead of cash.

Milton would be around for another year…uhg.

the question to ask is would you sign Bradley for 2 years at 4.5 million per year.

I say yes – it gets us closer to being a good team, and 4.5 million is a good price to gamble on a hitter who at worse might be worth that – and at best might be a flat-out bargain at that price.