Rather than bump the desolated previous threads on the subject, we'll try this again cleanly from the opposite approach.

Bruce Miles's take on the "rumor" follows:

"Today, a Cubs person reacted with incredulity to the report, asking if anybody really thinks the Cubs would take on the kind of money Wells has coming as part of a ridiculous seven-year, $126 million contract that runs through 2014. (The Cubs already have an outfielder of their own with a ridiculous contract.)"

"So the bottom line is that there are no "legs" or any other body parts to this rumor. It is not happening. "

"Aside from the money, Wells has declined offensively and is terrible defensively..."

"The Cubs will trade Bradley, but they aren't going to do anything so monumentally dumb like trading him to Toronto for Vernon Wells."

The only way that made any sense for the Cubs to do that was if the Jays were going to eat atleast 1/3 of Wells remaining contract...........actually closer to 1/2 or if Ricketts was going to have an unlimited payroll.

It'd have to be a lot more than half too... He's not an $11M player anymore, either. He's not a person you want under contract for 5 more years. Everything about this was bad.

Good news. I'm sure there will be dozoens of other internet rumors regarding Bradley this offseason. Glad this one had absolutely zero merit.

So rcs777 said that it was definitely true that Hendry was talking about trading for Wells, that Wells would be a trade that makes sense for the Cubs, and that Wells was very good defensively. To all of these points, Miles and his Cubs sources strongly disagree. What to trust, what to trust...

Absolutely. I was sure of it all along - and easy to say as it made zero sense - but now that Halloween has passed I hope it's a subject (so monumentally dumb) that will die and stay dead.

If it is monumentally dumb, doesn't that increase the odds that the Cubs will do it?

I thought Wells was a good defensive OF?
Or are his gold gloves the gold gloves that for some reason get awarded to the best hitting OF?
Or has he just slipped that far on D?
I could swear I've seen some great catches by the guy , maybe his overall play is not good and he just comes up with some great catches?
I honestly have not followed him all that much.
Just wondering how a 3 time GG winner is horrible on D.

"I thought Wells was a good defensive OF?"

Nope, not anymore at least. Yes, Gold Gloves are won on reputation/familiarity and offense, sad to say. But he was also once very good and has indeed slipped that far.

"If it is monumentally dumb, doesn't that increase the odds that the Cubs will do it?"

Sadly this has been the case far too often. However in this instance, I think that it is so clear that this would be a huge mistake, that even Jim Hendry will realize that we want no part of Vernon Wells.

I never said the trade was going to happen or not, but I'm not so naive to believe that talks weren't taking place. Of course they are going to deny specifics that were detailed. The Toronto Sun should be ashamed of themselves.;) What I did say is that he would be an improvement over what we have now.

He hasn't 'fell off' defensively, Timmy. This is an agenda thread.

So you believe the Toronto Sun, or whomever it was, over Bruce Miles (closest ties in media to the Cubs front office) who said that there were no Wells discussions and it was never a possibility?

As for defense, what agenda are you accusing Bruce of pushing...?

I don't doubt that the Blue Jays contacted Hendry and offered up Wells, nor do I doubt that several other teams have contacted Hendry to offer up their worst contracts in exchange for Bradley. Point is, there is no way that we actually consummate the Wells deal 1:1 without a hefty sum of cash to boot. Yes, let's effectively put the kibosh on this one...

If we had the money to do it, I'd be concerned b/c Hendry isn't the brightest bulb of the bunch, but considering we don't have the money to do this, I'm not at all concerned about it.

The White Sox taking on Alex Rios' contract was just as terrible as this move and they still did it! ha, poor saps.

Rios, though a very poor waiver claim, is much better than this. He's $40M cheaper in the same time frame, a couple years younger, better defensively and more likely to rebound into a productive offensive season.

True, except that Rios is one of the bigger d-bags in baseball. So that has to factor in somehow.

As was said, no way the Cubs enter into a Steinbrenner era, this will become the "accountability" era. I was perplexed by the Rios deal as well -- they already had a couple good defensive CFs who couldn't hit a lick, without the hefty price tag. I think they may have (or would have had) ~20 mil coming off the payroll for '10, but that money could have been much better spent.

It may factor in to how much the player appeals to you. If there is equal production available, you'd always rather avoid the d-bags. But it doesn't factor into actual worth.

You said you played SEC baseball, didn't you? So you had all sorts of d-bags on your teams. Did it actually effect you? I'd say probably not. And if it DID, it's likely a factor in why you're not playing any more... Point is, how much you like the guy doesn't matter very much. "Chemistry" is overrated, as any firsthand account will attest.

Emotions run high when you're doing very well or very poorly... When you're doing very well you're winning so there's this magical "good chemistry." When you're doing poorly, everyone is frustrated and irritated so there's evil "bad chemistry." It doesn't exist. It's perceived. Unless you're wickedly talented, the mentally and emotionally weak don't make it very far.

That tangent said... yeah, Rios is a d-bag and that's nothing less than the kicker in why you avoid the terrible contract.