According to Sky Andrecheck of Sports Illustrated (Is “Sky” really his first name?), the Cubs are the (not so) proud owners of two of the worst contracts in all of baseball. Andrecheck starts with the undisputed worst contract, that of Toronto Blue Jays center fielder Vernon Wells. Then he turns his attention to the second worst; the contract of Alfonso Soriano.
2. Alfonso Soriano, OF, Cubs; 5 years, $85 million remaining. After Soriano’s massive 2006 season in Washington, the Cubs signed him to an even more massive contract in 2007. Soriano produced in his first two years but, as so often happens with aging players, he experienced a major drop-off in production last year. Next year, he’ll be 34 and will have five years left on his contract at $17 million per. During his prime years from 2004 through 2009, Soriano has put up an OPS of .843 — about 12 percent better than league average. It would be bad enough if the Cubs were paying him $17 million for that production, but it’s almost a sure bet that Soriano’s hitting will drop off considerably during the next five years. Not to mention that his already poor defense will also be in decline. While Soriano will likely improve in 2010 over his poor performance last year, the long view is grim over the next five years — his value certainly isn’t close to the $85 million he’s owed.
Trade Outlook: Unlikely. The Cubs don’t seem to be shopping Soriano, and his contract is probably too big to trade.
It’s hard to argue with most of what Andrecheck says about Soriano. He is an aging ballplayer whose legs are starting to go. And considering that his legs are a big part of his game, that’s not a good thing.
The only thing I would take exception to is Andrecheck’s contention that “it’s almost a sure bet that Soriano’s hitting will drop off considerably during the next five years.” Soriano’s hitting may drop off over the next five years. No one should be surprised if it does drop off. But to say it’s “almost a sure bet” is probably overstating the situation. It’s a minor point, but it bothers me when sportswriters (or anyone else) is so sure about something they can’t possibly know for sure.
The other top ten worst contracts that the Cubs own belongs to the newest Cub, Carlos Silva. Andrecheck has some interesting things to say about Silva, his contract, and the deal that brought them both to Chicago.
4. Carlos Silva, SP, Cubs; 2 years, $25 million remaining. The Mariners signed Silva to a 4-year $48 million contract from Minnesota after a fine 2007 season. What they got was the Silva of 2006, in which he posted a 5.94 ERA. In two years in Seattle, Silva has thrown 184 innings and put up an atrocious 6.84 ERA. He was injured for most of 2009, and saw limited action when he returned in September. While Silva was perhaps once a decent No. 3 starter, those days appear to be over for the 31-year-old righty. Simply put, Silva was dead weight in Seattle. Miraculously, the Mariners unloaded him by eating just $9 million of the $25 million remaining on his contract. Of course, they also had to take on Milton Bradley and his bloated contract. So who was the winner in that coal-for-coal deal? The Cubs are now carrying the bigger lump. Silva is nearly a lost cause who was a fair bet to be released sometime in 2010. Meanwhile, the 32-year-old Bradley is almost assured to provide some decent value to a major league team if he can stay healthy. In essence, the Mariners traded $6 million and a near-worthless starting pitcher for two years of an above-average-hitting starting outfielder. Even considering Bradley’s attitude, that’s a good deal. As for the Cubs, it certainly seems that they could have gotten more than a lost-cause starting pitcher in return.
Trade Outlook: Already unloaded. If the Cubs can turn around and deal Silva, they should jump at the chance. However, it’s hard to imagine many takers.
I have a lot of trouble with what Andrecheck has to say. Let’s start where Andrecheck writes “Meanwhile, the 32-year-old Bradley is almost assured to provide some decent value to a major league team if he can stay healthy.” Excuse me, Sky, but Bradley stayed healthy in 2009 and not only didn’t provide decent value to his team, but his behavior issues provided a season long distraction. Don’t believe me? Check it out. It was in all the papers.
Then there’s this contention: “In essence, the Mariners traded $6 million and a near-worthless starting pitcher for two years of an above-average-hitting starting outfielder. Even considering Bradley’s attitude, that’s a good deal.” No, Sky, it’s not a good deal. Just ask any team where Bradley has played. You’ll note that even when the Cubs were offering to pay a big chuck of Bradley’s salary, teams weren’t exactly lining up. If Bradley is truly an “above-average-hitting starting outfielder,” why did so few teams — even teams with a definite need for an outfielder– not show an interest in Bradley when the Cubs were willing to pay someone to take him? It’s because he is 1) not an “above-average-hitting starting outfielder, and 2) he’s a head case.
Finally, Andrecheck says, “As for the Cubs, it certainly seems that they could have gotten more than a lost-cause starting pitcher in return.” Oh really? Were you out of the country during the Winter Meetings, Sky? Did you not realize the Cubs were willing to pay teams multi-million dollars to take on Bradley and his attitude?
I have to plead guilty to having this naive opinion at one time myself. But to continue to hold this opinion after seeing team after team turn down Jim Hendry’s efforts to move Bradley, is simply delusional. There’s far too much evidence to the contrary to think that Hendry could have made a better deal than he made.
Let’s use an example. The San Fransico Giants hold Aaron Rowand’s contract which guarantees him $36 million over the next three years. The contract is so bad that Andrecheck included it at number 8 on his list of the 10 worst contracts in baseball. Hendry was reportedly willing to take on Rowand and his entire contract in exchange for the Giants taking on Bradley. Giants GM Brian Sabean refused, stating that he wanted no part of Bradley. If Hendry couldn’t trade Bradley for one of the worst contracts in the game, then how can Andrecheck expect the Cubs to get something better than a “lost-cause starting pitcher” for Bradley?
Finally, after saying all of these wonderful things about Bradley – about how he’s an “above-average hitting starting outfielder,” a player who is “almost assured to provide some decent value to a major league team,” and a guy that the Cubs should have gotten more value for – Andrecheck lists Bradley’s contract as the 10th worst in all of baseball. What? If what Andrecheck said about Bradley in his write-up about Silva is true (it’s not), then how can he say that Bradley’s contract is among baseball’s 10 worst?
Andrecheck starts out his write-up of Bradley by saying, “Bradley is one of the most prominent lumps of coal out there.” Sky, my friend, I can’t say much good about your list, but at least you got that part right.
