The Cubs can scratch Akinori Iwamura off their wish list this off season. The former Tampa Bay Rays second baseman was traded yesterday to Pittsburgh for 26-year old relief pitcher Jesse Chavez. The Cubs can now turn their attention to signing free agent Orlando Hudson.
Missing out on Iwamura is not a big blow to the Cubs. He would have been a good fit, but there are other options. The thing I don’t understand is why Pittsburgh was so hot-to-trot to get Iwamura. He’s a nice player, but he’s 31 years old, is only signed for one more year, and will cost the Bucs $4.85 million. The Pirates are a self-confessed “team in rebuild mode” with a plan for the future to build around prospects and the farm system. So how does Iwamura fit into that plan?
To make matters worse, Pittsburgh gave up Jesse Chavez, a 26-year old who just completed his rookie year by leading the Pirates and all MLB rookie relievers in appearances with 73. Most people agree that Chavez has the tools to be a very effective bullpen arm. Chavez is the type of player the Pirates can build their organization with. He’s not spectacular, but he’s solid with a lot of potential.
Trading for Iwamura was folly for the Pirates and proves once again that they either don’t have a plan for the future or don’t know how to stick to the plan. The once proud organization continues to shoot themselves in the foot. As a Cubs fan, I’m always happy to see Pittsburgh and the Cubs’ other NL Central rivals do silly things. As a baseball fan, it’s sad to see the Pirates make mistake after mistake. Akinori Iwamura may make Pittsburgh a slightly better team in 2010, but acquiring him will hurt them in the long run. And for the Pirates, the long run is where they should be focused.
**********
Last week, there were reports that said the Cubs were in talks with several teams who are interested in trading for Milton Bradley. Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal reported, “Multiple teams are in contact (with) the Cubs about outfielder Milton Bradley, with one source saying, ‘You would be shocked at the level of interest.’” George Castle disagrees. He thinks the Cubs are going to have trouble finding even one trading partner who not only has interest in Bradley, but also has the money to take on his contract (without the Cubs paying for it) and has a decent trading chip.
I don’t always agree with Castle, but I do appreciate the way he thinks through the situation. In this case, he has thought things through and he makes a compelling case that the Cubs are going to have a very difficult time trading Bradley.
“Just do the math by process of elimination. ‘It only takes one,’ said a source, but it’s hard to even identify a logical landing place for Bradley and his hubris. Beyond the obvious concern over Bradley’s temper and lack of sensitivity to the next person, many in the game have pegged him as a DH, believing the Cubs took a big chance trying to play him regularly in right field. If that’s a prevailing logic, the market for Bradley in the National League would start out very limited.”
I think it is unfair to peg Bradley as just a DH. He played a credible right field for the Cubs and he did it without getting injured. However, I know that what Castle says is true. Many in the game view Bradley as a DH because the best season he has had in his 10-year career (2008) was accomplished while DH’ing. He only played 20 games in the outfield, compared to 106 as a DH.
Cubs fans seem to like to debate whether Bradley is the problem child he is portrayed to be, or if he is just a tempermental player (with a high OBP) who was mishandled by Lou Piniella and Jim Hendry. I’ve made it clear that I believe Bradley is a real problem. I have never understood the defenders of Bradley who claim he is just a convenient scapegoat for the Cubs’ problems in 2009.
But if Bradley’s advocates are right, then how do you explain the fact that so few teams have an interest in him? How do you defend the contention that the problem was not so much Bradley, but the way Piniella/Hendry “handled” him when Bradley displayed the same type of behavior under four of the six other managers/GMs he has played for?
What the Cubs are going through right now is an indication of just how disruptive Milton Bradley is to an entire organization. It’s not just an on-field or clubhouse problem. His troubled personality pervades the entire organization. The Cubs front office should be concentrating all of their efforts on improving the team for 2010. Unfortunately, they first have to figure out how to move Bradley. Even in the offseason, he is a distraction.
Let’s hope that the Cubs can find a trading partner who 1) doesn’t insist on the Cubs paying all/most of Bradley’s contract, and 2) has a trading chip that can make the Cubs better. That’s asking a lot, but the Cubs were foolish enough last off season to believe that Bradley could make them better without being a problem. Maybe there’s some other team out their that is so desperate for change that they’ll believe they can “tame” Bradley.
Stay positive, Cubs fans. Remember, it only takes one.
