Joe Posnanski recently wrote an article for Sports Illustrated detailing his HOF ballot.  Although he once again makes the case that Andre Dawson does not belong in the Hall of Fame, the article is still worth reading.  He has a unique way of looking at baseball.  As I’ve said in the past, he’s a terrific writer, but I’m still trying to come to grips with his perspectives.

A couple of other articles I found interesting were Jayson Stark’s explanation of his Hall of Fame ballot and Tim Kurkjian’s defense of his vote for Andre Dawson. 

**********

The Cardinals signed Matt Holliday to a 7-year/$119 million contract yesterday.  The contract may also contain a no trade clause, but I haven’t seen that reported anywhere.  I just know that was a sticking point in previous contract negotiations.

Obviously, the Cards are better with Holliday than without him, but I just don’t see him having that kind of value.  In many ways, The Cards signing of Holliday mirrors the Cubs signing of Alfonso Soriano.  They apparently bid against themselves and paid so much for Holliday that in a few years, the contract is going to be untradeable and the Cards are going to be stuck with him.

The real question now is, what does Holliday’s signing mean for the Cardinals long-term plans for Albert Pujols.  Most reports this off season have suggested that the Cards needed to sign Holliday to show Pujols that they are serious about staying competitive.  But a few writers have suggested that the Cardinals decided to spend the money on Holliday now because they already know that they aren’t going to be able to keep Pujols long-term.  I don’t know which is true, but it makes for some interesting speculation.

**********

The Boston Red Sox announced that they will be moving Jacoby Ellsbury to left field to make room for Mike Cameron.  According to the report from ESPN Boston, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein said, “It’s more to do with Cameron’s experience, and Ellsbury’s ability to play a dynamic left field. This is not necessarily a permanent arrangement, or a long-term arrangement. But we think Cameron is still an elite center fielder … and that’s the best way to go for now.”

Ellsbury’s “ability to play a dynamic left field?”  What does that mean?  And is calling Mike Cameron an “elite center fielder” a little over the top.  He’s good, but I don’t think he’s ever been viewed as “elite”.  Plus, if he ever was elite, I don’t think he’s still elite at age 37.

For his part, Ellsbury was not particularly happy about the move.  Boston manager Terry Francona (who I like to call “Tito”) said, ”He (Ellsbury) was probably a little disappointed, which is what I expected, but with Cameron’s long strides and Jacoby’s quickness, we have a chance to have a real dynamic outfield here.”

There’s that “dynamic” word again.  At least we know that Theo and Tito are reading the same talking points.  It sounds like the entire press conference was put toogether by a PR firm rather than a baseball organization.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that chosing Cameron over Ellsbury for center field may mean that Boston is beginning the process of separating themselves from Ellsbury.  That’s just conjecture on my part, but I think it’s fair to say that by most standards, Ellsbury doesn’t hit enough to be an “elite” corner outfielder.  Now that he’s in left field, Boston may start looking for a player with a little more power.  If they do and Ellsbury becomes expendable, I hope the Cubs are waiting in the wings to scoop him up.

Trade Candidates

Melky Cabrera — After trading for Curtis Granderson, the Yankees suddenly have a surplus of good, young outfielders.  They may be interested in trading either Cabrera or Brett Gardner.  If the Cubs could snag Cabrera, they would be getting a guy that hit .274/.336/.416 for the Yankees in 2009 with 13 homeruns and 68 RBI.   The switch hitting Cabrera is just 25-years old and earned $1.4 million in 2009.  As a fielder, UZR/150 says he’s just slightly above average, posting a rating of 2.3.  UPDATE: Cabrera has been traded to the Braves, so he’s now off the board.

Shin-Soo Choo — Choo is a 27-year old outfielder from Korea.  Last year with the Indians, Choo hit .300/.394/.489 with 20 homeruns and 86 RBI.  He also had 21 stolen bases and was caught just twice.  It was the best year of his major league career.  He is currently listed as the Indians starting right fielder, but Matt LaPorte is breathing down his neck and Cleveland may be interested in trading him.  Choo has only played a handful of games in center field, but he’s been an above-average left fielder in his career and an average right fielder, so I’m assuming he can handle center field.  Choo earned $420,300 in 2009 and is likely due for a raise.

Rajai Davis — The Oakland A’s are stock full of outfielders, potentially making Rajai Davis available.  Davis hit .305/.360/.423 with  3 homeruns and 48 RBI in 390 ABs.  he also had 41 stolen bases and was caught stealing 12 times.  UZR/150 likes Davis, giving him a 17.8 rating in center field in 2009.  The 29-year old davis (he’s not a kid) earned $410,000 in 2009 and will likely be in line for an increase in 2010.  Jim Hendry and Billy Beane have worked well together on deals in the past.  Might the get together this off season on Davis? 

Jacoby Ellsbury — Ellsbury could be the odd man out in Boston now that the Red Sox have signed center fielder Mike Cameron.  It’s unclear where Ellsbury will end up playing or even if he’ll be starting.  In 2009, Ellsbury hit .301/.355/.415 with 8 homeruns and 60 RBI.  He also stole an impressive 70 bases while getting caught just 12 times.  He’d look good at the top of the Cubs batting order.  Ellsbury gets gigged for his 2009 UZR/150 rating of  -18.3, but I’m not buying it.  Chris Moore at BaseballAnalysts.com took a look at Ellsbury’s defense and concluded that UZR/150 probably missed the boat.  Ellsbury is just 26-years old and could fill center field for the Cubs for years to come.  And at just $449,500 per year (his 2009 salary), he’s a bargain.

Dexter Fowler — Fowler is a good looking young ballplayer (I sound like Harry Caray) who hit .266/.363/.406 with 4 homeruns and 34 RBI in 2009 for Colorado.  He’s just 23-years old and is coming off his rookie season with a lot of promise.  UZR/150 didn’t like his fielding much, giving him just a -20.3 rating.  Fowler is currently blocked in center field in Colorado by Carlos Gonzalez, another promising youngster.  There’s no guarantee that Fowler is going to follow up his rookie campaign by continuing to develop, but I think it would be a fairly safe risk for the Cubs, especially considering that he is so inexpensive (he earned just $401,000 2009).

Brett Gardner — Who would you take from the Yankees, Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner?  In 2009, Gardner hit .270/.345/.379 with 3 homeruns, 23 RBI and 26 stolen bases in 248 ABs.  He’s a terrific center fielder with a career UZR/150 rating of 27.6.  In a crowded Yankees line-up, it’s tough to say who will be the odd-man out, but it appears to be either Cabrera or Gardner.  Could Gardner be the Cubs center fielder of 2010 and beyond?

Gary Matthews, Jr — The Angels badly want to trade Matthews.  Here’s what the Cubs should consider:  He’s not much of a hitter anymore, he’s not a very good fielder anymore, and he’s very expensive.  Need I say more?

Nyjer Morgan — Washington acquired Morgan last year from Pittsburgh.  He put together a good year between the two teams, posting a hitting line of .307/.369/.388 with 3 homeruns and 39 RBI.  He also stole 42 bases in 2009.  Unfortunately for Morgan, he was stealing third base on August 28 against the Cubs when he broke his hand and missed the remainder of the season.  In 2009, Morgan posted an impressive 40.5 UZR/150 rating.  Not only could he handle center field at Wrigley, but he could also be the lead-off hitter that the Cubs sorely need.  But why would Washington trade him?  Good question.  Unfortunately, at this moment, I don’t have a good answer.  At 29-years old, Morgan is a bit of a late bloomer.  He made just $411,500 in 2009 and is going to be affordable for some time to come.

Cody Ross — Ross is not a kid like a lot of the people on this list.  He’s 29-years old (that’s not that old) and is a bit more of a known quantity than some of the other trade candidates.  What we know is that he hit .270/.321/.484 with 24 homeruns and 90 RBI in 2009 for Florida.  We also know that 2009 was the best year of Ross’ career.  But to be fair, Ross has been coming on strong since 2007.  He primarily plays center field, although he also spent time in right field and is currently listed as the Marlins starting right fielder.  In center field, Ross had a UZR/150 rating of -9.5 in 2009.  Ross earned $2.225 million in 2009 and accepted arbitration for 2010.

Aaron Rowand — San Francisco would like to move Rowand’s contract.  In 2009, the 32-year old center fielder hit .261/.319/.419 with 15 homeruns and 64 RBI.  He had a 1.5 UZR/150 rating and he earned $8 million on a contract that runs through 2012.  He is still owed $36 million.  The Cubs don’t need to bring in an aging outfielder who is on the down-side of his career and making a lot of money.  Although I like Aaron Rowand, I don’t think he is the answer in center field.

Grady Sizemore — To be honest, I don’t think the Indians have any interest in trading Sizemore, but I saw him on another list, so I thought I’d include him.  In 2009, Sizemore hit .248/.338/.445 with 18 homeruns and 64 RBI in what by Sizemore standards was a down year.  Sizemore is signed through 2011 and is owed $13.1 million.  His contract also includes an $8.5 million option in 2012 with a $500,000 buyout.  Sizemore had a -4.0 UZR/150 rating in 2009, but he has a career UZR/150 of 5.4.  I don’t think it matters.  He’s not going anywhere.

Denard Span — Would Minnesota be willing to trade Denard Span?  If so, the Cubs need to get to the front of the line.  In 2009,  the 25-year old Span hit .311/.392/.432 with 8 homeruns and 68 RBI.  And he did it for a cheap $435,000.  UZR/150 gave him a fielding rating of -7.4, but from everything I’ve read, he does a fine job in center field.  He has emerged as one of the top lead-off hitters in baseball and would be a good long-term investment for the Cubs.

Willy Taveras — I’m pretty sure that the Cubs could convince the Reds to trade Taveras for a couple of prospects.  Cincinnati badly needs to cut payroll and the weak hitting Taveras is owed $4 million in 2010.  Trading for Taveras would not be a good move.

Vernon Wells — Okay, I don’t think the Cubs should trade for him and his monster contract either, but I thought he should be listed anyway because he’s available.  I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Wells makes a lot of money.

Chris Young — Young is a 26-year old center fielder for Arizona.  He hit .212/.311/.400 in 2009 with 15 homeruns and 42 RBI.  His UZR/150 rating for 2009 was -9.8.  I’m not as high on Young as some people are.  I do think he has potential, but I’m not convinced he’s ever going to realize that potential.  He’s signed through 2013 and is owed $26.25 million over the next four years.  The contract also includes a club option for 2014 for $11 million with a $1.5 million buyout.  Although I included him in this list, my hope is that the Cubs don’t pursue him.

Eric Young, Jr. – The 24-year old Young is an interesting player for the Cubs.  He plays both second base and center field (just like his dad).  As it turns out, the Cubs need to fill both positions.  At the moment, Young is a reserve for Colorado, but he appears to be ready for prime time.  He only played in 30 games in 2009, and is eligible for Rookie of the Year in 2010.   Trading for Young would be a bit of a risk.  Does he have what it takes to be an all-star caliber big leaguer?

It stinks watching everyone else making deals while the Cubs sit on the sidelines.  The White Sox continued their off season shopping by trading a couple of prospects to the Dodgers for Juan Pierre.  The Dodgers were even good enough to throw in $10 million of the $18 million owed to Pierre over the next two years.

St. Louis made a five-year offer to Matt Holliday at a reported $16 – $18 million per year.  I think that’s crazy money, and in a way I hope Holliday accepts the offer because I think it will cripple the Cardinals financially for years to come, but it’s frustrating to see the Cubs division rival chasing one of the biggest free agents while the Cubs sit back and wait for something to happen.

For the Cubs, the story is the same as it was last week, and the week before that: they need to trade Milton Bradley before they can do anything else.  Actually, that’s not quite acurrate.  They have chosen to wait until Bradley is traded to make any moves. 

Quite honestly, I’m starting to blame Tom Ricketts for the Cubs hesitancy to do anything.  When Ricketts decided to hold the line on payroll (actually, I believe he allowed for a “slight” increase), he tied Jim Hendry’s hands from doing anything to improve the ball club. 

First, very few contracts came off the books at the end of 2009.  The only players to leave the Cubs because their contracts were up were Rich Harden, Kevin Gregg, and Reed Johnson.  After losing those players, and then accounting for increases via arbitration, the Cubs payroll is in the neighborhood of $135 million (It’s hard to know exactly where it is because it’s unclear right now what the arbitration-eligible players will receive, as well as those that will be tendered contracts).  That doesn’t leave much money to make any moves if the magic payroll number is $140-$145 million.

Then there’s Milton Bradley.  It’s unclear how much the Cubs are going to have to spend to get rid of Bradley.  The Dodgers spent $10 million to move Pierre and the Red Sox are rumored to be willing to eat $9 million (of a $12 million contract) to move Mike Lowell (the trade with Texas is currently on hold).  Both of those guys are decent players who are considered good clubhouse guys.  So if their respective teams are/will pay so much money to trade them, how much will it cost the Cubs to move a malcontent like Bradley coming of a sub-par year?

Assuming it’s going to cost the Cubs $10 million just to move Bradley (and that may be conservative), wouldn’t the Cubs be better off exchanging another team’s bad contract for Bradley?  It may cost them more dollars in the long run, but they may actually get a valuable piece back in return.

In a previous post, I argued the case for a Bradley-for-Derek-Lowe trade with Atlanta.  The Braves are looking for a corner outfielder and they need to trim payroll.  Lowe is their biggest contract and most expendable player.  Over the next three years, he’s going to cost $45 million.  It would cost the Cubs $24 million more to trade for Lowe than they are scheduled to pay Bradley, and Lowe will be around a year longer (two more years for Bradley vs. three years for Lowe), but isn’t that better than handing someone $10 million or more just to take Bradley off the Cubs’ hands?  It seems like a win-win to me.

Granted, whoever takes Bradley (assuming someone actually does) is going to have to find a way to integrate him into their team and control (or at least contain) his behavior.  But in exchange for that, if the deal is with Atlanta, they’ll save $24 million dollars and clear the other $21 million owed to Bradley off their books a year sooner than they would with Derek Lowe.  I know Milton Bradley is a pain in the butt, but couldn’t the Braves learn to live with him for $24 million?

**********

With Curtis Granderson now a Yankee and Mike Cameron signed by Boston, the Cubs now turn their attention to Marlon Byrd, Rick Ankiel, Coco Crisp, and Reed Johnson.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com says that Byrd is the Cubs’ first choice, but honestly, is he the best answer for center field? 

Granderson would have been a terrific “get” for the Cubs.  He’s a power hitting, middle-of-the-order bat that they need, and his clubhouse presence would be a breath of fresh air after a year of Milton Bradley.  Of course, that’s a moot point now.

Of the free agent center fielders, Mike Cameron was the class of the field.  He’s not the offensive presence that Granderson is, but he’s sufficient and he plays a good center field.  But again, he’s gone, so no use crying over spilled milk.

Unfortunately, the quality falls off quite a bit from Cameron to the trio of Byrd/Ankiel/Crisp.  But here’s the thing: while any of that group will cost several million dollars, the Cubs can probably get the same or better production from any combination of Sam Fuld, Reed Johnson and recently released Ryan Church (can he still play center?).  Johnny Gomes is another interesting name hanging out there.  He’d probably have to play right field, but Fukudome could move back over to center as part of a platoon/position swap.

At this point, I can’t tell you what the answer is, at least as far as putting a name(s) to the problem, but I can tell you what the answer isn’t, and that’s signing Byrd, Ankiel, or Crisp.  They’re all different types of players, but none of them are the answer the Cubs are looking for.  They are either too expensive, a 4th outfielder, too weak offensively, or a combination of these things.

Jim Hendry waited too long to make a move, but now that he’s waited this long, he might as well wait longer to see if there are any free agent deals or trades available later in the off season.  The current options just don’t get the job done.

Don’t get me wrong.  There’s was a lot of talking.  There were a lot of rumors.  Much of the day was taken up with posturing.  But as far as actual trades or signings go, nothing happened.

At some point around the middle of the day, I had a sudden moment of clarity.  As you’ll recall, the Cubs suspened Milton Bradley in September with just 15 games remaining in the season.  Jim Hendry said he couldn’t tolerate Bradley’s behavior any longer (especially Bradley blaming the fans for the Cubs not winning a World Series in more than 100 years), and he suspended him for the remainder of the season.  Of course, the Cubs continued to pay Bradley (a deal they worked out with the Player’s Union), so the discipline was much more symbolic than substantive.

The writers in Chicago had a heyday with the Bradley suspension.  They celebrated, they rejoiced, and Hendry played right into their hands.  He made it clear from the beginning that Bradley would have to be traded.  He poisoned the waters to the point where he had absolutely no leverage in any potential trade.  He branded Bradley as damaged goods, making him about as unappealing as he could to potential trade partners.

As the Winter Meetings approached, his tune changed a bit.  Hendry started to talk like Bradley might stay with the team.  The Cubs tried to build up Bradley’s value after spending most of the off season destroying his value.  But guess what?  Other teams weren’t falling for it.  They were well aware of the Cubs precarious position with Bradley and they were in no rush to come to the Cubs rescue.

Trade talks with both Tampa Bay and Texas included demands for the Cubs to send several million dollars along with Bradley in any trade.  It was expected that the Cubs would have to eat some of Bradley’s contract, but the $16 million that Texas supposedly demanded was not expected. 

As the Winter Meetings began, rumors started to spread about the Cubs discussing a Bradley trade with three or four teams.  On Tuesday, a mystery team entered the picture.  A deal with an unnamed AL team was “three-quarters” complete.  There appeared to be demand for Bradley.  His stock suddenly seemed to be rising.

Then, it the middle of the day on Wednesday, I had my moment of clarity.  There is no market for Bradley.  I don’t know why it wasn’t clearer to me previously.  I guess I bought into all of the hype and rumors. 

In an effort to trade Bradley, the Cubs spent their time creating rumors, spreading gossip and trying to create a market (or the perception of a market) for Bradley.  It didn’t work.  No one, except the media, bought it.  Teams didn’t come rushing in to try to snag Bradley for fifty cents on the dollar.  They stayed away in droves.  And as the Winter Meeting come to a close today, it appears that nothing has changed.  The Tampa Bay Rays appear to be the only legit potential trade partner for the Cubs, and only then, if the Cubs pay most of the third year of Bradley’s contract.

I hope I’m wrong.  I hope that Hendry used the meetings in Indy to set the groundwork for a trade that will be announced in a few days.  But I don’t think that’s the case.   At least for now, it appears that the only way the Cubs are going to get rid of Milton Bradley is to pay another team a lot of money to take him, or simply release him.  I don’t see either of those things happening.  So does that mean Bradley will be back in a Cubs uniform next year?  I can’t imagine, but what other alternative is there?

**********

Perhaps I’m overreacting on there being no apparent movement on the Bradley front.  At least the folks at Canada’s National Post Sports thinks so.  According to a tweet from NPS, “Cubs GM Jim Hendry has at least one firm offer for Milton Bradley, deal will happen Friday.”  NPS goes on to say that the deal is not with Toronto.

I don’t know the good people at NPS, but I’m guessing that this tweet was sent after one too many Labatts or Molsons.  I’ll be happy if it happens, but at this point, I’m not holding my breath.

**********

Rich Harden signed with the Texas Rangers — the same Rangers who don’t have any money — for one-year/$6.5 million.  The deal also includes $3.5 million in incentives.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the Cubs re-sign Harden for next year.  The contract he signed with Texas seems reasonable, although the incentives seem a little high to me.  I guess it depends on what he has to do to earn them.

Of course, I go back to the fact thast the Cubs know more about Harden’s health than anyone, so maybe letting him go was the right thing to do.  We’ll see…

**********

The Red Sox have apparently traded third baseman Mike Lowell to the Texas Rangers (the deal is awaiting MLB approval).  The Cubs had toyed with a Bradley for Lowell deal, although Boston did not apparently toy back.

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that the Red Sox will be sending $9 million to Texas to complete the trade.  If the Red Sox are willing to pay $9 million to get rid of a player that by all accounts is a great guy, a clubhouse leader, and a productive hitter, what will the Cubs have to pay to move Bradley?

**********

Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times talks about all of the teams that do not have an interest in Bradley.  The Twins are one of the teams that don’t have an interest, at least in part, because in 1996 when the Twins were thinking about drafting Bradley, he said he didn’t want to go there because he thought they were racists.

But the one that really stuck out to me was the unnamed team that had an interest in Bradley until one of the team’s star players emailed the GM for assurances that he would not trade for Bradley.  That’s how much of a cancer this guy really is.

**********

The Cubs have already decided to move their Spring Training home to Naples, Florida.  That, according to Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune.

According to Rogers, the only thing that matters is that Tom Ricketts wants his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.  Rogers bemoans the fact that the Cubs will be throwing away a near fifty year relationship with Mesa and will be turning their backs on the throngs of Cubs fans that flock annually to Arizona for Spring Training. 

“But no matter how many justifications you hear about the Florida move — heavier air for pitchers, a short hop to the Dominican Republic and elsewhere in Latin America, etc. — the reason will be that Ricketts wanted his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.

Oh, and the developers driving the Naples deal, the Chicago-based Esmark Inc. and the Florida-based Fifth Avenue Advisors, will be sure to add plenty of sweeteners to their offer, including some specifically targeted for the owners. I understand this isn’t criminal activity; it’s business.

But, please. Don’t sell a sweetheart land deal as progress for the Lovable Losers.”

Obviously, Rogers is not happy about the move.

Let’s face it, any decision the Cubs make on Spring Training is going to involve a “sweetheart land deal.”  It just the way these things work.  And as for progress, is staying in Mesa “progress?”  Is staying in Arizona “progress?”  Is there anywhere that the Cubs can move that will be considered “progress?”  No, it’s not about “progress,” however you define it.  It’s about what’s best for the Cubs organization, both from a training facility standpoint and a financial standpoint.

If the Cubs do move to Naples, there will be a lot of handwringing.  Rogers has already started the arguement that players will not want to play for the Cubs if they move to Florida.

“Personally, I wouldn’t mind the move. I have Marco Island connections. But I’m not a 28-year-old free agent with a .295 career batting average and six teams interested in signing me. If I was that guy, I’d be far more likely to have attachments to the Phoenix area than the southwest tip of Florida. Those things matter when you are recruiting players.”

I’m throwing the BS flag.  That’s a bunch of nonesense.  The Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, as well as other teams that train in Florida don’t seem to have a problem getting players.  I don’t think the Cubs will either.

As a type B free agent, the Cubs could have received a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds of the draft if Harden had turned down arbitration and signed with another team.  However, they must have been afraid that Harden would accept arbitration.  I’m not so sure, but if he had, he likely would have recieved an arbitration award in the $8 – $10 million range.

Harden’s health is always a question mark.  His agent insists that he is completely healthy.  However, as Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald points out, no one knows more about Harden’s health than the Cubs.  They worked with him on a day-to-day basis and had full access to his medical records.  Maybe they know something that the rest of us don’t know.

I was disappointed that the Cubs didn’t offer arb to Harden.  I thought it was a no-lose situation for the Cubs.  Either they re-sign Harden, which shores up their starting rotation, or they get an additional draft pick.

One criticism I have heard about Harden (in addition to not being able to stay healthy), is that he is hard on the bullpen.  Harden averages 6.0 or fewer innings per outing, meaning that the bullpen doesn’t get a rest on days he pitches.  Even so, it’s not unreasonable to pencil him in for 25 starts and 150 innings.  Is that worth $8 – $10 million a year.  In today’s climate, it’s not completely out of bounds.

In any case, it appears that Harden will be wearing a different uniform next year.  Boston and Seattle are already showing strong interest in Harden.  Boston is looking for a back-of-the-rotation starter (ala John Smoltz or Brad Penny) who has some health questions and can be signed reasonably.  I’m not sure that describes Harden, but Boston is interested. 

Harden is from Vancouver, BC and Seattle is hoping he’d like to pitch close to home next year.  My guess is that money will play a larger role in Harden’s decision on where to sign than location will.

**********

The Cubs continue to consider Naples, FL to become their Spring Training home.  Tom Rickett’s and other officials from the Cubs visited Florida earlier this week to meet with Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist and representatives from the Naples group trying to lure the Cubs to Naples.

According to Gary Price of Fifth Avenue Advisors, part of the group wanting to develop a new Spring Training facility in Naples for the Cubs, he becomes more confident that the Cubs will move to Florida every time he meets with the team.  He also said that he believes the Cubs interest in Naples is sincere.

I read some opinions in the blogosphere that the Cubs are just using Naples to get more out of Mesa.  I don’t see it.  I think Mesa is going to give the Cubs what they want regardless of whether Naples is in the picture or not.  The Cubs don’t need to pit Naples against Mesa.

Another argument that is being made against Naples is that the Spring Training facilities in Florida are more spread out than those in Arizona.  Travel from Naples to other teams’ Spring Training facilities can be as much as 4-5 hours.  While this is true, I don’t think it is a huge consideration.  I’m sure that the Cubs are much more concerned with the facilities themselves than they are with the travel required for 12-15 Spring Training games.

I still think Naples is a long shot, but I do believe that the Cubs are serious about the possibility of relocating their Spring Training facility there.

**********

The Cubs can scratch Billy Wagner off their wish list.  He signed yesterday with the Braves for a reported $7 million in 2010 and a team option of $6.5 million for 2011.

I wasn’t counting on the Cubs signing (or even pursuing) Wagner, but I have to wonder how the inability to trade Milton Bradley is affecting the Cubs ability to pursue free agents.  If they had an interest in Wagner, could they have pursued him or does trading Milton Bradley stand in the way of the team making any moves?

Joel Sherman of the New York Post (as reported by Bill Chastain of MLB.com) says that the Bradley for Pat Burrell trade possibility with Tampa Bay is still alive and well.  However, according to Chastain, the amount of money the Cubs throw into the deal remains the sticking point.

This got me thinking.  The Braves are anxious to move either Derek Lowe or Javier Vasquez.  They need to trim payroll, they have a deep rotation, and they need a corner outfield bat.  Would Atlanta be interested in trading Lowe straight up for Bradley?

Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years.  Lowe is owed $45 million over the next three years.  Without throwing any money into the deal, the Cubs would take on an extra year and $24 million.  At first blush, it seems cost prohibitive.  However, the Cubs will likely have to pay a big chunk of money to get another team to take Bradley.  If you factor that money in, the $24 million more they’d have to take on in a Bradley for Lowe trade doesn’t seem so bad.

By the way, this isn’t a rumor.  It’s just me thinking out loud.  Is it workable?  Who knows.  If Jim Hendry is really good, maybe he can get Atlanta to throw some money into the deal.  Can you imagine that?  The Cubs could move Bradley, get a decent pitcher in return, and actually have some cash come back to them.  Ah, now I’m dreaming.

Prior to joining Boston on a one year contract in 2009, Saito pitched for three years with the Dodgers where he earned 81 saves in 91 opportunities over a three year period.  Saito was dominate for the Dodgers after taking over for injured closer Eric Gagne in 2006.  From 2006 to 2008, Saito posted ERAs of 2.07, 1.40, and 2.49 respectively.

I like the fact that the Cubs are taking a look at Saito.  As I’ve mentioned previously, I don’t trust Carlos Marmol to handle the closing duties for a Cubs team that is supposed to be a playoff contender next year.  He’s too wild and too inconsistent.  The Cubs need a true closer. 

Of course, someone like Billy Wagner (free agent) or Francisco Cordero (trade) would be expensive and the Cubs don’t have much money to spend.  Saito could be a nice alternative.  At age 39, he’s probably only expecting a one-year deal for around 1$ – $2 million per year.  He earned $1.5 million last year and Boston declined his $6 million option for 2010.

Saito could be a perfect compliment to Marmol.  He could serve as a right-handed set-up man and if Marmol falters, Saito can step right in and take over as the closer.

**********

Yahoo! Sports took a look recently at the Cubs and their needs for the off season.   It’s a good report, although it doesn’t cover any new ground or offer any new insights.

However, the one paragraph that caught my eye read:

“The Cubs completed their third consecutive above-.500 season for the first time since they did it six times in a row from 1967 to 1972. But it wasn’t good enough to get them into the playoffs, as they missed for the first time since 2006. The Cubs certainly aren’t in need of an overhaul. As manager Lou Piniella pointed out, they need better health and bounce-back seasons from a couple of key players in 2010.”

There are a few things to take from this one paragraph.  First, 2009 completed the first three year stretch of winning seasons for the Cubs since 1972.  Seriously, that’s pathetic.  However, rather than looking too far back in horror, let us all rejoice in the fact that the Cubs are coming off three consecutive winning seasons as they enter the 2010 campaign.  That’s good.  That’s positive.  It’s something to build on.

I think a lot of fans look at the 2009 season as a complete disaster.  True, injuries and season-long slumps took their toll on the team, but the fact remains that the Cubs finished the season with a winning record.  And that brings us to the second point I want to make about the above-quoted paragraph.

Lou Piniella is right when he says that the Cubs are going to be just fine in 2010 if they can stay healthy and a couple of players (Alfonso Soriano and Geovany Soto) can have bounce-back seasons.  Honestly, that’s not too much to ask.  Every team’s success hinges on the health of it’s players, so Piniella isn’t asking for anything that every team asks for every season.

As for bounce-back years, history would indicate that Alfonso Soriano is going to have a much better year in 2010 than he had in 2009.  Just look at his career numbers.  His 2009 season was an aberrtion.

Geovany Soto could go either way.  Was 2009 an aberration for him, or was his 2008 rookie season?  My fear is that it’s the former, but I hope it’s the latter.  Only time will tell.

The final point I want to make about the paragraph from Yahoo! Sports is what it doesn’t say.  I suspect that if they had quoted Lou Piniella directly rather than paraphrasing him, he would have said something to the effect of “The Cubs will be fine next year if we can stay healthy and get bounce-back years from a couple of players AND if Jim Hendry can move Milton Bradley, add a second baseman who can hit lead-off, and a center fielder who is also a middle-of-the-order run producer.”

I agree that the Cubs need to stay healthy in 2010 and that Soriano and Soto have to produce like they have in the past.  But that’s only two-thirds of the equation.  Jim Hendry also has to do his job and fill the holes that the team currently has.  And that can’t happen until he can trade Milton Bradley.

I don’t have any inside information, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a Milton Bradley trade happens this week before the Winter Meetings.  Hendry has to move Bradley so he can concentrate on the team’s other needs as the GMs head to Indianapolis for their annual off season pow wow.

**********

Chicago Cubs Online has a recap of the Saturday Talkin’ Baseball show on Chicago’s ESPN 1000 with Bruce Levine and Jonathan Hood.  Again, nothing earth-shattering, but I was interested in the comment concerning the death of any possible trade of Milton Bradley to the Texas Rangers.

“According to Bruce Levine, the Rangers are no longer a possibility for Milton Bradley. Due to the ownership situation, the Rangers must receive approval from Major League Baseball to spend money … Texas is in receivership. They cannot even hire a coach without receiving permission.”

Last week, the talk was that Texas would be interested in Milton Bradley, provided the Cubs pick up $16 million of the $21 million owed to him over the next two years.  Apparently that’s not even a possibility any more.  Is there any team that has any interest in Milton Bradley?

I was reminded of the need for a salary cap again today when I was reading a rather innocuous post on MLBTradeRumors.com.  In essense, the post said that the Pirates are looking to add one or two low-cost free agents, but again this off season, they won’t be a player for any big name free agents.  The same is likely true for the Marlins, Twins, Rays, Royals and Padres, and maybe a few other teams as well.

Imagine if you were a fan of the Pirates (or any of the other teams listed).  Every off season, you get to watch other more well-healed teams compete for big name free agents — the type of player that can make a huge difference for a team — while your team quietly sits on the sideline waiting to possibly scoop up the leftovers.  It must be a hopeless feeling.

Once the off season is over and the season is about to begin, the hopeless feeling you had in the off season is doubled because you know that your favorite team has virtually no chance of competing.  For the Pirates, their only hope for the 2010 season is that they might be able to finish ahead of the Reds in the standings, especially since the Reds are under pressure to cut payroll and will likely field a worse team in 2010 than they did in 2009.

Honestly, why would any sport want to run a league in a way that allows a team in it’s largest market to outspend a small market team like the Pirates by a factor of five-to-one?  Money may not buy championships, but it sure makes it a lot easier.

The Yankees payroll allows them to put an all-star at almost every position.  And when one player underperforms, they go out in the off season and sign a free agent to replace them or trade with a lesser-payroll team to get the best player at that position.  They are constantly reloading.  I’m not a Yankees fan nor am I privy to the philosophy of their front office, but I have to believe that the Yankees (and to a lesser extent the Red Sox) view the rest of Major League Baseball as an extension of their minor league sytstem.  When they need a player, if he’s not in their farm system, they can just go to Cleveland, or Florida, or Pittsburgh and trade for the player they need.

I don’t want this post to sound like a slam against the Yankees.  I don’t blame the Yankees in the least for the competitive imbalance that exists in baseball today.  The Yankees are simply playing by the rules and doing it well.  The Yankees are not the problem, the system is the problem.

Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated wrote a terrific article recently highlighting the inequities in baseball.  Posnanski writes that everyone knows the Yankees outspend every other team, but they may not fully comprehend how bad the problem really is.

“This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I’m going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:

In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it’s ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: “OK, let’s spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we’re spending exactly as much. And now … let’s add the Oakland A’s. No, I mean let’s add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let’s play some ball!”

In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.

In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.

In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team — cutbacks, you know.

In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.

In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team…

So how can the commissioner of baseball promote such nonsense as Hope on Opening Day when the game is set up for one team to spend tens of millions more than anyone else?”

Joel Sherman of the New York Post writes that Texas continues to be a possible landing spot for Bradley, but only if the Cubs pick up a “sizable portion” of Bradley’s contract.  Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated suggests that the Cubs may have to eat $16 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  Is that really the best the Cubs can get for Bradley?

Bringing Bradley back next year seems highly unlikely.  According Heyman, Many Cubs players, including Aramis Ramirez and Carlos Zambrano, won’t even talk to Bradley.  Others reportedly applauded when it was announced that Bradley had been suspended late last season. 

Early in the week there was a rumor of a three-team trade that would send Bradley to Toronto, Lyle Overbay to the Mets, and second baseman Luis Castillo to the Cubs.  However, according to Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune (writing in the Boston Herald), Toronto wants no part of Bradley.  Who can blame them?

Most reports seem to consider Texas, Tampa Bay, and San Francisco as the most likely trade partners for Bradley.  There’s been a lot of talk about how much of Bradley’s contract the Cubs would have to eat in a trade with the Rangers, but virtually nothing has been said about who the Cubs might receive in return.  I had previously suggested that a Bradley for Michael Young trade might make sense from a financial perspective for the cash-strapped Rangers, but that doesn’t appear to be the deal the Rangers are interested in making.

Trade rumors with Tampa Bay and San Francisco involve one bad contract for another.  With Tampa Bay, the trade rumor involves Bradley’s remaining two-years at a total of $21 million for Pat Burrell’s one remaining year and $9 million.  Obviously, the Cubs would have to kick in some money.

The Bradley-to-San-Francisco rumor involves sending Bradley’s remaining contract to the Giants for Aaron Rowand’s remaining three years and $36 million.

Of the three possibilities, the rumored deal with San Francisco makes the most sense to me.  Assuming the Cubs would not have to kick in any money, they would be taking on an additional year and an additional $16 million in payroll obligation, but at least they’ll be getting a player they can use.  With Texas and Tampa Bay, their are either just paying another team to take Bradley off their hands or they are taking on a player (Burrell) that they can’t use (or both).  Adding Aaron Rowand to the line-up isn’t the perfect solution, but it is better than the other rumors currently floating around.

Whatever happens, Jim Hendry would be well-advised to make it happen fast.  Bradley is and will continue to be a distraction until the Cubs are rid of him.  There will be no “perfect deals” coming along that will allow the Cubs to dump Bradley.  What they need to do is choose the least bad option and move on.

UPDATE: Well, you can cross the Giants off the list of potential trade partners for Milton Bradley.  In an article by Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune, Giants GM Brian Sabean said:

“A deal like that? For a player like that?” Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. “No. Is that succinct enough? I don’t know that addition by subtraction would work. Smarter people than us have tried that.”

Oh well.  Never say never, but it looks like any potential deal with San Francisco is dead.

Sullivan’s article also says that for the privilege of paying the Rangers $16 million or so to take Milton Bradley, the Cubs would receive a couple of unnamed, mid-level prospects to the Cubs.  Ouch…

***********

Tim Dierkes at MLBTradeRumors.com has an interesting post up concerning where he thinks the top 50 free agents will end up this off season.  Of particular interest is that he thinks Rich Harden will sign with the Red Sox and the Cubs will sign Billy Wagner.

In his post, Dierkes suggests that Boston will take a risk and sign Harden to a one-year, $7 million contract.  He compares the signing to what Boston did last year when they signed Brad Penney and John Smoltz.

I believe that now that Ted Lilly is a bit of a question mark for the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will offer Harden arbitration.  If he is looking for another deal in the $7 million range, I think he’ll accept.  However, I believe he is looking for something closer to $10 million per year and would naturally prefer a multi-year deal. 

If he hits the open market (the Cubs have until December 1 to offer arbitration), Harden will initially hold out for a multi-year contract.  If one is not forthcoming, he may agree to a one-year deal, but I have to believe it is going to be closer to $10 million than $7 million.  So if Tim is right and Boston signs Harden, it will have to be late in the off season when Harden has tested all of the other options. 

For what it’s worth, Harden says he really liked Chicago and his agent, Arn Tellem, says Harden is 100% healthy.  Even so, Harden’s injury history does not inspire confidence.  His is an interesting case, particularly in an ecomony where most teams don’t seem to be open to taking on too much risk unless the price is right.

On Billy Wagner, Tim says:

37.  Billy Wagner – Cubs.  The Cubs don’t have much payroll space, and they may prefer to go with Carlos Marmol as their closer.  Then again, they wouldn’t do so a year ago when Marmol was coming off a good season.  The Cubs could offer Wagner a chance to close, as could the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Angels, and Braves.  Even Wagner’s old teams, the Phillies and Astros, have back-end bullpen concerns.

Tim makes a great point here.  If the Cubs weren’t willing to hand the closer’s job to Marmol in 2009 after he had a really good 2008, why would they in 2010 after a 2009 season that saw Marmol lead all NL relievers in walks and hit batters?  Of course, Wagner’s contract expectations remain an issue.  He earned $10.5 million in 2010 and will likely be looking for a two or three year contract with a similar annual salary.  That’s a little rich for the Cubs’ blood.

Of course, this may be a moot point.  The Red Sox could offer Wagner arbitration and he could accept.  It seemed like a long-shot a week ago, but Wagner says that he enjoyed his time in Boston and his agent says he would possibly be open to accepting an arbitration offer.  As part of their trade with the Mets for Wagner, the Red Sox agreed not to exercise Wagner’s $8 million option for 2010, but they are free to offer the lefty arbitration.

Whatever happens, I strongly feel that the Cubs must address the closer role if they want to be a legitimate World Series contender in 2010.  If Wagner is not the answer, who is?

I previously mentioned Huston Street as a possibility.  He will receive an increase in arbitration from his 2009 salary of $4.5 million.  The Rockies don’t want to deal him, but may have to consider a trade in order to reach their budget goals.  Street would be one of their more marketable players and the Cubs would be one of several teams interested in the closer.

Another possibility is Francisco Cordero of the Reds.  The Reds are reportedly going to have to cut their budget from $71 million in 2009 to $65 to $70 million in 2010.  That might not seem like a big cut, but the Reds have contractual obligations totaling $66 million to just 10 players.  They are going to have to make some trades just to be able to field a full team.

Cordero is one of their most expensive players.  He’s signed through 2011 for $12 million per year with another $12 million club option for 2012 ($1 million buyout).  That’s expensive, but there are unfortunately no good, cheap options for the Cubs.

 **********

Ken Rosenthal reports that the Cubs are nearing a deal to re-sign John Grabow.  Rosenthal says the deal could be for two years.  It could also be for 100 years, but probably not. 

**********

The GM meetings end today.  Will Milton Bradley be traded?  More tomorrow…

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

A Look At The Offseason (Part 2 – Outfield)

Today, I’d like to focus on the Cubs’ starting and relief pitching.

**********

Four of the five positions in the Cubs starting rotation are pretty well set.  Barring an unforessen trade, the Cubs starters will include Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells.  Lefties Tom Gorzelanny and Sean Marshall, along with right-hander Jeff Samardjzia will compete for the fifth starter position.  So the Cubs are set with starting pitching, right?  Maybe.

I don’t expect the Cubs to add another starter, but there are a couple of scenarios that make some sense.  First, I’ve previously set out a scenario where a Milton Bradley (and others) trade to Toronto could return Roy Halladay.  If that happened, then you can count Gorzelanny, Marshall, and Samardjzia among the faces in the bullpen.  It’s unlikely, but it would work.

If the Cubs are looking for a free agent starting pitcher (which I don’t think they are), there are two different targets I would suggest.  First is current Dodgers pitcher Randy Wolf.  In 2009, Wolf was 11-7 with a 3.23 ERA.  He earned $5 million last year, plus $500,000 for pitching more than 200 innings.  He’ll be 34 years old in 2010.

The other free agent target I’d like the Cubs to consider is former Brewers starter, Ben Sheets.  Sheets missed the past year while recovering from surgery to repair a torn flexor tendon in his elbow.  He thought he’d be ready to pitch again by mid-season this past year, but his recovery took longer than anticipated.  From all reports, Sheets will be ready by Spring Training.

Sheets is a buy low, high potential target.  When he’s right, Sheets is very good.  Of course, his health and durability are a question, so he shouldn’t cost too much on a one year deal.

The Cubs bullpen will include two of Gorzelanny, Marshall, and Samardjzia (the two not in the starting rotation). It will also include Angel Guzman and Carlos Marmol.  If the Cubs can re-sign John Grabow (which I expect), he’ll also be part of the bullpen.  Justin Berg, Dave Patton, Jeff Stevens and Mitch Atkins are also bullpen candidates.

The big question for me concerning the bullpen is whether or not the Cubs will be willing to start the year with Marmol as the closer.  All indications from the Cubs are that Marmol will be the closer.  If I were in charge, I’d be looking for someone else.

In 2009, Marmol lead all NL relievers in hit batters (12) and in bb/9 innings (7.90/9).  That’s not what you want from the guy who’s in charge of shutting down the opposing team in the 9th inning of a close game.  In 19 save opportunities, Marmol had 15 saves for a 21.0% blown save rate.  For comparisons sake, the Dodger’s Jonathon Broxton blew 14.3% of his save opportunities, Ryan Franklin of St. Louis blew 11.6% of his save opportunities, and the Rockies’ Huston Street blew 10.8% of his save opportunities.  Even Francisco Rodriguez of the Mets, who had a down year, only blew 16.7% of his save opportunities.  (In all fairness, Brad Lidge blew 21.6% of his saves and the Phillies are in the World Series.)

Marmol has been a great story for the Cubs up until now.  He joined the club as a catcher, was converted to a pitcher and at times has been dominant.  But he’s too wild and too unpredictable.  The Cubs need a closer they can count on.

Rob G. of The Cub Reporter has thrown out the idea of the Cubs signing free agent Kelvim Escobar.  Although he’s missed the past two years with injuries, Escobar is expected to be healthy going into next year.  Because of his past injury issues, he shouldn’t cost much and he could be brought in with the idea of either setting up Marmol or taking on the closer role. 

The Cubs could also decide to go after Billy Wagner.  After returning from injury last year, Wagner, who will be 39 years old next season,  looked like his old self.  He probably won’t come cheap, but he has the potential to be a dominant closer.  In 2009, between the Mets and Red Sox, Wagner only pitched 15.2 innings, but he posted a 1-1 record with a 1.72 ERA.  It’s a small sample size, but impressive nonetheless considering the circumstances.

The Red Sox have an $8 million option on Wagner for 2010, but they agreed not to exercise it in order to get him to waive his no-trade clause when he was traded from the Mets to Boston.  That must mean that Wagner thinks he can get more than $8 million per year and/or more years as a free agent. 

The latest news on Wagner is that he told a reporter that he is considering retiement and doesn’t plan to talk to teams when he hits free agency.  The next day, his agent said that Wagner’s statement was “premature.”  If he’s available, the Cubs should inquire, but my personal feeling is that his price tag is going to be too high.

There are a couple of other free agent candidates that are longshots, but possibilities.  If John Smoltz would be willing to return to the bullpen in 2010, then the Cubs should look at him to be their closer.  At the moment, it looks like Smoltz wants to start and St. Louis is willing to give him a chance, but we’ll have to see how it plays out.

The other option is of my own creation.  I mentioned earlier that free agent Ben Sheets is a pitcher the Cubs should consider.  Although he’s never closed before, it might be the perfect role for him coming off of a missed year due to injury.  It would allow him to pitch fewer innings and build his strength back up if his goal is to eventually be a starter again.  He has shown in the past that he has the mentality to be a closer.  Although I like the idea, I’m not so sure either Sheets or the Cubs would like it as much.

Other free agents to consider are Brandan Donnelly, Jason Isringhausen, Troy Percival, JJ Putz, and Takashi Saito.  I’m not suggesting any of them would be a good fit for the Cubs, but they do have experience closing and all are available. 

There are a couple of intriguing trade candidates that may be available.  The Cincinnati Reds owe Francisco Cordero $12 million per year in 2010 and 2011.  The team also holds a $12 million option for 2012 with a $1 million buy-out.  In fact, he is the highest paid player on a team with many needs and very little payroll flexibility.

In 2009, Cordero was 2-6 with a 2.16 ERA.  He had 39 saves in 43 save opportunities (9.3% blown saves).  He’s expensive, but could probably be had for a couple of good prospects.  On the other hand, I doubt if either team would be overly excited about making a deal within the division.  It happens, but it’s not preferred.

There is also a chance that Colorado may make Huston Street available.  Personally, I think this is a longshot, but the fact is that Street made $4.5 million in 2009 and is due for a hefty increase via arbitration.  The Rockies have a couple of  other cheaper (albeit, not as good) options at closer, including Manny Corpas who is returning from injury.  It seems to me that the only way the Rockies would trade Street is if they are really in a money crunch.  I know their budget is tight, but I’m not sure it is tight enough to trade such a valuable player.

In a nutshell, I don’t think the Cubs should count on Marmol to be their closer, but I have to admit that the options to replace him are rather limited.  The bottom line for me is that the Cubs have a top-of-the-line starting rotation and they need to have a dependable arm closing out games for them.  I don’t know for sure who that steady arm will be, but I do know that Carlos Marmol is anything but steady.

In my next report, I’ll wrap up this series and put together a proposed 25 man roster for the 2010 Cubs.

Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.com wrote an article back in August giving Ricketts a list of things not to do with the Cubs.  It’s an old article, but still has some good thoughts.  Before providing the list, Wojo said:

“This isn’t just any team you’re purchasing. This is the Cubs, a franchise with enough heartbreak and history that it needs its own traveling psychotherapist. What it doesn’t need is an owner who thinks of the Cubs as simply an investment, another expensive car to park in the portfolio garage. It needs someone who has business and baseball sense. (Jerry Reinsdorf isn’t a bad ownership template.) It needs someone who cares if the W flag flies — and not just because it might mean a full house the next day.”

The list Wojchiechowski put together includes:

• Don’t fire Jim Hendry
• Don’t let Crane Kenney be Crane Kenney
• Don’t sit in the front row seats next to the dugout
• Don’t touch the big three (red Wrigley Field marquee sign, center field scoreboard, ivy)
• Don’t continue the faux-tradition of inviting guests to sing the seventh inning stretch
• Don’t forget Greg Maddux
• Don’t wait on Piniella to decide  if he is coming back next year (Done)
• Don’t ditch the Triangle Building
• Don’t retire Sammy Sosa’s number
• Don’t be afraid to eat some salary
• Don’t be afraid to trade Carlos Zambrano
• Don’t be an imitator (of the Boston Red Sox Fenway Rehab)

There are three things on Wojo’s list of 14 “Don’ts” that pertain to Wrigley Field or the area surrounding Wrigley.  That’s interesting.  What other team (other than the Red Sox) would have as much concern about the stadium where the team plays it’s games.  The Texas Rangers are on the market now.  Do you think anyone is concerned about what is going to happen to Arlington Stadium (okay, technically Rangers Ballpark at Arlington) when the new owners take over the team?  Of course not.  But Wrigley Field is special and people treat it like Stonehenge or the Acropolis.

Wrigley Field is special.  It’s a beautiful ballpark.  It’s also a terrible place to go watch a baseball game.  If you’ve ever driving to the ballpark you know what I mean when I say it is nearly impossible to find a place to park that isn’t several blocks/miles away.  And I don’t know anyone who thinks that the urinal troughs in the mens room are a nostalgic reminder of a better time.  They’re disgusting.

I have to admit, I enjoyed going to Wrigley as a young man.  It was fun; an adventure.  When I was old enough to drink, the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley was like heaven.  There’s a bar on every corner and a few in between. 

But as an adult with a family, Wrigley Field is not a pleasant place to go.  It is hard to get to, it’s dirty, outdated, and it takes forever to leave (i.e. not close to the highway).  We’ve been to other stadiums that are easy to get to/easy to leave, have plenty of parking, are cleaner and more modern, and where the seats are more comfortable.  After being at these other stadiums, its hard to go back to Wrigley and enjoy the experience.

Of course, it’s true that the things I’m complaining about haven’t kept the fans away.  The Cubs are among the leaders in attendance among MLB teams every year.  But from a business perspective, that doesn’t mean that Wrigley Field is generating the profits it could.  For instance, there are not enough luxury boxes.  Corporations are big time clients for all baseball teams and the Cubs are unable to accomodate the demand for luxury suites.

Also, like a stately old home, Wrigley Field is a money pit.  Upkeep is expensive and the needed remodeling threatens to break the bank.

Finally, there’s no room to expand.  The Cubs desperately need bigger locker rooms and office space, but they are confined in a well established neighborhood.  The Cubs have proposed building the Triangle Building next to Wrigley Field, but neighbors are protesting because of the height of the building.  In fact, the neighbors complain about everything the team wants to do.  Whenever the Cubs want to make a change, they have to enter into negotiations with the city and their neighbors in Wrigleyville.  It’s a pain.

In many ways, I love Wrigley Field.  It’s a landmark, a baseball museum.  Unfortunately, it is no longer a great place to play MLB games.  Off the top of my head, I don’t know what the best alternative is, but I don’t think that Tom Ricketts should be so consumed with saving Wrigley at all costs that he refuses to consider other options.

**********

What do you think of a Milton Bradley for Vernon Wells trade?  Not much?  Me either, but Joel Koch at BleacherReport.com thinks it’s the Cubs best option.

The entire trade, as proposed by Koch, would send Bradley and Mike Fontenot to Toronto for Wells, RHP Jeremy Accardo, and OF Jose Bautista.  I talked about a potential trade scenario with Toronto previously, but I had Roy Halladay coming to the Cubs in order to make up for the huge and unexplainable contract of Vernon Wells.

It’s my opinion, Toronto would jump at the trade proposal that Joel Koch has layed out.  They’d be nuts not to.  But the Cubs would be nuts to seriously consider it.  Taking on Wells massive contract without getting something valuable to make up for it (no offense to Accardo and Bautista) doesn’t make any sense for the Cubs.  They may need to eat some of Bradley’s contract to move him, but trading a bad contract for potentially the worst contract in baseball history isn’t a good idea.