Cubs Notebook » Carlos Silva

What’s Next?

Lou — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:00:52 +0000

It’s always seemed to me that the days following the World Series up until the end of the calendar year were the toughest for baseball fans. It was like an uphill climb. Once the new year started, it seemed like things accelerated. It was almost as if baseball (and it’s fans) were running downhill toward February, when pitchers and catchers report, March, for Spring Training, and finally April and opening day.

So now that we’re beginning our descent of Off Season Mountain, what can we expect from the Cubs in the weeks ahead?

The Cubs are in a tough position. They presumably have very little money to spend, but they still have at least three holes to fill. Some would say the Cubs have “needs” rather than “holes.” I’m not sure which is technically correct. The point is that the Cubs have viable options in-house to address their needs, but they would be better off looking elsewhere for help.

One such position is second base. In-house, the Cubs have Mike Fontenot and Jeff Baker, neither of whom should be a starting second baseman on a legitimately contending team. The Cubs have the fourth highest payroll in MLB (based on 2009 figures), but have one of the weakest second basemen in all of baseball. That’s just not right.

Another option at second for the Cubs is Ryan Theriot. If he moves to second, the Cubs will need to find a stand-in for a year at SS until prospect Starlin Castro is ready (the Cubs wouldn’t bring Castro up at the beginning of 2010, would they?) One in-house option at SS is Andres Blanco. He’s a slick fielding SS, but a weak hitter. The up-the-middle defense would be good, but the offense would be even weaker than it was last year when Fontenot was starting at second.

If there’s any money available, the Cubs could improve the team by signing Orlando Hudson to a one-year deal. Of course, I’m sure that Hudson would like a multi-year deal for $4-$5 million per year (he made $3.38 million plus bonuses last year), but considering the current state of the free agent market, that’s unlikely.

Another guy to consider is the guy that sent Hudson to the bench last year in Los Angeles: Ronnie Belliard. He’s another guy who is seemingly being shunned in free agency. He made $1.9 million last year and probably won’t command much, if any, more this year.

The idea is to find a second baseman who can be had on a cheap ($1-$3 million) one-year deal, but who will also make the team better. Either Hudson or Belliard are better options than what the Cubs currently have in-house.

If the Cubs decide to look to the free agent market for a SS, there are only two guys they should consider, but the odds are that neither one will meet the criteria of being cheap and willing to take a one year deal. The two shortstops, Orlando Cabrera and Miguel Tejada, would both be upgrades, but likely out of the Cubs league.

Another position that needs attention is starting pitching. The Cubs enter the season with Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells as the only pitchers certain to be in the starting rotation. Ted Lilly will start the year on the DL, so Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia will battle it out for the other two spots in the starting rotation. No matter who emerges from that group, it doesn’t make the starting rotation very strong.

Rumors have been circulating that the Cubs are interested in adding Ben Sheets. I’m all for signing Sheets, but I heard initially that he was seeking a contract for $12 million/year. More recently, I’ve read that his demand is more in the $7-$9 million range.

I like Ben Sheets and when he is healthy, he’s one of the best pitchers in baseball. However, he’s coming off of elbow surgery that kept him out of baseball for the entire 2009 season. That’s not the kind of guy you want to spend a lot of money on or who you want to give a multi-year contract.

If Sheets’ price comes down to $3-$4 million for one year, I can see the Cubs getting involved (along with a host of other teams). But at his current asking price, he’s not only out of the Cubs range, but also a bad risk.

Finally, the Cubs could use another bullpen arm. In my opinion, this is the one need that the Cubs could probably fill in-house. They have a depth of decent bullpen arms. Even so, this appears to be the position where Jim Hendry is focusing his efforts. Rumor has it that he is targeting the Blue Jays Jason Frasor. I don’t know what the Cubs would have to give up to get Frasor, but I really have to question the wisdom of adding an arbitration-eligible bullpen pitcher who made $1.45 million last year when the team has other needs.

Honestly, I don’t expect any big moves out of the Cubs the remainder of the off season. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs went into Spring Training without making any moves. I hope that doesn’t happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

**********

Are the Cubs moving their Spring Training home to Florida? I still think it’s a long-shot, but the Naples effort got a boost recently when the Collier County Hotel and Lodging Association voted unanimously to approve use of the County’s tourist tax to build a new stadium for the Cubs.

The move was important not only because it cleared the way to use proceeds from the tourist tax to help fund building the Cubs a new training complex, but also because it showed the Cubs that the hoteliers are completely on board with the proposal to bring the Cubs to Naples. Cubs President Crane Kenney made it clear that the Cubs only want to go where they are wanted. So the unanimous vote to use proceeds from the tourist tax was an important step forward for the Naples effort.

A few weeks ago, the Cubs announced that they had eliminated a proposed Spring Training site on the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. That leaves Mesa, AZ and Naples as the only two remaining possibilities.

Dealing With The Winter Doldrums

Lou — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:33:54 +0000

I really hate this time of year. It’s cold, the days are often grey, and worst of all, there’s no baseball. I watched the 10-part Ken Burns Baseball documentary the other night. It made me miss baseball even more. My wife turned on Field of Dreams last night and I refused to watch it.

As Cubs fans, we are looking at a boring remainder of the off season. The big free agent signing (i,e., Marlon Byrd) is behind us and now it’s just a waiting game. We also are having to deal with the fact that the Cubs were not a very good team in 2009 and this off season hasn’t really made them any better. So while we’re bored, we have that to deal with.

I have to admit that I am surprised that the Cubs didn’t do more to improve this off season. With a new owner coming in and Jim Hendry’s job being on the line, I thought the Cubs would make more of a splash. The free agent market was pretty thin, but there were always trades to be made. Apparently the Cubs front office had other plans.

As it turns out, the way that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts structured the loans he used to purchase the team may be at least in part to blame for the new regime not making a big splash. According to a report in Investment News, the Ricketts attracted a number of institutional investors (insurance companies, pension funds, banks) who normally don’t invest in sports franchises to privide short-term financing. These investors tend to be more conservative and it appears that the Cubs will have to remain conservative with their payroll in order to keep those investors happy.

I suppose that “conservative” is a relative term in this case. The Cubs payroll was the fourth highest in MLB last year and will remain in the neighborhood of $140 million this year. Even so, considering the revenue generated by the franchise, having a $140 million player payroll is not outrageous.

So it appears that it may be a while before anything very exciting happens with the Cubs. Long-term contracts are in place, many with no-trade clauses, others simply untradeable. In the immortal words of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (I’m paraphrasing), you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com provides a glimmer of light in an otherwise murky off season. Rosenthal predicts that Ben Sheets will eventually sign with the Cubs. Considering the Cubs starting rotation as it now stands, that is good news. With a starting three of Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Well to start the season, the Cubs rotation could use some help. Lefty Ted Lilly will be on the shelf to start the season, so the final two rotation slots will be filled by some combination of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia. Sheets would be a welcome addition indeed.

But is Rosenthal’s rumor/prediction really realistic? Last I heard, Sheets and his agent were looking for a contract that would pay the oft-injured starter $12 million per year. When he’s right, Sheets is worth ever penny of that. But after coming off of surgery and a missed season in 2009, he’s a big question mark. I don’t expect the Cubs to get involved unless his asking price comes way down. And if it does, the Cubs will certainly not be his only suitor.

Reports like Rosenthal’s probably don’t hold much water, but at least they do brighten up the dark winter a little bit and give us something to talk about. So reporters, keep the predictions and unsubstantiated rumors coming. We still have two months to go before Spring Training.

**********

The Hall of Fame will announce their 2010 inductees tomorrow. Good Luck to Andre Dawson. I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

Cubs Own Two Of The Worst Contracts In Baseball

Lou — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:14:07 +0000

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.

A Cubs Christmas Wish List

Lou — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:15:39 +0000

Dear Santa:

Please disregard my previous letter. The problem I told you about has been taken care of, so I’d like to revise my wish list for this Christmas.

As I admitted in my previous letter, I have not been a good boy this year. I traded Mark DeRosa (one of our most popular players), let Kerry Wood go (I still think I was right about that one), signed Kevin Gregg, and worst of all, I gave a big contract to Milton Bradley. I’m ashamed and I’ve taken responsibility for my mistakes (But really, who could have predicted how Bradley would act?).

I also want to add that I didn’t handle the Rich Harden situation very well either. The whole arbitration process is very confusing.

I promise that I will be a good boy this year and ask you to grant my Christmas wishes based on my promise. It’s sort of like a front-loaded contract, something I don’t know a whole lot about.

This Christmas, I would like the following:

A center fielder who doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Marlon Byrd isn’t really the best you can do, is he?
A right-handed back of the bullpen arm. I meant to write to you about Matt Capps, but now it’s too late. Would Kiko Calero or Kelvim Escobar be out of the question? Is there any chance that Huston Street could somehow fall into our laps?
We need a lead-off hitter with some speed and a middle-of-the-order run producer, but where are we going to put them both? Some people say we need a different second baseman, but I think Mike Fontenot deserves a second chance, don’t you? If not, I’d like a second baseman who can fill one of the holes in our batting order. I know I’ve asked before, but is Brian Roberts available?
I know I ask for this every year, but can I have a good starting pitcher? If you could make Carlos Silva good again, that would be great, but if not, could I get someone else. I don’t want to mention Jake Peavy again this year, but…oh, never mind. Any good starting pitcher will do.
Finally, I know you get this request a lot, but this year, could you please bring me the Cubs and their fans a World Series Championship. If you do it this year, I promise I’ll stop asking.

Thank you, Santa.

Merry Christmas,

Jim (Lil’ Jimmy) Hendry

Is Milton Bradley Finally Gone?

Lou — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:00:33 +0000

Reports are beginning to emerge that the Cubs have traded Milton Bradley to the Seattle Mariners for pitcher Carlos Silva. Larry Stone of the Seattle Times-Intelligencer is reporting that the trade is even up. Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years while Silva is owed $25 million in 2010-11 with an $11.5 million for 2013 and a $2 million buyout. so the Cubs are taking on extra money, but they are getting rid of a headache.

Silva apparently is not good. He 4-15 with an 6.46 ERA in 2008. He injured his shoulder early in 2009 and missed most of the season. While he was available in 2009, he posted a record of 1-3 with an 8.60 ERA.

Carrie Muskat of MLB.com and Tim Brown of Yahoo Sports have both confirmed the trade.

**********

Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune is reporting that Seattle will be sending $9 million to the Cubs along with Silva. That’s a surprise to me. The reports are still coming in hot and heavy, so we’ll see how things actually shake out.

**********

Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald confirms that the Cubs are getting $9 million in cash. Miles may not always get the story first, but he almost always gets it right, so if he says the Cubs are getting $ 9 million, then I believe it. He also says that the Cubs will be having a press conference to go over all of the details.

**********

In a news conference held to announce the Bradley-for-Silva trade, Jim Hendry took responsibility for the “Milton Bradley era” not working out. There’s no dount that signing Bradley was a mistake and thinking he would behave himself was wishful thinking, but I place the vast majoity of the blame on Milton Bradley himself. He chose to be belligerent and anti-social. He made that decision, not anyone on the Cubs. The responsibility for Bradley’s behavior rests solely with Bradley.

That doesn’t mean that Hendry and the Cubs didn’t play a role in this fiasco. Hendry was responsible for the signing in the first place. The, he completely mishandled Bradley’s suspension and subsequent comments. Piniella could also have done a better job of being a mentor and father-figure to Bradley. However, that’s not Piniella’s style and everyone knew it when the Cubs first signed Bradley. So it’s difficult to put too much blame on Piniella for not being something he isn’t.