Others were more optimistic about a deal getting done soon.  Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago wrote that the Cubs were on the verge of making a deal and that it could be announced as early as Tuesday.  Of course, Tuesday came and went without any news, but a team source told Bruce Miles that an announcement could come Wednesday.

Jim Hendry and his deputies are being extremely tight lipped about what teams he’s talking to.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com said that Hendry is talking to an AL team, but that it’s not either Tampa Bay nor Texas.  Later in the day, she Tweeted that is was neither Seattle nor Toronto.  At this point, we don’t know who the mystery team might be.  All we know is who it is not.

Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times also lists a mystery team and says that the deal could involve the Cubs receiving a player that they will then have to flip.  Sound familiar?  Wittenmyer confirms that  the deal does not involve the Rays or Rangers.  This is a different rumor than we’ve heard before.

Tomorrow is the final day of the Winter Meetings.  Could a deal be announced tomorrow.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed.  The Milton Bradley soap opera has already dragged on too long.

**********

Let me change gears a little bit right now and get a little angry.  I’m going to have to manufacture a little anger because, the truth is, I’m really not angry.  But I feel like I should be.

You see, Curtis Granderson, probably the best fit to play center field for the Cubs next year, was traded today by the Tigers to the New York Yankes (MLBTradeRumors.com has the complete story on the three-team trade).  While the Cubs screwed around trying to trade a guy they should have never signed in the first place, other teams made deals, improved their teams, and got themselves ready for 2010.  The Cubs just did a lot of talking.

The Cubs have a few needs they must address this off season, but everything is on hold until they can trade Bradley.  So far, they have lost out on Billy Wagner.  They’ve lost out on Takashi Saito, and today they lost out on Curtis Granderson.  I don’t know if they could have signed/traded for any of these players.  What I do know is that all three could have filled a need for the Cubs.  I also know that all three are now off the board.   Whether or not the Cubs would have acquired any of the three is not the point.  The point is that they couldn’t even get involved on any of them (whether they wanted to or not) because their hands are tied.

Okay, now for a little reality.  I know that Jim Hendry is in a tough position (at least partially of his own making).  The Milton Bradley “situation” is a little complicated and it’s going to take some hard work, creativity, and time to get it figured out.  It sucks that the Bradley is tying the Cubs hands, but that’s the reality of the situation.  Getting angry doesn’t help.

I’m hopeful that Hendry and crew can get a deal done today before the Meetings end.  There’s a window of opportunity here that is closing quickly.  After the meetings, it’s harder to catch up with other GMs and be able to sit down with them at a moment’s notice.  Obviously, deals can be done outside the Winter Meetings.  It happens all of the time.  But the Meetings do provide a once-a-year opportunity that the Cubs need to use to their advantage.

**********

Does the trade of Curtis Granderson to the Yankees open up any opportunities for the Cubs?  Perhaps.  For instance, what are the Yankees going to do with switch-hitting center fielder Melky Cabrera now?  Is he expendable?  Could he be a fit for the Cubs?  What would the Cubs need to give up to get him?

What about Johnny Damon?  It’s been suggested that trading for Granderson makes it less likely that the Yankees will re-sign Damon.  If so, could Damon be a fit for the Cubs?  Can he still play center field?  Can the Cubs afford him?  Might Damon be the lead-off hitter the Cubs are looking for.

Now that Detroit has traded Granderson, might they be open to a Milton Bradley for Magglio Ordonez swap?  Detroit reportedly needs to dump some salary.  Ordonez is owed $18 million in 2010 with a club (vesting) option in 2011 for $15 million.  He can’t play center field, but he can still hit.  Is Detroit the mystery team all of the writers were talking about?

These are just some random thoughts brought on by the Granderson trade.  As they say, when one door closes, another one opens.  Has another door opened for the Cubs?

**********

Here’s a random rumor with absolutely no factual basis.  I found it on another blog, but thought it was interesting enough to share here.

Could the mystery AL team be the White Sox?  And could a deal that would send Bradley to the Southside bring Alex Rios to the Northside?

This deal may not be as far fetched as you might think.  Rios is owed $58.7 million between 2010 – 2014.  He also has a club option for 2015 for $13.5 million with a $1 million buyout.  Rios brings a relatively similar skill set to Bradley’s, but without the headaches.  Of course, his contract is for three guaranteed years more than Bradley, so the Cubs are committing much more money long term to Rios.  However, it could be argued that the Cubs would be better off paying more money long-term to have a servicable player than they would be to simply pay another team several million just to take Bradley off their hands.

Ozzie Guillen is said not to be too fond of Rios.  The White Sox are looking for a DH who can also play in the field.  At least in theory, the two teams seem to match up. 

Can you imagine Ozzie Guillen trying to deal with Bradley?  It could potentially be hilarious.  Of course, IF they can make it work, and IF Bradley can return to his 2008 form, the White Sox could really rub it in the Cubs faces.  And we all know they would love to do that.

At the moment, this trade rumor is nothing but speculation.  But isn’t it fun to dream this stuff up and then try to figure how to get it done?

**********

ESPN announced that the Dalai Lama of baseball, Peter Gammons, will be leaving the network following the Winter Meetings.  I have the utmost respect for Gammons and love to hear his thoughts on all things baseball (and music).  It’s true that he is far too often Red Sox-centric (with a little Yankees news thrown in for good measure), but he’s so good, it’s easy to forgive him.

The announcement from ESPN simply said that Gammons will be pursuing “new endevors.”  I’m not sure what that means, but I’ve heard that he’ll be joining the MLB Network.  Whatever he does, I’m sure he’ll do great.

UPDATE:  MLB.com is reporting that Peter Gammons will be joining both MLB.com and the MLB Network to be an on-air and online analyst.  Gammons will also be working with NESN, the New England-based network that broadcasts the Red Sox games.  The move will presumably allow Gammons to contine to do the work he loves while spending more time at his homes in Boston and Cape Cod.

Before the Cubs can concentrate on filling their most pressing needs, they first must trade troubled outfielder Milton Bradley.  According to Paul Sullivan of the Tribune, the Rangers and Rays remain the most likely trade partners for the Cubs. 

It’s unclear who the Cubs would get in return from the Rangers, but recent reports indicate that it could be RHP Kevin Millwood.  Of course, reports also indicate that the Cubs may have to pay $16 million of the $21 million still owed to Bradley in a trade with Texas.  According to Ken Rosenthal and Jon Morosi of FoxSports.com, at the moment, the amount the Cubs are offering to send to the Rangers along with Milton Bradley is inadequate.  Could $16 million really be inadequate?

In a trade with the Rays, the Cubs would likely receive Pat Burrell, but would then likely have to turn around and trade him.  For this reason, a three-team trade makes sense so the Cubs don’t have to take the risk of trading Bradley for Burrell and then being stuck with Burrell.  At the moment, according to the FoxSports.com duo, money is currently the stumbling block in a trade with the Rays.

Here are a few things to watch for at the Winter Meetings:

• Will another team enter the picture in a trade involving Bradley?
• Will Detroit be in the mood to discuss a trade of Curtis Granderson?  If so, will the Cubs be involved in the conversation.
• If Granderson is out of the picture, will the Cubs make a move to sign Mike Cameron, Marlon Byrd, or Rick Ankiel?
• Can Hendry find a way to add a middle of the rotation arm at a reasonable price?
• Will the Cubs make a move affecting their bullpen, or is the pen set for next year?

The Winter Meetings should be exciting.  I’m looking forward to it.

The way it looks right now, trade talks are limited to the Texas Rangers and Tampa Bay Rays.  The Rangers have made it pretty clear that the Cubs will have to pick up $16 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  What is less clear is who the Cubs will get in return for Bradley.  Some reports indicate that the only return would be a couple of middle-of-the-road prospects.

Tampa Bay appears willing to trade Pat Burrell for Milton Bradley, but only if the Cubs pick up all but $9 million of the money still owed to Bradley.  Burrell is owed $9 million in 2010 and Tampa Bay doesn’t want to take on any extra money (even though they’ll have Bradley for two years instead of just one year of Burrell).   

So those are the choices.  Pay Texas $16 million to take Bradley and get two middling prospects in return, or pay Tampa Bay $12 million to take Bradley and get Pat Burrell in return.  Neither option is too exciting.

Tom Rickett’s made it fairly clear in his first press conference as owner of the Cubs that he was not interested in paying another team to take Bradley.  If that still holds true after the reality of the situation is presented to the new Cubs owner, what will they do?

Bradley had a down  year offensively in 2009, but none other than Bill James expects him to bounce back in 2010.  Would the Cubs actually entertain the idea of bringing Bradley back?  How will his Cubs teammates react if Bradley suits up for the Cubs next year?  How will Bradley react to playing in Wrigley Field again?  How will the fans react when Bradley runs out to right field for the first time in 2010?

Obviously, I can’t give definitive answers to any of these questions, but I suspect the answers would not be good for the Cubs, for Bradley, or for his teammates.  I also seriously doubt that Cubs fans (especially those that sit in the right field bleachers) will simply forgive and forget.  I don’t see a Bradley return in 2010 turning out good for anyone.

And yet, what is Jim Hendry supposed to do if the best deal he can get is to pay another team $12 million to take Bradley in exchange for a player the Cubs can’t use?  Ricketts may not want to spend a lot of money to unload Bradley, but he might be better off spending even more money to get rid of Bradley AND get a player the Cubs can use.

Would San Francisco reconsider taking Bradley for Aaron Rowand if the Cubs sweetened the pot?  Could a deal be worked out with Detroit to take on one of their bad contracts (i.e. Magglio Ordonez) if the Cubs were willing to kick in a lot of money?  Who else would like to get Bradley for free (or close to it) in exchange for the Cubs taking on one of their bad contracts?

The Cubs have not done themselves any favors with the way they have handled the situation with Bradley, but I hope the current situation shows those defenders of Bradley what a real pariah he really is.  No one wants the guy unless he’s almost free, and even then, most teams still aren’t interested. 

I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Tom Ricketts and Jim Hendry sit down to discuss this situation.  What must it be like to ask your boss for $12 – $16 million to fix a problem you caused?  What must it be like to have to pay another team $12 – $16 million to take one of your employees off your hands?  Things could get ugly.

Whatever the Cubs decide to do, I hope they do it sooner rather than later.  Jim Hendry and the Cubs front office have already spent too much time and energy on Bradley.  It’s time to bite the bullet and move on.

Last week, Chicago Tribune columnist Phil Rogers wrote on ChicagoBreakingSports.com that the Cubs were involved in discussions over a three way trade that would send Bradley to Texas, Kevin Millwood to the Mets and Luis Castillo to the Cubs.  I’m not sure who Rogers’ source was for this rumor (assuming he actually had a source), but officials with both the Cubs and Rangers immediately shot down the rumor.

Another rumor had the Blue Jays contacting the Cubs to drum up interest in Roy Halladay.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com basically dismissed the possibility of Halladay joining the Cubs, saying:

“However, before Cubs fans start salivating at the prospect of the former Cy Young winner in the rotation with Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano, and Ryan Dempster, there’s a catch. He’s owed $15.75 million in 2010, and the Blue Jays want some of the Cubs’ top prospects. No. 1, the team can’t take on Halladay’s salary. The Blue Jays apparently have a wish list and Milton Bradley is not on it. A player like highly regarded shortstop Starlin Castro most likely is, and the Cubs don’t want to part with him, especially since they might only have Halladay for one year.”

I’m no hotshot reporter for MLB.com, but that seems like some pretty weak logic to me.  Muskat doesn’t have any idea how a potential trade would be structured, so she has no way of knowing if the Cubs would be adding the $15.75 million owed to Halladay to their current payroll.  What if the deal was Carlos Zambrano for Halladay with no money changing hands?  The Cubs would actually save money in that transaction.

As for not wanting to trade Starlin Castro to acquire Halladay, the Cubs would be foolish to make Castro untouchable in such a trade.  Castro looks very promising.  If everything works out, he’ll be the Cubs shortstop in the near future and perhaps for years to come.  Maybe.  We can’t be sure how Castro is going to develop.  What we do know is that Halladay is a legitimate staff ace.  He’s proven himself in arguably the toughest division in baseball.  Allowing Castro’s potential to stand in the way of acquiring the sure thing that is Roy Halladay just doesn’t make sense.

And the thing that really bothers mre about Muskat’s statement is that she is speaking for the Cubs.  How does she know that the Cubs don’t want to trade Castro?  Has she discussed it with Jim Hendry?  If so, did he say the Cubs don’t want to trade Castro?  Did he say Castro is untouchable?  Did he say any of this in relation to a potential trade for Roy Halladay?  I’ll bet the Cubs would not be willing to trade Castro to acquire Yuniesky Betancourt,  but a trade for Halladay is a completely different story.

Finally, Muskat says if the Cubs trade for Halladay, they might only have him for a year.  As things stand right now, that’s true.  However, my guess is that any team that trades for Halladay will want to first negotiate a contract extension with him.  That holds true for the Cubs as well.

I don’t mean to be too hard on Muskat.  Generally speaking she does a good (if uninspired) job reporting on all things Cubs related.  But this blurb about a possible trade for Roy Halladay just seemed to be defeatist in nature and tinged with the age-old idea that the Cubs can’t possibly acquire any of the best players in the game.

Moving on…Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune writes that a trade for Curtis Granderson is still a possibility.  Detroit needs to reduce their payroll and is listening to offers for their center fielder (as well as other players).  Sullivan opines that the Cubs will not part with Carlos Marmol or Starlin Castro to obtain Granderson.  I assume he is saying this because his colleague, Phil Rogers, wrote an article saying the Cubs should offer Marmol and Castro for Granderson, but again, how does he know the Cubs will not trade either player?  Is this his opinion or did someone with the Cubs say it?

Sullivan also discusses rumors involving signing free agents such as Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, Mark DeRosa, and Matt Holliday.  Sullivan thinks that Byrd and Cameron are possibilities, but Holliday and DeRosa aren’t going to happen.  I agree with Sullivan.  Holliday is out of reach and not a good fit.  DeRosa’s time has passed.  Even though I felt strongly that trading him was the wrong thing to do at the time, bringing DeRosa back now will in no way right that wrong.

Let me throw out one caveat concerning DeRosa.  It would not upset me too much for the Cubs to sign him for reasonable money on a one-year contract.  I’m almost positive that he’ll get multi-year offers from other teams, but if the Cubs can re-sign him at the right price, then I think his flexibility and leadership would be a welcome addition to the Cubs.  But again, I don’t think it’s going to happen.

**********

Phil Rogers has some rumors in the Boston Herald and his Cubs rumor says:

“Many in the Cubs’ front office think they would be foolish to give up Starlin Castro to get Curtis Granderson, but there are a lot of other ways to do the deal. General manager Jim Hendry appreciates all Granderson brings to the table, even though he has had trouble hitting left-handers in two of the last three seasons. Perhaps Granderson would benefit from working with new Cubs hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo.”

Granderson would be a good fit for the Cubs, but it is going to be difficult for them to make any deals until they know what is going to happen with Milton Bradley.  Unfortunately, Bradley not only screwed up the team during the season, but he is getting in the way of improving it in the off season.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs miss out on players like Granderson because they can’t/won’t pull the trigger on a trade or signing a free agent until the Bradley situation is settled.

**********

Gordon Wiitenmyer of the Sun-Times has corrected the information he originally gave concerning the two-year contract the Cubs signed with lefty John Grabow.  Originally, Wiitenmyer wrote that the contract was for a total of $7 million.  However, he now says that Garbow signed for a total of $7.5 million.

Wiitenmyer doesn’t say how the money is split up, but I read elsewhere that the first year is for $3.25 million and the second year is $4.25 million.  Unfortunately, I can’t find the article where I read these numbers, so take it for what it’s worth.

If the Cubs are actually interested in Granderson (I think they are), they are not going to be alone.  According to Ken Davidoff of Newsday, both the Yankees and Angels have an eye on the Detroit center fielder.  Presumably, the Yankees would move Melky Cabrera to left to accommodate Granderson in center.  The move would also lessen the need/likelihood of the Yankees bringing back Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, or both.

The Angels are interested in using Granderson as a left fielder (since they already have Torii Hunter in center).  A Granderson trade by the Angels would force Juan Rivera over to right field, or off the field completely and into the DH role.

Regardless of the competition for Granderson, Jim Callis of Baseball America (via MLBTradeRumors.com) thinks the Cubs are in the best position to make a trade with Detroit.  At the moment, the Cubs have a plethora of young middle infield talent that may interest Dombrowski and the Tigers. 

In an article from a couple of days ago, Phil Rogers of Chicago Breaking Sports.com opined that the Cubs should offer up Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro for Granderson.  I disagreed with Rogers as far as Castro goes, but I agreed that the Cubs should aggresively pursue Granderson.  Today, in his latest article, Rogers throws Josh Vitters and Andrew Cashner into the mix. 

One guy that I really trust on matters involving the Cubs, especially the minor leagues, is Arizona Phil at The Cub Reporter.com.  Somewhat surprisingly, Arizona Phil says that he too would trade Starlin Castro for Curtis Granderson.  In comment #15, Arizona Phil admits that Castro is the Cubs best shortstop prospect, but also says that the Cubs have other good prospects at short as well.

In comment #13, Arizona Phil says:

“Curtis Granderson is exactly the type of speed/power combo player Jim Hendry and Gary Hughes love. If he is available, I believe Hendry will go after him, even if it costs the Cubs Starlin Castro, Andrew Cashner or Jay Jackson, and a third pre-arb auto-renewal guy (like maybe U. of Michigan alum Jake Fox?).”

I would be hesitant including Castro in a trade for Granderson.  However, generally speaking, I think you are almost always better off trading an unproven minor leaguer for a proven major leaguer.  Starlin Castro looks like he has the makings of a big league star, but how many players have looked exactly the same way in the past and have fizzled once they reached the big leagues?  Too many to count. 

I don’t want to gut the Cubs farm system for Granderson, but one of the purposes of developing prospects is to use them as trade bait for proven big league players.  Too often, I think we as fans fall in love with the Cubs prospects and we want to make then untouchable.  However, very few guys ever make it to the big leagues with the team that drafted them.  More often than not, they make it to the big leagues with their second or third team (if they make it at all). 

 I can live with including Castro in a package for Granderson.  It would annoy me a bit, but I could live with it.

**********

As you may recall, in a report on ESPN Chicago radio a few days ago, Bruce Levine said that he expected the Cubs to announce a trade involving Milton Bradley.  The announcement hasn’t come yet, but I have heard an interesting rumor that actually makes some sense.

The oft quoted (at least in this post) Arizona Phil of The Cub Reporter threw out the possibility of the Cubs trading Bradley to Tampa Bay in exchange for Pat Burrell.  Phil believes the two teams will split Bradley’s 2011 salary.

Once they obtain Burrell, the Cubs will turn around and trade him to the Mets for Luis Castillo.  The Mets badly want to trade Castillo and the move will open up a spot at second base for free agent Orlando Hudson.

From the Cubs perspective, they’ll get rid of Bradley and the trade will allow them to add Castillo at second.  Castillo will turn 35 during the 2010 season.  He hit .302/.369/.354 in 2009 for the Mets with 1 homerun and 40 RBI. Castillo is signed through 2011 and is set to earn $6 million per year.  In 2009, Castillo had the worst fielding year of his career according to Fangraphs, with a UZR/150 rating of -12.0.

The Cubs are desperate to get rid of Bradley, and the fact that they may end up  with Luis Castillo shows just how desperate they are.  To be fair, it appears that most teams interested in trading for Bradley are teams that will only make a trade if the Cubs pay all/most of Bradley’s salary.  So although Castillo is not the ideal second baseman, Jim Hendry would probably be lucky to get him, if it means not having to pay too much of the $21 million still owed to Bradley.  I guess I can’t be too critical if the move helps the Cubs dump Bradley and add a piece (albeit a not very good piece) that they need (i.e. a second baseman).

This three-way trade is by no means perfect, but it may just be the best that the Cubs can do.  And when it comes to getting rid of Milton Bradley, that may be enough.

Even though his slash line took a hit in 2009, Granderson hit a career high 30 homeruns, all the more impressive since it was done while playing in Detroit’s spacious ball yard.  Granderson appears to be a “buy low” opportunity.  His trade value is down from a year or two ago, but his potential remains high.

Chicago newspaper columnists are almost giddy with excitement over the potential of the Cubs trading for Granderson. Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times was more subdued when he said ” given the ideal fit provided by the Chicago-area native (i.e. Granderson), conversations between the teams appear inevitable.”  Phil Rogers of the Tribune and ChicagoBreakingSports.com was much more excited.  The headline of his article, Cubs Must Go After Granderson, gives you an idea of where he stands on the subject.

Rogers praises Granderson’s on-field play and off-field involvement in the community.  He calls Detroit “crazy” for thinking about trading him, and then becomes almost apoplectic when he says “The Cubs should do absolutely everything to get him, if he is available. There’s no debate about this.”

Rogers then starts the trade talks by offering up Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro.  I’m not very high on Marmol as a closer, but at the moment, he is the only one the Cubs have.  Also, I’m not ready to annoint Castro the second coming of Derek Jeter or Ozzie Smith, but he does appear the heir to the throne at shortstop.  Is this really the price that the Cubs want to pay for Granderson?

Thankfully, Phil Rogers’ trade offers do not obligate the Cubs in any way.  It is true that Granderson would be a good fit for the Cubs in center field.  I’m not sure where he would fit in the line up.  His numbers seem to be better suited for the middle-of-the-order than leadoff, but that’s an arguement for another day.  For now, let’s focus on what price the Cubs would have to pay to acquire Granderson.

First, let’s look at money.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $23.75 million.  His contract also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million with a $2 million buyout.  All tolled, Granderson is guaranteed to make $25.75 million over the next four years.  He’s not cheap, but his contract is not outrageous either.

Next, who would the Cubs have to give up to get Granderson?  Rogers’ offer of Marmol and Castro is too high.  I wouldn’t make Castro untouchable, but for this deal, I’d take him off the table.  I’d be willing to trade Marmol, but only if the Cubs have a really good idea of who is going to replace him.  As I’ve stated previously, I don’t think the Cubs should go into 2010 counting on Marmol to be their closer, but at the moment, he’s the only one they have.

Other names could include Jake Fox, Micah Hoffpauir, Aaron Heilman, Mike Fontenot, and Aaron Miles (if they’ll take him).  A few of these guys are non-tender candidates, but they still have value.  Sean Marshall is another valuable trade chip.  He deserves a shot as a starter somewhere, but it appears that he’s not going to get that shot with the Cubs again this year.

The Cubs minor leagues have some interesting trade candidates.  Darwin Barney is one guy who is proving himself in the minors, but who will likely not have a place to play when he’s ready for the big leagues in a year or two.  J.R. Mathes led the Iowa Cubs in wins last year, but doesn’t appear to have a future on the big league staff.  Rather than let him rot in Iowa (no offense to the Great State of Iowa), why not use him as trade bait.

These are just a few options.  I don’t know what the Tigers would want in return for Granderson other than salary relief.  The Cubs have some valuable players they can send Detroit’s way.  The important thing now is to keep Phil Rogers away from the negotiations.

**********

Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago said in a radio interview that the Cubs will announce a Milton Bradley trade in the next 3-4 days.  He mentioned the Rangers, Rays, Mets and Tigers as possible trade partners for the Cubs.  

The Rangers are starting to not make sense to me if Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated is correct that the Rangers would only be willing to pay $5 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  The Rays also do not make sense.  If the Cubs send Bradley to Tampa Bay for Pat Burrell, they will have to turn around and trade him, likely picking up a portion of his contract.

The Mets don’t make sense on a couple of levels.  First, although they would like to move Luis Castillo and his remaining two years and $12 million contract, they have already said that they are not interested in Bradley.  Also, New York isn’t exactly the quiet, laid-back small market Bradley needs.   The Cubs may have interest in Castillo, but a third team would probably have to get involved for a deal to work.

The Tigers could be interesting on several fronts.  First, I’ve already talked about Curtis Granderson.  The Cubs could use him, but there’s no way that the Tigers trade him straight up to the Cubs for Bradley.  Might the throw in Dontrelle Willis?  He has been largely ineffective for the Tigers and he is owed $12 million in 2010.  Jim Hendry likes his reclamation projects, but D-Train is awfully expensive.  Even so, I would rather pay Willis $12 million to play for the Cubs next year than I would to pay Texas $16 million over two years for Bradley not to play for the Cubs.

The Tigers also have some interest in trading Magglio Ordonez.  He is owed $18 million in 2010 and he has a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  The 2011 option vests if he starts 135 games or gets 540 plate appearances in 2010, or he gets 270 starts or 1080 plate appearances between 2009 and 2010.

Ordonez can still be a dangerous hitter, but he’s becoming more of a DH than an everyday position player.  In 2009, he played right field in 104 of the 131 games in which he played.  That number will likely go down in 2010.  Plus, the Cubs would really like to move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field.  Adding Ordonez wouldn’t allow that.

I don’t know where Milton Bradley is going to end up or who the Cubs might get for him, but it will sure be nice not talking about him anymore.  It will also be nice being able to move on with the off season.

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

Today, I want to turn my attention to the outfield.  The general concensus has been that Milton Bradley will be traded in the offseason, so the Cubs will either need to replace him in right field or they”ll instead move Kosuke Fukudome back to right and then go shopping for a center fielder.  We’ll look at both possibilities.  But first, let’s take a look at the potential market for Bradley to get a feel for what a trade may bring in return.

In a previous post, I stated that the only way the Cubs are realistically going to be able to trade Bradley is to take back another teams’ bad contract or package Bradley with some other valuable players.  I’ve also thrown out some possible trade scenarios.  Let’s run them down in no particular order here:

Milton Bradley to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand — Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two seasons and Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years.  San Francisco would like to jettison some payroll in order to make some moves, but at the moment they are hamstrung.  By taking on Bradley, the Giants could reduce payroll a bit and could add a typically high-OBP bat to their lineup.  From the Cubs perspective, Rowand will be 32 years old during the 2010 season.  He is coming off one of the worst seasons in his career, having hit .261/.319/.419 with 15 homeruns and 64 RBI.  Rowand could fill the potential void left in center field, but his defense has taken a hit over the years and the Cubs would be commiting to having him on the team for three years.  Not a perfect trade for the Cubs, but what is?

Milton Bradley to Texas Rangers for Michael Young — In a nutshell, the Texas Rangers are in bad financial trouble.  The team is for sale, but the process is moving slowly.  If owner Tom Hicks can’t unload the team soon, he instead is going to have to unload some payroll just to keep the team afloat.  The Rangers’ highest paid player is Michael Young.  He is owed $64 million over the next four years.  Trading Young for Bradley may not make baseball sense for the Rangers, but it would make financial sense.  From the Cubs perspective, they could take advantage of Texas’ financial woes by unloading Bradley and bringing in the middle-of-the-order run producer they covet.  In 2009, after spending some time on the DL, Young hit .322/.374/.518 with 22 homeruns and 68 RBI.  He currently plays third base, but the Cubs would have to move back to shortstop, which is his preferred position.  This would also force Theriot to second.  The move would also reunite Young with hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo to whom he gives much credit for his hitting ability.

Milton Bradley to Los Angeles Angels for Gary Matthews, Jr. — At one time not too long ago, Gary Matthews, Jr. was considered a hot commodity.  In 2007 he was signed by the Angels to a 5 year, $50 million contract.  But just one year later, the Angels signed Torii Hunter to play center field and Matthews became the highest paid 4th outfielder in baseball.  At the moment, Matthews is still owed $23 million over the next two years.  In limited action in 2009, Matthews hit .250/.336/.361 with four homeruns and 50 RBI.  My guess is that the Cubs would jump at this trade.  The contracts are basically a wash and Matthews could fill a need in center field.  He may not be the power threat that Michael Young is, but I think it is fair to say that his power numbers will increase if he is getting regular playing time, which could make him the middle-of-the-0rder run producer the Cubs are looking for.  Plus, he’d be reunited with Rudy Jaramillo who was his hitting coach in 2006 when he had the best offensive year of his career.  The real question is, would the Angels take on Bradley?  The Angels and Mike Scioscia  have a history of not putting up with player misbehavior.  But they are under some pressure to trade Matthews, both because he has asked for a trade and because they pay him a lot of money to be a 4th outfielder.  There’s a chance Vlad Guerrero could be leaving the Angels, so Bradley could step in as a DH.  If I had to guess, I would guess that the Angels would not go for this trade.

Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay Rays forPat Burrell — According to Bruce Levine with ESPN Chicago, the Cubs are still talking to Tampa about a Bradley for Burrell trade.  Just typing that makes my head hurt.  Burrell is a DH.  Don’t the Cubs realize that there is no DH in the NL?  When he does play in the field, he plays left field.  We have one of those already.  This trade make no sense to me, but it looks like it’s a possibility.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Toronto Blue Jays for Vernon Wells and Roy Halladay — Toronto is in a world of hurt.  They need to rebuild their team in order to compete in the AL East, but they are saddled with such big contracts that they can’t make any moves.  Vernon Wells is owed $98.5 million over the next five years, plus another $8.5 million in 2010 that is the third installment of his signing bonus.  Halladay is owed $15.75 million in 2010 and then he becomes a free agent.  Together, that’s a ton of money.  Is there any scenario where this would make sense for the Cubs?  Maybe.  The only way I see it working out is if the Cubs are given the opportunity to work out an extension with Halladay before the deal is made.  Even if this happened, it still might not be enough for the trade make sense for the Cubs.  Vernon Wells contract is just too crazy.

Milton Bradley to Detroit Tigers for Curtis Granderson or Magglio Ordonez — I have to admit, I don’t completely understand this rumor.  I don’t see why Detroit would trade either Granderson or Ordonez for Bradley.  Even so, the rumors have been persistent.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $14.75 million.  Considering his production, he has a rather reasonable contract.  He also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million and a $2 million buyout.  In 2009, Granderson hit .249/.327/.453 with 30 homeruns and 70 RBI.  He also stole 20 bases on a team that generally does not steal many bases.  Ordonez is owed $18 million for 2010.  There is also a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  Ordonez struggled at the plate for a good part of 2009, and still managed to put up a hitting line of .310/.376/.428 with 9 homeruns and 50 RBI.  Granderson will be  29 years old in 2010 and Ordonez will be 36.  Honestly, I don’t know why the Tigers would trade either guy for Bradley, but if they’ll do it, the Cubs should jump at the chance.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott — If Baltimore would go for this trade, it could fill the Cubs two biggest offseason needs all at once.  Roberts would be the lead-off man they have lacked for years and Scott is the middle-of-the-order run producer they are looking for.  But would Baltimore really go for it?  My opinion is that they should.  Let’s face it, the Orioles are not in a position to compete in the AL East.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only way the Orioles win the East is if they decide to rank the teams alphabetically next year.  Since that’s the case, why would the Orioles hang on to two guys that are a) expensive, and b) not going to be around in a few years when the Orioles will be in a better position to compete.  Roberts is owed $40 million over the next four years and Scott’s 2010 salary will be set via arbitration, but it’s safe to say that he’ll be getting a raise from the $2.4 million he made in 2009.  If I was in Baltimore’s shoes, I would look to jettison payroll now and bring in young players who they can put around Matt Weiters and can help them compete in a few years.  Of course, Andy MacPhail hasn’t asked for my advice.

**********

We can be sure that Alfonso Soriano will be in left next year for the Cubs and Kosuke Fukudome will either be in center or right.  That leaves one starting position and two back up positions open in the outfield.  I’ve layed out the possible players the Cubs can acquire through a trade of Milton Bradley.  Let’s look at possible free agent targets.

The three most intriguing free agent center fielders to me are Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, and Rick Ankiel.  Byrd is expected to sign a two or three year deal for $5+ million.  There’s also been quite a bit of speculation that the Rangers would like to resign him.  Byrd hit .283/.329/.479 with 20 homeruns and 80 RBI.  He’ll turn 33 during the 2010 season.

Mike Cameron will be 37 in 2010, but he has been very steady throughout his career.  In 2009 he hit .250/.342/.452, which is remarkably close to his career averages.  He made $10 million in 2009, but is probably looking at signing a one-year contract for less money.

Rick Ankiel should be a low cost, high upside player.  However, his agent is Scott Boras, so who knows what kind of money he might be looking for.  He hit .231/.285/.387 with 11 homeruns and 38 RBI in 2009 in limited action.  He’d be a risk, but at the right price, could be a good investment.  The problem is, I don’t think his price is going to be right.

Right fielder free agent targets include Bobby Abreu and Jermaine Dye.  I’m fairly certain that Abreau is going to be looking for a multi-year contract (two or three years) for somewhere around $10 million per year.  He’s already turned down a two-year, $16 million contract extension from the Angels.  I like Abreu, but I’m afraid he has priced himself out of the Cubs’ budget.

Jermaine Dye made $11.5 million in 2009 and hit .250/340/.453 with 27 homeruns and 81 RBI.  Even so, Dye may end up walking the same road that Abreau walked last offseason.  I can foresee Dye signing a one year deal for $4 million – $6 million.  Dye has always performed and has not really gotten the credit he deserves.  Signing Dye for one year at $5 million could be a good investment for the Cubs.

The 4th and 5th outfielders are probably with the club already.  They will come from a list of Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, and Sam Fuld.  There’s also the possibility that the Cubs will re-sign Reed Johnson, although my personal opinion is that Johnson would cost too much.  I don’t foresee the Cubs going after a free agent to fill one of the reserve outfielder positions.

**********

Next up is a look at the Cubs pitching staff for 2010.  Are they set or will they go shopping for pitching this offseason.  Stay tuned…

In the field, the Cubs would prefer to add a center fielder and move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field.  If that center fielder is a middle-of-the-order run producer, all the better.  The team will also be looking for a second baseman, unless they can find a good shortstop, which will force Ryan Theriot over to second base.

The starting pitching staff is pretty well set, but the bullpen is a bit in flux.  Will John Grabow re-sign?  More importantly, do the Cubs want to enter the 2010 season with Carlos Marmol as their closer?

Over the next few days, I’ll take a look at the team and give my thoughts on what the Cubs brain trust should do this offseason to get ready for 2010.  Today, I’ll start with the infield.

**********

First Base — There’s little doubt who will play first base next year.  Derrek Lee will be entering the final year of his contract in 2010 and there’s no reason to believe he’s going anywhere.  However, the question of who is going to back him up is a good one.  Lee has missed playing time over the past couple of years with a pinched nerve in his neck.  If the problem flares up again, who will play first base?

Within the organization, Micah Hoffpauir is the first guy that comes to mind.  Jake Fox is another.  Both guys are considered “offense-first” type of players, but I think both showed this past year that they can do a credible, if unspectacular, job in the field.  Although Fox is generally considered the more potent offensive threat, they put up very similar number in 2009.  Hoffpauir bats left-handed, which may carry more weight in the decision than it should.  Fox is more versatile in the field.

Another option is for the Cubs to sign a fairly low dollar free agent who could back up at first base and be a dependable bat off the bench.  Someone on the back side of their career that can accept a backup role and can be an additional veteran presence.  Someone in the mold of Tony Clark or Kevin Millar comes to mind.  The knock against bringing in someone like Clark or Millar is they probably won’t put up any better numbers than Hoffpauir or Fox, but they will probably cost more.  That’s a good point.  So unless you feel that the veteran presence is that important, stick with Hoffpauir or Fox and save your money.

**********

Second Base — We found out in 2009 that Mike Fontenot is not the answer to the second base question.  The Cubs also have Aaron Miles, Jeff Baker and Andres Blanco on the roster and all three can play second base.  Even so, I don’t think any of them is the answer the Cubs are looking for at second.

In my opinion, Aaron Miles does not have a role to play on the 2010 Cubs.  He needs to be traded or released.  I know that releasing him will cost some money, but keeping him on the team will waste a valuable roster spot.  If you can trade him, great, but be willing to release him if you have to.

I envision Jeff Baker playing the role of a poor man’s Mark DeRosa.  He impressed in his time with the Cubs last year and I can see him coming back in an expanded role.  I don’t foresee him as the everyday second baseman, but rather as a super sub.  He can play several positions and do a credible job at all of them.

Andres Blanco is an interesting player.  He’s known for his awesome defense, but what people don’t know is that his offense has improved since joining the Cubs.  My understanding is that Blanco battled injuries during the early part of his career and did not get the at-bats he so desperately needed.  Now that he is healthy, his offense is improving and is becoming a much larger part of his game.

Although it would not be my first choice, I could see a middle infield made up of Theriot and Blanco.  I’d prefer Blanco at short and Theriot at second, but the other way around could work as well.  In my opinion, the Cubs should only consider this if they can’t find a more suitable solution via free agency or a trade.

Some possible free agent targets the Cubs might consider are Chone Figgins, Orlando Hudson and Akinori Iwamura.  I’m almost certain that Figgins will be too expensive (four or five years at $10 million/year?).  Also, he’s somewhat of a hot commodity at the moment, so there will be considerable competition for him.

Hudson is a little more realistic, but considering that he was beaten out of his starting job with the Dodgers by Ronnie Belliard, the bloom is a bit off this rose.  Even so, Hudson put up respectable numbers in 2009 (.283/.357/.417, 9 HR, 62 RBI) and might be a good fit for the Cubs.  He’s neither the speed demon nor the middle-of-the-order run producer they want, but he’d likely do a better job than the in-house candidates.

Iwamura is an interesting possibility.  He’s currently with the Rays and they have an option on him for next year that will cost them $4.25 million.  The Ray are likely to opt for the buyout ($250,000) rather than pick up his option.  They have other less expense possibilities at second base, so Iwamura will likely be a free agent.

In 2009, Iwamura had a hitting line of .290/.355/.390 in 69 games.  Again, he’s not a speed demon or a middle-of-the-order run producer, but he could still be a nice addition to a Cubs team that had trouble getting on base this past year.

A couple of other free agent possibilities include Mark DeRosa and Freddie Sanchez.  I like both of these guys, but I don’t think either one makes sense.  DeRosa is going to be 35 years old and he’s coming off of wrist surgery.  He was once an integral part of the Cubs, but that ship has sailed. 

Sanchez is an interesting possibility.  San Francisco has a club option on Sanchez for $8 million with a $600,000 buyout.  Opinion has been that the Giants will opt for the buyout, but would like to sign him for less money.  Sanchez will be 32 in 2010 and will be coming off knee surgery.  He’s expected to be 100% healthy by Spring Training.

I like Sanchez and he interests me if the price is right.  Problem is, I don’t think the price will be right.

Another interesting free agent name is Placido Polanco, who will be 34 next season.  Polanco hit .285/.331/.396 with 10 homeruns and 72 RBI for Detroit in 2009.  He’s a career .303/.348/.414 hitter, but at least initially, the market seems to be soft for him.  He made $4.6 million last year.  If he is willing to take a pay cut, he’ll be in the Cubs financial ball park.  If not, he’ll be playing for someone else next year.

Potential trade targets include Kelly Johnson (Atlanta) and Brian Roberts (Baltimore).  Roberts would obviously cost the Cubs much more that Johnson.  In fact, the only way Roberts could conceivably end up with the Cubs is if he is part of a package involving Milton Bradley.  I’ve pushed the idea of a Milton Bradley and others package for Roberts and Luke Scott.  I don’t know if either Jim Hendry or Orioles GM Andy MacPhail have jumped on that bandwagon yet, but I’ll keep beating the drum.

Johnson doesn’t seem to bring anything to the table that Baker or Blanco couldn’t provide.  He’s the type of player that Hendry has shown an interest in in the past, but I don’t think he makes sense for the Cubs.

**********

Shortstop — Unless the Cubs make some sort of unexpected move, Ryan Theriot will be the starting shortstop in 2010.  Let’s face it, despite the call for an all-star caliber shortstop by many fans, Theriot has done a more than credible job during his tenure.  In 2009, he hit .284/.383/.369 with 7 homeruns and 54 RBI.  And he only made $500,000.  What a bargain.

Blaco is another guy that could conceivable take over short and push Theriot over to second.  Eventually, I think Starlin Castro will do this anyway, so maybe it’s a good idea to get Theriot started at second now. 

Although I don’t expect the Cubs to bring in a shortstop via trade or free agency, there are a couple of names out there to consider.  I don’t foresee the Cubs getting in on Marco Scutaro, but there is a small chance they could take a flyer on Orlando Cabrera or Miguel Tejada.  The reason I think these two guys may be on the Cubs radar is because I expect both to still be available at the end of the offseason for a relatively bargain price (ala Bobby Abreau last year).  It wouldn’t bother me to get a veteran shortstop for a year to hold the position for Starlin Castro in 2011.  However, I don’t expect it to happen.

**********

Third Base — With any luck, Aramis Ramirez will return healthy next year and will stay healthy all year.  He missed two months in 2009 with a shoulder separation and trying to fill his place in the lineup and in the field proved to be ctwo hallenges the Cubs were not up for.  So who will be Ramirez’ backup in 2010?

Jake Fox is one internal possibility.  He’s not going to win any Gold Gloves at third, but he did a better job there than many expected.  With some additional work, he might even be credible.

Jeff Baker is another guy that can fill in for Ramirez.  In fact, I never did quite understand why the Cubs didn’t give Baker more playing time at third in 2009 while Ramirez was injured.  As the team’s super sub, I would call on him to fill in at third when needed.  As such, I don’t foresee and moves to bring in a backup for Ramirez.

************

Catcher — Who is the real Geovany Soto?  Did we see the real Soto in 2008 when he won NL Rookie of the Year honors and hit .285/.364/.504 with 26 homeruns and 62 RBI or was his .218/.321/381 with 11 homeruns and 47 RBI in 2009 the real Soto?  I wish I knew.  I think the Cubs feel the same way.

Soto’s performance in 2008 was a pleasant surprise.  His minor league numbers didn’t lead people to think he would hit as well in a full-time MLB role as he did.  Now, after his performance in 2009, people are asking whether or not 2008 was just a fluke.

I have little doubt that the Cubs will enter the 2010 season with Soto as their starting catcher.  However, I’m not convinced that they will stick with him for very long if he struggles at the plate the way he did in 2009.

The Cubs will not look to replace Soto via trade or free agency, but they may look into bringing back free agent catcher Henry Blanco to act as a mentor to Soto.  There is some thought that Soto struggled in 2009 without the same influence that Blanco provided in 2008.  Blanco will be 38 years old, so the Cubs should not expect too much out of him, but if he can play the role of mentor to Soto and give him a day off every once in a while, bringing Blanco back on a one-year deal may be a good investment.

Having said all of this, I think it is fair to ask, what about Koyie Hill?  Hill was a capable fill in for Soto while he was on the DL and during his offensive struggles.  He deserves to be brought back.  Unfortunately, things don’t always work out the way they should.  Since Hill is out of minor league options, he may be moved as part of a trade.

It would not bother me to see Hill brought back next year, but the more important issue is putting Soto in a situation where he can  succeed.  If bringing Henry Blanco back improves Soto’s chances of repeating 2008, by all means, bring Blanco back and trade Hill.

**********

That’s it for the infield.  Next, I’ll look at what needs to be done with the outfield.

I don’t have any particular interest in either team.  And yet, I sat transfixed in front of the television as the two teams battled back and forth.  And just as the regular season needed one additional game, that additional game needed extra innings to determine a winner.

The Twins won in 12 innings, but the more important point, at least for me, was how much I loved watching the game.  I didn’t have a rooting interest, so the outcome was less important to me than the gutsy play of both teams.  It was a great game and I loved every minute of it.  I’m just sorry it had to end so soon.

**********

The 29 other MLB owners gave their unanimous approval yesterday for the Ricketts Family to take over the Cubs.  The next step in the process is to take the Cubs through a quick, pre-packaged bankruptcy to make sure there are no liens or liabilities the parties are unaware of.  That should happen next week and the Rickettses should have complete control of the team by the end of October.

What will happen then?  Will Tom Ricketts want to make a big splash going into the family’s first season as owners?  Will he spend a lot of money (more than the $140 million +/- the team is already spending) or will he reign in the spending and go into rebuild mode (doubtful)?  There are a lot of moving pieces with the Cubs right now.  It should make for an interesting and exciting offseason.

**********

Two Chicago sportswriters have put together to-do lists for Jim Hendry.  Both writers agree that moving Milton Bradley will be job one in the offseason for Hendry, but Gordon Wiitenmyer of the Sun-Times seems to be a bit more positive about the situation than the Tribune’s Paul Sullivan. 

Among the things the writers have listed are:

• Trade Milton Bradley
• Get an RBI bat for the middle of the lineup
• Resign John  Grabow
• Resigning Reed Johnson (maybe)
• Retool the bench
• Add a lead-off hitter
• Get and keep Carlos Zambrano in shape

**********

Bruce Miles at the Daily Herald also is starting to think about next year.  He takes a look at the Cubs position players from 2009 and gives his thoughts on what he thinks is going to happen with each player and each position.

Miles is an astute writer who always seems to see through the haze to get the “real” story.  There are two particular passages from his article that give the Ying and Yang of this Cubs team:

3B Aramis Ramirez: Maybe once and for all, people will realize what a potent offensive force Ramirez is. His season was cut to 82 games because of the shoulder. He turned in a hitting line of .317/.389/.516 with 15 homers and 65 RBI.
Nuggets: You may or may not believe there are “clutch” hitters, but Ramirez batted .425 with runners in scoring position (37-for-87). He was 5-for-11 with the bases loaded.

IF Aaron Miles: Somebody has to be the worst player in baseball, or at least the worst veteran, and that dubious distinction may go to Miles, whose hitting line is .185/.224/.242. And to think he completed only the first year of a two-year, $4.9 million contract.
Nuggets: In Baseball Prospectus’ VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) system, Miles ranked 1,018th, at minus-13.4. At least he ranked ahead of Ronny Cedeno.

The thing that amazes me about Aramis Ramirez is that he missed half of the season and still managed to be a more potent offensive force than guys like Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley who played the vast majority of the season.  The thing that amazes me about Aaron Miles is that he received a two-year, $4.9 million contract last offseason.  Jim Hendry does love his scrappy little second baseman, doesn’t he?  It wouldn’t surprise me if Miles was released this winter.

**********

If you’re interested in a funny, irreverent, and perhaps completely inappropriate parody column from the frozen head of Ted Williams, then check out the FoxSports website.

In an article by Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune, Jim Hendry is quoted as saying Joshua didn’t do anything wrong.  He said Joshua was brought in from the minors to replace Gerald Perry in June and was told it was a temporary assignment.  Hendry also told Joshua at the time that he could have his old job back if things didn’t work out.

Later in the article, Derrek Lee is quoted as saying, “I hate to say it, but a hitting coach is overrated.”  He also said that neither Perry nor Joshua were to blame.  If a player doesn’t hit, it’s the player’s fault, not the hitting coach’s.

In addition to looking for a middle-of-the-order bat and a leadoff hitter in the offseason, Hendry will now also be looking for a hitting coach.  What promises to be a busy offseason just got a little busier.

**********

The season isn’t quite over yet.  Both the Tigers and Twins won yesterday, so they will play a one game playoff today at the Metrodome in Minnesota.  This is the second year in a row the Twins will be playing in a one game playoff.  They lost to the White Sox last year.

-edit- The one game playoff will be held on Tuesday (10/6), not Monday (10/5).

The other teams going to the post season in the AL will be the Yankees, Angels and Red Sox.  The Yankees will await the outcome of today’s game between the Twins and Tigers and will then host the winner.  The Angels will host the Wildcard winning Red Sox to start their best-of-five series.

In the NL, the Rockies will travel to Philadelphia to take on the Phillies beginnning Wednesday afternoon.  The Dodgers will host the Cardinals at Chavez Ravine beginning Wednesday night.

I’m picking the Yankees and Red Sox to survive in the AL, while the Phillies and Cardinals will play for the pennant in the NL.  All Division Series games will be broadcast on TBS

**********

Alex Rodriguez entered the sixth inning of yesterday’s game against the Rays needing seven RBI to hit 100 for the season.  Time was running out and it didn’t look like he would make it.  What happened next is a new AL record.

 Rodriguez came up with two on and belted a three run homer off Rays pitcher Wade Davis.  The homerun brought him closer to the century mark in RBIs, and Rodriguez thought he might get one more at-bat in the game.  But as the Yankees continued to batter Rays pitching, that at-bat came sooner than ARod thought it might. 

The Yankees half of the sixth inning continued and Rodriguez found himself in the on deck circle when the Rays intentionally walked Mark Teixeira to load the bases.  Rodriguez then delivered his second homerun of the inning, this one a grand slam, giving him seven RBIs in the inning and a new AL record.  His second homerun of the inning was also his 30th homerun of the season, giving him seven consecutive years of 30 or more homeruns.

**********

I’ve advocated for a salary cap in the past on these pages.  I’m less concerned with a cap controlling a team’s spending as I am in forcing teams like the Pirates and Marlins to spend a minimum amount.  As it is, these teams are spending less on player payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

Another concern I have with the disparity in spending is that  lower spending teams have trouble competing.  Of course, those who disagree with me point to teams like the Twins who have been at least in the hunt for the plaoffs most of the past decade.  The Marlins are another example.  Not only have they made the playoffs, but they won the World Series, beating the high spending Yankees.

As I’ve said in the past, the low spending teams making the playoffs is the exception that proves the rule.  Murray Chass disagrees with me.  In a recent article, Chass makes the assertion that there is no problem with the system as is and that it should be left alone.  To prove his point, Chass offers the following:

These are the teams, according to their rank in the salary standings, that have made the playoffs the last 10 years. This year’s lineup includes the Tigers and the Rockies, who had not clinched their spots when this was posted. (number in parentheses is the number of teams in the top 8 that were in the playoffs):

• 2009 (6): 1-4-5-6-7-8-12-17
• 2008 (4): 2-5-6-7-9-10-15-28
• 2007 (5): 1-2-5-7-8-22-23-26
• 2006 (3): 1-5-6-12-14-17-19-21
• 2005 (4): 1-2-5-6-10-12-14-16
• 2004 (5): 1-2-3-7-8-11-12-19
• 2003 (3): 1-4-6-10-11-17-23-26
• 2002 (3): 1-4-7-10-13-16-27-28
• 2001 (4): 3-5-6-8-9-12-17-26
• 2000 (3): 1-3-5-12-15-18-25-27

Chass’ point is that in almost every year, there are lower payroll teams in the playoffs.  Here’s my point: In seven of the past ten years, at least four of the top eight highest payroll teams made the playoffs.  And in every one of those 10 years, four of the top twelve spending teams qualified for the post season.  So what you have is the top spending teams claiming four playoff spots every year and the remaining 18-22 teams fighting over the remaining four spots.

I’ll be the first to admit that spending a lot of money doesn’t guarantee a team a spot in the playoffs.  Just look at the 2009 version of the Cubs.  But when money is wisely spent, the team that spends the most usually wins.