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?

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…

The Cubs are currently 5.0 games behind St. Louis in the NL Central and 3.5 back of the Rockies in the NL Wild Card race.  Five games behind in the division seems like a lot, but one good series for the Cubs and one bad one for the Cardinals could turn this thing around.  I hope I’m not being a cock-eyed optimist. 

Over the next couple of weeks, the only opponent the Cubs face that is over .500 is the Dodgers.  Otherwise, the Cubs face the Padres, the Nationals, the Mets and the Astros.  Let’s see who the Cardinals face.  D’oh!  With the exception of the Mets, the Cardinals face the same teams that the Cubs do, just in a different order.  We’ll there’s a good idea gone out the window.

It could still happen, but I don’t want to look foolish trying to explain it.

UPDATE: Ryno over at The Cub Reporter (comment #37) must have been thinking the same thing I was thinking when he did this research.  According to Ryno, the winning percentage of the opponents the Cubs face the rest of the season is .475.  The Cardinals opponents have a .482 winning percentage.  Not really much of a difference.

The bottom line is this: The Cubs have to find a way to gain 5.0 games (or more) on the Cardinals in the final 50 or so games of the season.  They can’t afford to lose any series and they have to hope that the Cardinals stumble at some point.  They’ll get started on this quest tonight in San Diego while the Cardinals take on the Dodgers in LA.

**********

Midnight tonight is the deadline for signing draft picks.  The Cubs have signed all of their draft picks, but top drafts choice Stephen Strasburg remains unsigned.  I read two different reports, one saying the Nats had offered $17.0 million and another one saying the offer was actually $12.0 million.  In either case, the offer would be the highest in the history of baseball (for a Rule 4 draft pick).

Scott Boras has insisted that Strasburg is a once-in-a-generation pitcher and that his client deserves $50 million.  Of course, it is Boras’ style to ask for the moon and settle for the stars, but $50 million?  That’s nearly five times to amount the Cubs paid Mark Prior in 2001.  That amount stands as the current highest ever for a Rule 4 draft pick.

Ultimately, Strasburg is in charge of these negotiations and the onus is on him to accept or decline Washington’s offer.  As much as Boras may want to shoot for the moon, it’s up to Strasburg to bring him back to Earth.

There’s one angle to this story that I’ve had in my mind, but I haven’t seen it reported anywhere.  Strasburg may be the best, most can’t miss, prospect ever taken in the MLB draft, but he’s not bigger than the game itself.  So Strasburg has to walk a fine line of maximizing his pay day without disrespecting the game.

To be a little clearer, I expect Washington to offer Strasburg in the neighborhood of $20 million, nearly twice the previous record.  If Strasburg walks away from that amount of money, in my opinion, he is making himself bigger than the game.  He’s saying that he is worth more than twice as much what any other player in the history of the game is worth and that he would rather play in Japan or in an independent league for a pittance than to play in MLB for $20 million.  That would not sit well with me and it would not set well with most fans.

Assuming the Nats do offer Strasburg anywhere near $20 million, I don’t think there is anyone that would then point the finger at them and suggest that they did not negotiate in good faith.  At or near $20 million, then the burden to shifts to Strausburg to get the deal done. 

**********

John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer writes that the Reds should not do anything in the off season because the needs are too great and the money is too little.  I think Fay is correct, which raises the obvious question, what was the thinking behind the Scott Rolen acquisition? 

With Cincinnati having so many needs, but no ability (or willingness) to spend more money, why would they take on an additional $10 million +/- financial burden in Rolen.  Sure, he’s an upgrade over what the team previously had at third.  but couldn’t that $10 million have been put to better use in the off season?

I thought that the Reds were going to be a force to be reckoned with when Walt Jocketty became their GM.  Jocketty had done an admirable job in St. Louis and I assumed he would do the same in Cincinnati.  But so far, the moves he has made have not been admirable.  He’s tinkered around the edges and then suddenly made a huge, but questionable acquisition in Rolen. 

The Reds currently have a payroll of around $74 million.  About $43.5 million of that is tied up in just four players; Francisco Cordero, Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo, and Rolen (assuming Rolen’s full 2009 salary).  In 2010, the payroll is likely to remain the same, but the four highest paid players will take up $46.5 million.  That’s about 63% of the entire budget tied up in just four players.  That’s not a formula for success.

Granted, three of those contracts were signed pre-Jocketty, but he’s certainly not helping things by trading for Rolen.  From the outside, it appears that the Reds really don’t have a plan and their just flailing.  Fay, who has a much closer seat to the action, apparently feels the same way.

***********

John Smoltz was officially released and will be free to sign with another team on Wednesday when he clears release waivers.  According to Jon Paul Morosi at Fox Sports, the Cardinals, Dodgers, Marlins and Rangers all have interest.  Why aren’t the Cubs on that list?  Can anyone seriously argue that Smoltz wouldn’t make the Cubs bullpen better?

The one sticking point to my argument is that the Dodgers may want Smoltz to start.  They lost another pitcher to injury over the weekend when Hiroki Kuroda was hit in the head by a line drive.  So if Smoltz has his heart set on starting, the Dodgers may be the only team that can accommodate him. 

If the only offers available are for bullpen assignments, then the Cubs should definitely be in the mix.  Hopefully, Jim Hendry is just laying low until Smoltz can actually sign elsewhere.

Carlos Zambrano started the game for the Cubs, but only pitched 3.0 innings when he left the game with a stiff back.  According to Z, he wasn’t injured, but noticed that his arm slot had dropped because of the stiff back.  Rather than risk injury, Lou Piniella opted to pull him from the game.

After Lee hit his homerun in the top of the 10th, Nunez hit Aramis Ramirez on the left bicep with a pitch.  Ramirez, who was 2-for-5 with a double, three RBI and a run scored, appeared to be fine.  He moved to second on a sacrifice bunt, but then came out of the game complaining of dizziness and nausea.  After the game, Pinella said Ramirez was fine.

The annoying thing for me was that the Cubs got out to a 6-0 lead, but the Cubs pitching couldn’t hold the lead.  Zambrano gave up two earned runs before leaving the game, and then Jeff Samardzija and Kevin Gregg gave up three earned runs each to allow Florida to tie the game.  Thankfully, the offense was able to bail out the pitching.  Of course, considering how the first half of the year went, that’s probably a nice change.

The final game of the series will be today against the Marlins.  Ryan Dempster (5-5), who didn’t look good in his last outing, will take on former Cub farmhand Ricky Nolasco (7-7) in a late afternoon affair at Land Shark Stadium (I can never get used to that name).

**********

In my wrap up of the trade deadline, I criticized JP Ricciardi for not being more realistic about the trade value of Roy Halladay.  In particular, I said that Ricciardi was “deluded” for thinking that Halladay would bring more in the off season than teams were willing to pay at the trade deadline.  A couple of friends challenged my thinking on this, saying that teams would have more payroll flexibility in the off season than they have now, so they’ll be able to afford to pay more for Halladay then than they can now.

Although there may be a team or two that will have the financial flexibilty to add Halladay after the season that couldn’t afford him in July (the Cubs may be one of them), I think the bigger issue is what teams were willing to give up in prospects for Halladay.  If a team had traded for Halladay in July, they could have used him in 2009 as well as 2010.  If they trade for him in the off season, they’ll only be able to use him in 2010.  So which is worth more, a pennant drive and a full season of Roy Halladay, or just a full season?  To me, the answer is obvious. 

Think of it this way.  I’m really thirsty right now and you have a case of water you want to sell.  Is the water more valuable to me now when I am super thirsty or is it more valuable next year when I might be thirsty?  Okay, it’s not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the point.  Teams needed Halladay this year to make the final push to the playoffs.  He would still be nice to acquire in the off season, but the urgency won’t be nearly as strong as it is now.

**********

Rob McQuown at Baseball Prospectus has some thoughts on the Scott Rolen trade to Cincinnati.  McQuown really likes Rolen and lays out a good case why Rolen is an affordable (at $10 million) and talented option at third for the Reds.  If the trade had been Edwin Encarnacion for Rolen, the Reds would have gotten the better end of that deal.  But by including highly regarded prospects Josh Roenieke and Zach Stewart, McQuown thinks that Walt Jocketty made the worst trade of any GM at the trade deadline.

While I agree with McQuown’s perspective, I think the bigger issue is how Rolen’s contract will hamstring the Reds from improving their team next year.  Let’s face it, the Reds aren’t going to compete this year.  They had a decent first half, but they’ve been fading ever since.  So improving the team this year wasn’t really much of an issue.  The more important issue is improving the team in the future.  And to do that, Jocketty is going to need some payroll flexibility.  Adding Scott Rolen to the roster makes the Reds a better team, but severely ties Jocketty’s hands to address the many other issues the team has.

John Fay at the Cincinnati Enquirer makes this exact point on his blog.  Fay believes that the acquisition of Rolen has forced Jocketty’s hand and the Reds will  now have to move the contracts of Aaron Harang, Francisco Cordereo, and/or Bronson Arroyo.  Without moving one or more of these contracts, the Reds will be unable to address their other needs. 

What Fay doesn’t say is that other teams are going to be loathe to give up much for any of these pitchers.  So the Reds are in the position of having to move these players, but because they have to move them, the Reds don’t have any leverage to insist on getting quality back in return.

By the way, for what it’s worth, Toronto will be paying the remaining $4 million owed to Rolen this year.  The Cardinals will be paying the $4 million bonus that is owed to Rolen in 2010. 

**********

Here are two good articles regarding the Jake Peavy trade.  David Cameron from Fangraphs posted a column on Cory Brock’s blog detailing why he liked the trade for the Padres.  Scott Miller from CBSSports.com gives his opinion on why the White Sox made a good trade.  While I agree with both writers, I think this trade will be remembered for the White Sox getting Jake Peavy.  The guys going from the Sox to the Padres may turn out to be valuable pieces, but it will be Peavy going to the White Sox that will be remembered.

Also, in Miller’s piece, Peavy says that he will be back this year to pitch.  There was some concern about Peavy not being ready untilm next year.  If Peavy can still pitch this year, Kenny Williams made an even better trade.

**********

The San Diego Padres are expected to release Mark Prior today.  Prior signed a minor league deal with the club in the off season and could have earned $1 million had he made it to the big team.  MLB Trade Rumors has the details.  It’s just another sad chapter in a career that has had many more ups than downs.