Despite the lack of playoff wins during his tenure with the Cubs, Piniella has done a good job in Chicago.  He led the team to back-to-back division championships for the first time since 1907-08, and the Cubs had three winning seasons in a row under him (2007-2009).  Depending on how the 2010 season ends, he could end up with four winning seasons in a row (although I would not bet on it).

Of course, the speculation on who the Cubs manager will be starting in 2011 started even before Piniella officially announced his retirement.  Ryne Sandberg seems to be the fans choice.  Sandberg is probably my favorite Cubs player of all time (I celebrate Ryne Sandberg day every June 23), but there’s a big part of me that hopes he isn’t the next manager.  Sure, I have some concerns about Sandberg’s ability to lead a big league club.  But more than that, I don’t want to see him fail.  Ryno has a spectacular reputation among Cubs fans and I would hate to see that tarnished in any way.

Another potential managerial hire is Joe Girardi.  I have a lot of respect for Girardi.  I also have the tangential connection to him through my in-laws (I’ve explained this before, but my wife grew up with Joe and their families were friends for years, although not so much now).  I think he would do as good of a job with the Cubs as anyone, but I seriously doubt he’ll leave the Yankees.  Maybe his connection to the Cubs is stronger than I think it is, but I just don’t see him giving up the managerial job with a perennial winner to take the same job with a perennial loser.

Cubs announcer Bob Brenly is also in the discussion.  I appreciate the fact that he has spoken his mind concerning the Cubs poor play this year, but I wonder if that might not hurt him.  Even if it doesn’t hurt him with the front office, it just might hurt him with the players.

Alan Trammel’s name has also been thrown into the mix.  The Cubs bench coach is certainly familar with the ball club, but I wonder if his association with Piniella might not hurt him.  With Piniella leaving, I would think the club would want to make a clean break from the past.  Keeping Trammel around sort of just continues the coaching philosophy of the past three plus years.  Plus, for what it’s worth, Trammel does not have a particularly inspiring track record as a manager.

Paul Sullivan also mentions Joe Torre as a possible replacement for Piniella.  Torre’s contract with the Dodgers is up at the end of this year and he has mentioned his desire to manage the Cubs in the past.  Personally, I don’t see it.  I’m not sure that it is a good fit and I wonder how much the 70-year old Torre still has in the tank.  Of course, it’s hard to argue with the success Torre had in New York and to a lesser extent in Los Angeles.  Even so, if I was a betting man, I’d bet against a Torre era with the Cubs.

Finally, a dark horse candidate might be Pat Listach.  He a former Cubs minor league coach and the current third-base coach for the Nationals.  He was well-liked while he was in the Cubs’ organization and he’s well-respected throughout baseball.  Even so, I don’t think he has the big name brand equity the Cubs will likely be looking for.

So who will the next manager be?  Perhaps a better question is, who will be hiring the next manager.  Jim Hendry is on the hot seat and he very well may not be back next year.  Will Hendry do the hiring?  Will a new GM do the hiring?  Will Tom Ricketts make the decision on the next Cubs manager regardless of who is sitting in the GM’s chair?  It should be interesting.

UPDATE:  Paul Sullivan at Chicago Breaking Sports has an update on the Lou Piniella press conference.  In addition to confirming that Piniella will retire at the end of the season, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts said that he plans on retaining Jim Hendry and that Hendry will be making the decision on a new manager.  To me, that’s a little surprising, but it is probably a good idea to get it out of the way now rather than fueling speculation for the rest of the year and going into the off-season.

There’s no doubt that Hendry has his detractors and some of what they say when they complain about him is true.  Hendry has made his mistakes.  But who among MLB GM’s has not made similar mistakes.  Theo Epstein in Boston is often held up as the perfect GM, especially by the Sabermetric crowd.  But Epstein has made his share of mistakes.  Under his direction, Boston has released players who were still owed big money (i.e. Julio Lugo) and are in a position right now where they want to pay someone to take Mike Lowell off their hands.  Brian Cashman and Billy Beane are two other GM’s who are often lauded, but who also have a mixed record.

In order to be a successful GM, you have to take some risks.  And when you take risks, sometimes you lose.  It’s the nature of the game.  If you look objectively at Hendry’s record (something that is hard for Cubs fans to do, including me), you find that at the very least, he has done a respectable job.  I can’t say I’m thrilled that Hendry will be leading the Cubs into 2011 and perhaps beyond, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it either.

With Hendry coming back, I think the odds of Sandberg being the next manager just increased a bit.  Sandberg has done everything Hendry has asked of him, and he has done it well and with success.  He’s climbed the coaching ladder within the Cubs organization and I think it will be tough for Hendry not to choose him as the Cubs next manager. 

In fact, let me make a prediction.  In the near future, I predict that Sandberg will by moved up onto Piniella’s coaching staff to get a little big league coaching experience before taking over the team next year.  It’s just a guess on my part, but remember, you heard it here first.

In case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s the video of Zambrano’s latest meltdown, complete with commentary from the insufferable Steve Stone:

In a nutshell, Zambrano had a very difficult first inning, giving up two doubles, a single, and a three-run homerun to the White Sox Carlos Quentin.  At the end of the half-inning, Zambrano returned to the dugout and went nuts.  He started screaming at everyone within earshot and seemed to aim the brunt of his vitriol at Derek Lee, presumably because Lee did not dive to make a fantastic play on Juan Pierre’s double down the first base line.

Lee took exception to Zambrano’s tirade and the two came face-to-face before Lou Piniella and Alan Trammel intervened.  For his part, Piniella sent Zambrano home in a scene reminiscent of Milton Bradley’s early exit from a game against the White Sox at U.S. Cellular last year.  To put a bit of icing on the cake, Zambrano destroyed another Gatorade cooler and then treated the cameramen waiting outside U.S. Cellular to an expletive-filled rendition of his greatest hits.

Following the game, Cubs GM Jim Hendry announced that Zambrano had been suspended indefinitely for his actions, which Hendry described as “not acceptable.”  MLB and the Player’s Association will each conduct an investigation of the incident before it is determined exactly how long the suspension will last.  Last year’s suspension of Bradley lasted the remainder of the season.  However, that suspension occurred in the middle of September when the season was almost over.  My guess is that Zambrano’s suspension will not last more than two or three weeks.

In the post-game press conference, Piniella indirectly defended Lee by pointing out that the balls hit by the White Sox were hit really hard and that one of them (the homerun to Quentin) ended up in the stands.  Piniella went on to say that Zambrano would, at the very least, be required to apologize to his teammates before he would be allowed to return to the Cubs clubhouse.  He later announced that, once he returns, Big Z will be returning to the bullpen, replaced in the rotation by Tom Gorzelanny.

After being sent home early, Zambrano rather publically went to dinner with White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen and his family.  Z has been roundly criticized for having dinner with the opposing manager, especially after being suspended from his own team earlier in the day.  I’m less critical.  I’m sure the arrangements were made far in advance and I’m not sure how having dinner with Guillen makes the situation worse.  However, I will admit that the better decision may have been to postpone dinner to a more settled time.

I want to give kudos to both Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella for the consistent way they have handled the situation.  They caught some flack last year both when Bradley was sent home from a game early and when he was suspended in September.  Some even suggested that the treatment was racially motivated.  Handling Zambrano the same way Bradley was handled is right and appropriate.  It sends a signal that bad behavior will not be tolerated, regardless of your race or the size of your contract.

Of course, that brings up the question, considering that Bradley never played another game in a Cubs uniform following his suspension, what’s going to happen to Zambrano?  The situation is a bit difference.  In the case of Zambrano, Hendry does not have the luxury of the off season to make a trade.  Also, Zambrano is owed about $45 million over the next two-and-a-half years; about twice as much as Bradley was owed.  Finally, Z has a full no-trade clause.  If he chooses to, he can block any trades Hendry might be able to make.

Hendry should be working the phones to gauge interest in Zambrano, but my guess is it’s going to be a tough sell.  To move the 29-year old pitcher, Hendry will likely have to eat a large portion of the contract or he’ll have to take on another bad contract in return.  Zambrano will also have to agree to any trade.

Another option is to just put Zambrano on waivers.  Let’s see if any other team will come along and claim Z.  Perhaps it will turn into an Alex Rios situation where Toronto just let the White Sox have Rios without making a trade.  The Sox just claimed his contract.

Watching the Cubs at this point is like watching a train wreck.  You don’t really want to see the carnage, but you just can’t turn away.  And while Zambrano’s antics add a bit of interest to an otherwise uninteresting season, both Hendry and Piniella are right.  Zambrano’s behavior is unacceptable.

Serrano defected from Cuba in April 2009 after being arrested in Cuba in January 2009 for attempted illegal departure.  At least we know he’s persistent.  The right-hander began pitching in the Cuban professional baseball league at the age of 16.  He is believed to be 20 or 21-years old, although MLB Trade Rumors is now saying he may be 22.

Oddly, it has been reported that Serrano threw two simulated innings for Cubs scouts, striking out four and giving up one run on an infield hit, but Muskat reports that a “baseball source” (what does that mean?) denied the report. 

Although Muskat’s article didn’t mention money, the website CubanBallPlayers.com says that Serrano will be paid $250,000 by the Cubs.  Muskat’s article does say that Serrano still must take a physical and there is additional paperwork that must be completed before the deal is finalized.

It will be interesting to see where Serrano slots in with the Cubs.  I would think a guy who has been pitching for five years in the Cuban Serie Nacional would be able to go directly to Double-A or Triple-A, but that remains to be seen.

**********

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the true value of on-base percentage.  I’m very accepting of advanced statistics, but I think they need to be viewed in the proper perspective.  Baseball is a relatively complex game and expecting to look at a set of numbers (or worse yet, just one number) in order to understand the game is unrealistic (Not to mention that it takes some of the fun out of the game).

Paul Sullivan with the Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article talking about how the Cubs’ front office is beginning to look more and more at statistics in their evaluation of players.  I thought the story painted a pretty amatuerish picture of the Cubs front office.  Jim Hendry is quoted in the article saying he and his staff have always done more statistical analysis than people thought.  He also pointed out that the Cubs have had a “numbers cruncher” (i.e. Director of Baseball Information) on the staff for the past seven years.  Even so, Sullivan made it sound like the Cubs had just heard about advanced statistics.

 Rob Neyer at ESPN.com then had to jumped on the story.  Neyer’s article, entitled Cubs Threaten to Join 21st Century, was kind of snarky.  Neyer, a guy who has made a career out of analyzing baseball statistics, seemed almost personally offended that a professional baseball team in this day and age would not have the same type of religious fervor over statistics that he has.  Neyer was especially snarky when he wrote, “But Jim Hendry admits that he’ll ‘always be a scouting guy first.’ I wonder if the Cubs would be better if he just went back to being a scout, period.”  That was kind of mean.

I like Neyer and I appreciate his statistical perspective on the game.  But sometimes he (and others) become almost apoplectic when anyone suggests that baseball can be viewed through something other than a statistical lens.  Jim Hendry is not Bill James.  Okay, we get it.  Is it really necessary to suggest he should lose his job because he doesn’t worship baseball statistics the way some others (I’m not naming names) do?  That seems a tad bit harsh to me.

By the way, Jim Hendry probably should lose his job, but it’s not because he doesn’t take baseball statistics as seriously as Rob Neyer.

**********

This next bit of information is almost too weird to believe.  As you know, all of the teams in the Cactus League (other than the Cubs) are opposed to the funding plan proposed in the Arizona House of Representatives.  The proposal calls for an additional dollar of tax on rental cars and an 8% tax on tickets to all Cactus League Spring Training games.  I think the opposition is silly, short-sighted, and will eventually come back to bite the other teams, but what do I know?

Anyway, the Cactus League held their annual kickoff breakfast this past Tuesday at HoHoKam Stadium in Mesa, Spring Training home of your Chicago Cubs.  The breakfast is an annual league affair designed to give teams the opportunity to thank their host cities shortly before the Cactus League season begins.  

Because the event was being hosted in Mesa (the host rotates each year), four Cactus League teams decided to boycott the breakfast in protest over the proposed legislation that would be used to build a new spring Training home for the Cubs.

According to a report on the Arizona Republic website, the White Sox, Angels, Dodgers, and Reds were the four teams who refused to participate. 

“In a nutshell, we continue to feel it’s fundamentally wrong to implement a tax on loyal baseball fans,” Angels spokesman Tim Mead said, acknowledging that his team stayed away for that reason. “We just fundamentally disagree.”

If it’s “wrong to implement a tax on loyal baseball fans,” then who should be taxed?  If you’re going to tax someone so you can build a baseball stadium, doesn’t it make sense to tax someone or something that has to do with baseball?  Apparently, it’s not “fundamentally wrong” to tax people who rent cars in Arizona.  At least Angels spokesman Tim Mead didn’t say he thought it was wrong.

Josh Rawitch of the Dodgers had this to say:

“The Dodgers and White Sox simply feel it is wrong to ask fans coming to Camelback Ranch to pay for another team’s new stadium with a surcharge on their tickets.”

But who paid for the Dodgers new stadium, Josh?  Wasn’t it the fans of other teams, as well as people who couldn’t care less about baseball? 

It’s important to remember that the four teams who boycotted the kick-off breakfast in Mesa all have benefitted from taxpayer funding for their stadiums.  It was taxpayer funding that lured the White Sox, Dodgers and Reds away from Florida into the Cactus League.  It was also taxpayer funding that build Camelback Ranch and lured the White Sox out of Tucson, a move that ended up sticking the taxpayers of Tucson with a $30 million bill and no Cactus League team.

Seriously, these teams could not be more hypocritical if they tried.  And even if you oppose a proposed tax, is boycotting a breakfast really the best way to voice your opposition, or is it just a completely classless, immature move?  Arizona House of Representatives Majority Leader John McComish thinks it’s the latter.

“I think it’s a shame to boycott a kickoff breakfast,” McComish said. “That’s what petulant children do. In this case, they already had their turn at bat, they got their stadium.”

In the end, I don’t see this working out well for the other teams in the Cactus League.  If funding can not be found for the Cubs new stadium in Arizona, they’ll likely leave for Florida where funding is already in place and waiting for them.  And when they do, the teams of the Cactus League will lose their biggest draw.  By some estimates, the Cubs generate 40% of the economic impact that the Cactus League has on the Arizona economy.  With fewer Cubs fans, attendance will likely drop across the league, resulting in lower Spring Training revenues for the teams left behind. 

Honestly, the strategy being employed by the owners of the other teams doesn’t seem very well thought out.  Of course, when all is said and done, they’ll still have new stadiums to go back to that someone else has paid for.  So they have that going for them.

One thing Tracy has going for him is his age.  He’s just 29-years old.  Millar does not have the same advantage.  He is 38-years old and definitely in the twilight of his career.  He may be best known as one of the self-proclaimed “idiots” on the Red Sox 2004 World Series championship team, but he was also a pretty good player in those days.  Now, he is coming off two pretty bad years in Baltimore (2008) and Toronto (2009), and is barely clinging to the hope that he can have one or two more seasons in the sun.

Why would the Cubs sign a couple of guys like Tracy and Millar?  They don’t fill any obvious need for the Cubs and they take up payroll space that is already in short supply. 

Let’s deal with the payroll question first.  Both players were signed to minor league contracts, so at least initially, their salary won’t impact the big league payroll.  If he makes the big team, Tracy will earn $900,000 plus incentives.  It’s still a lot of money, but in baseball terms, it’s a pittance.

I’m not certain how much Millar will earn if he makes the big team.  I’ve scoured the Interwebs and couldn’t find the information anywhere.  However, I’m fairly certain that his contract will be similar to Tracy’s.  If Kevin Millar makes the Cubs out of Spring Training, I don’t think it will break the bank.

UPDATE: According to the Chicago Tribune, Kevin Millar’s contract does not contain any guaranteed money.  I believe that means that, although he’ll receive per diem in Spring Training, he will only make the league minimum if he makes the big team.

So, money is really not a concern with these two signings.  Even so, the question remains, why would the Cubs want to waste their time on Chad Tracy and Kevin Millar?

Let’s deal with Tracy first.  Although it’s been a while since he had a good year, it’s important to remember that just a few years ago, Tracy was viewed as a player with a lot of potential.  A budding star.  In 2005, Tracy hit 27 homeruns for the D-backs.  He followed that up with 20 homeruns in 2006.  Tracy just could be a diamond in the rough.  For the Cubs, it’s a low risk/high reward proposition.

Plus, Tracy has shown that he is one of the top left handed pinch hitters in the game.  He could provide some pop off the bench, a quality the Cubs were lacking last year.  I expect Tracy to make the Cubs opening day roster (assuming he stays healthy through Spring Training) as a bench bat and back-up corner infielder.

Millar serves a different purpose.  I think it’s safe to say that Millar’s best baseball days are behind him.  Even so, he can help the Cubs just the same.

Everywhere Millar goes he lightens the mood.  And in case you don’t remember, the mood with the Cubs last year was not very light.  Between the negativity provided compliments of Milton Bradley and the underperformance of the rest of the team, the Cubs locker room was not a fun place to be in 2009.  The Cubs are hoping that Millar’s irreverent personality can improve the clubhouse during Spring Training.

It’s also important to realize that Millar and Ryan Dempster are good friends.  Dempster has emerged as the quasi-leader of this Cubs team.  I think Jim Hendry is hopeful that the good mojo (a technical term) between Dempster and Millar can rub off on the rest of the team.

Millar will also push guys like Micah Hoffpauir and even Chad Tracy to do their best in Spring Training.  I seriously doubt that Millar will make the team.  In fact, I expect that he will enjoy one last Spring Training with his buddy Ryan, and then will walk off into the sunset of retirement.  I don’t think he’ll go to Iowa in hopes that the Cubs will need him at some point in the season.

On the surface, signing two guys that nobody else wants may seem like a mistake, but I think both signings make perfect sense for the Cubs.  Neither guy is going to cost the team much money, and they both serve a very specific and valuable purpose. 

And let’s face it.  If all we have to complain about after the 2010 season is that Hendry signed Chad Tracy and Kevin Millar to minor league contracts, then the 2010 season will turn out to be a whole lot better than what I’m expecting.

**********

Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated has an interesting take on the off season.  He believes that the Cubs failed to spend enough money to improve their team.  Here’s what he says:

Nady is coming off a 2009 season in which he only played seven games before going on the DL with an elbow injury.  He eventually had to have his second Tommy John surgery on his right (throwing) elbow.  At this point, he is back to throwing and can throw 150 feet without pain.

The 31-year old Nady had a breakout year in 2008 when he hit .305/.357/.510 with 25 homeruns and 97 RBI for the Pirates and Yankees.  He ended the year with an OPS+ of 127.  After acquiring Nady from the Pirates mid-year, they named him their starting right fielder for the 2009 season.   Unfortunately, just seven games into the season, he went down with an injury and his time in New York was over.

Although Nady will officially be the Cubs fourth outfielder to start the season, it appears that he’ll get quite a bit of playing time.  He will likely split time with Fukudome in right (although probably not a straight platoon)  and will spell Soriano from time-to-time in left.  In addition, he’ll likely get the starts in left during interleague play, allowing Soriano to DH.

**********

I am not thrilled with the Nady signing nor am I upset by it.  The base salary seems a little high and it could get worse with the incentives.

On the other hand, Nady signed with the Cubs for the same amount he signed with the Pirates for in 2008.  In 2009, he signed with the Yankees for one-year and $6.55 million.  So a base salary of $3.3 million doesn’t seem outrageous.

Plus, Nady was the best available outfielder out of a group of him, Jermaine Dye, Rocco Baldelli, and Jonny Gomes.  He’s younger and a better fielder than Dye, a better hitter than Baldelli, and doesn’t strike out nearly as much as Gomes.  In addition, Nady is the most versatile player of the bunch.  His best positions are right and left field, but he also can play center field, first base, and even third base in a pinch.

So, despite my initial concerns about the money, I can’t be too upset about the Cubs signing Nady.  Plus, he is just a fourth outfielder, so it makes no sense getting upset.

**********

Think about this: You’re Xavier Nady and you just had a decent year in 2007.  You hit .278/.330/.476 with 20 homeruns and 78 RBI.  Your stock is on the rise and you get a raise of $1.2 million when you sign with the Pirates, avoiding arbitration, for the 2008 season.

Your 2008 starts out great.  The Pirates aren’t doing much, but you’re having an outstanding year.  As the trade deadline approaches, you are traded to the Yankees and finish the year by putting up the best season of your career.

Prior to the 2009 season you sign a contract for $6.55 million per year and you’re named the Yankees starting right fielder.  But seven games into the season you injure your elbow and you miss the rest of the season.

Going into the 2010 season, you become a free agent and there are several teams that are looking at you to start in their outfield.  The Braves are even looking at you as a possible first basemen.  Maybe you can pick up right where you left off in 2008.

Unfortunately, teams are signing players and filling their needs while you sit on the sidelines.  Rumors start to swirl that this team or that might be interested in you, but only as a fourth outfielder.  Somehow, you went from having a career year in 2008 to being the opening day right fielder for the eventual World Series Champs in 2009, to being a fourth outfielder in 2010.  What happened?

**********

One of the concerns about Nady is that he is recovering from his second Tommy John  surgery.  For whatever reason, the first surgery didn’t work and he had to have it re-done. 

Dr. Joseph Hecht (AKA “Cubster”) over at The Cub Reporter indicated that it’s rare to need a second TJS, especially for a non-pitcher.  Even so, he said that his guess is that Nady will recover and be just fine.

The Cubs will find out more about Nady’s surgery and recovery later this week when he takes a physical for the team.  The physical is the final step in the process that will make Nady a Cub.

**********

There was another high profile signing on Tuesday when the Oakland A’s signed Ben Sheets.  Sheets signed for one-year and $10 million plus incentives. 

I like Sheets, but I think this signing is crazy.  Sheets was a huge injury risk before the last injury he had that caused him to miss the 2009 season.  Now, after not being able to pitch for a year, Oakland spends $10 million — about one-seventh of their entire payroll — on a guy who is a huge question mark.

I’ve heard the argument that signing Sheets was a bold move by Billy Beane and the A’s.  If Sheets does well, the A’s can potentially trade him for some high ceiling prospects.  Even if they don’t trade him, they can probably get a couple of draft picks for him if he signs elsewhere after the season.

That sounds like a good plan IF Sheets pitches well.  But even if Sheets pitches well, it will still cost Oakland a big chunk of their payroll.

If Sheets does not pitch well or if he gets injured, this signing will be a disaster.  If it was the Yankees we were talking about, then no big deal.  They spend $10 million on spilled drinks in a season.  But Oakland?  Oakland is always crying poor and Billy Beane made his reputation by building competitive teams with a limited payroll; not by agreeing to high dollar contracts with high risk players.

From all reports, Jim Hendry was very interested in signing Sheets.  At the right price, he could have been a great addition to the Cubs pitching staff.  So give credit to Hendry for not paying Sheets asking price.  A low dollar contract with lots of incentives made sense.  The contract Sheets ended up signing with Oakland doesn’t.

**********

Late Tuesday afternoon the Cubs announced that they had signed former Arizona DiamondBacks third baseman Chad Tracy to a minor league contract.  Tracy was invited to Spring Training and will compete for a spot on the Cubs bench.

Tracy has had a long list of injuries over the years including oblique strains, groin pulls, and back injuries.  In 2007 he had microfracture surgery  on his knee. 

Tracy hasn’t had a really good season since 2005.  He hasn’t played a full season since 2006.  Even so, signing Tracy was a good move by the Cubs.  It’s a low risk/high reward play.  He’ll be given the chance to make the team out of Spring Training.  Even if he doesn’t make the team, he can potentially rebuild his career in Iowa.  Either way, the Cubs are not taking much of a risk.

UPDATE: Chad Tracy will earn $900,000 plus incentives if he makes the major league roster.  That may seem like a lot, but Tracy may be one of the top left handed pinch hitters in the game.

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: First Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Second Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Shortstop
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Right Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer
• What Can You Get For $140 Million? Starting Pitchers

My theory going into this series of posts was that by virtue of having the third highest payroll in all of baseball, the Cubs should have one of the best players at almost every position.   Of those players, two-to-four should be perennial all-stars.

I recognize that having one of the best players in baseball at almost every position is expensive.  That’s why I think a high payroll team still needs to have one or two young, inexpensive players.  However, those players should not just be roster filler.  They may be young and inexpensive, but they should also be extremely good.  An example of such a player would be Dustin Pedroia with the Red Sox.  David Wright of the Mets was also this type of player a few years ago.  Geovany Soto may be such a player today, although the jury is still out.

To determine if the Cubs roster meets this criteria, in each post I ranked the Cubs players against the starters from each of the five other highest payroll teams.  Then, I considered whether or not the Cubs player was among the top players at their position.  Here’s how the Cubs players ranked against the players at the same position for the other five highest payroll teams:

• First Base — Derrek Lee (5 out of 6)
• Second Base — Mike Fontenot (6 out of 6)
• Shortstop — Ryan Theriot (4 out of 6)
• Third Base — Aramis Ramirez (3 out of 6)
• Catcher — Geovany Soto (2 out of 6)
• Left Field — Alfonso Soriano (3 out of 6)
• Center Field — Kosuke Fukudome (4 out of 6)
• Right Field — Milton Bradley (4 out of 6)
• Closer — Kevin Gregg (5 out of 6)
• Starting Pitchers — Carlos Zambrano (5 out of 30)

                                    Ted Lilly (12 out of 30)
                                    Rich Harden (13 out of 30)
                                    Ryan Dempster (17 out of 30)                                            
                                    Randy Wells (18 out of 30)

Kind of confusing, isn’t it?  I know.  One of the main reasons is because my hypothesis was wrong.  I thought that comparing the Cubs’ roster to the rosters of the five other highest payroll teams would work because I incorrectly assumed that the other five highest payroll teams would have some of the best players in baseball at each position.  Having looked at every position from each of these teams, it’s obvious that these other five teams do not have one of the top players at each position.  Each of these teams is built differently, but none of the teams has been able to build a starting line-up made up of some of the best players at each position, not even the Yankees.

Although my hypothesis was wrong, I’m not ready to give up on my belief that the third highest spending team in baseball should have some of the top players in the game on their roster.   So, do the Cubs have some of the best players in the game on their roster?

Our research showed that two Cubs, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, were among the best at their position in all of baseball.  Alfonso Soriano was close when he was signed, although he has fallen off recently.  Soriano gets a bad rap from people who are quick to forget what a terrific hitter he was earlier in his career.  If he can regain some of his previous hitting ability, Soriano can still be a top left fielder.

Geovany Soto is a tough call.  Was the 2008 version of Soto the real deal, or was the 2009 version the one we’ll see in the future?  Either way, I can’t fault the Cubs for handing him the starting job in 2008.  He was one of those young, inexpensive players I talked about previously.  It remains to be seen which Soto shows up in 2010.

The Cubs pitching staff also qualifies as among the best in baseball.  The real weakness is that 1) the Cubs don’t have a true ace, and 2) the pitching staff as currently constituted will not be as good in 2010 as it was in 2009.  The loss of Rich Harden and Ted Lilly’s inability to pitch for the first month or more of 2010 will take its toll on the Cubs.

What about the other positions?  Starting Fukudome and Bradley in center and right field respectively was uninspired.  Acquiring Bradley was a clear mistake that forced Fukudome to move from right field, where he was good, to center field, where he wasn’t so good.  Neither player qualifies as one of the best at their position, making the Cubs outfield one of the weakest among contending teams.

Ryan Theriot straddles the line between mediocre and poor among shortstops.  He combines the ability to be nothing special on defense with a below average OPS+.  The Cubs need a top shortstop and Theriot doesn’t qualify.

Mike Fontenot is among the worst second basemen in baseball.  He is not the type of player a club with a $140 million payroll should have in their starting lineup.  Even so, as of this writing, the Cubs appear ready to give Fontenot another shot in 2010, unless Jeff Baker, a more versatile but equally as bad second baseman, can unseat him.

Finally, the Cubs had one of the weaker closers in baseball as their closer in 2009.  There really was nothing in Kevin Gregg’s history that indicated that he could be a top-notch closer.  However, he was relatively inexpensive, so Jim Hendry signed him and hoped for the best. 

As I conducted my analysis, I kept coming back to this last statement.  Jim Hendry has a history of signing players and hoping for the best.  He signed Milton Bradley to be a middle-of-the-order run producer, even though Bradley had never shown the ability to fill that role before.  That fact, and Bradley’s past behavior should have given Hendry pause.  But instead, Hendry signed Bradley and hoped for the best.

He signed Gregg and hoped for the best, despite the fact that there really was no evidence in his past history that indicated that Gregg could be a reliable closer.  It should have been clear that Gregg was not the type of closer a contending team would want on their roster, yet Hendry took the leap of faith.

Finally, there was nothing in Mike Fontenot’s background that should have indicated to anyone that he could be a successful everyday second baseman on a contending team, yet Jim Hendry handed him the job and kept his fingers crossed.  The unnecessary risk back fired badly and he’s done nothing this off season to correct the problem.

The Cubs have not done a good job of spending their money.  They have the third highest payroll in baseball, yet they have a roster that is more reminiscent of a middle-of-the-pack team.   And it’s Jim Hendry’s job to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I’ve been a big supporter of Hendry’s over the years.  However, after taking an in-depth look at the roster, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that he has not done a good job of building this team.  A change in perspective is needed, and I don’t think that change can take place by keeping the same people in their current positions.

The Cubs needed a change in culture a few years ago.  They needed to stop thinking of themselves as small spenders.  They are a large market team with one of the highest revenue sources in the game, and they needed to start acting like one.  That happened under the direction of John McDonough and Jim Hendry.  The Cubs also rebuilt their farm system under the direction of Jim Hendry.

Now, another change is needed.  The Cubs need to view themselves as players for most every big name free agent.  They need to be viewed as a likely destination for top players when they are put on the trading block.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Hendry is the man for the job.  Although he has shown a capacity to trade for players that are being dumped by their current team, he has not shown much ability or willingness to trade his own players or top prospects. 

The Curtis Granderson situation earlier this off season was a good example.  Despite his shortcomings, Granderson is considered one of the top center fielders in baseball.  He would have been a perfect fit for the Cubs.  Even so, Hendry was unwilling to get too deeply involved.  Detroit wanted top prospects in exchange for Granderson.  The Yankees were willing to deal their prospects in exchange for a proven commodity.  Hendry refused to include the Cubs top prospects in any sort of deal.  As he has done in the past, he has deemed some unproven, but highly regarded prospects as untouchable.  This approach cost the Cubs a difference maker in center field and all they have to hang their hats on is the potential of some of their young players.

The botton line to all of this is that the Cubs need to get better.  The need to spend their money to build a perennial contender.  They need to change the way they build their roster.  As much as I like and respect Jim Hendry, I’m not convinced that he’s the guy to make the shift in approach and get the job done.

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.

As with many of Jim Hendry’s signings, this contract is backloaded to provide some payroll flexibility this year.  According to Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times (via Twitter), the contract is structured to pay Byrd just $3 million in 2010, $5.5 million in 2011, and $6.5 million in 2012.

I have mixed emotions on the signing.  I’m not a big Marlon Byrd fan.  He had a couple of nice years in Texas, but he’s going to be 33-years old in 2010.  It’s not that he’s too old.  It’s that he started to finally find his stride when he was 30 or 31.  How many guys wait until they are 30 to finally start hitting?  So were his years in Texas actually his career years or has he finally figured out how to hit?  If it’s the latter, will he continue his hitting ways away from Texas?

In some respects, the Byrd signing reminds me of the Milton Bradley signing last year.  As you’ll recall, Bradley was coming off of a career year, just like Byrd.  He was also coming over from Texas, a team with a hitter-friendly ball park.  Jim Hendry was trying to catch lightning in a bottle with Bradley. 

But Byrd is different from Bradley in three key ways.  First, Byrd has been having career years (or at least good years) in Texas for three years, not just one.  Second, Byrd is not the head case that Bradley was.  And finally, unlike Bradley, Byrd will be able to continue his relationship with hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo.  Byrd responded well under Jaramillo’s tuteluge and they will both be employed by the Cubs next year.

I’d be remiss if I did not point out that the signing of Byrd is also reminiscent of the Cubs signing of Mark DeRosa.  DeRosa was 32-years old when he signed with the Cubs.  He had a a fairly unspectacular career until he signed with Texas in 2005 and suddenly his bat came to life with the help of Rudy Jaramillo.  That signing worked out pretty well for the Cubs.  Let’s hope that Marlon Byrd’s tenure with the Cubs is more reminiscent of DeRosa’s than Bradley’s.

Regardless of my feelings about Byrd the player, I can’t be too critical about the deal itself.  Signing Byrd for just $15 million over three years is pretty reasonable.  I wouldn’t have guessed he would sign for less than $7-$9 million per year, so kudos to Hendry on that account.  I still question if signing Byrd at all is a good move, but the deal itself is quite reasonable.  

My crystal ball tells me that Byrd will have a decent, but unspectacular career with the Cubs.  If the team can find a better center fielder at some point in the future, they should have the payroll flexibility to snag him.  Assuming Byrd doesn’t really blossom in a Cubs uniform, his contract will allow him to become potential trade bait or a good 4th outfielder.  And if he does blossom, then the Cubs just got themselves a heck of a good deal on a center fielder.

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