In a separate Tweet, Stark says that there are “2 or 3″ other teams interested in Bradley.  Earlier in the day, one of those teams was identified as the Kansas City Royals and the rumor was that they were interested in trading Gil Meche to the Cubs for Bradley.  There was also a rumor that Meche would go to the Mets, Luis Castillo to the Cubs and Bradley to Kansas City.  However, Royals GM Dayton Moore shot down the rumors calling them “unbelievable” and saying that there were no talks going on with either the Cubs or the Mets about a potential deal.

Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald wrote that the Mets might be interested in trading directly with the Cubs to acquire Milton Bradley.  If Bradley couldn’t handle the bright lights of Chicago, I’m not sure how he’s going to handle New York, but if a trade can be made, that would not be the Cubs problem.

Away from the Milton Bradley front, Miles opined that Ted Lilly may not be back from injury and ready to pitch until May 1.  I’m liking the Cubs starting rotation less and less.  To start the season, it looks like Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster and Randy wells will be the Cubs top three starters.  Tom Gorzellany and Sean Marshall will likely be the other two starters to start the season with Jeff Samardjzia waiting in the wings. 

What happens if Zambrano or Dempster gets hurt?  What if Randy Wells suffers a sophomore slump?  I sure would feel better about the Cubs rotation if they had another legit pitcher as their number three or four starter.  Even if Ted Lilly comes back when expected, the cubs could still use an “insurance” arm.

Could that arm be Braden Looper?  Jon Paul Morosi of FoxSports.com wrote that Looper would love to pitch in Chicago.  His three kids go to school there and he’d like to pitch “at home.”  The Brewers declined his $6.5 million option and instead chose the $1 million buyout.  The 35-year old right hander was 14-7 last year with a 5.22 ERA.  His career ERA is 4.15 and he has been durable, especially over the past three years.  If the Cubs could sign him to one-year at a discount (he earned $4.75 million last year), it might not be a bad signing. 

Morosi also reports that the Cubs are showing interest in right handed reliever J.J. Putz.  Putz is coming back from surgery and held a throwing session in Arizona last week to showcase his arm.  Putz could be a nice, inexpensive picjup for the bullpen.  However, since quite a few other teams are also interested in Putz, he might not be too cheap afterall.

Another rumor that made the rounds today involved San Diego sending Heath Bell to the Cubs.  It was unclear who the Cubs would send to the Padres, but two names throw out there were Geovany Soto and Ryan Theriot.  Bruce Miles had commented earlier in the day that San Diego might be interested in moving Bell because they have Mike Adams ready to take over as their closer. 

Phil Rogers of the ChicagoBreakingSports.com ran with that thought and suggested that the Cubs and Padres had discussed such a trade.  In a later post, Miles debunked the rumor started reported by Rogers by saying, “Cubs GM Jim Hendry laughed off a Chicago-based rumor that had the Cubs interested in Padres closer Heath Bell, with possible trade bait being catcher Geovany Soto or shortstop Ryan Theriot. As I blogged this morning, the Cubs like Bell, but he’s not on their radar at all because he’ll have a big raise coming this fall, as he’s arbitration-eligible.”

In non-trade news, the Cubs announced that Ryne Sandberg will manager the AAA Iowa Cubs next year.  This will be Sandberg’s fourth year as a manager in the Cubs minor league system.  He spent two years in Peoria (2007-08), a year in Tennessee (2009), and now a stint in Iowa.

It would appear that the Cubs are grooming Sandberg to take over after Pinella retires after the 2010 season.  He told the Des Moines Register,  “I’ve been very pleased with the progression,” Sandberg said in a telephone interview today with the Des Moines Register. “Getting closer to the major leagues is very gratifying. I’m looking at this as another stepping stone.”

But wait, is Piniella really going to retire after 2010?  He’s not saying he will and not saying he won’t.  He told Bruce Miles, “I’m going to do the best job I possibly can, and at the end of this year, we’ll see what happens,” he said. “I can work on a handshake.”

All of this is a moot point, at least for now.  Decisions will be made sometime next year, and the decisions will likely revolve around how well the Cubs do in 2010, as well as how well Sandberg does managing in Iowa.

What’s in store for Today?  I’m sure there will be plenty of more rumors and maybe even some action.  Stay tuned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously, we looked at the reasons that small market/low-revenue teams might want to consider doing things differently than their competitors.  Today, I want to focus on what types of things they might consider.

One thing that has never made sense to me is the five-man pitching rotation.  Actually, it’s not so much the number of men in the rotation that confuses me, but the inherent belief in the system that all starting pitchers do their best work on five days rest.  That’s almost certainly not true, yet it is followed with almost lock-step precision by all teams. 

Why don’t teams try to switch things up a bit?  If pitcher A thrives on four days rest, pitch him more often than pitcher B who needs six days rest.  I know it won’t work out perfectly.  Pitchers will often be at their optimum rest on the same day.  If that happens, use the better pitcher.  As it stands now, pitchers are used every fifth game regardless of whether or not they have received their optimum rest.

That’s just one simple example.  Joe Posnanski offers an idea that is a little more complicated.  Again, the idea originated with Bill James:

The off-the-wall idea that maybe some team (say the Pittsburgh Pirates) simply decides that they will stop scouting and acquiring anyone who throws 90-plus mph. Just stop. You throw 95? Good for you, we’re not interested.

I will repeat: Bill (James) wasn’t saying a team should actually do this. He was saying that a team COULD do this, though. I mean, seriously, what would happen? Let’s run a little thought experiment: You’re running the Pirates. And let’s say this was true:

50% of all potential big league pitchers who throw 95 mph will be good big league pitchers.

2% of all potential big league pitchers who throw 83 mph will be good big league pitchers.

I’m sure those percentages are way skewed — no way that half the 95-mph throwers are good big league pitchers, and I have no way of knowing about the 2%. But you can fill in any number you want … the point is we say there are 100 potential pitchers who throw 95, and in this scenario 50 of them will be good pitchers. OK, well, you’re the Pittsburgh Pirates. How many of those 50 do you think you’re going to get? You are competing against 29 other teams that also want guys who can light up the radar gun. The vast majority of those 29 teams have more resources than you do, more scouts poking and prodding those prospects, more money to sign them, more clout to draw them in, more status among players and their families and their agents.

So — my guess? You’re not getting any of those 50. Zero. Oh, you might get some of the 95-mph throwers who WILL NOT be good big league pitchers. And, sure, there’s a chance you could luck into one. But it would take luck. Best bet: A big fat zero.

No, look at the other side. There is much larger pool of pitchers to pick from who top out at 83 mph, or 81 or whatever. Say there are 500 of those. By this formula, 2 percent of them could pitch effectively in the big leagues — that would be 10 pitchers (maybe you don’t believe ANY of them will be good … we’ll get to that in a second). Now, you’re the Pittsburgh Pirates — what are the chances you would get any of those 10?

Well, again, I’m guessing here: But my feeling is that if you have decided to just stop looking at the 95 mph guys and focused ALL YOUR ENERGIES on these slow-throwing guys, well, I think the chances are pretty good that you would get some, most or even all of those 10 pitchers. Why? Because, generally speaking, other teams are not investing much effort in scouting people who top out at 83. They are not scouting those players, they are not making much effort sign those players, they’re not spending draft picks on those players. They simply do not VALUE those players. if you focus all of your effort on it — and you believe in what you’re doing — you will probably figure out which of those slow-throwers has the command, quirkiness, control or movement necessary to get big leaguers out. And if you choose to value command and quirkiness and control and utterly devalue the radar gun, you should be able to corner that market.

Now, there would be people who would say this is a pointless market to corner — that 83 mph pitchers is a dry well. Maybe that’s true. But MAYBE it’s not true. Maybe you can find a cool study that suggests an 83-mph fastball down and away is just as effective a pitch as an 94-mph fastball down and away. Maybe you can point to a collection of ineffective pitchers who can throw really hard (Exhibit A: The Kansas City Royals bullpen) and conclude that speed isn’t all that compelling when it comes to getting out big league hitters. Maybe you would do the math and find that the best slow-throwers would make a better staff than one filled with bottom-third hard-throwers.

See, I just think that’s brilliant.  Would it work?  I don’t know, but that’s not the important point.  The important point is that there are a million different ways to run a baseball team, yet all teams stay within the same narrow parameters in the way they do things.  Thinking of radical, unorthadox ways to run a team is the easy part.  Well, it’s not easy, but it is easier than giving those ideas a try.  Actually taking action on the ideas is the much harder part.

Here are a few other unconventional ideas, some from Pos, some from Bill James, and some from me:

• Fill your roster with great defenders.  Don’t worry about how well they can hit.  Just make sure they are among the best defensively at their postion.
• Rather than look for starting pitchers who can routinely go six or more innings, create “teams” of pitchers that can routinely throw three strong innings and pair them up.  If a team did this, they conceivably would have to carry fewer pitchers, and the pitchers they do carry could pitch more often.
• Why do teams look for “five tool” players?  Dump the idea of the five tool player and create another, more effective way to scout players.
• Tradition says you should hit your best hitter third in the line up.  Why not take your two best hitters and hit them second and fourth? 
• Stock your roster with high OBP guys who are also outstanding base runners.  Become the strongest team in baseball at going first to third or second to home.
• Sign pitchers who don’t walk hitters.  Reward pitchers who have the lowest BB/9  in baseball.  Look for pitchers that throw the highest percentage of strikes.
• Stack your line-up with all switch hitters. 
• Bat the pitcher eighth (Tony LaRussa does this often and he’s considered a genius.  Why isn’t anyone else giving a try?)
• If shortstops are the best fielders on a team (not always true), why not put shortstops at every position?
• Why not sign pitchers who can also play another position with some proficiency?  In high school (and to a lesser extent in college), the best position players are often also the best pitchers.  Why not cultivate this instead of insisting that pitchers only pitch?
• Push the fences back at your home park and build a team based on speed and fielding.
• Develop knuckleball pitchers.  There are so few and they are so relatively underappreciated, you could corner the market.

There are many, many more possibilities, but you get the idea.  Are some of these ideas foolish?  Probably.  Are any of them fool proof?  Of course not.  But one thing is for certain: What the Royals and Pirates and Nationals, and other teams are doing is not working and will not work.  If the goal is to simply save face, then by all means, carry on.  But if these teams want a result that is different from what they are currently experiencing, then they are going to have to risk ridicule and try something different.

Cattle ranchers are among the most self-conscious individuals on the planet.  You wouldn’t think so.  After all, our perception of ranchers is that they are rugged individualists, beating their own path through life.  The truth is, most ranchers are so afraid of doing things differently than their neighbors that they will run their cattle operation into the ground before they will consider changing the way they do things.

The reason for this is that cattle ranchers watch each other.  So if you do anything different than your fellow ranchers, everyone is going to know about it.  And if what you do differently leads to failure (however failure is defined), then you’ll be the laughing stock of the cattle ranching community.

I’m picking on cattle ranchers a little bit because I’ve seen first hand how opposed many of them are to change.  They do things the way they do because it’s the way everyone else is doing it.  It’s also probably the same way their fathers did it, and their father’s fathers, and so on.

Baseball GMs are similar in this regard to cattle ranchers.  Pretty much everyone is using the same formula for success.  The problem is that every organization is different.  Each organization has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Some organizations are good at scouting.  Other have the finances to outspend their competition.  But in the end, every team looks for the same qualities in players and they try to build their organization in exactly the same way.

I have to admit, I never really thought about this until I immersed myself in the writings of Joe Posnanski.  Pos (that’s my little nickname for him) is a tremendous writer and a really smart guy.  He’s funny, self-deprecating, and he has a knack for looking at baseball from perspectives most of us never consider or even imagine.

Here’s a good example of how Pos approaches a given baseball problem:

[T]he Kansas City Royals (or a number of other teams) cannot hope to compete consistently by using the same strategies as other teams. I think we all know that the Pittsburgh Pirates have not had a winning record since 1993, which I believe is a big league record. But what I didn’t know is that the Pirates are just one of several teams in the midst of a long, long, long losing period.

Pittsburgh: Seventeen consecutive losing seasons.

Baltimore: Twelve consecutive losing seasons. (Thanks to BR DJ for reminding me … I forgot to include the Orioles in the original which is funny because Baltimore was the team that really got me thinking that there are several teams that have not won for a LONG time).

Kansas City: On pace for fifth 100-loss season in eight years — losing seasons 14 of last 15 years.

Cincinnati: Nine consecutive losing seasons, and people in Cincinnati tell me this is the worst one yet.

Milwaukee: Made the playoffs last year which was a nice story. And were 83-79 the year before that. But they had 14-consecutive seasons before that where they were .500 or worse (they were .500 once) and they have a losing record at the moment.

Washington Nationals: On pace for back-to-back 100 loss seasons, and 11 seasons leading up to where they did not win more than 83 in a season.

This is just the start.  To compete with the likes of the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, LA Dodgers, etc., small-market and/or low-revenue teams must apply different strategies and thought processes than the teams they are competing with.

This way of thinking was triggered by a conversation (or conversations) Pos had with Bill James, King of sabermetrics and consultant with the Boston Red Sox.  Pos describes James’ opinion on the matter like this:

The feeling Bill has is that organizations can be bullied into a second class state because they want to be viewed as “professional.” They can’t win playing the game the same way as teams with more resources — repeat: They CANNOT win that way and they ARE NOT winning that way — but they cannot help but succumb to the pressures of professionalism. They don’t want to look unprofessional. That scares them more than the losing.

Sounds like the cattle ranchers, doesn’t it?

Stealing a little bit from Pos and one of his readers, Stuart, there are basically two ways organizations can approach a given situation.  Option 1 is to do what is expected of you; what is the professional thing to do; what everyone else is doing.  Win or lose, at least you won’t get laughed at.

Option 2 is to do something unconventional, knowing that even if you win, you’ll be criticized for doing things differently.  Worse yet, if you don’t succeed, you’ll be the laughing stock of your peers for stepping outside the box and doing things differently.

Pos splits out the second option in the following non-baseball example;

You’re a high school loser (or, wait, no, that was me). You could (A) not ask anyone to the prom and more or less go unnoticed, (B) ask out the most beautiful girl in school (the one you’ve had the crush on since the 5th grade) and maybe have her say yes and make you suddenly the coolest guy around or (C) ask the most beautiful girl in school and become the school punch line.

Option A in Pos’ example corresponds to our Option 1.  Option B and C are the two sides of Option 2.

Putting this into baseball terms, the given is that GMs of small market/low-revenue teams CAN NOT compete using the same strategies as larger, more financially capable teams.  Even so, most GMs insist on doing the same things as their bigger, more well-heeled bretheren.  Why?

Almost certainly, the reason goes back to Bill James assertion that these GM are trying to be “too professional.”  Surely, if they knew it would work, they would try something different (Option 2).  But because they are not assured of success, they choose to guarantee their failure while looking professional rather than taking a chance at succeeding, but looking unprofessional.

This is the premise I will be using as I move forward with this “Thinking Out Of The Box” series.  Posnanski has some more great stuff to offer, which I’ll cover tomorrow.

Of course, the problem for the Cubs is that they are running out of time.  The team only has eight games remaining this season, so even if they win out, it will still take a miracle to win the Wildcard.

The Cubs play their final road game of the season today in San Francisco.  Randy Wells (11-9) goes up against the impressive Matt Cain (13-7).

**********

The Tribune’s Paul Sullivan, who must just hate Milton Bradley, continues piling on him by pointing out that the Cubs are now 6-1 since the Bradley suspension and 20-10 for the season in games when Bradley does not play.  He uses this exchange with Jake Fox to prove his point:

Is it just a coincidence, or has the removal of Bradley from the picture improved the team’s chance of success?

“It might be,” Jake Fox said with a laugh. “That’s a funny point to bring up because I didn’t even think about it. I guess it could be, but guys are playing relaxed, and guys are playing fun.

“It’s a learning experience because it shows you if you just play that way every day, regardless of what kind of pressure is on you, regardless of what people may be saying or not saying about you, [it] shows you a lot about what we can do as a team.”

I’m no professional journalist, but it seems to me that Fox is just trying to deflect Sullivan’s question by being polite and giving a PC answer.  In fact, it seems to me like he is saying that the team is playing well because they are loose and having fun.  He doesn’t link that play back to Bradley; Sullivan does.

I believe that Bradley deserved all of the criticism he received for his poor play and bad behavior.  I didn’t think suspending him was a smart thing, but I was satisfied with it if it led to the Cubs trading him in the off season.  But the lengths that some members of the media have gone to continue the “Bradley Bashing” festival is too much.  It’s time to move on.

**********

In my post yesterday, I mentioned that the Royals had been suggested as a team that might have interest in acquiring Bradley.  You can cross them off the list.  Bob Dutton of the Kansas City Star writes that Royals officials (Why are they unnamed?) dismissed the reports linking KC to Bradley and called the people perpetuating such rumors (I’m looking at you Paul Sullivan) as “idiots.”

This news from Kansas City is just fine with me.  I didn’t think the Royals matched up well for a Bradley trade anyway unless the Cubs just wanted to dump Bradley somewhere and continue paying most of his salary.

**********

The Royals may no longer be on the list of teams with an interest in Bradley, but the Mets, Padres, Giants, and Rangers are.  That according to Ken Rosenthal on his weekly video report (the bit about the Cubs and Bradley starts around the 1:45 mark).  Rosenthal says that all four teams have already contacted Jim Hendry about a possible trade.

Rosenthal adds that the Cubs are confident they can work out a deal for Bradley that does not involve them picking up his salary.  According to Rosenthal, the more salary the Cubs pick up, the better player(s) they’ll get in return.

**********

Whoever the Cubs get in return for Milton Bradley, manager Lou Piniella would like it to be a middle-of-the-order run producer.   You may recall that after the Cubs quick exit from the playoffs last year, the Cubs decided that what they were missing was a left-handed, middle-of-the-order bat.  Remember?  It was in all of the papers.

I said it then and I’ll say it again: The Cubs don’t need to get more left-handed.  They just need more players who can hit, regardless of the side of the plate they hit from (Are you tired of hearing me say that yet?)  It appears that Piniella is coming around to my way of thinking:

 ”You ask me, the biggest thing we need here is an RBI bat,” Piniella said. “We need an RBI bat to sit in the middle of the lineup with [Aramis] Ramirez and Derrek Lee.”

Does Piniella’s dream hitter have to bat left-handed?

“I don’t care if he hits between his legs, how’s that?” Piniella said. “Right-handed, left-handed, doesn’t really matter.”

Exactly! 

**********

Somewhere along the line, someone must have told Rick Morrisey of the Chicago Tribune that he is funny.  That person lied and did a great disservice to  people all over the world who are capable of reading Morrisey’s column.

In a recent column, Morrisey thought it would be funny to re-write Bradley’s apology as if Bradley himself had actually written it.  First, it doesn’t sound like Bradley wrote it.  Second, it’s not funny.  That’s a bad combination.

I’ve never been a fan of Morrisey, so this column just reinforces my opinion.  How many columnists does the Trib Sports Dept. have anyway?  No wonder they’re going through bankruptcy.

**********

I recently received a comment to a previous post that read “I’m in love with you, my adonis.”  I deleted the comment as spam, but then I got to thinking, what if it was legit?  Maybe someone out there likes this blog so much that they felt compelled to send in that comment.  Yeah, that’s probably it.  Until I’m proven wrong, I’m running with that theory.

San Diego GM Kevin Towers has stepped forward and said the Padres may have an interest in Bradley for next year.

“I haven’t had any calls from Jim (Hendry) about him,” Towers told ESPN.com. “But I think people kind of know what players we target. We have to take chances sometimes. We took a chance on Milton the first time we had him, and he actually played pretty well [before his knee injury]. We could be in the market for an outfielder. I’m not saying it’s necessarily Milton. But our experience with him was rather a positive one. It wasn’t really a negative one.”

That seems like a borderline tampering statement to me, but in any case, what does it mean?  To me, it means that the cheapskate Padres would be willing to provide a safe landing spot for Bradley provided the Cubs pay his contract.  Decent of them, don’t you think?  And what will the Cubs get in return?  Likely a couple of guys who have been minor league lineup filler for the Padres and who will never see the light of day at Wrigley Field without first purchasing a ticket.

Thanks, Kevin (May I call you Kevin?), but I’ve got to believe there are other options out there.  The Trib’s Paul Sullivan suggests the Royals as a potential trading partner.  According to Sullivan, the Royals consider Bradley to be a talented hitter who could potentially thrive in a low-key environment like Kansas City. 

Would the Royals be willing to pick up much, if any, of Bradley’s salary?  Who do they have to trade to the Cubs in exchange for Bradley?  Again, if all the Cubs want to do is a salary dump, then Kansas City might make a good trade partner.  However, I don’t think they are going to pick up much of Bradley’s salary or trade anyone worthwhile to the Cubs.

When it comes to trading Milton Bradley, here’s my philosophy:  The Cubs can either dump Bradley and pick up the majority of his salary, in which case there may be several potential takers out there, or they can trade him to a team that has some bad contracts of their own and just swap bad contracts.  In either case, it is going to cost the Cubs some money to move Bradley.  I prefer the second option to the first because the Cubs get something worthwhile in return.

Two examples of this second option are suggestions I’ve made in the past.  The first possibility is for the Cubs to trade Bradley to Texas for Michael Young.  Texas owner Tom Hicks is in financial trouble and MLB is pressuring him to sell the team and/or cut payroll in order to get his baseball finances in order. 

Young is the highest paid player on the Rangers and is owed $64 milion over the next four years.  Trading a four-year $64 million contract for a two-year $21 million contract makes financial sense for Texas. 

Plus, Bradley gets along well with Rangers manager Ron Washington and the front office seems to like him.  Of course, if Hicks sells the Rangers or otherwise gets a cash infusion, acquiring Bradley for Young may not seem like such a good idea.

My other suggestion is to have the Cubs trade Bradley and a pitcher (Zambrano?  Dempster?  Lilly?) to Toronto for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells.  Wells has the worst contract in all of MLB and it may end up being the Blue Jays’ only chance to move it. 

This proposed trade would get Bradley to Toronto, where he could potentially do well out of the limelight (and out of the country), and would provide the Blue Jays with a front-of-the-rotation pitcher to fill in the void left by Halladay.  Now that I think about it, Sean Marshall might be a better candidate than the other pitchers listed.   He’s younger and less expensive, both important considerations for a Toronto team the needs to rebuild.

In his article, Sullivan also lists the Giants as a poytential trade partner.  In his scenario, the Cubs would trade Bradley’s bad contract for Aaron Rowand’s bad contract.  Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years.  I don’t like this idea for a couple of reasons.  First, it costs the Cubs money (about $15 million), but it doesn’t make them better.  Rowand has struggled the past two years in San Francisco and it would appear that his best years are behind him.

Second, the Cubs already have too many Aarons on the team.  I would prefer that they get rid of their Aarons rather than add more.

Another possibility was brought up by a commenter over at The Cub Reporter.  How about a Bradley, Marshall, and Jake Fox trade to Baltimore in exchange for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott? 

I know what you’re thinking, “Not more Brain Roberts rumors.”  But think about it.  The Cubs top two needs going into the off-season will be to 1) add a run producing bat (preferably left-handed) to the middle of the order, and 2) add a speed guy who can get on base to the top of the order.  This trade could fill both needs in one fell swoop.

Roberts is signed through 2013 and is owed $40 million.  He has a full no-trade clause, but would surely waive it to come to Chicago.  Luke Scott is signed through this season and is arbitration eligible.  He made $2.4 million in 2009 and is likely due for a raise after a season that currently stands at .255/.340/.488 with 24 homeruns and 73 RBI.  And (get this), he bats from the left side of the plate.  Is this good or what?

Of course, the Orioles would have to agree to such a deal, which makes these moves more difficult than they have to be.  Baltimore is a tough team to understand.  They are in last place in the tough AL East, 37.5 games behind the Yankees.  They have a record of 60-93.  Even so, they often act like they just need to tweak their roster a bit to be a playoff contender.

This is not a team that is on the verge of contending.  They are not just one or two players away from contending.  Their $67.1 million payroll is $17 million less than it was in 2000 (and about $25 million less than it was just two years ago).  This is not a team that is willing and/or able to compete with the Yankees or Red Sox when it comes to payroll.  The only way the Orioles are going to be able to contend is to go with young talented players.  And the only way they are going to have enough young, talented players is to trade away their more expensive, older players for prospects.

Of course, this raises several questions, chief among them, “How does Milton Bradley fit into this picture?”  Fair enough.  The only way he fits in is 1) if the Orioles believe he can still be an OBP machine, 2) if the Orioles can be made to believe that Baltimore is laid back enough so Bradley will behave himself, and 3) if the Cubs pick up a good portion of his salary.  Remember, Bradley is only 28-years old, so he can still figure into a team’s plans, even if they are rebuilding (and especially if someone else is paying for him).

As for the other two, Marshall could fit into Baltimore’s rotation immediately and Fox could find a home as Scott’s replacement at DH.  There you go.  A nice tidy package (at least in my mind).

Obviously, I don’t know where Bradley will end up.  At this point, my main concern is that the Cubs don’t just dump him and move on.  Bradley has been a distraction and a bitter disappointment, but he still has value.  Take this bad situation and make it into a good situation (I’m suddenly a motivational speaker).  Use the mistake that was made by signing Bradley and turn it into a better team in 2010. 

If Jim Hendry is still the GM after this season (and it appears he will be), this will be perhaps the biggest challenge he has faced in his career.  It’s a one chance, do-or-die situation.  If he can’t trade away Bradley AND make the 2010 Cubs better than they were this year, he will surely be looking for a new job.  But if he can pull this off, he will be able to name his price at his next contract negotiation.

Of course, all of the big news continues to surround Milton Bradley.  He issued an apology yesterday that sounded like it had been crafted by some first year PR hack.  The apology was reported all over the place.  I stole mine from Gordon Wittenmyer’s article in the Sun-Times:

“I chose Chicago as a free agent because I wanted to be part of finally bringing a championship to Chicago’s fans,” Bradley’s statement read. “I expected to have a great season, and I am deeply disappointed by my performance and the team’s struggles.

“I played every game with everything that I had and wanted desperately to win. My frustration and disappointment boiled over, and I said and did certain things that I regret. In hindsight, I wish that I handled certain things differently, and I apologize for those things that did not work out for the better.

“The air has been cleared, and we all want to move on and look forward to better days.”

It’s obvious that Milton Bradley did not write or issue that apology.  There wasn’t even any effort made to make it sound like Bradley was making the apology.  I don’t know how others feel, but the pseudo-apology means nothing to me.  It’s a crock.

**********

I’m not sure who Bradley was apologizing to, but it apparently was not his teammates.  Carrie Muskat reported via Twitter that Bradley’s teammates didn’t even know about the apology until they heard about it from the media.  Milton must not have been too sorry for the way he threw his teammates under the bus and generally disrupted life in the clubhouse.

**********

The Cubs announced yesterday that Milton Bradley will continue to be paid during his suspension and that the MLBPA will not file a grievance.  Although Ken Rosenthal’s story didn’t say it in so many words, it sounded like the Cubs and Bradley’s agents negotiated the terms of the suspension.  In exchange for an apology and a guarantee that the MLBPA would not get involved, the Cubs agreed to pay Bradley for the time he is suspended.  That’s my interpretation of how things went, although I did not read that anywhere.

**********

Chris La Duca of the Chicago Sun-Times spoke to Charlena Rector, Milton Bradley’s mother, about the suspension.  After initially saying that she would not speak to any more reporters, she went on to detail how Bradley’s 3-year old child was repeatedly called the n-word by teachers, parents, and children at the day care he attends.  Because of the repeated racial slurs directed at the child, Rector claimed, Bradley was never able to fully concentrate when he was at the ballpark.

I take racism very seriously, but I just find this claim to be incredible.  What day care (or any other business) could remain in business (and not prompt an investigation) by treating children this way?  And Rector claimed that the child was subject to a “slew of racial slurs” from teachers, parents, and children.  If this actually happened, why wouldn’t Bradley remove the child after the first racial slur?  Why allow the child to remain in that environment?

It sounds to me like Bradley is hiding behind his child and claiming incredible acts of racism to explain away his own bad behavior.  True racism is a heinous act and I find it completely despicable that Bradley would make up a racial incident to help explain his own anti-social behavior.  It makes it all the worse that he brought his three-year old child into this mess.

Rector also claimed that she was duped by Chicago radio talk-show host Jonathan Bradmeier to appear on his radio show.  She claimed that she did not realize that her conversation with Brandmeier was for broadcast (Oh really, does Jonathan Bradmeier call you to just chat very often?).  It seems that making excuses for ones behavior or actions runs in the family.

**********

Milton Bradley has had a long history of bad behavior during his career.  As best I can tell, he has always blamed his behavior on others and has never taken responsibility for his own actions.  Let’s take a trip down memory lane and relive some of Bradley’s greatest hits:

• In 2004 as a member of the Cleveland Indians, Bradley gets pulled over for speeding, but then drives away from the officer who tries to pull him over.  Bradley receives a three day jail sentence for the incident.
• Just one month later, Bradley and Indians manager Eric Wedge get into a fracas over the fact that Bradley is not hustling.  Bradley is pulled out of the Spring Training game and quickly traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers.
• While with the Dodgers, Bradley has words with the homeplate umpire and is thrown out of the game.  Manager Jim Tracy has to physically restrain Bradley.  Bradley finally exits the field, only to return a moment later and throw a bag of baseballs onto the field, including throwing several into the outfield.
• Still in 2004, Bradley picks up a plastic bottle that has been thrown on the field and slams it angrily at the feet of a fan in the right field stands.  Bradley receives a five game suspension.
• In 2005 while still with the Dodgers, Bradley claims that Jeff Kent is a racist and he is then traded to Oakland for Andre Ethier (I bet Billy Beane would like a “do over” on that one). 
• In 2007 as a member of the San Diego Padres, Bradley disputes a call at first base and goes after the first base umpire.  In an effort to restrain Bradley, manager Bud Black grabs him and their legs get tangled.  Bradley crumples to the ground and is out for the remainder of the season with a torn ACL.  Bradley claims he was “baited” into the confrontation.
• As a member of the Texas Rangers in 2008, Bradley has the best offensive season of his career.  Unfortunately, he continues to have some behavioral issues.  After a Kansas City Royals broadcaster says something on-air that Bradley takes exception to, Bradley rushes to the press box to have a conversation with said broadcaster.  On the way to the press box, Bradley is chased down by GM Jon Daniels and manager Ron Washington who convince him that attacking the broadcaster is a bad idea.
• Following the best year of his career, Bradley admits to reporter Gil LeBreton that there were times that he sat out of games with the Rangers in order to save his stats in anticipation of a big pay day.  The revelation doesn’t go over very well with his Ranger teammates or the front office, especially considering that SS Michael Young was dragging himself out onto the field everyday with broken fingers on both hands.
• In 2009, Bradley signs a three-year, $30 million contract with the Cubs.  Their faith in him is rewarded during his first at-bat at Wrigley Field when Bradley argues with and bumps the home plate umpire.  He is suspended for two games, although the suspension is eventually reduced to one game.
• Bradley slumps badly during his first several weeks with the Cubs.  The disappointment becomes too much for him.  After a  poor at-bat in June in a game against the White Sox, Bradley returns to the dugout, throws his helmet, and proceeds to beat the hell out of a Gatorade cooler.  He then has angry words with manager Lou Piniella, who calls him “a piece of shit” and sends him home early from the game.
• In a game against Milwaukee, Bradley hits a single and then pulls himself out of the game.  When he is questioned about this by the press after the game, he initially refuses to answer any questions, but eventually says, “I got knee inflammation. I got two knee surgeries, and that happens when you got knee surgery, in case you don’t know. What else you got?” He then proceeds to answer every question asked with “What else you got?” 
• The next day in St. Louis, Bradley is asked to pinch hit, but he refuses.  After the game he is interviewed by Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald.  He tells Miles, among other things, that he plays harder than anyone on the team, but he never gets any credit for it (Odd thing to say on a day when you refused to play).  He also says that the whole environment with the Cubs is “negative” and he says it’s no wonder they haven’t won a World Series in more than 100 years.  The next day he is suspended for the remainder of the season for behavior detrimental to the organization.

People would like to blame Bradley’s behavior on Jim Hendry (“If he wouldn’t have signed Bradley, we wouldn’t have this mess.”) or Lou Piniella (“Lou gets paid $4 million a year to deal with these prima donnas.  It’s his fault that Bradley was allowed to act up and cause problems in the clubhouse.”).  My take is a little different.  I blame Bradley for Bradley’s behavior.  Should he have been signed in the first place?  Could Piniella have done a better job of controlling/pacifying him?  Was the suspension warranted or even a good idea?  Those are all fair questions, but they don’t address the choices Bradley made or the actions he took.  All of Bradley’s choices and actions are the responsibility of Bradley and no one else.

I originally reported that Alfonso Soriano would have surgery on his ailing knee and would be out the rest of the year.  Then, Gordon Wittenmyer chimed in and said that Soriano would be back before the end of the month and would wait until the off-season to have surgery.  So I apologized for my mistake.  But it turns out I wasn’t mistaken at all.

ESPN Chicago is reporting that Soriano will in fact have surgery soon, ending his 2009 season.  At this point, Soriano is unable to put any weight on his knee, so even if he put off surgery, a return to the lineup is unlikely.

So Soriano will shift his focus to the 2010 season.  Let’s do the same thing and consider who will be hitting lead-off for the Cubs.  Although you can never say never, Lou Piniella is doing the next best thing when it comes to the possibility of Soriano leading off in 2010.

According to Dave Van Dyke of the Chicago Tribune, this was Piniella’s response when asked about the possibility of Soriano leading off in 2010:

“No, no, no.  That’s over with.  No, we’re not going to do that.” 

Piniella went on to say that the Cubs have two in-house candidates that will get the nod rather that Soriano.  Those two are Kosuke Fukudome and Ryan Theriot.  Piniella also allowed that the Cubs might aqcuire “a speed player” that could hit lead-off.

I’m not fully in 2010 mode, so I don’t have a strong opinion on this at the moment.  However, I’m already getting a little tired of the “we need to add speed to the top of the lineup” refrain.  True, the Cubs are dead last in the NL in stolen bases, so improving in that area will be a good idea.  But the “adding speed” refrain harkens back to last off-season when it was imperative that the Cubs get “more left-handed.”  As I’ve said before, the Cubs didn’t need more left-handed hitters, they needed more hitters who could hit, regardless of which side of the plate they do it from. 

Getting more speed at the top of the lineup is no more of a panacea than getting more left-handed.  The Cubs need a lead-off hitter who can get on base and then make things happen.  Simply looking for a speedster (like Joey Gathright)is the wrong thing to do.

**********

Next time you’re feeling bad about the Cubs starting pitching doing a good job only to lose the game, read the following blurb about Zach Grienke and the Kansas City Royals.  This was stolen excerpted from Joe Posnanski’s Sports Illustrated column:

“I’m going to give you an amazing statistic about Kansas City Royals pitcher Zack Greinke. He is, unquestionably, the best pitcher in the American League. He leads the league in ERA, complete games, WHIP and home runs per nine innings. He is second in strikeouts, and fifth in walks per game.

No, I haven’t given you the amazing statistic yet.

He leads the league in shutouts. He has made 20 starts where he allowed two runs or less, most in the American League. He has made 24 starts where he allowed three runs or less, most in the American League. He has only had two starts all year where he has given up five runs in a game.

No, haven’t given you the stat. Not yet.

Greinke’s first 10 starts, he had an 0.84 ERA. His last five starts, he has a 1.38 ERA. Greinke himself has a higher slugging percentage (.333) than the right-handed batters who have faced him this year (.318).

And no, that’s not the stat either. Here’s the stat that will blow your mind.

The Kansas City Royals have a losing record in games that Zack Greinke has started this season.”

Feel better now?

**********

All of the Wildcard contending teams were in action yesterday.  Here’s how they did:

• Colorado beat San Diego 4-1
• San Francisco lost to the Dodgers 10-3
• Florida lost to Washington 5-3
• Atlanta beat St. Louis 1-0

With their victory over Cincinnati, the Cubs remain 8.5 games behind Colorado and tied with Atlanta for fourth place in the NL Wildcard race.

There’ll be no game recap of any of these games.  You can read Carrie Muskat or any of the other beat reporters for that.  The Cubs are just going through the motions, so I’m not going to pretend that the games matter any more.  I’d rather focus on some of the off field stuff that’s going on.  With the Cubs so far out of the playoff picture, the on field stuff just bores me (at least right now).

**********

Milton Bradley has opened his mouth yet again and has once again made it clear that the Cubs have to get rid of him.  This time, he said some silly stuff about not liking extra inning games because he just wants to get away from the ballpark and get home to his family.  Nice thing to say after he signed a $30 million contract to play baseball.  If he wants to be at home with his family 24/7, he should have just retired.

Bradley also said some cryptic nonesense about being the victim of racism, although in all fairness, what he said was that there is no racism in America anymore.  I read that to be a sarcastic statement on Bradley’s part, but I suppose I could be wrong.  Of course, the odds of me being wrong are so infinitesimal, it’s not even worth considering.

When the Cubs signed Bradley to a 3-year/$30 million contract before the 2009 season, there was some real concern about his character.  It seemed that everywhere he went (seven teams in 10 years), there was always a problem.  He had run-ins with umpires, fans, and the media.  He couldn’t stay healthy anywhere he went.  But in 2008 in Texas, Bradley seemed to blossom.  He had a career year at the plate (as a DH) and he didn’t have any flare ups with anyone.  Based on one year of good behavior and on-field production, the Cubs signed Bradley.  Since then, things couldn’t have gone much worse.

During the course of the 2009 season, Bradley has bumped an ump and been suspended, complained numerous times about the umps having a personal vendetta against him, verbally sparred with the fans, got into a verbal altercation with his manager, gotten called out by his teammates (Alfonso Soriano most notably), and said too many stupid and/or controversial things to the media to keep up with.  To make matters worse, he has done all of this while also having a horrible year on the field. 

Phil Rogers from the Chicago Tribune believes the Cubs should just release Bradley.  He still has two years on his contract and is owed $20 million, but Rogers thinks the Cubs should just eat the money and move on. 

Rogers broaches the possibility of trading Bradley, but thinks the possibilities are so remote that releasing Bradley is the most likely option.  I don’t agree and I’d like to look at the trade possibilities a little closer.

In an article by Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times, he concludes that the only two potential trade partners for a Bradley trade would be the Kansas City Royals and the Toronto Blue Jays.  He rules out every other team for various reasons.  He rules out the Texas Rangers simply because Bradley played there before, so they couldn’t possibly want him back.  Not so fast there, Gordo.  When Bradley left Texas, Manager Ron Washington said that he enjoyed working with Bradley and that he would like to have him back on the team.  Bradley enjoyed the best year of his career in Texas and was on his best behavior.  For these reasons, I’m throwing Texas back into the mix.

That’s three teams that the Cubs could potentially work a trade for Bradley.  In a previous post, I mentioned the Los Angeles Angels as a potential trade partner because they have the Gary Matthews, Jr. contract they would like to move.  However, I don’t think Mike Scioscia would put up with Bradley, so let’s cross them off the list.

Let’s start with Kansas City.  I don’t see the synergy here.  The Royals need some help.  They are one of the worst offensive teams in the AL.  In order to be a match, the Royals would have to believe that the 2008 Bradley, not the 2009 Bradley, is the real Bradley.  It’s possible, but I don’t see it happening.

It is my opinion that the only way the Cubs are going to move Bradley is if they are willing to take on another team’s bad contract.  No one is going to offer the Cubs anything for Bradley just so they can have Bradley on their team.  They are only going to take Bradley if the Cubs can relieve them of one of their problems.  This is one of the reasons I think Texas fits the bill so well.

Texas has two problems.  First, they signed Michael Young before the 2009 season to a five-year, $80 million contract.  There are still four-years and $64 million left on the contract.  But here’s the thing, even though Young is not worth $16 million per year, he is still a productive player who plays hard every day.  By all accounts, he’s a good teammate and a good “citizen.” 

I’m suggesting that it would be better to be on the hook for $64 million over the next four years with Young than it is to be on the hook for two years of Milton Bradley at $10 million per year.  Granted, at 32, Young is not the player he once was, but the Cubs would still be better off with him than Bradley.

So why would Texas make the trade?   That brings up point number two.  Texas owner Tom Hicks is in financial trouble.  MLB is loaning/giving him money to keep him afloat.  The Rangers are going to have to cut payroll one way or the other to help their owner balance his books.  Getting rid of a $64 million liability in exchange for a $20 million liability will look good, at least on paper.  Plus, remember what I said earlier.  They actually liked Bradley in Texas.  Granted, they didn’t step to the plate to sign him after his career year, but maybe that’s just because they didn’t want to outbid the Cubs.  A Michael Young for Milton Bradley trade makes sense for both teams.

I also like the possibility of a trade with Toronto.  In fact, I think Jim Hendry has some leverage he can use with Toronto.   Center fielder Vernon Wells is signed through 2014 and is still owed $107 million (including $8.5 million in 2010 which is the third installment on a signing bonus).  Many people feel this contract is by far the worst contract in all of MLB.

Wells is still a productive player, but the time and money difference between the Wells contract and the Bradley contract is just too great.  If the deal was straight up Wells for Bradley, I would say the Cubs would be better off just releasing Bradley (i.e., the Rogers Option). 

But what if the Blue Jays packaged Wells and Roy Halladay together for Bradley (and maybe a prospect or two)?  Toronto can’t compete in the AL East with Wells contract on their books.  They also have conceded that Halladay is going to be too expensive for them to resign him when his contract expires after the 2010 season.  The Blue Jays only hope of ever moving Wells contract is to package it with the best pitcher in the game.  But every day, Halladay’s value decreases as his contract runs it’s course.

If I were Jim Hendry, I would call my buddy JP Ricciardi and make the following offer:  I’ll give you Milton Bradley (and one or two middling prospects) for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells, provided we can agree on a contract extension with Halladay.  The worst that Ricciardi can do is say “no,” but I’m thinking that he would at least have to consider it since it would free the Blue Jays of the onerous Wells contract.

If you’re paying attention, you should be asking, “Why wouldn’t another team do this same thing?”  It’s a good question, but the truth is that only a few teams could take on Wells contract.  The Yankees and Red Sox are two possibilities, but if I was Ricciardi, I would be loathe to trade Halladay within my own division.  That would just make it harder for the Blue Jays to compete.  The Dodgers are a possibility, but they already owe Manny Ramirez a lot of money and Dodgers owner Frank McCourt is not a fan of outrageous contracts.  The Angels are another possibility.  However, other than these teams, no other teams can afford Wells contract.  The Cubs are in a unique position.  Not to mention that such a trade would make a big splash for the Ricketts family as they take over the Cubs.

Milton Bradley must go.  It doesn’t make fiscal sense to just release him when there are other options.  Trading Bradley to Texas makes so much sense, I don’t see how it can’t happen.  Working a deal with Toronto would be a little trickier, but the Cubs offer the Blue Jays perhaps the only realistic opportunity they’ll ever have to move the Vernon Wells contract that is financially crushing their organization.  Get busy, Jim.  There’s work to do.

 Kosuke Fukudome went 2-for-5 with a homerun and two RBI.  Koyie Hill also had a good night, going 2-for-4 with two doubles and two RBI.  Derrek Lee added a homerun as well.

The Cubs go for the sweep tonight in Cincincinati.  The suddenly hot Rich Harden (7-6) goes for the good guys against Justin Lehr (0-0). 

**********

Trans over at The Cub Reporter has posted an interesting article trying to figure out Alfonso Soriano’s early season hitting woes as well as his quasi-recovery.  Bottom line?  Soriano needs a lighter bat.  Trans is always insightful and writes some really funny stuff (although the Soriano article is long on analysis and short on humor).

Now that Trans has figured out Alfonso Soriano, Maybe he can turn his considerable talents to Milton Bradley.

**********

The Padres made it official yesterday and finally released former Cub Mark Prior.  CBSSports.com is reporting that San Diego GM Kevin Towers had not seen enough progress in Prior’s rehab from shoulder surgery.  Prior had signed a minor league deal with the Padres at the beginning of the year.  He has not pitched in a big league game in three years.  At that time, he was still with the Cubs.

So what now?   Will another team take a chance on the once promising Prior?  Considering how much the Cubs have invested in him already, might Jim Hendry throw a little more in to see if he can get the investments to pay off, or would that just be throwing good money after bad?  When I think about what Prior did in 2003 for the Cubs, I want to see him come back and do well.  And if he does, I’d like it to be for the Cubs.

**********

Buster Olney has a terrific article up at ESPN.com right now (Insider subscription needed to read the whole article) looking at the recent trades made at the trade deadline from a different perspective.  I liked the article because it played right in to my belief that something needs to be done to establish parity in MLB.

In a previous post, I opined that what the Pittsburgh Pirates have done over the past nearly two decades is a travesty and that MLB needs to do something about it.  I based this belief on the fact that in 2009, the Pirates received $62 million in revenue sharing and national TV rights, but spent only about $25 million on their opening day roster.  The Yankees, the team with the highest payroll, spent nearly six times as much to field a team this year.

The issue isn’t really the Pirates.  The bigger issue is the disparity between what each team spends on players.  As Olney points out, the disparity is growing and recent evidence indicates that the amount a team spends on their players is a good predictor of where they finish in the standings.

The counter argument to this point is that 1) nine different teams have won the World Series in the past decade, and 2) small market teams with lower payrolls have not only done well in the standings (Minnesota, Oakland), but have actually won the World Series (Florida).  While this argument is correct so far as it goes, it fails to address the larger issue of long-term, consistent parity.  Just because a low payroll team can once-in-a-while catch lightning in a bottle, as Bob Costas points out in his book Fair Ball, the exception proves the rule.

According to Olney, if the post season were to begin today, seven of the top eight payroll teams would make the playoffs.  The only exception would be the faltering New York Mets.  Breaking it down further, in every divison in MLB except the NL East, the team with the highest payroll in the division is in first place.  In the NL East, the Phillies are leading in the standings and are second in the division in payroll.  In three of the six divisions, the team with the lowest payroll is in last place in the division. 

In my opinion, there are two changes that need to be made.  First, there needs to be a salary cap.  I can’t tell you exactly how the salary cap should be structured, but it should work to bring the payrolls of the biggest spending teams and the lowest spending teams more in line.  Teams like the Pirates, Royals and Marlins, regardless of their short-term on-field performance, should not be allowed to spend so little on payroll when they receive so much from the league just because they own a franchise.

To turn this argument a bit on its head, the highest payroll teams should not be allowed to “buy” themselves on-field success.  I’m upset with teams that severely skimp on payroll, but it’s equally wrong to allow teams to spend beyond the means of other franchises in order to “guarantee” their team’s success.  “Guarantee” may be too strong of a word, but spending more certainly increases the odds for on-field success.

Second, the MLB draft needs to be changed.  Right now, the worst performing teams get the highest draft picks, but because the worst performing teams are also often the lowest spending teams, they either are not able to sign their draft picks for affordability reasons, or they simply avoid picking the best players because they know they can’t sign them.   I love the free market, but unfortunately it doesn’t work very well in a closed system like MLB.

There are few things in life as exciting as the start of the baseball season (at least for baseball fans), but that excitement is dulled considerably for fans of teams that have no realistic chance of competing.  Changes need to be made to considerably level the playing field and implement parity on a consistent, rather than an occasional, basis.