Tampa Bay remains the Cubs most likely trade partner.  But even the Rays are no sure thing.  They are willing to deal Pat Burrell to the Cubs for Bradley, but only if the Cubs are willing to pick up most or all of Bradley’s $12 million salary in 2011.  The Cubs have reportedly offered to pay $5 million of Bradey’s 2011 salary, but that’s not cutting it for the Rays at the moment.

Rays manager Joe Maddon has been quoted as saying that he would welcome Milton Bradley to the team.  He bases his opinion on a lunch he had with Bradley last off season.  Sound familiar?  Didn’t Bradley sell his bill of goods to Jim Hendry at a lunch last off season as well.  Bradley may make a nice lunch companion, but I pity any team that brings him into their locker room.

Even if a deal can be struck, it remains to be seen what the Cubs will do with Pat Burrell.  He has no place on the Cubs (other than perhaps as a very expensive bench bat), and the Cubs are taking a risk trading for him before they have another trade in place to move him.  The Mets were once linked as a possible team that could step in to make this a three-way trade, but that rumor has died down over recent days.

The Texas Ranger are another possible trade partner for the Cubs.  The Rangers are rumored to be offering pitcher Kevin Millwood and his $10 million 2010 salary, but only if the Cubs pick up a substantial portion ($16 million or more) of Bradley’s salary for 2010 and 2011. 

I’m not sure that a trade with Texas is very likely.  Not only are the Cubs loathe to pay another team $16 million or more to take Bradley, but, as Carrie Muskat of MLB.com tweets, Texas isn’t sure they want to take on “that headache” again.  Of course, “that headache’ is Bradley.

The Cubs feel confident (at least in public) that they can move Bradley.  Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times wrotes that there are two team interested “for sure” (Rays and Rangers), “with at least one more team in the picture.”  Muskat said the same thing a few days ago, but didn’t bother to name the third team.  Now Wittenmyer is doing the same thing.

Wittenmyer goes on to discuss the urgency of the situation.  The Cubs need to move Bradley quickly so they can turn their attention to filling the team’s other needs.

“But whatever they do, they need to move quickly if they want to get the most out of the available trade and free-agent market, specifically, free-agent center fielder Mike Cameron, who is high on their wish list and also drawing interest from other teams.”

I have to admit, I had much higher hopes for a Bradley trade early on that what it looks like the Cubs are going to have to settle for.  I had envisioned a trade with the Orioles where the Cubs would package Bradley a 2-3 prospects for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott.  In hindsight, that was obviously naive.  I thought that teams would be more willing to take on Bradley.  I should have known then that the promise of Bradley’s OBP can not overshadow the near certainty that he is going to misbehave and disrupt his team’s locker room.  Of course, I can be forgiven.  Jim Hendry suffered under this same illusion during last off season.

At this point, the Cubs need to get what they can for Bradley and then move on.  He already played his part in sidetracking the Cubs in 2009.  The Cubs can’t allow him to do the same thing to the 2010 team.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

Phil Rogers writes on ChicagoBreakingSports.com that a new three-way trade may be in the works.  According to Rogers, the trade would send Bradley to Texas, Kevin Millwood to the Mets, and Luis Castillo to the Cubs.  This is a variation on an earlier rumor that had Bradley going to Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell to the Mets, and Castillo to the Cubs.

Honestly, this new three-way trade rumor makes more sense than the rumor involving Tampa Bay and Burrell.  The Mets need pitching and Millwood can fill their void.  Plus, Burrell is a DH and the Mets don’t have a need for one.

I wrote about Luis Castillo previously.  He is not the perfect acquisition, but he could fill the Cubs need for a second baseman.  The Mets are almost as anxious to get rid of him as the Cubs are to move Bradley.  For the Cubs and Mets, the rumored three-way trade makes sense.  For Texas, not so much.  But the Rangers do have a bit of pitching depth, they need some additional offense, and they need some salary relief.  If they can get Bradley, have the Cubs and Mets pick up most of the $21 million still owed to him, and move the $12 million owed to Millwood in 2010, maybe the deal will make sense to them after all.

**********

The Cubs shook up their bullpen a bit when they traded Aaron Heilman to Arizona and then signed John Grabow to a two-year contract.

In exchange for Heilman, the Cubs received two minor leaguers; LHP Scott Maine and 1B (and Chicago native) Ryne White (Little Ryno).  Neither player is a “top prospect,” but Heilman did not figure into the Cubs 2010 plans, so they were lucky to get anything for him rather than simply non-tender him.

The Grabow contract is for a total of $7 million.  Although it seems a bit high to me, Grabow did have a good 2009 and can be a veteran presence in what is shaping up to be a very young bullpen.  Also, contrary to some reports, Grabow is more than just a LOOGY.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs use Grabow as their 8th inning set-up man.

**********

The Cubs want to trade Milton Bradley and Jim Hendry is doing his best to make it seem like they don’t have to get rid of him.  That makes sense.  It’s hard to deal from a position of strength when you are begging other teams to take a player off your hands.

With that in mind, it can’t be good for Hendry’s “leverage” that Joe Posnanski has named Milton Bradley as the NL’s Least Valuable Player.  Posnanski says:

“Anyway, put it all together, and including those all-important intangibles, the 2009 LVP is Milton Bradley. He was lousy on defense (minus-12 Dewan in right; minus-4.7 UZR) and not much on offense (99 OPS+ and missed 38 games with injuries). Plus, he was his usual pleasant self .. leaving Cubs GM Jim Hendry publicly babbling about how the team doesn’t HAVE to trade Bradley, they might WANT to keep Bradley, hey some of the best trades are the ones you DON’T make — while privately Hendry’s working the phones like Judy the Time Life Operator to get rid of this guy…

“But he (Bradley) turns 32 in April. And he’s Milton Bradley. A scout once told me that Bradley is the only high school player he ever scouted who hit a home run and did not have a single teammate come out to congratulate him. He’s only signed for two more years — he’s due $9 million and $12 million. Think about all you get for the money.”

Posnanski goes on to say that Alfonso Soriano should also be in the discussion, but he’s still going to go with Bradley.  It’s nice that the Cubs have two players competing for NL Least Valuable Player award.

**********

I almost didn’t include this bit of news, but Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated is lumping the Cubs in with a group of teams that have an interest in Matt Holliday.  Seriously, Jon?  I suppose they have an interest in Holliday the same way they have an interest in John Lackey and Jason Bay.  Sure, they’d like to have all three players on their team, who wouldn’t.  But it’s not going to happen.

I don’t want to bash sportswriters.  God knows I spend more than my fair share reading them.  But how hard is it to just make up crap like this?  I usually like Jon Heyman, but I’m throwing the BS flag on this one.