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

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.

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

A lot of hitters who have worked with Jaramillo disagree with Lee’s assessment.  Former Cub Mark DeRosa gives a great deal of credit to Jaramillo.  “I can’t give him enough credit for the way I’ve been able to make adjustments,” DeRosa said in an article written by Jorge Ortiz in USA Today back in 2006.  DeRosa continued, “Had I not met him, I wouldn’t have made this adjustment and who knows what would have happened. It’s not just me. I’ve watched him do it with Gary Matthews Jr., Dave Dellucci, even Michael Young, who has become one of the best hitters in the game.”

Yankees first baseman Mark Teixeira also has high praise for Jaramillo. ”He doesn’t cookie-cut anyone’s swing or anyone’s approach. Every player’s different.  He realizes that.  He makes you the best hitter you can be.”

Both Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley worked and thrived under Jaramillo’s tutelage while they were in Texas. “I liked working with Rudy because he spoke Spanish and we could really communicate,” says Soriano.

The Cubs signed Jaramillo to a 3-year,$2.4 million contract yesterday, making him the highest paid coach in MLB.  If he can duplicate the success in Wrigley that he had in Texas, it will be money well spent.

**********

Want to know more about Rudy Jaramillo’s hitting philosophy.  Check out his website.  You can even buy a DVD detailing Jaramillo’s hitting approach or have him analyze your swing.  Interesting stuff…

**********

We previously talked about the possibility that Rudy Jaramillo being brought in by the Cubs was a sign that Milton Bradley would be sticking around.  Jim Hendry addressed this concern in an article written by Carrie Muskat of MLB.com:

“Hendry said Jaramillo’s success with Bradley had nothing to do with the Cubs’ decision to hire him. Bradley led the American League in on-base percentage and batted .321 in 2008 in Texas, but struggled to hit .257 this season in Chicago and was suspended for the final 15 games because of detrimental conduct.

“Hendry has talked to teams in an attempt to trade the outfielder and the $21 million still owed on his contract.

“We play the cards that we have,” Hendry said. “Milton’s on the Cubs’ roster [now]. That’s how we go about it until somebody’s not on the Cubs’ roster. [Jaramillo's relationship with Bradley] didn’t have any connection. We could’ve had 20 different guys on our roster and Rudy would still be sitting here today as our No. 1 guy.”

So Jaramillo joining the Cubs doesn’t mean that Bradley will be with the team in 2010.  But Tim Dierkes from MLBTradeRumors.com thinks he should be.  Tim writes:

“The Cubs seem dead-set on moving Bradley and finding someone else to play right or center field.  A player they loved a year ago, they hate now.  Bradley had a slow start and finish, showed little power, and had issues with the fans, media, and manager.  Still, he posted a .378 OBP in the off-year and certainly could improve upon that in 2010.  My advice: work it out, rather than eating $15MM+ or taking on a different bad contract.  Bradley is not the reason the Cubs received over 2,000 plate appearances of subpar hitting from Soriano, Fontenot, Soto, Hill, Hoffpauir, and Miles, nor is he the reason Ramirez was limited to 342 PAs due to a shoulder injury.”

As much as I like Tim and admire the job he is doing at MLBTR, I completely disagree with him.  True, Milton Bradley’s bad behavior is not to blame for the poor season that Alfonso Soriano, Mike Fontenot, Geovany Soto, et al had in 2009.  He’s also not the reason that Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Carlos Zambrano, et al spent time on the DL.  But that’s not really the point, is it? 

Forget for the moment that the Cubs had any other issues to contend with in 2009.  Just focus on Bradley.  Judge Bradley strictly on the merits of his performance and his behavior.  There’s no doubt that his on field performance was sub-par in 2009, but when you couple it with his unstable, even paranoid behavior and the negative impact it had in the clubhouse, bringing Bradley back for another year is just untenable.  A line has been crossed that can not be uncrossed.  The bridges have been burned.  Jim Hendry must find another home for Bradley and the Cubs must turn the page.

Even if you accept Tim’s contention that Bradley “certainly could improve upon” his 2009 performance, does it really matter when you factor in Bradley’s behavior?  If Bradley didn’t have the history of odd, unstable, inappropriate behavior he has exhibited over the course of his career, then maybe I would agree with Tim.  But no matter his on field performance, the Cubs can not afford the negative impact Bradley’s behavior has on the rest of the team.  Bradley is a talented player and he certaily has the potential to put up some respectable numbers.  Unfortunately, the negative impact of his personality and behavior always outweighs whatever positive impact he provides on the field.

One of my favorite things is the changing color of the leaves.  Nature’s art show is spectacular.  There’s nothing better than sitting outside on the back porch or down at the lake, enjoying a cool beverage, and taking in the fall colors.  Fall really is a great time of year.

And yet, the fall is a sad time of year for baseball fans.  Baseball’s regular season is coming to a close.  The playoffs are exciting, but they also represent the end to another great season.  And on this, the final day of the regular season, we are counting the time until Spring Training in months rather than weeks or days.

The Cubs won’t be participating in the postseason this year, which is a shame.   And yet, those on us who have been alive for the past two seasons (2007-2008) were treated to back-to-back postseason appearances.  No one under the age of 100 can say the same thing.  Let’s hope that we can see the Cubs back in the postseason soon.

As we head into the postseason, we know that the Yankees, Angels, and Red Sox will continue playing.  The Tigers and Twins are tied in the AL Central, so depending on today’s results, we may have a one-game playoff tomorrow.

In the NL, the Cardinals, Dodgers, Phillies, and Rockies will vy for the chance to represent the NL in the World Series.  It is an exciting time, but I’m going to miss following the Cubs.

Just four more months until Spring Training… 

**********

Phil Rogers of the Tribune has listed ten different players that could fill the “middle-of-the-order” bat that Lou Piniella said he wants.  Before he lists his candidates, Rogers has to first blast Jim Hendry for signing Kosuke Fukudome and Milton Bradley to fill the void, both failing rather spectacularly.  I don’t have the best memory, but I don’t think anyone claimed that Fukudome was a “big bat” who would fit in the middle of the order.  However, Rogers point about Bradley is well taken.

There are a few names that intrigue me.  I could see Bobby Abreau or Rick Ankiel as possibile solutions.  But the guy that most intrigues me is Adam Dunn.

I have to admit, if you had asked me a couple of weeks ago about adding Adam Dunn to the Cubs, I would have been opposed to it.  But after going through the last two posts (Redefining Production Part 1 and Part 2), I have a new found respect for Dunn.  True, he’s not the most gifted fielder.  He also strikes out a lot.   But there are only a handful of players in the game that contribute more to their team scoring runs.  And as we established previously, the most important attribute in the game is scoring runs.

Rogers also lists Mark DeRosa as a possible bat to add to the Cubs 2010 lineup.  I really like Mark DeRosa and I was critical of Jim Hendry for trading him last offseason.  He’s a guy who leaves it all out on the field and is a great clubhouse guy.  In fact, he was one of the leaders of the Cubs playoff teams.  Even so, I’m afraid that ship has sailed.  DeRosa is going to be a free agent after this season.  He is also going to be 35-years old and is scheduled to have wrist surgery in the off season.  Not a good combination.  It pains me to say it, but I don’t think DeRosa is the solution to the Cubs’ needs.

**********

Check out these two clips from the Seattle Mariners radio network.  Mike Blowers makes an amazing prediction that actually comes true.

Enjoy!

Neil Hayes of the Chicago Sun-Times is also critical of Hendry.  Primarily, Hayes chastises Hendry for signing Bradley in the first place.  Hayes writes:

When I heard the Cubs were considering signing Bradley, I called a colleague who had spent a lot of time around the troubled outfielder in the past. I was told that Bradley is bright, sincere and passionate. I also learned that he could be moody and sour and that the black cloud that often hovers over him can produce lightning strikes, hurricane warnings and, in extreme cases, nuclear winters.

He continues:

It takes a unique player to excel in one of baseball’s most unique environments, and a cursory examination of Bradley’s history would have revealed that he was not that type of player, not by a long shot. I learned that after checking one reference. One.

As I’ve stated previously, signing Milton Bradley was a disaster waiting to happen.  His suspension is hopefully the end of the disaster.

**********

Not so fast there, partner.  Bradley’s suspension may not be the end of the disaster afterall.  As I reported previously, the MLBPA may be filing a grievance against the Cubs on Bradley’s behalf.  If they do, Bradley could return to the team before the end of the season.  Paul Sullivan of the Trib writes about the possibilities of Bradley returning before the close of the season:

 With a decided lack of support in the Cubs clubhouse, Bradley’s return could make for some awkward moments during in the final week of the season. The relationship seems unretrievably broken, and all the apologies in the world aren’t going to heal these self-inflicted wounds.

But, just for a second, imagine the possibilities of a Bradley comeback for the last week of the season:

If Ryan Dempster handed Bradley a mirror, would he laugh?

Would Lou Piniella even dare write Bradley’s name in the lineup? And if not, what if hitting coach Von Joshua asked him to pinch hit again?

How would Bradley deal with the media crush that would greet his arrival, making for another potential You Tube moment, like his “What else ya got?” performance last week.

And if Bradley was playing in right field in Wrigley Field in the final homestand, would it lead to a very ugly and perhaps dangerous atmosphere?

That last question really bothers me.  Bradley is a baseball player, not some sort of enemy military figure.  True, he’s a jerk of near epic proportions, but the man does not deserve to fear for his safety from a bunch of ill-mannered fans.  It’s a shame that the question even needs to be asked.

**********

The aforemention Dave Kaplan has some additional thoughts on Hendry’s future with the Cubs.  He thinks Hendry is the man who can turn around the team in 2010.  But first, he wants to describe some of his mistakes:

Taking two guys like (Kerry) Wood and (Mark) DeRosa who thrived in that environment and replacing them with a guy like Milton Bradley, who was extremely uncomfortable in that situation, was one of the biggest mistakes that Hendry and his staff made in their off season evaluations. Add in the fact that, as one player told me on Monday, Milton Bradley brought tension to the locker room from the first day he joined the team in spring training. No one felt comfortable around him and everyone tried unbelievably hard to make him feel welcome and accepted on the team.

Kaplan also chastises Hendry for bringing in Aaron Miles on a two-year deal when the Cubs already had Andres Blanco in the pipeline.  But in the end, Kaplan throws his support behind Hendry:

Barry Meister is another well known agent who has negotiated with Hendry for several of his clients, and he too likes working with the Cubs GM. “If indeed the Cubs are in recovery mode this off season and they are trying to fix their club then I believe that Jim Hendry is as good as it gets trying to fix a team on the fly,” Meister said.

Add in the fact that Hendry’s work ethic is legendary, and you have a guy who should be extremely motivated to turn around a team that had just about everything go wrong for it in 2009. Teams always want players in their contract year because their performance tends to improve. How about an executive who had a bad season and has new ownership coming in? Sounds to me like the perfect recipe for turning around the Chicago Cubs in 2010.

Hendry has done a lot of good things over the years.  I’ve been a supporter.  But I have to admit that this past off season was horrible for Hendry and the Cubs.  Do we really want the guy that screwed up a team that made it to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons be the guy who also fixes it?  At the moment, I have mixed emotions.  I still think that Hendry can get the job done, but he screwed up big time last year.

**********

The Astros fired manager Cecil Cooper.  Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle wrote about it here.

I’m not saying that Cooper didn’t deserve to be fired, but what did it accomplish firing him with just 14 games left in the season?  It seems the horse was out of the barn at that point.  Why not just let him stay until the end of the season and then give him the bad news.  Nothing was gained by firing him just before the season ended.

**********

I was going to write a post about why I hate ESPN Insider, and then I decided just to include it in this post, and then changed my mind once again.  For now, I’ll just say that I hate ESPN Insider and one of these days I’ll tell you why.

Hal Bodley of MLB.com weighed in to express his support for Jim Hendry’s decision to suspend Bradley.  He starts his article by saying:

Hats off to Chicago Cubs general manager Jim Hendry. He finally had enough of Milton Bradley’s behavior and showed him the door on Sunday.

He goes on to say:

Hendry and manager Lou Piniella — not to mention the players — have swallowed hard and tolerated Bradley most of this disappointing season, but when the outfielder began openly criticizing the Cubs, their fans and the media, he had to go.

David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune wrote a story after he spoke to Bradley’s mother and his minister in Carson, CA.  Bradley’s pastor shared some words of inspiration with the suspended right fielder, and his mother offered her suupport.  She also claimed that there was more going on behind the scenes that upset Bradley.  For instance, Bradley’s mother claimed that Bradley’s 3-year old son was the victim of a racial slur and that really upset Bradley.  I hate to think that could be true, but even if it is, it doesn’t begin to explain Bradley’s somewhat bizarre behavior.

Haugh offers his take on the situation:

Listening to Bradley’s (ex-)Cubs teammates bury him, there is no equation in which Bradley in a Cubs uniform adds up to success in 2010. This is a divorce with irreconcilable differences.

Carrie Muskat of MLB.com also picked up on the theme of Bradley’s teammates not having much sympathy for him.  Apparently, the mood in the Cubs locker room was much improved as soon as Bradley was gone.

The Cubs declined to comment on the report. Piniella said the team needs to move forward, and on Monday, it appeared the players had done just that. The mood in the visitors’ clubhouse at Miller Park was more positive and upbeat than it has been all season. Bradley, obviously, not only didn’t contribute on the field, but didn’t help team chemistry at all.

Fred Mitchell with the Chicago Tribune interviewed former Cub Andre Dawson about the Milton Bradley suspension.  Dawson said he didn’t understand Bradley’s behavior or comments.

“(Former Cubs manager) Don Zimmer always said it best,” Dawson said Monday from Miami. “The only thing that he expected was that you show up on time and you do not go out and disrespect the fans, the media and your teammates.”

Dawson continued:

“I have never met Milton Bradley. But I would tell him that this (chance to play for the Cubs) is a blessing,” he said. “And you shouldn’t take for granted what it is you are blessed with. The game can humble you, and your career could end at any time.

“You are one of a select few players who get to do this, and do it for a number of years. You want to make as much as you can as long as you can. And don’t allow an organization to take that uniform. You want to give the uniform back, hopefully, on your terms, and not find yourself in the position where you are out of the game or unemployed because of selfish behavior or behavior that is not conducive to what you are trying to accomplish out there on the playing field.”

Even though everyone seems to be supporting Hendry and the Cubs, the one piece of bad news they got yesterday was from Jayson Stark at ESPN.com who reported that the MLBPA was looking into the possibility of filing a grievance on Bradley’s behalf.  Here’s what I found surprising:

However, the Cubs have yet to issue a formal notice of the suspension to either Bradley, his agents or the union. Once that notice has been received, Weiner said the union would confer with Bradley and his agents, Seth and Sam Levinson, before deciding whether to proceed with the grievance. 

Bradley hasn’t yet been informed whether the suspension is with or without pay. He also hasn’t been told what the specific basis for the suspension was.

Maybe it’s just a formality, but it seems odd to me that Bradley hasn’t been told whether or not he is going to be paid, or even why he is being suspended.

**********

I’ve been consistent in my criticism of Milton Bradley.  While I’m happy that Bradley will likely be gone next year, I don’t agree with the way some reporters are handling Bradley’s suspension.  For instance, in the David Haugh article I referenced earlier, Haugh referred to Bradley as the “designated pouter.”  Is it really necessary to pile on?

Even more disturbing to me was this message the Trib’s Paul Sullivan sent via Twitter last night:

The cork has finally popped in Miller Park press box. Cubs beat writers celebrate the end of an era.

That kind of message is completely unprofessional and inappropriate.  It destroys any pretense of objectivity and lends credibility to those who claim that Chicago reporters (particularly Paul Sullivan) had a vendetta against Bradley.   I can understand reporters being upset with the disrespectful way that Bradley treated them, but you still have to be professional and objective.

**********

Actually, there was one lone voice, crying in the wilderness, that was critical of the Bradley suspension.  Dave Kaplan, who hosts Chicago Tribune Live on Comcast Sports Net and writes a blog on Chicago Now, was critical of the role Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella played in allowing the situation to get so bad.  Here’s what Kaplan had to say:

While Bradley is a complete jerk, this situation also has to call into question the way he was handled by the organization and by manager Lou Piniella. Bradley has played poorly all season long, and yet at no point was he ever in danger of losing his position in right field. For that, you have to blame the manager.

Lou Piniella makes out the lineup card.  And while he sat in the dugout and watched Bradley struggle, he continued to play him on a nightly basis. Don’t forget that Lou also saw all of the BS that was going on behind the scenes, and he knew that Bradley was a terrible presence in the clubhouse. Jim Hendry signed Bradley and also saw what was going on all season long. Today Hendry mentioned the “issues we’ve all lived with during the year,” referring to Bradley’s publicized battles with umpires, fans and the Chicago media.

Kaplan goes on to say:

Suspending him now is not really taking a tough stand.  It doesn’t really matter now, because Milton Bradley has been a divisive force since the season started. Furthermore, the Cubs enabled him by not controlling him or taking a stand against him until September 20th. For that, they should be blamed.

I’m glad that his tenure as a Cub is coming to a close, but this season really fell apart when the Cubs failed to realize the importance of clubhouse presence, which is essential in a sport where you play 162 games a season and you spend 6 months together virtually everyday.

I understood the move to let Kerry Wood go, but he was huge force in the Cubs clubhouse and his role was never replaced. Then Mark DeRosa was traded, and another clubhouse leader was gone and in his place came Milton Bradley who was an awful influence on the team. Add in the antics of Carlos Zambrano, the injury to Aramis Ramirez, and the poor performance of Alfonso Soriano and you can see why the 2009 Cubs were such a failure in so many ways.

That last paragraph is an important one.  The Cubs did not have an overabundance of team leaders last year.  Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa were the strongest leaders on the team along with Ryan Dempster.  What was Hendry thinking by getting rid of Wood and DeRosa, and replacing them with a guy who is an anti-leader?  It really wasn’t very well thought out, was it?

Aramis Ramirez and Milton Bradley both homered for the Cubs.  Bradley also drew three walks in the game.  For all of his other faults, Bradley can draw a walk.

Meanwhile, the Cardinals won in Los Angeles, so the Cubs remain 6.0 games behind St. Louis.  The Cubs are 5.o games behind Colorado in the Wildcard race.  The Giants, Marlins and Braves are also ahead of the Cubs in the Wildcard.

The Cubs travel up the Pacific Coast to start a four game series with the Dodgers tonight.  Lefty Tom Gorzelanny (5-2) goes up against Jeff Weaver (5-4).

**********

As you probably know, Bud Selig is a big fan of this blog and he has jumped on the bandwagon I started the other day to institute a worldwide draft.  Dave Shenin writes in the Washington Post that Selig wants to make an “aggressive” push with the players union to implement a worldwide draft and a hard slotting system when the two sides get together to discuss the 2011 collective bargaining agreement. 

At least in theory, I like the idea of a salary cap tied to revenues as well.  I don’t know if this idea will get any traction, but I don’t think you can continue to have one team outspending another team by a factor of five or six and expect the game to remain healthy.  Of course, as I’ve said in the past, any salary cap must also have a salary floor so that teams don’t take undue advantage of the agreement.  I know a salary cap is a long shot, but I thought I’d throw it out there to give Bud something else to think about.

********** 

Is Lou Piniella going to quit after this season?  Scott Miller at CBSSports.com thinks he might.  Although I enjoyed Miller’s article, be warned, it’s just an opinion piece.  Miller is suggesting that Piniella might walk away after this season.  Piniella doesn’t say that.

What I liked best about the article is the way that Miller detailed all of the things that have gone wrong for the Cubs this year.  I tend to forget all of the diasters and near-disasters that have plagued the Cubs this year.  Things really haven’t broken the Cubs way very often this season.

**********

Bill Hall has left the building.  Yesterday, I suggested that the Cubs look at adding the former Brewer to their roster to be the utility man for 2010.  Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), the Mariners beat the Cubs to the punch and traded for Hall.   The Mariners traded a low level pitching prospect for Hall and a lot of money.  Milwaukee will be paying Hall’s salary for the rest of 2009 and a good chuck of his $9.5 million contract next year.

Lossing out on Hall isn’t a big deal, but it does bother me that the Cubs seem to constantly rely on weak hitting backup infielders as bench players each year.  The one exception to that rule over the past several years was acquiring Mark DeRosa, but of course we all know how that ended.  Bill Hall wouldn’t have been the team savior, but he would have been an upgrade.

**********

Some in Collier County, Florida would like to make a push to bring the Cubs there for Spring Training.  However, the residents and officials in the county don’t seem to be very united. 

According to a report on NBC2.com in Naples, Murray Hendel, a member of the county’s Tourist Development Council, is leading the charge to bring the Cubs to southwest Florida.  But before he can convince the Cubs, he first has to convince the county’s tourism director, Jack Wert.  Wert says that bringing the Cubs or any team to Collier County just isn’t a priority.

“We just aren’t really that same kind of destination.  We’re much more of a resort and beach, and golf destination,” Wert said.

In case you don’t know, Naples likes to think of itself as a posh, upscale community.  There are several spa and golf resorts in the area, along with a lot of overpriced homes on the Gulf of Mexico.  Don’t get me wrong.  Naples is very nice.  In fact, I like it.  But how can a man that makes his living attracting tourist dollars to an area not get behind a movement to attract an MLB ball club?  That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Earlier this year, a group in Vero Beach announced that they would like to attract the Cubs to the empty Dodgertown.  Unlike Naples, Vero Beach and Indian River County would bend over backwards to get the Cubs to move there.  And the history of the Cubs coupled with the history of Dodgertown would be a great match.  I haven’t heard anything about this recently, but I like the idea.

********** 

On his blog, former Dodger GM Fred Claire has a nice piece on Mark Prior.  It’s a bit of a puff piece.  No breaking news here.  But it still gives a good insight into Prior’s outlook on life and baseball.  I’ve always liked Prior.  I was never one of those who bashed him for being soft and not playing through his injuries.  It would be great to see him come back next year healthy and back on top of his game.

You would think that a team in the Cubs’ position would rally-up (a new term coined by me) and play better at this time of the year, especially against sub-.500 teams.  Instead, they continue to plod along like there’s no urgency to the situation.  It’s maddening to watch this group of overpaid underachievers just go through the motions every game.  Is it time to give up on this sorry team?  I don’t know yet.  Ask me tomorrow.

**********

According to Joe Strauss at the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Cardinals are set to sign John Smoltz to be their fifth starter.  An announcement and press conference will likely happen later today.

I personally don’t think Smoltz has the stuff to be a starter on a contending team, but the Cardinals obviously disagree.  There was talk about Smoltz becoming the set-up man for Ryan Franklin, but for now he’s being brought in to start.

Let’s face it, Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan have a way of making moves like this work.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Duncan spends a few days with Smoltz only to have Smoltz regain the prowess he showed in Atlanta.  That might be asking a little much, but you have to admit that Duncan is good, no matter how much you hate the fact.

**********

The other day, I commented that it doesn’t seem like Walt Jocketty and the Cincinnati Reds have any sort of plan for the future.  So John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer completely stole my idea and wrote an article about it.  That’s okay.  I don’t mind.  I’m just here to give.

Anyway, Fay obviously feels the same way I do, but because he has access to Walt Jocketty, he asked Jocketty what his plans are.  Here’s a little of what he said:

“The plan is . . . we have a plan, let’s put it at that. . . The plan is to try and develop quality young players and build a foundation for the organization for the long-term, not just the short-term.”

So how does that explain the acquisition of Scott Rolen?

“We’re also trying to be fair to our fans and be competitive as much as we could this year. I think we were until we were hit with a lot of injuries in the middle of July. We didn’t have the depth to compensate for it.”

The only problem with that is that the Reds got Rolen after the team was hit with injuries.  So Jocketty knew he didn’t have the depth to compete, but he got Rolen and his $10 million/year price tag any way.

It seems to me like Jocketty and the Reds really don’t have a plan.

**********

Jayson Stark at ESPN.com wrote a great piece about how the MLB draft is broken and how he proposes to fix it.  It really is a good article, but there’s one part that I’d like to focus on.

Most of the arguments being put forward for a revamped draft are presented from the owners perspective.  Teams are paying more for draft picks than ever before and the argument is that the owners need some new rules to save them from themselves.  There’s obvious truth to the argument, but I think the players union should be right there with the owners calling for change.

Too often, we think of the players union as nothing more than a foil for the desires of the owners.  But at least in this case, the interests of the owners and the players are aligned.  Think about it, the owners just spent millions upon millions of dollars to sign players that 1) have never played professional baseball, and 2) are not yet members of the union.  If I’m part of the union, I want that money (or a good chunk of it) being paid to my members, not some high school or college kid.

The players union should be breaking down Bud Selig’s door demanding change.  The draft, as currently structured, doesn’t work to the benefit of the players, the majority of the owners, or the game itself.  Changes should be made immediately.  There’s no need to wait until the next collective bargaining agreement.  If everyone involved in the CBA wants the change now, who’s left to complain?

**********

Bill Hall and his $9.5 million contract for 2010 were DFA’d earlier this week and the Brewers have until Friday to trade or release him.  I’m not suggesting that Bill Hall is the answer to the Cubs woes, but I do think he is a decent utility ball player.  The Brewers paid him like he’s a top-of-the-line starting player, but that’s not his fault.

The Cubs have trotted out the likes of  Aaron Miles, Ryan Freel, and Joey Gathright this year.  Hall is a better player than any of these suspects and the Cubs would have the added benefit of having Milwaukee pay the bulk of Hall’s salary in 2010. 

Hall can play a serviceable third base, shortstop, second, and outfield.  He’s the poor man’s Mark DeRosa.  Wouldn’t the Cubs be better off having Hall as a backup and bench player rather than Aaron Miles?  I think so.