As Cubs fans, we are looking at a boring remainder of the off season.  The big free agent signing (i,e., Marlon Byrd) is behind us and now it’s just a waiting game.  We also are having to deal with the fact that the Cubs were not a very good team in 2009 and this off season hasn’t really made them any better.  So while we’re bored, we have that to deal with.

I have to admit that I am surprised that the Cubs didn’t do more to improve this off season.  With a new owner coming in and Jim Hendry’s job being on the line, I thought the Cubs would make more of a splash.  The free agent market was pretty thin, but there were always trades to be made.  Apparently the Cubs front office had other plans.

As it turns out, the way that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts structured the loans he used to purchase the team may be at least in part to blame for the new regime not making a big splash.  According to a report in Investment News, the Ricketts attracted a number of institutional investors (insurance companies, pension funds, banks) who normally don’t invest in sports franchises to privide short-term financing.  These investors tend to be more conservative and it appears that the Cubs will have to remain conservative with their payroll in order to keep those investors happy.

I suppose that “conservative” is a relative term in this case.  The Cubs payroll was the fourth highest in MLB last year and will remain in the neighborhood of $140 million this year.  Even so, considering the revenue generated by the franchise, having a $140 million player payroll is not outrageous.

So it appears that it may be a while before anything very exciting happens with the Cubs.  Long-term contracts are in place, many with no-trade clauses, others simply untradeable.  In the immortal words of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (I’m paraphrasing), you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com provides a glimmer of light in an otherwise murky off season.  Rosenthal predicts that Ben Sheets will eventually sign with the Cubs.  Considering the Cubs starting rotation as it now stands, that is good news.  With a starting three of Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Well to start the season, the Cubs rotation could use some help.  Lefty Ted Lilly will be on the shelf to start the season, so the final two rotation slots will be filled by some combination of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia.  Sheets would be a welcome addition indeed.

But is Rosenthal’s rumor/prediction really realistic?  Last I heard, Sheets and his agent were looking for a contract that would pay the oft-injured starter $12 million per year.  When he’s right, Sheets is worth ever penny of that.  But after coming off of surgery and a missed season in 2009, he’s a big question mark.  I don’t expect the Cubs to get involved unless his asking price comes way down.  And if it does, the Cubs will certainly not be his only suitor.

Reports like Rosenthal’s probably don’t hold much water, but at least they do brighten up the dark winter a little bit and give us something to talk about.  So reporters, keep the predictions and unsubstantiated rumors coming.  We still have two months to go before Spring Training.

**********

The Hall of Fame will announce their 2010 inductees tomorrow.  Good Luck to Andre Dawson.  I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

Marlon Jerrard Byrd is 32-years old (DOB: 8/30/77).  He was born in Boynton Beach, FL, but he was raised primarily in Marietta, GA.  He attended Georgia Tech in Atlanta where he played baseball.  While at Georgia Tech, Byrd injured his right leg causing muscle damage and resulting nerve damage.  He had to undergo three operations to his leg before the damage was corrected. 

Because of the injury and surgeries, Byrd missed a lot of class time at Georgia Tech and ended up leaving school.  Once he was healed, he enrolled at Georgia Perimeter Junior College (now called simply Georgia Perimeter College) and focused his efforts on building a career in baseball.

In 1999, Byrd was the 10th round pick of the Philadelphia Phillies.  Byrd did well in the minors, moving quickly through the Phillies minor league system.  The highlights of his minor league career include a tremendous year in 2001 in the Double-A Eastern League where he was named Rookie of the Year, the League’s Player of the Year, and he was a post-season All-Star while playing for the Reading Phillies.  In 2002, Byrd was named a post-season All-Star for the Triple-A Scranton Phillies of the International League. 

Byrd was considered a top prospect in the Phillies organization (getting as high as third in the organization) and he made his big league debut at the end of the 2002 season.  He only played in 10 games that year, getting 25 ABs and compiling a slash line of .229/.250/.371 with a homerun and an RBI.

In 2003 he became a starter for the Phillies and had a very good year.  In 135 games (495 ABs), Byrd put together a .303/.364/.418 hitting line with 7 homeruns and 45 RBI.  He came in 4th in Rookie of the Year voting (Dontrelle Willis of the Marlins won the ROY award).

The Phillies had big plans for Byrd after his rookie campaign, but like so many players, he suffered through a sophomore slump.  In 2004, he hit just .228/.287/.321 with five homeruns and 33 RBI in 346 ABs.  After playing just five games with Philadelphia in 2005, he was traded to the Washington Nationals for Endy Chavez.  The change of scenery didn’t help Byrd much.  He ended the year hitting a combined .266/.323/..376 with two homeruns and 26 RBI in 229 ABs.

Byrd’s career continued to slide downhill in 2006 with Washington.  He began the year in the majors, but by July 15 of that year, the Nationals had seen enough and they sent him back to Triple-A.  While with the Nationals in 2006, Byrd hit just .223/.317/.350 with five homeruns and 18 RBI in 197 ABs.

In 2007, the Texas Rangers took a shot on the struggling Byrd and signed him to a minor league contract.  He started the year in class-AAA, but was called up to the Rangers in May after both Brad Winkerson and Jerry Hairston, Jr. went down with injuries.  Byrd played well, getting 414 ABs and hitting .307/.355/.459 with 10 homeruns and 70 RBI.  In fact, the Rangers were so pleased with Byrd’s play that they traded starting CF Kenny Lofton to Cleveland and replaced him in the line-up with Byrd.

Byrd’s work with Rangers’ (now Cubs’) hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo continued to pay off in 2008.  Byrd hit .298/.380/.462 with 10 homeruns and 53 RBI in 122 ABs.  Through much of the season, Byrd suffered with a bad knee, forcing him to spend a little over a month on the DL.  He had off season microfracture surgery in October which included repair of a torn meniscus.

In many ways, 2009 was Byrd’s career year, although some will argue that he actually had a better year in 2008.  Regardless, 2009 was a very productive year for Byrd.  He hit .283/.329/.479 with 20 homeruns and 89 RBI (both career highs) in 547 ABs (also a career high).  Following the season, the Rangers offered Byrd salary arbitration, but he declined, preferring instead to test out the free agent market and seek a multi-year deal.

Byrd’s center field defense has always been considered good, but his UZR/150 rating indicates that he is the epitome of average in CF, scoring a 0.0 career rating.  He actually has above-average ratings in both right and left field.

Byrd isn’t much of a stolen base threat.  His career high is just 11, which he achieved in 2003 with the Phillies.  During his three years with the Rangers, Byrd stole a total of 20 bases.

From a money standpoint, I was surprised to learn that Byrd actually took a pay cut to play for the Cubs in 2010.  He earned $3.06 million in 2009 with the Rangers (plus $87,500 in bonuses for hitting AB targets) and would have almost certainly received a raise had he accepted arbitration.  He agreed to play for $3 million for the Cubs in 2010, but of course he’ll receive raises in both 2011 and 2012.     

On a more personal note, Byrd is married and has two children.  In high school, he was a two sport star (baseball and football) and he enjoys golf, tennis and weightlifting away from the ball park.

I think it’s fair to say that Byrd is not the player the Cubs coveted.  They started the off season looking for a run producing middle-of-the-order bat and/or a speedy lead-off hitter with a good OBP.  Byrd is neither of those guys, although he’s closer to the former than the latter at this stage of his career.  Even so, the pickings were pretty slim and the club signed Byrd to a reasonable contract, so all is not lost. 

Bill James has projected that Byrd will hit .279/.340/.438 with 14 homeruns and 64 RBI in 480 ABs in 2010.  I’m not sure how James does his projections, but I would think they would change with Byrd moving from Texas to the Cubs.  His projection must be impacted by who he plays with, who he hits behind and in front of, and where in the lineup he hits.  My guess is that Byrd will hit 5th or 6th in the lineup for the Cubs.  If he can just repeat the success he had in Texas, I think we’ll all be happy.

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

There are a ton of possibilities for center field on both the free agent and trade markets.  Today, I’d like to take a look at who’s available on the free agent market:

Free Agents

Rick Ankiel — Ankiel is a good story.  He was a pitcher with great stuff who couldn’t throw strikes, so he converted himself into an outfielder so he could get back to the big leagues.  They should make a movie about him.  But should the Cubs sign him?  In St. Louis last year, Ankiel hit .231/285/.387 with 11 homeruns and 38 RBI.  Ankiel suffered through several bumps and bruises throughout 2009, limiting him to 122 games.  He earned $2.825 million last year and is reportedly looking for a big contract (Scott Boras is his agent).

Marlon Byrd — The Cubs seem to be focusing on Byrd.  Now that Mike Cameron has signed with the Red Sox, Byrd seems like the consensus “next choice.”  I’m not so sure.  He had a good year last year in Texas (sound familiar?), but to me, he seems overrated.  In 2009, he hit .283/.329/.422 with 20 homeruns and 89 RBI.  He made $3.6 million in 2009 and is looking for a multi-year deal, probably in the $7-$8 million per year range.

Rocco Baldelli — I have to admit to liking Baldelli.  He’s another guy with a good story, having overcome mitochodrial disorder to continue his MLB career.  He always plays like it’s his last day in baseball and is so gung-ho that he had the MLB logo tatooed on his calf.  But should he be the Cubs’ center fielder?  In 2009 with Boston he hit .253/.311/.433 with 7 homeruns and 23 RBI in 62 games.  A hip flexor strain kept him out of action for a good part of the year.  The 28-year old Baldelli earned only $500,000 in 2009 and would probably be willing to sign a reasonable one-year contract.  Because of that, I like him for the 2010 Cubs.  Also, because he hits lefties so well, perhaps he could be part of a platoon.

Ryan Church — Church played 23 games in center field last year and put togeter a UZR/150 rating of -37.8.  His career UZR/150 in center is -3.5.  He’s much better in right field.  So, to say that he can play center field is a bit of a misnomer.  He has played center field, but he has not played it well.  Church really belongs in right field and the Cubs should not consider him for center.

Coco Crisp — In 2009, Crisp hit .228/.336/.378 with 3 homeruns and 14 RBI in just 49 games for Kansas City.  His biggest asset is his fielding.  He sports an overall UZR/150 of 5.8 in center field, although it was 19.6 in limited action last year.  He earned $5.75 million in 2009 and Kansas City decided not to exercise his $8 million option for 2010.  Did You Know?:  Coco’s real first name is Covelli.

Johnny Damon — Can Damon play center field any more?  The Yankees didn’t think so.  He hasn’t played center field since 2008, and even then he only played 34 games there.  At this point in his career, I consider Damon a left fielder/DH.  In 2009, he hit .282/.365/.489 for the Yankees with 24 homeruns and 82 RBI.  He also scored 107 runs.  He earned $13 million in 2009 and is reportedly looking for a two or three year deal for similar money.  I think Damon can still be a legit lead-off hitter, but he’s too expensive for the Cubs and really doesn’t play the position they are trying to fill.

Jerry Hairston, Jr.  — I have always pulled for Hairston, especially when he was with the Cubs.  He was a Chicago area guy (grew up in Naperville) and he was versatile, playing all over the field.  In center field, he has a career UZR/150 rating of 17.5.  In 2009, he started the year with the Reds, but ended up the year playing for the Yankees.  That’s quite a change.  Between the two teams, Hairston hit .251/.315/.394 with 10 homeruns and 39 RBI.  He earned $2 million in 2009.  If he’s willing to sign for a year and reasonable money ($1-$2 million) he might be a good gamble, but I don’t see him with the Cubs in 2010.

Reed Johnson — Johnson wasn’t offered arbitration by the Cubs, but there has been talk that they are interested in re-signing him.  He has been a good pickup, after being released by Toronto following Spring Training in 2008.  In 2009, Johnson hit .255/.330/.415 with 4 homeruns and 22 RBI in 65 games.  Johnson spent a good chunk of the 2009 season on the DL with a broken foot.  He earned $3 million in 2009 and my guess is that he is looking for a one-year deal for about the same money.  Johnson hits left handed pitching very well and makes for a good platoon partner.

Scott Podsednik — Scotty Pods has been a fan favorite on the Southside of Chicago.  His hitting stats are never that impressive, but he seems to be able to rise to the ocassion.  In 2009, he hit .304/353/.412 for the White Sox with 7 homeruns and 48 RBI (actually, not that bad).  He also stole 30 bases in 2009 and could be the lead-off hitter the Cubs covet.   As a center fielder, he’s below average, posting a career UZR/150 rating of -5.6.  He earned $800,000 in 2009, but is reportedly looking for a three-year/$12 million deal.  If that’s the case, then I say the Cubs should take a pass.  But a reasonable one-year deal might be worth looking at.

Randy Winn — Winn hit .262/.318/.353  with two homeruns and 51 RBI for the Giants in 2009.  He earned $8.25 million and at 35-years old, is almost certainly not going to make that much in 2010.  However, I would expect Winn to hold out for a multi-year contract, which should make him unattractive to the Cubs.  I’ve always thought of Winn as a good fielder, but his UZR/150 rating doesn’t bear that out.  He hasn’t had a positive rating in center field since 2005 and his career rating in center is -1.3. 

In my next post, I’ll take a look at possible trade candidates to fill the void in center field.

It stinks watching everyone else making deals while the Cubs sit on the sidelines.  The White Sox continued their off season shopping by trading a couple of prospects to the Dodgers for Juan Pierre.  The Dodgers were even good enough to throw in $10 million of the $18 million owed to Pierre over the next two years.

St. Louis made a five-year offer to Matt Holliday at a reported $16 – $18 million per year.  I think that’s crazy money, and in a way I hope Holliday accepts the offer because I think it will cripple the Cardinals financially for years to come, but it’s frustrating to see the Cubs division rival chasing one of the biggest free agents while the Cubs sit back and wait for something to happen.

For the Cubs, the story is the same as it was last week, and the week before that: they need to trade Milton Bradley before they can do anything else.  Actually, that’s not quite acurrate.  They have chosen to wait until Bradley is traded to make any moves. 

Quite honestly, I’m starting to blame Tom Ricketts for the Cubs hesitancy to do anything.  When Ricketts decided to hold the line on payroll (actually, I believe he allowed for a “slight” increase), he tied Jim Hendry’s hands from doing anything to improve the ball club. 

First, very few contracts came off the books at the end of 2009.  The only players to leave the Cubs because their contracts were up were Rich Harden, Kevin Gregg, and Reed Johnson.  After losing those players, and then accounting for increases via arbitration, the Cubs payroll is in the neighborhood of $135 million (It’s hard to know exactly where it is because it’s unclear right now what the arbitration-eligible players will receive, as well as those that will be tendered contracts).  That doesn’t leave much money to make any moves if the magic payroll number is $140-$145 million.

Then there’s Milton Bradley.  It’s unclear how much the Cubs are going to have to spend to get rid of Bradley.  The Dodgers spent $10 million to move Pierre and the Red Sox are rumored to be willing to eat $9 million (of a $12 million contract) to move Mike Lowell (the trade with Texas is currently on hold).  Both of those guys are decent players who are considered good clubhouse guys.  So if their respective teams are/will pay so much money to trade them, how much will it cost the Cubs to move a malcontent like Bradley coming of a sub-par year?

Assuming it’s going to cost the Cubs $10 million just to move Bradley (and that may be conservative), wouldn’t the Cubs be better off exchanging another team’s bad contract for Bradley?  It may cost them more dollars in the long run, but they may actually get a valuable piece back in return.

In a previous post, I argued the case for a Bradley-for-Derek-Lowe trade with Atlanta.  The Braves are looking for a corner outfielder and they need to trim payroll.  Lowe is their biggest contract and most expendable player.  Over the next three years, he’s going to cost $45 million.  It would cost the Cubs $24 million more to trade for Lowe than they are scheduled to pay Bradley, and Lowe will be around a year longer (two more years for Bradley vs. three years for Lowe), but isn’t that better than handing someone $10 million or more just to take Bradley off the Cubs’ hands?  It seems like a win-win to me.

Granted, whoever takes Bradley (assuming someone actually does) is going to have to find a way to integrate him into their team and control (or at least contain) his behavior.  But in exchange for that, if the deal is with Atlanta, they’ll save $24 million dollars and clear the other $21 million owed to Bradley off their books a year sooner than they would with Derek Lowe.  I know Milton Bradley is a pain in the butt, but couldn’t the Braves learn to live with him for $24 million?

**********

With Curtis Granderson now a Yankee and Mike Cameron signed by Boston, the Cubs now turn their attention to Marlon Byrd, Rick Ankiel, Coco Crisp, and Reed Johnson.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com says that Byrd is the Cubs’ first choice, but honestly, is he the best answer for center field? 

Granderson would have been a terrific “get” for the Cubs.  He’s a power hitting, middle-of-the-order bat that they need, and his clubhouse presence would be a breath of fresh air after a year of Milton Bradley.  Of course, that’s a moot point now.

Of the free agent center fielders, Mike Cameron was the class of the field.  He’s not the offensive presence that Granderson is, but he’s sufficient and he plays a good center field.  But again, he’s gone, so no use crying over spilled milk.

Unfortunately, the quality falls off quite a bit from Cameron to the trio of Byrd/Ankiel/Crisp.  But here’s the thing: while any of that group will cost several million dollars, the Cubs can probably get the same or better production from any combination of Sam Fuld, Reed Johnson and recently released Ryan Church (can he still play center?).  Johnny Gomes is another interesting name hanging out there.  He’d probably have to play right field, but Fukudome could move back over to center as part of a platoon/position swap.

At this point, I can’t tell you what the answer is, at least as far as putting a name(s) to the problem, but I can tell you what the answer isn’t, and that’s signing Byrd, Ankiel, or Crisp.  They’re all different types of players, but none of them are the answer the Cubs are looking for.  They are either too expensive, a 4th outfielder, too weak offensively, or a combination of these things.

Jim Hendry waited too long to make a move, but now that he’s waited this long, he might as well wait longer to see if there are any free agent deals or trades available later in the off season.  The current options just don’t get the job done.

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.

We know (or think we know) that Tampa Bay is one of the three teams.  Is Texas one?  The Rangers were linked to a possible Bradley trade, but only if the Cubs kicked in about $16 million.  Even after those reports, it was reported that Texas was out of the running because they still couldn’t afford Bradley.  Texas is apparently in receivership and can not make any roster moves without the approval of MLB.

Because Carrie didn’t bother to name the three teams interested in Bradley, I’m going to guess that Texas is one of them.  So who’s the third?

Could it be the Giants?  I’m still hoping for an Aaron Rowand for Bradley trade.  No, I don’t think Rowand is the perfect center fielder.  Far from it.  I just think he is the best player the Cubs can get for Bradley without having to pay someone a lot of money to take him.

Maybe the Braves are the third team.  I mentioned a possible Bradley for Derek Lowe trade previously.   You can never have too much pitching and Lowe would be a nice (albeit, expensive) addition to the rotation.

Are the Mets interested?  I doubt it, but they do want to move Luis Castillo and the Cubs need a second baseman.  Even so, I don’t think the Mets are interested and Bradley would definitely not survive in New York.

Who else might have an answer?  Hard to tell at this point, but we should know more next week.  Next time, it would be a lot easier if Muskat just told us.

**********

While in Indy, Hendry will be shopping for a centerfielder, a right handed reliever, and a right handed bat off the bench who can play the outfield.  That, according to our friend Carrie Muskat of MLB.com.  But wait, what about a second baseman.

I’ve noticed this recently that when writers list the Cubs’ needs, they don’t include a second baseman any more.  I don’t know if this is coming from the Cubs front office or if the writers are just making it up.  At the moment, it looks like Jeff Baker is the front runner to play second base, assuming Hendry doesn’t sign a free agent second baseman or trade for one.  That doesn’t seem like such a great plan to me.

Also, I’m guessing that Jeff Gray (obtained from Oakland in the Jake Fox/Aaron Miles trade) will serve as the right handed reliever.  So the bullpen is probably complete.

That leaves a center fielder and a right handed bench bat that can play the outfield.  Curtis Granderson rumors are still floating around.  He would be a good fit for the Cubs, so I’m sure Hendry and Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski will be talking in Indy. 

Mike Cameron is a potential free agent signing, provided he’ll sign a reasonable one-year contract.  Other teams also have an interest in Cameron, so his price may rise out of the Cubs price range.

Marlon Byrd is another name that is being linked to the Cubs.  Even though he had a career year last year with the help of hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo when both were with the Rangers, that doesn’t mean he’ll repeat it in the future.  I hope the Cubs pass on Byrd.

I don’t know who the Cubs might target to be the right handed bench bat who can also play center field, but didn’t they just trade away a guy (Jake Fox) who can fill that need?  Okay, Fox wasn’t the greated fielder, but he can hit. 

Trade activity at this year’s Winter Meetings is supposed to be hot and heavy.  Let’s hope Bradley is moved early in the meetings so Hendry can concentrate on some of the team’s other needs.

“The Cubs’ offseason truly will kick off only after they trade outfielder Milton Bradley. Only then can they begin, in earnest, their pursuit of a center fielder.”

While it’s true that I’ve made this same comment several times on this very blog, it carries a bit more weight when the boys from Fox put it in print.

Rosenthal and Morosi (Why does it take two of them to write this stuff?) go on to say that the Cubs are showing an interest in center fielders Curtis Granderson, Rick Ankiel, Scott Podsednik, Coco Crisp, Marlon Byrd, and Mike Cameron.  Of the bunch, Granderson is by far my first choice.  Ankiel interests me, but he’s represented by Scott Boras so will probably come with a high price tag.  Mike Cameron would be okay, provided he doesn’t cost too much money or too many years.

I like Podsednik more than most people, but even I don’t think he’s the answer for the Cubs.  Coco Crisp…No.  Marlon Byrd is over-rated, but I’m afraid the Cubs will look at his career year last year, and the fact that he worked with Cubs new hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo to accomplish it, and place too high a value on the former Rangers center fielder.

**********

The headline of the Trib’s Paul Sullivan is “The Cubs Aren’t Going to Rush Starlin Castro,” but the article itself talks all about why Castro might break with the team come next April.  Sullivan says:

“It’s a long shot, considering Castro began the season in Class A last April and doesn’t turn 20 until March 24. But the Cubs are so sold on his future that they already have told incumbent shortstop Ryan Theriot he might move to second base in the not-so-distant future.”

He then goes on to say that the Cubs will rely heavily on Rudy Jaramillo’s opinion of the readiness of the young shortstop.  Sullivan then talks about the trend around MLB of quickly bringing up prospects.

“Experience may work against him, but some teams are bringing up prospects they deem ready at a quicker-than-usual pace, as evidenced by the comet-like ascensions of the White Sox‘s Gordon Beckham and the Rays’ Evan Longoria. The Sox called up Beckham, the No. 8 pick of the 2008 draft, after only 205 combined at-bats at Class A and Double A and 28 at Triple-A Charlotte.

“Hendry agreed the trend is growing, citing the reduction of college baseball scholarships and improved scouting in places such as the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The best players are identified earlier and separate themselves from the pack faster, Hendry said.

“Beckham at a young age, with the maturity level he has shown, his (success) certainly bodes well for not only himself, but for others,” he said. “It shows the outstanding guys can do it, and make it in a short period of time.’”

Rather than explaining why Castro won’t be rushed, it sounds to me like both Sullivan and Cubs GM Jim Hendry are trying to lay the groundwork for promoting Castro to the big team.  In fact, later in the article, Sullivan includes a quote from Hendry indicating that he has already spoken to Ryan Theriot about moving to second base to accomodate Castro and that Theriot is accepting of the idea.

I don’t want to see Castro rushed.  He’s only 19 years old (he’ll turn 20 on March 24, 2010.  Be sure to send a card.).  But if he is ready and if he can help make the Cubs a better team, then sure, why not give him a shot?  If he flounders, he can always be sent to Class AAA Iowa for more seasoning.  It will be a tough call for Hendry and company.

The part about the article that bothered me was:

“Over the last eight months, Castro has gone from unheralded to untouchable. The Cubs like him so much, it’s believed they will refuse to discuss him in any offseason trade talk, even for a hot commodity such as Tigers center fielder Curtis Granderson. Hendry, Jaramillo and manager Lou Piniella are eager to see what Castro can do in Cactus League play in March, when media and fan scrutiny is certain to be magnified.”

I hope this isn’t true.  Castro is highly regarded and has a lot of potential, but he is not a sure-fire, can’t miss major leaguer.  If trading Castro can make the Cubs better, then he should be traded.  Making him (or just about any other prospect) “untouchable” doesn’t make sense.

Of course, this may be a moot point.  Cubs SS prospect Darwin Barney is more polished than Castro and is on-the-verge of being ready for a major league job.  The Cubs also have SS prospect Hak-Ju Lee who is behind Castro in being ready for the big leagues, but displays more speed and hitting ability for his age.  If the Cubs are going to make a trade involving a shortstop prospect, other teams may find Barney or Lee just as or more appealing than Castro.

**********

Remember the rumored three-way trade that would have sent Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell to the Mets, and Luis Castillo to the Cubs?  As I was eating my Thanksgiving turkey, I suddenly thought, “why would the Mets want to do this deal?”

We already know that the Mets want to move Luis Castillo, but why would the want to get Pat Burrell and his $9 million contract in return?  Burrell is no longer an outfielder, and I remember reading one report that said that the Mets would use Burrell at first base.  On the surface, that make sense because the team is in need of a first baseman, but why Burrell?

Couldn’t the Mets find someone just as good or better than Burrell at a much lower price?  There’s no shortage of young, decent first basemen available.  In fact, if the Mets wanted to make a deal with the Cubs, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to concentrate on Jake Fox or Micah Hoffpauir than it would to try to acquire Pat Burrell? 

True, the Cubs may be reluctant to take on Castillo’s contract without also getting rid of Bradley, but it is equally true that the Cubs need a second baseman and Jake Fox is out of minor league options (not to mention that he really doesn’t have a future with the Cubs).  Even if the Cubs wouldn’t make the deal, there are plenty of young first basemen out there that could do as good of a job as Pat Berrell without the hefty contract.

I’m not going to waste any more time trying to figure out the Mets woes.  The Cubs have more than enough troubles to keep me busy.  However, I think I’m going to move the rumored three-way trade to the “very doubtful” category.

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.