The other two first basemen available via free agency simply don’t fit the bill for the Cubs.  They would be better off re-signing Derrek Lee rather than pursue Berkman.  They are similar players, although Lee is the superior fielder.  Dunn could really help the Cubs offense, but I don’t think the team should give up the defense it would take to get that offense.

Then I turned my attention to the trade market.  The two players potentially available via trade that I discussed were San Diego’s Adrian Gonzalez and Minnesota’s Justin Morneau.  I honestly don’t know if the Cubs have the players it would take to make either of these trades, but I think it is worth investigating.

What I didn’t mention in the previous post is that the Cubs have some internal candidates they are going to have to  look at to determine who will be playing first base for the team in the future.

First on the list is the incumbent, Derrek Lee.  Lee is currently 35-years old and his slow start to the 2010 season may be an indication that age is starting to catch up with him.  I wouldn’t bet my life on it, but it could be.  Despite Lee’s offensive production during his time with the Cubs and his great defense, it seems to me that the Cubs should move in a different direction.  He may have a couple of good years left in him, but two good years on a four or five year contract is not a good deal.

Another candidate for first base is current left fielder Alfonso Soriano.  I’m fairly certain that moving Soriano to first base would not be the Cubs preferred choice, but it may turn into a necessity.  Soriano has already showed signs of slowing down in the outfield and his defensive ability in left seems to have regressed this year.  And remember, Soriano started his career as a second baseman.  He wasn’t a particularly good second baseman, but first base does not require the same level of foot work and dexterity that is required of a middle infielder.

It’s also important to remember that Soriano has five years left on a virtually untradeable contract.  He’ll be around for another four years beginning in 2011 making $18 million per year, so the Cubs have to figure out what to do with him.  With a possible opening at first base in 2011, Soriano may become the Cubs first baseman of the future.

Aramis Ramirez is another player the Cubs might consider for first base.  Of course, that assumes that Ramirez either doesn’t opt out of his contract at the end of this season, or if he does, that the Cubs can re-sign him.  If he is still with the club in 2011, the Cubs might consider moving him to first base in order to give highly touted prospect Josh Vitters an opening at third.

On the other hand, perhaps Vitters, who has struggled with the glove at third, could be converted into a first baseman.  There has been a lot of talk about moving Vitters to a different position, so maybe he’ll end up at first.  Another option is for Vitters to move to left field, a position that could be open if Soriano is moved to first.

Finally, the only prospect the Cubs currently have in the minors that is considered a first baseman is Micah Hoffpauir.  He’s not a flashy candidate, but he is cheap.  My own opinion is that Hoffpauir does not have a future with the Cubs.  He’s out of minor league options following this season and I don’t see him coming back with the Cubs in 2011.  However, if the Cubs decide to save money on first base next year and spend it elsewhere (or not spend it at all), Hoffpauir is one in-house candidate that is also inexpensive.

The 2011 season is too far away to make any real educated predictions about who might end up at first base for the Cubs.  But it does seem likely that change will be afoot and the Cubs will have a new first baseman next year.  Who that will be is anybody’s guess.

At age 36, Derek Lowe is the more expensive of the two.  In fact, he is the Braves highest paid player.  He is set to earn $15 million per year for each of the next three years.  Lowe has always been a good pitcher, but 2009 was not his best year.  He finished the year with a 15-10 record, a 4.67 ERA, and a 1.52 WHIP.  However, his career numbers are better than that.  For his career, Lowe is 141-117, has an ERA of 3.84 and a WHIP of 1.29.

Vasquez is 34-years old and is signed through 2010 for $11.5 million.  He was also 15-10 in 2009, the same as Lowe, but with a much better ERA of 2.87.  He also had an impressive 1.03 WHIP.  For his career, Vasquez has a record of 142-139, an ERA of 4.19, and a WHIP of 1.24.

Of the two, the Braves would prefer to trade Lowe, both because of the dollars owed to him and the years remaining on his contract.  In exchange, the Braves would like to find a right handed power bat that can play first base and/or one of the outfield corners.  Right now they have their sights set on free agent Xavier Nady.

Although Milton Bradley doesn’t exactly fit the Braves biggest need, might the Cubs and Braves match up on a trade?  First, the Cubs are one of the few teams that can take on Derek Lowe’s contract.  In 2010, Lowe is $6 million more expensive that Bradley.  He’s $4 million more expensive than Bradley in 2011.  That’s a total of $10 million more over two years that the Cubs would have to spend if the traded Bradley for Lowe.  Of course, they are likely going to have to pay somewhere around $10 million to another team to move Bradley anyway, so it really is a wash.

There’s also the matter of the final year of Lowe’s contract.  He’ll be 39 years old and will be owed $15 million.  In three years, $15 million might not be too bad for an effective starting pitcher, but will Lowe still be effective.  It’s a risk, there’s not doubt about that.  Considering the lack of other trade partners the Cubs have been able to interest in Bradley, I think it is a risk worth taking.

The Cubs are in need of a middle-of-the-rotation arm, so adding Lowe would help out the pitching staff.  He’s not the ace that Roy Halladay is, but at least for now he’s solid.

Would the Braves want Bradley?  That’s hard to say.  Bradley sports an above-average on-base percentage and can provide some power from time to time.  He has only hit more than 20 homeruns once in his career, but Xavier Nady, who the Braves have admitted intererst in, has only done it once as well.  Nady’s second best homerun year is 20 while Bradley’s is 19.  In fact, both players have been in the majors since 2000 and Bradley has actually hit 28 more homeruns than Nady during that time.

Their career hitting lines are also similar.  Bradley has a slash line of .277/.371/.450 while Nady’s is .280/.335/.458.  There’s not a lot of difference.

Bradley is 31-years old and is owed $21 million over the next two seasons.  Nady is also 31.  He earned $6.55 million in 2009 with the Yankees and is likely looking for a multi-year deal in the neighborhood of $8-$10 million per year. 

Nady missed nearly all of 2009 after injuring his elbow in April and having Tommy John surgery in July.  So, while Bradley is prone to injury (he stayed relatively healthy in 2009), Nady doesn’t appear to be a better health risk.  In fact, I would question whether Nady will even be ready at the beginning of the season.

By trading for Bradley, the Braves could kill two birds with one stone.  First, they could trade Lowe and pare down their payroll.  They could also fill a need at a corner outfield spot.  Granted, Bradley has not played any first base, but Nady has only played 82 total games at first, so it’s not like he’s built his career there.  If adding a first baseman is really that important, perhaps the Cubs could throw Micah Hoffpauir into the deal to sweeten the pot.

By signing Nady, the Braves will be adding to their payroll without moving one of their pitchers.  It will just make their payroll problem worse.  They also won’t be getting a guy that meets their needs much, if any, better than Bradley does.

Of course, we’re avoiding the white elephant in the room: Bradley’s behavior issues.  Why would the Braves or any other team want to add Milton Bradley to their locker room? 

In better economic times, the answer would probably be that they wouldn’t.  But these are not normal economic times.  Many teams are trying to either hold the line on spending or cut payroll.  The Braves are a team that are currently above their payroll budget.  They need to cut salary and they need to cut relatively deep.

Trading Lowe for Bradley will allow them to decrease payroll while also taking care of their corner outfield need.  Then the trick will be for Bobby Cox to work his clubhouse magic and integrate Bradley into the Braves locker room.  Cox is known as a players manager, so perhaps he and Bradley would hit it off.

So, there you have it.  The perfect solution for the Milton Bradley situation.  Jim?  Mr. Hendry?  If you’re reading this (and I know you are), it’s time to get busy.  I’ve already done the heavy lifting here.  All you have to do is get the Braves to agree to the deal.  That shouldn’t be too hard.

“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.

I went overboard yesterday in my criticism of a blog post written by Carrie Muskat of MLB.com.  Her opinion was that the Cubs can not afford to add Halladay’s $15.75 million salary to their payroll, the Cubs will not be willing to trade top prospect Starlin Castro for Halladay, and Toronto’s asking price will be too high for just one year of Halladay.  In my rebuttal, I made it clear that I thought Muskat’s logic was weak and misguided.

My argument concerning Muskat’s comment about there only being one year left on Halladay’s contract was to say that any team willing to pay the price necessary to trade for Halladay would also likely want to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay before finalizing a trade.  Now Anthopulous has apparently let it be known that he would allow other teams a window to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay.

In a blog post by Jordan Bastian of MLB.com, he says:

“Considering Halladay is only under contract through 2010, one way for the Jays to potentially get more in a trade would be to give another team a window in which to discuss a contract extension with the pitcher. Anthopoulos declined comment on such a scenario, but MLB.com has learned that the Jays will consider granting such a window in trade talks if it means the return is significantly greater.”

Exactly.  Former Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi totally mishandled the team’s attempts to trade Halladay last year.  Not only was he asking for way too much, but he also would not allow other teams to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay.  Considering the asking price and terms, very few teams were interested and a trade was unltimately never made.

I look at the possibility of adding Roy Halladay to the Cubs from two perspectives.  First, can the Cubs afford his contract.  While it is true that Halladay’s contract would not fit within the team’s current budget, budgets can change.  If you have to go over budget for a player like Roy Halladay, you do it.  He’s a true staff ace, something the Cubs are missing.  I know it’s easy for me to say this since it’s not my money being spent, but I still think it is the right thing to do.

Of course, adding to the budget may not even be necessary.  That’s where my second perspective comes in.  Toronto isn’t just going to give Halladay to the Cubs.  So what will it cost the Cubs to get him?

My guess is that the Blue Jays will want one MLB-ready pitcher, one or two top prospects, and maybe another body or two.  So, who fits the bill?

As far as MLB-ready pirchers go, the Cubs have Ryan Dempster (a Canadian) they could trade if the Blue Jays are looking for a proven arm.  Of course, he’s more expensive than guys like Sean Marshall and Tom Gorzelanny, who have had some success at the MLB level and are less expensive.  Carlos Zambrano is another guy I would be willing to trade for Halladay, but I doubt if Toronto is interested in taking on his contract.

What about prospects?  Starlin Castro is currently the Cubs top prospect according to Baseball America.  I know the Cubs don’t want to move him, but for a player like Roy Halladay, I think you have to be willing to do things you’d rather not do.  But to be honest, I’m not sure it would be necessary to move Castro.  Two names that come to mind as far as prospects go are Josh Vitters and Darwin Barney. 

Until recently, Vitters was the Cubs top prospect.  It’s not so much that his stock has fallen (although it has a bit), but that Castro’s has risen.  Vitters plays third base, but is much more of an offensive player.  That might interest Toronto. 

Shortstop Darwin Barney is behind Castro on the prospect depth chart, but he’s ahead of Castro as far as being ready to play in the major leagues.  Since Toronto is likely to lose their shortstop, Marco Scuturo, to free agency this off season, they need an MLB-ready shortstop.  Barney might fit the bill.

Barney is a polished player.  He played at Oregon State during their College World Series championship years and has done well at every stop during his minor league career.  He split 2009 betwen Double-A and Triple-A, and could be ready for the next level. 

If they want a shortstop that is also one of the Cubs top 10 prospects, Toronto might consider Hak-Ju Lee.  He’s still young (19-years old), but has shown a great deal of potential so far in his short career.  He’s among the Cubs top 10 prospects according to Baseball America and he is probably just a year or two away from being ready for the big leagues.

If you move away from shortstop, the Cubs have a few other prospects that might interest Toronto.  Some names to consider are Tyler Colvin, Andrew Cashner, and Logan Watkins.

As for “warm bodies” the Cubs could throw in to sweeten the deal, look no further than Jake Fox and Micah Hoffpauir.  Fox in particular would be attractive for the Cubs because he is out of minor league options.  Both players have power, both can play more than one position, and neither one has much of a future with the Cubs.

I’m not suggesting that trading for Halladay would be easy or that a deal is imminent.  All I’m saying is that it is way too easy to dismiss the possibility of the Cubs trading for Halladay.  Do I think a trade is going to happen?  No, I don’t.  But I’m not willing to dismiss such a trade out of hand.

One final rant: The Cubs have done a good job of changing the team’s culture from lovable loser to playoff contender.  That’s good and it was a necessary step for the Cubs to take if they ever hoped to win a World Series.  But it is now time to take the next step.  The Cubs need to set their sights on the World Series.  With new owners and a down economy that allows the Cubs to flex their financial muscles, now is the perfect time for the team to focus on getting the players they need and to win a World Series.

Even though his slash line took a hit in 2009, Granderson hit a career high 30 homeruns, all the more impressive since it was done while playing in Detroit’s spacious ball yard.  Granderson appears to be a “buy low” opportunity.  His trade value is down from a year or two ago, but his potential remains high.

Chicago newspaper columnists are almost giddy with excitement over the potential of the Cubs trading for Granderson. Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times was more subdued when he said ” given the ideal fit provided by the Chicago-area native (i.e. Granderson), conversations between the teams appear inevitable.”  Phil Rogers of the Tribune and ChicagoBreakingSports.com was much more excited.  The headline of his article, Cubs Must Go After Granderson, gives you an idea of where he stands on the subject.

Rogers praises Granderson’s on-field play and off-field involvement in the community.  He calls Detroit “crazy” for thinking about trading him, and then becomes almost apoplectic when he says “The Cubs should do absolutely everything to get him, if he is available. There’s no debate about this.”

Rogers then starts the trade talks by offering up Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro.  I’m not very high on Marmol as a closer, but at the moment, he is the only one the Cubs have.  Also, I’m not ready to annoint Castro the second coming of Derek Jeter or Ozzie Smith, but he does appear the heir to the throne at shortstop.  Is this really the price that the Cubs want to pay for Granderson?

Thankfully, Phil Rogers’ trade offers do not obligate the Cubs in any way.  It is true that Granderson would be a good fit for the Cubs in center field.  I’m not sure where he would fit in the line up.  His numbers seem to be better suited for the middle-of-the-order than leadoff, but that’s an arguement for another day.  For now, let’s focus on what price the Cubs would have to pay to acquire Granderson.

First, let’s look at money.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $23.75 million.  His contract also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million with a $2 million buyout.  All tolled, Granderson is guaranteed to make $25.75 million over the next four years.  He’s not cheap, but his contract is not outrageous either.

Next, who would the Cubs have to give up to get Granderson?  Rogers’ offer of Marmol and Castro is too high.  I wouldn’t make Castro untouchable, but for this deal, I’d take him off the table.  I’d be willing to trade Marmol, but only if the Cubs have a really good idea of who is going to replace him.  As I’ve stated previously, I don’t think the Cubs should go into 2010 counting on Marmol to be their closer, but at the moment, he’s the only one they have.

Other names could include Jake Fox, Micah Hoffpauir, Aaron Heilman, Mike Fontenot, and Aaron Miles (if they’ll take him).  A few of these guys are non-tender candidates, but they still have value.  Sean Marshall is another valuable trade chip.  He deserves a shot as a starter somewhere, but it appears that he’s not going to get that shot with the Cubs again this year.

The Cubs minor leagues have some interesting trade candidates.  Darwin Barney is one guy who is proving himself in the minors, but who will likely not have a place to play when he’s ready for the big leagues in a year or two.  J.R. Mathes led the Iowa Cubs in wins last year, but doesn’t appear to have a future on the big league staff.  Rather than let him rot in Iowa (no offense to the Great State of Iowa), why not use him as trade bait.

These are just a few options.  I don’t know what the Tigers would want in return for Granderson other than salary relief.  The Cubs have some valuable players they can send Detroit’s way.  The important thing now is to keep Phil Rogers away from the negotiations.

**********

Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago said in a radio interview that the Cubs will announce a Milton Bradley trade in the next 3-4 days.  He mentioned the Rangers, Rays, Mets and Tigers as possible trade partners for the Cubs.  

The Rangers are starting to not make sense to me if Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated is correct that the Rangers would only be willing to pay $5 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  The Rays also do not make sense.  If the Cubs send Bradley to Tampa Bay for Pat Burrell, they will have to turn around and trade him, likely picking up a portion of his contract.

The Mets don’t make sense on a couple of levels.  First, although they would like to move Luis Castillo and his remaining two years and $12 million contract, they have already said that they are not interested in Bradley.  Also, New York isn’t exactly the quiet, laid-back small market Bradley needs.   The Cubs may have interest in Castillo, but a third team would probably have to get involved for a deal to work.

The Tigers could be interesting on several fronts.  First, I’ve already talked about Curtis Granderson.  The Cubs could use him, but there’s no way that the Tigers trade him straight up to the Cubs for Bradley.  Might the throw in Dontrelle Willis?  He has been largely ineffective for the Tigers and he is owed $12 million in 2010.  Jim Hendry likes his reclamation projects, but D-Train is awfully expensive.  Even so, I would rather pay Willis $12 million to play for the Cubs next year than I would to pay Texas $16 million over two years for Bradley not to play for the Cubs.

The Tigers also have some interest in trading Magglio Ordonez.  He is owed $18 million in 2010 and he has a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  The 2011 option vests if he starts 135 games or gets 540 plate appearances in 2010, or he gets 270 starts or 1080 plate appearances between 2009 and 2010.

Ordonez can still be a dangerous hitter, but he’s becoming more of a DH than an everyday position player.  In 2009, he played right field in 104 of the 131 games in which he played.  That number will likely go down in 2010.  Plus, the Cubs would really like to move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field.  Adding Ordonez wouldn’t allow that.

I don’t know where Milton Bradley is going to end up or who the Cubs might get for him, but it will sure be nice not talking about him anymore.  It will also be nice being able to move on with the off season.

Today, I want to pull it all together, make some predictions on what the Cubs will do to build their 2010 team, and list what I think the Cubs 25 man  roster will look like on opening day.

**********

I don’t expect the Cubs to make too many moves this offseason.  While I would love to see a big blockbuster trade and/or free agent signing, I just don’t think it’s going to happen. 

In the infield, I can see a free agent signing (although not a blockbuster) to fill the hole at second base.  A lot has been said about Jeff Baker taking over second base, but I don’t think the Cubs view him as a starter.  I personally would like to see him used as a super-sub, since he can play several positions.

We can be pretty sure that the second base job will not be given to Mike Fontenot or Aaron Miles.  Fontenot had his chance and didn’t take advantage of it.  Miles not only won’t be the starter at second, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs simply released him. 

There is a chance that Andres Blanco could take over at second.  Or, the Cubs may move Ryan Theriot to second and have Blanco play short.  I like Blanco and there’s part of me that would like to see him get a shot at a starting job.  Unfortunately for Andres, I don’t think that is going to happen.

That leaves a free agent, but who is it going to be?  I expect the Cubs to test the waters with Chone Figgins, but I don’t think they’ll get past preliminary discussions.  Figgins is coming off of a good year and his price is going to be too high.

Then I think they will turn their attention to Orlando Hudson.  Hudson made $3.38 million on a one-year contract last year while hitting .283/.357/.417 with 9 homeruns and 62 RBI.  However, he fell out of favor with the Dodgers at the end of the year and was replaced by Ronnie Belliard.  Both players are free agents, but I expect LA to re-sign Belliard and let Hudson walk. 

The Cubs will also probably take a look at Akinori Iwamura.  I expect the Rays to buy him out rather than exercising his $4.25 million option next year.  He’s an interesting player and I expect the Cubs to “kick the tires.” 

For what it’s worth, I think Iwamura would be a good fit for the Cubs.  He can hit at the top of the order, although he’s not a speed demon.  In three years with the Rays, Iwamura has hit .281/.354/.393.  For my money, Iwamura, who will be 31 years old next season, is the Cubs’ best option at second base.  That’s partly because Iwamura is also an accomplished third basemen, which will come in handy when/if Aramis Ramirez gets injured.  Even so, I don’t expect him to be a Cub in 2010.

In the end, I’m predicting that the Cubs will sign Hudson to a one or two year contract in the neighborhood of $5 million per year.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs signed Iwamura instead (or arranged for a trade with Tampa Bay before they decline his option), but I expect Hudson to be the Cubs second baseman next year.

The other infield positions will be filled by the current starters; Derrek Lee at first, Ryan Theriot at shortstop, and Aramis Ramirez at third.   Backups will include Jeff Baker, Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, and either Mike Fontenot or Andres Blanco.  I expect Koyie Hill to return as the backup catcher.

In the outfield, we already know that Alfonso Soriano and Kosuke Fukudome will take up two of the three positions.  I expect the third outfielder will come to the Cubs as part of a trade for Milton Bradley.  Names like Pat Burrell and Vernon Wells have been thrown around quite a bit.  I don’t think either has a future with the Cubs.  Instead, I expect Milton Bradley to be traded to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand. 

Rowand is signed through 2012 at $12 million per year.  Bradley is signed through 2011 and is owed a total of $21 million.  I expect the Cubs to agree to take on the extra year and $15 million on Rowand’s contract in order to get the Giants to agree to take on Bradley.  Bradley can take over for Randy Winn in right field for San Francisco.  Winn is a free agent at the end of the year and at age 36 next season, is unlikey to re-sign with the Giants.

Rowand, who will be 33 next year, may not be the player he once was, but he still plays a credible center field.  Acquiring him will allow the Cubs to move Fukudome back to right field where he is more comfortable and effective.  Also, Roward is probably not the middle-of-the-order run producing bat that Piniella covets, but he should do a decent job, especially if he can regain some of the pop he had in his bat in previous years.  Don’t get me wrong,  acquiring Aaron Rowand is not the perfect solution for the Cubs.  I just think it is what they are going to do.

Outfield backups will include Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, Sam Fuld, and Jeff Baker.

We already know that, barring a big surprise, Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells will be in the starting rotation.  I expect Tom Gorzelanny to snag the fifth starting spot.  I don’t think the Cubs will make any trades or sign any free agents that will impact the starting five.

In the bullpen, I expect to see Sean Marshall, John Grabow, Justin Berg, Esmailin Caridad, Angel Guzman, and Carlos Marmol.  Unfortunately, other than re-signing John Grabow, I don’t think the Cubs will make any moves to shore up the bullpen.  The reason I say “unfortunately” is because I feel strongly that the Cubs should replace Marmol as the closer.  He’s too undependable and the Cubs need dependabilty in the closer role.

The options to replace Marmol are very limited.  I spelled them out in a previous post.  My favorite option is to sign Ben Sheets to close (assuming Sheets would agree to close).  It would allow Sheets to work fewer innings as he recovers from the elbow surgery that kept him out of action in 2009.  Plus, if everything works out, he’ll be available for the starting rotation in 2011 when the Cubs are likely to lose Ted Lilly.  Of course, while I like the idea, I don’t expect it to happen.

You may have noticed that Jeff Samardjzia is nowhere to be found on the Cubs 2010 pitching staff.  That is because I expect the Cubs to keep him in triple-A all year where he can work on a third pitch.  The Cubs are doing everything they can to make Samardjzia into a starter.  But the truth is, he’s much better suited to be a relief pitcher.  I know neither he nor the Cubs want that, but I’m afraid that’s the case.  Perhaps another year in triple-A will help him become the starter he wants to be, but I expect the Cubs to come to the conclusion in the not too distant future that Samardjzia’s destiny  is in the bullpen. 

So, having said all of this, here is my projected roster for 2010:

Infield
1st — Derrek Lee
2nd — Orlando Hudson
SS — Ryan Theriot
3rd — Aramis Ramirez
C — Geovany Soto

Outfield
LF — Alfonso Soriano
CF — Aaron Rowand
RF — Kosuke Fukudome

Pitchers
SP — Carlos Zambrano
SP — Ted Lilly
SP — Ryan Dempster
SP — Randy Wells
SP — Tom Gorzelanny
RP — Sean Marshall
RP — John Grabow
RP — Angel Guzman
RP — Justin Berg
RP — Esmailin Caridad
CL — Carlos Marmol

Bench
Micah Hoffpauir
Sam Fuld
Jeff Baker
Andres Blanco/Mike Fontenot
Jake Fox
Koyie Hill

The 2010 Cubs, at least on paper, should be slightly better than the 2009 team.  If Ramirez annd Soto can stay healthy, and both Soriano and Soto can hit the way they have done in the past, the offense should be in good shape.  The starting rotation looks to be weaker than they were on opening day 2009 when the rotation included Rich Harden, but if Zambrano and Dempster can both stay healthy and rebound in 2010, the rotation should be just fine.

As I stated, I’m afraid that Carlos Marmol is going to be a weak link for this team.  If somehow Marmol can gain some control over his pitches, it will go a long way to helping the Cubs reach the post-season in 2010.

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

Today, I want to turn my attention to the outfield.  The general concensus has been that Milton Bradley will be traded in the offseason, so the Cubs will either need to replace him in right field or they”ll instead move Kosuke Fukudome back to right and then go shopping for a center fielder.  We’ll look at both possibilities.  But first, let’s take a look at the potential market for Bradley to get a feel for what a trade may bring in return.

In a previous post, I stated that the only way the Cubs are realistically going to be able to trade Bradley is to take back another teams’ bad contract or package Bradley with some other valuable players.  I’ve also thrown out some possible trade scenarios.  Let’s run them down in no particular order here:

Milton Bradley to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand — Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two seasons and Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years.  San Francisco would like to jettison some payroll in order to make some moves, but at the moment they are hamstrung.  By taking on Bradley, the Giants could reduce payroll a bit and could add a typically high-OBP bat to their lineup.  From the Cubs perspective, Rowand will be 32 years old during the 2010 season.  He is coming off one of the worst seasons in his career, having hit .261/.319/.419 with 15 homeruns and 64 RBI.  Rowand could fill the potential void left in center field, but his defense has taken a hit over the years and the Cubs would be commiting to having him on the team for three years.  Not a perfect trade for the Cubs, but what is?

Milton Bradley to Texas Rangers for Michael Young — In a nutshell, the Texas Rangers are in bad financial trouble.  The team is for sale, but the process is moving slowly.  If owner Tom Hicks can’t unload the team soon, he instead is going to have to unload some payroll just to keep the team afloat.  The Rangers’ highest paid player is Michael Young.  He is owed $64 million over the next four years.  Trading Young for Bradley may not make baseball sense for the Rangers, but it would make financial sense.  From the Cubs perspective, they could take advantage of Texas’ financial woes by unloading Bradley and bringing in the middle-of-the-order run producer they covet.  In 2009, after spending some time on the DL, Young hit .322/.374/.518 with 22 homeruns and 68 RBI.  He currently plays third base, but the Cubs would have to move back to shortstop, which is his preferred position.  This would also force Theriot to second.  The move would also reunite Young with hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo to whom he gives much credit for his hitting ability.

Milton Bradley to Los Angeles Angels for Gary Matthews, Jr. — At one time not too long ago, Gary Matthews, Jr. was considered a hot commodity.  In 2007 he was signed by the Angels to a 5 year, $50 million contract.  But just one year later, the Angels signed Torii Hunter to play center field and Matthews became the highest paid 4th outfielder in baseball.  At the moment, Matthews is still owed $23 million over the next two years.  In limited action in 2009, Matthews hit .250/.336/.361 with four homeruns and 50 RBI.  My guess is that the Cubs would jump at this trade.  The contracts are basically a wash and Matthews could fill a need in center field.  He may not be the power threat that Michael Young is, but I think it is fair to say that his power numbers will increase if he is getting regular playing time, which could make him the middle-of-the-0rder run producer the Cubs are looking for.  Plus, he’d be reunited with Rudy Jaramillo who was his hitting coach in 2006 when he had the best offensive year of his career.  The real question is, would the Angels take on Bradley?  The Angels and Mike Scioscia  have a history of not putting up with player misbehavior.  But they are under some pressure to trade Matthews, both because he has asked for a trade and because they pay him a lot of money to be a 4th outfielder.  There’s a chance Vlad Guerrero could be leaving the Angels, so Bradley could step in as a DH.  If I had to guess, I would guess that the Angels would not go for this trade.

Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay Rays forPat Burrell — According to Bruce Levine with ESPN Chicago, the Cubs are still talking to Tampa about a Bradley for Burrell trade.  Just typing that makes my head hurt.  Burrell is a DH.  Don’t the Cubs realize that there is no DH in the NL?  When he does play in the field, he plays left field.  We have one of those already.  This trade make no sense to me, but it looks like it’s a possibility.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Toronto Blue Jays for Vernon Wells and Roy Halladay — Toronto is in a world of hurt.  They need to rebuild their team in order to compete in the AL East, but they are saddled with such big contracts that they can’t make any moves.  Vernon Wells is owed $98.5 million over the next five years, plus another $8.5 million in 2010 that is the third installment of his signing bonus.  Halladay is owed $15.75 million in 2010 and then he becomes a free agent.  Together, that’s a ton of money.  Is there any scenario where this would make sense for the Cubs?  Maybe.  The only way I see it working out is if the Cubs are given the opportunity to work out an extension with Halladay before the deal is made.  Even if this happened, it still might not be enough for the trade make sense for the Cubs.  Vernon Wells contract is just too crazy.

Milton Bradley to Detroit Tigers for Curtis Granderson or Magglio Ordonez — I have to admit, I don’t completely understand this rumor.  I don’t see why Detroit would trade either Granderson or Ordonez for Bradley.  Even so, the rumors have been persistent.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $14.75 million.  Considering his production, he has a rather reasonable contract.  He also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million and a $2 million buyout.  In 2009, Granderson hit .249/.327/.453 with 30 homeruns and 70 RBI.  He also stole 20 bases on a team that generally does not steal many bases.  Ordonez is owed $18 million for 2010.  There is also a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  Ordonez struggled at the plate for a good part of 2009, and still managed to put up a hitting line of .310/.376/.428 with 9 homeruns and 50 RBI.  Granderson will be  29 years old in 2010 and Ordonez will be 36.  Honestly, I don’t know why the Tigers would trade either guy for Bradley, but if they’ll do it, the Cubs should jump at the chance.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott — If Baltimore would go for this trade, it could fill the Cubs two biggest offseason needs all at once.  Roberts would be the lead-off man they have lacked for years and Scott is the middle-of-the-order run producer they are looking for.  But would Baltimore really go for it?  My opinion is that they should.  Let’s face it, the Orioles are not in a position to compete in the AL East.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only way the Orioles win the East is if they decide to rank the teams alphabetically next year.  Since that’s the case, why would the Orioles hang on to two guys that are a) expensive, and b) not going to be around in a few years when the Orioles will be in a better position to compete.  Roberts is owed $40 million over the next four years and Scott’s 2010 salary will be set via arbitration, but it’s safe to say that he’ll be getting a raise from the $2.4 million he made in 2009.  If I was in Baltimore’s shoes, I would look to jettison payroll now and bring in young players who they can put around Matt Weiters and can help them compete in a few years.  Of course, Andy MacPhail hasn’t asked for my advice.

**********

We can be sure that Alfonso Soriano will be in left next year for the Cubs and Kosuke Fukudome will either be in center or right.  That leaves one starting position and two back up positions open in the outfield.  I’ve layed out the possible players the Cubs can acquire through a trade of Milton Bradley.  Let’s look at possible free agent targets.

The three most intriguing free agent center fielders to me are Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, and Rick Ankiel.  Byrd is expected to sign a two or three year deal for $5+ million.  There’s also been quite a bit of speculation that the Rangers would like to resign him.  Byrd hit .283/.329/.479 with 20 homeruns and 80 RBI.  He’ll turn 33 during the 2010 season.

Mike Cameron will be 37 in 2010, but he has been very steady throughout his career.  In 2009 he hit .250/.342/.452, which is remarkably close to his career averages.  He made $10 million in 2009, but is probably looking at signing a one-year contract for less money.

Rick Ankiel should be a low cost, high upside player.  However, his agent is Scott Boras, so who knows what kind of money he might be looking for.  He hit .231/.285/.387 with 11 homeruns and 38 RBI in 2009 in limited action.  He’d be a risk, but at the right price, could be a good investment.  The problem is, I don’t think his price is going to be right.

Right fielder free agent targets include Bobby Abreu and Jermaine Dye.  I’m fairly certain that Abreau is going to be looking for a multi-year contract (two or three years) for somewhere around $10 million per year.  He’s already turned down a two-year, $16 million contract extension from the Angels.  I like Abreu, but I’m afraid he has priced himself out of the Cubs’ budget.

Jermaine Dye made $11.5 million in 2009 and hit .250/340/.453 with 27 homeruns and 81 RBI.  Even so, Dye may end up walking the same road that Abreau walked last offseason.  I can foresee Dye signing a one year deal for $4 million – $6 million.  Dye has always performed and has not really gotten the credit he deserves.  Signing Dye for one year at $5 million could be a good investment for the Cubs.

The 4th and 5th outfielders are probably with the club already.  They will come from a list of Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, and Sam Fuld.  There’s also the possibility that the Cubs will re-sign Reed Johnson, although my personal opinion is that Johnson would cost too much.  I don’t foresee the Cubs going after a free agent to fill one of the reserve outfielder positions.

**********

Next up is a look at the Cubs pitching staff for 2010.  Are they set or will they go shopping for pitching this offseason.  Stay tuned…

Carlos Marmol came in to handle the bottom of the 9th.  As usual, Marmol made it interesting, giving up a walk and a hit.  But he struck out the other three batters he faced to earn the save and give the Cubs the victory.

Ryan Dempster looked solid, going 7.0 innings and giving up seven hits and two earnerd runs.  He walked one and struck out six.  Even with time on the DL this year for a broken toe, Dempster is up to 186.0 inning with a 3.68 ERA.

The win was a big one because Colorado lost to San Diego 5-4 to pull the Cubs to within 6.5 games in the Wildcard race.  To add even a little more hope to the scenario, The Rockies will be hosting the Cardinals in a three-game set starting tonight.  The odds remain incredibly long, but stranger things have happened (haven’t they?).

The Cubs are 4-1 in their last five games and are playing some of their best baseball of the year (which isn’t saying a lot).  Unfortunately, there are only 10 games remaining in the season to make a miracle happen.

**********

George Castle with TruSlant.com wrote an interesting and insightful article about his personal experience with Milton Bradley and how that experience mirrors Bradley’s overall behavior with the Cubs.  The article is nearly a month old, but it gives a good feel for what it was like to deal with the Cubs suspended right fielder.

Castle writes:

Bradley is quickly punching a ticket out of Wrigley Field with streams of consciousness about the apparent dislike, even “hatred,” shown to him by Cubs fans in the stands — and even waiters at the next table in a restaurant. The $30 million right fielder, who is just starting to hit conveniently too late to help the Cubs, even hinted at racism from some of the lunatic fringe in the ballpark. The race angle was predictable, given the devil’s brew of Bradley’s past outbursts, his four-month-long slump to start the season and the reprehensible actions of a loud-mouthed few who have aggravated African-American Cubs in recent seasons.

I don’t think Castle knew how accurate he was when he said “Bradley is punching a ticket out of Wrigley Field.”  I don’t think anyone could have foretold Bradley’s suspension a month ago, but Castle comes close.

The article goes on to detail Castle’s attempts to interview Bradley.  Although it seems hard to do, Bradley failed to attend three pre-set interviews with Castle over a four day period.  The interviews were set up through the Cubs Media Relations office and Bradley agreed to each and every interview.  Even so, he did not have the professionalism to cancel the interviews (if he couldn’t make it).  He claimed that he simply forgot about the second interview, but gave no reason (or apology) for missing the other interviews.

Actually, that last sentence is not quite true.  After missing the third interview, Bradley claimed he had been in the training room because he didn’t feel well.  However, Castle not only saw Bradley sitting at his locker at the scheduled time of the interview, but made eye contact with Bradley and even held up his tape recorder for Bradley to see to remind him of the interview.  In other words, even though Bradley knew that Castle knew that Bradley was just sitting in the locker room, he still made up a story to explain away his failure to keep his commitment.

The fact that Bradley takes absolutely no responsibility for his actions is old news by now, but Castle experienced this first hand back in May 2009.  Bradley was just starting his tenure with the Cubs and was already going through some tough times.  Less than two months into the season, Bradley had already been suspended for bumping an umpire and he was having difficulty getting his bat going.  In fact, at the time of the first scheduled interview with Castle, Bradley was hitting just .200/.328/.390 with five homeruns and 11 RBI.

The somewhat ironic thing to me was that Castle was going to interview Bradley specifically to give Bradley the opportunity to explain himself and let the fans know the kind of person he really is.  Bradley had claimed on several occasions that he was misunderstood, so Castle was willing to turn his entire radio program over to Bradley to try to overcome any misunderstandings.  In the end, I think Bradley did show exactly the kind of person he is, but I doubt if it’s what he had in mind.

Castle ends his piece with this:

Bradley has time to change, to grow as a man. However, the way he is steering his life, it will be best done elsewhere, and maybe away from baseball.

Indeed.

**********

The Associated Press (via ESPN.com) is reporting that the bankruptcy judge hearing the Tribune Company’s bankruptcy case has approved the sale of the Cubs to the Ricketts Family.  The Cubs (Chicago National League Ball Club) will now be taken through an expedited bankruptcy proceeding to make sure that the organization is free of liens and claims.  Approval from MLB will be the final hurdle that has to be cleared before the Rickettses are officially the new owner of the Cubs.  It sounds like the entire process can be wrapped up by the end of the post-season or shortly therafter.

**********

It’s official.  Rich Harden is being shut down for the remainder of the season.  Harden says that he’s suffering from some mild arm fatigue. 

“It’d be a lot different if we were in it and they needed me to pitch,” Harden said. “I’d be out there in a second and I’d be fine. I’m still healthy, feeling good and took that as a positive for this season.”

Harden went on to say that the decision to shut down his season was “mutual” between him and the club.  He said it would be good for the Cubs to test some of their young arms as the season winds down.

It’s not that I doubt what is being said, but I find the decision odd considering that Harden will be entering free agency at the end of the year.  The knock on him is that he is fragile and prone to injury.  As he prepares for a new contract, I would think he would want to end the year strong and at least appear durable (or at least as durable as Rich Harden can appear).  Shutting him down early, especially with his agreement, leaves the impression that maybe something is wrong with him.  It’s not the impression you want to deal with when you’re preparing for a new contract.

My guess is that the Cubs will offer Harden arbitration at the end of the year.  I expect that he will reject arb and will hit the free agent market with hopes of getting a long-term contract.  Someone might bite, but it shouldn’t be the Cubs.  Harden is a fantastic pitcher when he is healthy, but unfortunately, that’s not often enough.

**********

After initially saying he was not interested, Nolan Ryan has now confirmed that he is interested in purchasing a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers.  Ryan is currently the President of the Rangers and he owns two minor league teams.

Why am I including this bit of news on a Cubs blog?  Because the rumor has been floated that Texas could be a place where Milton Bradley could land next year.  Bradley enjoyed the best season of his career in Texas and he seemed to get along well with manager Ron Washington.  I have myself opined in the past that a Bradley for Michael Young swap could be a possibility.

The only reason Texas would agree to such a deal is because of the tremendous financial problems owner Tom Hicks is having.  Young is a huge financial liability for the team.  He’s the highest paid player on the Rangers and is stilled owed $64 million through 2013.

However, if Ryan becomes the owner of the Rangers, they will no longer be in the tough financial position they are in currently.  And without an incredibly strong financial reason to do it, I don’t think Ryan would tolerate an individual as troubled and flawed as Milton Bradley.  One of Ryan’s strengths, both on the field and in the front office, is that he is tough minded.  The same can not be said for Bradley.  If Ryan moves from the front office to the owners box, I think the possibility of a trade for Milton Bradley becomes unlikely.

The Cubs lost to the Cardinals again yesterday 2-1.  It was their third straight loss and their fourth loss in the past five games.  I want to get angry and blame them for not rising to the occasion, but then I see that they are marching Bobby Scales and Micah Hoffpauir out as the starting left and right fielder respectively, and I just sigh. 

Colorado beat Arizona yesterday to increase their Wildcard lead to 8.0 games over the Cubs with 16 games to play.  I know, it’s not happening.

The Cubs will try to salvage one game in their series with St. Louis by sending Carlos Zambrano (8-6) to the mound against Cy Young hopeful Adam Wainwright (18-8).  It doesn’t get any easier, does it?

**********

In an interview with Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald, Milton Bradley opened up and let everyone know what a complete horse’s ass he really is.  For some of us, it was already clear.  For those last few hold outs, it should be clear now.

Miles apparently asked Bradley several questions regarding his left knee injury and his on-field performance, but Bradley refused to answer.  The only question he would answer was when Miles asked him if he was enjoying his first season in Chicago.

“Not really,” he said. “It’s just not a positive environment. I need a stable, healthy, enjoyable environment. There’s too many people everywhere in your face with a microphone asking the same questions repeatedly. Everything is just bashing you. You go out there and you play harder than anybody on the field and never get credit for it. It’s just negativity.

“And you understand why they haven’t won in 100 years here, because it’s negative. It’s what it is.”

Asked whether he was talking about the fans, the media or even the Cubs organization, he replied: “It’s everything. It’s everybody.”

Of course, it’s everybody but Milton.  The man takes absolutely no responsibility for his own actions or his own crappy performance.  It’s everyone else’s fault.  It’s the fans, it’s the manager, it’s the other players, it’s everyone and everything, but it’s not Milton’s fault.

Let’s break down Milton’s comments:

“It’s just not a positive environment.” — There’s no one more negative associated with the Cubs than Bradley, but he wants to complain about the “negative environment” as if it is totally unrelated to him.  If there is a negative environment either on the field or in the clubhouse, it’s because of Bradley.  Perhaps he should recognize that the dark cloud he complains of follows him wherever he goes.

“I need a stable, healthy, enjoyable environment.” — “That’s all I need, just a stable, healthy, enjoyable environment, this chair, and a $30 million contract.”  Please, this is such a lame excuse.  What is not stable, healthy, or enjoyable about playing for the Cubs.  Others seem to enjoy, even relish, the experience of playing for the Cubs.  Maybe the environment would be more stable, healthy and enjoyable if the overpaid right fielder was doing his job instead of finding new things to complain about every day.

“There’s too many people everywhere in your face with a microphone asking the same questions repeatedly.” — Milton, you’re a professional athlete.  Reporters get paid to ask you questions.  Many of them are jerks, but that comes with the territory.  If you want to be left alone, dig ditches for a living.  Have you noticed that reporters ask other players questions and they don’t act like jackasses?  Maybe you should give it a try.

“Everything is just bashing you.” — Of course everything and everyone is bashing you.  You’re having a horrible season.  Try taking responsibility for your performance and your attitude, and maybe people will cut you a little slack.  By the way, if you take me up on my offer to be a ditch digger and you do a crappy job, people will still bash you for it.  It’s a sad fact of life.

“You go out there and you play harder than anybody on the field and never get credit for it.” — What?  You’ve got to be kidding.  I can’t say that I’ve seen you dog it out on the field, but neither do I recall you ever putting forth more effort than anyone else.  Plus, aren’t you the same guy that said he prays games go no longer than nine innings?  It seems to me that the guy giving the most effort on the team would do it for however long the game goes, not just nine innings.  Sorry Milton, but I’m going to have to throw a big BS flag on you for this ridiculous comment.  Don’t hurt yourself while you’re patting yourself on the back and throwing your teammates under the bus.  If only the rest of the team would play as hard as you.  Puhlease…

“It’s just negativity.” — Refer to the comment above concerning Milton Bradley being the sourse of all negativity.

“And you understand why they haven’t won in 100 years here, because it’s negative. It’s what it is.” — Yeah, that’s it.  The Cubs haven’t won a World Series in more than 100 years because 1) of the environment Milton Bradley deems as negative, and 2) because no one gives Milton Bradley the credit he so richly deserves for being the hardest working player in all of Cubdom.  It’s so clear to me now.

“Asked whether he was talking about the fans, the media or even the Cubs organization, he replied: “It’s everything. It’s everybody.” — Again, it’s everybody’s fault, but Milton’s.

I was not a fan of Milton Bradley’s signing.  From the beginning I thought bringing him to the Cubs was a bad fit.  Naturally, I was somewhat concerned about his inability to stay healthy, but I was even more concerned with his attitude and behavior.  He has done absolutely nothing this year to prove that my concerns about his attitude and behavior were unwarranted.  His one year in Chicago has been a train wreck, not because of anyone else, but because of Bradley himself.  Has the press been tough on him?  Sure.  Does that justify his behavior?  Absolutely not.

The Cubs have to get rid of Bradley at all costs.  Even if they have to pay a good chunk of his salary to move him, it will be better for the team than to keep him in the organization.  And it’s a pretty sad statement about a player to say that the team would be better off paying someone else to take him.

In Sunday’s game, the Cubs offense exploded for eleven runs to beat the Nationals 11-3.  Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox and Mike Fontenot all had three hits in five at-bats.  Fox and Alfonso Soriano hit homeruns for the Cubs, and Kosuke Fukudome went 2-4 in the leadoff spot.  It was the third day in a row that Fukudome led off and was 2-4.

The win moves the Cubs into second place in the NL Central, just two games back of the Cardinals.  Milwaukee and Houston are three and four games back respectively.

The Cubs now travel to Philadelphia to take on the Phillies.  Ted Lilly will start for the Cubs against the Phillies’ Rodrigo Lopez.

**********

Speaking of the Phillies, they remain the most likely destination for Roy Halladay should the Blue Jays trade him.  However, Tim Kurkjian commented yesterday on ESPN Radio that he doesn’t believe that the Phillies have the pieces necessary to trade for Halladay.  He said that the Blue Jays are looking for two MLB-ready players (one a pitcher), and two top prospects. 

According to Danny Knobler of CBSsports.com (via MLBTradeRumors.com), the Brewers are in the hunt for Halladay.  Knobler writes:

“Rival teams say the Brewers have enough prospects to make a Halladay deal, even though they’ve suggested they won’t trade Alcides Escobar or Mat Gamel. One intriguing possibility: A team that talked to the Brewers was told that shortstop J.J. Hardy could be available “in the right deal.” “

I hate to hear that.  Facing the Brewers with Doc Halladay on the mound wouldn’t be much fun for the Cubs.

**********

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports says that the Cubs are one of the teams showing interest in Baltimore closer George Sherrill.  Other teams thought to be interested according to Rosenthal are the Marlins, Dodgers, Brewers, and Angels. 

Orioles GM Andy McPhail has taken the position that Baltimore doesn’t need to trade Sherrill, but the truth of the matter is that Sherrill is probably the best closer available right now and his trade value may never be higher.  Plus, Sherrill’s contract is up at the end of the year.  If Baltimore has any plans to move Sherrill, now may be the time.

In 2008, Sherrill had 31 saves in 37 opportunities.  So far in 2009 he has coverted 20 of 23 save opportunities.  In 38.1 innings, Sherrill has given up 30 hits, struck out 35 and walked 12.  In comparison, Kevin Gregg has converted 18 of 21 save opportunities this year.  He’s pitched a total of 44.1 innings giving up 37 hits, striking out 43, and walking 18.

Comparing their contracts, Sherrill is on a one-year contract worth $2.75 million.  He’ll be a free agent at the end of the 2009 season.  Gregg is also on a one year contract and he too will be a free agent at the end of the season.  Gregg earns $4.2 million per year.  Gregg is 31-years old while Sherrill is 32.

I’m not convinced the Cubs have much interest in Sherrill, but if they do, my guess is that they would use him in the 7th or 8th inning to get to Gregg rather to replace him.  Sherrill is not much of an upgrade over Gregg, if in fact he is an upgrade at all.