To catch up on this series of posts (including the intial post where I explain my methodology), visit these links:

• What Can You Get For $140 Million?
• What Can You Get For $140 million?: First Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Second Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Shortstop

The thing that got me started on this quest is the very distinct feeling I have that, while the Cubs are spending with the big boys, they are not building a team that can compete with the big boys.  In a nutshell, my belief is that with the third highest payroll in Major League Baseball, the Cubs should be able to sign, trade for, or otherwise acquire the top players in the game.  They should be able to build a roster of several all-star caliber players, along with a couple of players that are 1) exceptional at their position, and 2) younger, so they are not yet expensive. 

Today, I’d like to look at third base.  The players I will be analyzing are:

• Alex Rodriguez (Yankees)
• David Wright (Mets)
• Aramis Ramirez (Cubs)
• Brandon Inge (Tigers)
• Pedro Feliz (Phillies)
• Mike Lowell (Boston)

Before we get started with our analysis, let’s take a look at the salaries for each of the six third basemen:

1. Alex Rodriguez ($32 million)
2. Aramis Ramirez ($15.65 million)
3. Mike Lowell ($12 million)
4. David Wright ($7.5 million)
5. Brandon Inge ($6.3 million)
6. Pedro Feliz ($5 million)

As the highest paid player in baseball, Alex Rodriguez’ salary dwarfs not only every other third baseman’s salary, but every other MLB player.  The good news for Rodriguez is that he’ll make another $32 million in 2010 before his salary starts to decline as part of his front-loaded contract.

I’d like to start my analysis by looking at the stats from 2008.  It will give us an idea of what these players were doing the year before 2009, the year we will be analyzing.  It can also give us some idea of why the player was in he position they were in going into 2009.

Let’s start our analysis by looking at the 2008 WAR scores for each third basemen.

1. David Wright (WAR 7.4)
2. Alex Rodriguez (WAR 6.0)
3. Aramis Ramirez (WAR 4.7)
4. Mike Lowell (WAR 3.2)
5. Pedro Feliz (WAR 1.5)
6. Brandon Inge (WAR 1.2)

Alex Rodriguez had a terrific year in 2008, leading the AL in SLG and finishing third in homeruns.  But his great year was overshadowed (at least in WAR) by David Wright.  Wright had the highest WAR of any player on any of the six highest payroll team.

Aramis Ramirez also had a very good year in 2008 finishing with a WAR of 4.7.  It was his sixth year out of eight full seasons with the Cubs that his WAR was above 4.0.

Here’s how the third basemen ranked in 2008 based on OPS+:

1. Alex Rodriguez (OPS+ 150)
2. David Wright (OPS+ 141)
3. Aramis Ramirez (OPS+ 126)
4. Mike Lowell (OPS+ 103)
5. Pedro Feliz (OPS+ 81)
6. Brandon Inge (OPS+ 76)

Of the players we’re reviewing, only Mark Teixeira had a higher OPS+ (152) than Alex Rodriguez in 2008.  Again, Ramirez finished third with a respectable OPS+ of 126.

Moving into 2009, let’s see how the players stack up based on WAR:

1. Alex Rodriguez (WAR 4.4)
2. David Wright (WAR 3.4)
3. Brandon Inge (WAR 2.5)
4. Aramis Ramirez (WAR 2.5)
5. Pedro Feliz (WAR 1.3)
6. Mike Lowell (WAR 1.2)

2009 was a strange year for the third basemen in our survey.  Rodriguez, Wright, Ramirez, and Lowell all spent time on the DL.  Since WAR values playing every day, this hurt their WAR scores.  Even so, Rodriguez and Wright led our group, and Ramirez was tied for third.

One quick note before we move on.  My intention was to examine the opening day rosters for each of the six teams in our survey.  However, Alex Rodriguez began the 2009 season on the DL following hip surgery.  Cody Ransom was actually the opening day third basemen for the Yankees in 2009.  Even so, there can be no doubt that the Yankees fully intended to have Rodriguez starting at third base.  As soon as he was healthy enough to return from the DL, Rodriguez immediately took over at third.  It only makes sense to include his stats for the purposes of our analysis.

How did the third basemen fare ranking them based on 2009 OPS+?  Let’s have a look:

1. Alex Rodriguez (OPS+ 147)
2. Aramis Ramirez (OPS+ 130)
3. David Wright (OPS+ 123)
4. Mike Lowell (OPS+ 106)
5. Brandon Inge (OPS+ 86)
6. Pedro Feliz (OPS+ 81)

Although Ramirez missed time on the DL, he had a terrific year when he returned.  He finished the year hitting .317/.389/.516 with 15 homeruns and 65 RBI. 

Now that we have an idea how well each of the players did over the past couple of years, let’s rank them:

1. Alex Rodriguez (Yankees)
2. David Wright (Mets)
3. Aramis Ramirez (Cubs)
4. Mike Lowell (Red Sox)
5. Brandon Inge (Tigers)
6. Pedro Feliz (Phillies)

Rodriguez is far and away the best third baseman in the group and the best in the game.  In fact, he is clearly one of the best players in all of baseball.  I do think that Wright is a better third baseman than Ramirez, but not by much.  Wright has a higher career OPS+ and he is four years younger than Ramirez. 

The skill level drops off significantly after Ramirez.  Lowell is a guy I have always liked and appreciated, but he is no longer the ball player he once was.  Injuries and age have taken their toll and he is no longer one of the elite third basemen in the league.

So, Aramis Ramirez is one of the top third basemen out of the six we’ve looked at, but is he one of the top third basemen in all of Major League Baseball?  In trying to answer this question, we have to consider names like Pablo Sandoval, Michael Young, Chipper Jones, Scott Rolen, and Evan Longoria.  Arguments can be made that one or more of these players are better than Ramirez.  However, there can be little doubt that Ramirez is in the mix when you consider the top five or ten third basemen in baseball.

Bottom Line:  My belief is that with the third highest payroll in baseball, the Cubs should employ some of the top players in the game.  At least at third base, it appears that they have one of the games’ top players.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that Ramirez’ contract has a clause that allows him to opt out of the contract after the 2010 season. 

If he has another good year, there’s a good chance Ramirez will opt out and pursue a longer multi-year contract.  My guess is that Jim Hendry (or who ever is the Cubs GM at the time) will renegotiate a longer term multi-year contract with Ramirez.  Unless someone like David Wright or Evan Longoria is available, the Cubs should do whatever they need to do to keep Ramirez on the roster.

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.

Don’t get me wrong.  There’s was a lot of talking.  There were a lot of rumors.  Much of the day was taken up with posturing.  But as far as actual trades or signings go, nothing happened.

At some point around the middle of the day, I had a sudden moment of clarity.  As you’ll recall, the Cubs suspened Milton Bradley in September with just 15 games remaining in the season.  Jim Hendry said he couldn’t tolerate Bradley’s behavior any longer (especially Bradley blaming the fans for the Cubs not winning a World Series in more than 100 years), and he suspended him for the remainder of the season.  Of course, the Cubs continued to pay Bradley (a deal they worked out with the Player’s Union), so the discipline was much more symbolic than substantive.

The writers in Chicago had a heyday with the Bradley suspension.  They celebrated, they rejoiced, and Hendry played right into their hands.  He made it clear from the beginning that Bradley would have to be traded.  He poisoned the waters to the point where he had absolutely no leverage in any potential trade.  He branded Bradley as damaged goods, making him about as unappealing as he could to potential trade partners.

As the Winter Meetings approached, his tune changed a bit.  Hendry started to talk like Bradley might stay with the team.  The Cubs tried to build up Bradley’s value after spending most of the off season destroying his value.  But guess what?  Other teams weren’t falling for it.  They were well aware of the Cubs precarious position with Bradley and they were in no rush to come to the Cubs rescue.

Trade talks with both Tampa Bay and Texas included demands for the Cubs to send several million dollars along with Bradley in any trade.  It was expected that the Cubs would have to eat some of Bradley’s contract, but the $16 million that Texas supposedly demanded was not expected. 

As the Winter Meetings began, rumors started to spread about the Cubs discussing a Bradley trade with three or four teams.  On Tuesday, a mystery team entered the picture.  A deal with an unnamed AL team was “three-quarters” complete.  There appeared to be demand for Bradley.  His stock suddenly seemed to be rising.

Then, it the middle of the day on Wednesday, I had my moment of clarity.  There is no market for Bradley.  I don’t know why it wasn’t clearer to me previously.  I guess I bought into all of the hype and rumors. 

In an effort to trade Bradley, the Cubs spent their time creating rumors, spreading gossip and trying to create a market (or the perception of a market) for Bradley.  It didn’t work.  No one, except the media, bought it.  Teams didn’t come rushing in to try to snag Bradley for fifty cents on the dollar.  They stayed away in droves.  And as the Winter Meeting come to a close today, it appears that nothing has changed.  The Tampa Bay Rays appear to be the only legit potential trade partner for the Cubs, and only then, if the Cubs pay most of the third year of Bradley’s contract.

I hope I’m wrong.  I hope that Hendry used the meetings in Indy to set the groundwork for a trade that will be announced in a few days.  But I don’t think that’s the case.   At least for now, it appears that the only way the Cubs are going to get rid of Milton Bradley is to pay another team a lot of money to take him, or simply release him.  I don’t see either of those things happening.  So does that mean Bradley will be back in a Cubs uniform next year?  I can’t imagine, but what other alternative is there?

**********

Perhaps I’m overreacting on there being no apparent movement on the Bradley front.  At least the folks at Canada’s National Post Sports thinks so.  According to a tweet from NPS, “Cubs GM Jim Hendry has at least one firm offer for Milton Bradley, deal will happen Friday.”  NPS goes on to say that the deal is not with Toronto.

I don’t know the good people at NPS, but I’m guessing that this tweet was sent after one too many Labatts or Molsons.  I’ll be happy if it happens, but at this point, I’m not holding my breath.

**********

Rich Harden signed with the Texas Rangers — the same Rangers who don’t have any money — for one-year/$6.5 million.  The deal also includes $3.5 million in incentives.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the Cubs re-sign Harden for next year.  The contract he signed with Texas seems reasonable, although the incentives seem a little high to me.  I guess it depends on what he has to do to earn them.

Of course, I go back to the fact thast the Cubs know more about Harden’s health than anyone, so maybe letting him go was the right thing to do.  We’ll see…

**********

The Red Sox have apparently traded third baseman Mike Lowell to the Texas Rangers (the deal is awaiting MLB approval).  The Cubs had toyed with a Bradley for Lowell deal, although Boston did not apparently toy back.

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that the Red Sox will be sending $9 million to Texas to complete the trade.  If the Red Sox are willing to pay $9 million to get rid of a player that by all accounts is a great guy, a clubhouse leader, and a productive hitter, what will the Cubs have to pay to move Bradley?

**********

Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times talks about all of the teams that do not have an interest in Bradley.  The Twins are one of the teams that don’t have an interest, at least in part, because in 1996 when the Twins were thinking about drafting Bradley, he said he didn’t want to go there because he thought they were racists.

But the one that really stuck out to me was the unnamed team that had an interest in Bradley until one of the team’s star players emailed the GM for assurances that he would not trade for Bradley.  That’s how much of a cancer this guy really is.

**********

The Cubs have already decided to move their Spring Training home to Naples, Florida.  That, according to Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune.

According to Rogers, the only thing that matters is that Tom Ricketts wants his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.  Rogers bemoans the fact that the Cubs will be throwing away a near fifty year relationship with Mesa and will be turning their backs on the throngs of Cubs fans that flock annually to Arizona for Spring Training. 

“But no matter how many justifications you hear about the Florida move — heavier air for pitchers, a short hop to the Dominican Republic and elsewhere in Latin America, etc. — the reason will be that Ricketts wanted his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.

Oh, and the developers driving the Naples deal, the Chicago-based Esmark Inc. and the Florida-based Fifth Avenue Advisors, will be sure to add plenty of sweeteners to their offer, including some specifically targeted for the owners. I understand this isn’t criminal activity; it’s business.

But, please. Don’t sell a sweetheart land deal as progress for the Lovable Losers.”

Obviously, Rogers is not happy about the move.

Let’s face it, any decision the Cubs make on Spring Training is going to involve a “sweetheart land deal.”  It just the way these things work.  And as for progress, is staying in Mesa “progress?”  Is staying in Arizona “progress?”  Is there anywhere that the Cubs can move that will be considered “progress?”  No, it’s not about “progress,” however you define it.  It’s about what’s best for the Cubs organization, both from a training facility standpoint and a financial standpoint.

If the Cubs do move to Naples, there will be a lot of handwringing.  Rogers has already started the arguement that players will not want to play for the Cubs if they move to Florida.

“Personally, I wouldn’t mind the move. I have Marco Island connections. But I’m not a 28-year-old free agent with a .295 career batting average and six teams interested in signing me. If I was that guy, I’d be far more likely to have attachments to the Phoenix area than the southwest tip of Florida. Those things matter when you are recruiting players.”

I’m throwing the BS flag.  That’s a bunch of nonesense.  The Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, as well as other teams that train in Florida don’t seem to have a problem getting players.  I don’t think the Cubs will either.