Zambrano will be paid for his time away from the team, so for all intent and purposes, there was no suspension.  It’s unclear how long the anger management training will last, but my understanding is that players can only stay on the restricted list for a maximum of 30 days.

Of course, this is good news for the Cubs.  Had Zambrano remained suspended, the Cubs were going to be stuck with having only 24 players on the big league roster.  However, MLB rules allow teams to replace a player on the restricted list, meaning the Cubs can go with the traditional 25 man roster.

So what now?  What happens when Zambrano is done with anger management training and is ready to resume his place in society?  A lot of people feel Z should be waived or traded.    In my last post, I explained why trading Zambrano might be easier said than done.  In a nutshell, Z is:

• Underperforming
• Owed $45.4 million
• Has a no-trade clause in his contract

These things would make it tough, but not impossible, to trade the big right-hander.

Despite the difficulty involved in putting together a trade, our friends over at MLB Trade Rumors.com put together a list of potential trades the Cubs could make involving Zambrano.  They include:

• Zambrano to Houston for Carlos Lee
• Zambrano to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand and Edgar Reteria
• Zambrano to the Mets for Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo
• Zambrano to Atlanta for Derek Lowe
• Zambrano to Cleveland for Travis Hafner, Kerry Wood, and Jake Westbrook
• Zambrano to Kansas City for Gil Meche, Jose Guillen, and Kyle Farnsworth
• Zambrano to the Yankees for A.J. Burnett

One of the commenters at MLBTR then floated the possibility of:

• Zambrano to Baltimore for Brian Roberts

As MLBTR pointed out, some of these trades would require that the Cubs also kick in a portion of Zambrano’s rather hefty salary.

A lot of people feel the Zambrano to the Mets rumor has the most possibilities.  The Mets are in need of starting pitching, Perez is holding the team hostage by refusing to go to the minor leagues to work out his pitching problems, and the Mets desperately want to move Castillo and his contract.  The Mets have been keeping their eye on a possible trade with Seattle for Cliff Lee, but one of the Mets trading chips, minor leaguer Jenrry Mejia, went down with an injury, making a Cliff Lee deal less likely.  Moving quickly on Zambrano could shore up their pitching staff without disturbing their farm system.

New York is a place that Zambrano might fancy.  He views himself as a big stage kind of guy and he might just jump at the chance to remake himself on the biggest stage in baseball.

Of course, the Cubs have some say in the matter and my hope is that they say “no way.”  Perez is a mess and Castillo is both not very good and overpaid.  Why trade one problem for two? 

Of course, this brings up the question, is it even necessary/desireable to trade Zambrano?  For me, the jury is still out.  Last year, I strongly fell on the side of trading Milton Bradley at all costs.  He was a malcontent who did not care about playing well or helping the team.  Zambrano seems to be just the opposite, although I’ll be quick to admit that he is going about being a team player in the wrong way.

In a conversation Z had with former teammate Kevin Millar following his suspension, Z explained that he was trying to fire up the team and was not trying to call out any one person, including Derrek Lee.  He also admitted that he knew he wasn’t the right person for the job, considering his own struggles.  However, when no one else stepped up, his frustration got the best of him and he threw a tantrum.   Obviously, not the best course of action, but I do appreciate his desire to fire up the team and win baseball games.

Having said that, Zambrano has a long track record of inappropriate behavior during his career.  The most significant was beating up his battery mate, Michael Barrett.  So I don’t want to paint Zambrano as a guy who is simply full of passion and who wants to fire up his team to play better.  Z has issues, there’s no doubt about that.  Even so, I don’t think the Cubs are in the same boat with Z that they were with Bradley.  They don’t have to trade him come hell or high water.

Even so, Hendry should keep his eyes out for a potential trade.  Zambrano is not irreplaceable.  If Hendry’s old buddy Andy McPhail calls and wants to discuss a Zambrano for Brian Roberts trade, by all means, Hendry should listen.

Unfortunately, Bradley is back in the news.  Despite the fact that he was traded to Seattle more than two months ago, Bradley continues to talk about his time in Chicago.  He is a man that needs constant attention, and he knows that if he continues to talk about his days with the Cubs, reporters will keep paying attention to him.

In his latest diatribe, Bradley claimed that he was a virtual prisoner in his own home while with the Cubs.  He claims that fans harrassed him so much that he was afraid to go out in public.

He also talked about the hate mail he got.  There’s no way I can justify the hate mail — especially the racial stuff — that Bradley allegedly received, but he’s not the first person to receive that kind of mail.  And by the way, Chicago isn’t the only place it happens.  It is a sad fact of life that athletes, particularly African-American athletes, receive hate mail.  Even the all-white U.S. Curling Team received some hate mail (and texts and tweets) when they failed to meet expectations at the Vancouver Olympics. 

But the thing that irritated me most about the hate mail issue is that ESPN reporter Colleen Dominguez asked him if he thought the hate mail was coming from within the Cubs lockerroom.  Has anyone every suggested that Bradley was receiving hate mail from his own teammates or from within the organization?  Has Bradley ever suggested it?  This was just a piss-poor effort on a reporter’s part to try to stir up trouble where none existed. 

Bradley also was critical of Lou Piniella for not apologizing in front of his teammates after calling Bradley a “piece of shit.”  Piniella called Bradley into his office and apologized in person, behind closed doors.  Given the circumstances, Piniella’s apology seemed entirely appropriate.  He (Piniella) was upset that his angry remark concerning Bradley had gone outside the confines of the tunnel between the dugout and the clubhouse where it was uttered, and didn’t want to make more of a spectacle of the entire incident.

But the fact is, the apology was just something else for Bradley to complain about.  Had Piniella apologized in front of the entire team, Bradley would have complained about that.

Finally, Bradley reiterated his charge that students, teachers, and parents at his child’s daycare were calling the child derogatory names.  Back in September 2009, Bradley and his mother claimed that Bradley’s three-year old was subjected to a “slew of racial slurs” from students, parents and teachers at the daycare the child attended. 

As I stated at the time, although I take racism very seriously, these claims simply do not hold water.  They sounded then, and they sound now, like the desperate claims of a desperate man.  As I understand it, children of all races attended the daycare, but no one else ever complained of similar treatment and the daycare was never cited for any type of bad behavior toward the children.

Bradley is a walking, talking car wreck.  You just can’t turn away from the ridiculous statements he makes.  And he knows that.  That’s why he keeps making them.  He just needs reporters to pay attention to him.  And the reporters are only too happy to oblige.

I’ve been thinking about on-base percentage a lot recently.  I grew up at a time when batting average was the “go to” stat.  If a guy was a .300 hitter, he was a good hitter.  The closer he got to .200, the less valuable he was.

RBI was also an important stat.  The more runs your team scored, the better your chance of winning, so scoring runs and driving in runs was important.

From a baseball statistics perspective, it was a more simple time.  Many of today’s stats hadn’t been invented yet, and the ones that were, were either poorly understood or barely utilized.

As I’ve grown older and statistics have become more sophisticated, I’ve tried to understand and embrace them.  I don’t want to be a Luddite, unwilling to accept that there is a better way.  I want to be one of those guys that gets advanced statistics annd use them to better understand player and team performance.

And yet, I bristle at some of the statistics I run across.  Many are difficult to understand and often are unnecessarily complex.  Part of the problem is that I’m not particularly adept at mathematics, so some of the stats are simply beyond my ability to comprehend.  That’s okay, if they make sense and shed light on a player’s performance, I can accept the numbers even if I don’t understand the equation that created them.  After all, I don’t know how to wire a house, but I have no trouble turning on a light switch. 

And then there’s on-base percentage.  It’s an easily understood statistic.  On-base percentage — or OBP — is the percentage of time a player reaches base divided by the player’s number of plate appearances.  Unlike batting average, which only considers a player’s hits divided by their official at-bats, OBP considers all plate appearances, and adds walks and hit-by-pitch into the equation.

I like OBP.  I think you can tell a lot about a hitter by looking at OBP.  It must be a good statistic because there are a lot of people who call it “the single most important statistic” or “the ‘go to’ statistic.”  They compare players based largely on their OBP and they often eschew what they see with their own eyes in favor of quoting a player’s OBP.

A while back, I wrote a post explaining why I thought Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame.  In that post, I quoted Joe Posnanski, who was opposed to Dawson’s candidacy primarily because his OBP was too low.

Posnanski wrote:

“On-base percentage is not some convoluted modern statistic. On-base percentage is not something new … it goes back to the time before Ty Cobb. On-base percentage is not even about walks. On-base percentage is simply the core of baseball, the very heart of it since the first ball hit the first stick. It is about how many times a batter gets on — and, conversely, how many times he makes outs. It is what the game is all about.

“It isn’t about walks, it really isn’t. That’s one thing everyone seems to miss. You say OBP and everyone says, “Oh, walks.” But that’s not it. Walks and hits by pitch make up a pretty small portion of on-base percentage. Most of it is hitting.”

Joe says that OBP is not about walks or hit-by-pitch, it’s about hitting.  In fact, he says walks and hit-by-pitch make up a very small portion of OBP.  If that is the case, why do we place such emphasis on OBP over batting average?  Why has batting average recently been relegated to the back seat while OBP sits up front?

Despite my immense respect for Joe Posnanski, I have to disagree with him here.  OBP is about walks and HBP.  If it wasn’t, we’d just stick with batting average.  Walks, in particular, play a large role in OBP, not just in the number, but in the way people, particularly those that consider themselves “stat heads,” perceive OBP.

For instance — and I almost hate to bring this up – a lot of “stat heads” were excited (or at least happily approved of) the signing of Milton Bradley by the Cubs last year.  In 2008, Bradley led the American League in OBP, and his signing was viewed as a step in the right direction for a Cubs front office that had the reputation of being stat ignorant.   Finally, it was claimed, the Cubs had joined the 21st century and were ready to give OBP it’s due.

Forget for the moment Bradley’s disciplinary problems.  He is a troubled man, but that is not important to this discussion.  What is important is that Bradley had an OBP in 2008 of .436 and a career OBP of .371 (post-2009).  In fact, Bradley has had a good or really good OBP every year since 2003.  And yet, his stats for runs and RBI have not been very impressive during that period.  For instance, he scored 78 runs and had 77 RBI in 2008 with Texas.  Those were both career highs for him.  As a general rule, Bradley doesn’t score many runs nor does he knock in many runners.

“But wait,” I can hear my sabermetric friends say.  “Runs and RBI are team dependent.  Plus, Bradley has a history of injury, so he rarely plays a full season.”  Fair enough.  Then let’s look at Bradley’s numbers in 2003 with the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Bradley played 141 games that year, the most in his career.

During the 2004 season, Bradley hit .267 with an OBP of .362.  He had 67 RBI and scored 72 runs.   The Dodgers scored 761 runs and finished first in the NL West with a record of 93-69.  The average number of runs that year in the NL was 751, so the Dodgers were slightly above average in run production.

Contrast those numbers with what Andre Dawson did for the Cubs in 1991.  That year, Dawson played 149 games, just eight more than Bradley played in 2004.  In 1991, Dawson hit .272 with an OBP of just .302.  And yet, Dawson fininshed the year scoring 69 runs and he drove in 104.

In 1991, the Cubs scored a total of 690 runs.  The league average was 681 runs.

Let’s compare the numbers:

                                                   Games        PA      Batting Avg      OBP      Runs      RBI      Team Runs      Lge Avg

Milton Bradley                            141            597           .267             .362         72         67              761                  751
Andre Dawson                          149            596           .272             .302         69        104             690                  681

The numbers that should jump out at you are Bradley’s 60 more points of OBP than Dawson and Dawson’s 37 more RBI than Bradley.  It’s worth mentioning also that Dawson achieved those 37 additional RBI on a Cubs team that scored 71 fewer total runs than Bradley’s Dodgers. 

So, why the big difference in OBP?  In 2004, Bradley walked 71 times compared to the 22 times Dawson walked in 1991.  Bradley collected six HBP while Dawson collected five.  So the big difference is walks. 

Walks are good.  Walks can lead to good things.  I don’t want to diminish the importance of walks.  But what good did it do Bradley’s team that he walked so many times in 2004?  Obviously, the walks helped Bradley build a nice OBP, but they didn’t help his team all that much.  Those walks didn’t do a very good job of scoring runs or pushing other runners across the plate.

Really, we’re not talking about walks here.  We’re talking about approach.  I hate to resort to my own observations here, but sometimes you can tell things with your eyes.  In 2009 with the Cubs, Bradley would go up to the plate with runners in scoring position and he would look for the walk.  This sometimes resulted in him earning a base-on-balls, and moved the responsibility of driving in the runner(s) to someone else.  Other times (it seemed like a lot of times), it resulted in Bradley looking at strike three.  His approach to hitting is to earn a walk if possible so that the burden of driving in runs is put on someone else’s shoulders.

Dawson was just the opposite.  He viewed it as his responsibility to drive in runs.  And despite the fact that he drew very few walks and had a low OBP, he succeeded in driving in runs. 

I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that I don’t think OBP is important or valuable.  That’s not the case.  All I’m saying is that OBP is not the end all, be all that some people make it out to be. 

Joe Posnanski speaks for a lot of stat heads when he says, “On-base percentage is simply the core of baseball…It is what the game is all about.”  I respectfully disagree.  Scoring more runs than your opponent is what the game is all about.  To the extent that OBP can help you score more runs than your opponent, then I’m all for.  But I think it is important to recognize that OBP by itself doesn’t win games.

When I started this post, I said that I wasn’t sure how it was going to end.  I’m still not sure.  I want to again drive home the point that I am not opposed to OBP.  I’m simply saying that OBP by itself is not enough.  A player has to have the proper approach at the plate.  He has to be willing to get a hit when a hit is needed.  Walks are nice, but sometimes the situation calls for a hit rather than a walk. 

I also want to say that a good OBP has to be coupled with good RBI and run numbers.  You can’t simply dismiss these stats because they are “team dependent.”  Over the course of time, these things even out.  After a player is around for a few years, they get the opportunity to score runs and drive in runs.  RBI and runs are still valuable and important statistics.  They should not be cast away to the island of old time, out-dated stats.

OBP is part of the process, it’s not the result.  The desired result is winning ball games.  OBP is just one of many factors that can lead to the result.

That’s all I’m saying.  And that’s how I’m going to end this post.

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• 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
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Right Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer
• What Can You Get For $140 Million? Starting Pitchers

My theory going into this series of posts was that by virtue of having the third highest payroll in all of baseball, the Cubs should have one of the best players at almost every position.   Of those players, two-to-four should be perennial all-stars.

I recognize that having one of the best players in baseball at almost every position is expensive.  That’s why I think a high payroll team still needs to have one or two young, inexpensive players.  However, those players should not just be roster filler.  They may be young and inexpensive, but they should also be extremely good.  An example of such a player would be Dustin Pedroia with the Red Sox.  David Wright of the Mets was also this type of player a few years ago.  Geovany Soto may be such a player today, although the jury is still out.

To determine if the Cubs roster meets this criteria, in each post I ranked the Cubs players against the starters from each of the five other highest payroll teams.  Then, I considered whether or not the Cubs player was among the top players at their position.  Here’s how the Cubs players ranked against the players at the same position for the other five highest payroll teams:

• First Base — Derrek Lee (5 out of 6)
• Second Base — Mike Fontenot (6 out of 6)
• Shortstop — Ryan Theriot (4 out of 6)
• Third Base — Aramis Ramirez (3 out of 6)
• Catcher — Geovany Soto (2 out of 6)
• Left Field — Alfonso Soriano (3 out of 6)
• Center Field — Kosuke Fukudome (4 out of 6)
• Right Field — Milton Bradley (4 out of 6)
• Closer — Kevin Gregg (5 out of 6)
• Starting Pitchers — Carlos Zambrano (5 out of 30)

                                    Ted Lilly (12 out of 30)
                                    Rich Harden (13 out of 30)
                                    Ryan Dempster (17 out of 30)                                            
                                    Randy Wells (18 out of 30)

Kind of confusing, isn’t it?  I know.  One of the main reasons is because my hypothesis was wrong.  I thought that comparing the Cubs’ roster to the rosters of the five other highest payroll teams would work because I incorrectly assumed that the other five highest payroll teams would have some of the best players in baseball at each position.  Having looked at every position from each of these teams, it’s obvious that these other five teams do not have one of the top players at each position.  Each of these teams is built differently, but none of the teams has been able to build a starting line-up made up of some of the best players at each position, not even the Yankees.

Although my hypothesis was wrong, I’m not ready to give up on my belief that the third highest spending team in baseball should have some of the top players in the game on their roster.   So, do the Cubs have some of the best players in the game on their roster?

Our research showed that two Cubs, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, were among the best at their position in all of baseball.  Alfonso Soriano was close when he was signed, although he has fallen off recently.  Soriano gets a bad rap from people who are quick to forget what a terrific hitter he was earlier in his career.  If he can regain some of his previous hitting ability, Soriano can still be a top left fielder.

Geovany Soto is a tough call.  Was the 2008 version of Soto the real deal, or was the 2009 version the one we’ll see in the future?  Either way, I can’t fault the Cubs for handing him the starting job in 2008.  He was one of those young, inexpensive players I talked about previously.  It remains to be seen which Soto shows up in 2010.

The Cubs pitching staff also qualifies as among the best in baseball.  The real weakness is that 1) the Cubs don’t have a true ace, and 2) the pitching staff as currently constituted will not be as good in 2010 as it was in 2009.  The loss of Rich Harden and Ted Lilly’s inability to pitch for the first month or more of 2010 will take its toll on the Cubs.

What about the other positions?  Starting Fukudome and Bradley in center and right field respectively was uninspired.  Acquiring Bradley was a clear mistake that forced Fukudome to move from right field, where he was good, to center field, where he wasn’t so good.  Neither player qualifies as one of the best at their position, making the Cubs outfield one of the weakest among contending teams.

Ryan Theriot straddles the line between mediocre and poor among shortstops.  He combines the ability to be nothing special on defense with a below average OPS+.  The Cubs need a top shortstop and Theriot doesn’t qualify.

Mike Fontenot is among the worst second basemen in baseball.  He is not the type of player a club with a $140 million payroll should have in their starting lineup.  Even so, as of this writing, the Cubs appear ready to give Fontenot another shot in 2010, unless Jeff Baker, a more versatile but equally as bad second baseman, can unseat him.

Finally, the Cubs had one of the weaker closers in baseball as their closer in 2009.  There really was nothing in Kevin Gregg’s history that indicated that he could be a top-notch closer.  However, he was relatively inexpensive, so Jim Hendry signed him and hoped for the best. 

As I conducted my analysis, I kept coming back to this last statement.  Jim Hendry has a history of signing players and hoping for the best.  He signed Milton Bradley to be a middle-of-the-order run producer, even though Bradley had never shown the ability to fill that role before.  That fact, and Bradley’s past behavior should have given Hendry pause.  But instead, Hendry signed Bradley and hoped for the best.

He signed Gregg and hoped for the best, despite the fact that there really was no evidence in his past history that indicated that Gregg could be a reliable closer.  It should have been clear that Gregg was not the type of closer a contending team would want on their roster, yet Hendry took the leap of faith.

Finally, there was nothing in Mike Fontenot’s background that should have indicated to anyone that he could be a successful everyday second baseman on a contending team, yet Jim Hendry handed him the job and kept his fingers crossed.  The unnecessary risk back fired badly and he’s done nothing this off season to correct the problem.

The Cubs have not done a good job of spending their money.  They have the third highest payroll in baseball, yet they have a roster that is more reminiscent of a middle-of-the-pack team.   And it’s Jim Hendry’s job to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I’ve been a big supporter of Hendry’s over the years.  However, after taking an in-depth look at the roster, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that he has not done a good job of building this team.  A change in perspective is needed, and I don’t think that change can take place by keeping the same people in their current positions.

The Cubs needed a change in culture a few years ago.  They needed to stop thinking of themselves as small spenders.  They are a large market team with one of the highest revenue sources in the game, and they needed to start acting like one.  That happened under the direction of John McDonough and Jim Hendry.  The Cubs also rebuilt their farm system under the direction of Jim Hendry.

Now, another change is needed.  The Cubs need to view themselves as players for most every big name free agent.  They need to be viewed as a likely destination for top players when they are put on the trading block.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Hendry is the man for the job.  Although he has shown a capacity to trade for players that are being dumped by their current team, he has not shown much ability or willingness to trade his own players or top prospects. 

The Curtis Granderson situation earlier this off season was a good example.  Despite his shortcomings, Granderson is considered one of the top center fielders in baseball.  He would have been a perfect fit for the Cubs.  Even so, Hendry was unwilling to get too deeply involved.  Detroit wanted top prospects in exchange for Granderson.  The Yankees were willing to deal their prospects in exchange for a proven commodity.  Hendry refused to include the Cubs top prospects in any sort of deal.  As he has done in the past, he has deemed some unproven, but highly regarded prospects as untouchable.  This approach cost the Cubs a difference maker in center field and all they have to hang their hats on is the potential of some of their young players.

The botton line to all of this is that the Cubs need to get better.  The need to spend their money to build a perennial contender.  They need to change the way they build their roster.  As much as I like and respect Jim Hendry, I’m not convinced that he’s the guy to make the shift in approach and get the job done.

Today, considering the Cubs payroll, the team should be a perennial playoff contender.  However, the money the team is spending is not being reflected in the talent level of the players they have on their roster.

Here’s my hypothisis:  The Cubs payroll is appropriate.  They should be one of the top payroll teams in baseball.  In return for spending the type of money being spent, the Cubs should be expected to have one of the top players in the game at just about every position.  However, it’s my feeling that is not happening.

In this series of articles, I’m examining each starting player from the Cubs 2009 roster and comparing that player to the players at the same position on the other five highest payroll teams to see how the Cubs roster stacks up.  In addition, I’m taking a look at the very best players at each position and comparing them to the Cubs players to see if the Cubs players are among the best in Major League Baseball.

To read about the methodology I’ll be using, or to read my analysis of other players and positions, click on the links below:

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• 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
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field

Today, I’d like to look at right field.  Here are the players we will be looking at:

• Xavier Nady (Yankees)
• Ryan Church (Mets)
• Milton Bradley (Cubs)
• Magglio Ordonez (Tigers)
• Jayson Werth (Phillies)
• J.D. Drew (Red Sox)

Here’s how the players ranked based on 2009 salary:

1. Magglio Ordonez ($18 million)
2. J.D. Drew ($14 million)
3. Milton Bradley ($9 million)
4. Xavier Nady ($6.5 million)
5. Ryan Church ($2.8 million)
6. Jayson Werth ($2.0 million)

If you’ve been following along up until now, you know that I like to start be looking at the stats from 2008.  It gives us an idea of what the player was doing the year before the year we are interested in (2009) and it helps to understand why the player was in the opening day lineup for one of the highest payroll teams in baseball.

To begin, let look at how the players ranked based on 2008 WAR:

1. Jason Werth (WAR 5.3)
2. Milton Bradley (WAR 4.5)
3. J.D. Drew (WAR 4.2)
4. Xavier Nady (WAR 4.0)
5. Magglio Ordonez (WAR 3.0)
6. Ryan Church (WAR 1.6)

Looking a little more at 2008, let’s see how the players compare based on OPS+:

1. Milton Bradley (OPS+ 161)
2. J.D. Drew (OPS+ 137)
3. Xavier Nady (OPS+ 127)
4. Magglio Ordonez (OPS+ 126)
5. Jayson Werth (OPS+ 121)
6. Ryan Church (OPS+ 106)

I’m struck by how well every right fielder in the survey did in 2008.  Ryan Church was just slightly above average, but everyone else did extremely well. 

Milton Bradley in particular had a great 2008 while with the Texas Rangers.  In fact, he led the AL in OBP and his 2008 performance helped earn him a three-year contract with the Cubs.

Next, let’s look at the same statistics, but for 2009.  Let’s start with WAR:

1. J.D. Drew (WAR 4.7)
2. Jayson Werth (WAR 4.7)
3. Magglio Ordonez (WAR 1.8)
4. Milton Bradley (WAR 1.0)
5. Ryan Church (WAR 1.0)
6. Xavier Nady (WAR-0.1)

Nady scored so low because he was injured during the second week of the season and did not return to the lineup for the Yankess for the remainder of the season.  WAR considers how much a player actually plays, so the statistic values players who stay healthy and in the lineup higher than it does players who spend time on the DL.  Church’s WAR score was also effected by the time he was out of the lineup.

How do these players compare based on 2009 OPS+?  Let’s have a look:

1. J.D. Drew (OPS+ 129)
2. Jayson Werth (OPS+ 128)
3. Magglio Ordonez (OPS+ 109)
4. Milton Bradley (OPS+ 99)
5. Xavier Nady (OPS+ 95)
6. Ryan Church (OPS+ 92)

As a group, the right fielders we are looking at had a much worse year in 2009 than they did in 2008.  Drew and Werth were the exception, but everyone else saw their production fall off significantly.

In particular, Milton Bradley had a very poor 2009.  He went from being one of the hitting stars in all of baseball in 2008 to being below average in 2009.   Off the field, 2009 was also pretty bad for Bradley.  Entire volumes have been written about Bradley’s behavior problems during his one year with the Cubs, so I won’t rehash them here, other than to point out that his behavior issues made Bradley an even less valuable player than his numbers alone would suggest.

Taking into consideration the stats we’ve looked at here, as well as other considerations like fielding, age, career stats, etc., let’s see how the six right fielders compare to one another.

• J.D. Drew (Red Sox)
• Jayson Werth (Phillies)
• Magglio Ordonez (Tigers)
• Milton Bradley (Cubs)
• Xavier Nady (Yankees)
• Ryan Church (Mets)

I think an argument can be made that Nady should be ahead of Bradley.  However, I’m of the opinion that Nady is overrated.  Over their careers, Bradley has been the superior hitter.  Of course, Bradley’s personality always has to be taken into consideration.  After his display in Chicago in 2009, there’s no way I would ever want Bradley on my team, no matter how well he hits.  But I do think it’s fair to say that he is a better player than either Nady or Church.

Of the top payroll teams in baseball, I would definitely rank Drew, Werth and Ordonez ahead of Bradley.  Opening up the rankings to all of the other right fielders in baseball, I would include Ichiro, Justin Upton, Bobby Abreu, Michael Cuddyer, Andre Ethier, and host of others ahead of Bradley.  It’s pretty clear that Bradley is not one of the top right fielders in the game.

Botton Line:  Milton Bradley had a career year in 2008 and it earned him a multi-year contract with the Cubs.  Jim Hendry’s limited view of Bradley’s career bought the Cubs a right fielder with a high OBP, a lack of real production, and an apparent personality disorder.  It also added a right fielder to the Cubs roster that clearly is not one of the best in the game.

It’s hard to seperate the player’s performance from his personality (at least in Bradley’s case), but if I could, I would see a player who has a good batting eye and has shown an ability to draw a walk over the course of his career.  However, I wouldn’t have to look very far to realize that Bradley is not much of a power hitter nor is he much of a run producer, the very thing the Cubs said they hired him to do. 

It was a monumental fail on Hendry’s part to bring Bradley into the fold.  He was signed to be a middle-of-the-order run producing bat, but there was nothing in Bradley’s history to gave the indication that he was that type of player.

On top of having to ignore Bradley’s past on-the-field performance in order to hire him to do a job he wasn’t cut out to do, Hendry had to ignore Bradley’s past history of behavior problems.  Bradley had shown an inability to control his emotions at almost every stop he made during his MLB career.  Just as he did by giving the starting second base job to Mike Fontenot, Hendry was guilty of wishful thinking when he signed Bradley to play right field.  Signing Milton Bradley was just another example of the Cubs inability to distinguish a middle-of-the-road player from one of the top players in the game.

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

Silva apparently is not good.  He 4-15 with an 6.46 ERA in 2008.  He injured his shoulder early in 2009 and missed most of the season.  While he was available in 2009, he posted a record of 1-3 with an 8.60 ERA. 

Carrie Muskat of MLB.com and Tim Brown of Yahoo Sports have both confirmed the trade.

**********

Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune is reporting that Seattle will be sending $9 million to the Cubs along with Silva.  That’s a surprise to me.  The reports are still coming in hot and heavy, so we’ll see how things actually shake out.

**********

Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald confirms that the Cubs are getting $9 million in cash.  Miles may not always get the story first, but he almost always gets it right, so if he says the Cubs are getting $ 9 million, then I believe it.  He also says that the Cubs will be having a press conference to go over all of the details.

**********

In a news conference held to announce the Bradley-for-Silva trade, Jim Hendry took responsibility for the “Milton Bradley era” not working out.  There’s no dount that signing Bradley was a mistake and thinking he would behave himself was wishful thinking, but I place the vast majoity of the blame on Milton Bradley himself.  He chose to be belligerent and anti-social.  He made that decision, not anyone on the Cubs.  The responsibility for Bradley’s behavior rests solely with Bradley.

That doesn’t mean that Hendry and the Cubs didn’t play a role in this fiasco.  Hendry was responsible for the signing in the first place.  The, he completely mishandled Bradley’s suspension and subsequent comments.  Piniella could also have done a better job of being a mentor and father-figure to Bradley.  However, that’s not Piniella’s style and everyone knew it when the Cubs first signed Bradley.  So it’s difficult to put too much blame on Piniella for not being something he isn’t.

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.