Trade Candidates

Melky Cabrera — After trading for Curtis Granderson, the Yankees suddenly have a surplus of good, young outfielders.  They may be interested in trading either Cabrera or Brett Gardner.  If the Cubs could snag Cabrera, they would be getting a guy that hit .274/.336/.416 for the Yankees in 2009 with 13 homeruns and 68 RBI.   The switch hitting Cabrera is just 25-years old and earned $1.4 million in 2009.  As a fielder, UZR/150 says he’s just slightly above average, posting a rating of 2.3.  UPDATE: Cabrera has been traded to the Braves, so he’s now off the board.

Shin-Soo Choo — Choo is a 27-year old outfielder from Korea.  Last year with the Indians, Choo hit .300/.394/.489 with 20 homeruns and 86 RBI.  He also had 21 stolen bases and was caught just twice.  It was the best year of his major league career.  He is currently listed as the Indians starting right fielder, but Matt LaPorte is breathing down his neck and Cleveland may be interested in trading him.  Choo has only played a handful of games in center field, but he’s been an above-average left fielder in his career and an average right fielder, so I’m assuming he can handle center field.  Choo earned $420,300 in 2009 and is likely due for a raise.

Rajai Davis — The Oakland A’s are stock full of outfielders, potentially making Rajai Davis available.  Davis hit .305/.360/.423 with  3 homeruns and 48 RBI in 390 ABs.  he also had 41 stolen bases and was caught stealing 12 times.  UZR/150 likes Davis, giving him a 17.8 rating in center field in 2009.  The 29-year old davis (he’s not a kid) earned $410,000 in 2009 and will likely be in line for an increase in 2010.  Jim Hendry and Billy Beane have worked well together on deals in the past.  Might the get together this off season on Davis? 

Jacoby Ellsbury — Ellsbury could be the odd man out in Boston now that the Red Sox have signed center fielder Mike Cameron.  It’s unclear where Ellsbury will end up playing or even if he’ll be starting.  In 2009, Ellsbury hit .301/.355/.415 with 8 homeruns and 60 RBI.  He also stole an impressive 70 bases while getting caught just 12 times.  He’d look good at the top of the Cubs batting order.  Ellsbury gets gigged for his 2009 UZR/150 rating of  -18.3, but I’m not buying it.  Chris Moore at BaseballAnalysts.com took a look at Ellsbury’s defense and concluded that UZR/150 probably missed the boat.  Ellsbury is just 26-years old and could fill center field for the Cubs for years to come.  And at just $449,500 per year (his 2009 salary), he’s a bargain.

Dexter Fowler — Fowler is a good looking young ballplayer (I sound like Harry Caray) who hit .266/.363/.406 with 4 homeruns and 34 RBI in 2009 for Colorado.  He’s just 23-years old and is coming off his rookie season with a lot of promise.  UZR/150 didn’t like his fielding much, giving him just a -20.3 rating.  Fowler is currently blocked in center field in Colorado by Carlos Gonzalez, another promising youngster.  There’s no guarantee that Fowler is going to follow up his rookie campaign by continuing to develop, but I think it would be a fairly safe risk for the Cubs, especially considering that he is so inexpensive (he earned just $401,000 2009).

Brett Gardner — Who would you take from the Yankees, Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner?  In 2009, Gardner hit .270/.345/.379 with 3 homeruns, 23 RBI and 26 stolen bases in 248 ABs.  He’s a terrific center fielder with a career UZR/150 rating of 27.6.  In a crowded Yankees line-up, it’s tough to say who will be the odd-man out, but it appears to be either Cabrera or Gardner.  Could Gardner be the Cubs center fielder of 2010 and beyond?

Gary Matthews, Jr — The Angels badly want to trade Matthews.  Here’s what the Cubs should consider:  He’s not much of a hitter anymore, he’s not a very good fielder anymore, and he’s very expensive.  Need I say more?

Nyjer Morgan — Washington acquired Morgan last year from Pittsburgh.  He put together a good year between the two teams, posting a hitting line of .307/.369/.388 with 3 homeruns and 39 RBI.  He also stole 42 bases in 2009.  Unfortunately for Morgan, he was stealing third base on August 28 against the Cubs when he broke his hand and missed the remainder of the season.  In 2009, Morgan posted an impressive 40.5 UZR/150 rating.  Not only could he handle center field at Wrigley, but he could also be the lead-off hitter that the Cubs sorely need.  But why would Washington trade him?  Good question.  Unfortunately, at this moment, I don’t have a good answer.  At 29-years old, Morgan is a bit of a late bloomer.  He made just $411,500 in 2009 and is going to be affordable for some time to come.

Cody Ross — Ross is not a kid like a lot of the people on this list.  He’s 29-years old (that’s not that old) and is a bit more of a known quantity than some of the other trade candidates.  What we know is that he hit .270/.321/.484 with 24 homeruns and 90 RBI in 2009 for Florida.  We also know that 2009 was the best year of Ross’ career.  But to be fair, Ross has been coming on strong since 2007.  He primarily plays center field, although he also spent time in right field and is currently listed as the Marlins starting right fielder.  In center field, Ross had a UZR/150 rating of -9.5 in 2009.  Ross earned $2.225 million in 2009 and accepted arbitration for 2010.

Aaron Rowand — San Francisco would like to move Rowand’s contract.  In 2009, the 32-year old center fielder hit .261/.319/.419 with 15 homeruns and 64 RBI.  He had a 1.5 UZR/150 rating and he earned $8 million on a contract that runs through 2012.  He is still owed $36 million.  The Cubs don’t need to bring in an aging outfielder who is on the down-side of his career and making a lot of money.  Although I like Aaron Rowand, I don’t think he is the answer in center field.

Grady Sizemore — To be honest, I don’t think the Indians have any interest in trading Sizemore, but I saw him on another list, so I thought I’d include him.  In 2009, Sizemore hit .248/.338/.445 with 18 homeruns and 64 RBI in what by Sizemore standards was a down year.  Sizemore is signed through 2011 and is owed $13.1 million.  His contract also includes an $8.5 million option in 2012 with a $500,000 buyout.  Sizemore had a -4.0 UZR/150 rating in 2009, but he has a career UZR/150 of 5.4.  I don’t think it matters.  He’s not going anywhere.

Denard Span — Would Minnesota be willing to trade Denard Span?  If so, the Cubs need to get to the front of the line.  In 2009,  the 25-year old Span hit .311/.392/.432 with 8 homeruns and 68 RBI.  And he did it for a cheap $435,000.  UZR/150 gave him a fielding rating of -7.4, but from everything I’ve read, he does a fine job in center field.  He has emerged as one of the top lead-off hitters in baseball and would be a good long-term investment for the Cubs.

Willy Taveras — I’m pretty sure that the Cubs could convince the Reds to trade Taveras for a couple of prospects.  Cincinnati badly needs to cut payroll and the weak hitting Taveras is owed $4 million in 2010.  Trading for Taveras would not be a good move.

Vernon Wells — Okay, I don’t think the Cubs should trade for him and his monster contract either, but I thought he should be listed anyway because he’s available.  I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Wells makes a lot of money.

Chris Young — Young is a 26-year old center fielder for Arizona.  He hit .212/.311/.400 in 2009 with 15 homeruns and 42 RBI.  His UZR/150 rating for 2009 was -9.8.  I’m not as high on Young as some people are.  I do think he has potential, but I’m not convinced he’s ever going to realize that potential.  He’s signed through 2013 and is owed $26.25 million over the next four years.  The contract also includes a club option for 2014 for $11 million with a $1.5 million buyout.  Although I included him in this list, my hope is that the Cubs don’t pursue him.

Eric Young, Jr. – The 24-year old Young is an interesting player for the Cubs.  He plays both second base and center field (just like his dad).  As it turns out, the Cubs need to fill both positions.  At the moment, Young is a reserve for Colorado, but he appears to be ready for prime time.  He only played in 30 games in 2009, and is eligible for Rookie of the Year in 2010.   Trading for Young would be a bit of a risk.  Does he have what it takes to be an all-star caliber big leaguer?

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.

I was reminded of the need for a salary cap again today when I was reading a rather innocuous post on MLBTradeRumors.com.  In essense, the post said that the Pirates are looking to add one or two low-cost free agents, but again this off season, they won’t be a player for any big name free agents.  The same is likely true for the Marlins, Twins, Rays, Royals and Padres, and maybe a few other teams as well.

Imagine if you were a fan of the Pirates (or any of the other teams listed).  Every off season, you get to watch other more well-healed teams compete for big name free agents — the type of player that can make a huge difference for a team — while your team quietly sits on the sideline waiting to possibly scoop up the leftovers.  It must be a hopeless feeling.

Once the off season is over and the season is about to begin, the hopeless feeling you had in the off season is doubled because you know that your favorite team has virtually no chance of competing.  For the Pirates, their only hope for the 2010 season is that they might be able to finish ahead of the Reds in the standings, especially since the Reds are under pressure to cut payroll and will likely field a worse team in 2010 than they did in 2009.

Honestly, why would any sport want to run a league in a way that allows a team in it’s largest market to outspend a small market team like the Pirates by a factor of five-to-one?  Money may not buy championships, but it sure makes it a lot easier.

The Yankees payroll allows them to put an all-star at almost every position.  And when one player underperforms, they go out in the off season and sign a free agent to replace them or trade with a lesser-payroll team to get the best player at that position.  They are constantly reloading.  I’m not a Yankees fan nor am I privy to the philosophy of their front office, but I have to believe that the Yankees (and to a lesser extent the Red Sox) view the rest of Major League Baseball as an extension of their minor league sytstem.  When they need a player, if he’s not in their farm system, they can just go to Cleveland, or Florida, or Pittsburgh and trade for the player they need.

I don’t want this post to sound like a slam against the Yankees.  I don’t blame the Yankees in the least for the competitive imbalance that exists in baseball today.  The Yankees are simply playing by the rules and doing it well.  The Yankees are not the problem, the system is the problem.

Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated wrote a terrific article recently highlighting the inequities in baseball.  Posnanski writes that everyone knows the Yankees outspend every other team, but they may not fully comprehend how bad the problem really is.

“This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I’m going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:

In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it’s ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: “OK, let’s spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we’re spending exactly as much. And now … let’s add the Oakland A’s. No, I mean let’s add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let’s play some ball!”

In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.

In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.

In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team — cutbacks, you know.

In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.

In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team…

So how can the commissioner of baseball promote such nonsense as Hope on Opening Day when the game is set up for one team to spend tens of millions more than anyone else?”

There’s no explaining these types of calls.  In this particular case, the ball was obviously fair, yet Cuzzi blew the call.  And almost as soon as the wrong call was made, people started talking once again about the need for instant replay in baseball.

Murray Chass is one writer who is opposed to instant reply.  Like most people who don’t want instant replay to be used, his arguements are ridiculous. 

Here’s how Chass starts his ill-concieved contentions:

“Do not include me among them. Maybe a wrong call is unfair, but baseball has survived Don Denkinger’s wrong call in the 1985 World Series and Richie Garcia’s errant ruling in the 1996 American League Championship Series. When players stop making mistakes, baseball can institute a system to guard against umpires’ mistakes.”

What?  Because baseball has survived horrible calls in the past, we should do nothing to try to avoid horrible calls in the future.  Really?  Also, Chass is actually arguing that when players stop making mistakes, then MLB can worry about the mistakes umpires make.  Like I said, ridiculous.

Most people opposed to replay don’t go this far.  They argue that umpires making mistakes is part of the game just like players making mistakes is part of the game.  Their argument ultimately is that the human element, both good and bad, is part of the fabric of the game.  Chass is taking that arguement to ridiculous lengths and saying as long as players make mistakes, what the umpires do not important.

After firing his first salvo, Chass goes into a litany of player miscues that he cites for the purpose of reinforcing his arguement.  It doesn’t work, but Chass is undeterred. 

Chass then turns his attention to another common arguement made by the anti-replay crowd: replay will make the games too long.  Is that true?  How much time will it really take to review a play?  Even if it takes a minute or two once or twice per game, is that asking too much to get the call right? 

But let’s think about the arguement itself, that replay will take too long.  Do injury timeouts take too long?  Is the time between innings (when commercials are shown) too long?  What about coach/manager visits to the mound?  Do they take too long?  They are all “part of the game.”  Can’t replay also become “part of the game?”  Chass doesn’t think so.

“I can’t imagine anything worse – even wrong calls – than sitting through reviews of plays to determine if a ball was fair or foul, if a runner was safe or out, if an outfielder caught or trapped a line drive.”

Just in case Chass didn’t get ridiculous enough in the rest of his article, he adds one final paragraph to push his arguement over the ridiculous cliff:

“Yes, it’s unfortunate if an umpire’s wrong call creates an unfair situation. But the way to avoid bad calls is for umpires to work harder to get their calls right. If league officials find an umpire getting calls wrong, send him back to school and let him write on the blackboard 100 times “I will get the calls right.””

Trust me folks, I can’t make up something like that.  Chass concludes that the way to get more correct calls in baseball is for the umpires to “work harder” and to punish wrong calls by making umpires write 100 times on a blackboard, “I will get the calls right.”  Genius…

For a slightly more well reasoned analysis of the replay issue, let’s look at a column written by Joe Posnanski on his blog.   Posnanski tears down the three most popular arguments made by thise opposed to replay.

“And here’s the thing I’ve only just noticed: The arguments against replay don’t make a whole lot of sense. We all know the argument for replay. It would help get the calls right, which seems like the most important thing. The arguments against, meanwhile, sound pretty shallow. I think these are the three most common arguments against replay:

1. Bad calls are part of the fabric of the game.
2. Replay would make the games too long.
3. Players aren’t perfect, umpires aren’t perfect.”

He then attacks each arguement one-by-one:

“The idea that bad calls are part of the game is plain ridiculous. Of course they are part of the game … because for years and years there wasn’t a better way. Do you think that if in 1900, there were umpiring robots who could make perfect calls every time that baseball would not have used them? You think they would have said: “No, human error is an important part of our concept of umpiring?” I don’t think so.

“Replays could make the games a touch longer — depending on how it’s used — and nobody really wants that. But didn’t we pass that exit a long time ago. If they’re willing to make the delay between innings longer to make extra bucks on commercials, can’t they add a couple of minutes to game time to get calls right?

“Of course umpires are human. But umpires are not like players or managers. They have totally different jobs. Players, managers, they are trying to win a game. They will make mistakes in the process, of course, and this is part of what makes the game entertaining and frustrating and interesting. Their mistakes, in many ways, create the tension of baseball.

“Not so with umpires. Their job is to balance the game. That’s all. They are not the entertainment division of baseball. They are in oversight. And the job is to get it right. Period. Seems to me that the comparison is flawed because we are not looking for humanity from our umpires. We are looking for accuracy.”

So, who wins the arguement, Chass or Posnanski?  It’s a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.  Posnanski makes sense.  Chass, not so much.

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t like the idea of instant replay in baseball.  I don’t have a brilliant arguement to back up my position.  It just doesn’t feel right.  That’s a crappy reason and I’m open minded enough to listen to the type of logic Posnanski is dishing out.  I have to admit all of the good arguements are on the other side of the issue from me.  So while I might not be in favor of instituting replay in baseball, there is every reason for MLB to do it.

I don’t have any particular interest in either team.  And yet, I sat transfixed in front of the television as the two teams battled back and forth.  And just as the regular season needed one additional game, that additional game needed extra innings to determine a winner.

The Twins won in 12 innings, but the more important point, at least for me, was how much I loved watching the game.  I didn’t have a rooting interest, so the outcome was less important to me than the gutsy play of both teams.  It was a great game and I loved every minute of it.  I’m just sorry it had to end so soon.

**********

The 29 other MLB owners gave their unanimous approval yesterday for the Ricketts Family to take over the Cubs.  The next step in the process is to take the Cubs through a quick, pre-packaged bankruptcy to make sure there are no liens or liabilities the parties are unaware of.  That should happen next week and the Rickettses should have complete control of the team by the end of October.

What will happen then?  Will Tom Ricketts want to make a big splash going into the family’s first season as owners?  Will he spend a lot of money (more than the $140 million +/- the team is already spending) or will he reign in the spending and go into rebuild mode (doubtful)?  There are a lot of moving pieces with the Cubs right now.  It should make for an interesting and exciting offseason.

**********

Two Chicago sportswriters have put together to-do lists for Jim Hendry.  Both writers agree that moving Milton Bradley will be job one in the offseason for Hendry, but Gordon Wiitenmyer of the Sun-Times seems to be a bit more positive about the situation than the Tribune’s Paul Sullivan. 

Among the things the writers have listed are:

• Trade Milton Bradley
• Get an RBI bat for the middle of the lineup
• Resign John  Grabow
• Resigning Reed Johnson (maybe)
• Retool the bench
• Add a lead-off hitter
• Get and keep Carlos Zambrano in shape

**********

Bruce Miles at the Daily Herald also is starting to think about next year.  He takes a look at the Cubs position players from 2009 and gives his thoughts on what he thinks is going to happen with each player and each position.

Miles is an astute writer who always seems to see through the haze to get the “real” story.  There are two particular passages from his article that give the Ying and Yang of this Cubs team:

3B Aramis Ramirez: Maybe once and for all, people will realize what a potent offensive force Ramirez is. His season was cut to 82 games because of the shoulder. He turned in a hitting line of .317/.389/.516 with 15 homers and 65 RBI.
Nuggets: You may or may not believe there are “clutch” hitters, but Ramirez batted .425 with runners in scoring position (37-for-87). He was 5-for-11 with the bases loaded.

IF Aaron Miles: Somebody has to be the worst player in baseball, or at least the worst veteran, and that dubious distinction may go to Miles, whose hitting line is .185/.224/.242. And to think he completed only the first year of a two-year, $4.9 million contract.
Nuggets: In Baseball Prospectus’ VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) system, Miles ranked 1,018th, at minus-13.4. At least he ranked ahead of Ronny Cedeno.

The thing that amazes me about Aramis Ramirez is that he missed half of the season and still managed to be a more potent offensive force than guys like Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley who played the vast majority of the season.  The thing that amazes me about Aaron Miles is that he received a two-year, $4.9 million contract last offseason.  Jim Hendry does love his scrappy little second baseman, doesn’t he?  It wouldn’t surprise me if Miles was released this winter.

**********

If you’re interested in a funny, irreverent, and perhaps completely inappropriate parody column from the frozen head of Ted Williams, then check out the FoxSports website.

In an article by Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune, Jim Hendry is quoted as saying Joshua didn’t do anything wrong.  He said Joshua was brought in from the minors to replace Gerald Perry in June and was told it was a temporary assignment.  Hendry also told Joshua at the time that he could have his old job back if things didn’t work out.

Later in the article, Derrek Lee is quoted as saying, “I hate to say it, but a hitting coach is overrated.”  He also said that neither Perry nor Joshua were to blame.  If a player doesn’t hit, it’s the player’s fault, not the hitting coach’s.

In addition to looking for a middle-of-the-order bat and a leadoff hitter in the offseason, Hendry will now also be looking for a hitting coach.  What promises to be a busy offseason just got a little busier.

**********

The season isn’t quite over yet.  Both the Tigers and Twins won yesterday, so they will play a one game playoff today at the Metrodome in Minnesota.  This is the second year in a row the Twins will be playing in a one game playoff.  They lost to the White Sox last year.

-edit- The one game playoff will be held on Tuesday (10/6), not Monday (10/5).

The other teams going to the post season in the AL will be the Yankees, Angels and Red Sox.  The Yankees will await the outcome of today’s game between the Twins and Tigers and will then host the winner.  The Angels will host the Wildcard winning Red Sox to start their best-of-five series.

In the NL, the Rockies will travel to Philadelphia to take on the Phillies beginnning Wednesday afternoon.  The Dodgers will host the Cardinals at Chavez Ravine beginning Wednesday night.

I’m picking the Yankees and Red Sox to survive in the AL, while the Phillies and Cardinals will play for the pennant in the NL.  All Division Series games will be broadcast on TBS

**********

Alex Rodriguez entered the sixth inning of yesterday’s game against the Rays needing seven RBI to hit 100 for the season.  Time was running out and it didn’t look like he would make it.  What happened next is a new AL record.

 Rodriguez came up with two on and belted a three run homer off Rays pitcher Wade Davis.  The homerun brought him closer to the century mark in RBIs, and Rodriguez thought he might get one more at-bat in the game.  But as the Yankees continued to batter Rays pitching, that at-bat came sooner than ARod thought it might. 

The Yankees half of the sixth inning continued and Rodriguez found himself in the on deck circle when the Rays intentionally walked Mark Teixeira to load the bases.  Rodriguez then delivered his second homerun of the inning, this one a grand slam, giving him seven RBIs in the inning and a new AL record.  His second homerun of the inning was also his 30th homerun of the season, giving him seven consecutive years of 30 or more homeruns.

**********

I’ve advocated for a salary cap in the past on these pages.  I’m less concerned with a cap controlling a team’s spending as I am in forcing teams like the Pirates and Marlins to spend a minimum amount.  As it is, these teams are spending less on player payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

Another concern I have with the disparity in spending is that  lower spending teams have trouble competing.  Of course, those who disagree with me point to teams like the Twins who have been at least in the hunt for the plaoffs most of the past decade.  The Marlins are another example.  Not only have they made the playoffs, but they won the World Series, beating the high spending Yankees.

As I’ve said in the past, the low spending teams making the playoffs is the exception that proves the rule.  Murray Chass disagrees with me.  In a recent article, Chass makes the assertion that there is no problem with the system as is and that it should be left alone.  To prove his point, Chass offers the following:

These are the teams, according to their rank in the salary standings, that have made the playoffs the last 10 years. This year’s lineup includes the Tigers and the Rockies, who had not clinched their spots when this was posted. (number in parentheses is the number of teams in the top 8 that were in the playoffs):

• 2009 (6): 1-4-5-6-7-8-12-17
• 2008 (4): 2-5-6-7-9-10-15-28
• 2007 (5): 1-2-5-7-8-22-23-26
• 2006 (3): 1-5-6-12-14-17-19-21
• 2005 (4): 1-2-5-6-10-12-14-16
• 2004 (5): 1-2-3-7-8-11-12-19
• 2003 (3): 1-4-6-10-11-17-23-26
• 2002 (3): 1-4-7-10-13-16-27-28
• 2001 (4): 3-5-6-8-9-12-17-26
• 2000 (3): 1-3-5-12-15-18-25-27

Chass’ point is that in almost every year, there are lower payroll teams in the playoffs.  Here’s my point: In seven of the past ten years, at least four of the top eight highest payroll teams made the playoffs.  And in every one of those 10 years, four of the top twelve spending teams qualified for the post season.  So what you have is the top spending teams claiming four playoff spots every year and the remaining 18-22 teams fighting over the remaining four spots.

I’ll be the first to admit that spending a lot of money doesn’t guarantee a team a spot in the playoffs.  Just look at the 2009 version of the Cubs.  But when money is wisely spent, the team that spends the most usually wins.

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

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

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

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

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

Just four more months until Spring Training… 

**********

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

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

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

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

**********

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

Enjoy!

Is this just wishful thinking?  Maybe, but the Cubs have 34 games left to make up the 5.5 game deficit.  Also, all of the teams that the Cubs are chasing have a tougher road ahead of them than the Cubs.  For the remainder of the year, the Cubs only have seven games against teams with a record above .500, and four of those games are against San Francisco. 

Here are the number of games that the Wildcard contenders have against teams with a record above .500

• Colorado – 9
• San Francisco – 16
• Atlanta – 13
• Florida – 16

Of course, this is a bit deceiving because these teams do play each other head-to-head, so they can’t both lose in those games, but it is clear that the Cubs have the easiest schedule for the remainder of the year.

The quest gets started tonight as the Astros (59-72) come to town.  Roy Oswalt (7-5) takes on Rich Harden (8-7).  The game is on WGN.

**********

Speaking of Rich Harden, in my angst over Milton Bradley in my last post, I forgot to mention that both Harden and Aaron Heilman were claimed off waivers last week.  Reports are that Harden was claimed by Minnesota and Heilman was claimed by San Francisco.

There’s been a lot of talk about a possible trade with Minnesota for Harden, not so much about Heilmann going to San Fransisco.  Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis Star Tribune says that the Twins will not meet the Cubs demand for Harden.  Phil Rogers at the Chicago Tribune says they will.  Just about everyone agrees that the price for Harden is two top shelf prospects.  Minnesota may not be willing to pay that steep of a price for a five week rental of Harden, but the Cubs don’t have any incentive to accept less.  Harden projects as a type A free agent, meaning the Cubs will get two compensation draft picks if they offer him arbitration and he signs elsewhere. 

Although Harden’s record is just 8-7 this year with a 3.99 ERA, he has been much better in the second half of the season.  Since the All-Star break, Harden is 3-1 with a 1.80 ERA.  The Cubs are still alive in the Wildcard race and Harden is currently the team’s best pitcher (although Ted Lilly might argue with that).  Unless Minnesota overwhelms the Cubs with their offer (which is unlikely), I say keep Harden and offer him arbitration.  If Minnesota offer Joe Mauer, then the Cubs should make that deal.

Aaron Heilman is 2-3 with a 4.40 ERA.  He has not been particularly effective this year, but like Harden, he has been better lately.  If he had been claimed by a team other than a team ahead of the Cubs in the Wildcard race, I would say let him go for a middling prospect.  But since it is the Giants that claimed him, I would hate to see Heilman come back to haunt the Cubs.  Since the Cubs won’t get much for him anyway, and since they will only be saving about $240,000 on his contract if they move him, I say keep him.  There’s just not enough of a reason to let him go

 Kosuke Fukudome went 2-for-5 with a homerun and two RBI.  Koyie Hill also had a good night, going 2-for-4 with two doubles and two RBI.  Derrek Lee added a homerun as well.

The Cubs go for the sweep tonight in Cincincinati.  The suddenly hot Rich Harden (7-6) goes for the good guys against Justin Lehr (0-0). 

**********

Trans over at The Cub Reporter has posted an interesting article trying to figure out Alfonso Soriano’s early season hitting woes as well as his quasi-recovery.  Bottom line?  Soriano needs a lighter bat.  Trans is always insightful and writes some really funny stuff (although the Soriano article is long on analysis and short on humor).

Now that Trans has figured out Alfonso Soriano, Maybe he can turn his considerable talents to Milton Bradley.

**********

The Padres made it official yesterday and finally released former Cub Mark Prior.  CBSSports.com is reporting that San Diego GM Kevin Towers had not seen enough progress in Prior’s rehab from shoulder surgery.  Prior had signed a minor league deal with the Padres at the beginning of the year.  He has not pitched in a big league game in three years.  At that time, he was still with the Cubs.

So what now?   Will another team take a chance on the once promising Prior?  Considering how much the Cubs have invested in him already, might Jim Hendry throw a little more in to see if he can get the investments to pay off, or would that just be throwing good money after bad?  When I think about what Prior did in 2003 for the Cubs, I want to see him come back and do well.  And if he does, I’d like it to be for the Cubs.

**********

Buster Olney has a terrific article up at ESPN.com right now (Insider subscription needed to read the whole article) looking at the recent trades made at the trade deadline from a different perspective.  I liked the article because it played right in to my belief that something needs to be done to establish parity in MLB.

In a previous post, I opined that what the Pittsburgh Pirates have done over the past nearly two decades is a travesty and that MLB needs to do something about it.  I based this belief on the fact that in 2009, the Pirates received $62 million in revenue sharing and national TV rights, but spent only about $25 million on their opening day roster.  The Yankees, the team with the highest payroll, spent nearly six times as much to field a team this year.

The issue isn’t really the Pirates.  The bigger issue is the disparity between what each team spends on players.  As Olney points out, the disparity is growing and recent evidence indicates that the amount a team spends on their players is a good predictor of where they finish in the standings.

The counter argument to this point is that 1) nine different teams have won the World Series in the past decade, and 2) small market teams with lower payrolls have not only done well in the standings (Minnesota, Oakland), but have actually won the World Series (Florida).  While this argument is correct so far as it goes, it fails to address the larger issue of long-term, consistent parity.  Just because a low payroll team can once-in-a-while catch lightning in a bottle, as Bob Costas points out in his book Fair Ball, the exception proves the rule.

According to Olney, if the post season were to begin today, seven of the top eight payroll teams would make the playoffs.  The only exception would be the faltering New York Mets.  Breaking it down further, in every divison in MLB except the NL East, the team with the highest payroll in the division is in first place.  In the NL East, the Phillies are leading in the standings and are second in the division in payroll.  In three of the six divisions, the team with the lowest payroll is in last place in the division. 

In my opinion, there are two changes that need to be made.  First, there needs to be a salary cap.  I can’t tell you exactly how the salary cap should be structured, but it should work to bring the payrolls of the biggest spending teams and the lowest spending teams more in line.  Teams like the Pirates, Royals and Marlins, regardless of their short-term on-field performance, should not be allowed to spend so little on payroll when they receive so much from the league just because they own a franchise.

To turn this argument a bit on its head, the highest payroll teams should not be allowed to “buy” themselves on-field success.  I’m upset with teams that severely skimp on payroll, but it’s equally wrong to allow teams to spend beyond the means of other franchises in order to “guarantee” their team’s success.  “Guarantee” may be too strong of a word, but spending more certainly increases the odds for on-field success.

Second, the MLB draft needs to be changed.  Right now, the worst performing teams get the highest draft picks, but because the worst performing teams are also often the lowest spending teams, they either are not able to sign their draft picks for affordability reasons, or they simply avoid picking the best players because they know they can’t sign them.   I love the free market, but unfortunately it doesn’t work very well in a closed system like MLB.

There are few things in life as exciting as the start of the baseball season (at least for baseball fans), but that excitement is dulled considerably for fans of teams that have no realistic chance of competing.  Changes need to be made to considerably level the playing field and implement parity on a consistent, rather than an occasional, basis.