But one good thing you can say about the Cubs is, at least they’re not the Mets.  Despite the Cubs problems in 2009, the Mets always seemed to be one rung higher on the list of troubles.

On paper, the Mets had a team in 2009 that should have challenged for the top of the NL East.  They had an excellent core of players in David Wright, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, Johan Satana, and Francisco Rodriguez.  Even so, the Mets’ 2009 season was an even bigger disaster that the Cubs’.  Through injuries and sub-par performances, the Mets found a way to turn the second highest payroll in baseball into a team with a 70-92 record.  They have the distinction of being the only team in MLB history to spend more than $140 million on payroll and have a losing season.

 The Mets problems were not solely on the field.  Mets owners Fred and Jeffrey Wilpon got caught up in the Bernie Madoff scandal.  Depending on who you read, the Wilpons either lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the scam, or they made hundreds of millions of dollars and are now being asked by the feds to pay back the ill-gotten gains.  In either case, the scandal could end up forcing the Wilpons to sell the team, although they deny this rumor.

Then there’s the Mets front office.  If you ever wanted to see an example of a dysfunctional front office, look no further than the New York Mets.    First, VP for Player Development Tony Bernazard, decided to take out his frustration concerning the poor performance of the Mets’ Class-AA team by ripping off his shirt and physically challenging the players.  It was the final straw in Bernazard’s tenure with the Mets that included unusually aggressive behavior toward the players and a questionable hitting philosophy that permeated the organization.

After the Mets fired Bernazard, GM Omar Minaya, Bernazard’s boss and friend, decided that the best way to handle the situation was to verbally challenge the reporter who wrote about Bernazard’s odd behavior.  Not a good idea.  Rumors started to fly that Minaya would soon join Bernazard as an ex-Met employee.  Jeffrey Wilpon gave him a weak vote of confidence and Minaya tried to rebuild his reputation by appearing on 60 minutes to make sure the world knew that he was still in charge.

The off-season was not kind to the Mets.  They seemed to be involved to one extent or another with every high profile free agent, but Minaya would swing and miss over and over.  He failed to add a starting pitcher, the Mets’ single biggest need.  In fact, the Mets arguably needed two front or middle of the rotation starters, but instead added guys like Josh Fogg and Hisanori Takahasi on minor league contracts.  Even if one or both of them make the big league team, they are nothing more than fifth starters.

The Mets also settled for a collection of Chris Coste, Rod Barajas, and Henry Blanco at catcher after failing to sign Bengie Molina or Yorvit Torrealba.  Barajas is likely to be the Mets starting catcher in 2010 even though Omar Minaya initially indicate that he was not the answer to the Mets catching problems.

To shore up the bullpen, the Mets signed Kelvim Escobar, who has only pitched in one game since 2007 due to injury, and Kiko Colero, who is viewed as such an injury risk that other teams, including the Cubs, were unwilling to offer him a major league contract.  That’s taking quite a risk on a bullpen that is likely to see plenty of action this year.

At first base, the Mets decided to stay in-house and move former left fielder Daniel Murphy to first base.  The Mets considered resigning Carlos Delgado to play first, but opted to go with the weaker hitting and largely unproven Murphy instead.

Then there’s Jason Bay.  Bay was by far the Mest highest profile acquisition.  But even signing him was anything but routine.  The Mets were bidding against themselves for Bay, and initially, it didn’t look like Bay wanted to go to New York.  But when it became clear that the Mets were his only suitor, Bay gave in and signed with the team.  Even after landing a big fish like Bay, it was a bit anticlimatic because Bay seemed to not really be part of the team.  Since then, he has said all of the right things, but a bit of the joy was lost in the way things worked out.

The off season was not helped by Jose Reyes being connected to a Canadian doctor who was caught trying to smuggle HGH into the United States.  Of course, Reyes is not accused of any wrong doing.  Even so, the episode is just another misstep in an off season filled with missteps.

The Mets should be able to score some runs this year.  With the addition of Bay and the resurgence of players like Wright and Reyes, the Mets should be an offensive force to be reckoned with.  However, their pitching staff is far too thin to be serious contenders.  A healthy Johan Santana will certaily help the team, but behind Santana are four back of the rotation starters in Mike Pelfrey, John Maine, Oliver Perez, and Francisco Nieve or Jon Niese.

Despite their league leading payroll budget, the Mets will likely be fighting for a spot in the middle of the NL East behind Philadelphia and Atlanta.  Assuming everyone stays healthy, they should win more games in 2010 than they did in 2009, but don’t be surprised if they end up with a losing record just the same.

On the surface, compared to the Mets, the Cubs look like a well-run, competitive team.  If the Mets can bring in a GM who knows what he’s doing, and if the owner can keep his hands out of the day-to-day operations of the team, the Mets could become a force to be reckoned with.  They have an excellent, young core of players that could make the Mets competitive for years to come.  But if they fail to change the leadership at the top and are unable to add any starting pitching, the Mets are going to continue to be baseball’s biggest underachievers.

Will Cubs manager Lou Piniella be joining them one day?

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated considered the question of which current managers  are Hall worthy and concludes that Pinella (and several other current managers) most likely deserve enshrinement in Cooperstown.

Verducci, who is a member of the Veterans Committee for Managers and Umpires, first considers what qualifies a manager for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.  In a nutshell, a manager needs to manage at least 10 years at the big league level, win a minimum of 1,300 games, and win at least one World Series.  These “requirements” were compiled by Verducci and are not official.

Verducci writes:

“There have been 91 men who have managed at least 10 years in the big leagues, including 11 who are active, and thus not yet eligible for the Hall. Of the 80 eligible managers, 19 have been elected to the Hall of Fame primarily as managers and another 14 as primarily a player or executive. That means 33 of the 80 eligible managers are in the Hall of Fame, or 41 percent of those eligible, including 24 percent specifically as managers. And when you look at the active managers, those percentages almost certainly will rise.”

Based on these “requirements,” Piniella is Hall worthy.  He has managed more than 10 years, currently has 1,784 victories, and has won a World Series with the 1990 Cincinnati Reds.  But there is one chink in his armor.  Pinella only made it to the World Series once.  As Verducci points out, no manager has ever been elected to the Hall of Fame without making it to a second World Series.  On that point, Pinella falls short, at least for now.

So, according to Verducci, Pinella is on the verge of being a Hall of Fame manager.  All he needs in one more trip to the World Series.  But first, he must make it back to the post-season and win his first playoff game in a Cubs uniform.

I’m not sure I agree with Verducci’s assessment of  what qualifies a manager for the Hall of Fame.  I have never felt that the Hall is just a Hall of magic numbers.  There’s more to it than that.

I’m not saying that Pinella doesn’t belong in the Hall.  Maybe he does.  But I see a big difference between Pinella’s managing career and Herzog’s.

I lived in St. Louis during Herzog’s heyday with the Cardinals and I saw first hand the impact he had on a game.  Verducci saw it too.

I remember when I covered the Mets in the 1980s how the New York players were acutely aware of who was in the St. Louis dugout running the game during their rivalry with the Cardinals. It was a fascinating dynamic to me: that players regarded the opposing manager, not just the opposing players, as an element they needed to overcome to win a baseball game. Such was the respect Herzog commanded for his grasp of the game and his fearlessness.”

Herzog did have that kind of mojo about him.  I think Tony LaRussa has it too.  Bobby Cox and Joe Torre might also have it.  I’ve never felt like Lou Piniella had it.  When the game is on the line and and the team needs some sort of miracle, LaRussa has a knack for making the right move.  But when the game is on the line for the Cubs, I’ve never felt a confidence that Piniella would somehow pull a Rabbit out of his hat.

Verducci opines that Dusty Baker might also be on the verge of being Hall worthy.  I think that’s just ridiculous.  I don’t think Piniella has the same mojo that Herzog had, but Dusty has the anti-mojo.  He has a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Dusty is not a Hall of Fame manager.

During his years with the Cubs, I often said that Dusty seemed like a great guy to have a drink with (especially if you wanted to go listen to Jazz), but I would not want him leading my baseball team.  He’s an enabler and an excuse-maker.  He doesn’t hold players accountable.  Under Dusty’s watchful eyes, the patients ran the asylum. 

Piniella occasionally goes the other way.  The slightest thing can put a player in Piniella’s dog house.  And he holds grudges.  Once you’re in Piniella’s dog house, it’s tough to get out.

I don’t think either approach is particularly effective, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose the guy that holds his players accountable. 

Although Piniella and baker may be polar opposites in the way they manage a baseball team, I don’t consider either of them to be legit candidates for the Hall of Fame.  I could be persuaded to change my mind on Piniella.  I can’t imagine ever changing my mind on Dusty.

In a separate Tweet, Stark says that there are “2 or 3″ other teams interested in Bradley.  Earlier in the day, one of those teams was identified as the Kansas City Royals and the rumor was that they were interested in trading Gil Meche to the Cubs for Bradley.  There was also a rumor that Meche would go to the Mets, Luis Castillo to the Cubs and Bradley to Kansas City.  However, Royals GM Dayton Moore shot down the rumors calling them “unbelievable” and saying that there were no talks going on with either the Cubs or the Mets about a potential deal.

Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald wrote that the Mets might be interested in trading directly with the Cubs to acquire Milton Bradley.  If Bradley couldn’t handle the bright lights of Chicago, I’m not sure how he’s going to handle New York, but if a trade can be made, that would not be the Cubs problem.

Away from the Milton Bradley front, Miles opined that Ted Lilly may not be back from injury and ready to pitch until May 1.  I’m liking the Cubs starting rotation less and less.  To start the season, it looks like Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster and Randy wells will be the Cubs top three starters.  Tom Gorzellany and Sean Marshall will likely be the other two starters to start the season with Jeff Samardjzia waiting in the wings. 

What happens if Zambrano or Dempster gets hurt?  What if Randy Wells suffers a sophomore slump?  I sure would feel better about the Cubs rotation if they had another legit pitcher as their number three or four starter.  Even if Ted Lilly comes back when expected, the cubs could still use an “insurance” arm.

Could that arm be Braden Looper?  Jon Paul Morosi of FoxSports.com wrote that Looper would love to pitch in Chicago.  His three kids go to school there and he’d like to pitch “at home.”  The Brewers declined his $6.5 million option and instead chose the $1 million buyout.  The 35-year old right hander was 14-7 last year with a 5.22 ERA.  His career ERA is 4.15 and he has been durable, especially over the past three years.  If the Cubs could sign him to one-year at a discount (he earned $4.75 million last year), it might not be a bad signing. 

Morosi also reports that the Cubs are showing interest in right handed reliever J.J. Putz.  Putz is coming back from surgery and held a throwing session in Arizona last week to showcase his arm.  Putz could be a nice, inexpensive picjup for the bullpen.  However, since quite a few other teams are also interested in Putz, he might not be too cheap afterall.

Another rumor that made the rounds today involved San Diego sending Heath Bell to the Cubs.  It was unclear who the Cubs would send to the Padres, but two names throw out there were Geovany Soto and Ryan Theriot.  Bruce Miles had commented earlier in the day that San Diego might be interested in moving Bell because they have Mike Adams ready to take over as their closer. 

Phil Rogers of the ChicagoBreakingSports.com ran with that thought and suggested that the Cubs and Padres had discussed such a trade.  In a later post, Miles debunked the rumor started reported by Rogers by saying, “Cubs GM Jim Hendry laughed off a Chicago-based rumor that had the Cubs interested in Padres closer Heath Bell, with possible trade bait being catcher Geovany Soto or shortstop Ryan Theriot. As I blogged this morning, the Cubs like Bell, but he’s not on their radar at all because he’ll have a big raise coming this fall, as he’s arbitration-eligible.”

In non-trade news, the Cubs announced that Ryne Sandberg will manager the AAA Iowa Cubs next year.  This will be Sandberg’s fourth year as a manager in the Cubs minor league system.  He spent two years in Peoria (2007-08), a year in Tennessee (2009), and now a stint in Iowa.

It would appear that the Cubs are grooming Sandberg to take over after Pinella retires after the 2010 season.  He told the Des Moines Register,  “I’ve been very pleased with the progression,” Sandberg said in a telephone interview today with the Des Moines Register. “Getting closer to the major leagues is very gratifying. I’m looking at this as another stepping stone.”

But wait, is Piniella really going to retire after 2010?  He’s not saying he will and not saying he won’t.  He told Bruce Miles, “I’m going to do the best job I possibly can, and at the end of this year, we’ll see what happens,” he said. “I can work on a handshake.”

All of this is a moot point, at least for now.  Decisions will be made sometime next year, and the decisions will likely revolve around how well the Cubs do in 2010, as well as how well Sandberg does managing in Iowa.

What’s in store for Today?  I’m sure there will be plenty of more rumors and maybe even some action.  Stay tuned.

Tampa Bay remains the Cubs most likely trade partner.  But even the Rays are no sure thing.  They are willing to deal Pat Burrell to the Cubs for Bradley, but only if the Cubs are willing to pick up most or all of Bradley’s $12 million salary in 2011.  The Cubs have reportedly offered to pay $5 million of Bradey’s 2011 salary, but that’s not cutting it for the Rays at the moment.

Rays manager Joe Maddon has been quoted as saying that he would welcome Milton Bradley to the team.  He bases his opinion on a lunch he had with Bradley last off season.  Sound familiar?  Didn’t Bradley sell his bill of goods to Jim Hendry at a lunch last off season as well.  Bradley may make a nice lunch companion, but I pity any team that brings him into their locker room.

Even if a deal can be struck, it remains to be seen what the Cubs will do with Pat Burrell.  He has no place on the Cubs (other than perhaps as a very expensive bench bat), and the Cubs are taking a risk trading for him before they have another trade in place to move him.  The Mets were once linked as a possible team that could step in to make this a three-way trade, but that rumor has died down over recent days.

The Texas Ranger are another possible trade partner for the Cubs.  The Rangers are rumored to be offering pitcher Kevin Millwood and his $10 million 2010 salary, but only if the Cubs pick up a substantial portion ($16 million or more) of Bradley’s salary for 2010 and 2011. 

I’m not sure that a trade with Texas is very likely.  Not only are the Cubs loathe to pay another team $16 million or more to take Bradley, but, as Carrie Muskat of MLB.com tweets, Texas isn’t sure they want to take on “that headache” again.  Of course, “that headache’ is Bradley.

The Cubs feel confident (at least in public) that they can move Bradley.  Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times wrotes that there are two team interested “for sure” (Rays and Rangers), “with at least one more team in the picture.”  Muskat said the same thing a few days ago, but didn’t bother to name the third team.  Now Wittenmyer is doing the same thing.

Wittenmyer goes on to discuss the urgency of the situation.  The Cubs need to move Bradley quickly so they can turn their attention to filling the team’s other needs.

“But whatever they do, they need to move quickly if they want to get the most out of the available trade and free-agent market, specifically, free-agent center fielder Mike Cameron, who is high on their wish list and also drawing interest from other teams.”

I have to admit, I had much higher hopes for a Bradley trade early on that what it looks like the Cubs are going to have to settle for.  I had envisioned a trade with the Orioles where the Cubs would package Bradley a 2-3 prospects for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott.  In hindsight, that was obviously naive.  I thought that teams would be more willing to take on Bradley.  I should have known then that the promise of Bradley’s OBP can not overshadow the near certainty that he is going to misbehave and disrupt his team’s locker room.  Of course, I can be forgiven.  Jim Hendry suffered under this same illusion during last off season.

At this point, the Cubs need to get what they can for Bradley and then move on.  He already played his part in sidetracking the Cubs in 2009.  The Cubs can’t allow him to do the same thing to the 2010 team.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The part about the article that bothered me was:

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

Last week, Chicago Tribune columnist Phil Rogers wrote on ChicagoBreakingSports.com that the Cubs were involved in discussions over a three way trade that would send Bradley to Texas, Kevin Millwood to the Mets and Luis Castillo to the Cubs.  I’m not sure who Rogers’ source was for this rumor (assuming he actually had a source), but officials with both the Cubs and Rangers immediately shot down the rumor.

Another rumor had the Blue Jays contacting the Cubs to drum up interest in Roy Halladay.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com basically dismissed the possibility of Halladay joining the Cubs, saying:

“However, before Cubs fans start salivating at the prospect of the former Cy Young winner in the rotation with Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano, and Ryan Dempster, there’s a catch. He’s owed $15.75 million in 2010, and the Blue Jays want some of the Cubs’ top prospects. No. 1, the team can’t take on Halladay’s salary. The Blue Jays apparently have a wish list and Milton Bradley is not on it. A player like highly regarded shortstop Starlin Castro most likely is, and the Cubs don’t want to part with him, especially since they might only have Halladay for one year.”

I’m no hotshot reporter for MLB.com, but that seems like some pretty weak logic to me.  Muskat doesn’t have any idea how a potential trade would be structured, so she has no way of knowing if the Cubs would be adding the $15.75 million owed to Halladay to their current payroll.  What if the deal was Carlos Zambrano for Halladay with no money changing hands?  The Cubs would actually save money in that transaction.

As for not wanting to trade Starlin Castro to acquire Halladay, the Cubs would be foolish to make Castro untouchable in such a trade.  Castro looks very promising.  If everything works out, he’ll be the Cubs shortstop in the near future and perhaps for years to come.  Maybe.  We can’t be sure how Castro is going to develop.  What we do know is that Halladay is a legitimate staff ace.  He’s proven himself in arguably the toughest division in baseball.  Allowing Castro’s potential to stand in the way of acquiring the sure thing that is Roy Halladay just doesn’t make sense.

And the thing that really bothers mre about Muskat’s statement is that she is speaking for the Cubs.  How does she know that the Cubs don’t want to trade Castro?  Has she discussed it with Jim Hendry?  If so, did he say the Cubs don’t want to trade Castro?  Did he say Castro is untouchable?  Did he say any of this in relation to a potential trade for Roy Halladay?  I’ll bet the Cubs would not be willing to trade Castro to acquire Yuniesky Betancourt,  but a trade for Halladay is a completely different story.

Finally, Muskat says if the Cubs trade for Halladay, they might only have him for a year.  As things stand right now, that’s true.  However, my guess is that any team that trades for Halladay will want to first negotiate a contract extension with him.  That holds true for the Cubs as well.

I don’t mean to be too hard on Muskat.  Generally speaking she does a good (if uninspired) job reporting on all things Cubs related.  But this blurb about a possible trade for Roy Halladay just seemed to be defeatist in nature and tinged with the age-old idea that the Cubs can’t possibly acquire any of the best players in the game.

Moving on…Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune writes that a trade for Curtis Granderson is still a possibility.  Detroit needs to reduce their payroll and is listening to offers for their center fielder (as well as other players).  Sullivan opines that the Cubs will not part with Carlos Marmol or Starlin Castro to obtain Granderson.  I assume he is saying this because his colleague, Phil Rogers, wrote an article saying the Cubs should offer Marmol and Castro for Granderson, but again, how does he know the Cubs will not trade either player?  Is this his opinion or did someone with the Cubs say it?

Sullivan also discusses rumors involving signing free agents such as Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, Mark DeRosa, and Matt Holliday.  Sullivan thinks that Byrd and Cameron are possibilities, but Holliday and DeRosa aren’t going to happen.  I agree with Sullivan.  Holliday is out of reach and not a good fit.  DeRosa’s time has passed.  Even though I felt strongly that trading him was the wrong thing to do at the time, bringing DeRosa back now will in no way right that wrong.

Let me throw out one caveat concerning DeRosa.  It would not upset me too much for the Cubs to sign him for reasonable money on a one-year contract.  I’m almost positive that he’ll get multi-year offers from other teams, but if the Cubs can re-sign him at the right price, then I think his flexibility and leadership would be a welcome addition to the Cubs.  But again, I don’t think it’s going to happen.

**********

Phil Rogers has some rumors in the Boston Herald and his Cubs rumor says:

“Many in the Cubs’ front office think they would be foolish to give up Starlin Castro to get Curtis Granderson, but there are a lot of other ways to do the deal. General manager Jim Hendry appreciates all Granderson brings to the table, even though he has had trouble hitting left-handers in two of the last three seasons. Perhaps Granderson would benefit from working with new Cubs hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo.”

Granderson would be a good fit for the Cubs, but it is going to be difficult for them to make any deals until they know what is going to happen with Milton Bradley.  Unfortunately, Bradley not only screwed up the team during the season, but he is getting in the way of improving it in the off season.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs miss out on players like Granderson because they can’t/won’t pull the trigger on a trade or signing a free agent until the Bradley situation is settled.

**********

Gordon Wiitenmyer of the Sun-Times has corrected the information he originally gave concerning the two-year contract the Cubs signed with lefty John Grabow.  Originally, Wiitenmyer wrote that the contract was for a total of $7 million.  However, he now says that Garbow signed for a total of $7.5 million.

Wiitenmyer doesn’t say how the money is split up, but I read elsewhere that the first year is for $3.25 million and the second year is $4.25 million.  Unfortunately, I can’t find the article where I read these numbers, so take it for what it’s worth.

Phil Rogers writes on ChicagoBreakingSports.com that a new three-way trade may be in the works.  According to Rogers, the trade would send Bradley to Texas, Kevin Millwood to the Mets, and Luis Castillo to the Cubs.  This is a variation on an earlier rumor that had Bradley going to Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell to the Mets, and Castillo to the Cubs.

Honestly, this new three-way trade rumor makes more sense than the rumor involving Tampa Bay and Burrell.  The Mets need pitching and Millwood can fill their void.  Plus, Burrell is a DH and the Mets don’t have a need for one.

I wrote about Luis Castillo previously.  He is not the perfect acquisition, but he could fill the Cubs need for a second baseman.  The Mets are almost as anxious to get rid of him as the Cubs are to move Bradley.  For the Cubs and Mets, the rumored three-way trade makes sense.  For Texas, not so much.  But the Rangers do have a bit of pitching depth, they need some additional offense, and they need some salary relief.  If they can get Bradley, have the Cubs and Mets pick up most of the $21 million still owed to him, and move the $12 million owed to Millwood in 2010, maybe the deal will make sense to them after all.

**********

The Cubs shook up their bullpen a bit when they traded Aaron Heilman to Arizona and then signed John Grabow to a two-year contract.

In exchange for Heilman, the Cubs received two minor leaguers; LHP Scott Maine and 1B (and Chicago native) Ryne White (Little Ryno).  Neither player is a “top prospect,” but Heilman did not figure into the Cubs 2010 plans, so they were lucky to get anything for him rather than simply non-tender him.

The Grabow contract is for a total of $7 million.  Although it seems a bit high to me, Grabow did have a good 2009 and can be a veteran presence in what is shaping up to be a very young bullpen.  Also, contrary to some reports, Grabow is more than just a LOOGY.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs use Grabow as their 8th inning set-up man.

**********

The Cubs want to trade Milton Bradley and Jim Hendry is doing his best to make it seem like they don’t have to get rid of him.  That makes sense.  It’s hard to deal from a position of strength when you are begging other teams to take a player off your hands.

With that in mind, it can’t be good for Hendry’s “leverage” that Joe Posnanski has named Milton Bradley as the NL’s Least Valuable Player.  Posnanski says:

“Anyway, put it all together, and including those all-important intangibles, the 2009 LVP is Milton Bradley. He was lousy on defense (minus-12 Dewan in right; minus-4.7 UZR) and not much on offense (99 OPS+ and missed 38 games with injuries). Plus, he was his usual pleasant self .. leaving Cubs GM Jim Hendry publicly babbling about how the team doesn’t HAVE to trade Bradley, they might WANT to keep Bradley, hey some of the best trades are the ones you DON’T make — while privately Hendry’s working the phones like Judy the Time Life Operator to get rid of this guy…

“But he (Bradley) turns 32 in April. And he’s Milton Bradley. A scout once told me that Bradley is the only high school player he ever scouted who hit a home run and did not have a single teammate come out to congratulate him. He’s only signed for two more years — he’s due $9 million and $12 million. Think about all you get for the money.”

Posnanski goes on to say that Alfonso Soriano should also be in the discussion, but he’s still going to go with Bradley.  It’s nice that the Cubs have two players competing for NL Least Valuable Player award.

**********

I almost didn’t include this bit of news, but Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated is lumping the Cubs in with a group of teams that have an interest in Matt Holliday.  Seriously, Jon?  I suppose they have an interest in Holliday the same way they have an interest in John Lackey and Jason Bay.  Sure, they’d like to have all three players on their team, who wouldn’t.  But it’s not going to happen.

I don’t want to bash sportswriters.  God knows I spend more than my fair share reading them.  But how hard is it to just make up crap like this?  I usually like Jon Heyman, but I’m throwing the BS flag on this one.

If the Cubs are actually interested in Granderson (I think they are), they are not going to be alone.  According to Ken Davidoff of Newsday, both the Yankees and Angels have an eye on the Detroit center fielder.  Presumably, the Yankees would move Melky Cabrera to left to accommodate Granderson in center.  The move would also lessen the need/likelihood of the Yankees bringing back Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, or both.

The Angels are interested in using Granderson as a left fielder (since they already have Torii Hunter in center).  A Granderson trade by the Angels would force Juan Rivera over to right field, or off the field completely and into the DH role.

Regardless of the competition for Granderson, Jim Callis of Baseball America (via MLBTradeRumors.com) thinks the Cubs are in the best position to make a trade with Detroit.  At the moment, the Cubs have a plethora of young middle infield talent that may interest Dombrowski and the Tigers. 

In an article from a couple of days ago, Phil Rogers of Chicago Breaking Sports.com opined that the Cubs should offer up Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro for Granderson.  I disagreed with Rogers as far as Castro goes, but I agreed that the Cubs should aggresively pursue Granderson.  Today, in his latest article, Rogers throws Josh Vitters and Andrew Cashner into the mix. 

One guy that I really trust on matters involving the Cubs, especially the minor leagues, is Arizona Phil at The Cub Reporter.com.  Somewhat surprisingly, Arizona Phil says that he too would trade Starlin Castro for Curtis Granderson.  In comment #15, Arizona Phil admits that Castro is the Cubs best shortstop prospect, but also says that the Cubs have other good prospects at short as well.

In comment #13, Arizona Phil says:

“Curtis Granderson is exactly the type of speed/power combo player Jim Hendry and Gary Hughes love. If he is available, I believe Hendry will go after him, even if it costs the Cubs Starlin Castro, Andrew Cashner or Jay Jackson, and a third pre-arb auto-renewal guy (like maybe U. of Michigan alum Jake Fox?).”

I would be hesitant including Castro in a trade for Granderson.  However, generally speaking, I think you are almost always better off trading an unproven minor leaguer for a proven major leaguer.  Starlin Castro looks like he has the makings of a big league star, but how many players have looked exactly the same way in the past and have fizzled once they reached the big leagues?  Too many to count. 

I don’t want to gut the Cubs farm system for Granderson, but one of the purposes of developing prospects is to use them as trade bait for proven big league players.  Too often, I think we as fans fall in love with the Cubs prospects and we want to make then untouchable.  However, very few guys ever make it to the big leagues with the team that drafted them.  More often than not, they make it to the big leagues with their second or third team (if they make it at all). 

 I can live with including Castro in a package for Granderson.  It would annoy me a bit, but I could live with it.

**********

As you may recall, in a report on ESPN Chicago radio a few days ago, Bruce Levine said that he expected the Cubs to announce a trade involving Milton Bradley.  The announcement hasn’t come yet, but I have heard an interesting rumor that actually makes some sense.

The oft quoted (at least in this post) Arizona Phil of The Cub Reporter threw out the possibility of the Cubs trading Bradley to Tampa Bay in exchange for Pat Burrell.  Phil believes the two teams will split Bradley’s 2011 salary.

Once they obtain Burrell, the Cubs will turn around and trade him to the Mets for Luis Castillo.  The Mets badly want to trade Castillo and the move will open up a spot at second base for free agent Orlando Hudson.

From the Cubs perspective, they’ll get rid of Bradley and the trade will allow them to add Castillo at second.  Castillo will turn 35 during the 2010 season.  He hit .302/.369/.354 in 2009 for the Mets with 1 homerun and 40 RBI. Castillo is signed through 2011 and is set to earn $6 million per year.  In 2009, Castillo had the worst fielding year of his career according to Fangraphs, with a UZR/150 rating of -12.0.

The Cubs are desperate to get rid of Bradley, and the fact that they may end up  with Luis Castillo shows just how desperate they are.  To be fair, it appears that most teams interested in trading for Bradley are teams that will only make a trade if the Cubs pay all/most of Bradley’s salary.  So although Castillo is not the ideal second baseman, Jim Hendry would probably be lucky to get him, if it means not having to pay too much of the $21 million still owed to Bradley.  I guess I can’t be too critical if the move helps the Cubs dump Bradley and add a piece (albeit a not very good piece) that they need (i.e. a second baseman).

This three-way trade is by no means perfect, but it may just be the best that the Cubs can do.  And when it comes to getting rid of Milton Bradley, that may be enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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