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.

Others were more optimistic about a deal getting done soon.  Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago wrote that the Cubs were on the verge of making a deal and that it could be announced as early as Tuesday.  Of course, Tuesday came and went without any news, but a team source told Bruce Miles that an announcement could come Wednesday.

Jim Hendry and his deputies are being extremely tight lipped about what teams he’s talking to.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com said that Hendry is talking to an AL team, but that it’s not either Tampa Bay nor Texas.  Later in the day, she Tweeted that is was neither Seattle nor Toronto.  At this point, we don’t know who the mystery team might be.  All we know is who it is not.

Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times also lists a mystery team and says that the deal could involve the Cubs receiving a player that they will then have to flip.  Sound familiar?  Wittenmyer confirms that  the deal does not involve the Rays or Rangers.  This is a different rumor than we’ve heard before.

Tomorrow is the final day of the Winter Meetings.  Could a deal be announced tomorrow.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed.  The Milton Bradley soap opera has already dragged on too long.

**********

Let me change gears a little bit right now and get a little angry.  I’m going to have to manufacture a little anger because, the truth is, I’m really not angry.  But I feel like I should be.

You see, Curtis Granderson, probably the best fit to play center field for the Cubs next year, was traded today by the Tigers to the New York Yankes (MLBTradeRumors.com has the complete story on the three-team trade).  While the Cubs screwed around trying to trade a guy they should have never signed in the first place, other teams made deals, improved their teams, and got themselves ready for 2010.  The Cubs just did a lot of talking.

The Cubs have a few needs they must address this off season, but everything is on hold until they can trade Bradley.  So far, they have lost out on Billy Wagner.  They’ve lost out on Takashi Saito, and today they lost out on Curtis Granderson.  I don’t know if they could have signed/traded for any of these players.  What I do know is that all three could have filled a need for the Cubs.  I also know that all three are now off the board.   Whether or not the Cubs would have acquired any of the three is not the point.  The point is that they couldn’t even get involved on any of them (whether they wanted to or not) because their hands are tied.

Okay, now for a little reality.  I know that Jim Hendry is in a tough position (at least partially of his own making).  The Milton Bradley “situation” is a little complicated and it’s going to take some hard work, creativity, and time to get it figured out.  It sucks that the Bradley is tying the Cubs hands, but that’s the reality of the situation.  Getting angry doesn’t help.

I’m hopeful that Hendry and crew can get a deal done today before the Meetings end.  There’s a window of opportunity here that is closing quickly.  After the meetings, it’s harder to catch up with other GMs and be able to sit down with them at a moment’s notice.  Obviously, deals can be done outside the Winter Meetings.  It happens all of the time.  But the Meetings do provide a once-a-year opportunity that the Cubs need to use to their advantage.

**********

Does the trade of Curtis Granderson to the Yankees open up any opportunities for the Cubs?  Perhaps.  For instance, what are the Yankees going to do with switch-hitting center fielder Melky Cabrera now?  Is he expendable?  Could he be a fit for the Cubs?  What would the Cubs need to give up to get him?

What about Johnny Damon?  It’s been suggested that trading for Granderson makes it less likely that the Yankees will re-sign Damon.  If so, could Damon be a fit for the Cubs?  Can he still play center field?  Can the Cubs afford him?  Might Damon be the lead-off hitter the Cubs are looking for.

Now that Detroit has traded Granderson, might they be open to a Milton Bradley for Magglio Ordonez swap?  Detroit reportedly needs to dump some salary.  Ordonez is owed $18 million in 2010 with a club (vesting) option in 2011 for $15 million.  He can’t play center field, but he can still hit.  Is Detroit the mystery team all of the writers were talking about?

These are just some random thoughts brought on by the Granderson trade.  As they say, when one door closes, another one opens.  Has another door opened for the Cubs?

**********

Here’s a random rumor with absolutely no factual basis.  I found it on another blog, but thought it was interesting enough to share here.

Could the mystery AL team be the White Sox?  And could a deal that would send Bradley to the Southside bring Alex Rios to the Northside?

This deal may not be as far fetched as you might think.  Rios is owed $58.7 million between 2010 – 2014.  He also has a club option for 2015 for $13.5 million with a $1 million buyout.  Rios brings a relatively similar skill set to Bradley’s, but without the headaches.  Of course, his contract is for three guaranteed years more than Bradley, so the Cubs are committing much more money long term to Rios.  However, it could be argued that the Cubs would be better off paying more money long-term to have a servicable player than they would be to simply pay another team several million just to take Bradley off their hands.

Ozzie Guillen is said not to be too fond of Rios.  The White Sox are looking for a DH who can also play in the field.  At least in theory, the two teams seem to match up. 

Can you imagine Ozzie Guillen trying to deal with Bradley?  It could potentially be hilarious.  Of course, IF they can make it work, and IF Bradley can return to his 2008 form, the White Sox could really rub it in the Cubs faces.  And we all know they would love to do that.

At the moment, this trade rumor is nothing but speculation.  But isn’t it fun to dream this stuff up and then try to figure how to get it done?

**********

ESPN announced that the Dalai Lama of baseball, Peter Gammons, will be leaving the network following the Winter Meetings.  I have the utmost respect for Gammons and love to hear his thoughts on all things baseball (and music).  It’s true that he is far too often Red Sox-centric (with a little Yankees news thrown in for good measure), but he’s so good, it’s easy to forgive him.

The announcement from ESPN simply said that Gammons will be pursuing “new endevors.”  I’m not sure what that means, but I’ve heard that he’ll be joining the MLB Network.  Whatever he does, I’m sure he’ll do great.

UPDATE:  MLB.com is reporting that Peter Gammons will be joining both MLB.com and the MLB Network to be an on-air and online analyst.  Gammons will also be working with NESN, the New England-based network that broadcasts the Red Sox games.  The move will presumably allow Gammons to contine to do the work he loves while spending more time at his homes in Boston and Cape Cod.

The real sin in all of this is that many teams are making more money from TV/radio rights and revenue sharing than they are spending on their payroll.  How can MLB allow team owners to do this?  It’s baseball’s dirty little secret, but at the moment, it’s not a very well kept secret.

Uber-agent Scott Boras recently made some comments that stirred the pot.  He claimed that there are teams receiving $80 – $90 million “before they ever sell a ticket” who are only spending $40 – $50 million on payroll.  To Boras, this is wrong and is a slap in the face of the fans who follow the team.

MLB was quick to respond.  MLB Executive Vice President Rob Manfred issued a statement dismissing Boras’ claims and indicating that the numbers he used ‘have no basis in reality.”  However, it seemed to me that Manfred purposely didn’t respond to the specific allegations Boras made.

In any case, Jayson Stark of ESPN.com took up the case and came to some interesting conclusions.

“If you live in Pittsburgh or South Florida, you’ve probably gotten so used to blaming The System for all your team’s problems, there’s an excellent chance you never noticed something every fan of these two “small-market” operations should know:

“Your team collected more money this season — before it ever sold one ticket — than it spent on its entire major league payroll. In fact, it collected more than it spent on its major league payroll and its player-development system combined.

“But it isn’t just the Pirates and Marlins who are cashing checks larger than their payrolls before the ticket offices open. By some estimates, a third of the teams in the sport are doing exactly the same thing.”

One-third all all teams spend less on payroll than they receive from TV/radio rights (local and national) and revenue sharing?  That seems impossible, but Stark backs up the contention.

According to Starks figures, which he gleaned from sources throughout MLB, each team receives a check from the central fund (which includes national TV rights, radio, Internet, licensing, merchandising, marketing, MLB International Money) totaling $40 million.  Every team also gets a check for revenue sharing, although the amount varies by team.  According to Stark, the five neediest teams get $35 million each, but no one apparently gets less than $20 million.  Local TV money varies, but all but one team makes at least $15 million per year from local TV rights and the other team makes at least $12 million per year.

According to Stark, the neediest teams in the game get at least $90 million before they sell a ticket.  He then subtracts $10 million from that amount for pension and operation fees, leaving $80 million.   Then Stark says:

“OK, now let’s head back to the payroll list. We count a minimum of a dozen teams, depending on how you define “total payroll,” that aren’t spending that same number — $80 million — on their major league payroll. So it isn’t just Scott Boras who has the right to ask: What’s up with that?”

Rob Manfred doesn’t dispute the figures, but says that the meaning of the figures has been misunderstood.

“When you evaluate a baseball team,” Manfred said, “you need to understand that these teams have expenses in addition to the 25-man roster on the field. They have multimillion-dollar benefit costs. They have the cost of paying 15 players on the [40-man] major league roster who are not in the big leagues.

“They have the cost of their player-development system, which averages $15 million [per team] a year. They have the cost of acquiring [amateur] players through the [June] draft and internationally, which averages $9 million [per team] a year. So for anybody to take a club’s revenues and say that 60 percent should go to major league payroll, that’s just a fundamental misunderstanding of this business.”

As Stark then correctly points out, MLB teams have many other income streams that are not included in these figures.  If you are going to list all of the expenses an MLB team has, you have to then also include all sources of revenue, including ticket sales, concessions, parking, sponsorships, souvenir sales, etc.

Stark then offers a solution than I like much better than my original salary cap solution.  Stark suggests that MLB continue to tax the highest spending teams just as they do now, but also start taxing the lowest spending teams.  Set payroll parameters that discourage the wealthiest teams from spending their competitors into oblivion, but which also encourage the “poorest” teams to spend the money they receive from the central fund, revenue sharing, and local TV rights to improve their teams and to compete on the field. 

I never liked the idea of a salary cap, but I didn’t see another way to make baseball more competitive and to level the playing field between the highest and lowest revenue teams.  Stark’s proposal accomplishes this without resorting to a salary cap.  Brilliant!

As Stark points out, this proposal will not cure all of MLB’s ills, but it will improve competitive balance and the play on the field.  And once competitive balance is established, many of MLB’s problems will seem much less important.

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?”

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.

You may recall that Lilly spent time on the DL this past year due to inflammation and pain in his left shoulder.  While on the DL, Lilly had his knee scoped because it was felt that the partially torn meniscus in his knee was altering his mechanics, causing undue pressure on his shoulder.  Lilly came back from the DL and pitched effectively.  The plan following the season was for Lilly to rest his shoulder.  Unfortunately, rest didn’t seem to be enough, as Lilly’s shoulder continued to bother him.  He spoke to the team and to doctors, and the decision was made to have the surgery now.

Following the surgery, Lilly met with the press.  According to Bruce Miles at the Daily Herald, Lilly said:

“The idea is maybe to start throwing in four months or so,” he said. “A lot of that is going to be dictated on just how the rehab goes. That can change one way or another. My intention is to get back as soon as I can without setting myself back.”

After Lilly spoke, Jim Hendry spoke to reporters and said:

“We haven’t made any decisions yet on who’s coming back or not from the club we ended the season with,” Jim said. “This wouldn’t alter our plans about adding another starter because Lew Yocum is one of the best in the world. If he felt that…if the rehab went according to plan, the way Ted goes about his business, that there’s a good possibility Ted will be pitching in April. We certainly don’t want to take that spot away from Ted if he’s ready.”

So, if everything goes according to plan, Lilly should start throwing in four months and should be ready to pitch in April.  Of course, how often do things go according to plan when it comes to injuries to Cubs pitchers?

With Lilly on the shelf for now and potentially not ready to pitch when the 2010 season begins, should Jim Hendry look to add another arm to the starting rotation?  If so, should that arm be free agent Rich Harden?  I have to believe that Lilly’s surgery has increased the odds that the Cubs will offer Harden arbitration.  This should be interesting.

**********

During organizational meetings in Mesa, AZ, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts spent time scouting potential Spring Training facility sites with officials from Mesa.  Ricketts previously visited Naples, FL to scout locations and meet with potential investors in the Spring Training complex development.

Ricketts and the rest of the Cubs front office are expected to discuss their Spring Training facility options at the organizational meetings.  The Cubs must decide by early next year if they are going to opt out of their agreeement to train at HoHoKam Park.  If they do (and they almost certainly will), they will need to have a plan in place for where they will train beginning in 2012 and beyond.

I’m still rooting for Naples, but I think the odds are stacked against them.  The Cubs are fixtures in the Cactus League and Arizona officials want to make sure that they keep the team (and their money) in the state for years to come.

**********

With the end of the World Series last night (Congrats to the Yankees!), the off season officially begins.  Arizona Phil at The Cub Reporter did a terrific job of detailing what we can all expect in the coming weeks and explaining the rules surrounding free agency, arbitration offers, etc.   It’s a great read to prepare for what should be a very interesting off season.

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.

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!