Of course, now I’m old and smart, and I know that “hope springs eternal” are the first three words in Alexander Pope’s poem, An Essay on Man.  The poem was written in 1733, before baseball was even invented.  Although to hear some Cubs fans, you’d think that was the same year the Cubs started training in Mesa.  But I digress.

Despite the fact that I now know the origin of the phrase, I can’t help but associate it with Spring Training.  After all, at the beginning of Spring Training, all team’s are tied for first and fans from each team have reason to hope that this is the year their boys of summer will bring home the prize.  Well, at least that’s how it’s supposed to be.

The truth is that fans for several teams know that their teams don’t stand a chance of making the post-season, let alone win a World Series championship.    That’s not how it’s supposed to be in professional sports.  The rules of the sport are supposed to make the playing field even — or as even as possible — for all teams.  In this respect, baseball fails miserably.

Once again in 2010, the team with the highest payroll (Yankees) will outspend the team with the lowest payroll (Pirates) by more that five times.  Not only does that not create an even playing field, but it creates a situation where the lowest payroll team has absolutely no chance of competing.  Under baseball’s current rules, the Pirates are simply fodder used to fill out the schedule.

And the Pirates are not alone.  They are joined at the bottom of the payroll ladder by the Nationals, Rangers, Athletics, Marlins, and Padres.  All teams that have very little chance of posting a winning record and virtually no chance of making the post-season.

I can hear the naysayers now saying that the Rangers were competitive in the weak AL West just last year.  That’s true, but the AL West is better this year and the Rangers will likely not be as good. 

The naysayers also point to the Marlins who, despite league leading low payrolls have won two World Series titles since 1997.  Again, true, but the Marlins are the exception.  If it takes a miracle for a team to rise to the top, then the playing field probably isn’t very level.

Many fans point to the Yankees for outspending every other team.  I am not a Yankee basher, at least not in this context.  Baseball is flush with money.  At a time when other sports are seeing their revenues decrease (some substantially), baseball actually saw an increase in revenue in 2009.  Attendance was down, but revenue was up.  In fact, according to Maury Brown at The Biz of Baseball,  MLB’s revenues hit a record $6.6 billion in 2009.

That means that teams have more revenue sharing money coming in for the 2010 season.  Even so, teams at the bottom of the payroll ladder continue to spend less on payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

At one time, I was in favor of a salary cap for MLB that included a minimum amount team’s had to spend on payroll.  I was never completely comfortable with the idea of a salary cap, but I couldn’t think of any other way to even the playing field.

Then last November, I ran across a column by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com in which he did a fantastic job of explaining the problem and offering a solution.  In his article, Stark pointed out that as many as 10 teams (one-third of all MLB teams) receive more in revenue sharing and TV/radio rights (local and national) than they spend on payroll.  (That figure is up to 13 of the 30 teams based on 2010 projected payroll figures)

In my original post on this subject, I explained Stark’s solution to the problem like this:

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.

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.

For years, the NFL has bragged about the parity they have been able to achieve.  On any given Sunday, any one team can beat any other team in the NFL.  Not so in MLB.  Every year, there are teams that don’t stand a chance of being competitive, let alone have hopes for the post-season.  Instead of creating parity, MLB has created a parody of what a competitive, well-run league should look like. 

For fans of two-thirds of the teams in MLB, hope springs eternal again this year.  Some teams may be long shots, but at least they stand a chance.  Not so for the other one-third of teams.  Before the season even gets started, they are out of the running.  For fans of those teams, “hope springs eternal” doesn’t hold any special meaning.  It’s simply a line from a poem.

Nady is coming off a 2009 season in which he only played seven games before going on the DL with an elbow injury.  He eventually had to have his second Tommy John surgery on his right (throwing) elbow.  At this point, he is back to throwing and can throw 150 feet without pain.

The 31-year old Nady had a breakout year in 2008 when he hit .305/.357/.510 with 25 homeruns and 97 RBI for the Pirates and Yankees.  He ended the year with an OPS+ of 127.  After acquiring Nady from the Pirates mid-year, they named him their starting right fielder for the 2009 season.   Unfortunately, just seven games into the season, he went down with an injury and his time in New York was over.

Although Nady will officially be the Cubs fourth outfielder to start the season, it appears that he’ll get quite a bit of playing time.  He will likely split time with Fukudome in right (although probably not a straight platoon)  and will spell Soriano from time-to-time in left.  In addition, he’ll likely get the starts in left during interleague play, allowing Soriano to DH.

**********

I am not thrilled with the Nady signing nor am I upset by it.  The base salary seems a little high and it could get worse with the incentives.

On the other hand, Nady signed with the Cubs for the same amount he signed with the Pirates for in 2008.  In 2009, he signed with the Yankees for one-year and $6.55 million.  So a base salary of $3.3 million doesn’t seem outrageous.

Plus, Nady was the best available outfielder out of a group of him, Jermaine Dye, Rocco Baldelli, and Jonny Gomes.  He’s younger and a better fielder than Dye, a better hitter than Baldelli, and doesn’t strike out nearly as much as Gomes.  In addition, Nady is the most versatile player of the bunch.  His best positions are right and left field, but he also can play center field, first base, and even third base in a pinch.

So, despite my initial concerns about the money, I can’t be too upset about the Cubs signing Nady.  Plus, he is just a fourth outfielder, so it makes no sense getting upset.

**********

Think about this: You’re Xavier Nady and you just had a decent year in 2007.  You hit .278/.330/.476 with 20 homeruns and 78 RBI.  Your stock is on the rise and you get a raise of $1.2 million when you sign with the Pirates, avoiding arbitration, for the 2008 season.

Your 2008 starts out great.  The Pirates aren’t doing much, but you’re having an outstanding year.  As the trade deadline approaches, you are traded to the Yankees and finish the year by putting up the best season of your career.

Prior to the 2009 season you sign a contract for $6.55 million per year and you’re named the Yankees starting right fielder.  But seven games into the season you injure your elbow and you miss the rest of the season.

Going into the 2010 season, you become a free agent and there are several teams that are looking at you to start in their outfield.  The Braves are even looking at you as a possible first basemen.  Maybe you can pick up right where you left off in 2008.

Unfortunately, teams are signing players and filling their needs while you sit on the sidelines.  Rumors start to swirl that this team or that might be interested in you, but only as a fourth outfielder.  Somehow, you went from having a career year in 2008 to being the opening day right fielder for the eventual World Series Champs in 2009, to being a fourth outfielder in 2010.  What happened?

**********

One of the concerns about Nady is that he is recovering from his second Tommy John  surgery.  For whatever reason, the first surgery didn’t work and he had to have it re-done. 

Dr. Joseph Hecht (AKA “Cubster”) over at The Cub Reporter indicated that it’s rare to need a second TJS, especially for a non-pitcher.  Even so, he said that his guess is that Nady will recover and be just fine.

The Cubs will find out more about Nady’s surgery and recovery later this week when he takes a physical for the team.  The physical is the final step in the process that will make Nady a Cub.

**********

There was another high profile signing on Tuesday when the Oakland A’s signed Ben Sheets.  Sheets signed for one-year and $10 million plus incentives. 

I like Sheets, but I think this signing is crazy.  Sheets was a huge injury risk before the last injury he had that caused him to miss the 2009 season.  Now, after not being able to pitch for a year, Oakland spends $10 million — about one-seventh of their entire payroll — on a guy who is a huge question mark.

I’ve heard the argument that signing Sheets was a bold move by Billy Beane and the A’s.  If Sheets does well, the A’s can potentially trade him for some high ceiling prospects.  Even if they don’t trade him, they can probably get a couple of draft picks for him if he signs elsewhere after the season.

That sounds like a good plan IF Sheets pitches well.  But even if Sheets pitches well, it will still cost Oakland a big chunk of their payroll.

If Sheets does not pitch well or if he gets injured, this signing will be a disaster.  If it was the Yankees we were talking about, then no big deal.  They spend $10 million on spilled drinks in a season.  But Oakland?  Oakland is always crying poor and Billy Beane made his reputation by building competitive teams with a limited payroll; not by agreeing to high dollar contracts with high risk players.

From all reports, Jim Hendry was very interested in signing Sheets.  At the right price, he could have been a great addition to the Cubs pitching staff.  So give credit to Hendry for not paying Sheets asking price.  A low dollar contract with lots of incentives made sense.  The contract Sheets ended up signing with Oakland doesn’t.

**********

Late Tuesday afternoon the Cubs announced that they had signed former Arizona DiamondBacks third baseman Chad Tracy to a minor league contract.  Tracy was invited to Spring Training and will compete for a spot on the Cubs bench.

Tracy has had a long list of injuries over the years including oblique strains, groin pulls, and back injuries.  In 2007 he had microfracture surgery  on his knee. 

Tracy hasn’t had a really good season since 2005.  He hasn’t played a full season since 2006.  Even so, signing Tracy was a good move by the Cubs.  It’s a low risk/high reward play.  He’ll be given the chance to make the team out of Spring Training.  Even if he doesn’t make the team, he can potentially rebuild his career in Iowa.  Either way, the Cubs are not taking much of a risk.

UPDATE: Chad Tracy will earn $900,000 plus incentives if he makes the major league roster.  That may seem like a lot, but Tracy may be one of the top left handed pinch hitters in the game.

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?

Gray is 28-years old and worked out of the bullpen for Oakland.  He compiled an 0-1 record and a 3.76 ERA in 24 relief appearances last year.  Right after the trade, I read that Gray is a hard thrower (92-94 mph), but has control issues.  However, according to Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald, Gray only allowed 4 walks in 26.1 innings.  In fact, in an interview with Bruce Levine from ESPN Chicago, Jim Hendry said “Gray throws a lot of strikes” and compared him to Angel Guzman.  Perhaps the initial reports were wrong?

According to MLB.com’s Jonathon Mayo (via Carrie Muskat of MLB.com), Morla is a 21-year old fireballer whose fastball is far and away his best pitch.  He also sports a decent curve that has improved over time.  Morla is a starter at the moment, but Mayo believes his future is in the bullpen.

Spencer is a powerful 1B-Of.  His offense is his strong suit, although he does have a very good outfield arm.  There was some thought earlier in his career that he might turn out to be a pitcher.  He threw in the 90′s in his few outings for Arizona State before being drafted.

This trade doesn’t excite me or anger me.  The Cubs didn’t lose much and they didn’t gain much.  It felt more like just rearranging the deck chairs.

However, the trade does raise one concern.  Fox appeared to be one of the Cubs better trade chips, especially if the trade was with an AL team.  So what now?  Fox is gone, the Cubs received very little value (at least immediate value), and they still have holes to fill.  I don’t want to make too big of a deal out of this.  It just seemed unnecessary.

Of course, there is another way to look at this.  Jake Fox really didn’t have a position with the Cubs.  His value is his bat, not his glove.  Plus, he’s out of minor league options, so trading him made sense.  I’m just not sure this trade was the right one.

Also, Aaron Miles was taking up roster space and really wasn’t expected to make a contribution to the 2010 team.  In fact, I had suggested trading or releasing him in an earlier post.  So getting anything back in return for Miles was yeoman’s work on Hendry’s part.  Perhaps Fox was the price the Cubs had to pay to move Miles (plus the $1.0 million).  In the end, the Cubs saved $1.7 million.  Not exactly a salary dump, but every little bit helps.

**********

There are some very odd rumors floating around out there on the Internets.  For instance, Evans Clinchy of NESN.com (Red Sox network) is reporting that the Cubs are making a run at Jason Bay.  That’s a new one.

DiamondLeung.com is reporting that La Presna (a newspaper in Nicaragua) is reporting that both the Cubs and Cards are players for Vicente Padilla.  The La Presna report supposedly comes from a source within the agency that represents Padilla.

At this time of year, I guess you get your rumors from where you can, but I don’t think either rumor makes sense.  First off, Jason Bay is a left fielder, a position the Cubs already have covered.  Could bodies be moved?  Sure, but that won’t help the second issue.  The Cubs can not afford Bay.  Various reports have suggested that Bay is looking at a multi-year deal in the $20 million/year range.  Unless Tom Ricketts opens his wallet really wide, the Cubs won’t even be sniffing Jason Bay.

Not that the Cubs couldn’t use another arm in the rotation, but I don’t see them pursuing Padilla.  He’s a good enough pitcher, but Texas traded him to the Dodgers last year in part because he was such a disruptive force in the locker room.  That’s the same Texas Rangers who said what a great guy Milton Bradley was while he was a Ranger.  After the Cubs experiment in bad team chemistry this past year, I don’t think they are going to be signing up Vicente Padilla for round two.

********** 

The Winter Meetings start next week in Indianapolis.  Will the Cubs be players in what is expected to be a very active trade market or will the albatross that is Milton Bradley prevent them from making any moves not involving him?  My hope (and dare I say expectation) is that Jim Hendry is going to be able to get a deal done for Bradley at the Winter Meetings.  My guess is that it will involve three or four teams and will likely require a quiet room and several bottles of scotch.

The most likely trade partner for the Cubs appears to be Tampa Bay.  However, there are a lot of bad contracts out there.  Hopefully, Hendry can find a team with a contract they want to move and be able to make a deal that works for both teams.  In fact, that is my Christmas wish this year.  World peace can wait until next year.  Let’s get the Bradley deal done this Christmas.

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?”

Of course, all of the big news continues to surround Milton Bradley.  He issued an apology yesterday that sounded like it had been crafted by some first year PR hack.  The apology was reported all over the place.  I stole mine from Gordon Wittenmyer’s article in the Sun-Times:

“I chose Chicago as a free agent because I wanted to be part of finally bringing a championship to Chicago’s fans,” Bradley’s statement read. “I expected to have a great season, and I am deeply disappointed by my performance and the team’s struggles.

“I played every game with everything that I had and wanted desperately to win. My frustration and disappointment boiled over, and I said and did certain things that I regret. In hindsight, I wish that I handled certain things differently, and I apologize for those things that did not work out for the better.

“The air has been cleared, and we all want to move on and look forward to better days.”

It’s obvious that Milton Bradley did not write or issue that apology.  There wasn’t even any effort made to make it sound like Bradley was making the apology.  I don’t know how others feel, but the pseudo-apology means nothing to me.  It’s a crock.

**********

I’m not sure who Bradley was apologizing to, but it apparently was not his teammates.  Carrie Muskat reported via Twitter that Bradley’s teammates didn’t even know about the apology until they heard about it from the media.  Milton must not have been too sorry for the way he threw his teammates under the bus and generally disrupted life in the clubhouse.

**********

The Cubs announced yesterday that Milton Bradley will continue to be paid during his suspension and that the MLBPA will not file a grievance.  Although Ken Rosenthal’s story didn’t say it in so many words, it sounded like the Cubs and Bradley’s agents negotiated the terms of the suspension.  In exchange for an apology and a guarantee that the MLBPA would not get involved, the Cubs agreed to pay Bradley for the time he is suspended.  That’s my interpretation of how things went, although I did not read that anywhere.

**********

Chris La Duca of the Chicago Sun-Times spoke to Charlena Rector, Milton Bradley’s mother, about the suspension.  After initially saying that she would not speak to any more reporters, she went on to detail how Bradley’s 3-year old child was repeatedly called the n-word by teachers, parents, and children at the day care he attends.  Because of the repeated racial slurs directed at the child, Rector claimed, Bradley was never able to fully concentrate when he was at the ballpark.

I take racism very seriously, but I just find this claim to be incredible.  What day care (or any other business) could remain in business (and not prompt an investigation) by treating children this way?  And Rector claimed that the child was subject to a “slew of racial slurs” from teachers, parents, and children.  If this actually happened, why wouldn’t Bradley remove the child after the first racial slur?  Why allow the child to remain in that environment?

It sounds to me like Bradley is hiding behind his child and claiming incredible acts of racism to explain away his own bad behavior.  True racism is a heinous act and I find it completely despicable that Bradley would make up a racial incident to help explain his own anti-social behavior.  It makes it all the worse that he brought his three-year old child into this mess.

Rector also claimed that she was duped by Chicago radio talk-show host Jonathan Bradmeier to appear on his radio show.  She claimed that she did not realize that her conversation with Brandmeier was for broadcast (Oh really, does Jonathan Bradmeier call you to just chat very often?).  It seems that making excuses for ones behavior or actions runs in the family.

**********

Milton Bradley has had a long history of bad behavior during his career.  As best I can tell, he has always blamed his behavior on others and has never taken responsibility for his own actions.  Let’s take a trip down memory lane and relive some of Bradley’s greatest hits:

• In 2004 as a member of the Cleveland Indians, Bradley gets pulled over for speeding, but then drives away from the officer who tries to pull him over.  Bradley receives a three day jail sentence for the incident.
• Just one month later, Bradley and Indians manager Eric Wedge get into a fracas over the fact that Bradley is not hustling.  Bradley is pulled out of the Spring Training game and quickly traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers.
• While with the Dodgers, Bradley has words with the homeplate umpire and is thrown out of the game.  Manager Jim Tracy has to physically restrain Bradley.  Bradley finally exits the field, only to return a moment later and throw a bag of baseballs onto the field, including throwing several into the outfield.
• Still in 2004, Bradley picks up a plastic bottle that has been thrown on the field and slams it angrily at the feet of a fan in the right field stands.  Bradley receives a five game suspension.
• In 2005 while still with the Dodgers, Bradley claims that Jeff Kent is a racist and he is then traded to Oakland for Andre Ethier (I bet Billy Beane would like a “do over” on that one). 
• In 2007 as a member of the San Diego Padres, Bradley disputes a call at first base and goes after the first base umpire.  In an effort to restrain Bradley, manager Bud Black grabs him and their legs get tangled.  Bradley crumples to the ground and is out for the remainder of the season with a torn ACL.  Bradley claims he was “baited” into the confrontation.
• As a member of the Texas Rangers in 2008, Bradley has the best offensive season of his career.  Unfortunately, he continues to have some behavioral issues.  After a Kansas City Royals broadcaster says something on-air that Bradley takes exception to, Bradley rushes to the press box to have a conversation with said broadcaster.  On the way to the press box, Bradley is chased down by GM Jon Daniels and manager Ron Washington who convince him that attacking the broadcaster is a bad idea.
• Following the best year of his career, Bradley admits to reporter Gil LeBreton that there were times that he sat out of games with the Rangers in order to save his stats in anticipation of a big pay day.  The revelation doesn’t go over very well with his Ranger teammates or the front office, especially considering that SS Michael Young was dragging himself out onto the field everyday with broken fingers on both hands.
• In 2009, Bradley signs a three-year, $30 million contract with the Cubs.  Their faith in him is rewarded during his first at-bat at Wrigley Field when Bradley argues with and bumps the home plate umpire.  He is suspended for two games, although the suspension is eventually reduced to one game.
• Bradley slumps badly during his first several weeks with the Cubs.  The disappointment becomes too much for him.  After a  poor at-bat in June in a game against the White Sox, Bradley returns to the dugout, throws his helmet, and proceeds to beat the hell out of a Gatorade cooler.  He then has angry words with manager Lou Piniella, who calls him “a piece of shit” and sends him home early from the game.
• In a game against Milwaukee, Bradley hits a single and then pulls himself out of the game.  When he is questioned about this by the press after the game, he initially refuses to answer any questions, but eventually says, “I got knee inflammation. I got two knee surgeries, and that happens when you got knee surgery, in case you don’t know. What else you got?” He then proceeds to answer every question asked with “What else you got?” 
• The next day in St. Louis, Bradley is asked to pinch hit, but he refuses.  After the game he is interviewed by Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald.  He tells Miles, among other things, that he plays harder than anyone on the team, but he never gets any credit for it (Odd thing to say on a day when you refused to play).  He also says that the whole environment with the Cubs is “negative” and he says it’s no wonder they haven’t won a World Series in more than 100 years.  The next day he is suspended for the remainder of the season for behavior detrimental to the organization.

People would like to blame Bradley’s behavior on Jim Hendry (“If he wouldn’t have signed Bradley, we wouldn’t have this mess.”) or Lou Piniella (“Lou gets paid $4 million a year to deal with these prima donnas.  It’s his fault that Bradley was allowed to act up and cause problems in the clubhouse.”).  My take is a little different.  I blame Bradley for Bradley’s behavior.  Should he have been signed in the first place?  Could Piniella have done a better job of controlling/pacifying him?  Was the suspension warranted or even a good idea?  Those are all fair questions, but they don’t address the choices Bradley made or the actions he took.  All of Bradley’s choices and actions are the responsibility of Bradley and no one else.

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

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

**********

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

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

**********

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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