Admittedly, I am in the minority on this issue.  Given the circumstances, I think Jim Hendry did an excellent job of trading the troubled Bradley without having to pay a significant amount of money to do it.  In fact, he even got Seattle to throw in some money on the deal. 

Most of the criticism of the deal centers around the fact that Carlos Silva is not very good.  It’s a difficult point to argue.  In 2008, he posted a 4-15 record and a 6.46 ERA.  In 2009, Silva had a 1-3 record and an 8.60 ERA in eight starts before injuring his shoulder and missing most of the remainder of the season.

His contract doesn’t help the situation.  Silva is owed $11.5 million in 2010, another $11.5 million in 2011, and a team option for 2012 worth $12 million with a $2 million buyout.  That’s a lot of money for a guy who apparently isn’t very good.

If I had to defend Silva (which I don’t, but I will), I’d point out that his last two years have been the worst of his career and now that his shoulder is repaired, there’s reason to hope that he’ll rebound to his previous form.  To give you an idea of what Carlos Silva is capable of, his career ERA is 4.72 even after his two disastrous years in 2008-09.

I’d also point out that four times in his eight year career, Silva has pitched 180 or more innings in a season.  So dispite his injury last year, Silva appears to be a workhorse.

Finally, I’d point out that, while Silva stunk up the joint in 2008, he did it for a team that lost 101 games.  Silva may not have helped the cause much, but the Mariners were the worst team in the AL that year, so his record and ERA may be at least partially a result of the team he pitched for.

I’m not sure what critics of the trade expected the Cubs to get in return for Bradley.  At one time early in the off season, I held out hope that Bradley could be included in a package that could possibly net Roy Halladay from the Blue Jays or Brian Roberts and Luke Scott from the Orioles.  That was foolish.  It was nothing more than wishful thinking.

Then I predicted the Cubs would trade Bradley to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand.  In some respects, I think that deal had possibilities, but only if the Giants were willing to risk adding Bradley to their clubhouse.  They wisely were not willing to take that risk.

I threw out a couple of other scenarios that were probably just as unrealistic as those I listed above.  It was during the Winter Meetings that I finally realized that there really was no market for Bradley.  Despite being one of the better hitters OBP-wise in the game, the vast majority of teams simply didn’t want to invite his abrasive personality into their clubhouse.  Texas was only willing to bring Bradley back if the Cubs would pay them $16 million to do it.  Tampa Bay had a potential interest, but only if the Cubs took Pat Burrell off their hands (a player the Cubs could not use) and paid several million dollars for the privilege.

During the Winter Meetings, I finally understood just how little leverage Jim Hendry and the Cubs had.  They had painted themselves into a corner and had made it clear to anyone paying attention that they fully intended on trading Bradley, no matter the cost.  No other team had reason to negotiate too hard.  They knew they had the upper hand.  Hendry and the Cubs were negotiating from a distinct position of weakness.

That’s why my opinion is that Hendry did an excellent job of trading Bradley.  Was it a perfect trade?  Absolutely not.   Will Carlos Silva help the 2010 Cubs?  It’s too early to tell.  But given the circumstances, Jim Hendry made the best of a very bad situation.  Of course, it’s important to remember that the “very bad situation” was of Hendry’s own doing, but in the end, he got the best deal he could reasonably get.

It stinks watching everyone else making deals while the Cubs sit on the sidelines.  The White Sox continued their off season shopping by trading a couple of prospects to the Dodgers for Juan Pierre.  The Dodgers were even good enough to throw in $10 million of the $18 million owed to Pierre over the next two years.

St. Louis made a five-year offer to Matt Holliday at a reported $16 – $18 million per year.  I think that’s crazy money, and in a way I hope Holliday accepts the offer because I think it will cripple the Cardinals financially for years to come, but it’s frustrating to see the Cubs division rival chasing one of the biggest free agents while the Cubs sit back and wait for something to happen.

For the Cubs, the story is the same as it was last week, and the week before that: they need to trade Milton Bradley before they can do anything else.  Actually, that’s not quite acurrate.  They have chosen to wait until Bradley is traded to make any moves. 

Quite honestly, I’m starting to blame Tom Ricketts for the Cubs hesitancy to do anything.  When Ricketts decided to hold the line on payroll (actually, I believe he allowed for a “slight” increase), he tied Jim Hendry’s hands from doing anything to improve the ball club. 

First, very few contracts came off the books at the end of 2009.  The only players to leave the Cubs because their contracts were up were Rich Harden, Kevin Gregg, and Reed Johnson.  After losing those players, and then accounting for increases via arbitration, the Cubs payroll is in the neighborhood of $135 million (It’s hard to know exactly where it is because it’s unclear right now what the arbitration-eligible players will receive, as well as those that will be tendered contracts).  That doesn’t leave much money to make any moves if the magic payroll number is $140-$145 million.

Then there’s Milton Bradley.  It’s unclear how much the Cubs are going to have to spend to get rid of Bradley.  The Dodgers spent $10 million to move Pierre and the Red Sox are rumored to be willing to eat $9 million (of a $12 million contract) to move Mike Lowell (the trade with Texas is currently on hold).  Both of those guys are decent players who are considered good clubhouse guys.  So if their respective teams are/will pay so much money to trade them, how much will it cost the Cubs to move a malcontent like Bradley coming of a sub-par year?

Assuming it’s going to cost the Cubs $10 million just to move Bradley (and that may be conservative), wouldn’t the Cubs be better off exchanging another team’s bad contract for Bradley?  It may cost them more dollars in the long run, but they may actually get a valuable piece back in return.

In a previous post, I argued the case for a Bradley-for-Derek-Lowe trade with Atlanta.  The Braves are looking for a corner outfielder and they need to trim payroll.  Lowe is their biggest contract and most expendable player.  Over the next three years, he’s going to cost $45 million.  It would cost the Cubs $24 million more to trade for Lowe than they are scheduled to pay Bradley, and Lowe will be around a year longer (two more years for Bradley vs. three years for Lowe), but isn’t that better than handing someone $10 million or more just to take Bradley off the Cubs’ hands?  It seems like a win-win to me.

Granted, whoever takes Bradley (assuming someone actually does) is going to have to find a way to integrate him into their team and control (or at least contain) his behavior.  But in exchange for that, if the deal is with Atlanta, they’ll save $24 million dollars and clear the other $21 million owed to Bradley off their books a year sooner than they would with Derek Lowe.  I know Milton Bradley is a pain in the butt, but couldn’t the Braves learn to live with him for $24 million?

**********

With Curtis Granderson now a Yankee and Mike Cameron signed by Boston, the Cubs now turn their attention to Marlon Byrd, Rick Ankiel, Coco Crisp, and Reed Johnson.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com says that Byrd is the Cubs’ first choice, but honestly, is he the best answer for center field? 

Granderson would have been a terrific “get” for the Cubs.  He’s a power hitting, middle-of-the-order bat that they need, and his clubhouse presence would be a breath of fresh air after a year of Milton Bradley.  Of course, that’s a moot point now.

Of the free agent center fielders, Mike Cameron was the class of the field.  He’s not the offensive presence that Granderson is, but he’s sufficient and he plays a good center field.  But again, he’s gone, so no use crying over spilled milk.

Unfortunately, the quality falls off quite a bit from Cameron to the trio of Byrd/Ankiel/Crisp.  But here’s the thing: while any of that group will cost several million dollars, the Cubs can probably get the same or better production from any combination of Sam Fuld, Reed Johnson and recently released Ryan Church (can he still play center?).  Johnny Gomes is another interesting name hanging out there.  He’d probably have to play right field, but Fukudome could move back over to center as part of a platoon/position swap.

At this point, I can’t tell you what the answer is, at least as far as putting a name(s) to the problem, but I can tell you what the answer isn’t, and that’s signing Byrd, Ankiel, or Crisp.  They’re all different types of players, but none of them are the answer the Cubs are looking for.  They are either too expensive, a 4th outfielder, too weak offensively, or a combination of these things.

Jim Hendry waited too long to make a move, but now that he’s waited this long, he might as well wait longer to see if there are any free agent deals or trades available later in the off season.  The current options just don’t get the job done.

At age 36, Derek Lowe is the more expensive of the two.  In fact, he is the Braves highest paid player.  He is set to earn $15 million per year for each of the next three years.  Lowe has always been a good pitcher, but 2009 was not his best year.  He finished the year with a 15-10 record, a 4.67 ERA, and a 1.52 WHIP.  However, his career numbers are better than that.  For his career, Lowe is 141-117, has an ERA of 3.84 and a WHIP of 1.29.

Vasquez is 34-years old and is signed through 2010 for $11.5 million.  He was also 15-10 in 2009, the same as Lowe, but with a much better ERA of 2.87.  He also had an impressive 1.03 WHIP.  For his career, Vasquez has a record of 142-139, an ERA of 4.19, and a WHIP of 1.24.

Of the two, the Braves would prefer to trade Lowe, both because of the dollars owed to him and the years remaining on his contract.  In exchange, the Braves would like to find a right handed power bat that can play first base and/or one of the outfield corners.  Right now they have their sights set on free agent Xavier Nady.

Although Milton Bradley doesn’t exactly fit the Braves biggest need, might the Cubs and Braves match up on a trade?  First, the Cubs are one of the few teams that can take on Derek Lowe’s contract.  In 2010, Lowe is $6 million more expensive that Bradley.  He’s $4 million more expensive than Bradley in 2011.  That’s a total of $10 million more over two years that the Cubs would have to spend if the traded Bradley for Lowe.  Of course, they are likely going to have to pay somewhere around $10 million to another team to move Bradley anyway, so it really is a wash.

There’s also the matter of the final year of Lowe’s contract.  He’ll be 39 years old and will be owed $15 million.  In three years, $15 million might not be too bad for an effective starting pitcher, but will Lowe still be effective.  It’s a risk, there’s not doubt about that.  Considering the lack of other trade partners the Cubs have been able to interest in Bradley, I think it is a risk worth taking.

The Cubs are in need of a middle-of-the-rotation arm, so adding Lowe would help out the pitching staff.  He’s not the ace that Roy Halladay is, but at least for now he’s solid.

Would the Braves want Bradley?  That’s hard to say.  Bradley sports an above-average on-base percentage and can provide some power from time to time.  He has only hit more than 20 homeruns once in his career, but Xavier Nady, who the Braves have admitted intererst in, has only done it once as well.  Nady’s second best homerun year is 20 while Bradley’s is 19.  In fact, both players have been in the majors since 2000 and Bradley has actually hit 28 more homeruns than Nady during that time.

Their career hitting lines are also similar.  Bradley has a slash line of .277/.371/.450 while Nady’s is .280/.335/.458.  There’s not a lot of difference.

Bradley is 31-years old and is owed $21 million over the next two seasons.  Nady is also 31.  He earned $6.55 million in 2009 with the Yankees and is likely looking for a multi-year deal in the neighborhood of $8-$10 million per year. 

Nady missed nearly all of 2009 after injuring his elbow in April and having Tommy John surgery in July.  So, while Bradley is prone to injury (he stayed relatively healthy in 2009), Nady doesn’t appear to be a better health risk.  In fact, I would question whether Nady will even be ready at the beginning of the season.

By trading for Bradley, the Braves could kill two birds with one stone.  First, they could trade Lowe and pare down their payroll.  They could also fill a need at a corner outfield spot.  Granted, Bradley has not played any first base, but Nady has only played 82 total games at first, so it’s not like he’s built his career there.  If adding a first baseman is really that important, perhaps the Cubs could throw Micah Hoffpauir into the deal to sweeten the pot.

By signing Nady, the Braves will be adding to their payroll without moving one of their pitchers.  It will just make their payroll problem worse.  They also won’t be getting a guy that meets their needs much, if any, better than Bradley does.

Of course, we’re avoiding the white elephant in the room: Bradley’s behavior issues.  Why would the Braves or any other team want to add Milton Bradley to their locker room? 

In better economic times, the answer would probably be that they wouldn’t.  But these are not normal economic times.  Many teams are trying to either hold the line on spending or cut payroll.  The Braves are a team that are currently above their payroll budget.  They need to cut salary and they need to cut relatively deep.

Trading Lowe for Bradley will allow them to decrease payroll while also taking care of their corner outfield need.  Then the trick will be for Bobby Cox to work his clubhouse magic and integrate Bradley into the Braves locker room.  Cox is known as a players manager, so perhaps he and Bradley would hit it off.

So, there you have it.  The perfect solution for the Milton Bradley situation.  Jim?  Mr. Hendry?  If you’re reading this (and I know you are), it’s time to get busy.  I’ve already done the heavy lifting here.  All you have to do is get the Braves to agree to the deal.  That shouldn’t be too hard.

I went overboard yesterday in my criticism of a blog post written by Carrie Muskat of MLB.com.  Her opinion was that the Cubs can not afford to add Halladay’s $15.75 million salary to their payroll, the Cubs will not be willing to trade top prospect Starlin Castro for Halladay, and Toronto’s asking price will be too high for just one year of Halladay.  In my rebuttal, I made it clear that I thought Muskat’s logic was weak and misguided.

My argument concerning Muskat’s comment about there only being one year left on Halladay’s contract was to say that any team willing to pay the price necessary to trade for Halladay would also likely want to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay before finalizing a trade.  Now Anthopulous has apparently let it be known that he would allow other teams a window to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay.

In a blog post by Jordan Bastian of MLB.com, he says:

“Considering Halladay is only under contract through 2010, one way for the Jays to potentially get more in a trade would be to give another team a window in which to discuss a contract extension with the pitcher. Anthopoulos declined comment on such a scenario, but MLB.com has learned that the Jays will consider granting such a window in trade talks if it means the return is significantly greater.”

Exactly.  Former Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi totally mishandled the team’s attempts to trade Halladay last year.  Not only was he asking for way too much, but he also would not allow other teams to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay.  Considering the asking price and terms, very few teams were interested and a trade was unltimately never made.

I look at the possibility of adding Roy Halladay to the Cubs from two perspectives.  First, can the Cubs afford his contract.  While it is true that Halladay’s contract would not fit within the team’s current budget, budgets can change.  If you have to go over budget for a player like Roy Halladay, you do it.  He’s a true staff ace, something the Cubs are missing.  I know it’s easy for me to say this since it’s not my money being spent, but I still think it is the right thing to do.

Of course, adding to the budget may not even be necessary.  That’s where my second perspective comes in.  Toronto isn’t just going to give Halladay to the Cubs.  So what will it cost the Cubs to get him?

My guess is that the Blue Jays will want one MLB-ready pitcher, one or two top prospects, and maybe another body or two.  So, who fits the bill?

As far as MLB-ready pirchers go, the Cubs have Ryan Dempster (a Canadian) they could trade if the Blue Jays are looking for a proven arm.  Of course, he’s more expensive than guys like Sean Marshall and Tom Gorzelanny, who have had some success at the MLB level and are less expensive.  Carlos Zambrano is another guy I would be willing to trade for Halladay, but I doubt if Toronto is interested in taking on his contract.

What about prospects?  Starlin Castro is currently the Cubs top prospect according to Baseball America.  I know the Cubs don’t want to move him, but for a player like Roy Halladay, I think you have to be willing to do things you’d rather not do.  But to be honest, I’m not sure it would be necessary to move Castro.  Two names that come to mind as far as prospects go are Josh Vitters and Darwin Barney. 

Until recently, Vitters was the Cubs top prospect.  It’s not so much that his stock has fallen (although it has a bit), but that Castro’s has risen.  Vitters plays third base, but is much more of an offensive player.  That might interest Toronto. 

Shortstop Darwin Barney is behind Castro on the prospect depth chart, but he’s ahead of Castro as far as being ready to play in the major leagues.  Since Toronto is likely to lose their shortstop, Marco Scuturo, to free agency this off season, they need an MLB-ready shortstop.  Barney might fit the bill.

Barney is a polished player.  He played at Oregon State during their College World Series championship years and has done well at every stop during his minor league career.  He split 2009 betwen Double-A and Triple-A, and could be ready for the next level. 

If they want a shortstop that is also one of the Cubs top 10 prospects, Toronto might consider Hak-Ju Lee.  He’s still young (19-years old), but has shown a great deal of potential so far in his short career.  He’s among the Cubs top 10 prospects according to Baseball America and he is probably just a year or two away from being ready for the big leagues.

If you move away from shortstop, the Cubs have a few other prospects that might interest Toronto.  Some names to consider are Tyler Colvin, Andrew Cashner, and Logan Watkins.

As for “warm bodies” the Cubs could throw in to sweeten the deal, look no further than Jake Fox and Micah Hoffpauir.  Fox in particular would be attractive for the Cubs because he is out of minor league options.  Both players have power, both can play more than one position, and neither one has much of a future with the Cubs.

I’m not suggesting that trading for Halladay would be easy or that a deal is imminent.  All I’m saying is that it is way too easy to dismiss the possibility of the Cubs trading for Halladay.  Do I think a trade is going to happen?  No, I don’t.  But I’m not willing to dismiss such a trade out of hand.

One final rant: The Cubs have done a good job of changing the team’s culture from lovable loser to playoff contender.  That’s good and it was a necessary step for the Cubs to take if they ever hoped to win a World Series.  But it is now time to take the next step.  The Cubs need to set their sights on the World Series.  With new owners and a down economy that allows the Cubs to flex their financial muscles, now is the perfect time for the team to focus on getting the players they need and to win a World Series.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

A Look At The Offseason (Part 2 – Outfield)

Today, I’d like to focus on the Cubs’ starting and relief pitching.

**********

Four of the five positions in the Cubs starting rotation are pretty well set.  Barring an unforessen trade, the Cubs starters will include Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells.  Lefties Tom Gorzelanny and Sean Marshall, along with right-hander Jeff Samardjzia will compete for the fifth starter position.  So the Cubs are set with starting pitching, right?  Maybe.

I don’t expect the Cubs to add another starter, but there are a couple of scenarios that make some sense.  First, I’ve previously set out a scenario where a Milton Bradley (and others) trade to Toronto could return Roy Halladay.  If that happened, then you can count Gorzelanny, Marshall, and Samardjzia among the faces in the bullpen.  It’s unlikely, but it would work.

If the Cubs are looking for a free agent starting pitcher (which I don’t think they are), there are two different targets I would suggest.  First is current Dodgers pitcher Randy Wolf.  In 2009, Wolf was 11-7 with a 3.23 ERA.  He earned $5 million last year, plus $500,000 for pitching more than 200 innings.  He’ll be 34 years old in 2010.

The other free agent target I’d like the Cubs to consider is former Brewers starter, Ben Sheets.  Sheets missed the past year while recovering from surgery to repair a torn flexor tendon in his elbow.  He thought he’d be ready to pitch again by mid-season this past year, but his recovery took longer than anticipated.  From all reports, Sheets will be ready by Spring Training.

Sheets is a buy low, high potential target.  When he’s right, Sheets is very good.  Of course, his health and durability are a question, so he shouldn’t cost too much on a one year deal.

The Cubs bullpen will include two of Gorzelanny, Marshall, and Samardjzia (the two not in the starting rotation). It will also include Angel Guzman and Carlos Marmol.  If the Cubs can re-sign John Grabow (which I expect), he’ll also be part of the bullpen.  Justin Berg, Dave Patton, Jeff Stevens and Mitch Atkins are also bullpen candidates.

The big question for me concerning the bullpen is whether or not the Cubs will be willing to start the year with Marmol as the closer.  All indications from the Cubs are that Marmol will be the closer.  If I were in charge, I’d be looking for someone else.

In 2009, Marmol lead all NL relievers in hit batters (12) and in bb/9 innings (7.90/9).  That’s not what you want from the guy who’s in charge of shutting down the opposing team in the 9th inning of a close game.  In 19 save opportunities, Marmol had 15 saves for a 21.0% blown save rate.  For comparisons sake, the Dodger’s Jonathon Broxton blew 14.3% of his save opportunities, Ryan Franklin of St. Louis blew 11.6% of his save opportunities, and the Rockies’ Huston Street blew 10.8% of his save opportunities.  Even Francisco Rodriguez of the Mets, who had a down year, only blew 16.7% of his save opportunities.  (In all fairness, Brad Lidge blew 21.6% of his saves and the Phillies are in the World Series.)

Marmol has been a great story for the Cubs up until now.  He joined the club as a catcher, was converted to a pitcher and at times has been dominant.  But he’s too wild and too unpredictable.  The Cubs need a closer they can count on.

Rob G. of The Cub Reporter has thrown out the idea of the Cubs signing free agent Kelvim Escobar.  Although he’s missed the past two years with injuries, Escobar is expected to be healthy going into next year.  Because of his past injury issues, he shouldn’t cost much and he could be brought in with the idea of either setting up Marmol or taking on the closer role. 

The Cubs could also decide to go after Billy Wagner.  After returning from injury last year, Wagner, who will be 39 years old next season,  looked like his old self.  He probably won’t come cheap, but he has the potential to be a dominant closer.  In 2009, between the Mets and Red Sox, Wagner only pitched 15.2 innings, but he posted a 1-1 record with a 1.72 ERA.  It’s a small sample size, but impressive nonetheless considering the circumstances.

The Red Sox have an $8 million option on Wagner for 2010, but they agreed not to exercise it in order to get him to waive his no-trade clause when he was traded from the Mets to Boston.  That must mean that Wagner thinks he can get more than $8 million per year and/or more years as a free agent. 

The latest news on Wagner is that he told a reporter that he is considering retiement and doesn’t plan to talk to teams when he hits free agency.  The next day, his agent said that Wagner’s statement was “premature.”  If he’s available, the Cubs should inquire, but my personal feeling is that his price tag is going to be too high.

There are a couple of other free agent candidates that are longshots, but possibilities.  If John Smoltz would be willing to return to the bullpen in 2010, then the Cubs should look at him to be their closer.  At the moment, it looks like Smoltz wants to start and St. Louis is willing to give him a chance, but we’ll have to see how it plays out.

The other option is of my own creation.  I mentioned earlier that free agent Ben Sheets is a pitcher the Cubs should consider.  Although he’s never closed before, it might be the perfect role for him coming off of a missed year due to injury.  It would allow him to pitch fewer innings and build his strength back up if his goal is to eventually be a starter again.  He has shown in the past that he has the mentality to be a closer.  Although I like the idea, I’m not so sure either Sheets or the Cubs would like it as much.

Other free agents to consider are Brandan Donnelly, Jason Isringhausen, Troy Percival, JJ Putz, and Takashi Saito.  I’m not suggesting any of them would be a good fit for the Cubs, but they do have experience closing and all are available. 

There are a couple of intriguing trade candidates that may be available.  The Cincinnati Reds owe Francisco Cordero $12 million per year in 2010 and 2011.  The team also holds a $12 million option for 2012 with a $1 million buy-out.  In fact, he is the highest paid player on a team with many needs and very little payroll flexibility.

In 2009, Cordero was 2-6 with a 2.16 ERA.  He had 39 saves in 43 save opportunities (9.3% blown saves).  He’s expensive, but could probably be had for a couple of good prospects.  On the other hand, I doubt if either team would be overly excited about making a deal within the division.  It happens, but it’s not preferred.

There is also a chance that Colorado may make Huston Street available.  Personally, I think this is a longshot, but the fact is that Street made $4.5 million in 2009 and is due for a hefty increase via arbitration.  The Rockies have a couple of  other cheaper (albeit, not as good) options at closer, including Manny Corpas who is returning from injury.  It seems to me that the only way the Rockies would trade Street is if they are really in a money crunch.  I know their budget is tight, but I’m not sure it is tight enough to trade such a valuable player.

In a nutshell, I don’t think the Cubs should count on Marmol to be their closer, but I have to admit that the options to replace him are rather limited.  The bottom line for me is that the Cubs have a top-of-the-line starting rotation and they need to have a dependable arm closing out games for them.  I don’t know for sure who that steady arm will be, but I do know that Carlos Marmol is anything but steady.

In my next report, I’ll wrap up this series and put together a proposed 25 man roster for the 2010 Cubs.

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

Today, I want to turn my attention to the outfield.  The general concensus has been that Milton Bradley will be traded in the offseason, so the Cubs will either need to replace him in right field or they”ll instead move Kosuke Fukudome back to right and then go shopping for a center fielder.  We’ll look at both possibilities.  But first, let’s take a look at the potential market for Bradley to get a feel for what a trade may bring in return.

In a previous post, I stated that the only way the Cubs are realistically going to be able to trade Bradley is to take back another teams’ bad contract or package Bradley with some other valuable players.  I’ve also thrown out some possible trade scenarios.  Let’s run them down in no particular order here:

Milton Bradley to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand — Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two seasons and Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years.  San Francisco would like to jettison some payroll in order to make some moves, but at the moment they are hamstrung.  By taking on Bradley, the Giants could reduce payroll a bit and could add a typically high-OBP bat to their lineup.  From the Cubs perspective, Rowand will be 32 years old during the 2010 season.  He is coming off one of the worst seasons in his career, having hit .261/.319/.419 with 15 homeruns and 64 RBI.  Rowand could fill the potential void left in center field, but his defense has taken a hit over the years and the Cubs would be commiting to having him on the team for three years.  Not a perfect trade for the Cubs, but what is?

Milton Bradley to Texas Rangers for Michael Young — In a nutshell, the Texas Rangers are in bad financial trouble.  The team is for sale, but the process is moving slowly.  If owner Tom Hicks can’t unload the team soon, he instead is going to have to unload some payroll just to keep the team afloat.  The Rangers’ highest paid player is Michael Young.  He is owed $64 million over the next four years.  Trading Young for Bradley may not make baseball sense for the Rangers, but it would make financial sense.  From the Cubs perspective, they could take advantage of Texas’ financial woes by unloading Bradley and bringing in the middle-of-the-order run producer they covet.  In 2009, after spending some time on the DL, Young hit .322/.374/.518 with 22 homeruns and 68 RBI.  He currently plays third base, but the Cubs would have to move back to shortstop, which is his preferred position.  This would also force Theriot to second.  The move would also reunite Young with hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo to whom he gives much credit for his hitting ability.

Milton Bradley to Los Angeles Angels for Gary Matthews, Jr. — At one time not too long ago, Gary Matthews, Jr. was considered a hot commodity.  In 2007 he was signed by the Angels to a 5 year, $50 million contract.  But just one year later, the Angels signed Torii Hunter to play center field and Matthews became the highest paid 4th outfielder in baseball.  At the moment, Matthews is still owed $23 million over the next two years.  In limited action in 2009, Matthews hit .250/.336/.361 with four homeruns and 50 RBI.  My guess is that the Cubs would jump at this trade.  The contracts are basically a wash and Matthews could fill a need in center field.  He may not be the power threat that Michael Young is, but I think it is fair to say that his power numbers will increase if he is getting regular playing time, which could make him the middle-of-the-0rder run producer the Cubs are looking for.  Plus, he’d be reunited with Rudy Jaramillo who was his hitting coach in 2006 when he had the best offensive year of his career.  The real question is, would the Angels take on Bradley?  The Angels and Mike Scioscia  have a history of not putting up with player misbehavior.  But they are under some pressure to trade Matthews, both because he has asked for a trade and because they pay him a lot of money to be a 4th outfielder.  There’s a chance Vlad Guerrero could be leaving the Angels, so Bradley could step in as a DH.  If I had to guess, I would guess that the Angels would not go for this trade.

Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay Rays forPat Burrell — According to Bruce Levine with ESPN Chicago, the Cubs are still talking to Tampa about a Bradley for Burrell trade.  Just typing that makes my head hurt.  Burrell is a DH.  Don’t the Cubs realize that there is no DH in the NL?  When he does play in the field, he plays left field.  We have one of those already.  This trade make no sense to me, but it looks like it’s a possibility.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Toronto Blue Jays for Vernon Wells and Roy Halladay — Toronto is in a world of hurt.  They need to rebuild their team in order to compete in the AL East, but they are saddled with such big contracts that they can’t make any moves.  Vernon Wells is owed $98.5 million over the next five years, plus another $8.5 million in 2010 that is the third installment of his signing bonus.  Halladay is owed $15.75 million in 2010 and then he becomes a free agent.  Together, that’s a ton of money.  Is there any scenario where this would make sense for the Cubs?  Maybe.  The only way I see it working out is if the Cubs are given the opportunity to work out an extension with Halladay before the deal is made.  Even if this happened, it still might not be enough for the trade make sense for the Cubs.  Vernon Wells contract is just too crazy.

Milton Bradley to Detroit Tigers for Curtis Granderson or Magglio Ordonez — I have to admit, I don’t completely understand this rumor.  I don’t see why Detroit would trade either Granderson or Ordonez for Bradley.  Even so, the rumors have been persistent.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $14.75 million.  Considering his production, he has a rather reasonable contract.  He also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million and a $2 million buyout.  In 2009, Granderson hit .249/.327/.453 with 30 homeruns and 70 RBI.  He also stole 20 bases on a team that generally does not steal many bases.  Ordonez is owed $18 million for 2010.  There is also a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  Ordonez struggled at the plate for a good part of 2009, and still managed to put up a hitting line of .310/.376/.428 with 9 homeruns and 50 RBI.  Granderson will be  29 years old in 2010 and Ordonez will be 36.  Honestly, I don’t know why the Tigers would trade either guy for Bradley, but if they’ll do it, the Cubs should jump at the chance.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott — If Baltimore would go for this trade, it could fill the Cubs two biggest offseason needs all at once.  Roberts would be the lead-off man they have lacked for years and Scott is the middle-of-the-order run producer they are looking for.  But would Baltimore really go for it?  My opinion is that they should.  Let’s face it, the Orioles are not in a position to compete in the AL East.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only way the Orioles win the East is if they decide to rank the teams alphabetically next year.  Since that’s the case, why would the Orioles hang on to two guys that are a) expensive, and b) not going to be around in a few years when the Orioles will be in a better position to compete.  Roberts is owed $40 million over the next four years and Scott’s 2010 salary will be set via arbitration, but it’s safe to say that he’ll be getting a raise from the $2.4 million he made in 2009.  If I was in Baltimore’s shoes, I would look to jettison payroll now and bring in young players who they can put around Matt Weiters and can help them compete in a few years.  Of course, Andy MacPhail hasn’t asked for my advice.

**********

We can be sure that Alfonso Soriano will be in left next year for the Cubs and Kosuke Fukudome will either be in center or right.  That leaves one starting position and two back up positions open in the outfield.  I’ve layed out the possible players the Cubs can acquire through a trade of Milton Bradley.  Let’s look at possible free agent targets.

The three most intriguing free agent center fielders to me are Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, and Rick Ankiel.  Byrd is expected to sign a two or three year deal for $5+ million.  There’s also been quite a bit of speculation that the Rangers would like to resign him.  Byrd hit .283/.329/.479 with 20 homeruns and 80 RBI.  He’ll turn 33 during the 2010 season.

Mike Cameron will be 37 in 2010, but he has been very steady throughout his career.  In 2009 he hit .250/.342/.452, which is remarkably close to his career averages.  He made $10 million in 2009, but is probably looking at signing a one-year contract for less money.

Rick Ankiel should be a low cost, high upside player.  However, his agent is Scott Boras, so who knows what kind of money he might be looking for.  He hit .231/.285/.387 with 11 homeruns and 38 RBI in 2009 in limited action.  He’d be a risk, but at the right price, could be a good investment.  The problem is, I don’t think his price is going to be right.

Right fielder free agent targets include Bobby Abreu and Jermaine Dye.  I’m fairly certain that Abreau is going to be looking for a multi-year contract (two or three years) for somewhere around $10 million per year.  He’s already turned down a two-year, $16 million contract extension from the Angels.  I like Abreu, but I’m afraid he has priced himself out of the Cubs’ budget.

Jermaine Dye made $11.5 million in 2009 and hit .250/340/.453 with 27 homeruns and 81 RBI.  Even so, Dye may end up walking the same road that Abreau walked last offseason.  I can foresee Dye signing a one year deal for $4 million – $6 million.  Dye has always performed and has not really gotten the credit he deserves.  Signing Dye for one year at $5 million could be a good investment for the Cubs.

The 4th and 5th outfielders are probably with the club already.  They will come from a list of Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, and Sam Fuld.  There’s also the possibility that the Cubs will re-sign Reed Johnson, although my personal opinion is that Johnson would cost too much.  I don’t foresee the Cubs going after a free agent to fill one of the reserve outfielder positions.

**********

Next up is a look at the Cubs pitching staff for 2010.  Are they set or will they go shopping for pitching this offseason.  Stay tuned…

Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.com wrote an article back in August giving Ricketts a list of things not to do with the Cubs.  It’s an old article, but still has some good thoughts.  Before providing the list, Wojo said:

“This isn’t just any team you’re purchasing. This is the Cubs, a franchise with enough heartbreak and history that it needs its own traveling psychotherapist. What it doesn’t need is an owner who thinks of the Cubs as simply an investment, another expensive car to park in the portfolio garage. It needs someone who has business and baseball sense. (Jerry Reinsdorf isn’t a bad ownership template.) It needs someone who cares if the W flag flies — and not just because it might mean a full house the next day.”

The list Wojchiechowski put together includes:

• Don’t fire Jim Hendry
• Don’t let Crane Kenney be Crane Kenney
• Don’t sit in the front row seats next to the dugout
• Don’t touch the big three (red Wrigley Field marquee sign, center field scoreboard, ivy)
• Don’t continue the faux-tradition of inviting guests to sing the seventh inning stretch
• Don’t forget Greg Maddux
• Don’t wait on Piniella to decide  if he is coming back next year (Done)
• Don’t ditch the Triangle Building
• Don’t retire Sammy Sosa’s number
• Don’t be afraid to eat some salary
• Don’t be afraid to trade Carlos Zambrano
• Don’t be an imitator (of the Boston Red Sox Fenway Rehab)

There are three things on Wojo’s list of 14 “Don’ts” that pertain to Wrigley Field or the area surrounding Wrigley.  That’s interesting.  What other team (other than the Red Sox) would have as much concern about the stadium where the team plays it’s games.  The Texas Rangers are on the market now.  Do you think anyone is concerned about what is going to happen to Arlington Stadium (okay, technically Rangers Ballpark at Arlington) when the new owners take over the team?  Of course not.  But Wrigley Field is special and people treat it like Stonehenge or the Acropolis.

Wrigley Field is special.  It’s a beautiful ballpark.  It’s also a terrible place to go watch a baseball game.  If you’ve ever driving to the ballpark you know what I mean when I say it is nearly impossible to find a place to park that isn’t several blocks/miles away.  And I don’t know anyone who thinks that the urinal troughs in the mens room are a nostalgic reminder of a better time.  They’re disgusting.

I have to admit, I enjoyed going to Wrigley as a young man.  It was fun; an adventure.  When I was old enough to drink, the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley was like heaven.  There’s a bar on every corner and a few in between. 

But as an adult with a family, Wrigley Field is not a pleasant place to go.  It is hard to get to, it’s dirty, outdated, and it takes forever to leave (i.e. not close to the highway).  We’ve been to other stadiums that are easy to get to/easy to leave, have plenty of parking, are cleaner and more modern, and where the seats are more comfortable.  After being at these other stadiums, its hard to go back to Wrigley and enjoy the experience.

Of course, it’s true that the things I’m complaining about haven’t kept the fans away.  The Cubs are among the leaders in attendance among MLB teams every year.  But from a business perspective, that doesn’t mean that Wrigley Field is generating the profits it could.  For instance, there are not enough luxury boxes.  Corporations are big time clients for all baseball teams and the Cubs are unable to accomodate the demand for luxury suites.

Also, like a stately old home, Wrigley Field is a money pit.  Upkeep is expensive and the needed remodeling threatens to break the bank.

Finally, there’s no room to expand.  The Cubs desperately need bigger locker rooms and office space, but they are confined in a well established neighborhood.  The Cubs have proposed building the Triangle Building next to Wrigley Field, but neighbors are protesting because of the height of the building.  In fact, the neighbors complain about everything the team wants to do.  Whenever the Cubs want to make a change, they have to enter into negotiations with the city and their neighbors in Wrigleyville.  It’s a pain.

In many ways, I love Wrigley Field.  It’s a landmark, a baseball museum.  Unfortunately, it is no longer a great place to play MLB games.  Off the top of my head, I don’t know what the best alternative is, but I don’t think that Tom Ricketts should be so consumed with saving Wrigley at all costs that he refuses to consider other options.

**********

What do you think of a Milton Bradley for Vernon Wells trade?  Not much?  Me either, but Joel Koch at BleacherReport.com thinks it’s the Cubs best option.

The entire trade, as proposed by Koch, would send Bradley and Mike Fontenot to Toronto for Wells, RHP Jeremy Accardo, and OF Jose Bautista.  I talked about a potential trade scenario with Toronto previously, but I had Roy Halladay coming to the Cubs in order to make up for the huge and unexplainable contract of Vernon Wells.

It’s my opinion, Toronto would jump at the trade proposal that Joel Koch has layed out.  They’d be nuts not to.  But the Cubs would be nuts to seriously consider it.  Taking on Wells massive contract without getting something valuable to make up for it (no offense to Accardo and Bautista) doesn’t make any sense for the Cubs.  They may need to eat some of Bradley’s contract to move him, but trading a bad contract for potentially the worst contract in baseball history isn’t a good idea.

Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald says that Jim Hendry is focused on hiring Jaramillo, who is technically under contract until the end of October.  In fact, Miles opines that Hendry will go after Jaramillo with “laser beam-like” focus.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com says on her blog that the Cubs have already contacted the Ranger to request perrmission to talk to Jaramillo.

I had no idea that hitting coaches get paid so much, but Jaramillo was earning $600,000 a year with the Rangers, according to Jon Heyman at Sports Illustrated.com.  Heyman goes on to say that the Cubs may increase his annual pay to $750,000/year.

Considering their poor offensive showing in 2009 (with the exception of Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez), the Cubs can only go up in 2010.  Whoever ends up being the hitting coach will probably look pretty good if the Cubs hitters just get back to their career average levels.

**********

There has been a lot of speculation in the press about where Milton Bradley may end up.  In one sense, I’m surprised more isn’t going on with Bradley.  My guess is that a lot is happening behind the scenes, but not being reported because of MLB’s “ban” on any news that distracts from the playoffs.  I suspect that something concerning Bradley’s future will be announced shortly after the World Series.

Up until now, the speculation has been that Bradley will be traded to San Francisco in exchange for Aaron Rowand or to Tampa Bay for Pat Burrell.  If these are the only two options, I say go for Rowand.  He can fill the spot in center field and will allow Kosuke Fukudome to move back to right.  Even so, I think there are better options.

I think my favorite “proposal” is to trade a package of players (including Bradley) to Baltimore for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott.  Another possibility is to trade Bradley to Texas for Michael Young.  Admittedly, it’s not a good deal for Texas, but they desperately need some payroll relief because of owner Tom Hicks’ financial problems.  Young is the highest paid player on the Rangers, so the move could make financial sense even if it doesn’t make baseball sense.   

I’m less crazy about trading a package of players (including Bradley) to Toronto for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells.  Having Halladay would be great, but taking on Wells contract could turn into a huge mistake.  From a baseball standpoint, I think you can justfy this trade.  But from a financial standpoint, it could be a disaster.

What other potential trades for Bradley are lurking out there?  It should be an interesting few weeks.

**********

Does anyone own more ugly suits than Craig Sager of TBS?  There should be a law…

San Diego GM Kevin Towers has stepped forward and said the Padres may have an interest in Bradley for next year.

“I haven’t had any calls from Jim (Hendry) about him,” Towers told ESPN.com. “But I think people kind of know what players we target. We have to take chances sometimes. We took a chance on Milton the first time we had him, and he actually played pretty well [before his knee injury]. We could be in the market for an outfielder. I’m not saying it’s necessarily Milton. But our experience with him was rather a positive one. It wasn’t really a negative one.”

That seems like a borderline tampering statement to me, but in any case, what does it mean?  To me, it means that the cheapskate Padres would be willing to provide a safe landing spot for Bradley provided the Cubs pay his contract.  Decent of them, don’t you think?  And what will the Cubs get in return?  Likely a couple of guys who have been minor league lineup filler for the Padres and who will never see the light of day at Wrigley Field without first purchasing a ticket.

Thanks, Kevin (May I call you Kevin?), but I’ve got to believe there are other options out there.  The Trib’s Paul Sullivan suggests the Royals as a potential trading partner.  According to Sullivan, the Royals consider Bradley to be a talented hitter who could potentially thrive in a low-key environment like Kansas City. 

Would the Royals be willing to pick up much, if any, of Bradley’s salary?  Who do they have to trade to the Cubs in exchange for Bradley?  Again, if all the Cubs want to do is a salary dump, then Kansas City might make a good trade partner.  However, I don’t think they are going to pick up much of Bradley’s salary or trade anyone worthwhile to the Cubs.

When it comes to trading Milton Bradley, here’s my philosophy:  The Cubs can either dump Bradley and pick up the majority of his salary, in which case there may be several potential takers out there, or they can trade him to a team that has some bad contracts of their own and just swap bad contracts.  In either case, it is going to cost the Cubs some money to move Bradley.  I prefer the second option to the first because the Cubs get something worthwhile in return.

Two examples of this second option are suggestions I’ve made in the past.  The first possibility is for the Cubs to trade Bradley to Texas for Michael Young.  Texas owner Tom Hicks is in financial trouble and MLB is pressuring him to sell the team and/or cut payroll in order to get his baseball finances in order. 

Young is the highest paid player on the Rangers and is owed $64 milion over the next four years.  Trading a four-year $64 million contract for a two-year $21 million contract makes financial sense for Texas. 

Plus, Bradley gets along well with Rangers manager Ron Washington and the front office seems to like him.  Of course, if Hicks sells the Rangers or otherwise gets a cash infusion, acquiring Bradley for Young may not seem like such a good idea.

My other suggestion is to have the Cubs trade Bradley and a pitcher (Zambrano?  Dempster?  Lilly?) to Toronto for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells.  Wells has the worst contract in all of MLB and it may end up being the Blue Jays’ only chance to move it. 

This proposed trade would get Bradley to Toronto, where he could potentially do well out of the limelight (and out of the country), and would provide the Blue Jays with a front-of-the-rotation pitcher to fill in the void left by Halladay.  Now that I think about it, Sean Marshall might be a better candidate than the other pitchers listed.   He’s younger and less expensive, both important considerations for a Toronto team the needs to rebuild.

In his article, Sullivan also lists the Giants as a poytential trade partner.  In his scenario, the Cubs would trade Bradley’s bad contract for Aaron Rowand’s bad contract.  Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years.  I don’t like this idea for a couple of reasons.  First, it costs the Cubs money (about $15 million), but it doesn’t make them better.  Rowand has struggled the past two years in San Francisco and it would appear that his best years are behind him.

Second, the Cubs already have too many Aarons on the team.  I would prefer that they get rid of their Aarons rather than add more.

Another possibility was brought up by a commenter over at The Cub Reporter.  How about a Bradley, Marshall, and Jake Fox trade to Baltimore in exchange for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott? 

I know what you’re thinking, “Not more Brain Roberts rumors.”  But think about it.  The Cubs top two needs going into the off-season will be to 1) add a run producing bat (preferably left-handed) to the middle of the order, and 2) add a speed guy who can get on base to the top of the order.  This trade could fill both needs in one fell swoop.

Roberts is signed through 2013 and is owed $40 million.  He has a full no-trade clause, but would surely waive it to come to Chicago.  Luke Scott is signed through this season and is arbitration eligible.  He made $2.4 million in 2009 and is likely due for a raise after a season that currently stands at .255/.340/.488 with 24 homeruns and 73 RBI.  And (get this), he bats from the left side of the plate.  Is this good or what?

Of course, the Orioles would have to agree to such a deal, which makes these moves more difficult than they have to be.  Baltimore is a tough team to understand.  They are in last place in the tough AL East, 37.5 games behind the Yankees.  They have a record of 60-93.  Even so, they often act like they just need to tweak their roster a bit to be a playoff contender.

This is not a team that is on the verge of contending.  They are not just one or two players away from contending.  Their $67.1 million payroll is $17 million less than it was in 2000 (and about $25 million less than it was just two years ago).  This is not a team that is willing and/or able to compete with the Yankees or Red Sox when it comes to payroll.  The only way the Orioles are going to be able to contend is to go with young talented players.  And the only way they are going to have enough young, talented players is to trade away their more expensive, older players for prospects.

Of course, this raises several questions, chief among them, “How does Milton Bradley fit into this picture?”  Fair enough.  The only way he fits in is 1) if the Orioles believe he can still be an OBP machine, 2) if the Orioles can be made to believe that Baltimore is laid back enough so Bradley will behave himself, and 3) if the Cubs pick up a good portion of his salary.  Remember, Bradley is only 28-years old, so he can still figure into a team’s plans, even if they are rebuilding (and especially if someone else is paying for him).

As for the other two, Marshall could fit into Baltimore’s rotation immediately and Fox could find a home as Scott’s replacement at DH.  There you go.  A nice tidy package (at least in my mind).

Obviously, I don’t know where Bradley will end up.  At this point, my main concern is that the Cubs don’t just dump him and move on.  Bradley has been a distraction and a bitter disappointment, but he still has value.  Take this bad situation and make it into a good situation (I’m suddenly a motivational speaker).  Use the mistake that was made by signing Bradley and turn it into a better team in 2010. 

If Jim Hendry is still the GM after this season (and it appears he will be), this will be perhaps the biggest challenge he has faced in his career.  It’s a one chance, do-or-die situation.  If he can’t trade away Bradley AND make the 2010 Cubs better than they were this year, he will surely be looking for a new job.  But if he can pull this off, he will be able to name his price at his next contract negotiation.