As with many of Jim Hendry’s signings, this contract is backloaded to provide some payroll flexibility this year.  According to Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times (via Twitter), the contract is structured to pay Byrd just $3 million in 2010, $5.5 million in 2011, and $6.5 million in 2012.

I have mixed emotions on the signing.  I’m not a big Marlon Byrd fan.  He had a couple of nice years in Texas, but he’s going to be 33-years old in 2010.  It’s not that he’s too old.  It’s that he started to finally find his stride when he was 30 or 31.  How many guys wait until they are 30 to finally start hitting?  So were his years in Texas actually his career years or has he finally figured out how to hit?  If it’s the latter, will he continue his hitting ways away from Texas?

In some respects, the Byrd signing reminds me of the Milton Bradley signing last year.  As you’ll recall, Bradley was coming off of a career year, just like Byrd.  He was also coming over from Texas, a team with a hitter-friendly ball park.  Jim Hendry was trying to catch lightning in a bottle with Bradley. 

But Byrd is different from Bradley in three key ways.  First, Byrd has been having career years (or at least good years) in Texas for three years, not just one.  Second, Byrd is not the head case that Bradley was.  And finally, unlike Bradley, Byrd will be able to continue his relationship with hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo.  Byrd responded well under Jaramillo’s tuteluge and they will both be employed by the Cubs next year.

I’d be remiss if I did not point out that the signing of Byrd is also reminiscent of the Cubs signing of Mark DeRosa.  DeRosa was 32-years old when he signed with the Cubs.  He had a a fairly unspectacular career until he signed with Texas in 2005 and suddenly his bat came to life with the help of Rudy Jaramillo.  That signing worked out pretty well for the Cubs.  Let’s hope that Marlon Byrd’s tenure with the Cubs is more reminiscent of DeRosa’s than Bradley’s.

Regardless of my feelings about Byrd the player, I can’t be too critical about the deal itself.  Signing Byrd for just $15 million over three years is pretty reasonable.  I wouldn’t have guessed he would sign for less than $7-$9 million per year, so kudos to Hendry on that account.  I still question if signing Byrd at all is a good move, but the deal itself is quite reasonable.  

My crystal ball tells me that Byrd will have a decent, but unspectacular career with the Cubs.  If the team can find a better center fielder at some point in the future, they should have the payroll flexibility to snag him.  Assuming Byrd doesn’t really blossom in a Cubs uniform, his contract will allow him to become potential trade bait or a good 4th outfielder.  And if he does blossom, then the Cubs just got themselves a heck of a good deal on a center fielder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The part about the article that bothered me was:

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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…

“Here’s the deal. Cubs GM Jim Hendry has been working the phones, and was doing so today, trying to move Bradley. Cubs people tell me Jim has been talking with several teams, so there appears to be no shortage of interest, something also reported by national baseball writer Ken Rosenthal, who cites baseball people as saying there is widespread interest in Bradley.

“Bradley can’t come back to the Cubs for several reasons:

–How does he walk into the clubhouse and face teammates who lined up last month in St. Louis to tell the writers they were glad Bradley had been suspended and that he ought to look in the mirror?

–What happens when Bradley says something provocative to the media in spring training? The Cubs do not want any more “Here we go again” moments.

–What would happen if Bradley goes 0–for-5 with 3 strikeouts in the home opener at Wrigley and the fans start booing again? Heck, what happens the first time he heads out to right field, the scene of all that “hatred and adversity,” to use Bradley’s term?

–The Cubs will have new owners any day now, and you have to believe the Ricketts family wants no potential public-relations disasters on its hands, courtesy of Milton Bradley.

“As I’ve written, if Hendry can create a market or even the perception of a market for Bradley, he might be able to get decent return and not have to eat all of the $21 million coming to Bradley over the next two years. Of course, Hendry is responsible for giving Bradley the three-year, $30 million contract in the first place.”

As usual, Mr. Miles is spot on.  Bringing Milton Bradey back in 2010 would be a bad idea on so many levels that it is hard to believe that anybody in the Cubs organization is seriously considering it.  My guess is that they’re not.

**********

Now that the Cubs have hired Rudy Jaramillo to be their hitting coach, Mark Potash of the Sun-Times thinks they should turn their attention to hiring Dave Duncan as their pitching coach.  Duncan is currently with the Cardinals (in case you didn’t know) and his contract ends at the end of this season.

According to Potash, Jaramillo may be the best hitting coach in the game today, but Duncan is the best pitching coach in baseball history.  High praise indeed.  But he doesn’t stop there:

“With all due respect to Rudy Jarmillo, Dave Duncan is the best pitching coach in baseball history. He should be the first pitching coach in the Hall of Fame. He has a record of developing young pitchers, resurrecting old pitchers, squeezing one golden season out of the most mediocre of arms and turning your trash into his treasure that is unmatched anywhere in baseball. Nobody’s even close.”

But here’s the rub: Duncan usually goes where Tony LaRussa goes.  LaRussa’s contract is up at the end of this season as well.  The Cardinals want him back and he has indicated that he is not interested in managing anywhere else.  Of course, there have been persistent rumors that he doesn’t want to manage in St. Louis next year either.  One rumor has the St. Louis skipper sitting out 2010 in anticipation of several potential managerial openings in 2011.  If he does sit out in 2010, Duncan will be on his own.

There’s also the possibility that Duncan will be on his own even if LaRussa re-ups in St. Louis.  Duncan is very upset with the Cardinals front office for the way they handled the trade of his son, Chris Duncan, in a deal that sent Julio Lugo from Boston to St. Louis.  It has been speculated that Duncan will not consider a return to the Cardinals even if LaRussa returns as the manager.

I’m all for hiring Dave Duncan.  If he can have the same type of success with the Cubs that he has had everywhere else he has been, then by all means, sign him up.  Give current Cubs pitching coach Larry Rothschild his parting gifts and thank him for playing.  But at this point, I think this idea needs to be filed under “Long Shot.”

**********

I haven’t really thought this through, but should the Cubs stand pat with Carlos Marmol as their closer?  Next week I plan on writing a series on what the Cubs should do this off season and I’ll have to address this issue then, but for now, Carrie Muskat of MLB.com throws out a couple of interesting stats about the Cubs closer.

• Marmol was third in the league for hit batters with 12.  However, among relievers he was clearly first.
• Marmol had the worst walk numbers  in the National League among closers.  He walked 65 in just 74.0 innings.  The next highest total was 38.0 by the Mets Francisco Rodriguez and the Nationals Mike MacDougal.  Rodriguez pitched a total of 68 innings (while compiling 35 saves) and MacDougal pitched a total of 50.0 innings.  For those of you who are mathematically challenged (including me), that’s 7.90  BB/9 for Marmol, 5.02 BB/9 for Rodriguez, and 6.84 BB/9 for MacDougal.

So what’s my point?  I don’t have one yet.  I was just thinking out loud.  Next week I’ll revisit these numbers and come up with a verdict on whether the Cubs should keep Marmol in the closers role or look elsewhere for 9th inning relief.

A lot of hitters who have worked with Jaramillo disagree with Lee’s assessment.  Former Cub Mark DeRosa gives a great deal of credit to Jaramillo.  “I can’t give him enough credit for the way I’ve been able to make adjustments,” DeRosa said in an article written by Jorge Ortiz in USA Today back in 2006.  DeRosa continued, “Had I not met him, I wouldn’t have made this adjustment and who knows what would have happened. It’s not just me. I’ve watched him do it with Gary Matthews Jr., Dave Dellucci, even Michael Young, who has become one of the best hitters in the game.”

Yankees first baseman Mark Teixeira also has high praise for Jaramillo. ”He doesn’t cookie-cut anyone’s swing or anyone’s approach. Every player’s different.  He realizes that.  He makes you the best hitter you can be.”

Both Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley worked and thrived under Jaramillo’s tutelage while they were in Texas. “I liked working with Rudy because he spoke Spanish and we could really communicate,” says Soriano.

The Cubs signed Jaramillo to a 3-year,$2.4 million contract yesterday, making him the highest paid coach in MLB.  If he can duplicate the success in Wrigley that he had in Texas, it will be money well spent.

**********

Want to know more about Rudy Jaramillo’s hitting philosophy.  Check out his website.  You can even buy a DVD detailing Jaramillo’s hitting approach or have him analyze your swing.  Interesting stuff…

**********

We previously talked about the possibility that Rudy Jaramillo being brought in by the Cubs was a sign that Milton Bradley would be sticking around.  Jim Hendry addressed this concern in an article written by Carrie Muskat of MLB.com:

“Hendry said Jaramillo’s success with Bradley had nothing to do with the Cubs’ decision to hire him. Bradley led the American League in on-base percentage and batted .321 in 2008 in Texas, but struggled to hit .257 this season in Chicago and was suspended for the final 15 games because of detrimental conduct.

“Hendry has talked to teams in an attempt to trade the outfielder and the $21 million still owed on his contract.

“We play the cards that we have,” Hendry said. “Milton’s on the Cubs’ roster [now]. That’s how we go about it until somebody’s not on the Cubs’ roster. [Jaramillo's relationship with Bradley] didn’t have any connection. We could’ve had 20 different guys on our roster and Rudy would still be sitting here today as our No. 1 guy.”

So Jaramillo joining the Cubs doesn’t mean that Bradley will be with the team in 2010.  But Tim Dierkes from MLBTradeRumors.com thinks he should be.  Tim writes:

“The Cubs seem dead-set on moving Bradley and finding someone else to play right or center field.  A player they loved a year ago, they hate now.  Bradley had a slow start and finish, showed little power, and had issues with the fans, media, and manager.  Still, he posted a .378 OBP in the off-year and certainly could improve upon that in 2010.  My advice: work it out, rather than eating $15MM+ or taking on a different bad contract.  Bradley is not the reason the Cubs received over 2,000 plate appearances of subpar hitting from Soriano, Fontenot, Soto, Hill, Hoffpauir, and Miles, nor is he the reason Ramirez was limited to 342 PAs due to a shoulder injury.”

As much as I like Tim and admire the job he is doing at MLBTR, I completely disagree with him.  True, Milton Bradley’s bad behavior is not to blame for the poor season that Alfonso Soriano, Mike Fontenot, Geovany Soto, et al had in 2009.  He’s also not the reason that Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Carlos Zambrano, et al spent time on the DL.  But that’s not really the point, is it? 

Forget for the moment that the Cubs had any other issues to contend with in 2009.  Just focus on Bradley.  Judge Bradley strictly on the merits of his performance and his behavior.  There’s no doubt that his on field performance was sub-par in 2009, but when you couple it with his unstable, even paranoid behavior and the negative impact it had in the clubhouse, bringing Bradley back for another year is just untenable.  A line has been crossed that can not be uncrossed.  The bridges have been burned.  Jim Hendry must find another home for Bradley and the Cubs must turn the page.

Even if you accept Tim’s contention that Bradley “certainly could improve upon” his 2009 performance, does it really matter when you factor in Bradley’s behavior?  If Bradley didn’t have the history of odd, unstable, inappropriate behavior he has exhibited over the course of his career, then maybe I would agree with Tim.  But no matter his on field performance, the Cubs can not afford the negative impact Bradley’s behavior has on the rest of the team.  Bradley is a talented player and he certaily has the potential to put up some respectable numbers.  Unfortunately, the negative impact of his personality and behavior always outweighs whatever positive impact he provides on the field.

Jaramillo is flying to Chicago today to meet with Cubs officials and to be introduced at a planned news conference.

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…