I know that I have been one of the last holdouts who still believes the Cubs can turn things around.  It’s true, I do feel that way, but I also recognize that it is my heart that is making me believe in the Cubs.  My eyes don’t see anything from the team that would justify this belief and my head knows that the Cubs are a terribly flawed team.

Even the Rule 4 draft this past week was a disappointment for Cubs fans.  Maybe Tim Wilken is smarter than everyone else.  It’s possible, and I think considering his past drafts he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  Even so, it was a bit disheartening when the Cubs, with the 16th pick overall, chose a Division III pitcher that no one had heard of.  Actually, to be fair, some people had heard of him.  Baseball America had him listed as the 191st best player in the draft.  So they had heard of him.  They just didn’t like him that much.

Of course, the player I am referring to is Hayden Simpson.  He was so relatively unknown that the MLB Network spelled his name wrong when he was chosen (Haden instead of Hayden).  Simpson is a 21-year old right handed pitcher out of the University of Southern Arkansas.  He had an impressive year, going 13-1 with a 1.91 ERA.  His fastball is in the 91-93 mph range and he has topped out at 96 mph.  He’s listed as 6′0″, but I’ve heard he is really only 5′8″.

The thing with baseball drafts is that it can be years before a team knows if they had a good draft or not.  So it is possible that the Cubs got a steal when they drafted Simpson.  It is possible that Tim Wilken is the smartest guy in the room.  But it’s also possible that Wilken made a huge mistake with the Cubs first round pick.  We just won’t know it for several years.

The Cubs open a three-game series this afternoon with the crosstown rival White Sox.  This year’s Crosstown Series winner will be awarded with the BP Cup.  It’s a marketing ploy being sponsored by one of the most hated corporations in America and it means virtually nothing to the players and most of the fans.  Even so, it seems almost appropriate that a company like BP should sponsor a trophy to be given to the lesser of two underperforming teams. 

It’s difficult to get excited about the way the Cubs have played this year.  They have played just well enough to be mediocre.  They’re not the worst team in the NL, but they’re far from the best.

The Cubs draft was hard to get too excited about.  Anytime you choose the 191st best anything when you have the 16th pick, it’s going to have a dampening effect on your enthusiasm level. 

And it’s also hard to get excited about two disappointing teams playing for a meaningless trophy.  BP would be better served using the trophy to plug the underwater oil gusher they have off the coast of Louisiana.  At least then it would do some good.

**********

I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup earlier this week.  I’m not a big hockey fan, but I was cheering for the Hawks in the playoffs.  The Stanley Cup and several of the Blackhawks players will be at Wrigley Field today as part of the circus surrounding the Cubs vs White Sox series.

Reports are that Ryan Dempster and Randy Wells were out on the town last night partying with the Stanley Cup champions.  The report indicated that Wells finally left the party at 3:00 AM.  Dempster was still partying hard at that point.  This wouldn’t exactly be big news except that Wells is scheduled to pitch this afternoon against the White Sox.  Who knows, maybe it will help him.

I am sad to report that now that the Blackhawks have won the Stanley Cup, every major sports team in Chicago has won a championship during my lifetime except the one team that I follow most closely; the Cubs.  Oh cruel fate, why must you mock me so?

Derrek Lee continued his hot hitting going 7-9 in the series with the Dodgers.  In the first game of the series, Lee drove in all threre of the Cubs runs on an RBI single and a two-run homer.  Lee has now pushed his season hitting line up to .246/.352/.391 with 6 homeruns and 23 RBI.

The Cubs pitching was also very good during the three-game set with the Dodgers.  The Cubs staff managed to shut out LA in the two Cubs victories and only gave up 8 hits in the those two games.  Dempster got the victory in game one and Ted Lilly was credited with the win in game two.

However, not everything is peaches and cream for the Cubs.  First, Aramis Ramirez is suffering from an injured thumb and missed the series with LA.  He had a cortisone shot on Thursday and it is hoped that he is ready for the first game of the series with the Cardinals on Friday at Wrigley.  But even getting Ramirez back in the line-up is not such a great thing.  He is hitting just .160/.225/.269 on the year and he has not shown any signs of breaking out of his season-long slump.

Carlos Zambrano was taken to the hospital yesterday after complaining of severe stomach pain.  Doctors feared he was suffering from appendicitis, but tests came back negative.  There was no word on what may have caused his lower intestinal discomfort nor when he might be ready to play again.

Jeff Baker got the start at third base on Thursday, but had to leave the game in the eighth inning when he completely lost sight in his right eye.  That according to Carrie Muskat on MLB.com via Twitter.  I’m no doctor, but that sounds pretty serious.  Let’s hope it is nothing too bad and that Baker regains sight in his right eye very soon.

UPDATE: Jeff Baker saw the Cubs opthamologist following yesterday’s game and was diagnosed with an ocular migraine.  The report I read didn’t say if his vision had returned or if he would be ready to play this weekend.

**********

What a weird year it has been in Major League Baseball.  Just look at the standings.  At the moment, the Reds are in first place in the NL Central with St. Louis trailing by a game.  That’s not a complete shock.  The Reds were picked by some prognosticators before the season to be a pretty good team.  I, on the other hand, said I didn’t think they would be very good and I still expect them to fall off the pace.

In the NL East, although the Phillies are leading the division, only 3.0 games separate the Phils from the last place Nationals.  Atlanta has struggled, but is just 1.5 games back of the Phils, with the Mets pulling into third place, 2.0 games out of first place.

The Padres, who were projected to be the worst (or at least one of the worst) team(s) in the NL currently have the best record in the league.  Heading into the weekend, they have a record of 28-19  and lead the NL West.  The Dodgers are 2.0 games behind the Padres and the Rockies are 3.0 back.

In the AL East, most people thought Tampa Bay would be good, but I’m not sure they thought the Rays would be as good as they have been so far this year.  With a record of 33-15, they are 4.5 games ahead of the Yankees and 6.5 games up on the third place Red Sox.  Even Toronto, who started quick out of the gate, has a record of 27-22.  With that record, the Blue Jays could be leading either the AL Central or West.

In the AL Central, Minnesota leads the division by 1.5 games over Detroit.  The White Sox, who are seven games under .500, are in third place, followed by the Royals and the hapless Indians.

The AL West is all topsy turvy.  Most “experts” thought the AL West would be a race between the Angels and the Mariners.  At the moment, the Angels and Mariners are fighting it out for third place in the division.  LA is 23-26 while Seattle has a record of 18-28.  The class of the division at the moment is the Texas Rangers who sport a 26-21 record.  They are currently 1.5 games up on Oakland.

I’m sticking by the picks I made earlier in the year.  Even so, I have to admit that the way that some teams are playing — both good and bad — has been a surprise.  I guess that why they bother to play the games.

The Cubs loss in Cincinnati was eerily similar to the loss I watched them suffer at the hands of the Braves earlier this year.  Ryan Dempster started both games for the Cubs.  He pitched very well in both games.  Leading 3-2 in the 8th in Atlanta, Dempster gave up a double to rookie phenom Jason Heyward.  Lou Pinella pulled him out of the game and replaced him with John Grabow.  The first hitter Grabow faced was Chipper Jones.  Jones promptly hit a home run and the Braves won the game 4-3.

Dempster pitched even better today.  He had only given up three hits as the game moved into the 7th inning and the Cubs were winning 3-2.  Two hitters reached base with first baseman Joey Votto due up and two outs.  Piniella visited the mound, just as he did in Atlanta, but this time he left Dempster in the game.  I mentioned at the time that it was obvious that Piniella did not trust the bullpen.  On Dempster’s very first pitch to Votto, the young first baseman hit a mammoth blast into the right center field seats to give the Reds a 5-3 lead.  They went on to win the game by the same score.

The Cubs could only muster four hits off of Reds starter Mike Leake.  One of those hits was a two-run home run by Tyler Colvin, who started the game in left field to give Alfonso Soriano a day off.  Koyie Hill also started, giving Geovany Soto a rest. 

I know that players need a day off once in a while, but coming into Sunday’s game, the Cubs had lost four of the five games they had played during the road trip.  Wouldn’t it have made sense for the Cubs to have at least one of Soriano or Soto – two of their hottest hitters – in the lineup for their final game of the road trip?  Who knows if it would have made a difference, but I have trouble accepting removing two of the team’s best hitters from the lineup at the same time while the Cubs are having trouble scoring runs.

Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez continue to struggle at the plate.  Lee was 0-4 while Ramirez got a hit in his final at-bat of the game.  Lee is hitting .210 on the year while Ramirez is still below the Mendoza line at .167.

Starlin Castro, AKA the greatest baseball player in the history of the game, was 1-3 with a single.  It was the first game in Castro’s big league career that he has not had at least one extra base hit.  He will make his Wrigley Field debut tomorrow against the Florida Marlins.  God help the Marlins.

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: First Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Second Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Shortstop
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Right Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer
• What Can You Get For $140 Million? Starting Pitchers

My theory going into this series of posts was that by virtue of having the third highest payroll in all of baseball, the Cubs should have one of the best players at almost every position.   Of those players, two-to-four should be perennial all-stars.

I recognize that having one of the best players in baseball at almost every position is expensive.  That’s why I think a high payroll team still needs to have one or two young, inexpensive players.  However, those players should not just be roster filler.  They may be young and inexpensive, but they should also be extremely good.  An example of such a player would be Dustin Pedroia with the Red Sox.  David Wright of the Mets was also this type of player a few years ago.  Geovany Soto may be such a player today, although the jury is still out.

To determine if the Cubs roster meets this criteria, in each post I ranked the Cubs players against the starters from each of the five other highest payroll teams.  Then, I considered whether or not the Cubs player was among the top players at their position.  Here’s how the Cubs players ranked against the players at the same position for the other five highest payroll teams:

• First Base — Derrek Lee (5 out of 6)
• Second Base — Mike Fontenot (6 out of 6)
• Shortstop — Ryan Theriot (4 out of 6)
• Third Base — Aramis Ramirez (3 out of 6)
• Catcher — Geovany Soto (2 out of 6)
• Left Field — Alfonso Soriano (3 out of 6)
• Center Field — Kosuke Fukudome (4 out of 6)
• Right Field — Milton Bradley (4 out of 6)
• Closer — Kevin Gregg (5 out of 6)
• Starting Pitchers — Carlos Zambrano (5 out of 30)

                                    Ted Lilly (12 out of 30)
                                    Rich Harden (13 out of 30)
                                    Ryan Dempster (17 out of 30)                                            
                                    Randy Wells (18 out of 30)

Kind of confusing, isn’t it?  I know.  One of the main reasons is because my hypothesis was wrong.  I thought that comparing the Cubs’ roster to the rosters of the five other highest payroll teams would work because I incorrectly assumed that the other five highest payroll teams would have some of the best players in baseball at each position.  Having looked at every position from each of these teams, it’s obvious that these other five teams do not have one of the top players at each position.  Each of these teams is built differently, but none of the teams has been able to build a starting line-up made up of some of the best players at each position, not even the Yankees.

Although my hypothesis was wrong, I’m not ready to give up on my belief that the third highest spending team in baseball should have some of the top players in the game on their roster.   So, do the Cubs have some of the best players in the game on their roster?

Our research showed that two Cubs, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, were among the best at their position in all of baseball.  Alfonso Soriano was close when he was signed, although he has fallen off recently.  Soriano gets a bad rap from people who are quick to forget what a terrific hitter he was earlier in his career.  If he can regain some of his previous hitting ability, Soriano can still be a top left fielder.

Geovany Soto is a tough call.  Was the 2008 version of Soto the real deal, or was the 2009 version the one we’ll see in the future?  Either way, I can’t fault the Cubs for handing him the starting job in 2008.  He was one of those young, inexpensive players I talked about previously.  It remains to be seen which Soto shows up in 2010.

The Cubs pitching staff also qualifies as among the best in baseball.  The real weakness is that 1) the Cubs don’t have a true ace, and 2) the pitching staff as currently constituted will not be as good in 2010 as it was in 2009.  The loss of Rich Harden and Ted Lilly’s inability to pitch for the first month or more of 2010 will take its toll on the Cubs.

What about the other positions?  Starting Fukudome and Bradley in center and right field respectively was uninspired.  Acquiring Bradley was a clear mistake that forced Fukudome to move from right field, where he was good, to center field, where he wasn’t so good.  Neither player qualifies as one of the best at their position, making the Cubs outfield one of the weakest among contending teams.

Ryan Theriot straddles the line between mediocre and poor among shortstops.  He combines the ability to be nothing special on defense with a below average OPS+.  The Cubs need a top shortstop and Theriot doesn’t qualify.

Mike Fontenot is among the worst second basemen in baseball.  He is not the type of player a club with a $140 million payroll should have in their starting lineup.  Even so, as of this writing, the Cubs appear ready to give Fontenot another shot in 2010, unless Jeff Baker, a more versatile but equally as bad second baseman, can unseat him.

Finally, the Cubs had one of the weaker closers in baseball as their closer in 2009.  There really was nothing in Kevin Gregg’s history that indicated that he could be a top-notch closer.  However, he was relatively inexpensive, so Jim Hendry signed him and hoped for the best. 

As I conducted my analysis, I kept coming back to this last statement.  Jim Hendry has a history of signing players and hoping for the best.  He signed Milton Bradley to be a middle-of-the-order run producer, even though Bradley had never shown the ability to fill that role before.  That fact, and Bradley’s past behavior should have given Hendry pause.  But instead, Hendry signed Bradley and hoped for the best.

He signed Gregg and hoped for the best, despite the fact that there really was no evidence in his past history that indicated that Gregg could be a reliable closer.  It should have been clear that Gregg was not the type of closer a contending team would want on their roster, yet Hendry took the leap of faith.

Finally, there was nothing in Mike Fontenot’s background that should have indicated to anyone that he could be a successful everyday second baseman on a contending team, yet Jim Hendry handed him the job and kept his fingers crossed.  The unnecessary risk back fired badly and he’s done nothing this off season to correct the problem.

The Cubs have not done a good job of spending their money.  They have the third highest payroll in baseball, yet they have a roster that is more reminiscent of a middle-of-the-pack team.   And it’s Jim Hendry’s job to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I’ve been a big supporter of Hendry’s over the years.  However, after taking an in-depth look at the roster, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that he has not done a good job of building this team.  A change in perspective is needed, and I don’t think that change can take place by keeping the same people in their current positions.

The Cubs needed a change in culture a few years ago.  They needed to stop thinking of themselves as small spenders.  They are a large market team with one of the highest revenue sources in the game, and they needed to start acting like one.  That happened under the direction of John McDonough and Jim Hendry.  The Cubs also rebuilt their farm system under the direction of Jim Hendry.

Now, another change is needed.  The Cubs need to view themselves as players for most every big name free agent.  They need to be viewed as a likely destination for top players when they are put on the trading block.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Hendry is the man for the job.  Although he has shown a capacity to trade for players that are being dumped by their current team, he has not shown much ability or willingness to trade his own players or top prospects. 

The Curtis Granderson situation earlier this off season was a good example.  Despite his shortcomings, Granderson is considered one of the top center fielders in baseball.  He would have been a perfect fit for the Cubs.  Even so, Hendry was unwilling to get too deeply involved.  Detroit wanted top prospects in exchange for Granderson.  The Yankees were willing to deal their prospects in exchange for a proven commodity.  Hendry refused to include the Cubs top prospects in any sort of deal.  As he has done in the past, he has deemed some unproven, but highly regarded prospects as untouchable.  This approach cost the Cubs a difference maker in center field and all they have to hang their hats on is the potential of some of their young players.

The botton line to all of this is that the Cubs need to get better.  The need to spend their money to build a perennial contender.  They need to change the way they build their roster.  As much as I like and respect Jim Hendry, I’m not convinced that he’s the guy to make the shift in approach and get the job done.

My opinion is that the Cubs, by virtue of having the third highest payroll in baseball, should have have some of the top players in the game on their team.  Year-in and year-out the Cubs should have five or six of the top position players in their starting line-up, three or four all-stars, and a couple of younger, less expensive players who are capable and on the verge of stardom.

In this series of posts, I’m examining the Cubs roster to see if they are meeting this expectation.  I’m analyzing the roster position by position.  To read previous posts, check out these links:

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: First Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Second Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Shortstop
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Right Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer

Today, I’d like to look at starting pitchers.  Today’s analysis is going to be a little different than previous posts.  Because we will be looking at 30 starting pitchers rather than just six position players or closers, there won’t be room to rank each player based on stats from the previous two years.  Instead, I’ll compile the stats behind the scenes, and list the overall rankings here.

Also, although I’ll be considering 2008 stats (as well as career stats), I won’t be ranking the pitchers for 2008 as I have done in  previous posts.  The overall ranking will be for 2009, although again, previous and career stats will be considered.

 When it comes to ranking starting pitchers, there’s a lot of subjectivity that comes into play.  For instance, one pitcher may have better stats than another, but they may not have been as consistent as another pitcher or haven’t been performing at as high of a level.  A lot of things go into ranking the pitchers and I’ll be the first to admit that my own biases come into play.

Also, keep in mind that the ranking is based on the start of the 2009 season.  So a pitcher that had a teriffic 2009 may not rank as highly as you might think.  Stats from 2009 are considered, but they are discounted a bit since the GM could not have known going into the season how well (or poorly) the pitcher would do.

With all of this in mind, here is how I ranked the starting pitchers for the six highest payroll teams:

1. C.C. Sabathia (Yankees)
2. Johan Santana (Mets)
3. Jon Lester (Red Sox)
4. Josh Beckett (Red Sox)
5. Carlos Zambrano (Cubs)
6. Cole Hamel (Phillies)
7. A.J. Burnett (Yankees)
8. J.A. Happ (Phillies)
9. Andy Pettite (Yankees)
10. Daisuke Matsuzaka (Red Sox)
11. Justin Verlander (Tigers)
12. Ted Lilly (Cubs)
13. Rich Harden (Cubs)
14. Joba Chamberlain (Yankees)
15. Joe Blanton (Phillies)
16. Tim Wakefield (Red Sox)
17. Ryan Dempster (Cubs)
18. Randy Wells (Cubs)
19. Rick Porcello (Tigers)
20. Chien-Ming Wang (Yankees)
21. Jamie Moyer (Phillies)
22. John Maine (Mets)
23. Brad Penny (Red Sox)
24. Brett Myers (Phillies)
25. Edwin Jackson (Tigers)
26. Jeremy Bonderman (Tigers)
27. Armando Galarrraga (Tigers)
28. Mike Pelfrey (Mets)
29. Tim Redding (Mets)
30. Oliver Perez (Mets)

Space prohibits me from defending or explaining each pitcher and their place in the rankings, but let me explain a few.  At the top of the list, there is a good argument to move Jon Lester up to the top and move Johan Santana down a few spots.  I was satisfied that Sabathia belonged at the top of the list, but I struggled a little with Santana.  I think some people would have moved Beckett ahead of Lester as well.  Wherever you put these pitchers, I think it is clear that they will end up at or near the top.

I’m afraid I might be letting my Cubs fan side come out a little too much by ranking Zambrano ahead of Hamel, especially following Hamel’s 2008 performance.  I think there is a strong argument to move Hamel and J.A. Happ above Zambrano, but in the end I decided to stick with Big Z.

Some will say that Harden is ranked too high while others will say he is too low.  I think Harden is a heck of a pitcher.  When he’s healthy, he’s one of the best.  Unfortunately, he has had a difficult time staying healthy and he has a habit of not pitching very deep into a game.  If Harden would start pitching deeper in games, I’d gladly move him up in the rankings.  However, at least based on 2009, it appears that he needs to stay at around five innings per game to stay healthy.

Is Tim Wakefield ranked too high?  I’ve always really liked Wakefield.  I think he’s one of the most underrated pitchers in baseball.  He’s consistent year-in and year-out.  Because of that, I think he gets taken for granted.

Did I rank Randy Wells too low?  Based on his 2009 performance, I did.  However, as a rookie heading into 2009, not a lot was known about him.  Was 2009 the real deal?  We’ll have to wait and see.  For now, I don’t think he deserves to be ranked any higher.

The bottom third of the list can probably be flip-flopped a lot of ways.  One thing is certain though.  The back end of the starting rotations for the Tigers and Mets is really weak.

Even when you consider all of the other starting pitchers in baseball, the Cubs look pretty good.  Zambrano is not a true ace, but I think it’s safe to say that he is one of the top 20-25 pitchers in baseball.  Should the Cubs have a true ace?  Yeah, probably.  But I’ll save that argument for another day. 

Bottom Line: When it comes to starting pitching, the Cubs did pretty well.  They have one of the top five starters (of the six teams surveyed) and their other starters all rank in the middle ten.  Pitching was a strong suit for the Cubs in 2009.  In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that the Cubs starting pitching staff helped them to a winning season despite the offensive woes the team experienced throughout the year.

Things are not looking quite so rosy for 2010.  Rich Harden is no longer with the club and Ted Lilly will miss a month or more at the beginning of the season while he recovers from shoulder surgery.  In addition to counting on Randy Wells to repeat his 2009 performance, the Cubs are expecting some or all of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, Jeff Samardjzia, and Mike Parisi to step up and fill a role in the starting rotation.

For our purposes, it’s safe to say that the Cubs had one of the stronger rotations in baseball in 2009.  At least as far as the starting rotation goes, the Cubs spent their money wisely.

So now that we’re beginning our descent of Off Season Mountain, what can we expect from the Cubs in the weeks ahead?

The Cubs are in a tough position.  They presumably have very little money to spend, but they still have at least three holes to fill.  Some would say the Cubs have “needs” rather than “holes.”  I’m not sure which is technically correct.  The point is that the Cubs have viable options in-house to address their needs, but they would be better off looking elsewhere for help.

One such position is second base.  In-house, the Cubs have Mike Fontenot and Jeff Baker, neither of whom should be a starting second baseman on a legitimately contending team.  The Cubs have the fourth highest payroll in MLB (based on 2009 figures), but have one of the weakest second basemen in all of baseball.  That’s just not right.

Another option at second for the Cubs is Ryan Theriot.  If he moves to second, the Cubs will need to find a stand-in  for a year at SS until prospect Starlin Castro is ready (the Cubs wouldn’t bring Castro up at the beginning of 2010, would they?)  One in-house option at SS is Andres Blanco.  He’s a slick fielding SS, but a weak hitter.  The up-the-middle defense would be good, but the offense would be even weaker than it was last year when Fontenot was starting at second.

If there’s any money available, the Cubs could improve the team by signing Orlando Hudson to a one-year deal.  Of course, I’m sure that Hudson would like a multi-year deal for $4-$5 million per year (he made $3.38 million plus bonuses last year), but considering the current state of the free agent market, that’s unlikely.

Another guy to consider is the guy that sent Hudson to the bench last year in Los Angeles: Ronnie Belliard.  He’s another guy who is seemingly being shunned in free agency.  He made $1.9 million last year and probably won’t command much, if any, more this year.

The idea is to find a second baseman who can be had on a cheap ($1-$3 million) one-year deal, but who will also make the team better.  Either Hudson or Belliard are better options than what the Cubs currently have in-house.

If the Cubs decide to look to the free agent market for a SS, there are only two guys they should consider, but the odds are that neither one will meet the criteria of being cheap and willing to take a one year deal.  The two shortstops, Orlando Cabrera and Miguel Tejada, would both be upgrades, but likely out of the Cubs league.

Another position that needs attention is starting pitching.  The Cubs enter the season with Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells as the only pitchers certain to be in the starting rotation.  Ted Lilly will start the year on the DL, so Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia will battle it out for the other two spots in the starting rotation.  No matter who emerges from that group, it doesn’t make the starting rotation very strong.

Rumors have been circulating that the Cubs are interested in adding Ben Sheets.  I’m all for signing Sheets, but I heard initially that he was seeking a contract for $12 million/year.  More recently, I’ve read that his demand is more in the $7-$9 million range.

I like Ben Sheets and when he is healthy, he’s one of the best pitchers in baseball.  However, he’s coming off of elbow surgery that kept him out of baseball for the entire 2009 season.  That’s not the kind of guy you want to spend a lot of money on or who you want to give a multi-year contract.

If Sheets’ price comes down to $3-$4 million for one year, I can see the Cubs getting involved (along with a host of other teams).  But at his current asking price, he’s not only out of the Cubs range, but also a bad risk.

Finally, the Cubs could use another bullpen arm.  In my opinion, this is the one need that the Cubs could probably fill in-house.  They have a depth of decent bullpen arms.  Even so, this appears to be the position where Jim Hendry is focusing his efforts.  Rumor has it that he is targeting the Blue Jays Jason Frasor.  I don’t know what the Cubs would have to give up to get Frasor, but I really have to question the wisdom of adding an arbitration-eligible bullpen pitcher who made $1.45 million last year when the team has other needs.

Honestly, I don’t expect any big moves out of the Cubs the remainder of the off season.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs went into Spring Training without making any moves.  I hope that doesn’t happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

**********

Are the Cubs moving their Spring Training home to Florida?  I still think it’s a long-shot, but the Naples effort got a boost recently when the Collier County Hotel and Lodging Association voted unanimously to approve use of the County’s tourist tax to build a new stadium for the Cubs.

The move was important not only because it cleared the way to use proceeds from the tourist tax to help fund building the Cubs a new training complex, but also because it showed the Cubs that the hoteliers are completely on board with the proposal to bring the Cubs to Naples.  Cubs President Crane Kenney made it clear that the Cubs only want to go where they are wanted.  So the unanimous vote to use proceeds from the tourist tax was an important step forward for the Naples effort.

A few weeks ago, the Cubs announced that they had eliminated a proposed Spring Training site on the Gila River Indian Community in  Arizona.  That leaves Mesa, AZ and Naples as the only two remaining possibilities.

As Cubs fans, we are looking at a boring remainder of the off season.  The big free agent signing (i,e., Marlon Byrd) is behind us and now it’s just a waiting game.  We also are having to deal with the fact that the Cubs were not a very good team in 2009 and this off season hasn’t really made them any better.  So while we’re bored, we have that to deal with.

I have to admit that I am surprised that the Cubs didn’t do more to improve this off season.  With a new owner coming in and Jim Hendry’s job being on the line, I thought the Cubs would make more of a splash.  The free agent market was pretty thin, but there were always trades to be made.  Apparently the Cubs front office had other plans.

As it turns out, the way that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts structured the loans he used to purchase the team may be at least in part to blame for the new regime not making a big splash.  According to a report in Investment News, the Ricketts attracted a number of institutional investors (insurance companies, pension funds, banks) who normally don’t invest in sports franchises to privide short-term financing.  These investors tend to be more conservative and it appears that the Cubs will have to remain conservative with their payroll in order to keep those investors happy.

I suppose that “conservative” is a relative term in this case.  The Cubs payroll was the fourth highest in MLB last year and will remain in the neighborhood of $140 million this year.  Even so, considering the revenue generated by the franchise, having a $140 million player payroll is not outrageous.

So it appears that it may be a while before anything very exciting happens with the Cubs.  Long-term contracts are in place, many with no-trade clauses, others simply untradeable.  In the immortal words of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (I’m paraphrasing), you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com provides a glimmer of light in an otherwise murky off season.  Rosenthal predicts that Ben Sheets will eventually sign with the Cubs.  Considering the Cubs starting rotation as it now stands, that is good news.  With a starting three of Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Well to start the season, the Cubs rotation could use some help.  Lefty Ted Lilly will be on the shelf to start the season, so the final two rotation slots will be filled by some combination of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia.  Sheets would be a welcome addition indeed.

But is Rosenthal’s rumor/prediction really realistic?  Last I heard, Sheets and his agent were looking for a contract that would pay the oft-injured starter $12 million per year.  When he’s right, Sheets is worth ever penny of that.  But after coming off of surgery and a missed season in 2009, he’s a big question mark.  I don’t expect the Cubs to get involved unless his asking price comes way down.  And if it does, the Cubs will certainly not be his only suitor.

Reports like Rosenthal’s probably don’t hold much water, but at least they do brighten up the dark winter a little bit and give us something to talk about.  So reporters, keep the predictions and unsubstantiated rumors coming.  We still have two months to go before Spring Training.

**********

The Hall of Fame will announce their 2010 inductees tomorrow.  Good Luck to Andre Dawson.  I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.