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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was reminded of the need for a salary cap again today when I was reading a rather innocuous post on MLBTradeRumors.com.  In essense, the post said that the Pirates are looking to add one or two low-cost free agents, but again this off season, they won’t be a player for any big name free agents.  The same is likely true for the Marlins, Twins, Rays, Royals and Padres, and maybe a few other teams as well.

Imagine if you were a fan of the Pirates (or any of the other teams listed).  Every off season, you get to watch other more well-healed teams compete for big name free agents — the type of player that can make a huge difference for a team — while your team quietly sits on the sideline waiting to possibly scoop up the leftovers.  It must be a hopeless feeling.

Once the off season is over and the season is about to begin, the hopeless feeling you had in the off season is doubled because you know that your favorite team has virtually no chance of competing.  For the Pirates, their only hope for the 2010 season is that they might be able to finish ahead of the Reds in the standings, especially since the Reds are under pressure to cut payroll and will likely field a worse team in 2010 than they did in 2009.

Honestly, why would any sport want to run a league in a way that allows a team in it’s largest market to outspend a small market team like the Pirates by a factor of five-to-one?  Money may not buy championships, but it sure makes it a lot easier.

The Yankees payroll allows them to put an all-star at almost every position.  And when one player underperforms, they go out in the off season and sign a free agent to replace them or trade with a lesser-payroll team to get the best player at that position.  They are constantly reloading.  I’m not a Yankees fan nor am I privy to the philosophy of their front office, but I have to believe that the Yankees (and to a lesser extent the Red Sox) view the rest of Major League Baseball as an extension of their minor league sytstem.  When they need a player, if he’s not in their farm system, they can just go to Cleveland, or Florida, or Pittsburgh and trade for the player they need.

I don’t want this post to sound like a slam against the Yankees.  I don’t blame the Yankees in the least for the competitive imbalance that exists in baseball today.  The Yankees are simply playing by the rules and doing it well.  The Yankees are not the problem, the system is the problem.

Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated wrote a terrific article recently highlighting the inequities in baseball.  Posnanski writes that everyone knows the Yankees outspend every other team, but they may not fully comprehend how bad the problem really is.

“This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I’m going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:

In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it’s ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: “OK, let’s spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we’re spending exactly as much. And now … let’s add the Oakland A’s. No, I mean let’s add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let’s play some ball!”

In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.

In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.

In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team — cutbacks, you know.

In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.

In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team…

So how can the commissioner of baseball promote such nonsense as Hope on Opening Day when the game is set up for one team to spend tens of millions more than anyone else?”

Of course, the problem for the Cubs is that they are running out of time.  The team only has eight games remaining this season, so even if they win out, it will still take a miracle to win the Wildcard.

The Cubs play their final road game of the season today in San Francisco.  Randy Wells (11-9) goes up against the impressive Matt Cain (13-7).

**********

The Tribune’s Paul Sullivan, who must just hate Milton Bradley, continues piling on him by pointing out that the Cubs are now 6-1 since the Bradley suspension and 20-10 for the season in games when Bradley does not play.  He uses this exchange with Jake Fox to prove his point:

Is it just a coincidence, or has the removal of Bradley from the picture improved the team’s chance of success?

“It might be,” Jake Fox said with a laugh. “That’s a funny point to bring up because I didn’t even think about it. I guess it could be, but guys are playing relaxed, and guys are playing fun.

“It’s a learning experience because it shows you if you just play that way every day, regardless of what kind of pressure is on you, regardless of what people may be saying or not saying about you, [it] shows you a lot about what we can do as a team.”

I’m no professional journalist, but it seems to me that Fox is just trying to deflect Sullivan’s question by being polite and giving a PC answer.  In fact, it seems to me like he is saying that the team is playing well because they are loose and having fun.  He doesn’t link that play back to Bradley; Sullivan does.

I believe that Bradley deserved all of the criticism he received for his poor play and bad behavior.  I didn’t think suspending him was a smart thing, but I was satisfied with it if it led to the Cubs trading him in the off season.  But the lengths that some members of the media have gone to continue the “Bradley Bashing” festival is too much.  It’s time to move on.

**********

In my post yesterday, I mentioned that the Royals had been suggested as a team that might have interest in acquiring Bradley.  You can cross them off the list.  Bob Dutton of the Kansas City Star writes that Royals officials (Why are they unnamed?) dismissed the reports linking KC to Bradley and called the people perpetuating such rumors (I’m looking at you Paul Sullivan) as “idiots.”

This news from Kansas City is just fine with me.  I didn’t think the Royals matched up well for a Bradley trade anyway unless the Cubs just wanted to dump Bradley somewhere and continue paying most of his salary.

**********

The Royals may no longer be on the list of teams with an interest in Bradley, but the Mets, Padres, Giants, and Rangers are.  That according to Ken Rosenthal on his weekly video report (the bit about the Cubs and Bradley starts around the 1:45 mark).  Rosenthal says that all four teams have already contacted Jim Hendry about a possible trade.

Rosenthal adds that the Cubs are confident they can work out a deal for Bradley that does not involve them picking up his salary.  According to Rosenthal, the more salary the Cubs pick up, the better player(s) they’ll get in return.

**********

Whoever the Cubs get in return for Milton Bradley, manager Lou Piniella would like it to be a middle-of-the-order run producer.   You may recall that after the Cubs quick exit from the playoffs last year, the Cubs decided that what they were missing was a left-handed, middle-of-the-order bat.  Remember?  It was in all of the papers.

I said it then and I’ll say it again: The Cubs don’t need to get more left-handed.  They just need more players who can hit, regardless of the side of the plate they hit from (Are you tired of hearing me say that yet?)  It appears that Piniella is coming around to my way of thinking:

 ”You ask me, the biggest thing we need here is an RBI bat,” Piniella said. “We need an RBI bat to sit in the middle of the lineup with [Aramis] Ramirez and Derrek Lee.”

Does Piniella’s dream hitter have to bat left-handed?

“I don’t care if he hits between his legs, how’s that?” Piniella said. “Right-handed, left-handed, doesn’t really matter.”

Exactly! 

**********

Somewhere along the line, someone must have told Rick Morrisey of the Chicago Tribune that he is funny.  That person lied and did a great disservice to  people all over the world who are capable of reading Morrisey’s column.

In a recent column, Morrisey thought it would be funny to re-write Bradley’s apology as if Bradley himself had actually written it.  First, it doesn’t sound like Bradley wrote it.  Second, it’s not funny.  That’s a bad combination.

I’ve never been a fan of Morrisey, so this column just reinforces my opinion.  How many columnists does the Trib Sports Dept. have anyway?  No wonder they’re going through bankruptcy.

**********

I recently received a comment to a previous post that read “I’m in love with you, my adonis.”  I deleted the comment as spam, but then I got to thinking, what if it was legit?  Maybe someone out there likes this blog so much that they felt compelled to send in that comment.  Yeah, that’s probably it.  Until I’m proven wrong, I’m running with that theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlos Marmol came in to handle the bottom of the 9th.  As usual, Marmol made it interesting, giving up a walk and a hit.  But he struck out the other three batters he faced to earn the save and give the Cubs the victory.

Ryan Dempster looked solid, going 7.0 innings and giving up seven hits and two earnerd runs.  He walked one and struck out six.  Even with time on the DL this year for a broken toe, Dempster is up to 186.0 inning with a 3.68 ERA.

The win was a big one because Colorado lost to San Diego 5-4 to pull the Cubs to within 6.5 games in the Wildcard race.  To add even a little more hope to the scenario, The Rockies will be hosting the Cardinals in a three-game set starting tonight.  The odds remain incredibly long, but stranger things have happened (haven’t they?).

The Cubs are 4-1 in their last five games and are playing some of their best baseball of the year (which isn’t saying a lot).  Unfortunately, there are only 10 games remaining in the season to make a miracle happen.

**********

George Castle with TruSlant.com wrote an interesting and insightful article about his personal experience with Milton Bradley and how that experience mirrors Bradley’s overall behavior with the Cubs.  The article is nearly a month old, but it gives a good feel for what it was like to deal with the Cubs suspended right fielder.

Castle writes:

Bradley is quickly punching a ticket out of Wrigley Field with streams of consciousness about the apparent dislike, even “hatred,” shown to him by Cubs fans in the stands — and even waiters at the next table in a restaurant. The $30 million right fielder, who is just starting to hit conveniently too late to help the Cubs, even hinted at racism from some of the lunatic fringe in the ballpark. The race angle was predictable, given the devil’s brew of Bradley’s past outbursts, his four-month-long slump to start the season and the reprehensible actions of a loud-mouthed few who have aggravated African-American Cubs in recent seasons.

I don’t think Castle knew how accurate he was when he said “Bradley is punching a ticket out of Wrigley Field.”  I don’t think anyone could have foretold Bradley’s suspension a month ago, but Castle comes close.

The article goes on to detail Castle’s attempts to interview Bradley.  Although it seems hard to do, Bradley failed to attend three pre-set interviews with Castle over a four day period.  The interviews were set up through the Cubs Media Relations office and Bradley agreed to each and every interview.  Even so, he did not have the professionalism to cancel the interviews (if he couldn’t make it).  He claimed that he simply forgot about the second interview, but gave no reason (or apology) for missing the other interviews.

Actually, that last sentence is not quite true.  After missing the third interview, Bradley claimed he had been in the training room because he didn’t feel well.  However, Castle not only saw Bradley sitting at his locker at the scheduled time of the interview, but made eye contact with Bradley and even held up his tape recorder for Bradley to see to remind him of the interview.  In other words, even though Bradley knew that Castle knew that Bradley was just sitting in the locker room, he still made up a story to explain away his failure to keep his commitment.

The fact that Bradley takes absolutely no responsibility for his actions is old news by now, but Castle experienced this first hand back in May 2009.  Bradley was just starting his tenure with the Cubs and was already going through some tough times.  Less than two months into the season, Bradley had already been suspended for bumping an umpire and he was having difficulty getting his bat going.  In fact, at the time of the first scheduled interview with Castle, Bradley was hitting just .200/.328/.390 with five homeruns and 11 RBI.

The somewhat ironic thing to me was that Castle was going to interview Bradley specifically to give Bradley the opportunity to explain himself and let the fans know the kind of person he really is.  Bradley had claimed on several occasions that he was misunderstood, so Castle was willing to turn his entire radio program over to Bradley to try to overcome any misunderstandings.  In the end, I think Bradley did show exactly the kind of person he is, but I doubt if it’s what he had in mind.

Castle ends his piece with this:

Bradley has time to change, to grow as a man. However, the way he is steering his life, it will be best done elsewhere, and maybe away from baseball.

Indeed.

**********

The Associated Press (via ESPN.com) is reporting that the bankruptcy judge hearing the Tribune Company’s bankruptcy case has approved the sale of the Cubs to the Ricketts Family.  The Cubs (Chicago National League Ball Club) will now be taken through an expedited bankruptcy proceeding to make sure that the organization is free of liens and claims.  Approval from MLB will be the final hurdle that has to be cleared before the Rickettses are officially the new owner of the Cubs.  It sounds like the entire process can be wrapped up by the end of the post-season or shortly therafter.

**********

It’s official.  Rich Harden is being shut down for the remainder of the season.  Harden says that he’s suffering from some mild arm fatigue. 

“It’d be a lot different if we were in it and they needed me to pitch,” Harden said. “I’d be out there in a second and I’d be fine. I’m still healthy, feeling good and took that as a positive for this season.”

Harden went on to say that the decision to shut down his season was “mutual” between him and the club.  He said it would be good for the Cubs to test some of their young arms as the season winds down.

It’s not that I doubt what is being said, but I find the decision odd considering that Harden will be entering free agency at the end of the year.  The knock on him is that he is fragile and prone to injury.  As he prepares for a new contract, I would think he would want to end the year strong and at least appear durable (or at least as durable as Rich Harden can appear).  Shutting him down early, especially with his agreement, leaves the impression that maybe something is wrong with him.  It’s not the impression you want to deal with when you’re preparing for a new contract.

My guess is that the Cubs will offer Harden arbitration at the end of the year.  I expect that he will reject arb and will hit the free agent market with hopes of getting a long-term contract.  Someone might bite, but it shouldn’t be the Cubs.  Harden is a fantastic pitcher when he is healthy, but unfortunately, that’s not often enough.

**********

After initially saying he was not interested, Nolan Ryan has now confirmed that he is interested in purchasing a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers.  Ryan is currently the President of the Rangers and he owns two minor league teams.

Why am I including this bit of news on a Cubs blog?  Because the rumor has been floated that Texas could be a place where Milton Bradley could land next year.  Bradley enjoyed the best season of his career in Texas and he seemed to get along well with manager Ron Washington.  I have myself opined in the past that a Bradley for Michael Young swap could be a possibility.

The only reason Texas would agree to such a deal is because of the tremendous financial problems owner Tom Hicks is having.  Young is a huge financial liability for the team.  He’s the highest paid player on the Rangers and is stilled owed $64 million through 2013.

However, if Ryan becomes the owner of the Rangers, they will no longer be in the tough financial position they are in currently.  And without an incredibly strong financial reason to do it, I don’t think Ryan would tolerate an individual as troubled and flawed as Milton Bradley.  One of Ryan’s strengths, both on the field and in the front office, is that he is tough minded.  The same can not be said for Bradley.  If Ryan moves from the front office to the owners box, I think the possibility of a trade for Milton Bradley becomes unlikely.

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

If Marmol is the heir-apparent to the closers role in 2010, he’d better show a little more than he did yesterday.  Two walks, two hits, and two runs against an offensively challenged team like Cincinnati isn’t going to get the job done.

On a brighter note, Geovany Soto and Aramis Ramirez both had multi-hit games.  Soto had two doubles and drove in three of the Cubs five runs.

Ted Lilly (11-8) will go for the Cubs today in the series finale against Cincinnati’s Homer Bailey (5-4).

**********

The Cubs have one of the top rotations in the NL.  Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, Ted Lilly and Randy Wells are all under contract for 2010.  Rich Harden is the only Cubs starter who will be a free agent at the end of the 2009 season.  Should the Cubs resign him?

Jason Stark from ESPN.com looked at the upcoming class of free agent pitchers and concluded that the class is mighty weak.  Here’s what he has to say about Rich Harden:

“If we were making out this list based on stuff alone, Harden might rank No. 1. He has a better strikeout rate (10.88 per 9 IP) than Tim Lincecum, Justin Verlander, or any other starter in baseball with 130 innings or more this year. It’s just tough to know what to make of him. If he makes six more starts, it would be only the second time in his career (and first since 2004) that he’s gone to the post 30 times. He’s visited his friendly neighborhood disabled list five years in a row. And he’s never won more than 11 games in any season. “I’d be scared to death to commit years to this guy,” one AL execs said. “He’s been used kind of like Pedro [Martinez] was used in the past, where they’re always trying to build in an extra day’s rest. And he’s just a five-inning guy, in the National League. He might strike out 10, but he’ll only go five innings, so he still kills your ‘pen. He’ll get some money. I just don’t see anybody giving him more than a year.’”

There’s no doubt that Harden has good stuff.  as Stark points out, it might be the best stuff in the game.  But there’s more to pitching than just having “good stuff.”  Harden has a difficult time staying off the DL.  The fact that the most wins he’s ever had in his career is 11 tells you that he doesn’t make nearly enough starts in a season.

I’d like to see the Cubs offer Harden arbitration.  He’s a reasonable risk on a one-year contract, but I wouldn’t risk a multi-year deal on him.  If he wants to turn down arbitration and go after that multi-year deal, more power to him.  Since he’s a type A free agent, the Cubs will receive two draft picks from whichever team signs him.

If the Cubs wanted to sign a free agent pitcher to replace Harden, my vote would go to Randy Wolf.  Here’s what Stark says about Wolf:

“Wolf’s stock has risen faster this year than IBM’s. He’d be 18-6 if the Dodgers’ bullpen hadn’t blown eight saves for him. He’s ripped off 14 straight starts of six innings or more. And only four pitchers in the whole sport can beat his 19 starts of no more than two earned runs allowed. So one season after the Astros pulled a three-year, $28.5 million offer off his table before he could say yes, it appears that Wolf’s turn has finally arrived to get a multiyear free-agent deal — although, since he’s 33, it almost certainly wouldn’t be longer than three years. He’s “durable, dependable and left-handed,” one GM said. And he’s also “two 190-plus-inning seasons removed from any health issues.” Oh, and he’s also driven in more runs this year (11) than Dewayne Wise or Cameron Maybin. So look for this man to stay in the National League — just so he can keep swinging the old Louisville Slugger.”

If the Cubs are going to hand out a multi-year contract to a starting pitcher, they can do worse than Randy Wolf.

**********

With 22 games left in the season, let’s take a look at how the teams in the NL Wildcard race did yesterday:

• Colorado lost to San Diego 3-2
• San Francisco lost to the Dodgers 9-1
• Florida beat Washington 11-3
• Atlanta beat St. Louis 7-6

The Cubs remain 8.5 games behind the Rockies, but are now all alone in fifth place in the NL wildcard race.

I originally reported that Alfonso Soriano would have surgery on his ailing knee and would be out the rest of the year.  Then, Gordon Wittenmyer chimed in and said that Soriano would be back before the end of the month and would wait until the off-season to have surgery.  So I apologized for my mistake.  But it turns out I wasn’t mistaken at all.

ESPN Chicago is reporting that Soriano will in fact have surgery soon, ending his 2009 season.  At this point, Soriano is unable to put any weight on his knee, so even if he put off surgery, a return to the lineup is unlikely.

So Soriano will shift his focus to the 2010 season.  Let’s do the same thing and consider who will be hitting lead-off for the Cubs.  Although you can never say never, Lou Piniella is doing the next best thing when it comes to the possibility of Soriano leading off in 2010.

According to Dave Van Dyke of the Chicago Tribune, this was Piniella’s response when asked about the possibility of Soriano leading off in 2010:

“No, no, no.  That’s over with.  No, we’re not going to do that.” 

Piniella went on to say that the Cubs have two in-house candidates that will get the nod rather that Soriano.  Those two are Kosuke Fukudome and Ryan Theriot.  Piniella also allowed that the Cubs might aqcuire “a speed player” that could hit lead-off.

I’m not fully in 2010 mode, so I don’t have a strong opinion on this at the moment.  However, I’m already getting a little tired of the “we need to add speed to the top of the lineup” refrain.  True, the Cubs are dead last in the NL in stolen bases, so improving in that area will be a good idea.  But the “adding speed” refrain harkens back to last off-season when it was imperative that the Cubs get “more left-handed.”  As I’ve said before, the Cubs didn’t need more left-handed hitters, they needed more hitters who could hit, regardless of which side of the plate they do it from. 

Getting more speed at the top of the lineup is no more of a panacea than getting more left-handed.  The Cubs need a lead-off hitter who can get on base and then make things happen.  Simply looking for a speedster (like Joey Gathright)is the wrong thing to do.

**********

Next time you’re feeling bad about the Cubs starting pitching doing a good job only to lose the game, read the following blurb about Zach Grienke and the Kansas City Royals.  This was stolen excerpted from Joe Posnanski’s Sports Illustrated column:

“I’m going to give you an amazing statistic about Kansas City Royals pitcher Zack Greinke. He is, unquestionably, the best pitcher in the American League. He leads the league in ERA, complete games, WHIP and home runs per nine innings. He is second in strikeouts, and fifth in walks per game.

No, I haven’t given you the amazing statistic yet.

He leads the league in shutouts. He has made 20 starts where he allowed two runs or less, most in the American League. He has made 24 starts where he allowed three runs or less, most in the American League. He has only had two starts all year where he has given up five runs in a game.

No, haven’t given you the stat. Not yet.

Greinke’s first 10 starts, he had an 0.84 ERA. His last five starts, he has a 1.38 ERA. Greinke himself has a higher slugging percentage (.333) than the right-handed batters who have faced him this year (.318).

And no, that’s not the stat either. Here’s the stat that will blow your mind.

The Kansas City Royals have a losing record in games that Zack Greinke has started this season.”

Feel better now?

**********

All of the Wildcard contending teams were in action yesterday.  Here’s how they did:

• Colorado beat San Diego 4-1
• San Francisco lost to the Dodgers 10-3
• Florida lost to Washington 5-3
• Atlanta beat St. Louis 1-0

With their victory over Cincinnati, the Cubs remain 8.5 games behind Colorado and tied with Atlanta for fourth place in the NL Wildcard race.