Joe Posnanski recently wrote an article for Sports Illustrated detailing his HOF ballot.  Although he once again makes the case that Andre Dawson does not belong in the Hall of Fame, the article is still worth reading.  He has a unique way of looking at baseball.  As I’ve said in the past, he’s a terrific writer, but I’m still trying to come to grips with his perspectives.

A couple of other articles I found interesting were Jayson Stark’s explanation of his Hall of Fame ballot and Tim Kurkjian’s defense of his vote for Andre Dawson. 

**********

The Cardinals signed Matt Holliday to a 7-year/$119 million contract yesterday.  The contract may also contain a no trade clause, but I haven’t seen that reported anywhere.  I just know that was a sticking point in previous contract negotiations.

Obviously, the Cards are better with Holliday than without him, but I just don’t see him having that kind of value.  In many ways, The Cards signing of Holliday mirrors the Cubs signing of Alfonso Soriano.  They apparently bid against themselves and paid so much for Holliday that in a few years, the contract is going to be untradeable and the Cards are going to be stuck with him.

The real question now is, what does Holliday’s signing mean for the Cardinals long-term plans for Albert Pujols.  Most reports this off season have suggested that the Cards needed to sign Holliday to show Pujols that they are serious about staying competitive.  But a few writers have suggested that the Cardinals decided to spend the money on Holliday now because they already know that they aren’t going to be able to keep Pujols long-term.  I don’t know which is true, but it makes for some interesting speculation.

**********

The Boston Red Sox announced that they will be moving Jacoby Ellsbury to left field to make room for Mike Cameron.  According to the report from ESPN Boston, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein said, “It’s more to do with Cameron’s experience, and Ellsbury’s ability to play a dynamic left field. This is not necessarily a permanent arrangement, or a long-term arrangement. But we think Cameron is still an elite center fielder … and that’s the best way to go for now.”

Ellsbury’s “ability to play a dynamic left field?”  What does that mean?  And is calling Mike Cameron an “elite center fielder” a little over the top.  He’s good, but I don’t think he’s ever been viewed as “elite”.  Plus, if he ever was elite, I don’t think he’s still elite at age 37.

For his part, Ellsbury was not particularly happy about the move.  Boston manager Terry Francona (who I like to call “Tito”) said, ”He (Ellsbury) was probably a little disappointed, which is what I expected, but with Cameron’s long strides and Jacoby’s quickness, we have a chance to have a real dynamic outfield here.”

There’s that “dynamic” word again.  At least we know that Theo and Tito are reading the same talking points.  It sounds like the entire press conference was put toogether by a PR firm rather than a baseball organization.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that chosing Cameron over Ellsbury for center field may mean that Boston is beginning the process of separating themselves from Ellsbury.  That’s just conjecture on my part, but I think it’s fair to say that by most standards, Ellsbury doesn’t hit enough to be an “elite” corner outfielder.  Now that he’s in left field, Boston may start looking for a player with a little more power.  If they do and Ellsbury becomes expendable, I hope the Cubs are waiting in the wings to scoop him up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Cubs manager Lou Piniella be joining them one day?

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated considered the question of which current managers  are Hall worthy and concludes that Pinella (and several other current managers) most likely deserve enshrinement in Cooperstown.

Verducci, who is a member of the Veterans Committee for Managers and Umpires, first considers what qualifies a manager for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.  In a nutshell, a manager needs to manage at least 10 years at the big league level, win a minimum of 1,300 games, and win at least one World Series.  These “requirements” were compiled by Verducci and are not official.

Verducci writes:

“There have been 91 men who have managed at least 10 years in the big leagues, including 11 who are active, and thus not yet eligible for the Hall. Of the 80 eligible managers, 19 have been elected to the Hall of Fame primarily as managers and another 14 as primarily a player or executive. That means 33 of the 80 eligible managers are in the Hall of Fame, or 41 percent of those eligible, including 24 percent specifically as managers. And when you look at the active managers, those percentages almost certainly will rise.”

Based on these “requirements,” Piniella is Hall worthy.  He has managed more than 10 years, currently has 1,784 victories, and has won a World Series with the 1990 Cincinnati Reds.  But there is one chink in his armor.  Pinella only made it to the World Series once.  As Verducci points out, no manager has ever been elected to the Hall of Fame without making it to a second World Series.  On that point, Pinella falls short, at least for now.

So, according to Verducci, Pinella is on the verge of being a Hall of Fame manager.  All he needs in one more trip to the World Series.  But first, he must make it back to the post-season and win his first playoff game in a Cubs uniform.

I’m not sure I agree with Verducci’s assessment of  what qualifies a manager for the Hall of Fame.  I have never felt that the Hall is just a Hall of magic numbers.  There’s more to it than that.

I’m not saying that Pinella doesn’t belong in the Hall.  Maybe he does.  But I see a big difference between Pinella’s managing career and Herzog’s.

I lived in St. Louis during Herzog’s heyday with the Cardinals and I saw first hand the impact he had on a game.  Verducci saw it too.

I remember when I covered the Mets in the 1980s how the New York players were acutely aware of who was in the St. Louis dugout running the game during their rivalry with the Cardinals. It was a fascinating dynamic to me: that players regarded the opposing manager, not just the opposing players, as an element they needed to overcome to win a baseball game. Such was the respect Herzog commanded for his grasp of the game and his fearlessness.”

Herzog did have that kind of mojo about him.  I think Tony LaRussa has it too.  Bobby Cox and Joe Torre might also have it.  I’ve never felt like Lou Piniella had it.  When the game is on the line and and the team needs some sort of miracle, LaRussa has a knack for making the right move.  But when the game is on the line for the Cubs, I’ve never felt a confidence that Piniella would somehow pull a Rabbit out of his hat.

Verducci opines that Dusty Baker might also be on the verge of being Hall worthy.  I think that’s just ridiculous.  I don’t think Piniella has the same mojo that Herzog had, but Dusty has the anti-mojo.  He has a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Dusty is not a Hall of Fame manager.

During his years with the Cubs, I often said that Dusty seemed like a great guy to have a drink with (especially if you wanted to go listen to Jazz), but I would not want him leading my baseball team.  He’s an enabler and an excuse-maker.  He doesn’t hold players accountable.  Under Dusty’s watchful eyes, the patients ran the asylum. 

Piniella occasionally goes the other way.  The slightest thing can put a player in Piniella’s dog house.  And he holds grudges.  Once you’re in Piniella’s dog house, it’s tough to get out.

I don’t think either approach is particularly effective, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose the guy that holds his players accountable. 

Although Piniella and baker may be polar opposites in the way they manage a baseball team, I don’t consider either of them to be legit candidates for the Hall of Fame.  I could be persuaded to change my mind on Piniella.  I can’t imagine ever changing my mind on Dusty.

Billy Beane, GM of the A’s, left a little early and said that he couldn’t wait to get home because it was much easier to make deals away from the noise of the meetings.  I would have thought otherwise, but who am I to argue with Billy Beane?

Milton Bradley remained the hot topic for the Cubs on Day 4, but there was no movement.  Bob Nightengale of USA Today tweeted that a Bradley deal is close and that Tampa Bay is the likely trading partner.  Tim Brown from Yahoo Sports then tweeted that if a deal is close, it’s not with Tampa Bay.  On Day 3 of the meetings, Nation Post Sports tweeted that a deal was in the works and would be done by Friday.

So is a deal imminent?  It doesn’t appear so.  Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald spoke to Jim Hendry and then wrote:

“The Tampa Bay Rays remain the most likely landing spot for Bradley, but despite national reports that a deal was close to being done, the Cubs said Thursday evening that was not the case.”

So don’t hold your breath for a Milton Bradley deal to get done in the next day or  two.  Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times spoke to a “source close to Bradley” who suggested that a market might not form for Bradley until Jason Bay and Matt Holliday are signed.  Once they are off the board, then teams will start fighting over the scraps.

Call me naive, but I really thought Bradley would get traded at the Winter Meetings.  In hindsight, I had nothing to base that on other than wishful thinking, but I remain disappointed just the same.  If the Cubs wait for the perfect/best deal they can get for Bradley, they’ll likely be waiting a while and won’t be able to address their other needs.  If they make a quick move (really too late for that) and trade Bradley for the first offer they get, it will be expensive because they’ll probably have to send several million dollars to whichever team takes him, but then they can start filling the holes that the 2010 team currently has.  Pick your poison.

**********

The Cubs selected Mike Parisi in the MLB portion of the Rule 5 draft yesterday.  Parisi is a 26-year old right handed pitcher out of the Cardinals organization.  He was drafted by the Cards in the 9th round of the 2004 draft out of Manhatten College.  He looked promising moving up throught the Cardinals organization and was added to the 40-man roster in 2007. 

In 2008, Parisi had an 8-2 record with a 3.86 ERA at AAA  Memphis before he was promoted to St. Louis.  His performance for the Cardinals was uninspiring.  Parisi pitched a total of 23 innings for the Cards in 2008, compiling an 8.22 ERA before he was sent back to Memphis.  His time in Memphis was cut short when he went on the DL with an elbow injury and eventually had season-ending Tommy John surgery.

Parisi spent 2009 rehabbing in Florida before he was assigned to play in the Arizona Fall League.  He put together a record of 3-2 with a 4.44 ERA.  Most importantly, Paraisi made all of his starts and pitched five innings in every one, the most allowed by league rules.

Parisi has five pitches in his arsenal.  He throws a 91-93 mph fastball, a straight change, a curve, as well as a newly found cutter that he throws in the mid-80′s.  I’ve also read that he has a rather ineffective sinker.

According to the Gordon Wittenmyer article, Parisi will get a chance to make the Opening Day rotation.  With Ted Lilly out to start the season, the Cubs can use all of the legit arms they can get to start the year.

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

A Look At The Offseason (Part 2 – Outfield)

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

In an article by Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune, Jim Hendry is quoted as saying Joshua didn’t do anything wrong.  He said Joshua was brought in from the minors to replace Gerald Perry in June and was told it was a temporary assignment.  Hendry also told Joshua at the time that he could have his old job back if things didn’t work out.

Later in the article, Derrek Lee is quoted as saying, “I hate to say it, but a hitting coach is overrated.”  He also said that neither Perry nor Joshua were to blame.  If a player doesn’t hit, it’s the player’s fault, not the hitting coach’s.

In addition to looking for a middle-of-the-order bat and a leadoff hitter in the offseason, Hendry will now also be looking for a hitting coach.  What promises to be a busy offseason just got a little busier.

**********

The season isn’t quite over yet.  Both the Tigers and Twins won yesterday, so they will play a one game playoff today at the Metrodome in Minnesota.  This is the second year in a row the Twins will be playing in a one game playoff.  They lost to the White Sox last year.

-edit- The one game playoff will be held on Tuesday (10/6), not Monday (10/5).

The other teams going to the post season in the AL will be the Yankees, Angels and Red Sox.  The Yankees will await the outcome of today’s game between the Twins and Tigers and will then host the winner.  The Angels will host the Wildcard winning Red Sox to start their best-of-five series.

In the NL, the Rockies will travel to Philadelphia to take on the Phillies beginnning Wednesday afternoon.  The Dodgers will host the Cardinals at Chavez Ravine beginning Wednesday night.

I’m picking the Yankees and Red Sox to survive in the AL, while the Phillies and Cardinals will play for the pennant in the NL.  All Division Series games will be broadcast on TBS

**********

Alex Rodriguez entered the sixth inning of yesterday’s game against the Rays needing seven RBI to hit 100 for the season.  Time was running out and it didn’t look like he would make it.  What happened next is a new AL record.

 Rodriguez came up with two on and belted a three run homer off Rays pitcher Wade Davis.  The homerun brought him closer to the century mark in RBIs, and Rodriguez thought he might get one more at-bat in the game.  But as the Yankees continued to batter Rays pitching, that at-bat came sooner than ARod thought it might. 

The Yankees half of the sixth inning continued and Rodriguez found himself in the on deck circle when the Rays intentionally walked Mark Teixeira to load the bases.  Rodriguez then delivered his second homerun of the inning, this one a grand slam, giving him seven RBIs in the inning and a new AL record.  His second homerun of the inning was also his 30th homerun of the season, giving him seven consecutive years of 30 or more homeruns.

**********

I’ve advocated for a salary cap in the past on these pages.  I’m less concerned with a cap controlling a team’s spending as I am in forcing teams like the Pirates and Marlins to spend a minimum amount.  As it is, these teams are spending less on player payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

Another concern I have with the disparity in spending is that  lower spending teams have trouble competing.  Of course, those who disagree with me point to teams like the Twins who have been at least in the hunt for the plaoffs most of the past decade.  The Marlins are another example.  Not only have they made the playoffs, but they won the World Series, beating the high spending Yankees.

As I’ve said in the past, the low spending teams making the playoffs is the exception that proves the rule.  Murray Chass disagrees with me.  In a recent article, Chass makes the assertion that there is no problem with the system as is and that it should be left alone.  To prove his point, Chass offers the following:

These are the teams, according to their rank in the salary standings, that have made the playoffs the last 10 years. This year’s lineup includes the Tigers and the Rockies, who had not clinched their spots when this was posted. (number in parentheses is the number of teams in the top 8 that were in the playoffs):

• 2009 (6): 1-4-5-6-7-8-12-17
• 2008 (4): 2-5-6-7-9-10-15-28
• 2007 (5): 1-2-5-7-8-22-23-26
• 2006 (3): 1-5-6-12-14-17-19-21
• 2005 (4): 1-2-5-6-10-12-14-16
• 2004 (5): 1-2-3-7-8-11-12-19
• 2003 (3): 1-4-6-10-11-17-23-26
• 2002 (3): 1-4-7-10-13-16-27-28
• 2001 (4): 3-5-6-8-9-12-17-26
• 2000 (3): 1-3-5-12-15-18-25-27

Chass’ point is that in almost every year, there are lower payroll teams in the playoffs.  Here’s my point: In seven of the past ten years, at least four of the top eight highest payroll teams made the playoffs.  And in every one of those 10 years, four of the top twelve spending teams qualified for the post season.  So what you have is the top spending teams claiming four playoff spots every year and the remaining 18-22 teams fighting over the remaining four spots.

I’ll be the first to admit that spending a lot of money doesn’t guarantee a team a spot in the playoffs.  Just look at the 2009 version of the Cubs.  But when money is wisely spent, the team that spends the most usually wins.

One of my favorite things is the changing color of the leaves.  Nature’s art show is spectacular.  There’s nothing better than sitting outside on the back porch or down at the lake, enjoying a cool beverage, and taking in the fall colors.  Fall really is a great time of year.

And yet, the fall is a sad time of year for baseball fans.  Baseball’s regular season is coming to a close.  The playoffs are exciting, but they also represent the end to another great season.  And on this, the final day of the regular season, we are counting the time until Spring Training in months rather than weeks or days.

The Cubs won’t be participating in the postseason this year, which is a shame.   And yet, those on us who have been alive for the past two seasons (2007-2008) were treated to back-to-back postseason appearances.  No one under the age of 100 can say the same thing.  Let’s hope that we can see the Cubs back in the postseason soon.

As we head into the postseason, we know that the Yankees, Angels, and Red Sox will continue playing.  The Tigers and Twins are tied in the AL Central, so depending on today’s results, we may have a one-game playoff tomorrow.

In the NL, the Cardinals, Dodgers, Phillies, and Rockies will vy for the chance to represent the NL in the World Series.  It is an exciting time, but I’m going to miss following the Cubs.

Just four more months until Spring Training… 

**********

Phil Rogers of the Tribune has listed ten different players that could fill the “middle-of-the-order” bat that Lou Piniella said he wants.  Before he lists his candidates, Rogers has to first blast Jim Hendry for signing Kosuke Fukudome and Milton Bradley to fill the void, both failing rather spectacularly.  I don’t have the best memory, but I don’t think anyone claimed that Fukudome was a “big bat” who would fit in the middle of the order.  However, Rogers point about Bradley is well taken.

There are a few names that intrigue me.  I could see Bobby Abreau or Rick Ankiel as possibile solutions.  But the guy that most intrigues me is Adam Dunn.

I have to admit, if you had asked me a couple of weeks ago about adding Adam Dunn to the Cubs, I would have been opposed to it.  But after going through the last two posts (Redefining Production Part 1 and Part 2), I have a new found respect for Dunn.  True, he’s not the most gifted fielder.  He also strikes out a lot.   But there are only a handful of players in the game that contribute more to their team scoring runs.  And as we established previously, the most important attribute in the game is scoring runs.

Rogers also lists Mark DeRosa as a possible bat to add to the Cubs 2010 lineup.  I really like Mark DeRosa and I was critical of Jim Hendry for trading him last offseason.  He’s a guy who leaves it all out on the field and is a great clubhouse guy.  In fact, he was one of the leaders of the Cubs playoff teams.  Even so, I’m afraid that ship has sailed.  DeRosa is going to be a free agent after this season.  He is also going to be 35-years old and is scheduled to have wrist surgery in the off season.  Not a good combination.  It pains me to say it, but I don’t think DeRosa is the solution to the Cubs’ needs.

**********

Check out these two clips from the Seattle Mariners radio network.  Mike Blowers makes an amazing prediction that actually comes true.

Enjoy!

Although the Cubs are not quite yet mathematically eliminated, manager Lou Piniella is already starting to turn his attention to next year.  In an interview with Carrie Muskat from MLB.com, Piniella opened up about his top three wishes for 2010.  They are:

1. Have Alfonso Soriano and Geovany Soto return healthy and productive.
2. Add a real nice RBI bat to the lineup (He never mentioned the words “left-handed”).
3. Add a true lead-off man

Wish number one makes perfect sense.  The Cubs were devasted by injuries this year, particularly to Aramis Ramirez, Geovany Soto, and Alfonso Soriano.  If all three can come back healthy and productive next year, the Cubs will already be a better team than they were in 2009.

As for wishes two and three, you have to wonder where these new guys would play.  Piniella said that he’d like to move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field, so that would leave a hole in center and maybe one at second (depending on what they decide to do with Mike Fontenot).

I think all three wishes make sense.  Wish number one should take care of itself.  There’s very little the Cubs can do to guarantee it.  Wishes two and three are in the hands of Jim Hendry.  And if he wants a little help, he should read my thoughts (stolen from someone else) about calling his old buddy Andy MacPhail in Baltimore to make a deal.

**********

Phil Rogers at the Tribune is reporting on a rumored trade between the Cubs and White Sox.  In the trade, the Cubs would send Carlos Zambrano to the Southside in exchange for newly acquired pitcher Jake Peavy. 

Their contracts of the two pitchers are nearly a wash.  Z is owed $53.75 million through  2012 (with a $19.25 million player vesting option in 2013) while Peavy is owed $52 million through 2012 (with a $22 million club option in 2013 and a $4 million buyout).

There are a couple of things to consider here.  First, the rumor is being reported by Phil Rogers, so there’s a good chance that he just made it up.  After all, in the same article, Rogers is reporting that Red Sox first base coach Tim Bogar is a leading candidate to get the Houston Astros managerial job in 2010.  This, despite the fact that Bogar is contractually prohibited from accepting a managerial position outside of Boston until AFTER the 2010 season.  Phil apparently didn’t know that when he made up the story.

NOTE: Boy, do I have egg on my face.  After disparaging Phil Rogers for getting the Tim Bogar story wrong, I realized that John Farrell is the Boston coach that has a clause in his contract that does not allow him to accept a job as manager anywhere other than Boston before the end of the 2010 season, not Bogar.  It’s official.  I’m an idiot.  Sorry, Phil.  Mea culpa.

Even so, let’s think about the possibility of Z going to the White Sox in exchange for Peavy.  Z, who is 28-years old, has always liked the White Sox.  It might be because of the Venezuela connection with manager Ozzie Guillen (they also have similar temperments) or it might be the more “blue collar” feel to the White Sox.  Whatever it is, the White Sox are one team that Z apparently said he would be willing to be traded to (he has a full NTC).

As a Padre, Peavy made it clear that he would like to stay in the NL and would prefer to join the Cubs.  So we can be pretty sure that he would once again waive his no-trade clause to go to the Northside.   And to further add to the odd symmetry, Peavy is also 28-years old, just one day older than Zambrano.

Both pitchers had down years in 2009 and both suffered through injuries.  I think it’s fair to say that Peavy’s injury was more serious, but it appears he has fully recovered.  Some would argue that Zambrano’s back problems are potentially more serious because they are exacerbated by his reluctance to stick to a strict exercise program.

The two pitchers have comparable career stats as well.  Zambrano has a career record of 105-67 with an ERA of 3.50 and a 1.29 WHIP.  For his career, Peavy is 94-68 with a 3.28 ERA and a 1.19 WHIP.

I think we’ve established this much, a Zambrano for Peavy trade would be a pretty even swap.  So, should the Cubs do it?  I say yes.

The Cubs have struggled over the years with Zambrano’s emotional instability.  He can get shaken at times on the mound and he can act in inappropriate ways when he’s frustrated (Just ask Michael Barrett or the innocent Gatorade machine).  I think it’s also fair to say that Z has never lived up to his billing of being a staff ace.  He definitely has the talent, but he just hasn’t realized his full potential yet.  Maybe he can do that on the Southside where Mark Buehrle is considered the ace of the staff.

Peavy proved himself to be an ace in San Diego and could step into that role with the Cubs.  Ryan Dempster and Ted Lilly have both had good years, but I’ve never really thought of either of them as the ace of the Cubs pitching staff.

There you have it.  The rumor is probably made up, but I approve of it any way.

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.